UN
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
For Women, Against Women?
12-Nov-2010
Let's get a little more into the purpose of the UN's executive committee for women. Is it an achievement to be on the board of such a committee and by any definition does it show that members of the committee have a better situation in women rights? NO! This is a new UN body that is expected to manage the organization's programs for women around the world.
Headed by former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, the committee is the merger of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues (OSAGI), and the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW).
The fact that Saudi Arabia, Mexico,Norway, Spain, United Kingdom, and US got their seats by contribution to the program assures us that on the other side there is a receiving end. This means that this new organization has a mandate to contribute to member countries to help them advance programs that empower women in their countries. UN-Women website notes:
The new agency was established on 2 July by a unanimous vote of the General Assembly to oversee all of the world body’s programmes aimed at promoting women’s rights and their full participation in global affairs. One of its goals will be to support the Commission on the Status of Women and other inter-governmental bodies in devising policies.
It will also aim to help Member States implement standards, provide technical and financial support to countries which request it, and forge partnerships with civil society. Within the UN, it will hold the world body accountable for its own commitments on gender equality.
In other words, having a representative on that board might mean a better opportunity in getting UN support for women in the country. By no means do I propose that Saudi Arabia should have been denied membership, because instead of seeing this as a zero sum game I see any victory for women at any part of the world as a victory for all women of the world.
If by having a representation the Islamic Republic could have secured a health program, an educational program, a technical empowering program for women of my country I would have cheered for their success. Because after all I believe it is empowered Iranian women that will bring down the Islamic system of apartheid, not the isolation of women of the country.
This notion of seeing isolation as a tool for regime change is not anything new. We saw this when FIFA denied Iranian female young soccer players a place at the world youth Olympics in Singapore because of their outfit, some argued that their government sanctioned outfit is a degrading item, not counting the sad impact on those young players itself who had lived for that dream.
A few years ago known activists constantly demonstrated against a Berlin women's soccer club, which was planning to go to Iran and play the Iranian national team. They were not successful and the German team went to Iran to play the Iranian team and now every one sees their youtube clip and feels satisfied by the joy in the Iranian spectators' faces. They then threatened that if the Iranian female team goes for a game to Germany they will demonstrate naked in the stadium (and we know that they are good at that after the Berlin Conference), eventually causing the cancellation of that return game.
The bottom line is preference of how to have impact on the change, through engagement (China) or through isolation (North Korea). I am not black and white either, and I think we have to look at these cases one by one and take different courses when it comes to the situation of disadvantaged which we have to encourage any attempt in empowering them. With that in mind I DO NOT see this as a victory for the Iranian women, rather I see it an opportunity lost.
Shirin Ebadi before becoming a Laureate told us that she likes to change the situation of Iranian women a case at a time defending women in the courts even by defending their right to ghessass (actively defending capital punishment). Now she sees an Iranian representation at a UN executive committee for women as a joke?
| Recently by Goudarz Eghtedari | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| A lovesick nightingale among owls... | 1 | Jun 29, 2012 |
| My Hero Mo | 1 | Jun 18, 2012 |
هزار روز با اوبامایی که نبود | - | Jan 03, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
RE: US & Europe should be on the committee?
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Nov 14, 2010 09:09 AM PSTAny "violations" there?
No. While there may be minor issuus t anything near Islamic Repbulic or Saudi. There are no women being whipped, stoned; beaten or forced to wear a tent in US or Europe.
US & Europe should be on the committee? Any "violations" there?!
by Anonymouse on Sat Nov 13, 2010 07:30 AM PSTEverything is sacred
A purely political decision
by BabakSabzevari on Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:33 PM PSTGoudarz, you are absolutely correct that the decision to exclude Iran had nothing to do with women's rights. If you look at the 2009 UN's Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) ( //goo.gl/0BfWp ), Iran is ranked better than Saudi Arabia, being 103rd among 109 countries, with Saudi Arabia being 106th (nothing to be proud of, of course). If you look at the categories that go into GEM:
- percentage of "Seats in parliament held by women": Iran's is 3%, Saudi Arabia 0%, as women cannot even vote there!
-- percentage of "Female legislators, senior officials and managers": Iran's is 13%, Saudi Arabia is 10%
-- percentage of "Female professional and technical workers": Iran's is 34%, Saudi Arabia is 29%
-- "Ratio of estimated female to male earned income": Iran's is 0.32, Saudi Arabia is 0.16
-- percentage of "Women in ministerial positions": Iran's is 3%, Saudi Arabia is 0%
Out of all of the above, I think the gender earnings ratio is the most important measure of women's empowerment, and it's shamefully low for Saudi Arabia.
Considering that Saudi Arabia is one of six "Contributing Countries" to UN Women, it could have a lot more (negative) influence in the agency than if Iran was accepted as part of the Asia quota of 10, i.e., as an ordinary, non-contributing member. So, if we accept the premise that the inclusion of a major women's rights abuser in the agency will have a negative impact on the agency's work, then the inclusion of Saudi Arabia is worse for women's rights than the inclusion of Iran would have been. Therefore, the decision to exclude Iran was purely based on power politics.
