ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND PROMOTION OF A DEMOCRATIC AND EQUITABLE INTERNATIONAL ORDER
The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this afternoon discussed the issue of draft guidelines on methods to operationalize gender mainstreaming, including action-oriented mechanisms that would facilitate the implementation of the Committee’s mandates, and the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order.
Introducing the topic of integrating a gender perspective throughout the United Nations system, Advisory Committee Expert Chinsung Chung said that the Human Rights Council had asked the Committee to regularly integrate the gender perspective in its work. The Committee should now request the Human Rights Council to mandate the Advisory Committee to prepare guidelines to enhance gender mainstreaming in the United Nations. As for a definition, Ms. Chung said that mainstreaming a gender perspective in all types of activities was a strategy for promoting gender equality. Efforts should include action plans to increase women’s participation in the United Nations.
In the general debate on gender mainstreaming, Committee Experts said that something different had to be done, because obviously women were not sufficiently participating yet in the United Nations system. There was in fact temptation from many to say that women’s human rights were addressed under the umbrella of human rights, and there was no need to single them out and place special attention on them, but in fact that was not true. One suggestion was to establish quotas in the appointment of positions which was already done at the national level. An Expert underlined that the mindset of governments had to be changed since women were often just as qualified as men, if not even more qualified.
Regarding the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Experts said the Advisory Committee confirmed its decision from its first session to keep this matter on the agenda. They emphasized that the Committee attached great importance to this issue but needed more instruction from the Council on how to proceed. Several Experts said that they should discuss how an inequitable world order could be addressed. However, the Committee should not be politicized by this request.
Advisory Committee Experts speaking in the general debate included Chinsung Chung, Halima Warzazi, Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Shiqiu Chen, Emmanuel Decaux, Purificacion V. Quisumbing, Bernards Andrews Nyamwaya Mudho and Mona Zulficar.
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 January to discuss the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members. In addition, a closed meeting with Experts from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women will take place to share ideas on gender mainstreaming.
Document
The Committee has before it A/HRC/AC/2/CRP.4 on integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system - draft guidelines on methods to operationalize gender mainstreaming, including action-oriented mechanisms, which states that in response to a request by the Human Rights Council, the Advisory Committee, during its first session in August 2008, requested several of its Experts to operationalise gender mainstreaming, including action-oriented mechanisms that would facilitate the implementation of the Committee’s mandates. Mainstreaming a gender perspective in all types of activities is a strategy for promoting gender equality. Gender discrimination is disadvantageous not only to women but also all participants of society. The United Nations is the subject to lead the efforts for gender mainstreaming of all Member States, and in order to do that it should implement gender mainstreaming within the United Nations system itself first. The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee can play a think tank role for effective implementation of gender mainstreaming within the United Nations system.
General Debate on Preparing Guidelines on Methods to Operationalize Gender Mainstreaming
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, introducing the topic, said that the paper before the Committee had not been explicitly requested by the Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council had asked the Advisory Committee to regularly integrate the gender perspective in the work of the Advisory Committee. This paper had been prepared to request the Human Rights Council to mandate the Advisory Committee to prepare guidelines on methods to operationalize gender mainstreaming, including action-oriented mechanisms. She reminded the Committee that already in 1975, delegates at the UN International Women’s Year Conference in Mexico City decided that all governments should establish agencies dedicated to promote gender equality. As for a definition, Ms. Chung said that mainstreaming a gender perspective in all types of activities was a strategy for promoting gender equality. Accountability and responsibility were further principles that were crucial in that context. Efforts should include action plans to increase women’s participation in the United Nations. Therefore, financial resources should be allocated at all levels to such programmes. She added that gender analysis was the first essential step in this process and monitoring programmes had to be established to assess progress.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that this was a cross-cutting subject. The presentation made was excellent and summarized the issues ahead. The idea of mainstreaming came from the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Work. The main idea that women’s human rights were an integral part of the work of human rights came with the opening of the World Conference in Vienna in 1993 which opened up the way for the Beijing Conference. There was in fact temptation from many to say that women’s human rights were addressed under the umbrella of human rights, and there was no need to single them out and place special attention on them, but in fact that was not true. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and others had been forgotten among the United Nations organizations that had been highlighted in the draft guidelines. There should not be any restriction on which organizations were listed, all should have been included. He suggested that there were ways in which women’s participation could be promoted. In the case of the International Court of Justice, not so long ago there was only one woman serving, and as of February this year out of 50 Judges, 15 would be women. There were a number of encouraging examples around the world where policies and strategies had been implemented to ensure equitable integration of women, and as such the Committee needed to research, examine, and analyze this information to be included in its guidelines.
