As delegates made their final statements last week at the conclusion of the 69th session of the Commission on the Status of Women at UN headquarters in New York City, there was a sense of plus ça change – except  “changes” now take place behind closed doors under the control of a select few.

This year marks 30 years since the fourth World Conference on Women at which the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BDPA) was adopted. Signed by 189 countries, the 1995 global policy document outlines 12 focus areas deemed essential for achieving equality for women throughout the world.

The Beijing declaration is the lodestar of the Commission on the Status of Women and every five years the annual two-week CSW session focuses on the progress or regress made by member states.

Advertisement

The political declaration made at the outset of this year’s session stated that, “No country has fully achieved gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls [and] that major gaps and obstacles remain.”

If the conclusion is plus c'est la même chose, what has changed at CSW? According to several organizations engaged in the work of monitoring the language and actions of UN agencies, the very structure of the event has altered, resulting in a more opaque and less democratic process.

According to Anna Halpine, founder of World Youth Alliance (WYA), the CSW meetings have not been the same since the disruption of COVID.

Halpine told The Catholic Register that the new format “is worlds away from the open debate that once took place, during which stakeholders, consultants, and interested non-governmental organizations could actually participate, debate, and influence the outcome of the document.”

The CSW website states that, “the principal output of the Commission on the Status of Women is the agreed conclusions on priority themes set for each year.”

The side and parallel events hosted by NGOs and government missions during the annual gathering are meant to be just that: side events to the main work of the commission.

In past years, delegates of member states would work for the duration of the two-week session, often through the night, to hammer out the “agreed conclusions.” It was in these close negotiations that the battles over language – whether abortion is included as a human right or the inclusion of the term “gender” – were fought.

Halpine, originally from New Brunswick, founded WYA in 1999 after she witnessed 32 young people take to the floor of the Conference on Population and Development at the UN. Claiming to speak for all three billion youth of the world, they demanded abortion as a right, the deletion of parental rights, and sexual rights for children.

The following day, Halpine went back to the UN with a few friends and bright pink flyers that declared the 32 could not possibly represent all the youth in the world and asked that the conference not “reduce us to our sexual faculties.”

“Our main concerns,” the flyer read, “are issues relating to education, family, employment and development.”

Halpine went on to found WAY. With teams established in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia Pacific, it trains young people to engage ambassadors, diplomats, and political leaders at platforms such as the UN, European Union and the Organization of American States on issues related to human dignity.

“Over many years, WYA has worked closely on the language: what does it mean, what is the context, how it is developing and changing through use and the negotiating process, and to follow and use that language in accurate ways in our work and in highlighting how it impacts nations and communities directly,” she said.

It is arguable whether Halpine could do what she did in 1999 at the UN today. Everything, she says, changed during COVID.

Advertisement

“During COVID, UN meetings were held online to solicit input for documents that they produced during this time. Input from NGOs was separate from that of the missions. It was said that this was all towards achieving "transparency" and "consultation,” but it was a very easy process to control.”

The new format had a negative impact on WYA delegates’ ability to engage in the process.

“Our delegates often found that when they joined these meetings, well prepared and ready to listen and speak in a respectful manner, the sound would not work when they spoke, and then they would be dropped from the call.”

It would be easy to put such episodes down to the technical breakdowns which were a habitual part of life in lockdown, but the CSW has never returned to “normal.”

Last year was the first full, in-person meeting of CSW and Halpine says a new process, the “silent negotiation,” was introduced.

“The Commission, the chair and facilitators, took various drafts to individual missions for their input and comment; these were collated and turned into drafts that went back and forth. In this way the document was finalized before the start of the Commission, and the first item on day one was the approval of the document.”

“I think there was general surprise about this both among member states and the NGOs,” said Halpine.

With its heavy emphasis on side and parallel events, CSW has become a “big expo,” with the real work taking place behind closed doors. This leaves organizations like WYA and Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) contemplating how they should best address the new situation.

Matthew Wojciechowski, CLC Vice President, told the Register that “educating and lobbying delegates and government officials is a year-round effort.” 

Despite changes to CSW, Wojciechowski said that CLC will continue to send delegates to the event as “large meetings like CSW do offer NGOs the opportunity to be active observers and to meet with key stakeholders, including member states.”

Halpine concurred that the work would go on.

“Assuming this is the new status quo,” Halpine said, “we are working to ensure that our voice is present at the international meetings and making sure our positions are heard in the ways that are open to us: participation in side-events, hosting our own events, sharing our work and research, meeting one-on-one with missions and stakeholders. At the same time, we are prioritizing our work in areas where we can have a stronger impact, the local and national spaces where debate is open and accessible.” 

Msgr. Marco Formica, counselor for the Permanent Mission of the Holy See at the UN, delivered the statement of the Holy See at the conclusion of the CSW on March 21.

The mission team opted to use its two-minute speaking slot to focus on the disruption of the CSW negotiation process.

“My delegation would encourage that the next report and the zero draft on the implementation of the BPDA follow its structure and be organized around the 12 critical areas of concern.” The “zero draft” to which Formica refers is the working document once discussed and negotiated throughout the two weeks.

Advertisement

“We encourage a return to shorter zero drafts to assist in considerations and to exclusion of terminology known to be contentious. We also hope that in five years, the regular practice of a full reading of the zero draft will be possible in conformity with its nature and particular mission.” 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The more things change, the more they stay the same.