How the Geneva Consensus Declaration Defines International Cooperation and Development – Global Issues

• An idea by Stephanie Musho (new York)
• Monday, September 30, 2024
• Inter Press Service

This is despite ongoing and growing threats to sexual and reproductive health and rights that expose approximately 43% of women worldwide, who do not have the autonomy to choose their sexual and reproductive health, which puts their lives at risk and jeopardizes their chances of living fully. possible.

Consider that the Convention, which has more than 56 operative points, has only one provision on sexual and reproductive health. The two suffixes are silent on this theme. Although the three texts must be considered in conjunction, and therefore all inclusive, thematic areas such as climate and conflict are widely covered in all three texts – and in some cases, repeated.

While the ongoing threats of climate and conflict are certainly important, lax progress on some goals and the reduction of others will ultimately lead to the failure of our collective human and planetary goals.

Shockingly, more than 30 countries, all of which accepted the Convention – and thereby committed themselves to ensuring reproductive health, signed the Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD). This is a reverse anti-abortion declaration created by anti-sex activist Valerie Huber, former adviser to former US President Donald Trump at the US Department of Health and Human Services, who mistakenly stated that there is no international right to abortion.

However, this right is expressly provided for in international legal systems including UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); as well as Protocol of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa – commonly referred to as the Maputo Protocol.

In addition, the right to abortion has been determined by international human rights processes including the UN Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Furthermore, the Geneva Consensus Declaration, encourages countries to hide under the principle of sovereignty in order to ‘release’ countries from their obligations under international law.

This position of opinion is contrary to the principle of the Future Agreement which aims to restore mutual trust between nations and promote international cooperation. We already know that subscribing to the realist school of thought has led to some of the worst problems in the world including the biggest wars in history and the raging wars across Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and beyond.

Therefore the Geneva Consensus Declaration in furthering this position is undermining the progress made under international relations in terms of peace and development.

However, a country like Kenya maintains its signature on the Declaration – which violates its national laws. The Constitution provides for the right to a high attainable standard of reproductive health. In addition, there are provisions in place that guarantee access to safe abortion in certain circumstances.

This is emphasized by the case law, especially in the decision on Constitutional Petition E009 of 2020which firmly affirmed that abortion care is a fundamental right under the Constitution of Kenya and prohibited the arbitrary arrest and prosecution of patients and health providers for seeking or providing such services.

Kenya should therefore withdraw its signature on this document which violates national and international laws and conflicts with its foreign policy positions.

Although the GCD is not legally binding, it can be the basis for how future practices develop. In fact, Valerie Huber at the Center for Women’s Health introduced a method called Protego to implement the Declaration. Additionally, she participated in campaigns directed at the First Ladies of African countries in an effort to ensure their countries’ political commitment to the Declaration.

As a result, Chad and Burundi recently signed on; expand its reach. So there must be a challenge to stop it from being the main basis for incorporating anti-abortion views into international law.

After the Future Summit and on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, governments and charities committed $350 million in new investment in sexual and reproductive health services. While this is acceptable in obtaining these rights, it does not cover the financial gap for SRHR.

This space also includes critical funding needs to mitigate the threats of a well-resourced and coordinated anti-gender/anti-rights movement that misrepresents family values ​​to undermine human rights. In addition, it is important that commitments are converted into a real payment that benefits the intended recipients.

As gears shift in the negotiation and adoption of the Future Treaty, countries must withdraw their signatures from this Declaration and align their foreign policy stances with their domestic and international legal obligations.

In addition, together with charities, public organizations and private companies through IMPACT coalitions – designed to drive changes and proposals in the Conference on the Future and after that the process of implementation of the Convention, should be considered the negative impact of the anti-gender / anti -rights movement in advancing the development agenda; and develop strategies to reduce their footprint. This should include a global withdrawal from GCD. Until then, women and girls – especially in low and middle income countries, will continue to die preventable deaths every year, due to complications caused by unsafe abortions.

Stephanie Musho is a human rights lawyer and Senior New Voices Fellow at the Aspen Institute

© Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service