Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
27 March 2000
Share
Commision on Humman Rights
56th session
27 March 2000
Afternoon
Hears Statements by High-Level Government Officials from Azerbaijan and
Bangladesh
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon continued its debate on the realization of the right to development and heard several speakers stressing the need for designing new strategies and mechanisms to reach the goals set forth under this issue.
The Commission was also addressed by the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and the Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh.
Khalaf Khalafov, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, told the Commission that the main obstacle to the development of his country lay in the continuing aggression by neighbouring Armenia and the associated grievous consequences. Numerous incidents of mass and gross violations of international law, which fell under the category of crimes against humanity, had been carried out during the aggression, he said. In spite of the unambiguous demands of the Security Council, the armed forces of Armenia continued to this day to hold occupied Azerbaijani territory and to build their military capability there.
And Shafi Sami, Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh, said that the rights so eloquently enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained largely unfulfilled and beyond the grasp of the majority of the world's population. He said it was a sad commentary that while millions starved, unbridled consumption continued elsewhere. While billions of dollars were spent on weapons each year, millions died of hunger and lack of medical care and, ironically, often as the very target of these weapons.
The majority of delegates who took the floor this afternoon belonged to developing countries. They said the right to development could not be attained in their countries because of the economic imbalance between the developing and the developed nations. The lack of transfer of technology and capital to the developing countries was also highlighted by speakers. The burden of external debt was viewed by many delegates as being among the main obstacles faced by the developing countries to realize the right to development.
The representatives from the following countries took the floor this afternoon: Senegal, Tunisia, Sudan, Madagascar, Qatar, India, Cuba, Norway, Morocco, Swaziland, Guatemala, Indonesia, Venezuela, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Panama. A representative of the World Bank also spoke.
The Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 28 March, to continue its debate on the right to development. It is also expected to hold an extended meeting until 9 p.m.
Statements
KHALAF KHALAFOV, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, stated that since the restoration of independence, the Government of Azerbaijan had established its policies for the rule of law, promotion of human rights and freedoms, and democracy as priorities. A whole series of legislative instruments in the field of human rights had been adopted within the legal reform carried out in the country. Thanks to its consistent policy aimed at encouraging and implementing the universal norms of democratic law and order, Azerbaijan was actively engaged in greater European integration.
Mr. Khalafov said that his country was made up of a multi-ethnic society and the Government had taken the necessary measures to establish conditions for the undeviating implementation of human rights and freedoms and the equality of rights of all citizens. It had also ensured that persons belonging to minorities were drawn into active participation in society on the basis of equality of rights in all spheres of vital activity in the Republic.
Mr. Khalafov said there was still deep concern over the fate of Azerbaijanis expelled from their historical and ethnic lands in the territory of the present-day Armenia. In 1918, there were 575,000 Azerbaijanis on the territory of the present-day Armenia, constituting over one-third of its total population. However, as a result of Armenia's deliberate policy of forcibly ousting the Azerbaijani population, out of a community of more than half a million strong, there was not a single Azerbaijani left in Armenia today.
In conclusion, Mr. Khalafov said that the main obstacle to the development of his country lay in the continuing aggression by neighbouring Armenia and the associated grievous consequences. Numerous facts of mass and gross violations of international law, which fell under the category of crimes against humanity, had been carried out during the aggression. In spite of the unambiguous demands of the Security Council, the armed forces of Armenia continued to this day to hold occupied Azerbaijani territory and to build up their military capability there.
SHAFI SAMI, Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh, said that the rights so eloquently enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained largely unfulfilled and beyond the grasp of the majority of the world's population. It was a sad commentary that while millions starved, unbridled consumption continued elsewhere. Misplaced priorities both at national and international levels were often insensitive to the cause of development and human well-being. While billions of dollars were spent on weapons each year, millions died of hunger and lack of medical care and, ironically, often as the very target of these weapons.
The prime responsibility for promotion of development and ensuring the well-being of their citizens rested with national Governments. However, for the majority of nations, particularly in the 48 least developed countries, creating basic conditions of development remained a daunting challenge. It was important that global development be taken as a collective responsibility, with national efforts supplemented through international cooperation. The international community through policies of aid, trade, investment and technology transfer had to contribute towards a favourable external economic environment. Sadly, a fruitful dialogue between the industrialized North and the poorer countries of the South had not been entered into. National Governments, donor communities, development agencies, the United Nations, the Bretton Woods Institutions, the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society at large had to be part of a concerted global action to achieve global peace and prosperity. What was needed was cooperation and not simply hand-outs.
IBOU NDIAYE (Senegal) said that to date, progress in the field of human rights had occurred basically in the domain of civil and political rights. Collective, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, were not viewed with the same interest. Indeed, the essential concept of the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights was far from being a reality. In this context, it was essential for States to implement the Declaration on the Right to Development in order to meet the expectations of their populations. The implementation of the international instruments related to human rights had to take into account the specific economic, social and cultural realities of each State.
While globalization had opened new opportunities in the area of human rights and democratization, it had also marginalized numerous countries and hampered their development efforts. It was therefore essential to highlight the human dimension of globalization and to strengthen international solidarity in facing the challenges globalization presented.
