EYEontheUN unofficial transcript of Meeting of Ad Hoc Committee on a Draft Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities


August 25, 2006


Sudan for Arab Group: Regarding preambular paragraph S, in the spirit of this convention, and through consultations, we came up with language, which has been taken from the optional protocol of Convention on the Rights of the Child for children under armed conflict:

“Bearing in mind that conditions of peace and security based on full respect of the purposes and principles contained in the Charter and observance of applicable human rights instruments are indispensable for the full protection of [the disabled?], in particular during armed conflicts and foreign occupation”

Chair: This language is consistent with the optional protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Any objections?

US: My delegation cannot support the text for preambular paragraph S. We intend to ask for a vote when the report is formally adopted.

Israel: We also oppose the addition of the term foreign occupation, as it is a clear attempt to politicize the convention.

Chair: Any objection to adoption of article 11 ad referendum? No objection, it is so decided.

VOTE ON THE INCLUSION OF PREAMBULAR PARAGRAPH (S)

YES	
102	
	
NO
5 (Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, United States)	
		
ABSTAIN
8 (Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Níger, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Serbia) 

Explanation of Vote:

United States: 
We intend to join consensus on the adoption of the Convention, but calling a vote on preambular paragraph (S) was a matter of principle. This language is on armed conflict; we were concerned about having a legal confusion.

Australia:
There is no protection gap under armed conflict, including under occupation.

Canada:
We will join consensus on adoption of the report. This proposal has politicized our process--it does not serve the interest of strengthening the protection of peoples with disabilities.

Israel: 
We support the Convention. We only oppose the language on occupation which is a politicization of the Convention.

Libya:
We supported the adoption of this paragraph not because we seek to politicize the process, but, the Nazis—one of their goals was to eliminate people with disabilities. So we want to protect them, to make sure that this does not happen again.

Cuba: On politicization—if there were no occupation, wars, illegal wars, launched on the basis of false pretexts, there would be fewer people with disabilities.

Sudan, on behalf of the Arab Group: Those who voted against are not in favor of protecting persons with disabilities. They are creating the problems for persons with disabilities, they are killing them.