163 Million Women are Missing in Asia...

It’s too late for sorry. The United Nations’ failing attempts to achieve their Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are unrealistic as gender inequality continues to exist amidst the rapidly approaching 2015 deadline.

Experts at the 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights have estimated that there are 163 million women ‘missing’ in the Asia-Pacific region.

Therefore, with one of the main objectives of the MDGs being to promote gender equality, the overlying question here is how does the international community expect to empower women when there aren’t any to begin with?

But where have all these girls gone? The answer to this mind-boggling question can be best explained by studies commissioned by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). According to their research, millions of women have gone missing as result of modern gender determination techniques and selective abortions. Countries that have been contributing to the skewed sex ratios at birth (SRB) are the likes of China and India. The two nations have yielded SRBs amounting to just 100 females for every 120 males and 108 males per 100 females, respectively, according to the country’s 2001 census. The deputy executive director for UNFPA stated in a recent press conference, “We place it (skewed SRB) in the context of discrimination against women.” Yet it’s not to say that the countries with the most skewed SRBs have neglected this phenomenon. Renuka Chowdhry, India’s junior minister for women and child development describes the situation as, “When there is no economic recognition to women’s work and no social value attached to this particular gender, when resource sharing remains inequitable, when women are paid less then it becomes easier to do away with this gender.”

However, the most disturbing part of this whole ordeal is that initiatives enacted to mediate the problem have only been addressed as a result of the MDGs in 2000. But, knowledge of this ‘gendercide’ had been presented to the international community two decades ago in 1980.

In the late 1980s, Nobel Prize laureate Dr. Amartya Sen coined the term ‘missing women’ to describe the great numbers of women in the world who are literally not alive due to family neglect and discrimination. He estimated that in 1980, there were 100 million women missing, of which 50 million were accounted for in India alone.

Since Sen’s studies in the late 80s, experts have asserted that women are missing in South Asia not only due to neglect. In many cases, girls are missing because they are murdered at birth, or never allowed to be born. In South Asia, drastic measures are taken to eliminate girl children. These practices are most widely documented in India. An estimated 3 to 5 million female fetuses are aborted in India each year. Furthermore, in one study of a clinic in Bombay, 7999 out of 8000 aborted fetuses were female. However, the discrimination against women is so severe that efforts do not stop there. Many girl children are even killed as soon as they are born. Thus, experts suggest that these practices contribute to the unnaturally high risk of death for young girls.

So then, the only question left to answer is why girls are being discriminated against. After all, biologically, females are stronger and tend to live longer than males. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is hard for people like us – citizens living in a developed country – to fully understand. The logic behind gendercide derives from social implications. Particularly in poverty stricken nations, the female gender is typically seen as less productive in terms of contributing to a family’s household income. By being less desirable, boys are seen as essential because they are physically stronger and can work laborious jobs that flood the labor markets of less developed countries (LDCs).

Therefore, current actions taken up by the international community has come extremely late with respects to the MDGs. Having known about the gendercide since Sen’s studies in the 1980s, progress towards reaching key goals of equality and empowering women is highly improbable especially with the millions already ‘missing’ and the 2015 deadline just beyond the horizon.

HOORAY for Indigenous People

On September 13, 2007, at the United Nations in New York, a majority of the 192 member states voted in favor of a resolution calling for the adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text essentially gives indigenous people the rights to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations. This monumental day for native peoples marked an end to the 22 years of negotiations. According to the Inter Press Services News Agency, "Leaders of the world's 370 million indigenous people have won a powerful symbolic victory in their fight for recognition of the right to self-determination and control over their land and resources."

A more insightful look at the voting process that was conducted within the General Assembly that day, shows that 143 Member States voted in favor, 11 abstained and four, which included Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, voted against the text. It's of no surprise that these of all member states of the U.N. would vote against the Declaration, particularly the U.S. At least Canada gave reasoning for their vote which ultimately came to their “significant concerns” about the language in the document.

Nevertheless, what's truly surprising is the manner in which the peace-loving, human rights fighting, United States voted. As commented by Arthur Manuel, a leader of Canada's indigenous peoples, "The entire wealth of the United States, Canada, and other so-called modern states is built on the poverty and human rights violations of their indigenous peoples." His statement becomes seemingly valid when you think about the history of the United States. Is this not the same country that built itself on the suffering of an entire nation predominantly inhabited by indigenous people? Today, these natives of the United States commonly referred to as "Native Americans" and not Indians, have somehow been able to preserve their indigenous lifestyle on what the U.S. governments call "reserves."

Here's a map to depict the vast amount of territory they possess today:


If you so desired to inquire about what tribes these territories belong to you can find out more here.

Nevertheless, it's not that shocking that the United States didn't vote in favor of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples because after all when you give your indigenous people their own territories, take care of their children educationally, and allow them to create casinos on their land, what more do you need to give them?