First Prepcom for Copenhagen+5 Ends in Stalemate at UN Headquarters

By Austin Ruse

     (NEW YORK – C-FAM)   UN diplomats are increasingly concerned about a developing trend in UN conferences, that is, stalemate. Last Friday, the first preparatory committee meeting of a five year review of the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995), ended without agreement on any of the language proposed for the new document. This is especially alarming coming so early in what will be a year-long process, and because UN observers consider the so-called Social Summit among the least controversial of the many UN world conferences convened in the last five years.

     UN Member States met five years ago in Copenhagen and agreed to ten general commitments, most relating to economics and poverty. Although mentioned in the Copenhagen Programme of Action, "reproductive health" did not take center stage as it does in many UN conferences. And, although there was a debate over the definition of the family, it was not as vociferous as the same debate at other conferences. Compared to other conferences, Copenhagen was a "walk in the park" according to a senior negotiator from an important pro-family delegation.

     More than anything else, the bottom line at Copenhagen was money. Five years ago "donor nations" from the industrialized west committed themselves to the "20-20 Initiative" in which they would commit 20% of Gross National Product to Overseas Development Assistance. With the possible exception of some of the Nordic countries, no country has reached this goal. This fault line between rich and poor exposed itself last week when this first prepcom ended at 4:30 Saturday morning with no agreed upon document at all.  

     A breakdown came with a call for "impact statements" related to economic sanctions. Economic sanctions have been used by the US in recent years against Libya, Iraq and South Africa. Many claim the impact of these sanctions does not have the desired impact of weakening governments, rather they have harmed civilian populations. The US and the EU refused to agree to this initiative.

     The real breakdown came with the call for free trade and open markets. This is a priority of the developing world and one looked upon generally favorably by the west. In this instance, however, the US and EU flatly refused to negotiate on this point. Experienced diplomats contend this flat refusal signals a change from diplomatic tradition in which governments are at least open to talking, or to making specific "reservations" at the end of a document. Simply refusing to negotiate is rare.

     What this means for various pro-life and pro-family positions at UN conferences remains unclear. This position could easily be used by G-77 negotiators when "reproductive rights" language comes up in the ongoing Cairo+5 negotiations. Or this tactic could be used against pro-life and pro-family initiatives. For now, Copenhagen+5, like Cairo+5, is stalled. Diplomats on all sides are concerned whether positions of the G-77, the US and the EU are calcified beyond repair.  

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter