Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases UN body
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BEGINS REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
30 March 1999
Share
EVENING
HR/CN/99/14
30 March 1999
Widening Rich-Poor Gap Lamented; Pleas Heard for Reduction
of Foreign-Debt Burdens of Developing Countries
The Commission on Human Rights began discussion this evening of the right to development, with representatives of countries contending as in previous years that the gap between the rich and poor was widening and that the global economy was not doing enough to alleviate those stranded in situations where malnutrition, lack of basic health services, and an absence of primary education were the norm.
A representative of Colombia spoke for many when he said that much global economic progress had been made, but the fruits were enjoyed by a narrower and narrower slice of humanity. Meanwhile about three-fifths of the developing world did not have access to basic sanitation; a third lacked access to safe drinking water; and millions of children had insufficient food. Policies had to be adopted to take into account this increasing exclusion from the world's prosperity, he said, so that the global economy could be more equal in its effects and more helpful to the most vulnerable sectors of the world's population.
A representative of Morocco added other details: The consumption of the average African household had declined by 20 per cent over the last 25 years; the richest 20 per cent of the world ate 45 per cent of the meat produced, consumed 58 per cent of world energy, and owned 87 per cent of the world's motorized vehicles. Among other necessary steps, measures to reduce foreign-debt burdens of the world's poorer countries were critical, this official said. That contention was echoed by Germany, which spoke on behalf of the European Union.
Argun Sengupta, the Commission's Independent Expert on the Right to Development, began the debate by stating, among other things, that national economic policies at this point could no longer be separated from national policies and that private aid as well as official overseas development assistance (ODA) to the globe's poorer countries should be augmented.
Japan and Norway added that prime responsibility for the right to development fell with national governments, and that lack of development could not be invoked to justify abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
Earlier in the meeting the Commission concluded its consideration of racism and racial discrimination -- a debate that began last week and included a series of working-group meetings in preparation for a World Conference on the subject.
Delegates addressed the meeting from Japan, Germany (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Colombia, Pakistan, Morocco, Madagascar, Norway, South Africa, Nepal, India, Cuba, Sri Lanka, and China.
Also speaking were representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: European Union for Public Relations; North-South XXI; Society for Threatened Peoples; Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru"; the International Indian Treaty Council; and the American Association of Jurists.
Eritrea, Sudan, and Ethiopia spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Commission ended its evening session at 9 and immediately convened a night session expected to continue until midnight.
The Right to Development
Under this item, the Commission has before it a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/72 in which the Commission decided to recommend to the Economic and Social Council the establishment of a follow-up mechanism to the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development, initially for a period of 3 years, consisting of an open-ended working group and an independent expert appointed by the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. The report (E/CN.4/1999/19) on the right to development lists, among other things, the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights relating to the implementation of the right to development, as well as interagency coordination within the United Nations system for the implementation of relevant resolutions of the Commission.
The Commission is also taking up a report on the right to development by the Secretary-General, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/72 (E/CN.4/1999/20), in which the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the right to development for every human person and all peoples in all countries. There were replies received from the Governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Lebanon, Morocco, and Portugal summarised in the document.
There is also a report on the right to development, a letter dated 6 October from the Permanent Representative of Sudan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, addressed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The letter, signed by the Minister of Finance and Economy of the Republic of Sudan, deals with the attack by the United States on a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan on 20 August 1998.
Also before the Commission under this agenda item is a note by the Secretariat on the provisional work programme of the Independent Expert on the right to development (E/CN.4/1999/118). It presents the items to be implemented, suggests an agenda for the implementation, and a specific work plan for the Independent Expert. The note includes provisional estimates of the maximum expenditures that may be incurred in accomplishing travel and subsistence for the missions and visits to international institutions and meetings and the essential minimum to carry out the costs incurred for local support to the Independent Expert in New Delhi, India.
Statements
HEIGA JURT, of the European Union of Public Relations, said the right to development required freedom; where there was no freedom, development could not take place. She was Kashmiri and spoke for the people of the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, a part of Jammu and Kashmir occupied by Pakistan since 1947. These people had no right to development because they had no political representation or political activity, did not have the freedom of choice since they were governed by Islamabad's nominees, and did not have awareness because they had no university or institutions of higher technological learning. The overall literacy rate was 14 per cent. There were no revenues for development because their resources since 1947 had been exploited only for Pakistan's benefit; the region had been Pakistan's colony since that time; she appealed to other nations that once were colonies to raise their voice against Pakistan's exploitation of this region.
SHAHAB QARNI, of North South 21, said the United Nations was preparing to convene the World Conference against Racism and hoped that all aspects of discrimination would be addressed. The Mohabis were exposed to xenophobia and hatred attacks by Pakistan’s Government. The Special Rapporteur communicated these incidents to the Pakistan Government. The Government of Pakistan however, continued to oppress and discriminate against the Mohabis, labelling them as terrorists. The Government was creating hatred against them. This dimension of racial discrimination should be taken up in the upcoming World Conference.
