THE FIGHT FOR LIFE FIVE YEARS AFTER CAIRO

By Jeanne E. Head, RN

In 1994 a coalition of pro-life forces pulled off an amazing upset when it derailed the determined effort by the Clinton-Gore Administration and its pro-abortion allies at the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) to enshrine abortion as a worldwide "fundamental right." Undeterred, pro-abortion forces such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) have used subsequent UN conferences to attempt to win what they lost at Cairo.

Beyond new conferences, however, they also have an additional opportunity to revisit the abortion issue. The process of reviewing these conferences has been accelerated. Each major UN conference is the subject of a partial review every year. And, contrary to the previous practice of revisiting major conferences every ten years, each conference is now subject to a five-year review to assess and plan future actions for implementation. This takes place at a Special Session of the UN General Assembly called for that purpose.

The Cairo Conference review process (dubbed Cairo +5) began in earnest this past March with informal preparatory meetings conducted under the auspices of the UN Commission on Population and Development. The UNFPA acted as the secretariat under the direct control of its executive director Nafis Sadik. The proceedings were so contentious they required many late night sessions: three extra days in May, plus four extra days in June just prior to the special session of the General Assembly June 30-July 2.

In its mandate to review the Cairo "Programme of Action," the General Assembly specifically stated that the Cairo document was not to be renegotiated. However, many of the developed countries - particularly the U.S. (the Clinton-Gore Administration), the European Union, Canada, and Norway-did not hesitate to attempt to reinterpret the document to advance their deadly agenda.

Valiantly opposing them has been a coalition of pro-life/pro-family developing countries, particularly Muslim and Latin American nations, with the help of the Vatican and assisted by our pro-life/pro-family lobbyists from throughout the world representing Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) such as International Right To Life Federation (IRLF), Brigham Young Law School's NGO Family Voice, and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. With the financial support of NRLC, I have served as the IRLF representative to the UN since 1987 and for all the major UN Conferences since 1994.

Negotiations were often stalled for hours when issues related to abortion, reproductive health and rights, and parental rights were discussed. As usual, these most controversial subjects were left to last and to the latest of hours.

At Cairo +5 the developing countries found themselves forced to fight to retain Cairo language that had enabled them, albeit with numerous reservations and interpretive statements significantly qualifying their agreement, to join this so-called consensus. This consensus had been achieved by balancing respect for religion, culture, and family with the desire in the West to promote population control with the understanding that the emphasis would be on development and that goals would be achieved without coercion.

Cairo+5 reaffirmed the Cairo Programme of Action with crucial references to national sovereignty, respect for religious, ethical and cultural values; reference to a statement that it created no new human rights; recognition of countries' reservations; and reiteration of language stating that in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.

However, during negotiations on the document outlining "Key Future Actions" for the implementation of Cairo, the Clinton-Gore Administration and its Western developed country allies succeeded in disrupting the delicate balance achieved in Cairo. In the end, the Cairo Programme of Action was seriously eroded. Repeatedly violating the General Assembly mandate not to renegotiate the document, they eroded the agreements achieved in Cairo while vigorously denying that they were so doing.

Abuses in the process were so blatant that even the chairman of the main committee of the original Cairo Conference, Fred Sai (past president of IPPF), expressed displeasure with the way things were going. He was quoted in the July 2, 1999 Earth Times (which is very unfriendly to our views), as saying, "If this five-year review has evolved as a revision, it is the wrong way to go about things." He added that it is also inappropriate to force a consensus on certain issues like adolescent sexuality and abortion, when religious and cultural values vary so much across national boundaries.

The final document contains language that could be interpreted to deny parental rights in relation to their minor children as young as ten in such sensitive areas as sexual and reproductive health rights, education and services; opens the door for the possibility of interpreting the right to abortion as a fundamental human right, thus making it possible to bypass national sovereignty; "and where abortion is not against the law," states that there should be access to health services and training and equipping of health service providers without any language protecting their rights of conscience.