RAOUF GHATTY (Tunisia) said the right to development was a universal and inalienable right as confirmed by the World Conferences in Copenhagen and Beijing. However, respect for this right was lacking as there were both internal and external obstacles affecting its attainment. The right to development had no significance for a fifth of the world's population who lacked livelihoods, education and access to health services. The question of the right to development was even more acute now than in the past due to globalization which had increased the complex problems inherent to interdependence. Work was needed to make globalization promote development in a more just international economic order.
International principles of solidarity and fairness were essential. Tunisia viewed the human being as central in the process of development. The living standards in Tunisia had improved considerably. Primary education was mandatory and free. The Tunisian Government was strengthening the element of solidarity to help disadvantaged areas, promote small projects and provide loans to young entrepreneurs at favourable rates. Micro-credit programmes had been initiated to help ensure income and long-term development, supported by the January 2000 National Fund for Employment. The Tunisian President had appealed to world leaders and international institutions to collect funds for the eradication of poverty. Members of the Organization for African Unity and the international civil society were encouraged to be part of the eradication of poverty, particularly in the most disadvantaged countries and regions.
ALI MAHMOUD (Sudan) said that the principles and objectives of the UN Charter closely linked social, economic and cultural rights with other human rights. There could be no free humanity in the absence of adequate conditions under which each individual could enjoy his or her social and economic rights together with his or her civil and political rights. Cooperation had to be enhanced and obstacles had to be removed to allow development for all without discrimination. The right to development was a universal and inalienable right and could not be open to subjectivity.
Developing countries risked further marginalization because of globalization. The time had come for the international community to undertake genuine decisive measures to assist developing countries in fulfilling their right to development before it was too late. The three richest men in the world had the equivalent of the GDP of the 48 least developed countries. This presented a gloomy picture for the future with negative economic trends and the gap between countries widening. The achievement of the right to development was a practical necessity for sustaining a stable economy. There had to be political will to break the vicious circle of poverty. Only then could the least developed countries contribute positively to the global economy. The international community had to assert the sacredness of human rights and work together to ensure that these rights were enjoyed by all people without discrimination. Only when there was clean drinking water, roads, schools, hospitals and employment for everyone could human rights be transferred from a dream into reality. It was only at this point that human rights discussions would be meaningful.
MAXIME ZAFERA (Madagascar) said that the right to development had been defined by the General Assembly as being an inalienable right of human beings and as being indivisible from and interdependent on other rights. The Declaration on the Right to Development had attributed to States the primary responsibility of the realization of that right. However, one could not lose sight that the world was divided into categories: on one side there were people living in the developed countries with enormous economic advantages while others lived in developing countries where they were confronted with social and economic problems of all kinds. The problems in the least developed nations had reached a level of gravity and they were not able to fully meet their obligations in promoting and protecting human rights. In addition, countries like Madagascar were frequently attacked by natural calamities which challenged the policies of development and good governance. The burden of the foreign debt had also annihilated all efforts of development, hampered public assistance to development and created obstacles to access to adequate capital and technology. Madagascar called for the strengthening of multilateral cooperation to favour the restoration of an equitable, just and balanced international society.
KHALED AL-THANI (Qatar) said that the Declaration on the Right to Development and the Vienna Programm of Action had established a link between the right to development, democracy and peace. The realization of the right to development required international cooperation. Qatar was concerned, however, that the highest importance was not given to the right of development. This was despite the fact that it was a fundamental right on which all other rights were based. Indeed, without the realization of this right, full realization of political, social and cultural rights could not be achieved.
The realization of the right to development concerned all individuals and States. In this connection, efforts needed to be undertaken to free nations from weapons of mass destruction. Globalization, which remained a vague concept, should not be realized to the detriment of developing countries, whose development was often hampered by their foreign debt. Qatar was endeavouring to achieve a balanced development and had adopted an economic policy designed to create a favourable environment for the realization of the right to development.
SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said that fifty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world was no closer to realizing the inherent dignity of the human being. Sixty countries had steadily become poorer. Work was needed to enable the international community to address this issue properly. The 1986 adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development by the General Assembly was a big step, as was the Vienna Declaration. The right to development and human rights were mutually reinforcing and interdependent. The debate on the topic had been hindered by the focus on political and civil rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other hand.
Agreement was required on the following issue: freedom from fear had to be equal to the freedom from want. To put human right conditions on the right to development would be erroneous. Democracy and development were essential in ensuring human rights, depending largely on having a transparent and accountable government. Political empowerment was required to ensure the right to development, particularly with regards to women. There was a critical link between development and the ability of people to enjoy the rights promised by the UN Charter. The right to life and liberty, including the right to live with dignity, were pivotal. Much had been achieved within political and civil rights; it was now time to focus on the right to development.
India had undertaken several steps to promote the right to development. The budget for the financial year 2000-2001 promoted a sustained, equitable and job-creating growth path of 7 to 8 per cent per annum in order to eradicate the scourge of poverty from India within a decade. Emphasis had been placed on growth of the rural economy, human resource development, universalization of primary education, women's and child health and increasing international cooperation and assistance.