PRIMO BURSICK, of the Society for Threatened Peoples, said the situation of 400,000 Nuba who lived in areas controlled by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) was particularly difficult; Sudanese authorities systematically refused access to international famine relief and development aid organizations; the Nuba urgently needed medicine, agricultural equipment, school supplies, and wells for drinking water. The Sudanese Government had promised the United Nations to lift its blockade of the region but had not done so; villages in fact were attacked by the Sudanese army, houses were pillaged and burned down, and the inhabitants were killed or forcibly resettled. In view of the extent of the genocide against the Nuba, the Society for Threatened Peoples appealed to the Commission to name a “Special Correspondent to” investigate the serious human-rights violations committed there.
LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, said the upcoming World Conference against Racism should undertake scientific studies to ensure understanding the roots of racial scourges. It should examine the birth of racial origins in the hands of transnational corporations where the blind forces of the market were leading the north and south to condemning the majority to poverty. There had been much stress of education at all levels. It should be noted that despite racial violence in video games and films, priority should be given to the use of the Internet by racists.
FAITH GEMMIL, of the International Indian Treaty Council, said indigenous peoples were intrinsically linked to their lands from which they derived both their culture and their survival; lamentably, their land was exploited through "environmental racism”; the Government of the United States and multinational oil companies took advantage of Native American peoples already at disadvantages in U.S. society; drinking water systems were threatened and agricultural lands endangered; there was a proposal to bury dangerous low-level radioactive wastes near the Colorado River lands of several Native American peoples. Some 80 per cent of the world's biodiversity were found on indigenous lands; the developed world's resources were used up and this was the basis of their exploitation of indigenous territories. Also demeaning was the habit in the United States of naming sports teams or team mascots after Native Americans; it was degrading and insulting; the schools and teams that did this were so ingrained in their insensitivity that they did not even understand how insulting this practice was.
MERCEDES MOYA, of the American Association of Jurists, said the violation of the right to freedom and enslavement of the Blacks needed to be addressed. The African Group had prepared a resolution exposing the harm caused to African-Americans and calling for the recognition of the evil that had been done during the Black slave trade, but it had been withdrawn before it was considered. For the 2 million descendants of this holocaust, they continued to suffer the harmful effects of this enslavement.
S.K. KIRUBAHARAN, of International Educational Development, said for more than 50 years successive Sinhala Governments on the island of Ceylon had inflicted rampant oppression on the Tamil people; it was true that the British colonial period bore some responsibility for this; but when Britain left its colonial empire in the region it did not return the island to its former status of separate Tamil and Sinhala nations; the Tamils were forced to become an ethnic minority in a Sinhala-dominated political system, and were more and more oppressed; the early Tamil leadership sought to defend their people politically, but were thwarted; by 1976 they understood that unity was not possible and only self-determination would allow Tamils to enjoy human rights. Military force now being used against the Tamil people was overwhelming; extrajudicial killings were being carried out and many other human-rights violations committed; mass graves had been revealed; yet nothing had been done officially or had been said by the S
ri Lankan Government despite the revelations. The Commission must condemn the acts of racism committed in Sri Lanka and recognize the Tamils' inherent right to live in freedom.
Rights of Reply
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea), exercising his country’s right of reply, said Ethiopia was violating human rights and that it was behind the problem of racial discrimination. Ethiopia did not want to see the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to the Horn of Africa extended to look into this issue.
ABDULLAHI ALAZREG (Sudan), speaking in right of reply, said the Society for Threatened Peoples had not been accurate in its statement about Sudan; the Constitution and rules of Sudan denied any sort of racism or racial discrimination and prohibited any kind of threats based on racist principles. The country was free and open; it was not possible that such human-rights violations referred to in fact had occurred and had not been reported by the country's free press; further, the Sudanese army accused of committing crimes against the Nuba in fact had many Nuba among its soldiers; and the Government included Nuba representatives. It was clear that the organization had derived its information from questionable sources with subversive agendas; or perhaps it was referring to another country.
Mr. ABEBE (Ethiopia), exercising his country’s right of reply, said he rejected the lies of Eritrea against Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Government requested the Commission to get Eritrea to stop its racial discrimination policies.
Mr. TEKLE (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said the Chairperson had advised everyone to concentrate on substance; Eritrea thus had avoided being country-specific except for the relevant agenda item; the Chairperson also had asked everyone to be civil; Eritrea would never demean the Commission by participating in such behaviour as the Commission had just borne witness to.
Statements
ARJUN SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on the Right to Development, noted the major developments that had taken place concerning the approach to the right to development. President Truman had been the first president to declare that all men were created equal. Then, it took a while to bring back the issue of the right to development. The rights approach to development and economic efficiency was basically related to the ability to do things.
The best description of development was given as freedom of doing things one wanted to do.
Mr. Sengupta defined the concept of rights approach to development. Central to the process of development were seminars, conferences, and non-governmental organizations. The right to development brought out steps and responsibilities of the international community in this area. Economic policies of the country could no longer be set separate from its political policy, he added. Another idea to the rights approach to development was the concept of aid. Aid had to be propagated by every person who believed the right to development approach and expanded on it. Aid should be used to liberate capital. He also suggested the international law concerning the right to development included the right to food, primary education and primary health.
