How the Geneva Consensus Declaration Threatens International Cooperation and Development

• Opinion by Stephanie Musho (new york)
• Monday, September 30, 2024
• Inter Press Service

This is despite sustained and growing threats on sexual and reproductive health and rights that exposes about 43% of women globally, who lack autonomy to make choices on their sexual and reproductive health, putting their lives at risk and jeopardizing their chances of living to their full potential.

Consider that the Pact, with over 56 action points, only has one provision on sexual and reproductive health. The two annexes are silent on this thematic area. Although the three texts are to be considered jointly, and therefore all encompassing, thematic areas such as climate and conflict are widely provided for across the three texts – and in some cases, repeated.

While the sustained threats of climate and conflict are indeed crucial, the lopsided advancement of some goals and the relegation of others will ultimately result in the non-realization of our collective goals for people and planet.

Alarmingly, over 30 countries, all who adopted the Pact – and therefore committed to securing reproductive health, are signatories to the Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD). This is a regressive anti-abortion declaration that was initiated by anti-gender activist Valerie Huber, former advisor to ex-US President Donald Trump in the US Department of Health and Human Services, who erroneously claimed that there is no international right to abortion.

Even though, this right is explicitly provided for in international legal frameworks including the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa – commonly referred to as the Maputo Protocol.

Additionally, the right to abortion has been determined by international human rights mechanisms 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.

Further, the Geneva Consensus Declaration, encourages countries to hide under the principle of sovereignty to ‘release' countries from their obligations under international law.

This ideological position goes against the thrust of the Pact of the Future that seeks to renew trust in multilateralism and promote international cooperation. We already know that subscription to the realist school of thought has led to some of the world's worst crises including the historical great wars and the raging wars across Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and beyond.

The Geneva Consensus Declaration in advancing this position is therefore an affront to the progress made under international relations towards peace and development.

Even so, a country like Kenya maintains its signature on the Declaration – that contravenes its own national laws. The Constitution provides for the right to the highest attainable standard of reproductive health. Further, there are provisions therein that guarantee access to safe abortion in certain instances.

This has been buttressed by case law, notably in the decision in Constitutional Petition E009 of 2020, which strongly affirmed that abortion care is a fundamental right under the Constitution of Kenya and outlawed arbitrary arrests and prosecution of patients and healthcare providers for seeking or offering such services.

Kenya must therefore rescind its signature on this document that contravenes national and international laws and which conflicts with its foreign policy positions.

While the GCD is not legally binding, it could form the basis of how future norms begin. In fact, Valerie Huber through the Institute for Women's Health has launched a mechanism called Protego to operationalize the Declaration. Additionally, has been engaged in campaigns targeted at the First Ladies of African countries in a bid to secure their countries' political commitments on the Declaration.

Consequently, Chad and Burundi recently signed onto it; expanding its reach. It must therefore be challenged to stop it from becoming the primary basis for encoding anti-abortion ideology into international law.

Following the Summit of the Future and on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, governments and philanthropies committed US$350 million in new investments for sexual and reproductive health services. While this is welcome in securing these rights, it does not cover the financing gap on SRHR.

This vacuum includes crucial funding needs to mitigate the threats of the well-resourced and coordinated anti-gender/ anti-rights movement that misleadingly weaponize family values towards negating human rights. Moreover, it is crucial that the commitments convert to actual disbursements that benefit the intended recipients.

As gears switch from negotiations and adoption of the Pact of the Future, countries must withdraw their signatures on this Declaration and align their foreign policy positions with their domestic and international legal obligations.

More so, together with philanthropies, civil society and private sector through the imPACT coalitions – designed to drive reforms and proposals toward the Summit of the Future and thereafter the implementation process of the Pact, must consider the deleterious impact of the anti-gender / anti-rights movement on advancing the development agenda; and formulate strategies to mitigate their footprint.  These must include the universal withdrawal from the GCD.  Until then, women and girls – more so in low- and middle-income countries, will continue to die preventable deaths annually, from complications arising from unsafe abortions.

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

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

Where next?

Advertisement