U.N. Meeting on Women Ends in Chaos     3/20/2003
By Wendy Wright

The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women took place March 3 - 14.

The annual meeting for the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) ended with charges of "illegitimacy" and without agreement on one of the two final documents, which addressed violence against women. Disagreements over wording turned into chaos as the moderator ignored the rules of procedure and twice gaveled a final decision. The decisions contradicted each other, and the second one declared there were no objections - even as several countries waved their flags to do just that.

The CSW addressed two themes: women's access to media and information communications technology, and violence against women. Conference delegates negotiated documents for each theme, with the expected goal of reaching consensus, that is, that all countries on the commission agree with each statement. Each country agrees to implement the details outlined in the documents, and later U.N. documents repeat the wording since it is already "agreed language."

The discussion on women's access to media and information communications technology concluded without controversy. Delegates, particularly those from the United States, were alarmed that, while the original draft addressed the importance of this access for women's education, advancement and political participation, it didn't address the problem of pornography. However, they successfully added language on the harms of pornography.

In contrast, the document on violence against women ran into conflict over abortion and religion. Two weeks of negotiating winnowed down the offending statements, but it was not enough to produce Agreed Conclusions, a document with which all countries agreed.

Disagreements included:

"Forced pregnancy" - This term conjures up images of soldiers raping to impregnate women in populations targeted for ethnic cleansing. However, abortion advocates also use it to mean any regulation or restriction on abortion. They claim that if a woman cannot end her pregnancy for any reason, then she is forced to be pregnant. In this thinking, pregnancy and motherhood are forms of slavery.

Such a bizarre argument is hard for people to believe, but it has appeared in various law review articles:

• "With regard to abortion, the equality principle would require recognition that forced pregnancy is involuntary servitude and that abortion is essential to women's full personhood and participation in all spheres of life." [Rhonda Copelon, "Losing the Negative Right of Privacy: Building Sexual and Reproductive Freedom," 18 New York University Review of Law and Social Change 15, 40 (1991)]
• "Abortion prohibitions violate the [13th] amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates 'that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude.'" [Andrew Koppelman, "Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion," 18 Northwestern University Law Review 484 (1990)]
• "The partial enslavement of a forced pregnancy is only the beginning of the price a woman denied an abortion pays. Bearing a child destroys many women's lives, because they will no longer be able to work or study or live as they believe they should." [Prof. Ronald Dworkin, "Unenumerated Rights: Whether and How Roe Should be Overruled," University of Chicago Law Review (1992)]
• "Legislation that restricts access to abortion is unique in that it is directed at women as a class, has the dramatic effect of forced pregnancy, and historically has significantly oppressed women." [Julie Kay, "If Men Could Get Pregnant: An Equal Protection Model for Federal Funding of Abortion Under a National Health Care Plan," 60 Brooklyn Law Review 349, 383 (1994)]

"Forced pregnancy" has been used in various U.N. documents, usually without a definition. After a protracted battle over the phrase, the International Criminal Court statute included this definition:

"Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy. (Article 7 Para 2 f)

Various delegations attempted to have this definition included in the CSW document but met unbending opposition from the European Union (EU). The United States suggested that "forced pregnancy" be qualified "as defined in international and humanitarian law." Again, the EU refused.

Negative Reference to Religion - Violence against women is excused in many ways, but the CSW document singled out "custom, tradition or religion." However, some people in modern or westernized countries sanction violent pornography as a form of "freedom of expression," permit pedophiles to be schoolteachers because of their supposed "right" to a job, and allow sadomasochistic groups to network through the Internet and meet in "family-friendly" hotels under the guise of "personal liberty." The principles of liberty, freedom of expression and association, valid in and of themselves and essential for a free society, can be, and are regularly, abused in these and other ways.

The statement in the CSW document, known as paragraph O, reads, "Condemn violence against women and refrain from invoking any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligations with respect to its elimination." It starkly projects custom, tradition and religion as negative influences. Delegates who respect religion and its positive benefits asked that the paragraph be balanced. U.S. delegates suggested a phrase calling for refraining from using "culture to avoid obligations to eliminate violence against women." Several secular countries (EU, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia) rejected this suggestion, which raised the question of whether they were interested only in condemning others - but not willing to face their own faults.

