Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Very interesting. And how do we put this into action? What does this look like on the field when
we're talking about social transformation?
Well, it is interesting because
one of the outcomes the discussions have been that many
people who are involved let's say in development,
even academia,
particularly in development --
I, myself included, who has in the past looked
for outcomes
but for project, you know.
So we're doing this thing now but where is it going? What is going to be
the outcome? What's the project?
What are the indicators of success, and so on?
I think one of the interesting things that we are learning it's process
driven.
That by being involved in this discussion
it enables us to question more profoundly
the construct of the society
and the words being used and how we define them.
And because that, it makes us question our contribution and what we do. So we find then,
that even when we are discussing with people
in whatever setup,
in whatever situation
we are using language differently. We are changing the language we use. And,
also, it inspires us to do things. It inspire us to work with others, to collaborate
in all sorts of different projects and exactly the same question came up today
in that meeting we had this morning, in a small group, we had this discussion
one of the ladies from Nepal was saying: Okay, were are you going now? What is happening with this?
What is the project? So we say, well, actually,
the outcome is whatever
happens as a result of the people who are here.
The lady from Malaysia was saying, well you know,
we have a discussion here. I'm going to the learning from this table and
I'm going to take it back to Malaysia. And maybe a comment you said that you thought was just, you know,
insignificant
might have a profound effect
upon somebody else's understanding there
that might even be a change a policy.
And so I think it's
an interesting shift in our understanding
of how change comes because we know
actually --
in fact, there is a lot of research on this --
real change, this comes from big companies and corporations, comes from
the interaction people have in at the coffee area
and in the corridor. It's because it's the person-to-person conversations
that change
the actions that people take.
So I think that
is where the change takes place
and also because most of us here are the type of people who do stuff,
we want to see change so it will inspired us, kind of.
Events we organize, the kind of seminars we do, the kind of projects we support,
how we interact with government agencies to make
new projects work
at the grassroots, and so forth.
I think that is what will make a difference.
Great. Anything else you would like to share with us?
Well, you know, where do you begin?
I think one of the interesting things about CSW, also, is that it
is kind of a
way of looking at how global governance is changing
because the role of civil society and structures, such as the UN,
are shifting.
And they have been shifting since 2000 and the Millennium Summit.
Which was the first time that
it appears that UN
agencies really recognized the input of civil society.
They have things like UN Security Council Resolution 1325,
which again was highly motivated by the input of civil society agencies.
And then there is this whole family of
Security Council resolutions related to that, 1820, 1888,
1889, which move 1825 onwards and
they incrementally
improve
the gains of 1325.
And that is all being pushed by civil society.
And I think now you see that states parties
more and more of them are recognizing the importance of civil society,
although what you see at CSW is also
that some states parties are fighting against it.
They want to prevent
civil society from being
involved as much as
civil society probably thinks it should be.
And there is a tension. CSW, this year, because of the
renovation of the UN
the lack of space at
Church Center,
and so forth,
has meant that there is an amazing amount of frustration among the NGO
delegates, who come from all over the world, it's the largest commission
there's 8000
people registered, 3000 people turn up
and they don't know where to go, they get in queue for tickets and it's full up.
And, you know,
there is a lot of
frustration.
So I think what it's doing is it's really bringing to the fore
some of the
underlying
challenges that face the UN system.
And it may well
do well
for both the NGO,
departments of the UN and state sponsors to
question
where is this leading us? What are our learnings from this? And how can we move forward?
That's interesting and
another area that we also need to look at is
why are gender issues siloed into CSW?
Because there's a lot of work that goes on the most years that go into
influencing the outcome document.
And then you have
argue text and lobby negotiated text is there
and how is that translated into other UN processes? So either the Monterey process
for development or
information society, or population, or whatever. All these other UN
processes that go on.
How could you take the language that is already negotiated in the gender context and
put it into these other processes? And that hasn't happened so much
NGOs need to work on that
and that's one of the reasons why
we try to work with ADVANCE to ensure
that there are
trained people
who can understand what is about the gender
all the international instruments relating to women and girls.
Who can also influence the UN processes
and all these other processes.
That's something else the CSW is looking at and I think women's
organizations are looking at are
how to make sure that
all the UN processes are engendered.
And we'll see what happens to the new
gender entity.
And that's something else that there's a lot discussion about here because we hope that
by, certainly by the end of CSW, by the end of the GA,
that that new gender entity will be in place.
And I think that is something everyone is lobbying for, working for, hoping for,
and is going to be praying for.
Wonderful. Thank you so much for talking with us. It's a pleasure.