JORGE FERRER RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that the 20 per cent of the population in the developed countries was in charge of 86 per cent of the world's gross national products, controlled 82 per cent of the world market, availed itself to 74 per cent of the telephone lines, and consumed 58 per cent of world energy. On the other hand, the majority of the 4,400 million inhabitants in the developing nations had no health services and other basic needs. In addition, the United States spent $ 8 billion annually on cosmetics, and together with Europe, spent $ 12 billion on perfumes, in addition to the $ 17 billion they spent on food for domestic animals. It was not politics or utopia to want to change the world. The 0.7 per cent allocation of the developing nations for development since 25 years had continued to decline to 0.22 per cent of the national gross product. The United States had continued its unilateral embargo with 61 economic sanctions against 42 per cent of the world's population. The sanctions included food and medicines. There had been an unjust and criminal economic, financial and commercial blockade against Cuba for four decades.
JANIS BJORN KANAVIN (Norway) said there was a need for further substantive discussion on the right to development. The international community now had a real chance to use the universality of human rights as a spur to concerted action. Today's spirit of partnership, dialogue and open doors had replaced decades of confrontation. The world was also facing escalating unrest and violence, growing instability in a number of countries and increased disparities - both between and within nations. These threats to human rights - and to development - did not only exist in countries far away from Europe, but were in Europe as well.
Strategies and measures to improve the current state of affairs needed to include, among other things, the promotion of human rights at home, taking a holistic approach to human rights, correcting flaws or malfunctions in the international social and economic order, and putting the basic rights and freedoms of the individual at the centre of policies and practices.
MOHAMED MAJDI (Morocco) said there had only been patchy and sporadic progress within the discussions at the Commission on Human Rights on the right to development. Little real progress had been made. Morocco did not view the right to development as rhetoric speech. The enjoyment of the right to development should be seen in a pragmatic and innovative fashion. Inequalities were still flagrant. The twentieth century was marked by the convergence of the 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Unfortunately economic progress had barely extended outside these countries. The global annual revenue in OECD countries had tripled, whilst 1.3 billion people lived on less than $ 1 a day. Many African countries experienced an annual growth rate lower than in the 1970s. Gaps between developed and developing countries were growing daily, yet public development assistance was far below its international objectives. Since 1992 there had been a 20 per cent drop in public development assistance because of cut-backs in the G7 States.
Development was not only about economics; an enabling environment needed to be established through good governance, popular participation in decision-making, management of resources and economic investment. It was impossible to ignore the relation between the administration and citizens as the citizen was of central importance to the administration. International support was essential. A long-term strategy of mutual respect between countries based on just and equitable relations was encouraged as well as the increased coherence in the policy strategies of international financial institutions.
NONHLANHLA MLANGENI (Swaziland) said the struggle to eradicate poverty in Swaziland was, regrettably, exacerbated by the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS. The cost of that disease had been enormous and its repercussions on development were potentially devastating. Its effects resulted in the deterioration of child survival rates, diminished life expectancy, overburdened health care systems, and an increased number of orphans. Since HIV/AIDS affected the size and quality of the workforce, it was of fundamental concern to businesses and policy makers. AIDS was killing the most productive members of the labour force. That situation had rendered the popular slogan of the country of 'Health for all by the year 2000' ineffective. In addition, the persisting and ever widening gap between the developed and developing countries jeopardized the effective participation by developing countries in the process of globalization and would continue to hamper their developmental efforts. If that issue was left unresolved, those countries risked further marginalization and exclusion from the benefits of globalization; more seriously their right to development would continue to be violated if the international community failed to address that issue.
LUIS PADILLA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said his delegation concurred with the proposals put forward by the Special Rapporteur on external debt. In particular, debt forgiveness was essential in the case of countries affected by humanitarian crises such as AIDS-ridden Zambia; Nicaragua and Honduras, hit by Hurricane Mitch; and flood-stricken Mozambique.
Latin American countries were convinced of the necessity to put forward concrete proposals which could be translated into policies designed to ensure the full realization of the right to development. The Bretton Woods institutions should carefully examine the proposals contained in the reports of the Independent Expert on the right to development, the Independent Expert on structural adjustments programmes and the Special Rapporteur on external debt.
SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia) said the right to development provided a comprehensive approach to all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Every nation and every human being was entitled to an equal chance to fulfill their potential in development. Responsibility for realizing the right to development was to be shared between individuals, national Governments and the international community. The human being was central to the subject of development policies. Popular participation in decision-making, and implementation and the derivation of benefits from them was an essential component of lasting development. Empowerment, inclusion and participation had been made an overriding priority in Indonesia. Societal affairs had been deregulated in the dissolution of the ministries dealing with information and societal affairs. The implementation of new laws dealing with regional autonomy and with revenue sharing between the regional and central governments had been promulgated and expedited.
Participation and enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights was essential. At the international level, States had a responsibility to ensure the equitable economic relation. Globalization had the increased risk of marginalization of the developing countries. Another major preoccupation was the widespread existence of widespread poverty inhibiting the full and effective enjoyment of human rights. Poverty was the greatest cause of human rights violations. Freedom from extreme poverty constituted one of the non-derogable rights of every human being. All States had the duty to cooperation with each other according to article 3, paragraph 3 of the Declaration on the Right to Development, and Indonesia encouraged such cooperation and noted the advances made by UN bodies in eliminating obstacles to the realization of the right to development.
