Fight Brewed Before Beijing Conference, but It Never Percolated : Women: Legwork on controversial issues at Cairo gathering paves way for pragmatic China talks.

Going into the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women here, many delegates expected a fight, particularly on such key issues as abortion, family planning and sexual orientation.

Last November’s International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo sparked furious debate on these topics--often with the United States and the Vatican leading opposite camps.

Moreover, the draft “Platform for Action” for the Beijing conference was riddled with disputed language, with more than 50% of the text opposed by one or more of the 181 national delegations.

Despite the contentious buildup, the anticipated war of words has yet to break out. Delegations that fought tooth and nail in Cairo now praise each other’s speeches and work together amicably. Controversial language is melting away from the draft declaration at a record rate in final negotiations.

As Patricia Licuanan, a delegate from the Philippines who is president of the final drafting committee for the Beijing declaration, noted in a press conference Friday morning: “The debates are not as shrill this time. People are very pragmatically trying to work out differences. The atmosphere is more friendly.”

Delegates and United Nations officials cite several reasons for the relatively non-confrontational atmosphere here.

For one thing, several of the most divisive issues involving reproductive health and abortion were hashed out last year in Cairo. The document produced by that conference, in which the Vatican for the first time joined the consensus on an international document dealing with reproductive health issues, was remarkable in that most delegations left the conference thinking they had won.

“After Cairo, we felt like we had already done the tough stuff and that we didn’t want to go through it again,” a senior negotiator with the U.S. delegation said. “For the first time, the Holy See accepted chunks of a population agreement. I just don’t think anyone wanted to fight that fight again.”

For its part, the Vatican felt it came away with a victory in Cairo because it excised any language about a woman’s right to abortion.

Another important factor is U.S. domestic politics.

With an eye toward upcoming presidential elections, the Clinton Administration, represented in Beijing by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, has taken a strong stand against the use of abortion as a birth-control technique, effectively silencing conservative critics.

In a speech here earlier this week, Mrs. Clinton pleased human rights groups by condemning the government-sponsored use of forced abortion and sterilization in family planning programs.

And in a gesture much welcomed by the Vatican, she stressed the important role and economic value of women as mothers.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls credited the First Lady with defusing the atmosphere of the Beijing conference. “It was the speech by Mrs. Clinton that set the tone,” Navarro-Valls said.

The Vatican has taken a non-confrontational attitude under the leadership of Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard law professor and the first woman to chair an official delegation from the Holy See to a major international conference.

An example of the softened tone came during negotiations over a paragraph in the health section of the draft document dealing with preventive actions against the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. The paragraph calls for the distribution of “high-quality condoms as well as drugs for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases” to health services around the world.

When the draft document was being debated in sessions leading up to Beijing, the Vatican strongly objected to the reference to condoms and ordered that the section be bracketed as a signal of its opposition. But Friday, Vatican negotiator Sherry Ricquert agreed that the brackets could be dropped.

In the end, the Vatican is almost certain to include the paragraph in its list of “reservations” when the final document is approved. Although it signed the Cairo agreement in November, the Vatican “reserved out” of large parts of the reproductive health section.

Despite the drive toward accord, some elements of the women’s movement are feeling left out. Lesbian groups are particularly incensed by the conciliatory turn in talks for the Platform for Action.

In different sections of the draft document, there are at least four references to “sexual orientation,” all of which have been bracketed by opposing delegations, including the Vatican. Lesbian organizations, who see “sexual orientation” as a recognition of the legitimacy of all forms of sexuality, are lobbying hard for the term to be kept in the anti-discrimination section of the platform.

In the past, they could count on the support of the U.S. delegation, which takes a stand in opposition to discrimination in all forms. This year, however, the U.S. delegation appears resigned to giving up that particular fight in the face of substantial opposition from the Vatican and a host of other countries.

“It is especially challenging for us this year at the U.N. conference because of the rise of fundamentalism and the rise of conservatism globally,” said Kate Wilson, who directs a lesbian and gay organization in New York. Wilson coordinated discussions at the lesbian tent at the parallel Non-Governmental Organizations Forum on Women that ended Friday in the remote Beijing suburb of Huairou.

Most of the talk in Beijing has been to “preserve” and “reaffirm” what happened in Cairo. Actress Jane Fonda, who is attending the conference, joined in the chorus.

“I’m here to make sure that the Cairo plan of action comes to Beijing and will not be rolled back,” Fonda said.

Times staff writer Maggie Farley in Beijing contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Glossary of Troubling Terms

Here is a glossary of some terms under contention at the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women:

EQUITY VS. EQUALITY

Some Islamic countries want to change the word equality to equity-- a term meaning fairness or justice that would allow a more conservative interpretation of inheritance, employment and divorce laws. Proponents of the word equality say that the terms are not the same and that using equity suggests that the rights of women are different from or less important than those of men.

UNIVERSAL VS. UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED

Some developing countries, such as China and Singapore, argue that governments must be able to provide their people with a basic livelihood before allowing potentially destabilizing intellectual luxuries like democracy or freedom of speech. They prefer the term universally accepted as it applies to human rights. Opponents, including the United States, argue that rights such as being able to voice an opinion without going to prison for it are as necessary as food and housing. They opt for using universal human rights, or no modifier at all.

GENDER VS. SEX

Gender is the long-used term in U.N. documents and those of other international organizations. Recently it has been opposed by some countries and conservative political factions in the United States who feel that the term encompasses sexual orientations besides heterosexuality. The issue was essentially resolved in pre-conference sessions but could resurface during the debate over the final draft of the “Platform for Action.”

PRENATAL SEX SELECTION VS. FEMALE FETICIDE

These terms deal with the widespread use of ultrasound examinations to determine the sex of an unborn child that in developing countries often results in the aborting of female fetuses. The term favored by most countries is prenatal sex selection. The Vatican and some other delegations prefer female feticide because it supports their contention that life begins at conception.

Source: Times staff