The US is the turd in the punch bowl
The UN has backed a resolution on combatting rape in conflict but excluded references in the text to sexual and reproductive health, after vehement opposition from the US.
…
The UK backed the resolution, but expressed regret about the omission on reproductive healthcare. Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, the UK prime minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, said: “We emphasise the need for a survivor-centred approach. Survivor services should cater to all survivors – with no exception.”
But he added: “We deeply regret the language on services for survivors of sexual violence, recognising the acute need for those services to include comprehensive reproductive and separate sexual healthcare.”
The UK, he said, would continue to “support access to sexual and reproductive healthcare for survivors of sexual violence around the world. This is a priority. If we are to have a survivor-centred approach, we cannot ignore this important priority.”
The US has placed its fanatical opposition to abortion above the needs of women who survive rape during wars. The US wants such women to be forced to continue pregnancies forced on them through combat violence.
France and Belgium also expressed disappointment at the watered down text. French permanent representative to the UN Francois Delattre said: “We are dismayed by the fact that one state has demanded the removal of the reference to sexual and reproductive health … going against 25 years of gains for women’s rights in situations of armed conflict.”
…
In a statement published last month, 10 organisations, including the Gunder Werner Institut, UN Women and the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy and the NGO Care, said: “Given the further hardening of antidemocratic and decidedly misogynistic stances in the UN security council, we believe there is a danger of a weak resolution text ultimately being negotiated and adopted.
“Some powerful members of the security council, such as Russia, China and the USA, are undermining women’s rights and once again questioning, for example, women’s and girls’ right to self-determination. Through such actions, the achievements that have already been made could be shattered and the ‘women, peace and security’ agenda overall decisively weakened.”
Nice company we keep.
Is there a consensus required or something? Why not just go ahead with it anyways?
It’s as though the only people in your family that anyone gets to meet are the assholes.