COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS STARTS GENERAL DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES

Commission on Human Rights
MORNING
22 March 2005


Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Occupied
Palestinian Territories Presents Report,
Commission Concludes General Debate
on Right to Development


The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon started its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, after it concluded its general debate on the right to development.

John Dugard, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, told the Commission that the level of violence had dropped substantially since Mahmoud Abbas and Ariel Sharon had met in Sharm el-Sheikh on 8 February, but said that developments had failed to address the main violations of human rights in the occupied territories -- the settlements, the wall, checkpoints, roadblocks, imprisonment of Gaza, and the continued incarceration of more than 7,000 Palestinians.

Following Mr. Dugard’s presentation, Israel and Palestine responded as concerned countries, and Luxembourg participated in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur.

Earlier, the Commission concluded its general debate on the right to development, hearing speakers raise issues on the importance of moving from the conceptual phase to that of concrete action for the right to development; of ensuring the emergence of a more fair international economic system; and of supporting the mechanisms established to promote the implementation of the right to development, such as the Working Group on the right to development, and the High-level Task Force on implementation of that right, among others.

Making statements on the right to development were the Representatives of Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Eritrea, Sudan, Mauritania, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Angola, Zambia, Jordan, Algeria, Syria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Thailand and the Philippines. The Observer from the Holy See also spoke on the right to development, as did representatives of the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme.

Additionally, Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations spoke on the right to development: New Humanity speaking on behalf of International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education and International Young Catholic Students; Franciscans International speaking on behalf of Dominicans for Justice and Peace; International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements; Europe-Third World Centre; World Federation of Trade Unions; Union de l'action féminine; Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la Soberanía de los Pueblos; National Union of Jurists of Cuba; International Indian Treaty Council; World Peace Council; Tebtebba Foundation - Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education); International Federation of University Women (speaking on behalf of several NGOs1); Federation of Cuban Women; International Committee for the Respect and Application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights - CIRAC; World Muslim Congress; Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization; Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action; and International Institute for Peace.

Greece spoke in exercise of its right of reply.

The Commission will meet at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 March, to continue its consideration of the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine.


Documents on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine

Under its agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the Commission has before it a number of documents.

There is the report of the Secretary-General on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan (E/CN.4/2005/26), which states that the Secretary-General had brought the Commission's resolution 2004/8 on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan to the attention of all Governments, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and to all the specialized agencies and to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, among others.

There is the report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2005/27) which states that the Secretary-General had brought the Commission's resolution 2004/10 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including
Palestine to the attention of the Government of Israel and all other Governments,
The competent United Nations organs, the specialized agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations and international humanitarian organizations.

There is the report of the Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/2005/29) on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, John Dugard, who states that the report focuses upon military incursions into the Gaza Strip, the demolition of houses, the violations of human rights and humanitarian law arising from the construction of the wall and the pervasiveness of restrictions on freedom of movement. The Special Rapporteur concludes that the report has drawn attention to the serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law flowing from the actions of the Government of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel
is both legally and morally obliged to bring its practices and policies into line with the law. That Israel has legitimate security concerns cannot be denied. However, these concerns must be addressed within the parameters of the law. As the International Court of Justice indicates in its advisory opinion, approved by the General Assembly, there are consequences of the wall for States other than Israel. The Special Rapporteur reminds States of their obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.


Presentation by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967

JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, said at present there was a time of hope in the Middle East. Since Mahmoud Abbas and Ariel Sharon met in Sharm el-Sheikh on 8 February, the level of violence in the region had dropped substantially. Moreover, Israel had taken a number of steps to improve the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, including the release of 500 prisoners, the cessation of targeted killings of Palestinian militants and punitive house demolitions, the removal of some checkpoints in the West Bank, and the revision of the course of the wall to intrude less upon Palestinian land. However, these developments had failed to address the main violations of human rights in the occupied territories -- the settlements, the wall, checkpoints, roadblocks, the imprisonment of Gaza, and the continued incarceration of more than 7,000 Palestinians.

The Israeli Government had decided to evacuate 8,000 settlers from Gaza, the Special Rapporteur noted, yet settlers and settlements remained a problem. Some 150 settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem remained inhabited by more than 400,000 settlers. Israel’s statements that settlement growth had been frozen, or limited to natural growth, were far from the truth. In 2004, the settler population had increased by six per cent, compared with a growth of less than two per cent in Israel proper. Existing settlements had been visibly expanded, and new settlements had been built. Some new settlements had received express Governmental approval, others tacit approval. It was clear that the majority of settlements were there to stay – and to grow – despite the International Court of Justice’s unanimous ruling in July 2004 that the settlements were illegal.

Israel had also rejected the Court’s advisory opinion that the wall was illegal and must be dismantled, Mr. Dugard added, and had continued its construction. Moreover, recent decisions by the Israeli Government made it clear that its main purpose was to annex Jewish settlements in the West Bank to Israel. The wall had resulted in major human rights violations for some 50,000 Palestinians living in the "closed area" between the wall and the Green Line, and for another 500,000 living within one kilometre of it. Had the wall's construction followed the Green Line, Israel’s claim that the wall was a security measure could have been plausible; as it was, the manner of its construction had led to a more sinister conclusion.

Regarding checkpoints, Mr. Dugard stressed that there was no freedom of movement in the occupied territories; military checkpoints, roadblocks and other obstructions made travel a nightmare for Palestinians. Checkpoints served two purposes: the humiliation of the Palestinian people, and the convenience and security of the settlers. A system of road apartheid had been set up to keep the highways for the exclusive use of settlers, relegating Palestinians to second-class roads. On the issue of prisoners, he concluded that they too constituted an obstacle to the peace process. Israel should take the bold step to release prisoners in order to further peace. Finally, regarding the determination to dismantle Israeli settlements in Gaza, he said it was the right thing to do, but underscored that Israeli disengagement would not end Gaza’s imprisonment or remedy the humanitarian crisis caused by its closure.


Response by Concerned Countries

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said a number of new and positive elements were included in the latest document submitted by the Special Rapporteur, in particular he had taken note of a number of measures that Israel had taken in order to reduce friction and alleviate hardship for the Palestinians, despite the security risks involved. Among the confidence-building measures taken by Israel were the release of prisoners, the repeal of assigned residence orders, and the cessation of targeted killings and demolition of houses as security measures. The Special Rapporteur also recognized the significant changes being made by Israel to the route of the security fence.

The Special Rapporteur also recognized that Israel’s far-reaching disengagement initiative, including the evacuation of 8,500 people from the Gaza Strip was a brave move on the part of Israel, and that the plan was the right thing to do and should be acknowledged as such by those concerned about human rights and humanitarian law in the Palestinian territory. Another positive development was the Special Rapporteur’s recognition that not only Israel but also the Palestinian side had obligations and responsibilities. The Rapporteur made reference to violations on both sides, and included his clearest call yet for concerted action by the Palestinian leadership against terrorism. This recognition that there were obligations on the Palestinian side and that these obligations had been violated only served to underline the problematic nature of his mandate, which only authorized him to consider violations on the Israeli side of the equation.

Mr. Levanon said the Special Rapporteur had strong criticism for many of the measures taken by Israel to defend itself from terrorism, and Israel took issue with much of this criticism, finding many of the Rapporteur’s allegations misinformed or inaccurate. Unfortunately, the prejudicial mandate of the Special Rapporteur did not permit a dialogue. Nor did it reflect the understanding that mutual and reciprocal implementation of commitments was the only way to take the parties forward to reconciliation. The dissonance between the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and the actual situation in the region had never seemed clearer. The Secretary-General had described the Commission as suffering from a credibility deficit, and there could be no better place to start repairing that deficit than with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) speaking as a concerned country, said the so-called wall was a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Besides the fact that it unlawfully changed the status quo on the ground and put into effect a de facto annexation of land and property throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, it also violated, among other things, the right self-determination, the right to freedom of movement, the right to earn a livelihood, fundamental rights to welfare, property rights and the right to a family life. In this regard, Israel as well as the international community should implement their obligations.

Resorting to policies of collective punishment, destruction and dispossession perpetrated by a heavy military force against a powerless civilian population whose alleged crime was shouting loud for freedom and independence, was only part of an extensive list of violations, which should be addressed and rectified by the international community. This was no time for appeasement on the part of the international community. The soft words of the Israeli Government and its representatives were negated by the reality of the miserable life of the Palestinian people under the prolonged Israeli occupation, the continued detention of thousands of Palestinians and the abhorrent means and methods of grabbing Palestinian land.

There was no other alternative to the ending of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian and other Arab territories, which was breeding extremism throughout the world, and this was known by the whole world. The recent clear Palestinian and Arab stance and related declarations and measures had created a positive environment and had offered a valuable opportunity that could be seized by Israel to reverse its colonial polices and commence ending its occupation instead of foot-dragging and endless negotiations intended to postpone the inevitable and obvious. All should be missionaries of a just peace instead of soldiers of maiming and killing. The walls of occupation, hatred and revenge should be torn down and a new reality, based on human rights, equity, freedom, self-determination and respect of international law, should be created in which joint efforts could create a normal and better way of living for current and future generations.

Interactive Dialogue

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg) agreed that the conferences at Sharm el-Sheikh and London had raised hopes, and asked the Special Rapporteur what, in his view, must be done by both parties to ensure lasting peace. On the subject of the International Court of Justice’s ruling on the wall, he asked what had been the Special Rapporteur’s findings regarding Palestinian opinions on the wall’s construction during his visit to the occupied territories.

JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, speaking in response, said with regard to the second question on the opinion of the Palestinian community on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it was clear that the Palestinians were delighted that it had apparently ruled in their favour with regard to the wall. The ICJ had found the wall to be illegal, rejecting a number of arguments raised by Israel over the years. There was also disappointment over the failure of the international community to concern itself more with the enforcement of that opinion.

With regard to the first question, steps would have to be taken in order to bring a lasting peace to the region. Ultimately, the issues of refugees and the status of Jerusalem would have to be addressed by negotiations, but before this Israel would have to address the issues that were the major stumbling blocks to lasting peace in the region: settlements; the continuation of the wall whose construction in Palestinian territory continued; checkpoints and roadblocks; and prisoners. These should be addressed sooner rather than later, or Palestinian patience could run out and there would be a return to the militancy seen over the last few years.

General Debate on the Right to Development

FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the right to development was a fundamental human right, one that was about building partnerships to ensure economic growth and sustainable development for all. It encompassed all human rights, which entailed the creation of an enabling international environment for the realisation of all human rights, one in which international cooperation played a pivotal role. The repeated failure of the international community to fully observe its international cooperation obligations, including those commitments to which developed countries had agreed to, was exacerbating the situation in many parts of Africa, and was hindering African countries' efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. While globalization provided opportunities for growth and development, this could only be achieved under certain conditions. Structural obstacles, especially in the multilateral trading system, had to be removed, or they would continue to significantly undermine the efforts of the continent aimed at achieving its legitimate development aspirations.

The recommendations adopted by the Working Group on the right to development deserved full attention, with the sole purpose of implementation. These recommendations were a true reflection of what a global partnership was: bringing together States, international agencies, institutions and organizations, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, each in their own field of action, in an operationally concerted effort for the implementation of the right to development. There had been a number of positive developments on the international scene that could contribute to the realisation of the right to development. All relevant actors should implement the recommendations adopted by the Working Group, and summon and sustain the much- needed political will for the realisation of this inalienable right.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) stressed that human and social development must be based on human values and social goals, and that the objective of development strategies must be to satisfy the cultural, social, material and spiritual needs of all human beings, particularly the poor. Any credible and meaningful development strategy must be governed by these needs, and must produce collective social goods to satisfy the common needs of specific social and/or cultural groups. These needs were legitimate human rights, which must be promoted, consolidated and protected by State and society through the legislation of people-centred laws and the creation of participatory institutions of governance at all levels of human interaction. The achievement of social goods could be guaranteed only by a strong, democratic and transparent decision-making process inspired by freedom, equality, justice and equity. Meaningful participation of individuals at the grassroots level was critical to the realization of the right to development.

While it had been accepted that basic responsibility for the realization of this right lay with States, the right to development could only be realized within the context of an international environment that recognized the massive inequality in the level of development among States and regions, and gave due consideration to the situation of developing countries, particularly the least developed countries. Three issues deserved priority attention, including poverty eradication, globalization, and the situation of women. Poverty eradication was considered the key to the successful realization of the right to development. Globalization, which had had a profound effect on human development, had served as a catalyst to further marginalize weak States. A serious and cooperative effort to create a balanced relationship was necessary to ensure the right to development. Finally, as no society could ever hope to promote the well being of its members without the active participation of women, women constituted an integral part of development. They must be empowered, and their equal and full participation in governance and development ensured.

ABDULMONEIM TOMAN TAHA (Sudan) said Sudan endorsed the statements on behalf of the African Group, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Like-Minded Group. No country could safeguard any human rights while the right to development was marginalized. The right to development should have equal attention like all the other rights. The Declaration following the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals had also stressed the value of the right to development. The right to development was indivisible from other human rights and every effort should be made to uphold it. Preventing international financial institutions from providing financial assistance to countries like Sudan would create obstacles to their development. Without any political considerations, the World Trade Organization should facilitate trade access to all developing countries. The Government of Sudan had requested international funds for its development.

Sudan believed that without the international cooperation and assistance, countries like it could not make much progress in their efforts in implementing the right to development. The many development initiatives that Sudan was undertaking needed international financing. The World Trade Organization should also be open so that Sudan would benefit from that exchange.

MOHAMED SALECK OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania) said the right to development had particular importance as it was the indispensable base for the enjoyment of all human rights. It was in some ways the cradle in which all human rights were born and developed. For this reason, the right to development merited particular attention as its realisation had a significant effect on the enjoyment of all other human rights. The level of this attention had varied over the years. The conclusions and recommendations of the Working Group on the right to development went in the right direction, in particular those which emphasised the close link between the measures which came under the aegis of national responsibility, and those which fell under the responsibility of the international community. Development was naturally the primary and fundamental responsibility of each Government with regards to its people.

To this end, each Government should affirm the primacy of the rule of law, free all energies, favourise popular participation, and share the fruits of growth. However, such measures and policies could not be crowned with success unless there was a favourable international economic environment. It was clear that the international community had not been capable of creating the conditions required for such an environment and as a consequence the gap between countries of the North and of the South was only growing. The time had come to fulfil the expectations of many and to establish a true world partnership that would conform to the spirit of the Declaration on the Right to Development and the Millennium Development Goals.

FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran) said realization of the right to development required recognizing the responsibility and accountability of all actors, both at the national and international levels, to create a fair and conducive international economic environment, which hinged to a large extent on the motivation of States, collectively and individually, to integrate the principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment, and cooperation into the process of development. Equitable opportunity for development must become an imperative principle of international cooperation. The right to fair access to knowledge and technology, the right not to be subjected to discriminatory treatment in the global economy, and the right of access for every country to international, financial, monetary and trade organizations must form the basis of good governance, transparency, democratization and accountability of globalization.

There was an urgent need for a structured and multidisciplinary dialogue among and between Member States, United Nations agencies and financial and development institutions, she stressed, to find ways to further implement the right to development. The international financial and development institutions must mainstream the right to development in their policies and operational work. In that regard, the establishment of the High-level Task Force was welcomed. Iran also supported the work of the Working Group on the right to development, and held that the issue of space for national economic policy in the implementation of the right to development and the concept document for an international legally-binding instrument on implementation of the right to development should be taken into account as a matter of priority.

JAWAHER AL SABAH (Kuwait) said the right to development, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 1986, was indivisible from other human rights issues. The Vienna Declaration had also asserted that the right to development was an inalienable human right which was indivisible from other human rights. States had the first responsibility to provide the conditions which allowed development to flourish. Kuwait was fully committed to implement the right to development at all levels. It had strengthened its health and educational system, and had laid the structures that would allow the full enjoyment of the right to development.

Through its international cooperation assistance, Kuwait was among the countries that provided development assistance to many countries in many areas, including economic, social and cultural development. It believed that the assistance it provided would also promote regional peace and security.

MURSHD EMAD (Yemen) said through its implementation of the reform programme in the economic, financial and administrative field, it had regained much external confidence and had strengthened its relationship with its development partners. It had a five-year plan aiming to enhance development, including an increase in GDP to raise the standard of living for the individual and society; increasing participation; and support of the weaker members of society through the social security network. The national strategy reflected the concern for the citizens and the Government's relationship with the donor organizations in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. A comprehensive census project had been undertaken in order to better formulate strategies for the future. Every effort was made for sustainable development and to meet national and international commitments.

MOHAMED AL SHRNFARI (Oman) said that the General Assembly's recognition of the right to development had expressed one of most important rights looked forward to by people suffering poverty. Realization of that right would lead one-third of the world to emerge from poverty and deprivation. At the current moment, the world was still characterized by inequality, despite advances in technology and development. Thousands continued to die daily due to famine; this situation was not in conformity with the objectives of peace, security and stability. All must make efforts to create a more just and transparent international economic environment, and to build a constructive framework to lead the countries of the South to sustainable development in the future.

For its part, Oman had confirmed the right of its citizens to enjoy development, he said. The country had taken the opportunity to use the transitional economic framework as means of changing the lives of its citizens. Thus, the programme "Oman 2020" called for the creation of an economic environment that would be abreast of international changes. Oman had spared no efforts in its support of the United Nations and the activation of all mechanisms that promised to lead to realization of the right to development, and to a greater balance between North and South.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) said the right to development was an essential element that Iraq would like to cherish. The economic, social and cultural rights of Iraqis had been seriously damaged by the former regime. The country's economic and financial system had been destroyed, leaving a structure that would take a long time to repair. The rate of illiteracy was high; the rights of women and the right of minorities had been seriously violated by the former regime. In addition, the former regime had left a heavy burden of foreign debt to the Government. The rate of inflation was high.

At the present time, the Government of Iraq had difficulties in implementing its economic and financial programme in a secure and peaceful manner. The country was being attacked from all sides. Infiltrators from neighbouring States were attacking Iraqi people and economic infrastructures. These attacks had been obstacles to carry out the Government’s development plans correctly. The countries that pledged international assistance at the Madrid Conference should come forward to do so.

JOSEPH K. INGRAM (World Bank) said one of the key lessons learned by the World Bank from its participation in the Working Group on the right to development was that the principles which underlay the right to development, transparency, accountability, participation, equity and non-discrimination were the same principles which were applied in the Bank's support of the preparation and implementation of clients' national poverty reduction programmes. The application of these five principles was the best way for development to take place because it ensured that people were themselves involved in the development process.

The Bank had realised that the debate of the past few years over the definition of human rights concepts and approaches was not as serious a constraint on the Bank’s capacity to act as a development institution as might have been previously thought. Creating the actual conditions under which the realisation of rights could occur was in fact what it could do best as an institution. It was thought that through the joint dialogue that some light had been shed on the utility and shortcomings of Poverty and Social Impact Assessments, indicating what needed to be done to enhance the contributions to the development process, such as strengthening capacity to evaluate the impact of trade reform and to better understand the implications of debt relief for long-term development. The Bank looked forward to continuing its participation in the High-level Task Force, if and when the Chairperson requested it.

