What Has the UN Done for Women’s Rights?

U nited Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has informed the world that COVID-19 reveals “millennia of patriarchy . . . a male-dominated world with a male-dominated culture which damages everyone.” His comments should do more than raise eyebrows on behalf of men everywhere. They should prompt us to take a serious look at the failed international system, which has proven incapable of bringing about real female equality. What has the UN done for women’s rights?

On October 1st, the UN will commemorate the anniversary of the seminal Fourth World Conference on Women. The 1995 conference held in Beijing catalyzed the international women’s movement with Hillary Clinton’s emblematic statement that, “human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.” This marks 25 years of the UN’s women-centric human-rights focus. And yet for what gain?

Absent in-person festivities, the Beijing commemoration will be part of an unusually subdued 75th session of the UN General Assembly. With heads of state “attending” via pre-recorded statements, and a limit of one government representative at a time, New York will skip the usual hubbub. Any other year, it is the stories of dicey diplomatic run-ins and clogged city streets that dominate UN coverage. This year, let’s shift the focus to human-rights results.

Hillary Clinton recently revisited the topic. Reminiscing on her trip to Beijing as head of the United States’ delegation, she notes that the conference “laid the groundwork for sweeping, necessary changes” in the world of women’s rights. She laments, however, that “the work is nowhere near done.” Clinton rightfully highlights that we have a long way to go — advancing the rights of women and girls is “the great unfinished business of the 21st century.”

Contrary to Clinton’s perspective, what is lacking is not an accelerated implementation of Beijing commitments, but a dramatic reworking of the women’s rights framework that has gotten us nowhere in the last quarter century. The problem extends far beyond negative cultural norms and government disregard for women’s rights. It emanates, in many ways, from the UN itself. The UN’s deeply skewed approach to female empowerment, set in motion at Beijing, bears significant responsibility for our inability to achieve real progress.

The dismal reality is that the UN actively works against women’s rights. Despite the fact that the majority of its human-rights infrastructure is geared toward women (few and far between are references to men at the UN), the population that this inordinate emphasis has hurt the most is in fact women and girls. UN human-rights efforts are dominated by false rights, hijacking the promotion of authentic rights.

This is most apparent in the UN’s stance on abortion. Most UN processes, regardless of topic, reach an inevitable standstill on this issue, resulting in frenetic negotiations and a failure to give due regard to the essential needs of women and girls. Consider the still abysmal rates of maternal mortality. Across the world, it is still not safe for women to have a baby, despite the prominence the UN accords “reproductive health.” The numbers show that, clearly, there is more than the “patriarchy” at fault.

As the meeting place of 193 Member States, it is expected that the UN would provide a platform for many contentious issues. But it is not the case that some countries simply support abortion, while others prohibit it, resulting in a manageable tension. Far beyond this, the UN bureaucracy teams up with like-minded countries to insist that the practice be highlighted in nearly every resolution. The resultant coercive interplay between UN funding and recipient governments requires a significant amount of diplomatic energy, and results in the deprioritization of real human rights.

It is no exaggeration to say that almost every human-rights issue at the UN touches on abortion, and this can be traced back to Beijing. Despite covering a myriad of legitimate issues, the 270-page Beijing document focused myopically on issues relating to “reproductive rights.” After all, much of the impetus for the conference was to proclaim a “human right” to abortion. Despite the failure of this agenda — it is clear that no such right exists in international law — Beijing did forever shift the focus of human rights.

The UN is brazenly committed to changing sovereign laws relating to abortion. In addition to railing against patriarchy, the Secretary General also identified “reproductive health services” (abortion) as the most important part of the international pandemic response. A recent questionnaire from a UN Working Group solicits feedback on best practices that the UN can employ to bypass national laws to promote abortion where illegal. This comes in tandem with UN efforts to force countries to legalize abortion in exchange for coronavirus relief. In response to humanitarian emergencies, it imports illegal services, including abortion kits for dangerous DIY procedures. This leaves women and girls not only no better off, but also much harmed.

One need only look at Yemen — facing imminent countrywide starvation — to understand the cataclysmic implications of the UN approach. UNFPA is currently raising $100 million to reopen “reproductive health service” outfits there, which will no doubt go toward abortion (illegal in Yemen). Meanwhile, the UN has announced an overall funding shortfall of 80 percents of the $2.4 billion designated for Yemen. This is expected to cut off 9 million people from medical care and prevent more than a quarter-million severely malnourished children from receiving assistance.

It is no way wrong to prioritize women and girls, but abortion is not the antidote to humanitarian suffering. If we are to see real progress toward female equality, we cannot stay on the now well-trodden road begun 25 years ago at Beijing. The UN’s current approach is not working. Now is the time to refocus on universally agreed human-rights protections for the good of women and girls everywhere.