WOLFGANG HEINZ, Advisory Committee Expert, asked for clarification regarding monitoring and accountability. He said it should not be limited to medium or top-level posts, but it should be referred to all levels. Further, the clear scheme of incentive and disincentives should be explained further.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, answering Mr. Heinz’s question, referred to incentive and disincentive systems that she had encountered earlier on. If for example points in an appraisal system were taken off a unit or were being granted to a unit if it achieved its goals regarding women’s participation, the commitment to gender mainstreaming did not simply remain a decision on paper but was being put into practice.
DEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Expert, thanked the working group for putting together the draft guidelines in such a short period of time. He echoed what Committee Expert Mr. Decaux said regarding the steps taken by the International Court of Justice to address the issues of disparity there. One concern stressed was with regard to integrating gender perspective into the mandate of the Advisory Committee, which may come into play when discussing best practices concerning missing persons, the right to food, among others. He asked whether the Committee was tasked with identifying how to integrate gender perspective throughout the whole United Nations system, and whether the Committee had gone outside the parameters of its mandate? The draft guidelines clearly identified what actions were to be taken by the United Nations system and as well as at the international and national level. Therefore, he asked whether the Committee was too ambitious in identifying those actions, while there were a number of other United Nations agencies already working on this issue?
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, reiterated that the Human Rights Council did not request this kind of guidelines. But the Advisory Committee had at its last session decided to make a suggestion to the Human Rights Council. As was correctly stated before, many United Nations agencies were involved in the topic. However, there were no guidelines for gender mainstreaming yet.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that all of the pertinent United Nations organs, which had worked on this topic should be involved directly, and it was now the aim of the Committee to enforce implementation by identifying measurable goals. No action would be taken on the proposed guidelines as of yet, and she reminded the Committee that the guidelines were a proposal to the Human Rights Council only.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that she was very pleased and grateful for the preparation of the text. Up until 1990 women had been considered as an underprivileged group. When talking about social issues, they talked about women, children and old people. Women were marginalized and the issue was always raised in a social context. As far as the United Nations was concerned, there had not been much progress in the last years. Referring to her own career, Ms. Warzazi said that it took five to six years to establish a quota of 30 per cent of women in the United Nations in a commission where Ms. Warzazi was working before. As far as women were concerned, the accent had to be on the promotion of all human rights for women. Ms. Warzazi disliked speaking of “women’s” human rights. She further explained that in the last decade, her own country had taken significant steps to let women participate in national politics. Now, a little more than 30 per cent of the Moroccan Parliament was made up of women. A similar development should be achieved within the United Nations.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that affirmative action was in fact put in place to bridge the gaps and address the disparities between men and women. Overall gender mainstreaming was necessary to change attitudes and mindsets. It was necessary for overall action and real strategies to achieve gender equality. Furthermore, the main goal for the Advisory Committee was to figure out how to address this, and whether guidelines were necessary to help push implementation to reinforce the Committee’s mandates. She stressed that perhaps a more forceful approach to implementation was necessary, and the Committee might be able to play the role.
PURIFICACION V. QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, said that this was an important topic. Something different had to be done now, because obviously there was no success yet. Affirmative action was controversial, not everyone would agree that that was the way to go. An example was the Commission for Human Rights. Looking back, Ms. Roosevelt was the first woman who had chaired the Commission on Human Rights from 1948 to 1950, the next woman who chaired the Commission was Ms. Quisumbing herself in 1990. She underlined that the mindset of governments had to be changed since women were just as qualified as men, if not even more qualified. But they were not put forward by their governments. Women had to be where decisions were made, in peace keeping for instance.
CHEN SHIQIU, Advisory Committee Expert, said that in discussing the human rights of women the chair was in fact a woman, and of the Committee Experts who had spoken the majority were women; they were his colleagues. In such a short period of time, the report produced was very impressive, despite the fact that it was rather short in length; it was full of rich content. A number of guidelines and principles had been raised in the report, with which the international community was very familiar. If within the United Nations system no action was taken to implement the guidelines and provisions to integrate gender mainstreaming, who would be responsible to react. He therefore suggested that the Advisory Committee place should focus on this more.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, thanked her colleagues for their input. She said that the working group would discuss the suggestions and integrate them in the paper.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that she wanted to clarify that the differences between affirmative action and positive discrimination came hand in hand. All of the States who ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination should not have any objection to integrating affirmative action as it was essentially the same thing as the principle of positive discrimination.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women was meeting at present and they were interested in the work of the Committee on the report and agreed to meet the working group tomorrow to do so. The discussion would focus on why targets had not been achieved, and to identify needs and how to address those needs.
General Discussion on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he was embarrassed by the way such an important topic was put on the table. The Committee should not show that it was not interested in the topic of the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. In academic circles, many books had been published last year on the subject. There were many reports and sources that could be used for this topic. The Council had to provide the Committee with some sort of guidelines on how the Committee should deal with the rule of law and an equitable world order. It had to be made clear that the Committee was interested in this topic.
CHEN SHIQIU, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order was a very important issue. This not only concerned political issues, but also sensitive issues, which included international relations and international law, and its relation with human rights issues. In agreement with other Committee Experts, he stressed that there were a number of important issues to deal with, and as such, it was impossible to deal with each subject in depth. However, this important subject should be decided later on, whether in a working group or any other structure. What aspects were not equitable and undemocratic, how would those issues be addressed to conform to the principles of equality, fairness and democracy. In fact the issues raised had not had any consensus within the international arena, therefore making it difficult to go in-depth on many issues. A democratic and equitable order was in fact itself a human right. Furthermore, it was impossible for the Committee to come up with a report in such a short period of time on such an important topic.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, noted that there was no information on this point of the agenda in the document she had received. In the Sub-Commission, an Expert had been named to give a report on this issue. This report was not in the Committee’s documentation. Also, why was the text adopted by the General Assembly in December not given to the Committee? The Committee had to determine how to deal with this issue but could not do so without the proper background documentation.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that there were matters which faced the Advisory Committee on which it was not mandated to address. With respect to such issues guidelines needed to be generated that articulated how exactly and to what extent the Committee should contribute work towards the implementation of the existing human rights instruments or resolutions. As the current mandates come to a close, the new issues raised would be addressed. This matter would be kept on the agenda.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, asked why the Committee was given this hot potato. It was because it was a rather contentious issue in the Council. The Committee was responsible for studies and should be careful where it went. It would be interesting to have some background here. What happened to the Sub-Commission report that had been sent to the Human Rights Commission? Was it a dead letter? Such details would be interesting.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that this topic had been given by the members of the Human Rights Council to all human rights treaty bodies, including the Advisory Committee.
PURIFICACION V. QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Committee needed to think through how to operationalize something that was political. Furthermore, she stressed the need for the Committee to identify its own guidelines in order to deal effectively when faced with such matters, to avoid being trapped and to ensure that the Committee may proceed with its work.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Council was giving the Advisory Committee hot potatoes when it could not further deal with the issue. It was more difficult to deal with such issues for the Advisory Committee than it was for the Sub-Commission. He referred to a resolution from September 2008, which asked the Advisory Committee to elaborate proposals on the promotion of international solidarity. This was not clearly reflected in the agenda of the Advisory Committee and there might be more resolutions from the Council that had not made it on the agenda. This had to be clarified.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that it was essential for the Advisory Committee to attend panel discussions and other such meetings in order to play a role which would ensure continuity and preparation with respect to the work of its mandates, such as was the case with respect to missing persons as Committee Experts recalled. The Committee should be made aware of all projects in the pipeline related to the work of the Committee’s mandates.
WOLFGANG HEINZ, Advisory Committee Expert, said in response to Ms. Quisumbing that quite a number of issues that concerned the Advisory Committee and human rights had to do with politics. All the Committee could do was to analyze the human rights perspective of these issues. Here it had to be admitted that there were various human rights perspectives, not only among governments, but also among Experts. As to the interaction between the Committee and the Council, if the Committee received a vast mandate, the Committee should get back to the Council for further clarification on specific aspects the Council was interested in. He agreed that an institutional memory in the form of a brief paper would be very useful. The Committee needed to have more terms of reference from the Council to proceed to work in order to produce useful studies.
DEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Committee had to work out a presence within its relationship with the Human Rights Council. The Committee should ask the Human Rights Council for the President of the Advisory Committee to be present in the last week or two weeks of its meetings when decisions were taken by the Council. He asked who was the appropriate person within the Committee to address the Human Rights Council for clarification on the Advisory Committees mandates?
PURIFICACION V. QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, agreed that politics were always involved in human rights issues. But still, some issues were more political than others. She noted that the developed countries did not vote for this particular resolution for the Committee to consider the promotion of an equitable world order. The Committee should not always run to the Council for further clarification. The Experts should sometimes act on their own and make proposals to the Council. However, these proposals should not drag the Committee into a political maelstrom. The Committee was only at the beginning and should not loose its integrity.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, summing up the discussion, said that the Committee Experts all agreed that more information and documentation was needed on such matters. Like in all human rights matters there was a political dimension. If the Committee felt that there was an important contribution to be made, it would make it. There were many more assignments coming down the pipeline and as such timelines and priorities needed to be considered carefully. It seemed more and more clear that this issue was not a priority issue in terms of contribution, but rather the requests were focused on implementation, and therefore the Committee should not feel pressured to make decisions within a given timeline, but should focus on implementation measures.
For use of the information media; not an official record
AC09004E