JOAQUIM BELO MANGUEIRA (Angola) said the right to development was especially important to developing countries which recognized that the full enjoyment of that right concerned the satisfaction of social, economic and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights. The conclusions and recommendations of the Working Group on the right to development were appreciated, and Angola emphasized that States, in cooperation with the United Nations, must take concrete actions to achieve the goal of realizing the right to development, including by prioritizing the elimination of the external debt of developing countries; reforming the international financial system; reforming the trade system; preventing conflict and disarmament; controlling weapons sales; respecting fundamental freedoms; and respecting State sovereignty.

The Government of Angola remained committed to elaborating national policies aimed at facilitating the full realization of the right to development, he added, yet it was a collective responsibility to achieve the goals of the Millennium Summit and the Doha Round. Angola, which had achieved peace in 2002 after seven years of war, had seen its economic and social infrastructure destroyed. Despite efforts to rebuild the country, the Government remained aware that international aid was necessary to push forward the economy in all fields. A strong, sincere and objective engagement by the international community was requested to carry out that important challenge.

LOVE MTESA (Zambia) stated that debt burden had affected Zambia's ability to develop for a long time. Almost 90 per cent of the country’s foreign exchange earnings went towards debt servicing and that left very little for the country to pursue any development programmes. Due to the hardships that had been encountered as a result of the debt burden and in trying to get out of the situation, Zambia was one of the countries under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. A lot of measures, most of them very difficult to be appreciated because they had an adverse effect on the well-being of the Zambian people, had had to be taken by the Government in order to reach the targeted HIPC completion point.

So far, indications were that Zambia had qualified for the HIPC point. As such, Zambia strongly supported the recommendations by the High-level Task Force for the cancellation of debt for the Highly Indebted Poor Countries and for additional bilateral official development assistance.

AZZAM ALAMEDDIN (Jordan) noted that all participants had agreed that the right to development was a fundamental human right and had welcomed the creation of the High-level Task Force whose role was to assist the Working Group on the right to development in developing practical measures for the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals and to provide assistance at the national and international level on world trade. The work of the Task Force was intended to pave the way for the various bodies and organizations to come together to work on specific initiatives. It was understood that there were some parties in the Task Force that had different ideas, and it was therefore important for all to work together in a spirit of consensus. The current multilateral negotiations made it clear that it was necessary to study the results that affected States which opened their economy and trade to the free market, and the effect of this on development and sustainable development.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said the Commission’s debate on the right to development was legitimate as all human rights remained interdependent. Having commended the work of the Working Group and the High-level Task Force, he said that the discussion must move from a theoretical debate to concrete measures. In most countries, the right to development remained a distant goal as huge obstacles continued to block the path to its achievement.

There were three fundamental rights that must be met in order for civil and political rights to have meaning for individuals, he said. Those were the rights to food, health and education. If deprived of these, civil and political rights were just empty words. Efforts must be made to satisfy social and economic goals, to ameliorate debt servicing, and to protect against increased external financial vulnerability, unemployment and poverty. The right to development could only be ensured in the presence of a more equitable international economic environment. Instead, many countries had been pushed to adopt an ultra-liberal path, and now found themselves on the verge of implosion or faltering on their debt payments. The international community must seek to alleviate debt for Highly Indebted Poor Countries, and help them to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Protectionism must be done away with, and market access for developing countries must be ensured. Only a global approach could help to ensure peace and social and economic progress.

SILVANO M. TOMASI (Holy See) said the commendable work carried out by the Working Group and the High-level Task Force on the implementation of the right to development highlighted the importance of a comprehensive approach by all sectors of civil society, States and the international community if there was to be progress in realizing the right to development. Experience showed that the implementation of the right to development was successful if centred on the human person and on human communities, as the Declaration on the Right to Development stated; they should be the active participants and beneficiaries of that right. The network of educational and healthcare institutions and the relief agencies, for instance, conducted by faith-based organizations mainly for the poorest people of the world, proved to be engines of change and empowerment since they focused directly on the human person.

The realization of the right to development required collaborative efforts between political and geographical lines. The dynamics of that process involved rich and poor countries to taken steps in two major areas that conditioned the implementing of the right to development: human rights and trade.

BASHAR ALJA'AFARI (Syria) said the right to development was an inalienable human right and therefore it was only logical that it required a real change in the methodology with which the industrialized rich countries were dealing with the poor undeveloped countries. There was a need to humanize globalization, which would help in humanizing technology and the redistribution of wealth to a greater effect. All those who defended these rights and then lamented over the situation in the world were called upon to support this right so that it was transformed from rhetoric to a human objective.