ALFREDO MICHELENA RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) said a new strategy should be adopted in order to attain the goals of the right to development. The Venezuelan Government on its side had taken measures which allowed the participation of civil society in the country's development. Measures had also been taken to combat corruption in the society and to strengthen good governance. With regard to the strategy of human development which the Government was pursuing, measures were taken to reduce marginalization and social exclusion in order to raise the living conditions of the population. The Government of President Hugo Chavez Frias had also take concrete actions to coordinate the social actors and to strengthen State institutions in the public and private sectors. The principle of guaranteeing the participation of the population in their affairs was considered as part of the respect of human rights. In addition, structural adjustment had to adapt to the needs of individual countries and should facilitate access to the world market and to capital. The Government of Venezuela had been assuming its responsibilities concerning the realization of the right to development of its population.
RAMBHAKTA THAKUR (Nepal) said that in today's world, the human being was the central subject of development. It was now an undeniable fact that the full realization of civil and political rights without the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights was impossible. Unfortunately, the people of the developing countries had been marginalized and neglected in the past century. As a result of that trend, many countries underwent a state of financial collapse which led to their further economic deterioration. Thus, the gap between rich and poor countries increased incredibly. Today about one billion people were still below the absolute poverty level with an earning of about $1 per day. Decline of foreign aid to the least developed countries and mounting foreign debt burden at more than their export capacity had further increased their vulnerabilities.
The fulfilment of the right to development was the responsibility of States, nationally and internationally, international organizations as well as other organs of civil society. Donor countries and international organizations should develop programmes while keeping in view the basic needs of developing countries, including in priority areas such as food, health care, education, drinking water and shelter.
A. SAJ U. MENDIS (Sri Lanka) said there had been positive developments within the discussions on the right to development such as the priority-status accorded to the right to development by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights was quite outspoken on her advocacy of the right to development which she is specifically empowered to promote and realise. However, besides these developments, the right to development had not proceeded much further than debates and intellectual sophistry. Over four decades ago, General Assembly Resolution 1161 (XII) had stated that balanced and integrated economic and social development would contribute towards the promotion and maintenance of peace and security, social progress, better living standards and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Obstacles remained and were not confined to the national arena but were predominant at the international level. Some developing countries still confronted these obstacles, perhaps with greater intensity. This was a reminder that a developmental approach and a composite rights protection regime was imperative. The facilitation of an operational meaning to the right to development was central to this approach.
Sri Lanka invested heavily in human development, education, social welfare and health care with considerable success for its modest GDP. Sri Lanka's literacy rate, infant mortality rate, life expectancy and health care performances were comparable to those in a much higher GDP bracket. Sri Lanka had launched a national human development programme called 'Samurdhi' which was designed to promote the realization of the right to development at the grass roots level by the promotion of capacity building and entrepreneurship at the family level.
ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS , of the World Bank, said that his organization was fully aware of the relationship that existed between economic policy making and the materialization of all rights. It was also aware of the complexities, and of the multi-dimensional and intricate nature of that relationship. The World Bank knew that all macro-economic management approaches should have a human face, and it was aware that to do that with a genuine attitude and with a real understanding of positive and negative social consequences, the role of the Bank should be for minimizing the negative from the positive. The World Bank was housed with staff who cared about human rights and had people committed to assist developing countries in the creation of an 'enabling environment' so that everyone's rights and freedoms could be realized. It also cared deeply about the poor, the homeless and the powerless.
AZIZ RAID (Iraq) said that despite strenuous efforts aimed at the realization of the right to development as an inalienable right in accordance with the Declaration on the Right to Development, many obstacles still impeded the implementation of that right, namely problems such as foreign debt, globalization of the world economy, unfair international economic relations and the many attempts by a number of wealthy States to impose specific economic regimes at the international level which only served their own interests at the expense of the interests of other countries.
In that respect, the economic sanctions as well as the unilateral coercive measures imposed by the Security Council against Iraq had brought about the collapse of the development process in the country and had prevented it from benefiting from its resources. Almost 31,000 factories and other workshops had to put an end to their activities, thus leading to the eruption of an unprecedented unemployment phenomenon in a quarter of a century. The buying capacity of the Iraqi population witnessed a sharp decrease due to the depreciation of the national currency. The population had seen itself deprived of enjoying the minimum elementary rights, particularly the right to have access to food and medicine, a situation which had already claimed the life of 1.5 million innocent victims.
Further, the American and British aggressors had used in their large-scale offensive against Iraq large amounts of depleted uranium, thus causing the spread of diseases such as cancer, congenital malformations and an increase of the mortality rate. Iraq appealed to the Commission to call for the immediate halt to the process of genocide of the people of Iraq.
ANEL BELIZ (Panama) on behalf of the Group of Central American States, recalled the proposals made in the Independent Expert's report, which was of extreme importance to the discussion on the right to development. Panama supported the establishment of an international covenant which would commit countries to cooperation and assistance with regard to the right to development. The work of the international covenant would include the implementation of national programmes on the right to food, health care and education. There would be prior agreements made between developing countries and donor countries and financial institutions on the terms and conditions and on an advisory group for sustainable human development.
The delegation of Panama commended the report of the Independent Expert and its recommendation of a re-writing of foreign debts in many of the least developed countries. The Brazilian programme of converting foreign debt into investments for children was referred to in this context. The delegation appealed to the Bretton Woods institutions to consider these proposals.
