Building a Global Treaty for Disability Human Rights

by Zena Naiditch

Equip for Equality's President and CEO Zena Naiditch Establishment of an international treaty on the human rights of people with disabilities is moving forward, despite resistance from the United States government. A 2001 United Nations General Assembly Resolution requires an Ad Hoc Committee to look at ways of creating a comprehensive international standard for disability rights. The resolution further calls upon countries to "hold regional meetings and seminars to contribute to the work of the Ad Hoc Committee by making recommendations regarding the content and practical measures that should be considered in the international convention." The Committee should wrap up its work later this year.

Along with other disability activists from around the world, I attended the second Ad Hoc Committee meeting last June at U.N. Headquarters in New York. Many governments included a disability leader as part of their delegation, and representatives met regularly with their country's disability activists to talk about recent developments and positions on various issues under discussion.

We have all heard criticism from other countries that the United States is not an active and supportive member of the international community and often prefers to act unilaterally. At the second Ad Hoc Committee meeting, I watched first-hand as our country once again isolated itself from the rest of the world.

The U.S. took the same position that it has taken on other international human rights treaties, asserting that a binding international treaty is unnecessary and that each country should enact its own laws to protect the rights of its citizens. Government representatives stated that our country has model laws for disability rights, such as ADA (anti-discrimination) and IDEA (special education) and offered to provide technical assistance to other countries. The U.S. said it will cooperate with the Committee but will not sign any resulting treaty, effectively disempowering our advocates at the meeting.

The U.S. statement went on to explain that our country's model laws have been successful at breaking down barriers in all aspects of our society, illustrating the ADA's impact with the assertion that the our country's public transportation systems are now accessible to people with disabilities. The statement paints a picture of our society with which Americans with disabilities, in light of their daily realities, would strongly disagree. Many people with disabilities remain isolated and disenfranchised and face discrimination in employment, transportation and other key aspects of their lives.

The U.S. government followed an essentially undemocratic process to establish its position on the resolution. Unlike many other countries, our government chose not to include a person with a disability as part of the delegation and failed to include people with disabilities in its decision-making process. Representatives of the U.S. government failed to acknowledge the powerful contribution that people with disabilities and the nonprofit organizations that represent them could have made to their position. In fact, the U.S. delegation met with American disability activists only after they received a complaint from us, which resulted in a brief meeting one day before the end of the two-week session and after the U.S. released its statement.

The bottom line: Americans with disabilities and leading national disability rights organizations played no role in the U.S. position on international rights for people with disabilities.

Those of us who spoke up at the meeting with the U.S. delegation, including many national leaders in the movement, were disturbed that our country was once again isolating itself from the rest of the world. We suggested that countries need to understand the benefits of enacting national laws, but also the limitations of such actions in transforming society and the critical role enforcement agencies and nonprofits play in securing compliance. It was also clear that the U.S. government wanted to avoid any international oversight of our progress on the disability rights front.

After the U.S. released its statement, other nations' advocates repeatedly asked me to explain our country's position. Advocates from around the world were having a hard time understanding why the U.S. would not support such a treaty. Many told me that their countries were not likely to pass national anti-discrimination laws or take other actions until there is the pressure of an international treaty. Like other U.S. advocates who attended the meeting, I tried to explain our government's perspective without defending it.

In truth, the U.S. disability community has to accept some responsibility for the situation. After all, our government knows from experience that it will suffer little consequence by excluding members of our community from the decision-making process. Outside of a few letters, the U.S. disability community has not risen up to protest our government's actions. In some ways, our meager show of resistance is similar to our government's isolationist tendencies - focused on domestic issues with only a passing interest in the worldwide disability rights movement.

Subscribe to the Equalizer | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use