The achievement of the Millennium Development Goals was being obstructed because of the security situation and the economic environment as well. There was a need to create the necessary international environment to promote this right. The developing countries had made great efforts to formulate their national programmes for the implementation of development, but these were constantly frustrated by the internationally-imposed obstacles including the lack of equity and the lack of development assistance. Unilateral sanctions based on political motions also impeded development, and foreign occupation was a great obstacle stopping people from enjoying the right to development.

ANNE-MARIE CLUCKERS, of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), presented UNDP’s second bi-annual report on activities relating to relevant resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights, which combined information received from country offices, as well as from Headquarters, bureaus and divisions. The outcome of a recent survey on the activity level of respective programming service lines within UNDP’s Multi-Year Funding Framework was also available. In 2004, "Justice and Human Rights" had ranked as the second largest area of programme support. This underscored both a substantial growth for UNDP, and the importance that should be attached to the deliberations and discussions of the Commission. Human rights and development were inextricably linked, and the right to development should serve as the significant driver in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and other development targets.

It was agreed that the international community must move from generalities to specificities in its consideration, and from the conceptual to the operational in its work on the right to development. UNDP had last week launched a pilot programme on a human rights-based approach to poverty reduction in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Other pilot projects would soon commence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kyrgyzstan, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Benin, Botswana, Cape Verde, Comoros, Mauritania and Malawi. The experiences derived therein were sure to be of relevance to future discussion on and around the implementation of the right to development.

AZAD CAFAROV (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan agreed with the position that all rights were universal, indivisible and interdependent. The right to development was a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights. To that end, the right to development should be considered from the perspective of the rights-based approach. The realization of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights was fundamental for the achievement and the full enjoyment of the right to development. He emphasized the critical importance of identifying obstacles which impeded the full realization of the right to development at both the national and international levels.

States had the duty to take steps to formulate international development policies with a view to facilitate the full realization of the right to development. The proper implementation of the right to development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms could be fully realized, could only be achieved through good governance and the rule of law. In that regard, the responsiveness of States to marginalized and vulnerable groups was of central importance.

ALI A. AL-ARADI (Bahrain) said the report of the Working Group on the right to development was appreciated, and that the Working Group should be congratulated for its work. The ideals of social development were upheld in Bahrain, and this was why the country had given priority to its conviction of the need to achieve social and economic justice to enhance freedom for all. This interdependent right involved the respect of fundamental freedoms as well as other basic rights. The fundamental idea of human dignity and pride in being a member of a society was also linked to the right to development, as was the concept of social action in favour of individuals.

Bahrain was the first Arab country mentioned in the UNDP report which was due to the legislative choices and priorities made in that country. Talk about an international partnership for development would be a key to evaluating the commitments of States to the right to development.

LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said that the right to development encompassed all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights. The right to development was a process of development, by which all human rights and fundamental freedoms could be fully realized in a progressive manner. It was also a process whereby people could be empowered and equipped to live better lives.

Thailand supported the continued discussion of the right to development in the Commission on Human Rights, including by the Working Group and the High-level Task Force. To achieve the full realization of the right to development, the achievement of other rights must also be a matter of priority in line with each country's development needs. The rights to education, health, food and housing figured high on the right to development agenda. Globalization also played an important role in the right to development process. There must be coordinated policies and action among concerned agencies, both financial- and development oriented. The culture of partnership should also be promoted.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said the Philippines found it encouraging that core development issues were being given their rightful place in the discussion. Those were the "bread-and–butter" concerns that the Government was faced with in its task of balancing and harmonizing numerous goals and objectives, with limited resources, in order to achieve the full enjoyment of human rights and sustained economic growth and development. Concrete, practical and action-oriented recommendations for the implementation of the right to development, and mainstreaming that right into the policies and activities of relevant international organizations and institutions, were now on the table. The most recent of those were the recommendations of the High-level Task Force on the implementation of the right to development and the sixth session of the Working Group on the right to development.

A favourable decision on the draft resolution on the right to development was particularly important, especially in the context of the forthcoming Millennium plus five Summit during the 60th Session of the General Assembly, which would, among other things, consider the progress made in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals.

EMILE BUTOYI, of New Humanity speaking on behalf of International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education and International Young Catholic Students, said the Working Group on the right to development had taken note of the High-level Task Force's report on implementing the right to development. All of the efforts deployed by the Working Group to achieve consensus were appreciated. The right to development was an inalienable right, involving the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. The principles of fraternity and solidarity should be kept in mind. The principle of brotherhood meant strengthening capacities through inspiration and went beyond assistance and aid to others. All areas of development should be focused on, not just economic development. Categories and parameters for development should therefore be identified. Fraternity, brotherhood and reciprocity were required to achieve development in a non-discriminatory manner.

