Child Rights Caucus Update - 12 May 2002

Summary: The Child Rights Caucus provides an
update on the final outcome
document, A World Fit for Children,
adopted by the General Assembly at
the end of the Special Session on
Children.

Dear friends,

Attached (and below) is an update on the final outcome of
negotiations on the outcome document and the text of a Caucus
press release issued late on May 10.

Although we are all disappointed at the final outcome, we can all
be proud of the way the Caucus worked together, our success in
making our positions known, and the commitment of Caucus
members to follow up this process at the national level.

In the coming days, we will send a separate message regarding
next steps for the Caucus.

FINALIZATION OF THE OUTCOME DOCUMENT:

Negotiations finally concluded late afternoon on May 10 on the
outcome document for the Special Session, which was adopted
later that evening. Both the final outcome, and the process
during the final stages of negotiation were very disappointing.

Process: From talking with several government delegates, we
understand that a final “package” was negotiated between the
US and the EU, which was then submitted by the chair to all the
negotiating blocs as a “consensus” text based on “consultations”
with all delegations. However, neither the Rio Group nor the Like-
Minded Group had seen the text previously. The text was
presented as a “take it or leave it” text, which meant that other
governments had only three options: 1) accept the text
proposed; 2) reject it and take the blame for breaking
consensus; 3) reject the proposed paragraphs and allow them to
be dropped completely from the outcome document. Other
governments felt that they had no choice but to accept the
document, but felt very angry at the way the final “negotiations”
were conducted.

The key outstanding issues were handled as follows:

Convention on the Rights of the Child: Agreement was reached
early in the morning on May 10 on paragraphs 4 and 29, the key
paragraphs mentioning the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
These paras now state that “the Convention on the Rights of the
Child and its optional protocols contain a comprehensive set of
international legal standards for the protection and well-being of
children.”

Comment: This sentence merely states what the Convention IS,
but gives no indication of its significance as the global standard
for children or an essential basis for actions to protect and
promote the rights of children. At a press conference held by the
NGO Steering Committee on Friday afternoon, the Caucus
expressed its deep disappointment at this weak wording.

Sexual and Reproductive Health: Para 37 (iii) was adopted as
follows: “Address effectively, for all individuals of appropriate age,
the promotion of their healthy lives, including their reproductive
and sexual health, consistent with the commitments and
outcomes of recent UN conferences and summits, including the
World Summit for Children, the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, the International Conference on
Population and Development, the World Summit for Social
Development and the Fourth World Conference on Women, their
five year reviews and their reports.”

Comment: Although this text refers to previous conferences
where important agreements were reached, it does not spell out
the rights of adolescents to sexual and reproductive health
education, information and services, avoids any mention of the
word “rights,” and by referencing the conferences’ five year
reviews and their REPORTS, it also reaffirms reservations that
governments have made during those processes.

Death Penalty: Paragraph 44 (viii) was adopted as
follows: “Protect children from torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Call upon the governments
of all States, in particular States in which the death penalty has
not been abolished, to comply with the obligations they have
assumed under relevant international human rights instruments,
including in particular articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and Articles 6 and 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

Comment: This text has been used in the past in resolutions at
the Commission on Human Rights. This wording is convenient for
the United States, since the US is not bound by the CRC, and
ratified the ICCPR while reserving the right to continue to impose
the death penalty, including on under-18’s.

Children and Armed Conflict: Two paragraphs in this section were
dropped completely. One was on providing protection and
assistance, including reintegration and development assistance,
to international displaced children. The second was on ensuring
full, safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel and
timely and adequate delivery of humanitarian assistance to all
children affected by armed conflict.

Comment: We understand that the SDC opposed these
paragraphs, and once it became clear that the chair was willing
to drop paragraphs in order to achieve consensus, they only
hardened their position. Other delegates tried hard to keep the
paragraphs included, but ultimately failed.

Child Labor: A paragraph that called for states to elaborate and
implement strategies to eliminate child labour contrary to
accepted international standards, and to promote awareness of
children’s rights to protection was dropped. Another paragraph,
which originally focused on working children, was revised as
follows: “In this context, protect children from all forms of
economic exploitation by mobilizing national partnerships and
international cooperation, and improve the conditions of children
through, inter alia, providing working children with free basic
education, and with vocational training and their integration into
the education system in every way possible, and encourage
support for social and economic policies aimed at poverty
eradication and at providing families, particularly women, with
employment and income generating opportunities.” (Para 44
xxxvi)

Follow-up: The paragraph describing national plans of action
(now para 59) specifies that states should develop these
plans “taking into account the best interests of the child,
consistent with national laws, religious and ethical values and
cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with all
human rights and fundamental freedoms.” This language was
also used to introduce the strategies and actions in the Health
section. (para 37).

The chair’s proposal for this paragraph had also included a
reference to “taking into account the best interests of the child
and the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of
the Child.” The reference to the Convention has been dropped.

Comment: This language was proposed by the SDC, and was
described by one delegate as “contradictory caveats” that may
enable states to justify practices that run contrary to the CRC.
The failure to mention the CRC at all in relation to national plans
of action will make it more difficult to integrate the plans of action
with implementation of the Convention.

Resources: In the Declaration, para 8 had originally included
reference to the international target of 0.7 percent GNP for official
development assistance. This was dropped. The para is now
much more general and simply states “We recognize that the
implementation of the present Declaration and Plan of Action
requires not only renewed political will, but also the mobilization
and allocation of additional resources at both the national and
international levels, taking into account the urgency and gravity
of the special needs of children.” A reference to the 0.7 GNP
target remains in the “Mobilizing Resources” section (para 52
(a)).

We have not yet been able to get an electronic version of the
final text, but will circulate it among the Caucus as soon as
possible. The excerpts above are based on a hard copy that we
were able to obtain.

The Child Rights Caucus Press Release is
also available.pdf: www.crin.org/docs/resources/publications/CRCaucus_Update5-12-02.pdf

Please note that these reports are hosted by CRIN as a resource for Child Rights campaigners, researchers and other interested parties. Unless otherwise stated, they are not the work of CRIN and their inclusion in our database does not necessarily signify endorsement or agreement with their content by CRIN.