*****
56th session
27 March 2000
Afternoon
Hears Statements by High-Level Government Officials from Azerbaijan and
Bangladesh
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon continued its debate on the realization of the right to development and heard several speakers stressing the need for designing new strategies and mechanisms to reach the goals set forth under this issue.
The Commission was also addressed by the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and the Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh.
Khalaf Khalafov, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, told the Commission that the main obstacle to the development of his country lay in the continuing aggression by neighbouring Armenia and the associated grievous consequences. Numerous incidents of mass and gross violations of international law, which fell under the category of crimes against humanity, had been carried out during the aggression, he said. In spite of the unambiguous demands of the Security Council, the armed forces of Armenia continued to this day to hold occupied Azerbaijani territory and to build their military capability there.
And Shafi Sami, Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh, said that the rights so eloquently enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained largely unfulfilled and beyond the grasp of the majority of the world's population. He said it was a sad commentary that while millions starved, unbridled consumption continued elsewhere. While billions of dollars were spent on weapons each year, millions died of hunger and lack of medical care and, ironically, often as the very target of these weapons.
The majority of delegates who took the floor this afternoon belonged to developing countries. They said the right to development could not be attained in their countries because of the economic imbalance between the developing and the developed nations. The lack of transfer of technology and capital to the developing countries was also highlighted by speakers. The burden of external debt was viewed by many delegates as being among the main obstacles faced by the developing countries to realize the right to development.
The representatives from the following countries took the floor this afternoon: Senegal, Tunisia, Sudan, Madagascar, Qatar, India, Cuba, Norway, Morocco, Swaziland, Guatemala, Indonesia, Venezuela, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Panama. A representative of the World Bank also spoke.
The Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 28 March, to continue its debate on the right to development. It is also expected to hold an extended meeting until 9 p.m.
Statements
KHALAF KHALAFOV, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, stated that since the restoration of independence, the Government of Azerbaijan had established its policies for the rule of law, promotion of human rights and freedoms, and democracy as priorities. A whole series of legislative instruments in the field of human rights had been adopted within the legal reform carried out in the country. Thanks to its consistent policy aimed at encouraging and implementing the universal norms of democratic law and order, Azerbaijan was actively engaged in greater European integration.
Mr. Khalafov said that his country was made up of a multi-ethnic society and the Government had taken the necessary measures to establish conditions for the undeviating implementation of human rights and freedoms and the equality of rights of all citizens. It had also ensured that persons belonging to minorities were drawn into active participation in society on the basis of equality of rights in all spheres of vital activity in the Republic.
Mr. Khalafov said there was still deep concern over the fate of Azerbaijanis expelled from their historical and ethnic lands in the territory of the present-day Armenia. In 1918, there were 575,000 Azerbaijanis on the territory of the present-day Armenia, constituting over one-third of its total population. However, as a result of Armenia's deliberate policy of forcibly ousting the Azerbaijani population, out of a community of more than half a million strong, there was not a single Azerbaijani left in Armenia today.
In conclusion, Mr. Khalafov said that the main obstacle to the development of his country lay in the continuing aggression by neighbouring Armenia and the associated grievous consequences. Numerous facts of mass and gross violations of international law, which fell under the category of crimes against humanity, had been carried out during the aggression. In spite of the unambiguous demands of the Security Council, the armed forces of Armenia continued to this day to hold occupied Azerbaijani territory and to build up their military capability there.
SHAFI SAMI, Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh, said that the rights so eloquently enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained largely unfulfilled and beyond the grasp of the majority of the world's population. It was a sad commentary that while millions starved, unbridled consumption continued elsewhere. Misplaced priorities both at national and international levels were often insensitive to the cause of development and human well-being. While billions of dollars were spent on weapons each year, millions died of hunger and lack of medical care and, ironically, often as the very target of these weapons.
The prime responsibility for promotion of development and ensuring the well-being of their citizens rested with national Governments. However, for the majority of nations, particularly in the 48 least developed countries, creating basic conditions of development remained a daunting challenge. It was important that global development be taken as a collective responsibility, with national efforts supplemented through international cooperation. The international community through policies of aid, trade, investment and technology transfer had to contribute towards a favourable external economic environment. Sadly, a fruitful dialogue between the industrialized North and the poorer countries of the South had not been entered into. National Governments, donor communities, development agencies, the United Nations, the Bretton Woods Institutions, the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society at large had to be part of a concerted global action to achieve global peace and prosperity. What was needed was cooperation and not simply hand-outs.
IBOU NDIAYE (Senegal) said that to date, progress in the field of human rights had occurred basically in the domain of civil and political rights. Collective, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, were not viewed with the same interest. Indeed, the essential concept of the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights was far from being a reality. In this context, it was essential for States to implement the Declaration on the Right to Development in order to meet the expectations of their populations. The implementation of the international instruments related to human rights had to take into account the specific economic, social and cultural realities of each State.
While globalization had opened new opportunities in the area of human rights and democratization, it had also marginalized numerous countries and hampered their development efforts. It was therefore essential to highlight the human dimension of globalization and to strengthen international solidarity in facing the challenges globalization presented.
RAOUF GHATTY (Tunisia) said the right to development was a universal and inalienable right as confirmed by the World Conferences in Copenhagen and Beijing. However, respect for this right was lacking as there were both internal and external obstacles affecting its attainment. The right to development had no significance for a fifth of the world's population who lacked livelihoods, education and access to health services. The question of the right to development was even more acute now than in the past due to globalization which had increased the complex problems inherent to interdependence. Work was needed to make globalization promote development in a more just international economic order.
International principles of solidarity and fairness were essential. Tunisia viewed the human being as central in the process of development. The living standards in Tunisia had improved considerably. Primary education was mandatory and free. The Tunisian Government was strengthening the element of solidarity to help disadvantaged areas, promote small projects and provide loans to young entrepreneurs at favourable rates. Micro-credit programmes had been initiated to help ensure income and long-term development, supported by the January 2000 National Fund for Employment. The Tunisian President had appealed to world leaders and international institutions to collect funds for the eradication of poverty. Members of the Organization for African Unity and the international civil society were encouraged to be part of the eradication of poverty, particularly in the most disadvantaged countries and regions.
ALI MAHMOUD (Sudan) said that the principles and objectives of the UN Charter closely linked social, economic and cultural rights with other human rights. There could be no free humanity in the absence of adequate conditions under which each individual could enjoy his or her social and economic rights together with his or her civil and political rights. Cooperation had to be enhanced and obstacles had to be removed to allow development for all without discrimination. The right to development was a universal and inalienable right and could not be open to subjectivity.
Developing countries risked further marginalization because of globalization. The time had come for the international community to undertake genuine decisive measures to assist developing countries in fulfilling their right to development before it was too late. The three richest men in the world had the equivalent of the GDP of the 48 least developed countries. This presented a gloomy picture for the future with negative economic trends and the gap between countries widening. The achievement of the right to development was a practical necessity for sustaining a stable economy. There had to be political will to break the vicious circle of poverty. Only then could the least developed countries contribute positively to the global economy. The international community had to assert the sacredness of human rights and work together to ensure that these rights were enjoyed by all people without discrimination. Only when there was clean drinking water, roads, schools, hospitals and employment for everyone could human rights be transferred from a dream into reality. It was only at this point that human rights discussions would be meaningful.
MAXIME ZAFERA (Madagascar) said that the right to development had been defined by the General Assembly as being an inalienable right of human beings and as being indivisible from and interdependent on other rights. The Declaration on the Right to Development had attributed to States the primary responsibility of the realization of that right. However, one could not lose sight that the world was divided into categories: on one side there were people living in the developed countries with enormous economic advantages while others lived in developing countries where they were confronted with social and economic problems of all kinds. The problems in the least developed nations had reached a level of gravity and they were not able to fully meet their obligations in promoting and protecting human rights. In addition, countries like Madagascar were frequently attacked by natural calamities which challenged the policies of development and good governance. The burden of the foreign debt had also annihilated all efforts of development, hampered public assistance to development and created obstacles to access to adequate capital and technology. Madagascar called for the strengthening of multilateral cooperation to favour the restoration of an equitable, just and balanced international society.
KHALED AL-THANI (Qatar) said that the Declaration on the Right to Development and the Vienna Programm of Action had established a link between the right to development, democracy and peace. The realization of the right to development required international cooperation. Qatar was concerned, however, that the highest importance was not given to the right of development. This was despite the fact that it was a fundamental right on which all other rights were based. Indeed, without the realization of this right, full realization of political, social and cultural rights could not be achieved.
The realization of the right to development concerned all individuals and States. In this connection, efforts needed to be undertaken to free nations from weapons of mass destruction. Globalization, which remained a vague concept, should not be realized to the detriment of developing countries, whose development was often hampered by their foreign debt. Qatar was endeavouring to achieve a balanced development and had adopted an economic policy designed to create a favourable environment for the realization of the right to development.
SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said that fifty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world was no closer to realizing the inherent dignity of the human being. Sixty countries had steadily become poorer. Work was needed to enable the international community to address this issue properly. The 1986 adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development by the General Assembly was a big step, as was the Vienna Declaration. The right to development and human rights were mutually reinforcing and interdependent. The debate on the topic had been hindered by the focus on political and civil rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other hand.
Agreement was required on the following issue: freedom from fear had to be equal to the freedom from want. To put human right conditions on the right to development would be erroneous. Democracy and development were essential in ensuring human rights, depending largely on having a transparent and accountable government. Political empowerment was required to ensure the right to development, particularly with regards to women. There was a critical link between development and the ability of people to enjoy the rights promised by the UN Charter. The right to life and liberty, including the right to live with dignity, were pivotal. Much had been achieved within political and civil rights; it was now time to focus on the right to development.
India had undertaken several steps to promote the right to development. The budget for the financial year 2000-2001 promoted a sustained, equitable and job-creating growth path of 7 to 8 per cent per annum in order to eradicate the scourge of poverty from India within a decade. Emphasis had been placed on growth of the rural economy, human resource development, universalization of primary education, women's and child health and increasing international cooperation and assistance.
