COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONTINUES DEBATE ON THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
25 March 2002
Afternoon



Non-Governmental Organizations Decry Globalization



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon continued with its debate on the right to development, hearing non-governmental organizations decry the globalization process and call for the need to implement the right to development as an inalienable human right for all peoples.
Speakers underlined that transnational corporations had overtaken national identities, crushing people along the way. In some cases, this happened with the complicity of Governments. One representative said the task of the United Nations was to ensure that globalization was ethical, with a human face.
Issues concerning foreign debt and structural adjustment policies were raised, especially in relation to how they affected the right to development. Countries were urged to donate 0.7 per cent of their GNPs as official development assistance. Non-governmental organizations underlined that chronic regional tensions, like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the Middle East and the Jammu and Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan, affected development in all countries around them. And they noted that the rights of vulnerable groups, like indigenous peoples and women, needed to be respected.
Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations took the floor this afternoon: the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, the International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, the American Association of Jurists, Franciscans International, the Commission for the Defence of Human Rights in Central America, the World Federation of Trade Unions, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Centre Europe - Tiers Monde, the International Institute for Peace, the World Muslim Congress, the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, the Arab Organization for Human Rights, the International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, the European Union of Public Relations, the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, the African Society for International and Comparative Law, the International Association against Torture, the International Indian Treaty Council, and the Indigenous World Association.
The Chairman of the Commission, Ambassador Krzysztof Jakubowski of Poland, told the Commission that according to the latest directive from the Secretary-General, the Commission would no longer be allowed to extend its meetings after 6 p.m.
When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 26 March, it will start its consideration of the question on the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine. The Commission will also be addressed by a number of dignitaries.
Statements
J. J. KIARKYCHIARAN of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that in the text of the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development, this inalienable human right was not conceived independently from other economic and social rights at the national level. The collective dimension of human rights had disappeared from debates in the Commission in recent years. The right to development was now considered only as a human right among many others. The traditional vision of development had been abandoned and replaced by the ideology of globalization. A new world was being created that would erase national reality. The creators of this new world - big industrial and financial groups that sought global domination - crushed and hurt men and women, but it seemed that this did not justify curbing them. The task of the United Nations, the organization in charge of bringing peace and progress for all, was to ensure globalization with a human face, an ethical globalization.
PIERRE MIOT of the International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, said the Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme had pleaded for a partnership between technology and development, stressing that technology reinforced development. The Federation did not share in the optimism of the Human Development Report. Technological innovation in medicine could of course help move toward development. However, biotechnology and genetically modified products would not lead to sustainable development. The rhetoric with concern to genetically modified plants ill concealed the intention to increase profits through the genetically modified plants. Farmers would become dependent on transnational companies, the environment would be threatened and development would not be achieved.
The principle of precaution must be at the centre of the attention of the international community. The UNDP report said that biotechnologies was the best tool for agriculture. These conclusions could not be accepted.
JAIRO SANCHEZ of the American Association of Jurists, said that the right to development had disappeared from the planet with the neo-liberal capitalist globalization. The situation could be summed up as follows: 20 per cent of the richest in the world owned 86 per cent of the world's GDP, whereas 20 per cent of the poorest owned 1 per cent. The income of the 200 richest people in the world doubled between 1994 and 1996. The assets of the three richest people in the world exceeded the combined production of the 48 poorest countries. The right to development had become an utopia claimed by the people in the streets of Seattle, Genoa, Porto Algere and Barcelona, whereas those who held the reins of power at a global level were claiming strongly and loudly the right to economic aggression and the plunder of peoples carried out by big companies and transnational banks with the complicity of many Governments. There was nothing that ran more contrary to the right to development and human rights than the activities of transnational companies.
JOHN QUIGLEY OFM of Franciscans International, said that as a universal right, the right to development could not belong to one interest group or geographical segment of the international community. Being inalienable and indivisible, the right to development could not be reduced to discussions about financial assistance nor be confused merely with development projects. Human rights in development were not the same as the right to development. Franciscans International believed that serious attempts to implement the right to development would lead to paradigm shifts resulting in the practical development and transformation of existing institutions and organizations.
A genuine mutual reciprocity among partners could mean a long-term process of empowerment of the poorest and most marginalized. It would be a strong paradigm shift when the rich committed themselves as partners with the impoverished. Mutual reciprocity would describe genuine partnerships rather than negotiated donations that could be unilaterally cut or sharply reduced by the fateful twist of a donor's national election.
