As noted in my last post on human rights gate-keeping, intactivists have had little success pitching their concern to the United Nations. But as newcomers to the human rights arena, they have also have problems accessing the UN. Limited funding has made it difficult to maintain a presence in New York or to travel to Geneva for conferences. And while NOCIRC was able to achieve ECOSOC consultative status, they have only the most limited "roster" status which entitles them only to make themselves available to the UN when asked on specific technical issues.
Intactivists I've spoken with are also skeptical that those in UN circles could be their ally and often do not distinguish between different UN bodies. They point to the permissive context created by the WHO's arguments about circumcision and HIV-AIDS, as well as what they perceive to be a generally anti-male discourse among UN experts on gender-based violence, which has typically excluded forms of violence that target men and boys.
Nonetheless it seems that there are some UN bodies that would be particularly useful as allies if intactivists could cultivate relations with them. These include UNICEF, which takes a broad view of children's rights and has an influential voice in the global child rights network. Attention to this issue percolating through UNICEF would reach WHO and may influence their approach to this issue as well, given their emphasis on rights-based work in recent years. In addition, intactivists should stay abreast of and seek to influence documents pertaining to violence against children that circulate within the UN system.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Intactivism and Human Rights Gatekeeping
To what extent have intactivists sought to "pitch" their ideas to the human rights mainstream? This question needs to be unpacked somewhat. Clifford Bob defines gatekeepers as both powerful UN agencies and NGOs at the center of networks and also human rights intellectuals.
Arguably, however, there are also core and peripheral actors among human rights intellectuals. A better way to think of "intellectuals" as gatekeepers is to look not at individuals but at information hubs on human rights such as scholarly journals or websites. Two important ones are Human Rights Quarterlyand Journal of Human Rights; and scholarly associations such as the International Studies Association's Human Rights Section. One observation about the anti-circumcision network is that they seem to have made relatively little effort to use such outlets as a platform for promoting their analyses of the human rights implications of circumcision. Rather, the movement organizes its own scholarly symposiums and produces conference proceedings in which they retain copyright to papers published. By collecting papers and then preventing activists from publishing them elsewhere, the movement has inhibited mainstreaming of its cause throughout the human rights movement.
The movement has sought to engage both the UN and human rights NGOs over the years. In particular, Steven Swoboda of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child and a colleague attempted to push the issue both through Americas Watch (which later became Human Rights Watch) and Amnesty International. According to Swoboda, presentations were made at both the national and regional Amnesty chapters in the US in the 1990s, and a letter was also sent to the Amnesty secretariat in London. In each case the organizations were largely dismissive, citing limited resources and issue priorities.
Similarly, Swoboda traveled to Geneva in 2001 as a NOCIRC representative (ARC did not have consultative status at the UN) to make a presentation to the UN Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Their written statement to this body is, to my knowledge, the only official UN document on record affirming the male child's right to bodily integrity. Some countries were more sympathetic than others, particularly Sweden; but ultimately no reference to the issue was made in documents coming out of the Subcommission.
Intactivists have had a particularly difficult time linking this issue to the parallel work being done with respect to female genital mutilation. When they approached the Special Representative to the UN on Harmful Practices Affecting Children and Women, for example, they were told specifically that this only dealt with harms affecting women and the female child. (Their written statement to the UN Subcommission in part requested that this mandate be reconsidered.) I was told that many FGM groups were hesitant to join the coalition, although in recent years this appears to be changing, partly as a result of an ongoing dialogue between the groups.
In general, the dismissiveness from the human rights mainstream reported to me by intactivists is similar to the response I received when raising this issue in focus groups of human security practitioners. Such practitioners invoked parental rights, cultural rights, religious rights, and state sovereignty to justify inattention to the issue; they dismissed it as a low-priority concern; they objected to comparisons with FGM and worried that attention to male circumcision would divert attention away from FGM; or they cited health benefits of circumcision and compared it to vaccination. A few laughed outright. Today, as Debra DeLaet details in this paper, the issue remains largely taboo within the human rights community.
Arguably, however, there are also core and peripheral actors among human rights intellectuals. A better way to think of "intellectuals" as gatekeepers is to look not at individuals but at information hubs on human rights such as scholarly journals or websites. Two important ones are Human Rights Quarterlyand Journal of Human Rights; and scholarly associations such as the International Studies Association's Human Rights Section. One observation about the anti-circumcision network is that they seem to have made relatively little effort to use such outlets as a platform for promoting their analyses of the human rights implications of circumcision. Rather, the movement organizes its own scholarly symposiums and produces conference proceedings in which they retain copyright to papers published. By collecting papers and then preventing activists from publishing them elsewhere, the movement has inhibited mainstreaming of its cause throughout the human rights movement.
