By Mel O’Brien

The second and third days of the 52nd session of the CEDAW have addressed the country reports of Guyana and Indonesia. Issues addressed across both countries included migrant workers, domestic workers, education, women in politics, HIV/AIDS healthcare, healthcare for prostitutes, and trafficking in persons.

There was quite a stark contrast in the presentations and answers from the two states. Guyana had a small delegation of two ministers, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Human Services. Both women delivered succint, detailed responses to the questions posed y the Committee experts. They dealt with issues such as the differing services provided to women in the hinterland (which is the majority of the country geographically but only 5% of the population resides there) compared to those more comprehensive services provided to women on the coastline, particularly in the capital Georgetown. Guyana is a nascent democracy, and since its last CEDAW report, has enacted a significant number of new and pertinent pieces of legislation, including a Sexual Offences Act, a Domestic Violence Act, a Prevention of Crime Act and a Protection of Children Act. There is also government provided healthcare system which includes provision for sexual and reproductive health. In 2003 the Constitution was amended to enshrine rights of equality and non-discrimination, and women constitute 32% of the Guyana parliament. Child marriage was another issue discussed, which has been reduced since Guyana raised the age of consent for marriage from 13 to 16.

 In contrast, the Indonesian government delegation contained a large number of people from different ministries, and offered very general responses to answers, much to the disappointment of the Indonesian NGO representatives present. The Committee was particularly critical, emphasising the rights issues that were raised in the previous CEDAW report on Indonesia, and how none of these issues have been addressed. The Committee was also extremely blunt and even undiplomatic in calling the Indonesian government on the issues of female genital mutilation (FGM). In particular, those members of the Committee from Islamic states were quite adament about the fact that Islam does not condone FGM. FGM was reiterated as a violation of human rights norms, under CEDAW, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention Against Torture, and Indonesia’s law stating that FGM must be conducted by a medical professional was highly criticised by the Committee. With regards to reparations for women who are victims of violence, particularly sexual violence, from armed conflict, such as the 1965 conflict and conflicts in Aceh and Timor Leste, the Indonesian government offered little resonse, simply stating that the issue is ‘complex’  and that the government has made ‘significant progress’, but did not elaborate on what such progress is. In general, the Indonesian delegation made many references to ‘action plans’ relating to a variety of areas such as development and gender mainstreaming, but failed to provide examples of what specific actions these plans contain and how they are being implemented.