The Disputes in Nairobi: ‘Kiss Consensus Goodby’

NAIROBI, Kenya â€”  “We do not think all is lost. As women we have been patient for a long time. This is our conference, and all of us will endeavor to the last minute to do our best. We want to leave the plenary session with a plan of action to take us successfully into the 21st Century--if this world lasts that long.â€�

Lenore Dorset, the delegate from Trinidad and Tobago, was being bravely optimistic as she uttered what turned out to be the last words before Committee One terminated at 1 p.m. Thursday, its work uncompleted.

The United Nations world conference to review and appraise the achievements of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace ends today.

In its final hours it seems the consensus that was building and that many people had been working hard to reach, would not extend to those most difficult and entrenched areas of dispute.

The plenary session, scheduled to meet Thursday afternoon and Friday, and in a special session Thursday night, must consider and debate numerous resolutions and several controversial matters before adopting the “Forward Looking Strategies,� the plan of action for the years 1986-2000.

Although the United States has proposed from the outset that the plan be adopted by consensus (a unanimous vote) and not by majority vote, it appears that consensus will be most unlikely due in part to positions taken by the United States in Committee One.

This committee had been assigned, among other things, those sections of the draft document of “Forward Looking Strategies� dealing with women and children under apartheid and Palestinian women and children.

As the conference--which began July 15 with 2,100 delegates from 160 nations--progressed, 75 resolutions introduced were also assigned to this committee, among them two resolutions dealing with terrorism (one proposed by the United States, the other by Cuba) and a Pakistani-backed resolution on the plight of the Afghan refugees.

While the committee proceeded to adopt sections of the strategies, paragraph by paragraph, those more controversial sections, as well as new controversial resolutions, were referred to its closed-door negotiating committee.

Originally, the negotiating committee was to have completed its work by 6 p.m. Wednesday, and the committee itself by midnight. When that didn’t happen, they were granted extensions until 1 p.m. Thursday.

As 1 p.m. neared, tension started to mount in the committee room as the delegates, waiting to be interrupted by the negotiating committee, speeded up the reading of resolutions, to get them on record before referring them to the plenary.

In the middle of all the politics, resolutions regarding lactating mothers, Islam-developing countries and rubella shots for girls before puberty were being introduced into the proceedings in an increasingly surreal atmosphere.

Shortly before noon the negotiating committee began straggling in. A group of Soviets, Afghans, Ethiopians and a delegate from SWAPO (the Southwest Africa Peoples’ Organization) whispered among themselves as they made their way to their seats. They were followed by the chief U.S. negotiator, Alan Keyes (ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council) who bounded up the stairs alone, before slowing down to cross the room and converse with Maureen Reagan, leader of the American delegation.

‘Considerable Progress’

Munir Akram of Pakistan, who led the negotiators, reported that they had made “considerable progress,� and had come close to consensus on the entire section concerning apartheid, but had reached no agreement on the reference to sanctions.

As for Palestinian women and children, Akram said, they had entered negotiations with positions that were far apart. However a “comprehensive, compromise text� proposed by one nation Wednesday and amended later that day had encouraged everyone that progress could be made.

“However, this morning,� Akram said, “a certain amendment was offered which considerably diminished our optimism. The sponsor of the compromise withdrew it and reverted back to the original,� he said.

There was no alternative but to refer the matters still pending to the plenary, Cecilia Lopez of Colombia, the presiding officer said, thanking the negotiators for their “titanic effort.�

Once the committee had dispersed, several delegates, all of whom wished to remain unidentified, elaborated on Akram’s remarks.

Egypt, as spokesman for the Group of 77, a group of developing nations, had introduced the compromise text. Keyes, speaking for the United States, had objected to language concerning a Palestinian right to self-determination, mention of Israel in connection with Palestinian oppression, and any reference to Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights or southern Lebanon.

The Group of 77 rejected the U.S. amendments as “not even a serious proposal,� and retaliated by reverting to its harder, strongly anti-Israeli line.

Australian’s Observations

In another conversation, an Australian observer said, the U.S. delegation had been taking a hard line against its allies as well as its adversaries.

He offered as an example their refusal to support a resolution calling for increased regulation over industries depending on piecework done by women at home, even though it was sponsored by a broad spectrum of Western countries. The United States, i.e. Keyes, said it was working for deregulation, not regulation, at home.

“The Americans are saying ‘nyet, nyet, nyet, ‘ right across the board,� the Australian observer said.

“They apparently feel they can bludgeon their friends as well as their enemies and have made a lot of people unhappy. As of this morning you could kiss consensus goodby and sit back and wait for the predictable speeches.�

The observer added that the Soviets had been adopting some hard-line stances earlier in the week, making consensus doubtful from the start.

In the few hours before the plenary convened, people were regrouping and re-guessing.

One possibility, which some hold out hope for, would involve separating out the disputed sections so that the main document could be adopted by consensus.

According to one Israeli observer here, the Israelis, having called Jerusalem for instructions, say they will walk out if an Arab-sponsored resolution condemning Zionism passes.

Some American Jewish women, here representing mainstream Jewish groups such as B’nai B’rith International, Women’s International Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Council, were debating what to do.

Leaning over a coffee table in the lounge area, they debated a walkout from the plenary when the vote on Zionism came. Several of the women who had participated said later that some anticipated a walkout by the American delegation, (although as of then such a plan was unsubstantiated) and discussed a general Jewish walkout with the Americans, similar to the Palestinian walkout when the Israeli delegate had spoken Tuesday.

However, Kaygey Kash of Los Angeles and Betty Shapiro of Washington said, as the afternoon plenary was beginning, that the group remained undecided.

Kash said a walkout would not be due to the Jewish situation only. They were concerned about the general anti-Americanism that had been evident in much of the text of the documents, in many of the resolutions and statements of delegates.

“We want to strengthen our country and lend our support to our delegation,� she said.

Shapiro agreed, but confessed herself torn. She did not want to sit there and be abused, but she said, “I’m not sure you gain that much with a walkout.�

Charles T. Powers, Times Staff Writer, contributed to this story.