Skip to main content

Dazed Diplomacy


It’s the final day of the CPD and we’re far behind. To give you sense of exactly how behind we are, the commission traditionally goes through at least three readings of the text before a consensus is reached. As of this morning, the second reading has not even been completed. Furthermore, the ‘operational paragraphs’ which contain the important legislative clauses, have barely been touched. Yesterday night the negotiations lasted until 10:30pm and the delegates left the hall with a tangible sense of frustration.

The problem is two-fold. The facilitator of the negotiations from the Philippines is being incredibly inefficient. The negotiations are moving forward at a snail’s pace and tolerating long irrelevant soliloquies discussing, for instance, the exact definition of internal migration. A Brazilian delegate posed the question if her personal move from downtown to uptown Rio would be considered internal migration. Unfortunately, it was not uncommon to see such personal, or irrelevant discussions dominate the floor. It is evident to many here that the commission does not have the time or capacity to ponder such futile discussion and has resulted in this serious time-crunch. Yet some delegates can’t seem to adopt a diplomatic approach during this CPD.

Another, more drastic predicament, is the inability to find a consensus on SRHR. The commission is visibly divided about the issues. Certain delegations such as Argentina, champions of the sexual health rights, won’t budge on the language. Other delegations are united to remove any language referring to the rights. It seems that conservative delegations are grouping together SRHR, sexual rights, sexual orientation and gender identity rights, sexuality education, and anything health related to sexuality and health all under the same heading. Without these important distinctions, they emulate the important issues that requires specific, precise attention and language.  And, yet other delegations seem to be attempting to persuade the commission that treating language about SRHR is entirely irrelevant to the topic of migration...

Today is judgment day. Because time is running out, we are expecting the chair to propose their own draft to reach a consensus. This would mean we could, unfortunately, expect minimal language on SRHR. However it will be resolved, we are not losing sight of how important our work here is and continue to press on for our sexual and reproductive rights here at the CPD.  

-Vincent & Stefan

Comments

Austin Ruse said…
The problem you are experiencing is SRHR fatigue. Delegates are weary of this obsession. So what you are seeing increasingly is resistance. Face it, after a quarter century and hundreds of millions of dollars you have failed to advance your agenda even one syllable! This debate is so over...

best,

Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM
Austin Ruse said…
A clear win for pro-lifers. Pro-aborts did not get any new language. Moreover, the call for "safe abortion where it's not against the law" can only be a call for more abortion clinic regulation.

Popular posts from this blog

The CSW68 is a wrap!

  Met Nederlands ambassadeur en CSW Facilitator Yoka Brandt op de foto na afloop van de CSW68 “We have reservations on the text. We don’t have instructions to proceed to adoption .” After seven days of negotiations at the UN during this year’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), Nigeria almost blocked the negotiated outcome document from being adopted. Almost, because after some formal and informal interventions in Conference Room 4, the Nigerian delegate, flanked by the Dutch Ambassador Yoka Brandt, added: “I now have instructions to support the adoption.” On the balcony filled with civil society as well as in the plenary room there was a clear sigh of relief followed by enthusiastic applause, hugging and photo taking. We have Agreed Conclusions ! Early negotiations As usual, the CSW negotiations process started early February with a Zero Draft , developed by UN Women and the CSW Bureau. And with input and inspiration taken from the Secretary General Report. For the EU, as

CSW68 Youth Dialogue statement by Fenna Timsi

  Dutch youth representative Fenna Timsi gives her statement in the CSW68 Youth Dialogue On Thursday afternoon, 14 March 2024, the Dutch youth representative Fenna Timsi gave her statement in the CSW68 Youth Dialogue inside the UN. The reflections from several participants of this year's Youth Dialogue - the second ever as part of the CSW - were that it has much improved compared to last year. Importantly, many more of the people who were given the floor were actually young people themselves. Many of the statements were rich and relevant in content with clear and important messages for the government delegates in the other room in the UN who had started the negotiations for the outcome document. Read Fenna's statement below or see the full Youth Dialogue here (Fenna's statement is at 1:20:10). Dear all,   As the Dutch UN Youth Representative, I thank you to speak independently on behalf of young people in the Netherlands, not on behalf of the government. I spoke to many yo

Blog #4 by Sanne: We need progress on Loss & Damage!

Today the CSW’s main outcome document, the Agreed Conclusions, continued. At this CSW66, it is not only essential that we move forward on gender equality issues, but also on climate, environmental and disaster-risk reduction action! We need to connect to existing discussions in different UN-spaces to ensure that our discussions here in New York strengthen our intersectional, transformative climate action and that gender equality is central. Because we want this CSW to ensure that we deal with environmental & climate crises as coherently and strongly as possible. We can’t wait any longer!