Unfortunately, it appears that many Iranian women rights activists approached this issue not from a women's rights perspective, but as a means to deliver a blow to the Islamist regime. Their victory might have brought some joy to many, but it is not necessarily a positive development for women's rights.
......
by yolanda on Fri Nov 12, 2010 08:47 PM PSTIf this was a committee for promoting terrorism I would have agreed with the writer of this article.
I personally wouldn't even want these criminals be on any animal rights committee.
LOL!
Thank you! GR!
I could have not said it any better...
by Goudarz Eghtedari on Fri Nov 12, 2010 08:27 PM PST//www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id...
As the article fromThe Jerusalem Post quotes from Susan Rice US Ambassador to UN:
“I am not going to deny that there were several countries that are going to join the board of UN Women that have less than stellar records on women’s rights, and indeed [on] human rights,” Rice
said, but the key issue for the US was Iran’s defeat.
----------------------------------------------
OK, well said, it was not about Iran's Human or Women Rights or Saudi and other countries records in that regards, IT WAS about "Iran's defeat".
Are You Kidding Me?
by G. Rahmanian on Fri Nov 12, 2010 07:01 PM PSTLook! If this was a committee for promoting terrorism I would have agreed with the writer of this article. BUT since the committee is concerned with women's rights I agree with JJ. I personally wouldn't even want these criminals be on any animal rights committee. They already have a seat and look at what they are doing. Imagine if they had two or three or four ! Also how can the writer claim that it would help women's cause in Iran when the representative is chosen by the regime from among their CROWS? Give me a break!
"Promote" reactionary policies? Gain "legitimacy"?
by Anonymouse on Fri Nov 12, 2010 03:07 PM PSTCan we be a little more realistic and give credit to the rest of the world who have NOT adopted ANY of Islamic Republic's gender apartheid policies? Islamic Republic has a "seat" in UN. What has it gained from that "seat"? SANCTIONS! What do you think HE is going to gain in a committee under UN? Think a little harder ;-)
Everything is sacred
.....
by yolanda on Fri Nov 12, 2010 02:54 PM PSTI agree with JJ that:
The Islamic Republic wanted to be on the women's committee to promote its own reactionary policies towards women and gain legitimacy in the international community.
Bottom line is that IRI did not get enough votes.....they received the lowest votes! IRI has image problem......they wanted to stone Sakineh, right? Saudi Arabia got a seat 'cause it is a donor nation.......votes are not required....donor nations get the seats automatically!
What's the difference between having a seat @UN & this committe?
by Anonymouse on Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:27 PM PSTEverything is sacred
Bottom line is
by aynak on Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:14 PM PSTWomen's right must be well spelled out. The issue is the hypocricy, double standards and lack of standards.
The first instance would be law of inheritence. To legislate that men and women should benefit equally, would leave little room for mis-interpretation.
Another instance, the basic right of a woman to choose what she wears. As far as I know there is no mandate to force this as a basic right.
That is where the double standards and hypocricy kicks in. U.N, U.S do not appear to mind backward Saudi's who are far worse reactionary than Islamic Regime, when it comes to womens rights, in fact they have granted them a seat:
//www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id...
As the article states:
“I am not going to deny that there were
several countries that are going to join the board of UN Women that have less
than stellar records on women’s rights, and indeed [on] human rights,” Rice
said, but the key issue for the US was Iran’s defeat.
Unfortunately, as has been the case with Saudi Arabia and Israel, U.S appears to be pushing a double standard which is a deservice to geniune cause of womens rights in specific and human rights in general. By politicizing this issues, (whoever is my friend is immune and whoever is not, is going to pay) U.S is not helping to promote these rights, but serves as obstacle.
============================
In summary:
No! Islamic Regime must not have a seat, but neither should Saudi Arabia. By spelling out the unalienable rights for women, the violators can be easily singled out, let alone give them a seat in these events. This must be done consistently and without political consideration.
I am with Jahanshah, Iran does not belong there
by Anahid Hojjati on Fri Nov 12, 2010 08:57 AM PSTWhat a farce that would be. I am glad that Iran does not have a seat.
Having a seat doesn't mean they can "block" anything.
by Anonymouse on Fri Nov 12, 2010 08:25 AM PSTEverything is sacred
Helping women?
by Jahanshah Javid on Fri Nov 12, 2010 08:21 AM PSTBeing on the committee does not translate into support for women's rights in member states on the committee. Just as being on the UN Human Rights Committee does not mean those countries will have a better human rights record. In fact, they can block anything they don't like.
The Islamic Republic wanted to be on the women's committee to promote its own reactionary policies towards women and gain legitimacy in the international community.
I agree and would support an Iranian UN Women's committee seat
by Anonymouse on Fri Nov 12, 2010 06:37 AM PSTWhile there is gender apartheid in Iran, a seat on the UN commitee for Women would have forced the Islamic Republic to address publicly to the gender apartheid and inequalities that are rampant.
I agree with your article.
Everything is sacred