WUNRN
The Importance of Language: Why
Feminists Are Concerned about Wording in the Asia-Pacific Beijing+20
Ministerial Declaration
Statement by the
Civil Society Steering Committee on the Declaration - http://isiswomen.org/downloads/CSO%20steering%20committee%20statement.pdf?utm_source=emailcampaign282&utm_medium=phpList&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=%5Bwe%21%5D+How+Words+Transform+Realities
11 December 2014 - The negotiations between States at the United
Nations on documents and declarations are agreed upon by consensus and it all
comes down to language. An issue where language is left out can result in the
loss of protection in that area. Conversely, if language on a certain issue is
included, civil society has one more tool to advocate with their governments to
further those areas. It also means that States will have to pledge resources
and funding for them to comply with their international commitments.
The 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing did exactly that. At
Beijing governments drew on and moved beyond the language they agreed upon at
earlier international conferences, including the 1985 Women’s World Conference. It also
reinforced some of the language that first appeared in the 1994 International
Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). Opponents to
certain issues, such as family planning and abortion, did everything in their
power to stop their governments from including language on that. Regardless,
States reached a consensus and included these themes. They also furthered
language on sexual and reproductive health and gender equality in the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA).
The recent Beijing+20 Review shows that the struggle to
transform realities through language continues. Some governments have welcomed
progressive language on issues, whilst others are still hesitant to move
forward on emerging concerns. In other cases some governments still want to hold
on to agreements dated twenty years ago and have even attempted to step away
and back out from previous consensus. This led to a washed down final
Ministerial Declaration that left out important concerns for women in the Asia
and Pacific region.
The approved Asian and Pacific Ministerial Declaration on
Advancing Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment mentioned the need to
provide further political space to young women and women with disabilities, but
made no reference to the rights of women migrant workers, including migrant
domestic workers—a roll back on Beijing commitments and a lack of recognition
for what is one of the largest issues in the region. States also tried to
selectively edit language in the Declaration to try to omit key phrases already
agreed on globally related to women’s diverse experience of families and
women’s roles going beyond the family sphere.
“The need to reach consensus resulted in the
lowest common denominator in many cases, with the final regional Declaration
sadly reflecting an erosion of proposed, progressive language and diminished
commitments in a range of areas,” reads the Civil Society Steering Committee
statement on the approved Declaration.
Below are some of the other issues that civil society
organizations identified were left out from the agreed Declaration:
·
Caste—The reference to caste was removed from the
Declaration, despite caste-based discrimination and violence being strongly
linked to women’s social and economic situations and being a key obstacle to
achieving gender equality.
·
Comprehensive sexuality education—States
recognized that comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) needs to be
evidence-based, but the Declaration failed to mention that it should be
rights-based, non-discriminatory and gender sensitive, and delivered in a
manner consistent with the evolving capacities of children and adolescents,
which had been agreed in the 2013 outcome document of the 6th Asia
Pacific Population Conference.
·
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity—Although
individual states suggested including language on sexual orientation and gender
identity, ultimately none of the language was retained in the final Declaration
and States only agreed to a brief mention of “diverse groups of women.”
·
Climate Change—Mentions of
long-accepted international principles of “common but differentiated
responsibilities of governments to address climate change” were left out from
the Declaration. This undermines the ability of countries in the region that
are most vulnerable to climate change to cope with its impacts.
·
Land Rights—Despite the recognition that
women’s inability to access land exacerbates poverty among women, governments
failed to include commitments in the Declaration to provide women with full and
equal access to land, and the right to equal inheritance.
·
Conflict—States confined their discussion
around women and conflict to a narrow definition of conflict. The Declaration
did not include any language related to diverse forms of intra-state and
inter-state conflict present today in the Asia and the Pacific region.
·
Sexual Rights and Reproductive Health Rights—The
Declaration failed to reaffirm the human rights of women to have control over
and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality,
including sexual and reproductive health and to do so free of coercion
discrimination and violence, which was agreed in the Beijing Platform for
Action, It failed to include any provision to guarantee women’s human right to
information about a full range of contraceptive methods and access to quality
methods of their choice, with full respect for their rights to bodily integrity
and autonomy, informed consent.
·
Financing Mechanisms—Directive
language to increase financing or strengthen financing mechanisms, including on
the Green Climate Fund, was diluted and/or removed from the Declaration,
despite individual states recognizing the need for increased financing in their
country submissions.