GUSTAVO MONTENEGRO of the Commission for the Defence of Human Rights in Central America, said that in Latin America, the implementation of economic adjustment programmes had led to a sharp reduction in social spending and public services and the privatization of State-owned companies, resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers. This, together with the corruption of civil servants, further deteriorated the purchasing power of the vast majority of the 31 million people living in Latin America. According to the UNDP's human development index, Costa Rica was the only Latin American country with a high level of development, followed by Panama in the 52nd place. El Salvador at the 95th place , Nicaragua at the 106th place, Honduras at the 107th place and Guatemala at 108th. According to the same UN statistics, the illiteracy rate was 35 per cent in Guatemala, 33 per cent in Nicaragua, 28 per cent in Honduras and El Salvador, 10 per cent in Panama, and 6 per cent in Costa Rica. The per capita income also showed the underdevelopment of the region. The demands made by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund did not benefit peoples in the Third World and Latin America.
RUBY MALONI of the World Federation of Trade Unions, said a rights-sensitive definition of poverty was "sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights". The need of the day was a set of guiding principles as a means of encouraging human rights responses to poverty. A new text was strongly required that would build on existing human rights and standards in a manner that explicitly addressed the phenomenon of poverty, and in particular extreme poverty.
The empowerment of women was an effective means to combat poverty, hunger and disease. In order to stimulate sustainable development, the property rights of women, their access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit, were of great significance. Shelter and housing facilities were also basic components, both in developed and developing countries. Women's vulnerability to HIV/AIDS was also a current crucial issue and needed to be confronted seriously and systemically.
ANNA BIONDI of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, said that huge levels of poverty, inequality and social exclusion in the world were clearly unsustainable, threatening peace, security and social stability. Concern was expressed that the Monterrey Conference had failed to recommend concrete mechanisms for mobilizing resources and had not established a clear agenda for development. With the lives of millions at stake, it was grave that the international community had not yet been able to agree on clear commitments to increase development aid to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. It was hoped that the World Summit on Sustainable Development would be more successful.
MALIK OZDEN of the Centre Europe - Tiers Monde, said that according to the report of the Independent Expert on the right to development, it had been noted that the right to development was being constantly redefined. Development had been defined by the expert as a global, social, economic and cultural process continually improving living conditions. This negated the idea that the right to development was an inalienable human right. There seemed to be a fear of not reaching consensus, however, a consensus had already been reached in Vienna. The compact for development under the wings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) seemed like a strange recommendation. Everyone knew that WTO was essentially controlled by the richest and wealthiest States.
It was hypocritical to talk about development without removing obstacles to development such as foreign debt. It was essential that foreign debt was immediately cancelled. The international community must support developing countries in their development and respect the declaration of human rights. Equity must be at the centre of any political and economic world system. The right to development was a human right, it had been said in a non-governmental organization appeal. It was essential that this right be implemented.
LAURA BUCHMANN of the International Institute for Peace, said the right to development related not only to issues of material and economic betterment. It encompassed the right of individuals and communities to enjoy an environment of freedom in which intellectual, emotional, cultural and spiritual progress could be achieved to supplement improvements in economic standards. The prerequisite for such development to occur was the existence of a political system and an environment that provided freedom of choice and opportunity. In countries where the basic freedoms of individuals were curtailed either by the action of the State or non-state actors, the process of development was dangerously shackled. The Constitution of Pakistan did not allow any person from the minority community to become president of the country. This practice ensured that a large segment of the population could not achieve their optimum potential. The laws of Pakistan also treated women as less equal then men.
It was added that a country like Pakistan was partly responsible for the situation in Afghanistan. The Taliban came from the madrasses of Pakistan as Pakistan's political and societal structures had created an environment that bred the Taliban and provided the cadres for many groups affiliated to Al Qaeda. The policies of Pakistan could in no way be conducive to the implementation of the right to development.
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SARAF of the World Muslim Congress, said that the African region, the Middle East and South Asian region were passing through the most critical periods of their history. Development in Palestine was unimaginable. The development in the South Asian region was inconceivable due to tensions and the lack of trust between India and Pakistan. The Kashmir dispute was a stumbling block in the economic progress of this region and hence its resolution was very crucial to promote prosperity and eradicate poverty in this region. It would be important to mention that the right to development of the people of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir had been adversely affected by the presence of over 700,000 Indian occupation troops. India diverted a huge quantum of its resources to develop its nuclear and conventional war machinery to fulfil its expansionist designs and also to retain its illegal occupation in Jammu and Kashmir.
ALI SHARMA of the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, said the mere accumulation of material wealth could not be called progress if it was not matched by human development. Human development could only take place when a cooperative effort by a democratic global community was undertaken to share equitably the planet's resources. It was, therefore, a matter of regret that, while paying lip service to the cause of development, many of the rich and developed nations of the world continued to be laggards when it came to the question of aid flows. There was also an excessive emphasis on the profit motive and market forces were often quoted as a pretext for palming off old technologies and irrelevant products. This was going on as many children in the developing world did not even have access to drinkable water. Yet, in the name of free trade, factories producing luxury cars and costly aerated drinks, chocolates and, yes, even potato chips were coming to poor countries in the name of development.
It was added that it was quite ironic to see the fuss made about Zimbabwe, which at least had had an election, and the plaudits and funds being heaped on Pakistan's President - a usurper of democracy - whose latest action had been to free the jehadi cadres known to have provided the manpower for the myriad groups that fought alongside the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.
L. PARY of the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, said that the effective implementation of the right to development was closely related to the movement of globalization whose aim was to transform the world into a vast free zone subjected to the free market laws. In this neo-colonial economic order, transnational corporations were plundering resources, polluting the air and water and expropriating indigenous peoples. The world economy had been transformed into a gigantic casino where speculators usurped and shifted overnight vast quantities of wealth from poor to rich countries. The objective of neo-liberalism was ever greater profits and privatization. In applying these new neo-liberal policies imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), international investors had re-established a neo-colonial model of relations between the North and the South. The IMF imposed on poor countries reforms and structural adjustment programmes, currency devaluation and liberalization of prices, freezing of salaries and budget cuts in the area of health and education. The current dominant economic thinking was incompatible with the right to development and equitable distribution of wealth and international cooperation between rich and poor countries. In an attempt to justify neo-liberalism, the World Bank gave a purely economic connotation to the right to development where only growth, production and consumption were taken into consideration.
MOHAMMED FAYAK of the Arab Organization for Human Rights, said the Arab regions continued to suffer in the area of development due to a lack of structural change, military conflict and an increase in poverty. The Israeli occupation of Palestine and the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq were both key actors in the lack of development. Furthermore, several Arab countries had not been prepared for the tremendous consequences of globalization. The events of 11 September had also affected the path of development, particularly as a result of the reduced oil prices. Many decisions had been taken to combat terrorism, which had also had repercussions on development.
Arab countries had tried to reduce the consequences of 11 September. Many efforts, through training programmes, had attempted to increase human development. Several activities had been undertaken in cooperation with international organizations, and a women's non-governmental organization had been established under the auspices of the League of Arab States. Efforts had been made by governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations in order to deal with development. The Commission was urged to ensure that all embargoes and sanctions were lifted since they severely affected the development of the region and to prepare an international convention on the right to development.
PRAMILLA SRIVASTAVA of the International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, said that it was imperative that a programme for mapping the health systems of developing countries, focusing on facilities available to women and children, was undertaken. AIDS was emerging as a scourge in many developing countries in Asia and Africa. Women and children were particularly susceptible to this disease especially when poverty drove women to prostitution. The monopoly control over drugs to help AIDS victims placed unnecessary hurdles in the developmental path. AIDS medication needed to be provided free of cost as a gesture designed, not as a medical practice, but as a human challenge to forces that would hamper the progress of mankind. The process of development required an equitable distribution of resources. Unfortunately, the process of globalization had further accentuated income disparities. In their pursuit of profits, transnational corporations had connived with pliable governments to create unhealthy conditions of production. If the global development process was to benefit all societies then rules of conduct needed to be formulated for the operations of multinationals and the profit motive made subservient to the human motive.
MUMTAZ KHAN of the European Union of Public Relations, said the Commission and the international community's sustained efforts to ensure the right to development also needed to focus on areas which had so far failed to grab the attention of the international community. The concept of the right to development was incomplete and inconclusive in the absence of fundamental rights. The denial of fundamental rights endangered the very entity of the individual. However, the benefits of globalization had not and could not be reaped by the vulnerable groups whose very basic rights had not been recognized. The Organization focused on Pakistan's systematic and sustained propaganda about the Indian held part of Kashmir, which had been designed to deflect attention of the international community. In the absence of the attention of the international community, people continued to suffer.
The international community was wrestling to develop and design the mechanism where mal-practices of powerful nations and companies could be regularized. However, it was equally important to ensure the right to development of such territories and nations seeking to control their destiny.
SYED FAIZ NAQSHBANDI of the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said that the full enjoyment of the right to development lay in the right to self-determination of the people, which was the sin quo non of the existence and realization of all other fundamental human rights. This was quite evident from the deteriorating political and economic situation in the Middle East and in the disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir. It was important to focus on the realization of the right to development in areas of conflict. The occupying States not only violated human rights but also the right to development. In Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian army and para-military were using fire as an instrument of terror. Business establishments, centres, industries and natural resources had been systematically destroyed to harass and to create economic crises among the people with the object of breaking the will of the Kashmiri people. Such repressive policies and massive military build up could only prevent the promotion of the right to development.
