The “Beijing +5” conference—the meeting called by the United Nations to evaluate implementation of the resolutions approved at the Beijing Conference in 1995—raised a number of interesting questions for pro-life activists. One of those questions concerned the role that Argentina will play at such international forums. For years the Argentine government had reliably been one of the strongest advocates of the right to life. But now, under the new administration of President Fernando de la Rua, the nation’s foreign policy is changing.

At international forums in which life and family issues were at stake, the Holy See and pro-life organizations have always counted on the support of a few Latin American countries: Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and—especially during the past decade—Argentina.

The role of Argentina was crucial, since its position in the region has always been far more significant that the other pro-life delegations, which represent smaller countries in Central America. During the years of the Clinton Administration, these smaller nations—Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras—have been barely able to withstand the heavy pressure exerted on them by the US State Department, which steadily pushes them to appoint pro-abortion delegates to international conferences. In just one example of American arm-twisting, the Nicaraguan government under President Arnoldo Aleman recently decided (quite reluctantly, according to informed observers) to oust pro-life activist Max Padilla from his role as Minister of the Family, because European nations and the US threatened to cut back food and medical aid unless someone more favorably disposed to family-planning efforts held that government position.

That sort of pressure cannot be brought to bear on Argentina nearly so easily. With one of the highest rates of income and literacy in the region, Argentina is the second richest nation in South America. And unlike unpredictable Brazil, Argentina has generally been a strong and loyal American ally. Argentina was the only Latin American nation to join the alliance formed by the US to fight Iraq during Operation Desert Storm; and in almost any international forum the Argentine delegates have backed the initiatives put forward by the United States. For this reason, the State Department has always treated Argentina with respect—as a partner, rather than a client. Therefore, no strong protests were ever made about the staunch pro-life stand that former president Carlos Saul Menem established during his 10-year tenure.

During Menem’s long tenure in power, Argentina became the strongest voice against abortion and the most important supporter of the Vatican at international forums. In fact, Vicente Espeche Gil, a committed Catholic member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Laity, was for years the coordinator of Argentina’s international policies on such issues.

New directions?
However, last year’s election of Fernando de la Rua as President raised serious new questions. What line would Argentina follow under the new presidential administration? Although de la Rua said that he personally opposes abortion, his electoral alliance included a political movement called Frepaso, whose leader, Graciela Fernandez Meijide, is an open supporter of legal abortion.

De la Rua’s first international move sent a reassuring message to the Holy See. He appointed Espeche Gil as the new Argentinean ambassador to the Holy See. Espeche himself let the Vatican know that Argentina would maintain its pro-life position at international forums.

But the sighs of relief breathed by pro-life activists lasted only until the recent Beijing +5 meeting in New York, where the issue of “sexual and reproductive rights” became the center of debate and the dividing line between pro-life and pro-abortion countries. As expected, the issue quickly split the Latin American nations. On one side stood a group of countries led by Mexico and Brazil, which lobbied for aggressive birth control policies and at least an ambiguous stand regarding abortion. On the other side, Argentina joined Honduras and Nicaragua, and the other developing countries from Africa and Asia, in the so-called “Group of 77,” which opposed legalized abortion and coercive birth control programs. The latter group, naturally, frequently found itself standing side by side with the Vatican delegation.

Nevertheless the Argentinean delegation surprised some of its allies by taking a passive role in the debate. According to reports circulated in the Argentinean press, de la Rua’s foreign minister had instructed the members of the country’s delegation to make it clear that Argentina’s support for the right to life remained in place, but he also ordered them to keep quiet during the meetings at which the controversial “reproductive rights” language was discussed. Thus Nicaragua and Honduras were left to take up the leading role among the Latin American delegations: the role that Argentina used to play.

Crucial changes in language
During the Beijing +5 discussions, Argentinean ambassador Enrique Candioti said that his government considers “the protection and defense of human life from its conception to its natural end” a top priority, and will maintain its usual strong stand on defense of the traditional family as the crucial building-block of any society. But for the first time in a decade, the Argentinean ambassador did not explicitly use the word “abortion” in his main speech, much less condemn the practice. Still more disquieting to pro-life listeners was the fact that Candioti recognized “the human rights of women include sexual and reproductive rights”—thereby invoking a phrase that is commonly used by proponents of legal abortion. That phrase had never before been used by an Argentinean delegate; its use here seemed to undermine the ambassador’s words. The ambassador’s speech, as the Argentinean expression puts it, “was erasing with the elbow what was written with the hand.”

The day after Candioti’s speech, the Argentinean press revealed that the final text of his message was the product of lengthy negotiations with another member of the delegation, the pro-abortion president of the Women’s National Council, Carmen Storani, who had been appointed by de la Rua as a concession to the pro-abortion members of his governing alliance. The hand of Storani—one of the harshest critics of Argentina’s former pro-life stand—was evident in the text read by Candioti, especially when he referred to the “commitment of the Argentinean government to defend the woman’s right to choose when and how to have children, respecting her intimate convictions.” The term “intimate convictions” is another one of the euphemisms employed by feminists to imply that, if a woman wants to have an abortion, the state has no right to prevent it.

Another significant change in Candioti’s speech was the employment—on four different occasions—of the word “gender” instead of “sex.” Again the term was one that has been promoted by feminist and pro-abortion groups; it implies that there are not only two sexes, but a variety of “sexual orientations.” Until this year, Argentina had assiduously opposed any use of the term “gender” in UN documents. But now Argentina’s chief spokesman was using the term himself.

Once again, the hand of Storani was evident in the ambassador’s speech. She herself informed a press conference that “the words of Candioti at the public forum express the policy that members of our delegation pursued at the closed meetings.” It would seem, then, that while the delegation as a whole went on record with a pro-life position, the individual members of the Argentinean delegation played different roles at the New York meeting.

It is not surprising, then, that the correspondent for the Argentine daily Clarin, a female journalist with close ties to Storani, reported from New York that “the faces of the women members of the delegation were filled with satisfaction” when the language suggesting support for feminism was introduced. “We have a good consensus” within the delegation, Storani herself claimed. And several of the feminist members of the Argentine delegation told Clarin that the omission of the word “abortion” from the Candioti’s address represented “a great success for our cause.” They also said that the intention of the majority of the delegation was to highlight “the commitment of the government to new policies of sexual and reproductive health for women,” which they described as “a major breakthrough in contrast to the former administration.”

Concerns back home
During the week following the Beijing +5 conference, the Argentinean Catholic Association of Physicians issued a strong statement protesting that the international stand of Argentina “has definitively and dramatically changed,” since “the government’s delegates have faked a pro-life stand, but finally delivered a pro-abortion position.” The Association’s statement continued:

Candioti affirmed Argentina’s commitment to the defense of life, but contradicted that statement by saying the government will guarantee “sexual and reproductive rights,” which in effect means the legalization of abortion, the compulsory distribution of artificial contraceptives, and the recognition of homosexuality.

In fact, in the Congress of Buenos Aires—the capital city, which has a significant level of political autonomy—several congressmen have introduced a law on “Reproductive Rights.” This new measure would include the massive distribution of contraceptive devices, including abortifacients, despite the fact that the Argentine Constitution guarantees the right to life of the unborn child. The legislation has been proposed mostly by female members of Frepaso—the party that is a part of the new president’s coalition; its supporters have included Liliana Chiernajovsky, the wife of Argentina’s new Vice President Carlos Alvarez.