The movement has sought to engage both the UN and human rights NGOs over the years. In particular, Steven Swoboda of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child and a colleague attempted to push the issue both through Americas Watch (which later became Human Rights Watch) and Amnesty International. According to Swoboda, presentations were made at both the national and regional Amnesty chapters in the US in the 1990s, and a letter was also sent to the Amnesty secretariat in London. In each case the organizations were largely dismissive, citing limited resources and issue priorities.
Similarly, Swoboda traveled to Geneva in 2001 as a NOCIRC representative (ARC did not have consultative status at the UN) to make a presentation to the UN Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Their written statement to this body is, to my knowledge, the only official UN document on record affirming the male child's right to bodily integrity. Some countries were more sympathetic than others, particularly Sweden; but ultimately no reference to the issue was made in documents coming out of the Subcommission.
Intactivists have had a particularly difficult time linking this issue to the parallel work being done with respect to female genital mutilation. When they approached the Special Representative to the UN on Harmful Practices Affecting Children and Women, for example, they were told specifically that this only dealt with harms affecting women and the female child. (Their written statement to the UN Subcommission in part requested that this mandate be reconsidered.) I was told that many FGM groups were hesitant to join the coalition, although in recent years this appears to be changing, partly as a result of an ongoing dialogue between the groups.
In general, the dismissiveness from the human rights mainstream reported to me by intactivists is similar to the response I received when raising this issue in focus groups of human security practitioners. Such practitioners invoked parental rights, cultural rights, religious rights, and state sovereignty to justify inattention to the issue; they dismissed it as a low-priority concern; they objected to comparisons with FGM and worried that attention to male circumcision would divert attention away from FGM; or they cited health benefits of circumcision and compared it to vaccination. A few laughed outright. Today, as Debra DeLaet details in this paper, the issue remains largely taboo within the human rights community.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Venues and Political Opportunities
At the global level intactivists have had a hard time identifying an appropriate venue for activism or targeting their frame to that venue, and from what I can tell they may have missed some important opportunities in the last few years, though this requires more research.
The appropriate venue would vary considerably depending on the frame chosen. For example, during the period when intactivists were attempting to promote their cause through a health frame, getting support from the World Health Organization would have been optimal. In recent years however WHO has actually come to pose more of an obstacle than a political opportunity for intactivists, as they have promoted the idea of a link between HIV-AIDS reduction and circumcision.
With the human rights frame, NGOs would ideally need to target mainstream human rights organizations and the UN Commission on Human Rights. They have made some efforts to do so unsuccessfully (more on that next week). However other more focused venues have a arisen for which I'm not sure they focused any advocacy. For example, in 2001-2006, the UN Secretary General's Special Representative undertook a series of expert conferences culminating in a report on violence against children. NGOs had significant influence over the types of concerns raised in this report, but intactivists don't seem to have exerted much influence. The final report includes a section on female genital mutilation but not on boys. I need to conduct more research to discover to what extent the anti-circumcision movement aimed to get language into this report. Had they managed to do so it would have been an important agenda-setting opportunity.
At the domestic level the movement has been more targeted as specific venues, seeking to influence American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, and pushing legislation at the state level, including in Massachusetts this year:
The appropriate venue would vary considerably depending on the frame chosen. For example, during the period when intactivists were attempting to promote their cause through a health frame, getting support from the World Health Organization would have been optimal. In recent years however WHO has actually come to pose more of an obstacle than a political opportunity for intactivists, as they have promoted the idea of a link between HIV-AIDS reduction and circumcision.
With the human rights frame, NGOs would ideally need to target mainstream human rights organizations and the UN Commission on Human Rights. They have made some efforts to do so unsuccessfully (more on that next week). However other more focused venues have a arisen for which I'm not sure they focused any advocacy. For example, in 2001-2006, the UN Secretary General's Special Representative undertook a series of expert conferences culminating in a report on violence against children. NGOs had significant influence over the types of concerns raised in this report, but intactivists don't seem to have exerted much influence. The final report includes a section on female genital mutilation but not on boys. I need to conduct more research to discover to what extent the anti-circumcision movement aimed to get language into this report. Had they managed to do so it would have been an important agenda-setting opportunity.
At the domestic level the movement has been more targeted as specific venues, seeking to influence American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, and pushing legislation at the state level, including in Massachusetts this year:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)