MARGARET PARSONS of the African Society for International and Comparative Law, said it was ironic that the United Nations had, for several years, named Canada as the best country in the world to live in, since the reality of African Canadians sharply contrasted with this status. Canada continued to masquerade its reputation as a multicultural, multi-racial and diverse society to deflect attention from the under-development of communities such as African Canadians along racial lines. While Canada embraced globalization, persistent expressions of a two-tiered, racially segregated labour market remained. Several studies had documented that African Canadians had attained the same or higher levels of education as their white counterparts. Nevertheless, in the labour market, African Canadians were ghettoised into low income sectors and low-paying jobs and sustained disproportionately high levels of unemployment and under-employment.
Models of development must encompass grossly impoverished communities in industrialized countries such as Canada's African Canadian and indigenous communities. One of the greatest obstacles to overcome was the myth that Canada was a multicultural model for the rest of the world. The Commission was requested to pass a resolution highlighting the appalling conditions and oppression of Canada's African Canadian community and to call on Canada to take immediate measures to ameliorate the extreme poverty and substandard living conditions suffered by this community.
R. WAREHAM of the International Association against Torture, said that a look at the growth of the developed nations exposed a process of exploitation of land, labour and natural resources of the nations now deemed underdeveloped. The building block of the exploitative practices of the developed nations rested around three major crimes against humanity. These crimes included genocide against indigenous peoples, the Trans Atlantic slave trade and colonialism. The conjunction of these three crimes and the lingering results from them had allowed for the wealth and capital of the now developed world to grow exponentially, while in the underdeveloped nations whose land, labour and resources drove the growth, standards of living remained stagnant or constantly grew worse. The international monetary institutions served to further subjugate and exploit the victims. These systems were designed to keep those who possessed no capital or wealth in perpetual debt, completely dependant on their debtors. At the heart of the question of development was the acknowledgement by the world that the gap between developed and underdeveloped was based largely upon the above mentioned three crimes against humanity.
ANTONIO GONZALES of the International Indian Treaty Council, said it had become clear that unless there were universally agreed standards to fully empower indigenous peoples to effectively involve their participation such as in their right to development, it would continue to be an obstacle. The Council looked ahead to the adoption of the United Nations draft universal declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples as a signal for real openness and seriousness by governments to enter into a "new partnership" with indigenous peoples, and their right to development. The Commission was urged to denounce the continued violation of the right to development, which had critically impacted the cultural way of life of traditional indigenous peoples.
The Commission was also urged to recommend to the Special Rapporteurs on the right to development and the right to food, in addition to the new Special Rapporteur on the situation of indigenous human rights and fundamental freedoms, to focus attention and begin to monitor the full range of cultural, social, economic, environmental, political and spiritual issues impacting the natural world and the rights of development, sustainable development and right to food of indigenous peoples.
RONALD BARNES of the Indigenous World Association, said that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was a unilateral act of the United States Congress. The Alaska Federation of Natives was not a creation of the Indigenous Peoples of Alaska or the Independent Traditional Governments, but a creation set up by the United States as a means of setting up a puppet machinery to colonize the indigenous peoples of Alaska. The originally recognized independent tribes were paralysed by lack of education and lack of resources. Puppet governments were organs of the occupants and as such formed part of his legal order and any agreement concluded by them with the occupant were not genuine international agreements. The 1982 Alaska Statehood Commission Report concluded that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act could no longer be considered as a native claims settlement act. It also reported that the indigenous peoples of Alaska had the right to independence. The United States was attempting to suffocate the struggle of the indigenous peoples of Alaska to gain their basic human rights and fundamental freedoms and their right to self-determination.


CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/02/15 of 25 March 2002, the statement by the representative of Centre Europe - Tiers Monde on page 4 should read as follows:
MALIK OZDEN, of the Centre Europe - Tiers Monde, said that according to the report of the Independent Expert on the right to development, it had been noted that the right to development was being constantly redefined. Development had been defined by the expert as a global, social, economic and cultural process continually improving living conditions. This negated the idea that the right to development was an inalienable human right. There seemed to be a fear of not reaching consensus, however, a consensus had already been reached in Vienna. The compact for development under the wings of the Organization for Cooperation and Development in Europe (OCDE) seemed like a strange recommendation. Everyone knew that the OCDE was essentially controlled by the richest and wealthiest States.


* *** *