Blog by Pat Black, SI Advocacy Advisor
We have Agreed Conclusions for CSW70, but with a difference.
As the Chair of CSW brought down her gavel and announced “it is so decided”, CSW70 had an outcome document.
It was not without a fight, however, as at the very last minute one of the Member States attempted firstly to force a delay to adoption, and then to add further amendments to the text because they did not like what had been agreed by the other Member States.
To go back to the beginning – the negotiations this year, for the first time, took a very different form.
A New Negotiation Process for CSW70?
The Chair explained in the opening morning session of CSW70 on Monday 9 March, in New York, that discussions had been taking place throughout February. A third draft text had been circulated for final comments during the previous week, enabling her and the co-facilitators to slightly amend that draft and circulate a final version on the previous evening (Sunday), with a view to the Commission being able to adopt the text at the Opening Session.
The Chair indicated that the adoption of the Agreed Conclusions, as circulated by her the previous evening, would take place immediately at the beginning of the next session so that Member States could take advice from Capitals (i.e. their governments). She asked everyone to be ready to adopt the text at the beginning of the afternoon session.
As the Chair opened the afternoon session of CSW70, she again explained the process that had been followed for negotiations this year (differing from previous years when negotiations would continue throughout the two weeks of CSW, with final adoption taking place in the last session). She noted that, taking everyone’s comments and suggestions into account, she believed that she and the co-facilitators had reached a balanced and fair text for women and girls around the world.
Last-Minute Challenges to the Adoption
Immediately, this was challenged by one of the larger Member States, which requested a delay in moving to adoption. They argued that they had not had enough time to consider the ‘new’ text and that this was not the traditional procedure for CSW, which usually reaches consensus at the end of the session.
After some discussion, during which a few other Member States supported this view, the Chair ruled against the delay.
Very unusually, the Member State then put forward eight detailed amendments to the text orally.
A European Member State suggested that a vote be taken on all eight amendments together. This proposal was objected to by a few Member States on the grounds that they might be able to support some suggestions but not others. Other Member States pointed out that all these points had already been discussed during negotiations, compromises had been reached, and there was general support for the text offered by the Chair and the co-facilitators.
A vote was taken which indicated that the majority wished to consider the eight amendments as a whole, and the vote was taken on this basis. The amendments, as a package, were defeated.
However, there was a further attempt to delay the final vote so that additional negotiations could take place and consensus might be reached.
After taking advice, the Chair ruled against any further delay and proceeded to the adoption of the Agreed Conclusions.
Immediately, the Member State requested a recorded vote – something almost unheard of at CSW.
The recorded vote proceeded on the adoption of the Agreed Conclusions. As the Chair announced the confirmed result, which overwhelmingly supported the presented text, the audience in the General Assembly Hall broke into applause and gave a standing ovation.
Many people had worked hard to ensure that there would be an agreed outcome document for CSW70 and to prevent regression. It was not unexpected that the Member State in question would try to ‘veto’ the document, as another Member State put it, but a strong Chair was able to prevent CSW70 from being derailed by a single Member State.
However, I find it very sad that, after the many years of attending CSW, contributing to negotiations, and watching agreements being reached, one powerful Member State should try to override all the other Member States who, as they said, “had been negotiating in good faith”. To use the spurious argument that this text would harm women and girls, when we have been watching what has been happening in that country, underestimates—at the very least—the investment of time and action that the women sitting in the General Assembly Hall have made over decades.