The CSW met on Friday evening March 14 for the final plenary session, intending to adopt two finished documents, offer congratulatory speeches, and then leave. Instead, the final session ended in chaos. Several countries, including the United States, charged that the closing process was illegitimate, and the meeting suspended until a later date.

Here is what happened:

The Chairman formally asked the delegates if they had reached consensus on the document regarding women's access to media and information communications technology. There were no objections, so he gaveled its acceptance as an Agreed Conclusion, as is the standard practice. He then asked if delegates had reached consensus on the violence against women document.

Several countries stated they did not agree with the paragraph on religion, and urged the conference either to delete it or adopt the U.S. suggestion.

The Chairman responded to this by saying, "It would be a shame if for the first time in history we didn't come to agreement. Can we adopt the document with reservations?" (Reservations are official statements by individual countries that clarify their understanding of, or exempt them from, specific portions. However, reservations are usually not acknowledged when other, later conferences quote or refer to the problematic phrases.)

But, Iran noted, "unless there is a new definition in the legal procedures," reservations would mean this is not an Agreed Conclusions document.

The Chairman remarked, "A possibility is to remove O. Is there no agreement? There is no agreement. Therefore, there is no Agreed Conclusion." Then he gaveled, signifying the end of the proceeding on the violence against women document. According to accepted procedures, that act ends the proceedings.

However, the Facilitator, who moderated discussions on the document, spoke up. "I feel a responsibility as the Facilitator to defend this document. A country would have to state it doesn't agree."

The Chairman asked for the Legal Advisor's guidance, who said, "The CSW can still adopt an Agreed Conclusion by voting either for the document in its entirety or for particular paragraphs. First, countries would agree not to block consensus. After that, countries can make reservations. The only other option is to delete problematic paragraphs. If it is decided not to delete offending paragraphs, then the conclusion [must come] by vote."

The U.N. prefers to operate almost wholly by consensus. To call for a vote is viewed as a "nuclear weapon"; it indicates disunity, which can reflect poorly on the document.

A Malaysian delegate then raised a question that many delegates were wondering, "The gavel has fallen. Didn't you make a ruling?"

Voices rumbled throughout the room as everyone agreed. Regardless of where they stood on the controversy, the gavel had fallen.

The Chairman then asked, "Is there objection to consensus?"

Several countries, including the United States, raised their flags in objection. The Iranian delegate, sitting directly in front of the Chair, waved his flag in the air.

Incredibly, the Chairman announced, "The text is adopted. You can add your reservations."

The room responded in polite applause, as usually happens when a document is adopted. Yet others responded in shock at this second conflicting pronouncement.

Iran stated indignantly, "The Chair gaveled and announced No Agreement. I said I objected to consensus, but you say it is adopted! We should respect each other. According to what rules of procedure is this document being adopted?"

The Chairman answered, "I asked the Legal Officer for clarification on how we should proceed. There were no objections."

U.S. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey stated, "I have to object to how this is preceding. To be respected, we must run according to rules. My flag was up when you asked for objections. This is not a legitimate procedure. There are major concerns in this document that affect nations and their laws. This is a great document, but there are a couple of problem areas. In the future, people will say it was Agreed Conclusions. The process is being de-legitimized."

The Chairman then turned away to consult with staff, causing the delegates in the room to huddle in group discussions. He announced no break, yet the meeting stopped for 30-45 minutes.

When the Chairman finally tried to speak, he had no microphone. The sound technicians and interpreters had gone home. He announced, "We will suspend this session until a later date."

The controversy at CSW had escalated from objections over paragraphs to a crisis over the legitimacy of the Commission on the Status of Women. Ignoring the fundamental rules of procedure and declaring a document Consensus, or Agreed Conclusion - although several countries objected - raises the most serious questions as to the United Nations' legitimacy.

These developments at CSW came when the relevancy of the United Nations is under its greatest threat: It refused to uphold its numerous resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm. If U.N. officials cannot follow their own rules, or take seriously the body's own rulings, then it is merely an agent for empowering the aggressive. This confluence of events could make the United Nations its own worst enemy.

Printer Friendly Version