DEBORAH HIRT, of Franciscans International speaking on behalf of Dominicans for Justice and Peace, said the three concepts of the right to development, poverty and extreme poverty were often confused in debates. The right to development had been defined as "the right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized". Poverty had been defined by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as "a sustained or chronic deprivation of 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". Further, extreme poverty had been defined as a situation of poverty in which the number, extent and duration of deprivations make it extremely difficult, or even impossible, for persons and communities to regain the enjoyment of their rights in the foreseeable future. She also expressed support for the renewal of the mandate for the Working Group on the right to development, as well as full participation in the High-level Task Force.

PIERRE MIOT, of International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, said that this year would be decisive in the fight against poverty and development. Life was very difficult for many in the world, and for rural populations in particular. There was a grave divide between the mostly agricultural economies, mainly in developing countries, and the economies of rich societies in the developed countries. The best and quickest way of helping the countries of the South would be to open the markets of the North to the only products that many countries in Africa, Asia or Latin America could produce and export. This would increase prices as well as the income of the producers, as well as stabilize the sale of these products, which were currently being sold in a surplus-based market.

MALIK OZDEN, of Europe-Third World Centre, noted that last year, the Commission had renewed the mandate of the Working Group on the right to development in application of resolution 2004/7 for the implementation of the right to development. During its February session, the Working Group had dealt with the work of the High-level Task Force, which was created to assist the Group in its tasks. The work was concentrated on issues pertaining to the realization of the Millennium Development Goals and to elaborate ways to evaluate the social impact of trade policies. One should not confuse the Millennium Development Goals with that of the right to development, which was an inalienable and indivisible human right. All measures should be taken with a view to realize them immediately.

RAMON CARMONA, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said there had been an increase in the social exclusion that faced many people in the world. Sanctions, blockades and threats and use of military aggression exacerbated that situation; such nefarious policies were imposed by transnational corporations, who prioritized profits regardless of the suffering of workers. Bhopal in India presented a good example of such priorities. A working group should be set up to improve the draft on norms for international corporations, and to study follow-up to that which had already been agreed to. The United Nations must arrange for transnational organizations to respect human rights, and to punish them when they failed to do so.

WAFAA HAJJI, of Union de l'action féminine, said political and civil rights and economic, social and cultural rights were indivisible for her group. The Family Code in Morocco had been noted as a significant step taken in that country; women were now able to transmit their nationality to their children. However, other areas had to be improved for women, namely violence and poverty. The artificial conflict in Western Sahara had taken women hostage. Her group supported the efforts of the Secretary-General to bring about a solution to the conflict in Western Sahara. The international community should also help women in Western Sahara who had continued to suffer. She also called on the international community to help Moroccan prisoners in the hands of Western Saharan fighters to free them.

BORIS CASTILLO BARROSO, of Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la Soberanía de los Pueblos, said the realization of the right to development was the best way of improving the situation on the planet, yet it had not been achieved. The loss suffered by Cuba as a result of the economic war deployed unilaterally by America over four decades had amounted to a loss of billions of dollars. The economic warfare against Cuba was unfair, irrational and unrealistic. The United States was a country that claimed to champion human rights, yet it was interfering with Cuba's right to development. The world was at a stage where a new system of international relations that was more just was required.

IVONNE PEREZ GUTIERREZ, of National Union of Jurists of Cuba, said the right to development was vital for the Cuban people, and it was necessary to clarify once again that the Government of the United States was trying to strangle an entire country by denying its right to development in many spheres. The United States had implemented an aggressive policy against Cuba for over four decades, and had caused damage by sabotage and terrorist acts. It was more than an embargo; it was a blockade, an embargo against the people of Cuba, and a serious violation of human rights. There was no legal or moral justification for this embargo. The political climate in the region had been so affected that the threat to peace in the region was significant. Cuba was an example that a better world was possible and was a viable alternative.

CASTRO ESTEBANCIO, of International Indian Treaty Council, said the right to self-determination and permanent sovereignty over national resources should be granted so that indigenous peoples could enjoy their right to development, which was a collective right. Governments needed to listen to indigenous peoples. The situation in Guatemala and in the United States with regard to indigenous peoples was not a favourable one. In order for the recognition of the right to self-determination, to land, and to resources to be realized, there was a need for indigenous peoples to be fully involved in the projects concerning them rather than for them to become victims of these projects. Indigenous peoples should be allowed to enjoy the right to development, and States should take into account issues that affected them and ensure their full participation in them.

KADIR BUX JATOI, of World Peace Council, said in Pakistan, some were more equal than others. Forty million people of Sindh origin had their lost dignity, rights, freedom and their equality. Pakistan was a multinational State consisting of Punjabis, Sindhis, Balunch, Pashtuns and Seraikis, among others. Those ethnic groups were also joined by scores of illegal immigrants who crossed Pakistani borders each year. For the Sindhis of Sindh, that massive migration had been disastrous, as they unsuccessfully competed with individuals who did not hold the interests of the Sindhis at heart. Denied from participation in the development process, the Sindhi people were often relegated to the improvised rural areas, relying solely on agriculture for their income and livelihood. The Sindhis were effectively becoming a minority in their own homeland.

