(I wrote this for UNA-USA, but just wanted to post here and mention that I found seeing this convention pass quite moving, and learned a lot about an issue I knew little about before.)

After five years of negotiations, persons who are deaf, blind, full and partially paralyzed, stood up as they could, clapped their hands as they were able, and celebrated.

They were cheering for the agreement on the final text of the first-ever convention on rights of persons with disabilities, which concluded at United Nations headquarters in New York on August 26. The convention will be presented to the upcoming 61st session of the General Assembly, and requires 20 instruments of ratification or accession from UN member states before it enters into force.

More than 100 countries are expected to sign, however, some key world leaders, including the US, do not plan to ratify the convention. They will choose not to ratify for a variety of reasons, such as concerns over technicalities and funding, and because they already have national legislation. Currently, only around 45 countries have legislation dealing with rights of persons with disabilities.

Since the beginning of the process, the US has taken the position that it does not need to adopt this international legal framework because it already has progressive disability laws, namely the American Disabilities Act. However, throughout the process, the US provided extensive technical assistance in the drafting. According to US Mission spokesman Richard Grinnell, the US fully supports the improvement of international standards for the disabled.

But for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as the US International Council on Disabilities (USICD), technical assistance is not enough.

"Disability rights is another way to show that every country should be treated equal, and there should not be any discrimination between able bodied and disabled bodies," said Tapan Banerjee, executive director of USICD. "Supporting [this convention] would be very much part of the US faith in democracy at large. We should take leadership, like we have taken on other human rights issues."

An estimated 650 million people live with disabilities—80 percent of whom live in developing countries, according to the UN Development Program.

Persons with disabilities, while protected under national and international human rights law, are often denied their rights, and are more susceptible to situations of risk, such as armed conflict and natural disasters. Disabled women are more susceptible to rape and sexual abuse, and other forms of abuse—such as denial of information or health care—can have extreme effects. The UN estimates that in developing countries 98 percent of disabled persons are unemployed, and 90 percent of children with disabilities do not attend school. In many places, disabled people cannot exercise their right to vote because they are not able to access the poles.

Representatives from more than 90 NGOs from around the world participated in the process that occurred in eight periodic marathon meetings beginning in 2001. In contrast to other UN processes, NGOs had the right to make direct interventions and contributions to the document. Credit for the success of the convention is largely given to Ad Hoc Committee Chairman Don MacKay of New Zealand, who conducted the delicate and strenuous negotiations. One outstanding thing about this meeting, said MacKay, was that everyone wanted an outcome.

The document has 50 articles, as well as an optional protocol, spanning topics such as inclusiveness, accessibility, freedom of movement, removal of stereotypes, participation and non-discrimination.

How the convention is to be monitored—a contentious issue—was decided in a meeting earlier this year. Two years after ratification, states parties to the convention will submit reports on measures they have taken to fulfill the convention to an elected independent committee of experts. Full participation of civil society, and in particular, persons with disabilities, is encouraged in the monitoring process.

A significant majority of UN member states participated in drafting the convention, and their attitudes changed as they participated in the process. Over the years of negotiations, the numbers of persons with disabilities on government delegations increased, and a paradigm shift in language emerged—from harsh references and a social welfare mindset to the view that disabilities are a human rights issue.

The agreement on the convention will also ensure that the UN itself can respond more aptly to the needs of persons with disabilities, as well as become an institution that can effectively champion their human rights.

I arrived yesterday, and what a conference. Deluxe. The convention center is the only building I have ever seen that looks like a clam shell.

We had a panel last night on youth and fair trade, which went quite well. About 50 young people were there from around the world, and the energy, intelligence and care for the issues was moving. There is a spectrum of youth belief on trade - from the "inside approach" of a young Canadian working with business students at his universities, the "direct approach" of international partnership between students in the Phillipines and Hong Kong talking about trade relations between the two countries, and other students working on human rights advocacy in their own countries.

After the presentations, the expected "what can I do exchange" ensued. Addressing a question from a girl in the US, a young man from Nepal said "Make your trade minister responsible. While we sit here talking in this room about working together your trade minister is telling mine if you don't sign this we will cut your aid."

