UN SPECIAL SESSION ON CHILDREN
VERDICT: EXTREME DISAPPOINTMENT, IMMENSE SUCCESS
MAY 11, 2002
It ended not with a bang, but a whimper.
The whimpering came mainly from the biggest non-governmental coalition at the Special Session, the Child Rights Caucus, but it also came in surprisingly strong language from a number of governments after agreement was reached on the conference declaration late Friday evening.
For the Caucus, Jo Becker said the 100-group coalition was "extremely
disappointed" with the downgrading of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child in the text, and accused governments of "squandering an opportunity"
to build on the work of the last decade.
Describing the whole negotiating process as flawed, the Caucus said the United
States and the European Union (EU) had negotiated the final compromise -
with the EU stepping away from its commitments - and offered it to other
governments on a take it or leave it basis. "The US has basically tried to
hijack the document," said Becker, and the EU had simply caved in.
After "fierce disputes over sexual and reproductive rights" said the Caucus, governments agreed only weak references to previous international conferences without spelling out the rights of adolescents to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education, information and services.
And the removal of one of the references to the aid target of 0.7 percent of gross domestic product "is a huge disappointment to all of us," said Becker.
Several youth participants also voiced disappointment.
Said Tom Burke an under-18 delegate from the UK and member of the Caucus, "At
the end of the Children's Forum we explicitly told governments what A World
Fit For Us would look like. The Outcome Document is a real disappointment.
We spoke, but it feels like no-one really listened."
Youth participant Bala Subramanya was even more pointed: "The Outcome
Document contains no opinions of children."
Razia Sultan Ismail Abbasi of the India Alliance for Child Rights blamed the
US for being an obstacle to a productive agreement. She feared that by
railroading the text to fit its own interests, the US would effectively
erode other governments' commitments to their children.
She said that South Asian governments, home to a majority of the world's
children, had not performed well in meeting the targets of the 1990
Children's Summit and had a lot of explaining to do for their failure to
hold fast in the current negotiations.
There was a sense of failure from the negotiations. In terms of the Convention, she said, "We've had a bad decade: we may be in for another."
Mary Purcell of the NGO Committee on UNICEF criticised the lack of access
for NGOs during the negotiations. The general lack of contact with delegates
over most of the negotiating period had become even more marked since April,
when NGOs had found the doors tightly shut. The poor lines of communication
with delegates was one of the reasons for the weakness of the document.
Mary Diaz of the NGO Committee on UNICEF picked up the theme when she
addressed the meeting on Friday night. After noting the limited access
offered to NGOs, she told governments they had to recognise the need for
participation. In addition, the conference's failure to make its declaration
a manifesto for the CRC sent the wrong message to children about
governments' commitment to child rights.
The lack of transparency was also criticised by the Like-Minded Group (which
includes Australia, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, New Zealand,
Norway, San Marino, Slovakia and Switzerland). In the Friday night session,
a spokesperson for the group said their efforts to maintain the openness of
the negotiation had not been reciprocated. Better cooperation would have
produced a better Outcome Document, he said.
Mexico was even more outspoken, saying it totally disagreed with the negotiating procedures. The Rio Group [of South American countries] had made an "immense effort" to secure a compromise, only to be unfairly accused of obstructing an agreement. Such conduct was unacceptable and threatened the entire process of multilateral negotiations.
Bolivia condemned the continued neglect of the reproductive rights of adolescents - an issue for many in Bolivia that threatened a women's right to life. While welcoming advances in the language on indigenous children and children's participation, Canada also registered dissatisfaction with the debate on sexual and reproductive health: "regrettable attempts" had been made to go back on language agreed at previous UN conferences; "the document falls significantly short" on the issue.
Against this mood of disappointment and in some cases anger, the US
described the conference as "immensely successful" and the group of Some
Developing Countries commented, "Today we have achieved a historical
victory. We are presenting a big present to our children in the 21st
century."
UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy also put the most positive gloss on
the event. She listed the more than 60 presidents, vice-presidents, prime
ministers and deputy prime ministers who had turned up to the Summit (as
well as two queens, a king and princes); a strong showing by
parliamentarians and religious leaders, the private sector and NGOs; the
Secretary-General's end of decade year review; the Global Movement for
Children; the national and regional action plans; the launching of several
initiatives during the Summit, such as the micronutrient deficiency
campaign; children's participation, including the first session of the
General Assembly in which children were not only seen but heard; and "a very
strong Outcome Document".