JORGE FERRER RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that the 20 per cent of the population in the developed countries was in charge of 86 per cent of the world's gross national products, controlled 82 per cent of the world market, availed itself to 74 per cent of the telephone lines, and consumed 58 per cent of world energy. On the other hand, the majority of the 4,400 million inhabitants in the developing nations had no health services and other basic needs. In addition, the United States spent $ 8 billion annually on cosmetics, and together with Europe, spent $ 12 billion on perfumes, in addition to the $ 17 billion they spent on food for domestic animals. It was not politics or utopia to want to change the world. The 0.7 per cent allocation of the developing nations for development since 25 years had continued to decline to 0.22 per cent of the national gross product. The United States had continued its unilateral embargo with 61 economic sanctions against 42 per cent of the world's population. The sanctions included food and medicines. There had been an unjust and criminal economic, financial and commercial blockade against Cuba for four decades.
JANIS BJORN KANAVIN (Norway) said there was a need for further substantive discussion on the right to development. The international community now had a real chance to use the universality of human rights as a spur to concerted action. Today's spirit of partnership, dialogue and open doors had replaced decades of confrontation. The world was also facing escalating unrest and violence, growing instability in a number of countries and increased disparities - both between and within nations. These threats to human rights - and to development - did not only exist in countries far away from Europe, but were in Europe as well.
Strategies and measures to improve the current state of affairs needed to include, among other things, the promotion of human rights at home, taking a holistic approach to human rights, correcting flaws or malfunctions in the international social and economic order, and putting the basic rights and freedoms of the individual at the centre of policies and practices.
MOHAMED MAJDI (Morocco) said there had only been patchy and sporadic progress within the discussions at the Commission on Human Rights on the right to development. Little real progress had been made. Morocco did not view the right to development as rhetoric speech. The enjoyment of the right to development should be seen in a pragmatic and innovative fashion. Inequalities were still flagrant. The twentieth century was marked by the convergence of the 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Unfortunately economic progress had barely extended outside these countries. The global annual revenue in OECD countries had tripled, whilst 1.3 billion people lived on less than $ 1 a day. Many African countries experienced an annual growth rate lower than in the 1970s. Gaps between developed and developing countries were growing daily, yet public development assistance was far below its international objectives. Since 1992 there had been a 20 per cent drop in public development assistance because of cut-backs in the G7 States.
Development was not only about economics; an enabling environment needed to be established through good governance, popular participation in decision-making, management of resources and economic investment. It was impossible to ignore the relation between the administration and citizens as the citizen was of central importance to the administration. International support was essential. A long-term strategy of mutual respect between countries based on just and equitable relations was encouraged as well as the increased coherence in the policy strategies of international financial institutions.
NONHLANHLA MLANGENI (Swaziland) said the struggle to eradicate poverty in Swaziland was, regrettably, exacerbated by the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS. The cost of that disease had been enormous and its repercussions on development were potentially devastating. Its effects resulted in the deterioration of child survival rates, diminished life expectancy, overburdened health care systems, and an increased number of orphans. Since HIV/AIDS affected the size and quality of the workforce, it was of fundamental concern to businesses and policy makers. AIDS was killing the most productive members of the labour force. That situation had rendered the popular slogan of the country of 'Health for all by the year 2000' ineffective. In addition, the persisting and ever widening gap between the developed and developing countries jeopardized the effective participation by developing countries in the process of globalization and would continue to hamper their developmental efforts. If that issue was left unresolved, those countries risked further marginalization and exclusion from the benefits of globalization; more seriously their right to development would continue to be violated if the international community failed to address that issue.
LUIS PADILLA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said his delegation concurred with the proposals put forward by the Special Rapporteur on external debt. In particular, debt forgiveness was essential in the case of countries affected by humanitarian crises such as AIDS-ridden Zambia; Nicaragua and Honduras, hit by Hurricane Mitch; and flood-stricken Mozambique.
Latin American countries were convinced of the necessity to put forward concrete proposals which could be translated into policies designed to ensure the full realization of the right to development. The Bretton Woods institutions should carefully examine the proposals contained in the reports of the Independent Expert on the right to development, the Independent Expert on structural adjustments programmes and the Special Rapporteur on external debt.
SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia) said the right to development provided a comprehensive approach to all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Every nation and every human being was entitled to an equal chance to fulfill their potential in development. Responsibility for realizing the right to development was to be shared between individuals, national Governments and the international community. The human being was central to the subject of development policies. Popular participation in decision-making, and implementation and the derivation of benefits from them was an essential component of lasting development. Empowerment, inclusion and participation had been made an overriding priority in Indonesia. Societal affairs had been deregulated in the dissolution of the ministries dealing with information and societal affairs. The implementation of new laws dealing with regional autonomy and with revenue sharing between the regional and central governments had been promulgated and expedited.
Participation and enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights was essential. At the international level, States had a responsibility to ensure the equitable economic relation. Globalization had the increased risk of marginalization of the developing countries. Another major preoccupation was the widespread existence of widespread poverty inhibiting the full and effective enjoyment of human rights. Poverty was the greatest cause of human rights violations. Freedom from extreme poverty constituted one of the non-derogable rights of every human being. All States had the duty to cooperation with each other according to article 3, paragraph 3 of the Declaration on the Right to Development, and Indonesia encouraged such cooperation and noted the advances made by UN bodies in eliminating obstacles to the realization of the right to development.
