Commission on Human Rights begins review of development

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
22 March 2002
Evening



The Commission on Human Rights began its consideration this evening of the right to development, hearing from a series of developing countries urging increases in financial aid from rich nations, establishment of a more equitable international trade regime, greater forgiveness of external debt, steps to reduce growing disparities in wealth and income, and measures to protect vulnerable countries from sudden shifts in international financial flows and unexpected economic downturns.

Economic globalization, these nations said, was so far an unequal process and had to be adjusted or managed so that less-fortunate countries were not left out or marginalized.

Cuba, citing World Bank figures, said of the world's 6 billion inhabitants, some 2.8 billion lived on less than $ 2 dollars per day, and 1.2 billion on less than $ 1 per day. By contrast, the average income of the 20 richest countries on the planet was 37 times higher than that of the 20 poorest nations.

Also speaking was the Commission's Independent Expert on the right to development, Arjun Sengupta, who encouraged the Commission to consider his proposal to establish "development compacts", an idea he said was worth testing as a means of ensuring that the right to development became a vital and effective framework for human development. While other development methodologies existed at the international level, he said, it was important to bear in mind that they did not make a link to human rights, which was crucial.

Mohammed-Salah Dembri, Chairman of the Commission's Working Group on the right to development, introduced the group's report of its fourth session and told the Commission among other things that the group had termed activities at the national level to empower women and combat poverty vital for spurring development.

On another matter, the Commission decided this evening to delay the Special Debate planned for its fifty-eighth session to next year.

Speaking during the evening meeting were representatives of Pakistan, Chile (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), Brazil, Malaysia, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Cuba, Costa Rica, Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), China, Mexico, Syria, Japan, Indonesia, Uruguay, India, and the Republic of Korea.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 25 March, to continue its debate on the right to development.


Right to Development

Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it a series of documents.

There is a report of the open-ended Working Group on the right to development on its third session (E/CN.4/2002/28), which notes among its conclusions and recommendations that there is a need for an international environment conducive to realization of the right to development; that it is important to identify and analyze obstacles; that particular attention should be placed on financial issues such as international trade, good governance and equity at the international level, and reduction of the debt burden of developing countries; and that national efforts should focus among other things on poverty eradication, enhancement of the role of women, emphasis on the rights of the child, efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases, steps to promote good governance, measures to advance civil society, and programmes to combat corruption. The Working Group terms the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) "a practical example which could be explored for the promotion of a rights-based approach to development".

There is a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to development (E/CN.4/2002/27) which reviews activities of her Office relating to implementation of the right; reviews implementation of resolutions of the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights with regard to the right to development; and analyses coordination among relevant entities of the United Nations system in the implementation of relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights.

There is a report of the Independent Expert on the right to development (E/CN.4/2002/WG.18/2). The report considers, among other things, the concept and content of the right to development as the right to a process, the role of NGOs in promoting the right to development, the obligations of States and human rights and development cooperation. The report stresses that the right to development as the right to a process of development was not just an umbrella right or the sum of a set of rights. It was the right to a process that expanded the capabilities or freedom of individuals to improve their well-being and to realize what they valued. Implementing the right to development would require both national and international actions. The report claims, however, that the primary responsibility for implementing the right to development belongs to States.

There is a note verbal from the Permanent Mission of Iraq (E/CN.4/2002/139) on "the effects of the economic embargo and the United States' and United Kingdom's aggression on the children of Iraq" which contends there has been extensive damage to family living standards, availability of food stuffs, health, and education in Iraq.

There is a report of the World Health Organization (E/CN.4/2002/133) summarizing, among others things, activities and actions in the field of racism, the right to development, economic, social and cultural rights, integration of the human rights of women, rights of the child, indigenous issues, promotion and protection of human rights and effective functioning of human rights mechanisms.

And there is a letter from the Permanent Representative of Cyprus addressed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2002/124) charging the destruction and desecration of churches in Turkish occupied villages in the district of Kyrenia.


Statements

MOHAMMED-SALAH DEMBRI, Chairman of the Working Group on the right to development, presented group's report of its third session (E/CN.4/2002/28). Among the matters considered at the session were an interactive debate that had been held with representatives of the United Nations institutions, Bretton Woods institutions, and other international, governmental and non-governmental organizations. The conclusions adopted at the end of that session showed the concern expressed by delegations due to the low number of participants. A second point considered by the Working Group was the realization of the right to development at the international level. The consensus that appeared during preparations for the Monterrey Conference had guided the conclusions of the working group. In considering actions to promote development at the national level, Working Group considered that relevant components were the eradication of poverty and the role played by women. The role played by civil society was also discussed.

The fourth subject considered was the new partnership for the development of Africa. The Working Group was pleased to announce that an appropriate framework for the implementation of the contract for development suggested by the Independent Expert should be created soon. A fifth subject taken up was consideration of the fourth report of the independent expert. The strengthening of the High Commissioner's Office's human and financial resources was also on the agenda of the working group.

ARJUN SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on the right to development, said he had repeatedly stated that the simple objective that guided his work was to consider the right to development in a manner that was realizable and able to be implemented immediately. It was with that understanding that he had presented his fourth report to the working group last month. The report concentrated entirely on the method of implementing the right to development, spelling out the essential features of the right in a way that helped its implementation. It discussed the nature of national actions that were required and mechanisms that were necessary to carry out those actions. The report also examined international cooperation and proposed an effective international mechanism for implementing the right to development.

Mr. Sengupta said a forthcoming report would help the working group to make concrete recommendations about international issues within the framework of the Declaration on the Right to Development; what national mechanisms States needed to respond to the challenges posed by these international issues using a right to development approach; and how to formulate concrete measures of international action through which States could operationalize the international dimension of the right to development.

Mr. Sengupta encouraged the Commission in its debate on the right to development to consider his proposal on development compacts as a possible operational model for the right to development. He had proposed one model -- it was not the only one -- but he believed that it was worth developing and testing as a means of ensuring that the right to development became a vital and effective framework for human development. While other development methodologies existed at the international level, it was important to bear in mind that they did not make the link to human rights. It was this crucial link to human rights that brought accountability and a legal framework to development. He encouraged the Commission to consider development compacts within this light.

FARRUK IQBAL KHAN (Pakistan) said the agreed conclusions of the Working Group reflected the fact that the realization of the right to development could not be promoted without addressing the obstacles existing both at the national and international levels. By and large, most Governments were taking steps at the national level. They could not relinquish their primary responsibility in formulating policies. But in the absence of an enabling international environment, their efforts at the national level alone could not lead to sustained growth and development. The right to development must be guided by the core principles of human rights such as equality, non-discrimination, participation, accountability and transparency at the international level, in order to help foster an equitable international economic system. The Right to Development was a sum total of all human rights.

The most important obstacles to the realization of the right to development arose from the inequitable international economic, financial and trading systems. The problems pertaining to globalization, especially the disparities that it generated flowed, from these inequalities. Market oriented prescriptions which were driving the process of globalization had, in many cases, failed to address the developmental concerns of the developing countries. The Working Group had rightly identified these issues as critical to making progress towards the implementation of the Right to Development. The constructive deliberations at the Working Group had generated a positive momentum for future work. Pakistan was, however, concerned that not all international organizations had responded positively to the invitation extended to them to participate in the Working Group.

JUAN ENRIQUE VEGA (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC) stressed the importance of the right to development for the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, since it coincided with their vision of a world that was safer and fairer for all, achieved through a series of actions based on the values of the national and international responsibilities of States. The goal was to create an environment that favoured the development of peoples and individuals. During the meetings of the Working Group, Chile had the opportunity to continue with its discussion of the relationship between the realization of the right to development and international economic, trade and financial issues, as well as to consider means of promoting equitable economic relations between countries and creating an international environment favourable to the realization of that right.

GRULAC felt that for an international environment favourable to development to be established, it was necessary to create a more just and fair multilateral trading system which, on the one hand, guaranteed access to markets for products from developing countries, especially agricultural products, and on the other, provided for the effective across-the-board incorporation of the right to development dimension into its agreements, rules and disciplines. A first step in this direction had been taken at the Ministerial Conference in Doha, but the outcome of those negotiations remained to be seen. Development called for a greater flexibility in accessing new technologies, which would enable developing countries to diversify their production, break their dependence on primary commodities and achieve rising levels of competitiveness in international markets. However, it was still the primary responsibility of States to devise and implement development policies.

ALEXANDRE PENA GHISLENI (Brazil) said there had been genuine progress in the situation in Brazil, despite a time of tremendous economic turmoil. A recent attempt to deal with hunger and malnutrition, however, had showed that something like 7 to 9 per cent of the population was suffering. Poverty reduction had been most pronounced in the northeast, Brazil's poorest region. The average social expenditure from 1995 to 1999 had been almost 40 per cent higher then before. Shortly, an amount close to $ 10 million would be spent in direct transfers of income to the poor and other vulnerable groups.

An improvement had been seen in education. Statistics showed that about 98 per cent of children aged 10 to 14 were now attending school. There was a long road ahead in the struggle for justice and equality. Unfortunately, Brazil was still suffering from tremendous inequalities, but there was nonetheless a sense of pride for the progress that had been seen in the social and economic fields.

AHMAD JAZRI B MOHD JOHAR (Malaysia) said Malaysia recognised that national Governments had the primary responsibility for formulating policies and programmes to give effect to the right to development. However, they needed to be supported by a stable and conducive international environment. This was especially pertinent in a globalizing world. With regard to Official Development Assistance, the Working Group on the right to development had rightly pointed to the need for effective implementation and fulfilment of internationally agreed targets adopted by consensus at various international conferences and summits, with particular emphasis on those contained in the Millennium Declaration.

The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and without double standards. Recognizing that poverty arising from the slow pace of development hindered the full enjoyment of all human rights, it was important that international cooperation be undertaken without any preconditions. Cooperation and smart partnership would allow developing countries to benefit from new technologies, especially information and communication technologies which could help narrow the digital divide.

JOAQUIN PEREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain) speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the human person was the central subject of development and must be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development. The European Union stressed that the basic responsibility for the realization of all human rights, including the right to development, lay with the State. Each country had a primary responsibility for its own economic and social development and this role of national policies and developments strategies also had been emphasized by the Declaration on the Right to Development. The Millennium Declaration had identified good governance within each country as one of the main factors for success in meeting the development goals. In the preparatory process for Monterrey the international community had also termed the fight against corruption at all levels as a priority, as corruption imposed a serious barrier to development and diverted resources away from activities that were vital for poverty eradication and economic and sustainable development.

At the same time national development efforts through the fashioning of national poverty reduction strategies needed to be supported by the international community, for instance by granting more generous development assistance, especially to countries making a genuine effort to apply their resources to poverty reduction. Indebted countries had made considerable efforts to fulfil their debt-servicing commitment despite the high social cost incurred. The enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative had provided an opportunity to strengthen the economic prospects and poverty reduction efforts of beneficiary countries. Good governance, HIV/AIDS, and enhancing the role of women was also important for spurring development.

JORGE FERRER RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that according to the World Bank Report on Global Development in 2000/2001, out of the 6,000 million inhabitants of the planet, some 2,800 million, almost half the population, lived on less than two dollars a day, and 1,200 million, a fifth, on less than one dollar. In contrast, the average income of the 20 richest countries in the planet was 37 times higher than that of the 20 poorest nations. This unequal relationship had doubled in the last 40 years. Underdeveloped countries had been applying policies and programs for the realization of the right to development in their own contexts, but these national efforts had been more and more affected by an international economic, financing and commercial environment which was increasingly unfavourable and out of control.

The growing service of foreign debt by underdeveloped countries, which in absolute terms had already been paid several times through interest, consumed a considerable part of the resources coming from exports and eroded the financing means available for the realization of development and human rights. Selfishness, extreme neo-liberalism, ack of human solidarity and the absence of political will to find effective and proportional solutions to the grave problems affecting four-fifths of humanity, and the paltry interests in preserving, at any expense, the immense and unfair privileges of developed countries, of their transnational companies and of a few millionaires, were the main causes of the denial of the right to development.

