When we look at back at the Beijing Conference, it is very important to put it into the historical and political context. Beijing came a year after the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), held in Cairo. Health - and women’s health in particular - had been a critical chapter in Cairo, and naturally, it played a significant role in Beijing as well.

Two working groups were formed to consider the various chapters, and underneath one of the working groups, a Contact Group was created specially to consider Section C of the Strategic Objectives and Actions on women and health.

Politically, the expectation was that the Latin American delegation would chair this Contact Group on Health. I was a member of the Egyptian delegation, and with the First Lady nominally as our led our head of delegation, we did not go into the conference anticipating running for leadership roles—rapporteur, committee head, or otherwise. We arrived in Beijing without any intention of chairing a group.

Then came Timothy Wirth, Undersecretary at the US State Department, who was really the dynamo in the American delegation. Though not technically   head of the delegation, Wirth was the one steering the ship politically and technically. He insisted that I should chair the Contact Group on Health.

The Latin American delegation was deeply angered by this—in terms of protocol it was their turn. But Undersecretary Wirth made the case unequivocally, telling them ‘this is a very difficult committee, dealing with issues like pregnancy, abortion, out-of-wedlock births—issues already debated extensively in Cairo. Ambassador Tallawy successfully navigated those negotiations to consensus in 1994. She is the one for this job.’

He went straight to Mrs. Mubarak, explaining that health was going to be one of the most contentious issues at Beijing, something with the potential to get bogged down very quickly so required an experienced diplomat too navigate the issues that could threaten the success of the conference as a whole, and she too acceded.

Chairing the Contact Group on Health was no easy task. The conservative bloc—including countries like Yemen, Sudan, Iran, and the Vatican—were adamant on many aspects of women’s health, especially on issues like pregnancy and abortion.

There was a Yemeni woman, in particular, who was extremely active in the group, undermining the flow of the committee, persistently raising points of order. She was relentless. It struck me as unusual—I had never encountered a Yemeni woman at the time who was as well-versed in procedural maneuvering. I wanted to get to the bottom of this so I sent my assistant to follow her outside the chamber. In the restroom, we uncovered the truth: she was not Yemeni at all. She was an American, disguised under a black niqab, a member of a radical conservative NGO, masquerading as a delegate.

Armed with this knowledge, I acted swiftly. “This meeting is for official delegations only,” I announced. “Representatives from NGOs must leave the building.”

This shows the stakes we were dealing with at Beijing, and level of political manoeuvring we had to navigate in order to get to a consensus.

The Vatican, too, was a challenge, always raising points of order. “You are not a full member,” I reminded them. “You are an observer. Be reasonable, or I will not give you the floor at all. And why is the Vatican so stubbornly against us making progress on women’s rights when its population is all men?”

It was this combination of firmness and strategic maneuvering that ultimately neutralized the obstructionists. To everyone’s surprise, the Contact Group on Health reached consensus. Many had feared it would be impossible. The eyes of the entire conference had been on us. The Latin American delegation, initially so furious, took the podium to congratulate me. “We were angry at first,” they admitted, “but we recognize now that your political and technical expertise were crucial in overcoming those who sought to derail the process.”

This was but one battle in a broader war. Other challenges arose—on children’s rights, inheritance laws, countless others. But allies emerged in unexpected places. An Iranian delegate, who was a graduate of Al-Azhar in Cairo, spoke fluent Arabic and became an invaluable bridge. When disputes arose, he worked behind the scenes, facilitating quiet negotiations away from the microphone, enabling us to find resolutions without public confrontation.

A key strategy in reaching consensus was insisting that dissenting groups confer among themselves before returning with a proposal. By forcing them to hash out their differences internally, we streamlined the decision-making process and avoided endless disruptions.

Looking back, 1995 marked the early emergence of the conservative coalition—Arab and European alike—united in their opposition to progress. Today, the situation has worsened. The conservative movement has gained traction, now explicitly targeting CEDAW, the Beijing Declaration, and the ICPD. These documents—anything that relates to the mother and her health—are their declared enemies.

At the dawn of this conservative movement, we managed to secure these documents by consensus. If you did Cairo, Beijing, CEDAW now, I firmly believe you would not get the same result. In the aftermath of the Cold War, political allegiances shifted in astonishing ways. Countries once at the vanguard of progressive change—Cuba, Mexico—pivoted toward conservatism. The revolutionary rhetoric of past decades gave way to fundamentalism and regressive policies.

It is imperative that we acknowledge the monumental efforts behind Beijing, ICPD, and CEDAW. The new generation must understand the struggle it took to secure these frameworks. They must hold them close, defend them fiercely, because the conservative tide is rising. Radical movements, far-right factions in Europe, the United States, and extremist groups elsewhere are all working to dismantle the progress we fought so hard to achieve.

A review of these documents today must go beyond commemoration. We need an action plan—not just to protect these frameworks but to strengthen their implementation. The fight is not over. It is not enough to say, “We have the documents.” We must ensure they remain living policies, shaping the lives of women around the world.

The forces opposing women’s rights are powerful, well organized, and relentless. But so are we. We must continue to challenge the dominance of conservative ideology, to push back against xenophobia and exclusionary politics.

Because if we do not, we risk losing everything we fought for.