ALFREDO MICHELENA RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) said a new strategy should be adopted in order to attain the goals of the right to development. The Venezuelan Government on its side had taken measures which allowed the participation of civil society in the country's development. Measures had also been taken to combat corruption in the society and to strengthen good governance. With regard to the strategy of human development which the Government was pursuing, measures were taken to reduce marginalization and social exclusion in order to raise the living conditions of the population. The Government of President Hugo Chavez Frias had also take concrete actions to coordinate the social actors and to strengthen State institutions in the public and private sectors. The principle of guaranteeing the participation of the population in their affairs was considered as part of the respect of human rights. In addition, structural adjustment had to adapt to the needs of individual countries and should facilitate access to the world market and to capital. The Government of Venezuela had been assuming its responsibilities concerning the realization of the right to development of its population.
RAMBHAKTA THAKUR (Nepal) said that in today's world, the human being was the central subject of development. It was now an undeniable fact that the full realization of civil and political rights without the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights was impossible. Unfortunately, the people of the developing countries had been marginalized and neglected in the past century. As a result of that trend, many countries underwent a state of financial collapse which led to their further economic deterioration. Thus, the gap between rich and poor countries increased incredibly. Today about one billion people were still below the absolute poverty level with an earning of about $1 per day. Decline of foreign aid to the least developed countries and mounting foreign debt burden at more than their export capacity had further increased their vulnerabilities.
The fulfilment of the right to development was the responsibility of States, nationally and internationally, international organizations as well as other organs of civil society. Donor countries and international organizations should develop programmes while keeping in view the basic needs of developing countries, including in priority areas such as food, health care, education, drinking water and shelter.
A. SAJ U. MENDIS (Sri Lanka) said there had been positive developments within the discussions on the right to development such as the priority-status accorded to the right to development by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights was quite outspoken on her advocacy of the right to development which she is specifically empowered to promote and realise. However, besides these developments, the right to development had not proceeded much further than debates and intellectual sophistry. Over four decades ago, General Assembly Resolution 1161 (XII) had stated that balanced and integrated economic and social development would contribute towards the promotion and maintenance of peace and security, social progress, better living standards and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Obstacles remained and were not confined to the national arena but were predominant at the international level. Some developing countries still confronted these obstacles, perhaps with greater intensity. This was a reminder that a developmental approach and a composite rights protection regime was imperative. The facilitation of an operational meaning to the right to development was central to this approach.
Sri Lanka invested heavily in human development, education, social welfare and health care with considerable success for its modest GDP. Sri Lanka's literacy rate, infant mortality rate, life expectancy and health care performances were comparable to those in a much higher GDP bracket. Sri Lanka had launched a national human development programme called 'Samurdhi' which was designed to promote the realization of the right to development at the grass roots level by the promotion of capacity building and entrepreneurship at the family level.
ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS , of the World Bank, said that his organization was fully aware of the relationship that existed between economic policy making and the materialization of all rights. It was also aware of the complexities, and of the multi-dimensional and intricate nature of that relationship. The World Bank knew that all macro-economic management approaches should have a human face, and it was aware that to do that with a genuine attitude and with a real understanding of positive and negative social consequences, the role of the Bank should be for minimizing the negative from the positive. The World Bank was housed with staff who cared about human rights and had people committed to assist developing countries in the creation of an 'enabling environment' so that everyone's rights and freedoms could be realized. It also cared deeply about the poor, the homeless and the powerless.
AZIZ RAID (Iraq) said that despite strenuous efforts aimed at the realization of the right to development as an inalienable right in accordance with the Declaration on the Right to Development, many obstacles still impeded the implementation of that right, namely problems such as foreign debt, globalization of the world economy, unfair international economic relations and the many attempts by a number of wealthy States to impose specific economic regimes at the international level which only served their own interests at the expense of the interests of other countries.
In that respect, the economic sanctions as well as the unilateral coercive measures imposed by the Security Council against Iraq had brought about the collapse of the development process in the country and had prevented it from benefiting from its resources. Almost 31,000 factories and other workshops had to put an end to their activities, thus leading to the eruption of an unprecedented unemployment phenomenon in a quarter of a century. The buying capacity of the Iraqi population witnessed a sharp decrease due to the depreciation of the national currency. The population had seen itself deprived of enjoying the minimum elementary rights, particularly the right to have access to food and medicine, a situation which had already claimed the life of 1.5 million innocent victims.
Further, the American and British aggressors had used in their large-scale offensive against Iraq large amounts of depleted uranium, thus causing the spread of diseases such as cancer, congenital malformations and an increase of the mortality rate. Iraq appealed to the Commission to call for the immediate halt to the process of genocide of the people of Iraq.
ANEL BELIZ (Panama) on behalf of the Group of Central American States, recalled the proposals made in the Independent Expert's report, which was of extreme importance to the discussion on the right to development. Panama supported the establishment of an international covenant which would commit countries to cooperation and assistance with regard to the right to development. The work of the international covenant would include the implementation of national programmes on the right to food, health care and education. There would be prior agreements made between developing countries and donor countries and financial institutions on the terms and conditions and on an advisory group for sustainable human development.
The delegation of Panama commended the report of the Independent Expert and its recommendation of a re-writing of foreign debts in many of the least developed countries. The Brazilian programme of converting foreign debt into investments for children was referred to in this context. The delegation appealed to the Bretton Woods institutions to consider these proposals.
*****