SERGIO CORELLA (Costa Rica) said both the international community and States were responsible for realization of the right to development; there also should be full involvement of all sectors of society and of civilians in general in defining how to spur development in their various regions. It also was clear that development aid goals of 0.7 per cent of the GDPs of developed countries needed to be met, and that transfer of technology was vital. Markets needed to be opened up to developing countries, and the export capacities of the least-developed countries had to be bolstered if the obstacles that persisted to unequal development were to be overcome.

The international financial system should be strengthened so that volatility and sudden crises could be avoided, and small and vulnerable States should be better protected during such crises. Massive violations of human rights, oppression of minorities, and similar problems had to be circumvented or development would not be possible. Corruption had to be reduced, and good governance fostered. Environmental protection was a further factor of importance. In fact, environmental considerations should be part and partial of any development strategy on any level.

P. I. AYEWOH (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the many international conferences and meetings on the right of development, with their focus on the examination of global challenges posed by the acceleration of globalization, had certainly contributed to the stock-taking exercise at the fourth session of the Working Group and had helped in shaping its conclusions. The commendable flexibility and the consensus building approach promoted by the Chair during the negotiations on the final outcome was laudable. The contributions of the United Nations Agencies to the second session were highly appreciated. However, there was a feeling of surprise and indeed concern at seeing that participation at this session had been extremely reduced, and consequently that the Working Group had not received the expected level of meaningful input.

The need for the Office of the High Commissioner to allocate, in accordance with the mandate and the objectives assigned to this Working Group, sufficient resources and most importantly, the necessary competent and qualified staff in order to ensure an adequate back-stopping to the Working Group, was self-evident. The African Group strongly supported the recommendation to extend the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group for at least two years to match logically the mandate of the same duration of the Independent Expert mandate and to allow it to discharge the workload which remained on its agenda.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said development assistance had been decreasing, and instead should increase, and had been arriving with more and more conditions attached, which was not conducive to enhancing the right to development. Realization of the right required joint efforts by the international community and States. The international community, for its part, needed to safeguard the right of developing countries to participate equally in the making of international rules, and it should change the current irrational international economic, trading and financial order, or at least refrain from setting up new obstacles to development for developing countries. The developed countries should help with debt relief, capacity building, and realization of sustainable development in poorer nations.

States bore the primary responsibility for the right to development, and as countries varied, only their Governments and peoples knew best what would work. Each country had to right to choose its own path of development and to set its own priorities in the light of its prevailing conditions. There was no single uniform model for development. The Office of the High Commissioner, the Independent Expert on the right to development, and the Working Group on the right to development had made valuable contributions to the process and should continue their efforts.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE (Mexico) said the Commission could not remain silent about grand injustices, inequalities and poverty in the world. A state of growing and accelerating globalization and interdependence required increased collective action and coordination to avoid poverty and marginalization. This must be a global focus for all sectors and international and national actors. One must recognize that international cooperation had not been fully capable so far of changing the situation. Therefore, international cooperation needed to be improved, since that was the only way to deal with development. Mexico fully supported the right to development and was undertaking activities both on the national and international levels to ensure an enabling environment for that right to become a reality.

The Monterrey Conference had focused on a shared undertaking for the eradication of poverty. It was not an isolated event. It was part of a series of attempts to increase awareness of the need for development. Mexico believed in the concept of shared responsibility and felt that there must be greater participation by developing countries, open international trade that met the needs of all countries, and mechanisms for responding to financial crisis and sustaining economic growth. It was essential that developed countries lived up to their official development assistance commitments.

IBRAHIM IBRAHIM (Syria) said the right to development covered many other rights and was closely linked to basic rights such as the right to education and the right to housing. However, reality was killing dreams. Theories and their application were very different. The gap between the two sides was widening and it was becoming very difficult to close the breach. A lack of political will to change the situation was evident. The lack of transparency and the closing of markets was one of several explanations for the worsening situation. Globalization should not be based on hegemony but on transparency. Poverty had to be eradicated, but unfortunately, many obstacles were impeding implementation of the right to development.

The efforts of the Working Group were valuable. The opinions and proposals of this group should be implemented by the both developed and developing countries. The world had a duty to developing countries to create an international community free from hunger, poverty and humiliation. The international community had to provide assistance to developing nations to a help them face natural disasters and diseases. Such catastrophes could be prevented if the necessary will was available and the financial resources were invested.

KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) said realization of the right to development had become a complex task, but at the same time political momentum was building thick and fast. It was possible to combine the wisdom, political will, and resources of the international community to confront the challenge. In order to ensure that the will and resources of all stakeholders were united and that all countries were brought on board, the concept of the right to development must open up its horizons and exploit its wider appeal. There was a tendency to see South-South cooperation from a narrow resource perspective, thus assigning it only a marginal role. However, such a view was flawed. The true value of South-South cooperation lay not so much in how many resources were available but in how much experience and knowledge could be shared. In fact, technology transfer on a South-South basis could be more amenable to the needs of developing countries than on a North-South basis. The fact that international cooperation had been reduced to North-South cooperation was unfortunate.

Development required a long-term, balanced and pragmatic approach. Japan, having been both a recipient and donor of development aid, believed development could be achieved most effectively and efficiently through good policy, effective institutions and self-reliance.

DJISMUN KASRI (Indonesia) said the capacity of developing countries to realize their right to development continued to be hampered by the inequities of the international system and hence the disparities between nations had first to be reduced. Good governance and the elimination of corruption were also prerequisites for successful national action. In addition, national policies should be focused first and foremost on the eradication of poverty, a priority which had become all the more pressing in light of the upsurge of conflicts and terrorism, for extreme poverty often lay at the roots of such violence. Although numerous pledges to wipe out poverty had been made in the past, notably the Millennium Declaration promise to free the entire human race from want and to make the right to development a reality for everyone, these pledges had to be now transformed into action. Hunger, lack of primary health care and the absence of basic education had to be addressed.

Within the framework of its decentralization policy, the Indonesian Government was developing a project to help regions improve the management of their health services. The Asian Development Bank would sponsor this programme, which would focus on training local administrations, strengthening public health centres, and reforming the entire regional health system.

FREDERICO PERAZZA (Uruguay) said the right to development was an inalienable human right. The debate in the Working Group had been successfully revitalized through the strong leadership of the Group. Concerning the conclusions made, it had been clearly stated that States had the responsibility to create an enabling environment for development. It was an ambitious message and required a commitment on the part of the entire international community. Help here would give further opportunities for developing countries to be involved in international markets. One of the most important challenges was to redesign the multilateral trading system from a human rights standpoint. Improvements were needed in this regard, particularly in the field of agriculture.

Those countries that had developed successfully had a responsibility to open up opportunities to developing countries. The development dimension needed to be the very focus of international cooperation. There should be standards for preferential treatment of developing countries, better terms of trade, and improved technology transfer. On the national level, States must design social and economic strategies with a view to enabling development. Uruguay hoped the mandate of the Working Group would be extended for another two years.

SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said the rights came with obligations and duties, and the realization of the right to development could be ensured only if the existence of corresponding obligations was acknowledged both at the national and international levels. Democracy and transparent, accountable and participatory Governance alone could ensure that the actions of States in this area were in the best interests of citizens. The function of the watchdog could be performed only when the people of the country were the best judges of their needs. Prescriptive norms imposed from outside were counter-productive and contrary to the sovereign equality of States.

However, equally important for realization of the right to development were equitable economic relations, a conducive economic environment and cooperation at the international level. The developing countries remained starved of the resources required for realisation of the right to development. Moreover, the world today was a global village where national boundaries no longer guaranteed that a country would be invulnerable to external economic influences.

KANG-IL HU (Republic of Korea) said without each country's voluntary engagement and willingness to participate in the development process, one could not expect meaningful progress. Both international and national actions were needed. There could be no doubt that international cooperation was an essential element in this regard. At the same time, however, external assistance could not play a sustainable role unless the individual country exerted its utmost efforts to transform itself into a healthy society where good governance, rule of law and democracy prevailed. In fact, international cooperation and sound internal reforms based on good governance were equally important in the development process.

The Republic of Korea was fully committed to the noble cause of promoting and protecting all human rights, including the right to development. It would continue to move down the path of making the right to development a reality for everyone by sharing its own development experiences and by increasing its official development assistance, which had amounted to $ 212 million in 2000.




* *** *