CSW69 Reflections: Negotiating Feminist Commitments in a Shifting Global Landscape

By: Hiqmat Sungdeme Saani

---

“The question is not whether feminist movements will adapt, the question is whether we will lead.”

At CSW69 in March 2025 (New York), Hiqmat Saani found herself at the heart of some of the most politically charged and revealing negotiations on gender equality. The process marked both a historic step forward for adolescent girls and young women. Read Hiqmat's personal reflection statement below:

---

At CSW69, I found myself at the center of some of the most tense, revealing, and politically charged negotiations on gender equality that I have ever witnessed. As a key negotiator and Policy Advisor at CSW69, and together with the delegation from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I worked closely with the Netherlands Government, the leader of this year’s negotiations, to lobby, monitor, and influence the outcomes of the Beijing+30 Political Declaration.

This year’s declaration was meant to reaffirm the commitment to the Beijing Platform for Action, the most comprehensive global framework for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. And while there were gains, such as the historic recognition of adolescent girls as rights-holders and the acknowledgment of young women as leaders, mentors, and innovators, the negotiations also exposed deep fractures in global feminist advocacy, political commitments, and funding priorities.

A Win for Girls, A Moment for Young Women, But at What Cost?

For the first time, a Political Declaration at CSW explicitly recognized adolescent girls as rights-holders, acknowledging their agency, contributions to society, and role in shaping the future. This was a critical milestone. In many parts of the world, adolescent girls remain invisible in policy discussions, too young to be taken seriously, yet facing some of the most severe barriers to education, leadership, and bodily autonomy. This recognition sends a clear message: adolescent girls have a voice, and their rights matter.

The declaration also emphasized the full, equal, and meaningful participation of young women in decision-making spaces. While this is progress, I couldn’t ignore the fact that these gains came amid some of the most aggressive pushbacks against gender equality, sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and inclusive language that I have ever seen in UN negotiations.

The Backlash: Gender Equality, the SDGs, and the "Woke Agenda"

Despite the reaffirmation of Beijing+30, the negotiations revealed coordinated and deliberate effort to dilute commitments to gender equality. Key international agreements, such as the SDGs, SRHR, and ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development), were either excluded or severely weakened in the final text. The language of "gender, diversity, and inclusion" became a battlefield, with some delegations arguing that these terms had been "hijacked" to push what they called the "woke agenda."

The most disturbing part was the shifting narrative around "diversity and inclusion." Initially, there was broad agreement that diversity referred to women, girls, and persons with disabilities. However, the moment the conversation expanded to include LGBTQ+ rights, the same countries that had agreed to the language suddenly opposed it. This was a clear indicator of selective advocacy, where gender rights are only supported as long as they fit within a narrow, pre-approved framework.

Another recurring argument was that women’s rights organizations are losing focus, with some governments claiming that these groups are shifting too much attention towards LGBTQ+ advocacy at the expense of "traditional women’s issues." This, to me, was one of the most dangerous and divisive narratives of CSW69. If feminist organizations are being forced to choose between advocating for women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights, then we have already lost. The idea that inclusion must come at the expense of something else is a false choice, one that benefits only those who want to divide and weaken feminist movements.

Where the Money Goes: The Netherlands Government’s Changing Priorities

One of the most revealing aspects of this year’s negotiations was the reshaping of global funding priorities. The Netherlands Government, historically a strong funder of SRHR and women’s political leadership, is now shifting its focus. Funding for abortion rights, LGBTQ+ inclusion, and women’s political leadership is being cut, not because these issues are unimportant, but because of a growing disillusionment with women’s political representation.

The argument? "Women leaders in parliament or political offices do not necessarily represent women’s issues." Many governments, including the Netherlands, believe that women in political spaces have been consumed by patriarchy, replicating the same oppressive power structures they were meant to dismantle. Their response is to withdraw funding from women’s leadership programs and redirect it to issues such as: Women, Peace, and Security (WPS), Violence Against Women & Harmful Practices, Migration, Safety, and Health, Agriculture (still under deliberation).

From a feminist standpoint, this raises a difficult question: Do we need more women in power, or do we need a different kind of leadership? My stance is clear, we don’t just need women in political positions; we need feminist leaders who will be held accountable to the movement.

Simply increasing the number of women in leadership is not enough if these women are not actively pushing for gender justice. Representation without accountability is an empty victory. Instead of abandoning women’s leadership programs, governments should be investing in feminist leadership training, mentorship, and political accountability mechanisms that ensure women in power are advancing gender equality, not maintaining the status quo.

Localization & Decolonization: A Shift in Development Aid

One of the most significant shifts in global funding strategies is the Netherlands Government’s move towards direct funding for smaller, local initiatives in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, and potentially the MENA region. The goal? Decolonizing development aid by cutting out large INGOs and funding grassroots movements directly.

This is a major win for local feminist organizations, but it also presents new challenges. If funding is bypassing traditional intermediaries, will local movements have the infrastructure, financial management systems, and governance structures to handle large-scale funding? And will governments and donors respect the autonomy of local organizations, or will they impose new conditions that limit true decolonization?

Localization only works if it is accompanied by trust, flexibility, and genuine power shifts. Otherwise, it becomes another bureaucratic funding model that replicates old colonial dynamics in new ways.

Final Thoughts: Where Do We Go from Here?

CSW69 was a critical moment in feminist advocacy, but it was also a warning sign. While we celebrated some historic gains, we also saw: 

• A rise in anti-gender rhetoric and pushback against feminist policies. 

• A growing divide within the global women’s movement on intersectionality. 

• A shift in funding priorities that risks leaving behind key issues like SRHR and women’s political leadership.

The question now is: How do we move forward?

My reflections from CSW69 leave me with one clear answer, feminism must evolve. We need: 

✔ Feminist leadership that is accountable to the movement. 

✔ Stronger coalitions that resist efforts to divide us. 

✔ A funding ecosystem that supports intersectionality, not erases it. 

✔ A renewed commitment to grassroots and localized movements.

If feminist advocacy is to survive the next decade, it must be bold, strategic, and uncompromising. The political landscape is shifting, but the fight for gender equality remains as urgent as ever. We cannot afford to be complacent.