When news leaked of the possible overturning of Roe v Wade, posts online and commentaries began circulating calling for people in the US to learn from experiences in Argentina, Colombia and Mexico — countries that have recently managed to decriminalize abortion — or from Chile, where it is included in the new constitutional project.
This call reveals a new and powerful force rising from Latin America, where the right to abortion was won by a mass feminist movement in the streets. It also challenges the conventional map of progress and women’s rights. It is no longer an issue of an advanced “first world” or “global north,” while the “global south” lags behind. This is a unique political opportunity to reflect on the strategies and arguments for reproductive freedom deployed by the “green tide,” which fights for abortion rights.
In Argentina, there are multiple reasons behind the expansion of the green tide and the demand for legal abortion from below.
On the one hand, there is the long history of activism by the National Campaign for the Right to Legal, Safe and Free Abortion, formed 15 years ago as a nationwide network, and defined by its federal character and its emphasis on participatory democracy and pluralism.
On the other hand, the feminist movement has reached the mass scale with mobilizations for “Ni Una Menos. Vivas y libres nos queremos” (“Not One Woman Less. We want ourselves alive and free”), against the multiple and interconnected forms of gender-based violence.
The movements were tied to the organization of the international feminist strikes that drew connections between feminized economic violence and precarity, and other forms of gender-based violence.
An important element for understanding the massiveness of these mobilizations was precisely the way in which the struggle for abortion was woven together with other feminist struggles. This allowed for cognitively and politically connecting the different forms of violence against women and feminized bodies as systemic violence. The violence of often deadly and costly clandestine abortion was thus connected to domestic violence, sexual harassment and the gendered pay gap in the workplace, and to the murders of female environmental and indigenous advocates in rural areas.
In turn, this enabled constructing the demand for abortion in terms that go beyond a merely individual right, challenging the conception of the body as private property.
The green tide flooded spaces everywhere, including schools, slums, unions, squares and soup kitchens. Through this transversality, the body that had been put up for debate took on a collective and class dimension.
This occurred because discussion about the clandestine condition of abortion directly referred to the costs that make it differentially risky according to one’s social and economic position. Those who were most harmed by the criminalization of abortion were the women and people with the capacity to gestate with the fewest economic resources, those who could not pay for safe abortions.
Therefore, the right to abortion was considered inseparable from the demand that it be guaranteed in the public healthcare system. In turn, the demand for comprehensive sexual education in the public education curriculum allowed for deepening debates about sexualities, corporealities, relationships and affects, displacing the question in a radical way.
In this way, the broadening of the debate over abortion took place in terms of autonomy and class. Young people took leadership in the streets, with the patient support of the “pioneers” from older generations. New language became common sense, using gender-neutral terms in the highly gendered Spanish language, and specifically speaking of gestating persons, thanks to the struggle of non-binary people and transgender men.
The movement combined parliamentary lobbying with the autonomous practices of self-organized underground networks that had made abortion possible for many every year with massive and heterogeneous mobilizations in the street.
The green tide has became an internationalist impulse mapping out struggles and legislation, bringing together a feminist agenda that goes well beyond a demand for an individual right.
Understanding the relationship between unpaid and badly paid labor, and expensive and unsafe abortions enabled a broader analysis of the forms of precarization of lives, modes of control in the name of the democracy of the labor market and ecclesiastic tutelage over desire and autonomous decisionmaking.
Abortion has become the banner for rekindled regressive forces that articulated a true conservative counteroffensive. An internationalist perspective allows us to map the global dimension of those reactionary forces and take inspiration and learn from struggles that have successfully linked the right to abortion to other feminist demands and attacks on collective autonomy.
Veronica Gago is a leader in Argentina’s #NiUnaMenos movement (Not One More), and the author of Feminist International: How to Change Everything.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath