-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Estey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 August 2002 04:59
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRAL INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON
THE PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE RIGHTS AND DIGNITY OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES.
DAILY SUMMARY OF MEETINGS
UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT, NEW YORK
Volume I, #2
July 30, 2002
The proceedings were marked by the same lack of state participation as those
of the previous day. They were also marked by a change in procedure with
regards to NGO access. The Committee resolved the previous day to permit
NGOs with consultative status to address delegates at the formal proceedings
following remarks by States. Please see Daily Summary Vol. I, #1 for further
information. A total of 9 states, 1 IGO and 5 NGOs took the floor.
Approximately 50-75 states were present at the proceedings through the day.
Morning Session
In a statement by Avraham Rabby, the United States Advisor for Economic and
Social Affairs, the US expressed the hope that the convention development
process would bring about an increased awareness of disability issues, not
only in the UN system but also in capitals around the world.
The US supported the participation of NGOs in this process, while stressing
that the Committee decision to permit this type of participation should be
seen as “an exception to the rule” rather than a precedent setting
development for future debates in the General Assembly. The US acknowledged
that NGOs representing PWD “have a particular and unique expertise to offer
all governments”.
Drawing on its experience with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
the United States posited that “when crafted correctly, legislation can have
real and lasting effects on the promotion of the rights of people with
disabilities.” In addition, the US asserted that “experience has shown that
the human rights instruments that have resulted in the most profound change
in state practice have been those … which were carefully considered over a
substantial period of time and which were adopted by consensus.” The US
stressed the need for “new thinking” on this topic as “the only way we will
see a change in state practice” and hoped that the deliberations of the
Committee will inspire this in state capitals. A new treaty, “hurriedly
conceived and formulated will not necessarily change the practice of states”
.
The US supported the goal of strengthening the existing framework for the
protection of PWD. It raised several questions on the wisdom of a new treaty
as the most effective way to reach this goal. These were: will a new treaty
change state practice or reflect the lowest common denominator? Do we want
a narrowly crafted instrument with strong standards or a broad instrument
with weak standards? Should there be “increased efforts to further
elaboration of the Standard Rules coupled with enhanced bilateral and
multilateral technical assistance to developing countries for the
implementation of stronger legislation,” or would a multi-pronged approach
combining “further elaboration of the Standard Rules, technical assistance,
and strong but narrowly focused international standards?” be more effective?
The US suggested that further tools need to be developed to answer these
questions. The UN Secretariat should be requested to conduct a survey of
existing national legislation pertaining to the protection of the rights of
people with disabilities. States should be requested to share “in writing
their views of lessons learned with respect to successes and failures of
various regulatory approaches for protecting the rights of persons with
disabilities” in their countries.
The delegate from South Africa, Ms. Sebenzile Matsebula, representing the
Office on the Status of the Disabled Persons in the Presidency, expressed
her country’s strong support for the development of a convention protecting
the rights of people with disabilities. She noted South Africa’s role in
co-sponsoring the original General Assembly resolution that led to the
creation of the Ad Hoc Committee. She placed the issue of disability in the
context of the larger fight against discrimination by referring back to the
Durban Declaration which calls upon all member states “to take measures to
eliminate all forms of discrimination.”
Ambassador Zhang Yishan, the Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the
UN, asserted that “persons with disabilities desire to be involved in social
life” and “are the producers of both physical and spiritual wealth”. China
emphasized the role of governments in education and awareness raising, and
stated that persons with disability “should enjoy equal rights as normal
persons do”.
China called for “a future convention [that] should be an international
instrument of guiding principles”, that would enable states to emphasize
different aspects of their work on this issue depending on their “different
historical, cultural backgrounds and different levels of economic
development”. Special attention should be paid to the difficult situation of
people with disabilities in developing countries, and the Convention “should
take up reasonable proposals and requests of the developing countries”
accordingly. The Convention should reflect a balance between individual and
collective rights. There should also be a balance between civil and
political, but also more importantly, economic and social rights of PWD.
Additional principles recommended for inclusion were: (1) improvement of the
overall life quality of people with disabilities; (2) access to education,
training and employment and full participation of people with disabilities
in decision-making; (4) eradication of discrimination; (5) the removal of
“all impediments” to information, law and infrastructure; and (6) an
increase in the distribution of resources to ensure equal participation for
people with disabilities.
Argentina stressed that people with disabilities should not be seen to be
the “subjects” of the policy development process, but rather the
“protagonists” and driving force behind the creation of such policies.
Furthermore, it emphasized that the international community could not speak
of global respect for human rights as long as a whole segment of the global
population remained barred from the full and equal enjoyment of human
rights. Argentina called upon the Department for Economic and Social
Affairs (DESA), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
and other agencies and programmes within the UN, and members of civil
society to provide their experience and technical expertise to the Ad Hoc
Committee during the drafting process.
Brazil, a co-sponsor of the resolution (A/56/168) that established the Ad
Hoc Committee, indicated its preference for a multi-track approach that
would involve both the development of a new convention as well as the
continued use and refinement of existing international instruments, such as
the Standard Rules.
In a statement by John Langmore, the Director and Representative of the
International Labour Organization (ILO) to the UN, the ILO stressed that the
process of developing a convention must be “participatory, representative,
patient, gender-sensitive, and disability-sensitive.” To this end, the ILO
supported the provision at Committee meetings of accessible venues,
accessible transport, sign-language interpretation, and documents in
alternative formats. In addition, the ILO called for the “formal
enlargement of the membership of the Ad Hoc Committee to include a
representative of each member organization of the International Disability
Alliance (IDA), the majority of which are on the ILO Special List of NGOs.”
As part of its efforts to facilitate the work of the Committee, the ILO
indicated that it would share with the Committee a paper discussing the
right to work. With regard to the content of the convention, the ILO
welcomed the initiative of the Mexican Government, but believed that
drafting of specific treaty text at this stage would be premature. Instead,
it suggested that the Committee “first give consideration to the Basic
Principles that should guide the drafting of the Convention, followed by the
preparation of an annotated Outline to guide the process.”
Government statements were followed by statements from Kicki Nordström,
President of the World Blind Union (speaking on behalf of IDA), Stig Ohlson,
President of the World Federation of the Deaf/Blind (also speaking on behalf
of IDA), Liisa Kauppinen of the World Federation of the Deaf, and Don Wills,
President of Inclusion International. They expressed their support for the
effort to develop a convention, and emphasized the need for all relevant
NGOs to be able to speak, including those without ECOSOC consultative
status. They also stressed the need to facilitate access by people with
disabilities to information generally and information specifically relating
to the convention development process.
Afternoon Session
The Representative from Canada, Gilbert Laurin, referenced the study issued
by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which noted the
underuse of existing human rights documents and called for the development
of a specialized treaty on the human rights of people with disabilities.
Canada noted that although it saw “the merit of this approach,” it believed
that “greater and more targeted use can be made of existing instruments.”
In addition, Canada specified that generally it “has taken the position that
it is preferable to focus on implementing existing obligations rather than
creating new, potentially overlapping instruments.” It encouraged states
to be “diligent” in ensuring that “at the very least existing standards are
upheld.” With regard to its participation in the work of the Committee,
Canada stressed that it would have to “consult fully with provincial and
territorial governments and with civil society,” and that this would take
time.
The Representative from Australia highlighted its participation in
international activities to promote the rights of people with disabilities,
and in particular its contribution to the development of the Standard
Rules – a process for which it provided the rapporteur. It also described
its participation in, and support for, programmes in developing countries to
assist the full participation of people with disabilities. Australia was
supportive of the work done by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ in
this area, and noted that the convention development process will require
“extensive consultations” between governments and stakeholders, including
people with disabilities. It emphasized that the states should ensure that
deliberations on the convention “are measured and considered” and that
proposals draw upon existing instruments to prevent duplication.
The Representative from Uganda noted that there is a growing awareness
amongst people with disabilities of their rights, and that they will expect
any convention to guarantee the full enjoyment of their human rights. In
addition, the convention must be enforceable, and must be clear and
comprehensive enough to take account of the concerns of people with
disabilities. In drafting such a convention, Uganda referred to the Mexican
proposal, the report of the Meeting of Experts in Mexico, and the IDA Blue
Paper, recommending that “delegates look at these documents, because they
contain material which can be used to enrich and further improve the Mexican
draft.” Although it highlighted the Mexican proposal, Uganda indicated that
states should agree upon the major elements of the convention before
beginning to examine the text of the Mexican proposal in depth. In
addition, while the drafting process should not be unduly delayed, it should
also not be rushed. Uganda called for the full participation of NGOs during
the drafting process, including NGOs not yet accredited to ECOSOC, as “no
stakeholder should be left out of this process.”
The delegate from Uruguay also addressed the committee, indicating its
support for the convention process.
As the only NGO speaker in the Afternoon Session, Richard Light from
Disability Awareness in Action (DAA) presented a statement on behalf of
Disabled Peoples International (DPI). DPI conveyed its support for the
measures taken to further the development of a convention, but expressed its
dismay that it has taken so long for states to consider the development of a
convention on the human rights of people with disabilities. DPI also
countered suggestions that support for existing human rights instruments
has, or would be, adequate to protect the human rights of people with
disabilities. Citing extensive documentation by DAA of the human rights
abuses carried out against people with disabilities, such abuses would
continue in the absence of a specialized convention on the rights of people
with disabilities. DAA estimated that 5500 people with disabilities have
died since 1987 as a result of human rights abuses that have not been
prevented by existing human rights instruments. In order to facilitate the
participation of NGOs in the drafting process, it called upon States to pool
financial resources to permit the Committee to continue to meet, and to
facilitate the involvement of NGOs.
The Disability Negotiations Daily Summaries are published by the Landmine
Survivors Network, a US based international organization with amputee
support networks in six developing / mine affected countries. LSN staff and
consultants contributing to these summaries include and Zahabia Adamaly, MA
([log in to unmask]), Katherine Guernsey, JD
([log in to unmask]), and Janet E. Lord, LLB (editor)
([log in to unmask]). Any questions or concerns relating to the
Summaries should be directed to Janet Lord.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
