Electing Saudi-Arabia to the UN Commission on the Status of Women is not a bad idea

You read about the references to The Onion, saw the outraged tweets and global disbelief as Saudi Arabia was elected into the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

‘Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief. It’s absurd.’ Hillel Neuer, director of UN Watch is quoted by The Independent.

But as justified as critique of Saudi-Arabia is, it is important to look beyond the headlines and re-affirm a few core working principles of the UN system (some of which you can and should be critical about-but that’s another blog post, perhaps).

Saudi-Arabia is a normal member state of the UN
Saudi-Arabia is a regular member state of the UN. The UN system does not judge, there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ members-there are just members. According to the international justice system Saudi-Arabia has not been found guilty of any crimes or wrongdoings-no matter how questionable its engagement in Yemen is. Diplomatically speaking, there is no difference between Sweden, Saudi-Arabia and Vanuatu. It is a core principle that keeps the UN working with more than 190 member states. So for the UN bureaucracy there is nothing special about Saudi-Arabia as one of the members of a UN commission that relies on regional representation.

Member states do things, not ‘the UN’
Secondly, it is important to point out that ‘the UN’ did not do anything or appoint anybody. Member states voted-and some voted for Saudi-Arabia. International politics and diplomacy are messy, favors and support are sometimes negotiated behind the scenes, but that is true for many countries or commissions. 
Plenty of states also openly support Saudi-Arabia, for example the UK and the US by supplying arms to them. That is bad-but it is also perfectly legal and the UN is not above the law or in the business of making moral judgements.

Can the work in the commission enhance accountability?
Third, it is worth having a look at the actual work of the commission and how Saudi-Arabia as a member might fit into it: 
Under its current methods of work, (...) at each session the Commission:
Holds a ministerial segment to reaffirm and strengthen political commitment to the realization of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls as well as their human rights and to ensure high-level engagement and the visibility of the deliberations of the Commission;
Engages in general discussion on the status of gender equality (…)
(…)
Addresses emerging issues, trends, focus areas and new approaches to questions affecting the situation of women, that require timely consideration;
Plays a catalytic role for gender mainstreaming in the United Nations system
(…)
Agrees on further actions for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women by adopting agreed conclusions and resolutions
As powerless as the commission may be in real terms, it does typical UN things-diplomacy, meetings, highlighting issues; why is it a bad thing to have Saudi-Arabia involved in these activities? How would excluding the country, including public shaming, help the commission and ultimately women in the country? The UN believes in incremental change and there are small signs that women’s rights are improving.
In theory, working in such a commission involves issues of transparency and accountability, yes, soft politics, non-binding targets and the occasional lofty speech.
Including a country like Saudi-Arabia in these dynamics is still not a bad idea-the UN system usually does not do punishment and believes that communication and cooperation are important aspects of how global governance works-with all its flaws and limitations.

So just to be clear: There are many things you can and should be critical about when it comes to Saudi-Arabia – but electing them as a member to the Commission on the Status of Women is actually the right thing to do within the context of UN diplomacy.
Other members should put pressure on Saudi-Arabia-especially behind the scenes, but the UN is not the right scapegoat for messy international relations and hypocritical relationships that include money, oil and weapons…

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should I consider a PhD in International Development Studies?

After the Economist’s piece on the (non-)value of doing a PhD and some comments later (e.g. Prometheus doesn't read the Economist (I like the slightly cynical dichotomy between ‘civilians’ and the ‘academic insiders) or the ' 100 Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School ' (they are only halfway through so check it out regularly in the future...) I had an interesting conversation with a prospective PhD student a few days ago. This was not the first time that I had been approached about doing a PhD and I always try to be as frank as possible, even playing the ‘devil’s advocate’ when it comes to the complicated ‘should I or shouldn’t I?’ decision-making process. At the end of our conversation I sat down and tried to summarize a few important and generic points from the point of view of doing a PhD in Development Studies and in the UK . I understand that every case is different and involves a range of motives, options and rationales, but there a few important questions and t
Read more

John Marsh: Why Education Is Not an Economic Panacea-insights for development?

John Marsh just published an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on ' Why Education is not an Economic Panacea '. The article is long and a bit confusing to read. It is based on the author's experience in an education project for poor members of the community: The idea was simple. Faculty from the University of Illinois would offer night classes in their areas of expertise [...] for anyone in the community who was between the ages of 18 and 45 and lived at 150 percent of the poverty level of income or lower. [...] Students who completed the nine-month course would receive six hours of college credit, which they could then transfer to other institutions of higher learning. Everything would be free: tuition, books, even child care at a nearby community center. We named it after a similar program in Chicago, the Odyssey Project. In short, the programme was based on the well-known dicussion that  education pays, and pays more than ever. If so, it
Read more

Dear white middle class British women: Please don't send used bras (or anything, really) to Africa

Image
I am supposed to be on my summer blogging break , but the world of bad development does not seem to take a vacation... The first time I came across the #SWEDOW (Stuff We Don't Want) debate about what to do with unwanted stuff and whether to send it to 'Africa' was in 2010; in fact, I wrote about a shoe donation project on the blog in 2012. Fast forward to July 2019 and a local British Women's Institute Facebook page with about 500 page likes is posting a picture of two innocent-looking parcels that has been shared very widely. The vast majority of the 500+ comments under the post are positive and I am sure that both charities will receive quite a few parcels in the next few days. It seems almost futile and pointing out bad examples of charity and development is not always the best way to communicate, but I anonymize the post as much as possible to avoid simply shaming a particular Women's Institute chapter. 'Rapey men here are the same as rapey men t
Read more

What if MrBeast really is one of the futures of philanthropy-and what does that mean for communicating development?

Image
“ I feel good seeing myself dancing after receiving the money. It makes me appreciate the moment my life changed and reminds me of when I was able to send my son to school .” (Resident of Nakapiripirit, Uganda) “ It might seem strange to carp over a few good deeds filmed for YouTube clicks. After all, even if this Gen Z mode of philanthropy is brash and narcissistic, some lives are being changed for the better. Yet at the same time, Donaldson is exploiting less fortunate people’s problems to shape his image of decency, while reinforcing the aid illusion that has blown so much money and achieved so little over the past half century .” (Ian Birrell, UnHerd ) “ As people have noted, if you watch the video in total isolation, it's maybe not that bad? Mr Beast is good at this. And he's not obviously mocking or manipulating these people. Then again, the TV commentators in the Hunger Games fawned over Katniss. That wasn't the issue .” (Justin Sandefur, Center for Global Developmen
Read more

Handbook on Humanitarianism and Inequality - Chapter 04 - Humanitarianism and the new wars: humanitarianism, security, and securitisation

Image
Every two weeks I am going to feature one of the chapters of our Handbook on Humanitarianism and Inequality which was published in spring 2024. This week we are taking a closer look at Chapter 04 - Humanitarianism and the new wars: humanitarianism, security, and securitisation - contributed by Michael Magcamit and Anastassiya Mahon. From the introduction This chapter demonstrates and probes the idea of ‘humanitarian securitisation’ propelled by humanitarianism amidst the emergence of new wars linked to inequality. Humanitarian securitisation is defined here as the process of securitising the humanitarian crises brought about by the new wars – specifically, internal conflicts and terrorism – to justify the use and implementation of humanitarian intervention in the target states. As the foremost authority on ‘new wars’, Mary Kaldor ( 2016: 147 ), describes these phenomena as the ‘combination of political violence, organised crime and massive violations of human rights’ happening in di
Read more