Remarks of the Honorable Timothy E. Wirth

UN Press Briefing Room

On adolescents and the UN Special Session on Children

May 8, 2002

 

 

 

Thank you all for coming.  It is a pleasure to be with you this morning, and to join UNFPA’s outstanding Executive Director, Thoraya Obaid.  Complex negotiations such as those surrounding the Special Session on Children require a great deal of give and take, patience and a deep appreciation for cultural differences among nations.  Few people have been as outspoken or thoughtful on the subject of cultural respect than Mrs. Obaid and we are truly grateful for her leadership in these efforts and at the UN Population Fund.  Thank you, Thoraya.

 

We meet this morning as nations gather to review progress on major goals set more than a decade ago at the World Summit on Children.  At that Summit, children were defined as anyone under the age of 18.   So the question, 12 years later, is whether children under the age of 18 are better off today than they were a decade ago?  And the answer is quite mixed. 

 

On the positive side of the ledger, we have seen significant gains in the health and well-being of young children – under the age of 10.  Infant mortality has been reduced, polio is near eradication, immunizations are up, the incidence of measles is down.  There is a great deal more to do, but a record of clear progress in the health of young children is apparent. 

 

But as Mrs. Obaid has just thoroughly and persuasively outlined, there has been far less progress in addressing the circumstances and needs of those children in the second decade of life.

 

Today, there are more than one billion children between the ages of 10 and 18.  Their fates and the decisions that they make in the years to come will determine, in large part, the demographic, economic and political future of this century.  That is why it is so important that the Special Session on Children makes clear progress in advancing the rights of children and ensuring that their needs are met in the coming years. 

 

Unfortunately, these issues are at the center of the unresolved issues in the ongoing negotiations.  As I understand it, there are three major areas of disagreement:

 

1.    Language related to the “rights” of children and the Convention on the Rights on the Child;

 

You will recall that the Convention on the Rights of the Child was negotiated during the Reagan and Bush Administration’s and concluded without dissent in the late 1980s.  After its adoption, the Convention got defined in certain quarters as an agreement that asserts children’s rights at the expense of the rights, roles and responsibilities of parents.  The Convention does establish the right of all children up to 18 to the highest attainable standards in such areas as health and education.  At the same time, there are numerous references in the agreement that reaffirm the rights of parents and families. 

 

2.    Language related to reproductive health services;

 

Objections have been lodged about the inclusion of language related to reproductive health services, which some fear might encourage adolescents and others to choose abortion, or otherwise encourage an expansion of abortion services around the world. 

 

This issue has been negotiated extensively during the past 10 years, as Thoraya mentioned, at the ICPD in Cairo, at the Women’s Conference in Beijing and so on.  And there is key language in those documents suggesting that reproductive health services includes safe abortion in those countries where it is not against the law, and, everywhere, to deal with the complications of unsafe abortion. 

 

 

3.    Finally there is disagreement about the provision of sex education and reproductive health services for adolescents.

 

As you know, some delegations are suggesting an abstinence-only until marriage approach; others believe that a comprehensive approach that includes abstinence makes more sense. 

 

One of the difficulties here is that so many adolescents around the world are married.  In addition, the abstinence-only approach is difficult for certain countries facing the worst of the HIV-AIDS crisis.  Young people, especially young girls, are among the highest risk populations for HIV infection in many countries, particularly when they are forced.  And finally, we have the challenges of early pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases and a host of other health concerns.  

 

These issues will likely be the focus of extensive negotiations in the coming days and we thought it would be useful to highlight this morning why addressing the needs of  adolescents is so important. 

 

I mentioned at the outset how much Mrs. Obaid has done to promote cultural tolerance and understanding and I think that is a useful point of departure for these negotiations.  It will be important for all involved to remember the need to respect cultural differences and to underscore the fact that policymaking in the areas we’ve discussed this morning is a national prerogative: sovereignty is not under negotiation at this Special Session. 

 

I point this out because I have been through more than a few of these negotiations, and I recall that strong reaffirmation of each nation’s sovereign rights goes a long way toward resolving disputes.  For those countries that have continued concern about certain text, I suggest that they recall the pragmatic position taken by the Holy See at 1994’s International Conference on Population and Development.  Everyone at that conference, recognizing the contributions of the Holy See and Catholic organizations to refugee, relief, children and so many other charitable efforts around the world, made every effort to address concerns expressed by the Holy See’s delegation at the conference.  In the end, there remained a few words and phrases that the Holy See found troubling.  Rather than block consensus on the text and bring down the entire conference, the Holy See signed on to the ICPD Program of Action, but expressed several reservations on certain paragraphs. 

 

This is a very viable option for the handful of countries here at the Special Session who might find certain text objectionable, for substantive, political or other reasons, but want to help facilitate the conclusion of a successful conference.