VICTORIA TAULI CORPUZ, of Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education), said there was an overwhelming opinion on the role of human rights in relation to development. Unfortunately, up to now, these remained at the rhetorical level and were not seen in action. The lack of political will in making this world more equitable and just was appalling. Indigenous peoples were included among the poorest of the poor, and yet they were almost invisible in the Millennium Development Goals and not very visible in the reports of the Working Group on the right to development. It was in the interest of Member States to address in earnest the issue of indigenous peoples.

CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said that women's rights to equal opportunity and treatment were neither a luxury nor a favour, but were basic to the process of development and social justice. Without women's participation in decision-making in all spheres of life, and at all levels of society, it would be impossible to eradicate poverty, create fully democratic societies, and formulate economic and financial policies that promoted social justice and economic equity. Without women's participation, there would not be world peace, security and sustainable development. The recommendation of the Working Group on the right to development to enhance the participation of women in the process of formulating policies and strategies for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and realization of the right to development was supported, as was the renewal of the mandate of the Task Force.

CAROLINA AMADOR, of Federation of Cuban Women, said the imperialist war, hegemonic desires and neo-liberal globalization had transgressed the daily right of people to development. The egoist desires of the developed counties had continued to deprive the developing countries not only of the right to development but also of their economic means through trade. The Government of the United States had been investing millions of dollars for the fight against terrorism by increasing its military arsenal. The people of the developing countries required international cooperation in order to realize their right to development, particularly to eradicate poverty, illiteracy, and to fight natural disasters. The right to development of the Cuban people had been affected by the aggressive blockade imposed by the United States.

WASILUADIO MALUZA, of International Committee for the Respect and Application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights - CIRAC, said while the international community only discovered the right to development in 1986, in Africa a great pioneer had appeared in 1921 and he had struggled at the international level to uphold the same right; that man was Simon Kimpangu. He was born on 12 September 1887 in N’Kamba, in the Congo, two years after the Berlin Conference of 1885, which had organized the scramble of Africa and the balkanization of the Continent. Simon Kimpangu was conscious of the fact that people could only enjoy their right to development when they were freed from the chains of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and all forms of servitude and humiliations. The position had prompted a strong opposition and resistance from the Belgian colonialists. He had denounced the pillaging of Congo's natural resources by the European colonial powers.

SARDAR USMAN, of World Muslim Congress, noted that almost all human rights instruments recognized the right to self-determination, and stated further that that right constituted an integral element of the right to development. Once the right to self-determination had been denied, denial of the right to development was immediately manifested in the lack of power of the people over their legitimate resources. Recalling the frequent mention made of the Millennium Development Goals, he wondered whether anyone had asked those Governments that held people hostage to their territorial ambitions about the reality of implementation of the goals of the right to development for those people. For instance, the illegal occupation of Kashmir by Indian forces had retarded economic growth, kept the vast economic potential of Jammu and Kashmir unharnessed, and added to the misfortunes of the region's hapless population. The people of Jammu and Kashmir called upon the Commission to let them share the benefits of the global partnership for development.

AMIR SHAH, of Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization, said the right to development had a collective as well as an individual dimension. The essence of the right to development was that people all over the world had a right to freely pursue their economic development and that all States and the international community had a responsibility to ensure that people all over the world were free from poverty, hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy and disease. It followed that any State which wilfully deprived the people under its rule of their right to the enjoyment of minimum educational and health facilities and decent employment opportunities violated their right to development.

LES MALEZER, of Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said the right to development had particular application to indigenous peoples, and was a collective as well as an individual right. It was an essential component of land rights and the right to self-determination. Development had to be grounded in economic policies that fostered growth with social justice, in response to calls for empowerment, more ownership and more sustainability in development efforts.

SYBILLE RUPRECHET, of International Institute for Peace, said the right to development could not and should not be restricted to the creation of material prosperity. True development encompassed all facets of existence. It was only through the creation of balanced individuals that society could progress in a manner ensuring that the welfare of all citizens was taken care of. Peace and harmonious coexistence, rooted in tolerance, were a prerequisite for the creation of conditions where a collaborative effort would ensure sustainable development. Today in South Asia, there were nations still under dictatorial rule. For instance, education in Pakistan continued to be dominated by religious seminaries, many of which had been instrumental in providing recruits for fanatical groups.

Right of Reply

GEORGIOS PARTHENIOU (Greece), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in reference to the statement by the United Nations Development Programme in connection with the incorrect denomination of the State in question used in that statement, recalled Security Council resolution 817 of 1993, according to which, that State had been admitted to the United Nations "being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over the name of that State". This difference had not yet been settled.


* *** *
For use of information media; not an official record


1Joint statement on behalf of: International Federation of University Women; Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association International; International Council of Women; Worldwide Organization for Women; Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices affecting the Health of Women and Children; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; and Women's International Zionist Organization.