SHIGEKI SUMI (Japan) said it was Japan's understanding that the responsibility for the promotion and protection of the right to development fell primarily with national governments; lack of development in any case could not be invoked to justify abridgement of internationally recognized human rights. Japan fully recognized the importance of effective international cooperation in promoting this right, and as the largest donor country it reflected this recognition in its foreign policy, including its development-assistance strategy. When providing overseas development assistance (ODA), Japan attached great importance to support for national efforts towards poverty reduction, health improvement, and manpower building. To help States improve their status, Japan had hosted last October the second Tokyo International Conference on Asian Development. It was necessary to strive further for a common, agreed definition of the components of the right to development; the Independent Expert's suggestion in a speech i
n New Delhi last year that three core indicators be used -- the right to food, the right to primary health, and the right to primary education -- was inspiring.
WILHEM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union,
said the right to development would be treated as an independent item, for the first time separate from the agenda item "economic, social and cultural rights." The right to development was a dynamic right. It was based on the understanding that development was a process targeted at the realization of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights meeting equitably the development and environment of present and future generations. The right to political participation and the development of systems of participation empowering every human being to act as a responsible citizen were integral parts to the right of development.
Mr. Hoynck said the international community needed to find solutions to further debt relief of the poor and heavily affected countries. The European Union welcomed the initiative of the G8-Summit this year. Countries restricting the right to freedom of speech and right to political participation only to conformists, and countries wasting scarce resources in inefficient and corrupt bureaucracies, only harmed their self-interest and acted against the right to development of their citizens. The main streaming of all human rights and the right to development had made remarkable progress.
In spite of some progress, there continued to be serious deficits in the implementation of the right to development. The European Union welcomed the appointment of the Independent Expert on the Right to Development and looked forward to his first report. The European Union stood ready to make a constructive contribution to the ongoing negotiations.
CAMILO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Colombia) said much progress had been made, but the fruits of progress were enjoyed by a narrower and narrower slice of humanity; about three-fifths of the developing world did not have access to basic sanitation; a third lacked drinking water; and millions of children suffered from malnutrition and were unable to obtain primary educations. These indicators were not encouraging; in some areas, poverty and deprivation were increasing; even in rich nations, millions lived in poverty. Most of the world's "economic progress" seemed to be to the benefit of a small and increasingly rich elite. Ecological deterioration also was a concern -- it could damage prospects for peace, and if environmental protection did not improve, none of humanity would have much of a future. A holistic concept of human rights which acknowledged their interdependence would have to take into account this increasing situation of exclusion from the world's prosperity; the widening gap between the rich and the poor had to be addressed so that the global economy could be more equal in its effects and more helpful to the vulnerable sectors of the world's population.
AKRAM ZAKI (Pakistan) said the prospects of making meaningful progress towards the realization of the right to development were improving. There was now a broad acceptance of the integrated nature of all human rights and the position of the right to development amongst these rights.
Regrettably there continued to be a lack of focus in the discussion on the means to realise this right. This was reflected in the Independent Expert’s presentation on the realisation of the rights to food, primary health and primary education. The Independent Expert mentioned the need for considering safety nets, regional cooperation for free trade and free investment arrangements. There was an element of incoherence in the overall package of suggested actions.
While 15 countries had seen the surge of economic growth, 1.6 billion people living in more than 100 countries were more economically worse off today than they were 15 years ago. The right to development should occupy a prominent or central place in these discussions. The Commission should reiterate the need to address certain macroeconomic issues which urgently needed to be dealt with in a form of development rights perspective.
NACER BENJELLOUNI-TOUIMI (Morocco) said that many efforts had been made to spur development but little real progress had been made. In Morocco the right to development was not a matter or rhetoric or fancy speeches but a pragmatic challenge. An objective account had to be taken of the international economic situation; the global economy was not helping the overwhelming majority of developing countries. The gap between the rich and poor countries was becoming alarming; the vast majority of the global gross national product was the province of the industrialized nations while the great balance of the world population resided in the developing countries. The consumption of the average African household had declined by 20 per cent over the last 25 years. The richest 20 per cent of the world ate 45 per cent of the meat consumed in the world and consumed 58 per cent of world energy and owned 87 per cent of the world's motorized vehicles. Among other necessary steps, measures to reduce foreign-debt burdens of the world's poorer countries were critical.
MAXIME ZAFERA (Madagascar) said much progress had been made leading to the upcoming World Conference against Racism. All human rights and fundamental freedoms must be recognised. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated every person had a right to food, medical care as well as social services. The Universal Declaration was clear. But there were millions of people living in extreme poverty and their numbers continued to increase. The absence of equal treatment existed and the problems were very complex.
JANIS BJORN KANAVIN (Norway) said the right to development was a question of practical measures; the Declaration on the Right to Development should be consulted when undertaking measures, and should be respected in its contention that people should be the central object of development, that the individual should be an active participant and beneficiary of the right to development, and that States had obligations towards their citizens across the spectrum of human rights. Those involved with human rights issues needed to acquire a better understanding of development issues, and vice versa; that was the reason a symposium had been held in Oslo half a year ago on Human Rights and Development in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Development Programme. Norway would continue to offer support for development within a context of human rights; it was committed to meeting United Nations targets for overseas development assistance (ODA); and it supported and advocated the 20/20 principle, under which 20 per cent of ODA and 20 per cent of public expenditure of the recipient country should be allocated to basic social needs. Overall, more emphasis was needed on removing obstacles to development.
RENUKA NAJKER (South Africa) said 1994 saw the birth of a new South Africa that respected the ideals of democracy, transparency and good governance. The enjoyment, protection and promotion of human rights was the hallmark of their new dispensation. South Africa was committed to the eradication of corruption in public life which was expressed by various anti-corruption legislative, administrative and financial measures that the new Government had put in place. Policies had been implemented that would attempt to redress the imbalances and ensure access by all people to basic needs and services. The right to development would remain a lofty ideal, unless people had access to clean water, basic health care and housing. The reconstruction and development programme of the South African Government was a comprehensive and integrated plan aimed to ensure that people had access to basic services.
The Government’s macro economic strategy and the growth, employment and redistribution plan were the centre of the approach to the new development. Since 1994, 5 million South African children had benefited from the primary school nutrition programme. More than 700,000 subsidized houses for the poor and the homeless have either been built or were under construction. Medical care had been extended to thousands. South Africa was committed to the realisation of the right to development internationally.
SHAMBHU SIMKHADA (Nepal) said the country firmly believed in the universality and indivisibility of all human rights, and felt the right to development was integral; the new democratic Constitution of Nepal guaranteed this and all other human rights; but of course the country was small and landlocked and faced many challenges, including lack of human, material, and technological resources. There also were burdens imposed by a large refugee population from Bhutan, and acts of violence and terror committed by some misguided elements in some other parts of the country. Still, the Government was firmly committed to improving the socio-economic conditions of its inhabitants and had established periodic development plans and had attempted to improve the situations of those most vulnerable, such as women, children, the physically handicapped, the mentally retarded, the elderly, indigenous populations, and those living in remote and rural areas. Eliminating obstacles to development in the world's poorer countries and increased aid to those countries was critical.
H.K. SINGH (India) said 50 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, millions of human beings continued to be unable to realise freedom from fear and want and thereby secure their inherent dignity. The right to development was a complex issue. Democracy, transparent and accountable governance and the full enjoyment of political and civil rights were fundamental to the realisation of the right to development. The existence of poverty however could not be used to justify the denial of political and civil rights. The right to development in itself was an inalienable human right. At Vienna it was recognised that development democracy and human rights were inter-related and inter-dependent. Development when seen as a process empowered people which enabled them to achieve human dignity and to assert as well as enjoy their rights meaningfully. It was absolutely essential for ensuring human rights. The need of the hour was to adopt a "development approach" to human rights.
Mr. Singh said that development was the most powerful tool that the international community had at its disposal for effective empowerment of people and the realisation of their human rights. The visibility of the right to development must be raised throughout the United Nations system by bringing States together in a collective endeavour to advance this right.
JORGE FERRER RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the country was dissatisfied at the lack of achievement in the 13 years since the right to development was officially recognized; now there was a world financial crisis; what would the Commission do to prevent the bulk of this tragedy from falling on the shoulders of the poor, and especially women and children among the world's many poor citizens? What portion of the responsibility for this mess would be accepted by the transnational corporations and international financial interests that had caused so much of it? What had happened to the supposed indivisibility and interconnectedness of all human rights? Some 800 million people around the world were hungry; 60 per cent of the world's population lived in poverty and twenty-five per cent lived in extreme poverty. The three richest countries of the world had accounts that exceeded the GNPs of the 48 poorest nations. It was time for firm, practical steps to be taken to redress this mounting imbalance. It was time for peo
ple, not corporations and profits, to become the principle focus of development.
A. SAJ U. MENDIS (Sri Lanka) said the right to development was one of the most critical issues for the developing nations. The World Conference on human rights in Vienna in 1993 reaffirmed the right to development as a universal and inalienable right and integral component of fundamental human rights. Poverty was one of the most visible violators of human rights in the world. Sri Lanka for several decades had substantially invested in human development , education, social welfare and health care in order to accommodate greater participation of all groups of its citizens. The United Nations played an important role in bringing together national governments and international and regional organizations, transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations and individuals. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should pay particular importance to the promotion and implementation of the right to development. Globalization was a vital issue in reference to the right to development when used strategically.
REN YISHENG (China) said 4.9 billion of the world's 5.8 billion people lived in developing countries, and among them 3.3 billion lived in poverty; some 1.3 billion survived on less than $1 per day, and one-third of the population of the less-developed countries died at age 40. Meanwhile overseas development aid (ODA) from developed countries was falling and now was at its lowest level since 1973. Still some developed countries drew no distinction between the right to development and civil and political rights, and in fact down played development. Developing countries were asking for removal of these obstacles, and the Commission should support them. Recognizing development as an important component of human rights constituted the basis for promotion of human rights; redressing the imbalance between economic and development rights and civil and political rights was urgent; the Commission should make contributions to realization of the right to development; and international cooperation was necessary in order to create favourable conditions for realization of the right to development.
HR/CN/99/14
30 March 1999
Widening Rich-Poor Gap Lamented; Pleas Heard for Reduction
of Foreign-Debt Burdens of Developing Countries
The Commission on Human Rights began discussion this evening of the right to development, with representatives of countries contending as in previous years that the gap between the rich and poor was widening and that the global economy was not doing enough to alleviate those stranded in situations where malnutrition, lack of basic health services, and an absence of primary education were the norm.
A representative of Colombia spoke for many when he said that much global economic progress had been made, but the fruits were enjoyed by a narrower and narrower slice of humanity. Meanwhile about three-fifths of the developing world did not have access to basic sanitation; a third lacked access to safe drinking water; and millions of children had insufficient food. Policies had to be adopted to take into account this increasing exclusion from the world's prosperity, he said, so that the global economy could be more equal in its effects and more helpful to the most vulnerable sectors of the world's population.
A representative of Morocco added other details: The consumption of the average African household had declined by 20 per cent over the last 25 years; the richest 20 per cent of the world ate 45 per cent of the meat produced, consumed 58 per cent of world energy, and owned 87 per cent of the world's motorized vehicles. Among other necessary steps, measures to reduce foreign-debt burdens of the world's poorer countries were critical, this official said. That contention was echoed by Germany, which spoke on behalf of the European Union.
Argun Sengupta, the Commission's Independent Expert on the Right to Development, began the debate by stating, among other things, that national economic policies at this point could no longer be separated from national policies and that private aid as well as official overseas development assistance (ODA) to the globe's poorer countries should be augmented.
Japan and Norway added that prime responsibility for the right to development fell with national governments, and that lack of development could not be invoked to justify abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
Earlier in the meeting the Commission concluded its consideration of racism and racial discrimination -- a debate that began last week and included a series of working-group meetings in preparation for a World Conference on the subject.
Delegates addressed the meeting from Japan, Germany (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Colombia, Pakistan, Morocco, Madagascar, Norway, South Africa, Nepal, India, Cuba, Sri Lanka, and China.
Also speaking were representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: European Union for Public Relations; North-South XXI; Society for Threatened Peoples; Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru"; the International Indian Treaty Council; and the American Association of Jurists.
Eritrea, Sudan, and Ethiopia spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Commission ended its evening session at 9 and immediately convened a night session expected to continue until midnight.
The Right to Development
Under this item, the Commission has before it a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/72 in which the Commission decided to recommend to the Economic and Social Council the establishment of a follow-up mechanism to the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development, initially for a period of 3 years, consisting of an open-ended working group and an independent expert appointed by the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. The report (E/CN.4/1999/19) on the right to development lists, among other things, the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights relating to the implementation of the right to development, as well as interagency coordination within the United Nations system for the implementation of relevant resolutions of the Commission.
The Commission is also taking up a report on the right to development by the Secretary-General, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/72 (E/CN.4/1999/20), in which the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the right to development for every human person and all peoples in all countries. There were replies received from the Governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Lebanon, Morocco, and Portugal summarised in the document.
There is also a report on the right to development, a letter dated 6 October from the Permanent Representative of Sudan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, addressed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The letter, signed by the Minister of Finance and Economy of the Republic of Sudan, deals with the attack by the United States on a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan on 20 August 1998.
Also before the Commission under this agenda item is a note by the Secretariat on the provisional work programme of the Independent Expert on the right to development (E/CN.4/1999/118). It presents the items to be implemented, suggests an agenda for the implementation, and a specific work plan for the Independent Expert. The note includes provisional estimates of the maximum expenditures that may be incurred in accomplishing travel and subsistence for the missions and visits to international institutions and meetings and the essential minimum to carry out the costs incurred for local support to the Independent Expert in New Delhi, India.
Statements
HEIGA JURT, of the European Union of Public Relations, said the right to development required freedom; where there was no freedom, development could not take place. She was Kashmiri and spoke for the people of the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, a part of Jammu and Kashmir occupied by Pakistan since 1947. These people had no right to development because they had no political representation or political activity, did not have the freedom of choice since they were governed by Islamabad's nominees, and did not have awareness because they had no university or institutions of higher technological learning. The overall literacy rate was 14 per cent. There were no revenues for development because their resources since 1947 had been exploited only for Pakistan's benefit; the region had been Pakistan's colony since that time; she appealed to other nations that once were colonies to raise their voice against Pakistan's exploitation of this region.
SHAHAB QARNI, of North South 21, said the United Nations was preparing to convene the World Conference against Racism and hoped that all aspects of discrimination would be addressed. The Mohabis were exposed to xenophobia and hatred attacks by Pakistan’s Government. The Special Rapporteur communicated these incidents to the Pakistan Government. The Government of Pakistan however, continued to oppress and discriminate against the Mohabis, labelling them as terrorists. The Government was creating hatred against them. This dimension of racial discrimination should be taken up in the upcoming World Conference.
PRIMO BURSICK, of the Society for Threatened Peoples, said the situation of 400,000 Nuba who lived in areas controlled by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) was particularly difficult; Sudanese authorities systematically refused access to international famine relief and development aid organizations; the Nuba urgently needed medicine, agricultural equipment, school supplies, and wells for drinking water. The Sudanese Government had promised the United Nations to lift its blockade of the region but had not done so; villages in fact were attacked by the Sudanese army, houses were pillaged and burned down, and the inhabitants were killed or forcibly resettled. In view of the extent of the genocide against the Nuba, the Society for Threatened Peoples appealed to the Commission to name a “Special Correspondent to” investigate the serious human-rights violations committed there.
LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, said the upcoming World Conference against Racism should undertake scientific studies to ensure understanding the roots of racial scourges. It should examine the birth of racial origins in the hands of transnational corporations where the blind forces of the market were leading the north and south to condemning the majority to poverty. There had been much stress of education at all levels. It should be noted that despite racial violence in video games and films, priority should be given to the use of the Internet by racists.
FAITH GEMMIL, of the International Indian Treaty Council, said indigenous peoples were intrinsically linked to their lands from which they derived both their culture and their survival; lamentably, their land was exploited through "environmental racism”; the Government of the United States and multinational oil companies took advantage of Native American peoples already at disadvantages in U.S. society; drinking water systems were threatened and agricultural lands endangered; there was a proposal to bury dangerous low-level radioactive wastes near the Colorado River lands of several Native American peoples. Some 80 per cent of the world's biodiversity were found on indigenous lands; the developed world's resources were used up and this was the basis of their exploitation of indigenous territories. Also demeaning was the habit in the United States of naming sports teams or team mascots after Native Americans; it was degrading and insulting; the schools and teams that did this were so ingrained in their insensitivity that they did not even understand how insulting this practice was.
MERCEDES MOYA, of the American Association of Jurists, said the violation of the right to freedom and enslavement of the Blacks needed to be addressed. The African Group had prepared a resolution exposing the harm caused to African-Americans and calling for the recognition of the evil that had been done during the Black slave trade, but it had been withdrawn before it was considered. For the 2 million descendants of this holocaust, they continued to suffer the harmful effects of this enslavement.
S.K. KIRUBAHARAN, of International Educational Development, said for more than 50 years successive Sinhala Governments on the island of Ceylon had inflicted rampant oppression on the Tamil people; it was true that the British colonial period bore some responsibility for this; but when Britain left its colonial empire in the region it did not return the island to its former status of separate Tamil and Sinhala nations; the Tamils were forced to become an ethnic minority in a Sinhala-dominated political system, and were more and more oppressed; the early Tamil leadership sought to defend their people politically, but were thwarted; by 1976 they understood that unity was not possible and only self-determination would allow Tamils to enjoy human rights. Military force now being used against the Tamil people was overwhelming; extrajudicial killings were being carried out and many other human-rights violations committed; mass graves had been revealed; yet nothing had been done officially or had been said by the S
ri Lankan Government despite the revelations. The Commission must condemn the acts of racism committed in Sri Lanka and recognize the Tamils' inherent right to live in freedom.
Rights of Reply
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea), exercising his country’s right of reply, said Ethiopia was violating human rights and that it was behind the problem of racial discrimination. Ethiopia did not want to see the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to the Horn of Africa extended to look into this issue.
ABDULLAHI ALAZREG (Sudan), speaking in right of reply, said the Society for Threatened Peoples had not been accurate in its statement about Sudan; the Constitution and rules of Sudan denied any sort of racism or racial discrimination and prohibited any kind of threats based on racist principles. The country was free and open; it was not possible that such human-rights violations referred to in fact had occurred and had not been reported by the country's free press; further, the Sudanese army accused of committing crimes against the Nuba in fact had many Nuba among its soldiers; and the Government included Nuba representatives. It was clear that the organization had derived its information from questionable sources with subversive agendas; or perhaps it was referring to another country.
Mr. ABEBE (Ethiopia), exercising his country’s right of reply, said he rejected the lies of Eritrea against Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Government requested the Commission to get Eritrea to stop its racial discrimination policies.
Mr. TEKLE (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said the Chairperson had advised everyone to concentrate on substance; Eritrea thus had avoided being country-specific except for the relevant agenda item; the Chairperson also had asked everyone to be civil; Eritrea would never demean the Commission by participating in such behaviour as the Commission had just borne witness to.
Statements
ARJUN SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on the Right to Development, noted the major developments that had taken place concerning the approach to the right to development. President Truman had been the first president to declare that all men were created equal. Then, it took a while to bring back the issue of the right to development. The rights approach to development and economic efficiency was basically related to the ability to do things.
The best description of development was given as freedom of doing things one wanted to do.
Mr. Sengupta defined the concept of rights approach to development. Central to the process of development were seminars, conferences, and non-governmental organizations. The right to development brought out steps and responsibilities of the international community in this area. Economic policies of the country could no longer be set separate from its political policy, he added. Another idea to the rights approach to development was the concept of aid. Aid had to be propagated by every person who believed the right to development approach and expanded on it. Aid should be used to liberate capital. He also suggested the international law concerning the right to development included the right to food, primary education and primary health.
