I just finished reading the following
AP story/write-up regarding the UN's Commission on the Status of Women two-week meeting which just ended. No longer can I invoke the phrase "They can't sink any lower than they already have..." Not anymore.
Not to be seen solely as a haughty and obstinate bully in matters of diplomacy and military efforts, it seems that the US is dedicated to exercising this arrogance everywhere it can, even if it means they have to trample on the rights of women globally.
Or, if in exercising our presumptive role as Global-Know-It-All, it means we just might embarrass ourselves publicly - no matter. Whatever it takes, we seem o be willing to go the extra year to be the best brat on the block. Here is a tease pull-quote from the article:
As the final session of the Commission on the Status of Women wound down late Friday, the United States backed away from its own resolution on the economic advancement of women after Cuba and South Africa pushed through amendments it didn't like.
So, there is more and more below the fold....
The AP story opens with the following:
U.S. Disputes Reproductive Rights at U.N.
UNITED NATIONS - A two-week meeting to fight for women's equality ended as it began, with the United States at odds with much of the rest of the world on issues of reproductive health and abortion.
The gathering was meant to reaffirm the platform for action adopted at the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing to achieve equality for women. But it was instead dominated by American efforts to make clear the Beijing platform did not create any new human rights, including a global right to abortion. (emphasis added by me)
At a time where our relationships globally are as strained as I have ever know in my lifetime, it seems to me that our hubris and military swagger may not always be the best face to put forward or even the right tone to believe appropriate. The meeting was to reaffirm the fairly landmark -- if nothing else controversial and challenging and long-overdue -- 1995 UN Conference that was all about laying the foundation for achieving global equality for women. But rather than assume the appropriate tone and take and gravty of the meeting and its issues, the US instead becomes a big brat:
Events ended on an odd note. As the final session of the Commission on the Status of Women wound down late Friday, the United States backed away from its own resolution on the economic advancement of women after Cuba and South Africa pushed through amendments it didn't like.
That line is stunning: "...United States backed away from its own resolutions... after Cuba and South Africa pushed through amendments it didn't like." Didn't "like?"
Well yes, "didn't like" = pro-choice.
In particular, South Africa had proposed saying that "the neglect of women's reproductive rights severely limits their opportunities in public and private life." That language was lifted directly from the Beijing declaration.
The United States had originally intended that the document focus on entrepreneurship and was dismayed that the resolution was getting away from its original intent, U.S. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey said.
"There are some good things in there so I think we have to take heart that we did get some of our entrepreneurship language ... but it really is kind of the kitchen sink right now," Sauerbrey said. "It's the enabling environment that we started with and so much additional that it really lost any focus."
In other words, rather than tackle a serious and globally-acknowledged challenge that all women face, let's duck, cover, damn with faint praise, but, ultimately, let morality triumph over sound and evidence-based policy-making and policies.
We have no shame, and from the read of the article, we equally are experiencing a severe drought in our shame department too.
As for making a fool of one's self, here is that little tid-bit:
There was also a minor embarrassment for the Americans. Sauerbrey tried to withdraw the document from consideration entirely because of the changes but did not realize the rules prohibited her from doing so because amendments had been made.
Even so, the document eventually passed by consensus, with Sauerbrey saying the Americans joined in.
And while a lot of the other effort at the meeting ended up in some good proposals/agreements, the one that I found most disingenuous for the US to be able to support on paper -- knowing their utter lack of support in reality either domestically or globally -- was the one detailing agreement/concern about women and HIV infections;
<snip>
...including documents calling for more action to eliminate sex trafficking and help women reverse the AIDS pandemic.
The text on trafficking... <snip> was a victory for the United States, which had wanted to make the link to prostitution in the text.
<snip>
An AIDS resolution passed Friday emphasizes that "the advancement of women and girls is key to reversing the pandemic" and urged governments "to take all necessary measures to empower women and strengthen their economic independence ... to enable them to protect themselves from HIV infection."
This from the same government advocating abstinence-only education.
Finally, midway in the article, (in what I thought was an odd bit of non-linear journalism by the writer of the story) the South Africa v. US issue is reiterated -- I believe for emphasis:
The inclusion of the South African text in the document on economic empowerment was a defeat for the United States because it had not wanted to mention the Beijing language about reproductive rights.
In fact, during the first week, the United States had tried to amend a document reaffirming the Beijing platform to say explicitly that it did not create new rights, including the right to abortion.
In the face of stiff opposition, Sauerbrey had withdrawn that amendment after delegations assured Washington the Beijing platform created no such thing.
Not resting on our domestic laurels in slowly eroding the rights and protections for women and girls, we are adamant to be the beacon of oppression globally, at all costs, whether that is face, trust or even process.