Published on: October 6, 2025
Source: Women Rise for All: Turning Hope into Action Event during Commission on Status of Women UN
During the eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly, the high-level meeting commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing was not merely a ceremonial event but rather a collective introspection on “delivering promises.” Under the theme of “renewing commitment to the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action to accelerate the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls,” an undercurrent of anxiety permeated the atmosphere, despite the applause and celebrations, that three decades on, the cause of gender equality remains unfinished, with regression observed in some regions.
In their opening statements, country representatives highlighted achievements such as expanded access to education, improved legislation against gender-based violence, and increased political participation of women (True, 2010). However, civil society representatives both inside and outside the venue reminded stakeholders that these accomplishments often exist more in documents and reports than in the daily lives of ordinary women. Many countries lack gender-sensitive budgeting and effective accountability mechanisms, leaving policy implementation superficial. As an activist from East Africa noted, “Equality is not a promise, which is the redistribution of resources and accountability.”
One of the core issues discussed was the need to understand that contemporary inequality is no longer merely about the “right to participate,” but rather about the redistribution of power structures. Grassroots organizations from Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East pointed out that within the grand narrative of “gender equality,” those truly overlooked are often groups marginalized by multiple identities, such as migrant women, women with disabilities and indigenous communities (Oswald, 2023). Intersectionality remains difficult to translate into policy, and the language of global governance continues to be dominated by a handful of countries and elite institutions.
Changes in the geopolitical landscape are also reshaping the context of gender issues (Okeke & Franceschet, 2002). The rise of religious conservatism and nationalism in some countries has weakened the protection of sexual and reproductive health rights, which is seen as an erosion of the core achievements of the Beijing Declaration (Rai, 2019). UN human rights experts warned that this regression is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a systemic global contraction of women’s autonomy. Gender equality has shifted from a universal consensus to a new ideological battleground.
In response to these challenges, representatives from multiple countries proposed pragmatic institutional solutions: mandating gender-responsive budgeting within national fiscal systems; establishing international assessment mechanisms like the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council; and strengthening cross-border cooperation to combat violence and exploitation against women. Yet political resistance remains evident. Some countries reject external oversight on the grounds of “national specificities,” while others attempt to repackage gender equality as “development assistance” to evade structural reforms.
Economists at the meeting emphasized that gender equality should no longer be treated as a “social issue” but must be placed at the heart of economic and governance agendas (Cornwall et.al., 2007). Women constitute the majority in the informal economies of developing countries yet struggle to benefit from recovery plans or climate financing. Unless gender equality is integrated into the core logic of fiscal planning and debt relief, every crisis, whether financial, climatic, or political, will further widen the gender gap.
The format of the meeting itself revealed the limitations of the UN system (Eyben, 2015). Country representatives had limited speaking time, leaving almost no room for substantive dialogue. While civil society voices were invited, they lacked practical channels to influence decision-making. As one observer commented, “This commemoration was meant to empower, but in form, it replicated the inequalities of power.”
Nonetheless, this high-level meeting still holds significant meaning. It serves as a reminder to the global community that progress in gender equality cannot rely on memory alone. It requires measurable accountability, stable financial support, and the political courage to confront regression (Cornwall & Rivas, 2015). As the Executive Director of UN Women stated, “Equality remains within reach, but only if we stop substituting celebration for change.”
After the applause faded, what lingered in the conference hall was a silent, sober reflection.
References
Cornwall, A., & Rivas, A. M. (2015). From ‘gender equality and ‘women’s empowerment’to global justice: reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development. Third world quarterly, 36(2), 396-415.
Cornwall, A., Harrison, E., & Whitehead, A. (Eds.). (2007). Feminisms in development: Contradictions, contestations and challenges. Zed Books.
Eyben, R. (2015). The politics of evidence and results in international development: Playing the game to change the rules?. (No Title).
Okeke–Ihejirika, P. E., & Franceschet, S. (2002). Democratization and state feminism: Gender politics in Africa and Latin America. Development and change, 33(3), 439-466.
Oswald-Spring, Ú. (2023). Decolonizing peace with a gender perspective. Journal of aggression, conflict and peace research, 15(1), 23-38.
Rai, S. M. (2019). The Logics of Gender Justice: State Action on Women’s Rights Around the World. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 26(4), 501-502.
Secretary-General, U. N. (2000). Review and appraisal of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action: report of the Secretary-General.
True, J. (2010). The political economy of violence against women: A feminist international relations perspective. Australian Feminist Law Journal, 32(1), 39-59.
Disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of MEPEI. Any content provided by our author is of his opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything.
About the author:
Ms. Lu DONG: master at University College London and intern at MEPEI.
