The CSW informals took a slightly unexpected turn today. The US, and others, left room yesterday for additional comments; and the US said they did not have full instructions yet. Well, today the US came armed and ready.

First of all, some okay amendments were suggested and agreed:

4. Welcome the progress made thus far towards achieving gender equality, stress that challenges [add: and obstacles]. (agreed)

Paragraph 4 was also moved up and is now paragraph 2; the others have been moved down. (agreed)

Another, unidentified delegation who was not present at the informals this afternoon, asked for some changes to the old paragraph 3 (now 4), as follows:

Recognize that [delete: implementation of] the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women are [delete: mutually reinforcing in] [add: important instruments for] achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women.

The bureau was, rightly, not happy with this change. Apparently the amendment was suggested in principle by the delegation, because they had a problem linking a political declaration, which is not legally binding, with a legally binding treaty in this way. They said they didn't really have an issue with it for Beijing and CEDAW, but might do so were it to be done with other agreements and treaties. SO, the Bureau suggested instead:

Recognize that implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and [add: the fulfillment of the obligations of] the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women are mutually reinforcing in achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women.

In this way, they argued that it is the implementation and fulfillment (outcomes) that are linked, rather than the documents themselves. There was no discussion on this point and it was not agreed. But states were asked to consider it.

Then came the really substantive changes.

1. The US suggested an amendment to the first operative paragraph of the declaration, which reaffirms Beijing, as follows:

1. Reaffirm the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly [US: while reaffirming that they do not create any new international rights and a right to abortion.]

In the old paragraph 2 (now 3), they requested that the words "and outcome of" be deleted.

US ECOSOC Ambassador Siv came to the informals and read a prepared position statement on these changes. This signals two things to me: first of all, that they are serious about it; secondly that they are unlikely to back down without a fight.

In the statement, the US basically said.

• They appreciate efforts to develop a straightforward text.
• They are committed to a successful celebration of Beijing and want the 49th Commission on the Status of Women to be successful.
• BUT they have serious concerns about the draft.
• First, they wanted to clarify their position about reproductive health and rights; they are the largest donor in the area of reproductive health and supplies and contributed 500 million in 2004 for family planning and maternal health activities. They support voluntary reproductive health care as an important component of health care, but they do not support abortion financially in their foreign aid or morally.
• They recognize the ICPD principle that abortion laws and policies should be left up to national sovereignty
• BUT there have been efforts to distort UN language to support a right abortion
• During ICPD they realised that there is international consensus that terms such as reproductive health and reproductive rights do not include abortion
• BUT recent acts by the Human Rights Committee are interfering in sovereign states' position on abortion and then they specifically mentioned the concluding observations the committee made to Poland last year
• They stated that this effectively reinterprets prior agreements on abortion. They then read their proposed changes to the text
• On the request to delete the reference to the outcome of the high-level meeting, they said it is not appropriate for the CSW to talk about or make recommendations for the outcome of the meeting, however they feel it is appropriate for the CSW to talk about including a gender perspective in the preparations for the meeting.

THEN The Holy See spoke. They asked for a reference to the full report of the Fourth World Conference on Women and the 23rd Special Session, so as to include a reference to the reservations made by "many member states of the United Nations." They also said that they support the US position because it is clear and more faithful to what the UN propones.

There was no discussion of either the Holy See or US amendments and no agreements on these. The Bureau is giving delegations until 10am tomorrow morning to get them comments in writing on these amendments. They will then convene informals again at 12:00pm to discuss.

The sense in the room was that no other delegations would support this. The EU will submit their opposition in writing. Islamic countries won't submit something in writing but will support the EU. I am not sure about others. NZ and Canada I expect will also oppose; unfortunately to my great personal disappointment, Australia's not so clear-cut because of the national debate on abortion right now-the mission is waiting for instructions before stating a position on this.

Poland was very angry that the US invoked their name in their statement. The Polish delegate went up to them afterwards, told them it was inappropriate, and that it implied they had Poland's support. He also said that Poland fully supports the EU position.

We do know that if the US doesn't back down, the EU and many others are planning to bring in substantive amendments of their own to "strengthen" the text. Basically, it will break down into a free for all.

So, the battle lines have been drawn.