What a lot of work we have to do, to mobilize the people of our countries so that the trade minister knows we are watching their every move. If Nepal is to stand up to the US, for example, they need someone in the world to have their back. Ideally, the people of the US would say, let Nepal have their sovereign decision, but don't cut our life-saving aid to them. Aid is no gift in international politics, there is always a cost.

So the issues here are every complex -- you can sit in a briefing and quickly get lost with all the paragraph referenced, jargon and acronyms. But there is a lot to take in, and a young person can learn a lot here, as much as anyone. Ironically, the WTO is a great place to meet other NGOs and agencies, and learn about exciting new technologies. People here are smart, approachable and the facilities are good. Like any conferences, people meet, ideas are born, and projects grow. But I am impressed by the caliber of the people here, and the projects presented that address the urgency of peoples needs.

For example, I learned about all the new technologies that are being developed for bio-diesel, and regardless of trade talks, as we speak companies are making cheap, efficient, eco-friendly fuels out of palm, cooking oil, and other waste. Its only a matter of time before they hit our markets.

In another case, I met a woman from Laos who has a cooperative making organic cotton baby clothes. I think that young mothers shopping at the thousands of organic grocery stores in the US would love to buy these baby clothes. All we need to do to make it happen is to build a relationship.

Clinton Global Initiative – New York Sept. 21 2005

I found myself at this high-powered event as a “volunteer table facilitator,” which meant that I introduced the discussions that small groups had after hearing short plenary, and had close contact with all the participants. The Clinton Global Initiative was a 3-day meeting after the United Nations General Assembly World Summit, where 170 heads of state and many other religious and NGO leaders came to NY. Clinton’s rationale was, let’s provide a forum after the UN Summit where people can really dialogue and we can also invite business leaders and other persons of influence. As a volunteer for America Speaks, an organization specializing in orchestrating community dialogue, I facilitated the “Poverty” track; other tracks included Climate Change, Religion and Governance. After literally running into celebrities like Barbara Streisand, Oprah, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton himself -- strolling the halls in his reading glasses,-- I was happy to run into one our NGO partners, Kathryn Wolford, Director of Lutheran World Relief.

We were able to exchange ‘can you believe this’ looks – and it wasn’t because of the frequent celeb spotting (I met Angelina Jolie and saw Brad Pitt too!), but perhaps because of the continuous emphasis of the role of business and the private sector which can make an NGO uneasy, -- or maybe it was the speech from Paul Wolfowitz, new President of the World Bank (who has also recently discovered that shock! the average US citizen believes we spend 10% of our national budget on international aid, but we really just spend <1%) – or maybe it was the simplification of poverty in general, where it was emphasized that with increased immediate spending we can end it, while there is also a bigger story to tell about justice – or maybe it was that women and persons of color were a bit too few and far between – our maybe it was just our shared conference fatigue.

But you have to hand it to him, Bill Clinton managed to get the powerhouses of the private sector in one room and have them talk about poverty. The emphasis on Corporate Social Responsibility was clear, and people were eager to use creative approaches to encouraging pro-poor growth through business investment. Many exciting announcements were made such as plans to build cell phone towers in Gaza; start large investment funds to for microfinance; create an insurance fund to protect investments in Gaza; start City Year Louisiana; train journalists in Africa, and many more.

The innovation of the CGI was that all participants that came had to make some sort of commitment – and by the conference’s close, those commitments totaled $1.25 billion. In his closing speech, Clinton focused on religion, citing texts from all the worlds leading faiths on poverty and conflict resolution. It was an impressive ending, where it seemed he truly spoke from his heart, showing a sincere thoughtfulness and dedication. He has effectively used himself as a grand facilitator, using his personal reputation as a table of trust to bring NGOs and the private sector together. As was expressed at the meeting, it can be hard to create these partnerships because one side does not know the other, and each carries false impressions. You can expect to hear from Clinton again, and I think we can all look forward to that.