The Drum Beat 306 - Beijing Minus 7 Plus 3

***

This Drum Beat is one of a series of commentary and analysis pieces. Everjoice J. Win, a Zimbabwean feminist activist and the International Head of Women's Rights with ActionAid International, asks whether the latest United Nations (UN) women's conference was one step forward and two steps back for the international women's movement. What follows is Everjoice's perspective - NOT that of the Partners collectively or individually.

A similar article by Everjoice Win was published by the Mail & Guardian on March 4 2005 called "Plus ça change ..." (click here)

We are interested in featuring a range of critical analysis commentaries of the communication for change field. These will appear regularly on the first Monday of each month and are meant to inspire dialogue throughout the month. Though we cannot guarantee to feature your commentary, as we have a limited number of issues to be published each year, if you wish to contribute please contact Deborah Heimann dheimann@comminit.com Many thanks! 

***

Beijing Minus 7 Plus 3

The first group of women I ran into were wearing green military uniforms. They were all in their late teens, chests out, shoulders back, with the kind of arrogance only youth exudes. Their young shoulders were weighed down by badges and medals. Is this the new face of the women's movement?

This was Beijing +10, but in New York, February 28 to March 11. We were there to take stock of achievements since the 4th World Conference on Women, held in China in 1995.

It was certainly not Beijing, the city, its magic, and what I remembered from 1995. For starters it was freezing cold, and numbed your brain. Muted too was the energy and vibrancy of that memorable conference where over ten thousand women came together to demand "equality, development and peace".

In 1995, Beijing's Platform for Action, the closing call to arms with its 12 critical areas of concern, became our key reference text.

Beijing also developed a deeper meaning in public discourse. "Ah you are one of those Beijing women? We are now scared of you," men and government bureaucrats would say - with smiles on their faces.

Some meant it as a joke. With most you could smell the deep worry. Women had arrived. We had become a political entity. So much hope, so much promise. After Beijing we celebrated, as many governments took seriously women's participation in decision-making.

On the African continent, South Africa and Rwanda show us that it can be done. Rwanda now has the world's highest number of women in its national legislature. Yes that Rwanda. There is cause for celebration.

The Southern African Development Community came up with a declaration setting a minimum target at 30% by 2005. As one activist commented, in 1997, they probably thought 2005 was very far off!

Yet, millions of women still don't get to choose their own governments. In Saudi Arabia women were not allowed to vote in their recent elections because of what we were told were "technical hitches".

The explosion of information and communication technologies has given women’s organisations new tools with which to link with one another. Internet and email have brought women closer, cutting down costs of meetings and conferences. But the information revolution has also brought pornography into everyone's personal computer. Naked young girls have become mobile phone screen savers. It is now easy to buy and sell women on the net.

And in Southern Africa, AIDS has claimed the lives of thousands of black women of reproductive age. Women bear the brunt and the burden of the epidemic. Responses have yet to get to grips with fundamental women's human rights questions over sexual violence, inheritance, access and control over property and women's control over their own bodies.

Kwa-Zulu's answer is to test young women for virginity. King Mswati has seen lots of "progress" since Beijing. He now has more than a dozen wives, and he gets the new ones tested for HIV so they don't infect him. In New York we couldn't even put this outrageous issue on the table.

When asked about the importance of sending girls to school, an Afghan mullah declared "a woman belongs only in two places, the house or the grave." Nobody has an accurate figure of women lying in graves after domestic violence.

"Beijing what? You are still on that? We have moved onto the Millennium Development Goals now," a government bureaucrat remarked at an Africa Union meeting.

The Millennium Development Goals, with their neat indicators of change. Gender equality is measured through girls' access to primary schooling for example. They are not a "move on" from Beijing. We thought everyone now knew that a few years of primary schooling are not enough to liberate a woman.

Those not committed to fundamentally changing the status quo love the Millennium Development Goals. They are short and simple, and they don't require a major shift of resources, attitudes and practices. Yet even they are far from being achieved.

Millions of girls still do not access education because the fees are too high, parents don't think it's important, the road to school is long and dangerous, or there are no toilets for them to use. And we haven't thrown into this mix the violence from teachers and boys, that girls often experience.

We were in New York, not to celebrate Beijing but to defend it. This was not a world conference, but a mere session of the Commission on the Status of Women. Things are bad when we have to fight to downgrade our needs to one slice instead of half a loaf. And the US Young Marines in their military regalia showed us why.

Somebody thought it was a good idea to bring these young women. To learn? To sell US policy? Their presence was such a poignant reflection of where we are. This is 2005. It is the age of United States unilateralism and militarism. September 11 2001 fuelled the flames.

This is the age of religious (and other) fundamentalisms. The secular state, to which we look for protection of our rights is under threat.

Women's rights organisations had to lobby hard to ensure that the Platform for Action was not re-opened for discussion. Not with Bush in the White House, and the United Nations' future under threat. There was only a one-page statement issued and signed by governments at the end of the meeting, and that one page was heavily contested.

But we still hold onto the promises of Beijing, even though everyone agrees not much has been achieved. There has been too much of the proverbial one step forward, two steps back, although many of us returned home with our personal Platforms for Action intact. If nothing else, women are now able to remind the world and ourselves that we are a political force to be reckoned with.

Everjoice J. Win
Everjoice.win@actionaid.org
March 2005

***

Please participate in a Pulse Poll.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the wrong focus for long term sustainable development.

Do you agree or disagree?

***

RESULTS of past Pulse Poll

Jane Bertrand of JHUCCP argues that "participatory evaluation may not meet the methodological rigour of the scientific community to measure effectiveness."

Agree: 42.11%
Disagree: 47.37%
Unsure: 10.53%
***

This issue of The Drum Beat is meant to inspire dialogue and conversation among the Drum Beat network. 

Please respond to this note with your perspectives: To participate in debating these views please send an email to drumbeatchat@comminit.com for distribution to the Drum Beat chat network. If you are not already a member please join The Drum Beat chat forum in which this article has also been placed. To join and contribute please click here. To read contributions please click here.

 

This issue of The Drum Beat is an opinion piece and has been written and signed by the individual writer. The views expressed herein are the perspective of the writer and are not necessarily reflective of the views or opinions of The Communication Initiative or any of The Communication Initiative Partners. 

 

The Drum Beat seeks to cover the full range of communication for development activities. Inclusion of an item does not imply endorsement or support by The Partners.

Please send material for The Drum Beat to the Editor - Deborah Heimann dheimann@comminit.com

To reproduce any portion of The Drum Beat, see our policy.

To subscribe, click here.