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.
No comments:
Post a Comment