SHIGEKI SUMI (Japan) said it was Japan's understanding that the responsibility for the promotion and protection of the right to development fell primarily with national governments; lack of development in any case could not be invoked to justify abridgement of internationally recognized human rights. Japan fully recognized the importance of effective international cooperation in promoting this right, and as the largest donor country it reflected this recognition in its foreign policy, including its development-assistance strategy. When providing overseas development assistance (ODA), Japan attached great importance to support for national efforts towards poverty reduction, health improvement, and manpower building. To help States improve their status, Japan had hosted last October the second Tokyo International Conference on Asian Development. It was necessary to strive further for a common, agreed definition of the components of the right to development; the Independent Expert's suggestion in a speech i
n New Delhi last year that three core indicators be used -- the right to food, the right to primary health, and the right to primary education -- was inspiring.
WILHEM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union,
said the right to development would be treated as an independent item, for the first time separate from the agenda item "economic, social and cultural rights." The right to development was a dynamic right. It was based on the understanding that development was a process targeted at the realization of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights meeting equitably the development and environment of present and future generations. The right to political participation and the development of systems of participation empowering every human being to act as a responsible citizen were integral parts to the right of development.
Mr. Hoynck said the international community needed to find solutions to further debt relief of the poor and heavily affected countries. The European Union welcomed the initiative of the G8-Summit this year. Countries restricting the right to freedom of speech and right to political participation only to conformists, and countries wasting scarce resources in inefficient and corrupt bureaucracies, only harmed their self-interest and acted against the right to development of their citizens. The main streaming of all human rights and the right to development had made remarkable progress.
In spite of some progress, there continued to be serious deficits in the implementation of the right to development. The European Union welcomed the appointment of the Independent Expert on the Right to Development and looked forward to his first report. The European Union stood ready to make a constructive contribution to the ongoing negotiations.
CAMILO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Colombia) said much progress had been made, but the fruits of progress were enjoyed by a narrower and narrower slice of humanity; about three-fifths of the developing world did not have access to basic sanitation; a third lacked drinking water; and millions of children suffered from malnutrition and were unable to obtain primary educations. These indicators were not encouraging; in some areas, poverty and deprivation were increasing; even in rich nations, millions lived in poverty. Most of the world's "economic progress" seemed to be to the benefit of a small and increasingly rich elite. Ecological deterioration also was a concern -- it could damage prospects for peace, and if environmental protection did not improve, none of humanity would have much of a future. A holistic concept of human rights which acknowledged their interdependence would have to take into account this increasing situation of exclusion from the world's prosperity; the widening gap between the rich and the poor had to be addressed so that the global economy could be more equal in its effects and more helpful to the vulnerable sectors of the world's population.
AKRAM ZAKI (Pakistan) said the prospects of making meaningful progress towards the realization of the right to development were improving. There was now a broad acceptance of the integrated nature of all human rights and the position of the right to development amongst these rights.
Regrettably there continued to be a lack of focus in the discussion on the means to realise this right. This was reflected in the Independent Expert’s presentation on the realisation of the rights to food, primary health and primary education. The Independent Expert mentioned the need for considering safety nets, regional cooperation for free trade and free investment arrangements. There was an element of incoherence in the overall package of suggested actions.
While 15 countries had seen the surge of economic growth, 1.6 billion people living in more than 100 countries were more economically worse off today than they were 15 years ago. The right to development should occupy a prominent or central place in these discussions. The Commission should reiterate the need to address certain macroeconomic issues which urgently needed to be dealt with in a form of development rights perspective.
NACER BENJELLOUNI-TOUIMI (Morocco) said that many efforts had been made to spur development but little real progress had been made. In Morocco the right to development was not a matter or rhetoric or fancy speeches but a pragmatic challenge. An objective account had to be taken of the international economic situation; the global economy was not helping the overwhelming majority of developing countries. The gap between the rich and poor countries was becoming alarming; the vast majority of the global gross national product was the province of the industrialized nations while the great balance of the world population resided in the developing countries. The consumption of the average African household had declined by 20 per cent over the last 25 years. The richest 20 per cent of the world ate 45 per cent of the meat consumed in the world and consumed 58 per cent of world energy and owned 87 per cent of the world's motorized vehicles. Among other necessary steps, measures to reduce foreign-debt burdens of the world's poorer countries were critical.
MAXIME ZAFERA (Madagascar) said much progress had been made leading to the upcoming World Conference against Racism. All human rights and fundamental freedoms must be recognised. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated every person had a right to food, medical care as well as social services. The Universal Declaration was clear. But there were millions of people living in extreme poverty and their numbers continued to increase. The absence of equal treatment existed and the problems were very complex.
JANIS BJORN KANAVIN (Norway) said the right to development was a question of practical measures; the Declaration on the Right to Development should be consulted when undertaking measures, and should be respected in its contention that people should be the central object of development, that the individual should be an active participant and beneficiary of the right to development, and that States had obligations towards their citizens across the spectrum of human rights. Those involved with human rights issues needed to acquire a better understanding of development issues, and vice versa; that was the reason a symposium had been held in Oslo half a year ago on Human Rights and Development in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Development Programme. Norway would continue to offer support for development within a context of human rights; it was committed to meeting United Nations targets for overseas development assistance (ODA); and it supported and advocated the 20/20 principle, under which 20 per cent of ODA and 20 per cent of public expenditure of the recipient country should be allocated to basic social needs. Overall, more emphasis was needed on removing obstacles to development.
