Human Rights Defender Mary Jane Real shared the extent and limitations of women's engagement with the UN Human Rights Council. She also shared her insights on how women's groups, particularly those from the South, could continue to push for women's human rights in different spaces.

The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC), during its fifth session last month, has concluded its year-long effort of institution-building with the adoption of a Presidential text on the institution-building of the Council on the eve of June 18, 2007.

Prior to this, women's organisations, particularly from the South, have urged the Council, through a petition submitted last March, to integrate gender and women’s human rights into its work.

Mary Jane Real, coordinator of the International Campaign on Women Human Rights Defenders, shared with Isis her assessment of the HRC as an advocacy space for women's groups and why the women's movements, particularly those from the South, should not put all its advocacy energy in this space.

Isis International-Manila [Isis]: How should women's organisations from the South engage with the UN Human Rights Council? What should be the nature and extent of the engagement?

Mary Jane Real [MJR]: You have to look at it in terms of advocacy and the nature of advocacy work. For the women's movements, our issues are global. Being a marginalised sex, there is always a need to advocate for our rights in different venues.  The UN is just one of the venues for advocacy—not the ultimate or the only arena—therefore, I do not see it as the only space for engagement.

The UN is an important body for international advocacy because it sets international standards for human rights. Since we want to mainstream women's rights as human rights, then the UN will always be a relevant body for us. However, the UN is a state body—not an NGO platform—hence, it will always be a platform that will never be as progressive as we want it to be because it will always be ruled by governments. Surely, the NGOs will be allowed some space to engage or interact, but the level of engagement will always be defined by the governments.

You have to be realistic as well on what to expect from the UN. In terms of the Human Rights Council, the reform is intended to give more credibility and legitimacy to the body. And in the process, they want to review the country mandates, the rules, the composition of the Council, the terms of accountability, and the mechanisms for accountability for the states. In this review, there were some openings for civil society to have a wider participation in the UN. But these gains were not a given, but were the result of intense lobbying since the UN is a state body, as I said.

To a certain extent, there have been some victories for civil society groups because they have been recognised as an important stakeholder; therefore they have been given a legitimate presence in the official sessions of the Council. HRC has also put in several spaces for the NGOs to be consulted. For example, in appointing the special rapporteur, the NGOs can submit their nominations. In terms of the interactive dialogue which happens when the special rapporteur delivers his/her report before the Council, the NGOs are also allowed to ask their questions and make their oral interventions.

With the years of struggle of the women's movement, I have seen that the Human Rights Council has been more open in terms of taking on women’s issues in its regular sessions. With this openness, it's up to us if we want to push that space further and actually demand more. But the way I am looking at it, although the Council is a strategic venue, I would not put all my advocacy issues just within the UN. I would look for other venues other than the UN.

Isis: Would you say that the women's movements in the South have a consensus that advocacy on human rights should be complemented with parallel engagements in different spaces, not solely focusing on the HRC?

MJR: Yes, because it has been difficult for women’s groups to establish a presence in Geneva and in the Human Rights Council. Historically, women's involvement and physical presence in the UN spaces is in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women. A lot of women would go there every year because the CSW monitors the Beijing Platform for Action. For women, the Beijing process is a space that we have shaped so we feel comfortable in following it up in New York whereas Geneva is a space used more by human rights groups and movements, not necessarily women's.

For community organisations, you have to think twice if you want to engage in an international advocacy or not because it is a very expensive undertaking.  If you do, you have to choose where to go. Most logically, you would choose New York more than Geneva since many of the women’s groups go there. This might change now because the CEDAW [Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women] Committee, another advocacy space, which used to be based in New York, is planning to have an office or presence in Geneva. This could be a start of building women's groups' participation at the UN in Geneva.

Isis: From what we noticed, most of the issues that the Council has addressed are delving on violence against women. Is this the sole issue that the women's groups should be looking at?

MJR:  I think that's also part of the historical context of our engagement with women's rights and human rights. In Vienna in 1993, one of the gains in that struggle was to create a special rapporteur on violence against women. It was a continuation of an international momentum for our campaign on violence against women, which has become more universal compared to our other concerns.

Also, when you look at the media, being a pulse of what is popular and publicly talked about, then most probably, issues that they picked up will also be on violence against women rather that other issues like right to development or health rights, which are brought in other terrains, such as the World Social Forum.

So there is a history behind why certain issues are more popular internationally than the others. It's not to say we should not engage on those other issues, but I think it is a point for reflection for us to see how the UN can address these other concerns as well.

Isis: Are there any concrete steps that the women's organisations will be undertaking in terms of advocating for women's human rights in the Council?

MJR: The way that the debates were when I was there at the UN Human Rights Council during the discussion about the different aspects of institution-building of the Council, gender seems to be a non-issue, meaning, they were saying that there is nothing that the Council is going to oppose about gender. Since they thought that gender is a non-issue, they did not focus on it as much as they could or they should. However, if you look at the actual text, not all of the points that we pushed for in our petition submitted last March are actually in the text. I think it is still worth pursuing the concerns raised in the petition beyond the text on the UN Human Rights Council institution-building adopted last 18 June 2007. 

As always, there is always more work for women as we never get everything all the time. The negotiations at the Human Rights Council are difficult. The documents will always be compromised. The challenge now for the women's groups is find other strategies in integrating women's rights in human rights rather than just focusing on getting our concerns written in the final text of the institution-building for the UN Human Rights Council.

Related articles:
“Civil society pushes for greater NGO participation, gender integration in UN Human Rights Council” in we! July 2007, No.1 
“UN Human Rights Council urged to integrate gender in agenda” in we! June 2007, No. 1