The latter language regarding abortion access and training, which was initially introduced by the U.S., is a distinct departure from Cairo which focused on decreasing "the need for abortion," not increasing access. The U.S. also did not support language protecting the rights of conscience.

On the other hand, some dangerous language introduced by the U.S. delegation that could have threatened laws against abortion was rejected.

In the 1994 Cairo document every mention of adolescents was balanced with a mention of the rights of parents. Early drafts of the Cairo +5 document had only two explicit references to parental rights. The U.S. delegation with the support of its Western allies fought to delete them both.

Reports of this led to a letter sent to all UN Ambassadors by 34 U.S. Congressmen-including Chris Smith, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Henry Hyde, and J.C. Watts - - condemning the Clinton Administration's position on parents rights. The letter said ". . . we are increasingly concerned to discover that many delegations negotiating the document under consideration at Cairo +5 are attempting to remove parental rights, especially in reference to adolescent sexuality. We are particularly dismayed that this effort seems to be supported by some employees of the U.S. State Department."

The letter created quite a stir when it was delivered as well to the delegates on the conference floor by pro-life/pro-family NGOs. It appeared to have an effect. Parental rights made it into one paragraph and "parental guidance" made it into another.

The most dangerous language which clearly goes beyond Cairo is "where abortion is not against the law, health systems should train and equip health service providers and take measures to seek to ensure that abortion is safe and accessible" - - without protection of the rights of conscience.

The delegate from Libya made a strong appeal for the inclusion of the rights of conscience to protect in particular the hundreds of thousands of Catholic health care providers throughout the world. He said that if he were a physician he would turn in his license or go to prison rather than do an abortion.

The courage and strength of the developing countries has been increasing throughout these conferences. Since they represent the majority, they are very powerful when they stick together.

Early on, there was a concerted effort by various parties to keep the pro-life group of nations from sticking together and reaching consensus. Unfortunately, although the Muslim countries and the strongly pro-life Latin American countries valiantly resisted this assault, some of the Latin American, Caribbean, and Central African countries did not. These partially successful attempts to divide what is known as the G77 were so bad and so unprecedented that one of the delegates felt compelled to speak about it during one of the final sessions.

The July 1-15 issue of The Earth Times published during these special conferences, quotes from the newsletter of our most effective and prominent opposition-the Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) founded by the late Bella Abzug: "Some 100 representatives from ultra-conservative and anti-choice organizations made their presence felt."

Unflattering and untrue descriptions aside, it is certainly true that we were better prepared and more organized than ever. We even published a daily newspaper called Vivant in March and May.

However, with the UNFPA, and its seemingly unlimited resources, running the show and 40 members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation sitting in country delegations, it was hardly a level playing field. We were also subjected to discriminatory and abusive treatment throughout by those who pride themselves on defending human rights.

During the crucial March preparatory meetings, only the pro-abortion non-governmental organizations were allowed to speak. The pro-life/pro-family country delegates were subjected to unprecedented demonstrations and ridicule. The so-called "Catholics for A Free Choice" was allowed to distribute literature against the Vatican, calling for its ouster from the U.N.

Had we done anything comparable, we would have been severely reprimanded and possibly thrown out. The situation became so bad, that several of our allies were compelled to vociferously object and demanded fair and equitable treatment for us.

As a result, we were treated more fairly in the final sessions of the conference, but by this time we could have very little impact on the document. I was allowed to speak before the General Assembly the last night along with the president of IPPF and a representative of a radical feminist group called DAWN.

But the battle goes on. The preparations for next year's five-year review of the Copenhagen Social Summit and the Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women have already begun. I look forward to the day that I can be part of the UN process under a pro-life President. If only we can successfully hold off the forces of the "culture of death" until that day.

Jeanne E. Head, R.N. is the delegate to the NRLC board of directors from New York. She is a member of the New York State Right to Life Committee and NRLC Executive Committees and serves as the United Nations Representative for the International Right To Life Federation. She has been one of the chief pro-life lobbyists at the UN.