The Observatory for the Universality of Rights (OURs) and the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) are publishing a series of reports on "anti-rights" organizations. The first report was released a few weeks ago. It analyzes the actions and profiles of conservative organizations within UN bodies. Here is a summary of the main conclusions (you can read the report here).
In the mid-1990s, two United Nations conferences, one on population (Cairo) and the other on the status of women (Beijing), recognized for the first time the rights-based approach and the empowerment of women. It was therefore in the second half of the 1990s that conservatives, alarmed by this victory for feminist movements, organized to fight these rights. Over the past 20 years, their mobilization has intensified, to the point where today they are often in a position of strength in international negotiations.
What are the main conservative forces?
Within the UN, the Holy See (officially an observer member, but a player in practice), the countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and a few countries led by the far right, such as Hungary today, have found common ground through their reactionary positions. They are opening the door to negotiations with organizations such as the Russian Orthodox Church and ultra-Catholic American associations, which are spreading their arguments to diplomats around the world, inviting them to seminars with all expenses paid (such as the World Congress of Families). This group speaks with virtually one voice, thus amplifying the reach of its arguments.
Even if this bloc does not win every battle, their approach is often effective. For example, at the Commission on Population and Development, no consensus was reached on this year's proposed text. A conference to mark the 20th anniversary of the Beijing conference was planned for 2015. It was canceled for fear of potential setbacks that conservative forces might have achieved.
But why does it work so well?
Firstly, in terms of substance, the conservative group has gradually moved away from rhetoric that places religious precepts above the principles of international law and has politicized its arguments. It has adopted an "anti-imperialist" stance, crying out against cultural relativism and ideological colonization, but its arguments remain easy to counter. Furthermore, in terms of form, its methods of action are very effective. The group is systematically represented in every negotiation. In the texts adopted, every expression is contested. For example, they demand that "the family" always be in the singular, thus ignoring the diversity of family forms. This is where substance and form come together. This example extends to many rights: abortion and sexual rights are still not included in the so-called "agreed" language, comprehensive sexuality education is still the subject of a fierce battle, etc.
Faced with this group, progressive countries, although present and often active, have not yet established such extensive collaboration. Yet the messages to be defended are clear: no, the "right to life" does not take precedence over women's right to control their own bodies. No, comprehensive sexuality education does not contradict parents' rights to raise their children. Finally, no, a woman is not destined to submit to her husband, brother, or father simply because she was born a woman.
