Boitumelo Mofokeng, South Africa

21 October 2005

Debate Around UN Resolution 1325

Had UN been inclusive from beginning and supposed to be progressive organisation, there wouldn't be a need for Resolution 1325 to govern anybody because it would have been a natural process and a norm.

If such high body lacks in gender balance and ignored, forgot, excluded women from roundatables, peace keeping missions, policy debate, it robbed national governments to set a good example.

It also robbed future generations of experienced women leaders who would have build a legacy of preventing wars that have de-humanised nations of the world whilst men debated "whether to intervene or not" - we wouldn't be having Rwanda, Burundi. Sierra Leon, DRC, Sudan.

 UN is a comfort zone of male leaders who put their egoes first and nation's agenda last. It has reserved women's roles in gender commissions and token positions when the fires are stoked. It enjoys stroking egoes of male leaders who speak in poetic narratives about women and children as victims and pretend to be condemning the perpertrators and yet they would not accept that they are the perpertrators - quick to act in Europe and forever consulting on Africa.

Visiting the President and Secretary Genral's website pages, is an insult to see how women are still allocated auxillary, service, implemntors roles and one woman of colour is an assistant to no specific role - like a runner for a televiison production who's shouted at by all big wigs to do what they don't want to do.

TYhe African National Congress (ANC) Women's League refused to be auxillaries in the movement and had women trained as cadres, foreign representatives and today's results were not at whims of men at the bar or golf course.

 The UN must stop planting external leadership to determine national agenda when these officials cannot even speak local languages, are never seen amongst communities they proclaim to serve and are governed by rules that make them not to even serve the very cause that justifies salaries and packages they earn.

UN, it's either with us but not without us! Hear our voices!

Why we're suing over the £23m NHS data deal with 'spy tech' firm Palantir

Right as the NHS battles 'vaccine hesitancy', why is the government giving a CIA-backed firm – whose spyware has been accused of creating ‘racist’ feedback loops in US policing – a major, long-term role in handling our personal health information, and in England's cherished NHS?

Get the inside story from the journalists and lawyers battling to force transparency from the government on what they're doing with public money – and our health records.

Join us for this free event on 4 March at 5pm UK time/12pm EST.

Hear from:

Cori Crider Lawyer, investigator and co-founder of Foxglove, a non-profit that seeks to make the use of technology fair for everyone

Caroline Molloy Editor ourNHS and openDemocracyUK

Chair: Mary Fitzgerald Editor-in-chief, openDemocracy

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email


We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData