The work of the PrepCom was divided between two Working Groups, assisted by several sub-groups (“contact groups”).

It is impossible for me to write a comprehensive report on what happened at every stage of this very complicated and, most would say, discouraging meeting. I was at the UN for only 5 of the 11 days of the session. Moreover, the Working Groups were unable to complete their assigned tasks.

Although agreement on the Political Declaration was reached, at least three quarters of the “outcome document” (one of the delegates told me it was more accurately 95%) was still in brackets or subject to further discussion when the meeting adjourned. And finally, the disagreements in the official session were more than matched by the disruptive activities led by “anti-PFA” NGOs that, for several days, appeared to be taking over the corridors as well as some of the NGO workshops and caucuses (particularly the Youth Caucus) and, in a few instances, tried to interrupt the official sessions.

Altogether, more than 1000 NGO representatives were given accreditation to attend the meeting. At least half and more likely two-thirds of them represented NGOs that have a history of participation in UN activities; the other half (or one-third) represented religious and self-described “pro-family” groups who are novices in the UN arena and were there to lobby in opposition to the consensus decisions on reproductive health and related subjects that appear in the Beijing and Cairo documents that are no longer negotiable. Not all of the accredited NGOs were present during the entire two weeks of the PrepCom; the corridors and all UN facilities were particularly crowded during the middle of the first and second weeks, and then the numbers began to drop off.

At the same time it is important to point out that it would be a mistake to jump to the conclusion that it was the presence of “opposition” NGOs in large numbers that caused the PrepCom to move at such a slow pace, and in some cases, not to move at all in regard to large sections of the document text. As is pointed out by the “Earth Negotiations Bulletin,” perhaps “it is impossible to conduct a review in a highly politicized arena where different groups cannot agree even on basic measurements of progress…[and] Beijing + 5 is considered an ambitious process since it is going beyond the Cairo and Rio reviews and attempting not only to forge consensus on future actions, but also to bring governments to negotiated agreements on their achievements and failures.”

It is important to recognize also that procedure as well as politics has much to do with the lack of progress. At its large conferences, UN members tend to conduct business through international political blocs, some of which are more formal than others; sometimes countries operate in more than one group. The more formal of those blocs include the G77 + (developing countries), EU (European Union and the USA), JUSCANZ (Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland), APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation), the Holy See, and OAU (Organization of African Unity).

In order to present a bloc position in regard to an issue or a change in language, discussions must be interrupted to reach consensus within bloc ranks. This procedure takes a great deal of time. Also, whenever large meetings are held in cities as expensive as New York, many countries ask their diplomats who are posted nearby to attend rather than send their issue specialists, thereby complicating the negotiation process with a diverse mix of delegates with differing interests and expertise. Finally, some experts point out that if the NGOs involved in UN processes are to be effective, they must move from being issue advocates to becoming high-level political strategists.

Throughout the session, NGOs of every persuasion held numerous workshops, and at least 20 caucuses (regional and issue-oriented) met daily. A Coalition in Support of the Beijing Platform for Action was formed to express solidarity in the face of the opposition groups that mobilized during the PrepCom . The Coalition submitted its own 37-page document suggesting amendments to the “outcome document.” At the end of the session, 230 organizations from more than 50 countries had signed on to that document.

Following is information for those planning to attend the General Assembly Special Session on Women 2000, June 5-9, 2000 at the UN in New York.

• It is expected that each NGO may bring only 2 or 3 representatives to the meeting. (The final number depends on how many register.)
• Women outside the U.S. who apply for visas will need a letter of invitation or confirmation from the UN Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). The U.S. Government is issuing instructions to its embassies on processing those visa requests; if there are problems, contact Peggy Kerry at the U.S. Mission in New York.
• The U.S. Host Committee has arranged for the availability of the Customs House Building in New York to house all NGO activities during the Special Session. For information or to reserve workshop space (deadline is April 15), contact the NGO Coordinating Committee for Beijing + 5 as follows: Sudha Acharya, CONGO, 8th floor, 777 UN Plaza, NY 10017; 212-986-8557; congongo@aol.com congongo@aol.com
• CONGO is hosting a Forum for NGOs, June 2-3,2000.
  About NCRW | Research for Action | Resources | Global Initiatives | Of Interest | Publications
  Coming Events | Join Us | Contact Us
  
  This page was last updated on April 11, 2000.
  Please send comments or corrections to webmaster@ncrw.org