During the discussions on the preamble and declaration, as can be seen in our posting No 9 (ADD LINK) many Member States made strong statements calling for the inclusion of sexual and reproductive health and rights. The statement below was made by Nigeria and is fully reported for reference purposes. It is interesting to note that in making this statement, Nigeria neither aligned itself with either the Group of 77 and China, nor with the Africa Group.
Usman Sarki, Deputy Permanent Representative for Nigeria thanked the Co-facilitator and started off by congratulating all delegates, Member States and civil society organizations and other stakeholders on the important achievement that they registered of the adoption of the Addis Ababa outcome on FfD. It was a historic landmark and a historic achievement that they should build on in discussing the post-2015...
He then congratulated the co-facilitators on the excellent work they have been doing in chairing the process. The Nigerian statement, he said, will be general in nature, welcoming a lot of the positive issues that have been tackled and also register a few reservations or concerns here and there regarding the issues that seem to be unfolding in these deliberations.
He welcomed the opportunity to address the 5Ps and underscored the recognition that existential issues like the right to education, health, social protection, food, water and sanitation should be recognised and addressed as such in the Declaration. The issues of climate change, environment, habitat, sustainable consumption and production are very important, very significant and should be reflected, and care for the planet.
He said they should go beyond addressing in an academic fashion the issue of poverty and making a distinction between poverty and extreme poverty. They should address poverty as a core issue that should be converted globally in partnership between the North and South and in a triangular fashion to get rid of this phenomenal scourge.
They are of the view that the unfinished MDGs should be given prominence in the final declaration, so that at the national and sub-regional level and regional level they could be exhausted. Issues of financing for development and overseas development assistance, technology transfer and the international financing institutions should be recognized and reiterated with some sort of urgency.
CBDR is very fundamental and they should address it without actually giving in to sentiments. They should not give in to reservations that they saw come out of the Addis Ababa Summit. This is an important issue across regions because of the implications it has on the future environment.
Co-chairs, having made these general remarks the issue, they have a few concerns to raise in terms of mentioning them here in a very constructive, non-combative and engaging manner, so that their position could be understood and find common ground on those issues and strengthen the outcome document that we are deliberating now. The issue of national sovereignty is a very fundamental issue that must be reflected and given respect to. Fundamental principles of state practice -- we cannot do away with them ,nor ignore them. We insist that they be incorporated in the text.
In international laws and state practice, they cannot do away with this and this should be incorporated into text. This has been enshrined in article 2.1 and 2.7 of the UN charter itself.
The issue of family is unfortunately becoming divisive and a bit controversial in the context of post-2015 and even beyond. They feel that family matters or the reflection the family, not various types or forms of families should be reflected in the document . Also religious and cultural values and practices, that support integrity of the family and advocate for it, and peace and security should be realised and advocated for in the global document should be implemented in the context of the post 2015 agenda. In the holistic implementation of the SDGs, therefore ,the concept of various forms of the family are not recognised in any binding convention, international instruments or documents. They are therefore discussed in a non-binding manner, but without any conclusion on the terms of their acceptance.
It is also important for them to realise that issues dealing with sexual and reproductive health and rights do not enjoy universal consensus. They give rise to ambiguities and they give rise to misunderstanding and they give rise to suspicions about intentions. They cannot impose commitments upon governments and States that they cannot bear. that contradicts national outlooks, that contradicts religious beliefs and values, that contradicts traditional values, that contradict jurisprudence and judicial processes in countries, that contradict legislation in Member States. There is no possible rational or justification for Member States to sit in conclave at the UN to deliberate on issues that will be un-implementable at the national level. If he may say so, issues that give raise to abortion for instance, or reconfiguration of family, or endorsing certain behaviour and tendencies, interpersonal relationships that go against grain of traditionally accepted practices are very dangerous zones that they should not lend ourselves to, within the intergovernmental process in the United Nations. They are best left alone to be handled, treated and deliberated on at the national level, without imposing beyond their territories or immediate state jurisdiction.
As such, there are some paragraphs in the SDG document that they are concerned about and over which they have made written reservations. Those reservations should be respected and taken into account. And if needs be those paragraphs should be expunged, or rewritten or rephrased so to not give rise to ambiguity. At the national level, issues of abortion, issues of same sex marriage, issues of other types of tendencies; sexual orientation and other tendencies are very, very, very sensitive. They are dealing with a transformative global agenda that seeks to transform the lives of millions, if not billions, of people in tangible material ways. They should not pose obstacles to that existential, elemental aspiration that deals with the lives and fortunes of billions of people prospectively, by introducing such an elements that in their nature undermine or seek to undermine the fabric of the family, relationships that have been established over centuries, of people’s interactions and also sanctioned by religion, custom and culture. We are not here to undo what has been existing. We are here to do what is the possible to advance prospect of womankind’s development, we are not here to give lecture. We are here to pause, to posit our position.
He then gave specific reference to para 24: Nigeria does not support any modification to paragraph 24 that could include references to adolescents or youth in the context of SRHR, for instance, or services, or education. In the draft SDG document, to be very precise, they therefore do not support any measure that could potentially or actually that for removal of barriers to comprehensive sexuality education, such as parental consent; that will remove barriers to abortion services, such as third party requirement, mainly parental consent; that will remove barriers of parental consent in accessing sexual and reproductive health services, whatever that means; or that will abolish laws that require obtaining parental consent. These are core pillars, foundations of family resilience and family integrity. They are not here to undo those elements. They also reiterate that any medical sexual and reproductive health services, or information or counselling provided to children, should only be given with parental consent, even in a school environment. These are some of these issues that they wished to raise at this very moment, and while the discussion progresses they are going to address the document, article by article, and paragraph by paragraph.