RENUKA NAJKER (South Africa) said 1994 saw the birth of a new South Africa that respected the ideals of democracy, transparency and good governance. The enjoyment, protection and promotion of human rights was the hallmark of their new dispensation. South Africa was committed to the eradication of corruption in public life which was expressed by various anti-corruption legislative, administrative and financial measures that the new Government had put in place. Policies had been implemented that would attempt to redress the imbalances and ensure access by all people to basic needs and services. The right to development would remain a lofty ideal, unless people had access to clean water, basic health care and housing. The reconstruction and development programme of the South African Government was a comprehensive and integrated plan aimed to ensure that people had access to basic services.
The Government’s macro economic strategy and the growth, employment and redistribution plan were the centre of the approach to the new development. Since 1994, 5 million South African children had benefited from the primary school nutrition programme. More than 700,000 subsidized houses for the poor and the homeless have either been built or were under construction. Medical care had been extended to thousands. South Africa was committed to the realisation of the right to development internationally.
SHAMBHU SIMKHADA (Nepal) said the country firmly believed in the universality and indivisibility of all human rights, and felt the right to development was integral; the new democratic Constitution of Nepal guaranteed this and all other human rights; but of course the country was small and landlocked and faced many challenges, including lack of human, material, and technological resources. There also were burdens imposed by a large refugee population from Bhutan, and acts of violence and terror committed by some misguided elements in some other parts of the country. Still, the Government was firmly committed to improving the socio-economic conditions of its inhabitants and had established periodic development plans and had attempted to improve the situations of those most vulnerable, such as women, children, the physically handicapped, the mentally retarded, the elderly, indigenous populations, and those living in remote and rural areas. Eliminating obstacles to development in the world's poorer countries and increased aid to those countries was critical.
H.K. SINGH (India) said 50 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, millions of human beings continued to be unable to realise freedom from fear and want and thereby secure their inherent dignity. The right to development was a complex issue. Democracy, transparent and accountable governance and the full enjoyment of political and civil rights were fundamental to the realisation of the right to development. The existence of poverty however could not be used to justify the denial of political and civil rights. The right to development in itself was an inalienable human right. At Vienna it was recognised that development democracy and human rights were inter-related and inter-dependent. Development when seen as a process empowered people which enabled them to achieve human dignity and to assert as well as enjoy their rights meaningfully. It was absolutely essential for ensuring human rights. The need of the hour was to adopt a "development approach" to human rights.
Mr. Singh said that development was the most powerful tool that the international community had at its disposal for effective empowerment of people and the realisation of their human rights. The visibility of the right to development must be raised throughout the United Nations system by bringing States together in a collective endeavour to advance this right.
JORGE FERRER RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the country was dissatisfied at the lack of achievement in the 13 years since the right to development was officially recognized; now there was a world financial crisis; what would the Commission do to prevent the bulk of this tragedy from falling on the shoulders of the poor, and especially women and children among the world's many poor citizens? What portion of the responsibility for this mess would be accepted by the transnational corporations and international financial interests that had caused so much of it? What had happened to the supposed indivisibility and interconnectedness of all human rights? Some 800 million people around the world were hungry; 60 per cent of the world's population lived in poverty and twenty-five per cent lived in extreme poverty. The three richest countries of the world had accounts that exceeded the GNPs of the 48 poorest nations. It was time for firm, practical steps to be taken to redress this mounting imbalance. It was time for peo
ple, not corporations and profits, to become the principle focus of development.
A. SAJ U. MENDIS (Sri Lanka) said the right to development was one of the most critical issues for the developing nations. The World Conference on human rights in Vienna in 1993 reaffirmed the right to development as a universal and inalienable right and integral component of fundamental human rights. Poverty was one of the most visible violators of human rights in the world. Sri Lanka for several decades had substantially invested in human development , education, social welfare and health care in order to accommodate greater participation of all groups of its citizens. The United Nations played an important role in bringing together national governments and international and regional organizations, transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations and individuals. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should pay particular importance to the promotion and implementation of the right to development. Globalization was a vital issue in reference to the right to development when used strategically.
REN YISHENG (China) said 4.9 billion of the world's 5.8 billion people lived in developing countries, and among them 3.3 billion lived in poverty; some 1.3 billion survived on less than $1 per day, and one-third of the population of the less-developed countries died at age 40. Meanwhile overseas development aid (ODA) from developed countries was falling and now was at its lowest level since 1973. Still some developed countries drew no distinction between the right to development and civil and political rights, and in fact down played development. Developing countries were asking for removal of these obstacles, and the Commission should support them. Recognizing development as an important component of human rights constituted the basis for promotion of human rights; redressing the imbalance between economic and development rights and civil and political rights was urgent; the Commission should make contributions to realization of the right to development; and international cooperation was necessary in order to create favourable conditions for realization of the right to development.
Tags
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: