Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
Default title
09 August 2000
Share
Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
52nd session
9 August 2000
Afternoon
The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights completed its discussion this afternoon on economic, social and cultural rights, with a series of countries describing national efforts to enhance development, calling for greater international attention and funding for economic advancement in poorer nations, and suggesting changes to the international financial system and in the operation of such institutions as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.
Subcommission Experts said that transnational corporations had to be held accountable for the human-rights effects of their activities and that much more work had to be done to understand and control to benevolent ends the process of economic globalization.
The authors of a preliminary study presented to the Subcommission on globalization and human rights, Joseph Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama, said future challenges would include considering how to discuss such subjects with the international financial institutions, and considering how to involve the United Nations in global financial matters as they related to human rights.
Subcommission Expert El-Hadji Guisse presented a report of the Subcommission's working group on transnational corporations.
Speaking at the afternoon meeting were representatives of Armenia, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Pakistan, Chile, Colombia, India, Iran, and Yemen.
Also addressing the session were Subcommission Experts or Alternate Members Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Soo Gil Park, Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros, Joseph Oloka-Onyango, Deepika Udagama, and El-Hadji Guisse.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10 August when it will start its consideration of the implementation of human rights with regard to women, including traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child, and the role and equal participation of women in development.
Statements
KAREN NACARIAN (Armenia) said human rights consciousness was paramount to the building up of societies, peace and security. Under no circumstances could economic, social and cultural rights be dissociated from civil and political rights. Denial of the right to development by raising obstacles, using force or any other measures to impede its enjoyment, amounted to gross violations of human rights. The use of unilateral coercive measures against a State in the field of exchange, trade, investment and cooperation, contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law, could have severe negative effects on the right to development. Some States seemed to persist in imposing such measures on others which resulted in vast restrictions, induced poverty and serious socio-economic problems. Deployed against developing countries and those in transition with fragile economies, the uncontrolled application of unilateral coercive measures caused political instability, civil tension and unrest, depriving the population of its sovereign right to development.
SHIN GIL SOU (the Republic of Korea) said it was encouraging to see a growing consensus emerging among members of the international community that the eradication of poverty was among the greatest ways to ensure human rights universally. The Subcommission was at the forefront of this common effort and it was hoped it would display its creativity in providing direction to the Commission on Human Rights in further action for the eradication of poverty. The paper presented by Mr. Weissbrodt concerning a code of conduct for transnational companies would hopefully serve as a basis to identify malpractices and to establish positive company reputations. One could not deny the immense magnitude with which globalization had contributed to the enhancement of human rights by boosting economic growth globally. However, it was concerning to see that some countries lacked the capacity to embrace and enjoy the benefits of globalization. A great challenge was to enable all countries to reap the benefits of economic growth. The Subcommission was entrusted to take a lead in guiding the international community in its efforts to bolster the positive aspects of globalization and mitigate the negatives so the powerful force could work for the betterment of all. It was also important to pay due regard to the problem of the digital divide and technological gap between rich and poor countries. Education would play an important role in bridging the gap by developing the potential of populations in the developing world.
ALICIA ELENA PEREZ DUARTE (Mexico) said his country was completely dedicated to economic, social and cultural rights and to development, as it was clear that this was the only way to provide well-being for all Mexicans. Among national aims were effective participation in the globalization process and sustained economic growth. A third goal was implementation of active social policies, as it was understood that globalization in itself would not help the entire population without other inclusive measures. Recent levels of economic growth were good, and inflation had decreased; social expenditures had increased and this year made up 60 per cent of the national budget and 10 per cent of GDP, a level never seen before. Currently 94 out of every 100 children between the ages of 6 and 14 went to school, and nine out of every 10 Mexicans could read and write. Life expectancy was 75 years, and infant and child mortality had been reduced; malnutrition had been cut by half over the past decade. A programme on education, health and food aimed at poor citizens helped 2.6 million families. Much remained to be done, however.
It was clear that States and the international community had to work at firming up "social pillars", as poverty and its related ills were a huge concern around the world.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARITNEZ, Subcommission Expert, said that the item under consideration was complex. The Subcommission was giving more open and vital attention to economic, social and cultural rights. At the same time, the depth of the topic opened up sub-themes which required attention. There was trepidation that the diversity of topics would dilute the work in total. Perhaps one should not add new topics, but deal with what was on the plates of the Subcommission. One managed to chew the content of the new topics, however, no one had the time to digest it. The attention to economic, social and cultural rights was well-deserved because of the inter-related nature of all human rights. There were no categories of rights. These topics deserved attention, not only with regard to developing countries, even though the situation there was more urgent. Mr. Guisse had asked pertinent questions as to the world we were giving to our children if under-development was not eradicated. The gaps between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' were widening every day. There were 800 million people who were hungry in the world today, and this was probably a conservative estimate. Where are we headed?
Transnational corporations were based on profit, there were thousands of people who lived and suffered under the action of transnational corporations and international sanctions. With regard to reports and suggestions of the Subcommission Experts, the issue of a Social Forum deserved some attention and a decision, however there was very little time to dedicate to this issue. The problems concerning the drinking water shortage had been carried out in a myopic manner. The right to life and health was incredibly important, there was lack of life and health simply because of the lack of access to drinkable water both in Africa and South America. The report on globalization was impressive and comprehensive. It was important to have introduced the gender aspect with regard to globalization. It was a multi-faceted problem facing everyone in today's society. There had to be a critical re-conceptualization of thinking concerning transnational corporations through guide-lines and monitoring bodies. There was enough authority within the United Nations, not only to monitor but to actually take measures against violations of human rights.
FARRUKH IQBAL KHAN (Pakistan) said that effective measures to realize economic, social and cultural rights could not be taken without an objective assessment of the key impediments to the realization of these rights. Most of the impediments arose from the inequitable functioning of the international trade and financial structures. At the national level, the developing countries had mounted concerted efforts to reverse or at least limit the negative impact of globalization. The ability to cope with the situation was minimal due to the lack of an enabling international environment for development. The report on globalization highlighted the need to further improve the international economic structure by the promotion of greater transparency and accountability in policy-making institutions and international financial institutions.
It was hoped that the final report would accord greater priority in analysis and presentation to the question of the realization of the right to development and its importance in a globalized environment. Pakistan had consistently stressed that promotion of economic, social and cultural rights depended on devising developmental indicators to achieve an enabling environment. These indicators should include: the right to adequate financing for development; the right to equitable global trade rules; 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 to effective participation in international economic decision-making.
PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) said globalization clearly required a governing administration and regulation; conditions had to be generated to reduce its negative impacts. The concept of human development was useful and was based on a broad approach to human rights and economic progress. The United Nations needed to be more actively involved in globalization. The World Bank had taken steps to be more observant of human rights, but the Subcommission could contribute by articulating a comprehensive approach to development which took full account of human rights. There needed as well to be a link between trade, human rights, labour norms, and the environment. The Subcommission could help build bridges here, too, and could show that human rights were more important than trade.
Perhaps the Subcommission could hold an interactive dialogue with the international financial institutions. A Social Forum could be an appropriate setting for such a dialogue. It might help as well to set guidelines for the actors in the international financial field. The Subcommission was well-experienced in such standard setting, and upcoming reports on globalization might contain useful input from other Experts on this subject.
HAROLD SANDOVAL (Colombia) said that in order to achieve the right to development many factors were required, such as the convergence of the international commitment and actions at national levels. States had to create an enabling environment for the creation of sustainable and multi-dimensional development, not only economic development. The revolution of knowledge should assist the social areas so the benefits could be spread to the greatest amount of people possible. The reduction of the digital divide was required for a good basis for development as was free circulation of factors of production. The free flow of capital had to assist in the creation of jobs. The general subsidy situation undermined the export situation of developing countries. The negative impact of trade barriers was tremendous. The capacity had to be strengthened to face external crisis and technical assistance for economic and social development and infrastructure projects.
Trade liberalism had intensified commercial exchanges and had created possibilities for growth, however, the general standard of living had to be stable and socially just. An improvement of the participation of States in their economic and technological practices could be strengthened by a more multilateral approach, which would reduce the current asymmetrical economic order. Good governance and transparency were absolutely essential for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. It was important to tackle the right to development in a holistic, constructive and non-confrontational manner.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said the world was no closer to realizing the goal of the inherent dignity of man. The importance of the right to development lay in enabling the international community to address this issue effectively. Despite many important steps on the conceptual plane, the debate on the subject had regrettably remained largely mired in the relative importance given to civil and political rights on one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. The right to development represented a synthesis of the two sets of rights. Democracy, transparent and accountable governance, and the full enjoyment of civil and political rights were fundamental to the realization of the right to development. A rights based approach to development was often propagated. However, it was essential to ensure that such an approach did not imply conditionalities to development aid or development itself, thereby adding burdens and pressures already faced by developing nations. The need of the hour was to adopt a development approach to human rights. Suitable steps needed to be taken to strengthen international cooperation for realization of the right to development.
India had recently undertaken many actions in relation to the right to development. The Union budget for the financial year 2000-2001 would put India on a sustained, equitable and job-creating growth path. Particular emphasis had been placed on strengthening the foundations of the rural economy, human resource development, universalization of primary education, health services and a review of the existing legislation and government schemes to promote further the role of women in the national economy.
ALI-ASGHAR MIRIAN (Iran) said there had been little progress in implementing the right to development. A holistic and comprehensive approach was required. There should be effective development policies at the national level and establishment of equitable economic relations and favourable economic development at the international level. At present, unfortunately, a handful of developed countries decided crucial macro-economic policies which had far-reaching effects on the world economy, in particular on developing countries, without any participation of the latter in the process. The international economic environment could not be responsive to the needs of the world majority if the developing countries were sidelined in macro-economic policy coordination.
One obstacle to development that merited discussion was the use of unilateral coercive measures against people in other countries. At present certain countries were using their predominant positions in the world economy to intensify pressure against developing countries, and this was clearly against international law. Iran welcomed the proposal for establishment of a forum under the Commission on Human Rights for the exchange of views with international financial institutions.
AHMED HASSAN BEN HASSAN (Yemen) said that the right to development had gone through many forms and discussions since the ILO's Philadelphia Declaration in 1944 and the Universal Declaration for Human Rights in 1948. Yemen had gone a long way in the field of human rights through the establishment of a National Committee on Human Rights. The Government was carrying out a difficult financial and administrative reform programme, with cooperation from international institutions. This programme had had positive results which the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund had lauded. The free elections of 1993 and 1997 had also been welcomed by friendly States and international institutions. Yemen appreciated the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and protect human rights, especially in light of globalization. Although globalization had positive effects, it had also created problems for developing countries because of the wide gap between developing and developed countries. This gap has to be bridged.
SOO GIL PARK, Subcommission Expert, said rights, including the right to development, must be seen as matters of human necessity as it applied to the need for water, or to the escape from poverty. Economic, social and cultural rights were best seen in such practical terms; concrete measures and standards were needed. What could be done to better the conditions of those who were poor? How could violations of economic, social and cultural rights be addressed? What forum could serve as a place for resolving complaints? What he had read about the needs of millions of people, many of them women and children, for drinking water, had astonished and frightened him. It was important to determine what human-rights instruments and laws were pertinent and what remedies could be provided.
The excellent report on globalization correctly noted that norms and institutions in international trade, including the World Trade Organization, were woefully indifferent to the cause of human rights and distributive justice. Serious reforms in the policies of such institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, were needed to take human rights and the plight of people in need more into account. The playing field was not level. It would be good if future reports on globalization could deal with what specific rights had been violated by this immense and powerful process, and what remedies could be used.
Mr. Park said he agreed with Mr. Weissbrodt's proposal for development of international standards, eventually binding, on the operations of transnational corporations. More work had to be done in scrutinizing transnational corporations (TNCs) and in understanding and holding the accountable for human-rights violations. Ways and means had to be found to overcome the pervasive lack of information about these corporations. And countries where TNCs were headquartered should not close their eyes to the activities of TNCs outside their borders, especially as many developing countries were too weak to object to the sometimes abusive activities of TNCs.
MANUEL CUADROS RODRIGUEZ, Subcommission Expert, said that after twenty years of applying policies of structural adjustment, the world had gone through cycles of crisis but also growth. Despite progress in growth, over 3 billion people were living in poverty and 8 million people died every year because of the lack of food and water. Many young people did not have access to education, and in Sub-Saharan Africa a child had a bigger chance of dying from malnutrition than of going to secondary school. There was an increase in marginalization. Free economies required predictable markets, which in turn required democracy. Democracy required social cohesion. It was clear that human rights and democracy were interlinked. Even the World Bank had for the first time included economic and social rights in its work. In general, the idea of governance of globalization was a certainty which was expanding every day in civil society. It was essential that these aspirations not be diluted. For the first time there was a consensus that lasting development was not possible if it did not include human rights.
On the international level, the International Monetary Fund should combat poverty in all developing countries with sustainable goals. Fulfilling these goals could be linked to financing. The World Bank's new approach involved this configuration and civil society. In the area of foreign debt, one should consider initiatives for exchanging debts for the guarantees of rights. The time had come to have more effective mechanisms using specific indicators with countries fulfilling their obligations. Internally, the main responsibility lay with the States. They had to fulfil their duty for the population as a whole.
JOSEPH OLOKA-ONYANGO, Subcommission Expert, said he appreciated all the comments made on the study on globalization and its effect on human rights. A whole gamut of issues had been covered, from conceptual to practical. There had been many suggestions about how to move ahead. He and his colleague, Deepika Udagama, would engage in further discussions on the matter. Dialogue should perhaps be carried out with international and regional financial institutions; follow-up also was needed on the relationship of transnational corporations to globalization. The place and role of States in globalization had to be clarified -- globalization was transnational, yet in the end human rights were the responsibility and the property of States. Non-government organizations and other non-State actors also had to be considered. What kind of dialogue should be held with them?
International human-rights law had to be identified and clearly restated as it applied to globalization, and new standards had to be developed. Debate should be focused sufficiently on recognizing and fostering the positive aspects of globalization -- attention should not be paid only to the negatives. And the Special Rapporteurs and the Subcommission needed to decide which specific issues within this broad subject should be focused on.
DEEPIKA UDAGAMA, Alternate Subcommission Member, said she was encouraged by the positive responses, insightful remarks, comments and suggestions by Subcommission members, non-governmental organizations and observers from Member States. Unfortunately time did not allow treating them individually. The next stage was to sharpen the focus of the report. There was a need to deal with two major areas. First, the monitoring of the impact of specific policies on human rights. Reference had been made to policy making and the processes and complaints procedure of the World Trade Organization in the debate. The report would try to have a deeper look at this. The role of the State would also be further investigated. There was concern as to the imbalance and problems brought about by economic imperatives of developing countries. Transnational corporations were major players and the report would be incomplete without looking at their impact. The second area which would be dealt with was the international human rights principles related to economic globalization. A re-statement and a framework to make human rights mechanism operational were necessary. The United Nations should take centre stage in this operation.
EL-HADJI GUISSE, Subcommission Expert, presenting report (E/CN/4/Sub.2/2000/12) of the Subcommission's working group on transnational corporations, said the group had met four times and had had extensive participation from non-governmental organizations . It had been decided to hold a few additional meetings; Mr. Weissbrodt would continue to consider rules or instruments that could be developed, whether it was a code of conduct for transnational corporations (TNCs) or some other mechanism. Mr. Eide would suggest principles for implementation of any rules that were drafted. Mr. Guisse himself would produce a paper describing possible human-rights violations of TNCs and describing the related responsibilities of States, TNCs, and civil society in reaction to those specific violations. The group would work on a possible declaration on the activities of transnational corporations, led by Mr. Kartashkin. And various NGOs would suggest possible studies or meetings that could be held.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/SC/00/7 of 4 August 2000, the right of reply of the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on page 4 should read as follows:
A representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said in a right of reply that Mr. Yokota's allegations regarding disappearances of human rights defenders in Japan had been unsubstantiated. These problems of disappearances had existed in Japan for a long time and had nothing to do with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In fact it was the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which was the victim, as 6 million Koreans had been forcibly used as labourers by wartime Japan and 200,000 Korean women had been forced to serve as sex slaves and 1 million Koreans were killed during the colonial era of the Korean Peninsula by Japan.
* *** *
and Protection of Human Rights
52nd session
9 August 2000
Afternoon
The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights completed its discussion this afternoon on economic, social and cultural rights, with a series of countries describing national efforts to enhance development, calling for greater international attention and funding for economic advancement in poorer nations, and suggesting changes to the international financial system and in the operation of such institutions as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.
Subcommission Experts said that transnational corporations had to be held accountable for the human-rights effects of their activities and that much more work had to be done to understand and control to benevolent ends the process of economic globalization.
The authors of a preliminary study presented to the Subcommission on globalization and human rights, Joseph Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama, said future challenges would include considering how to discuss such subjects with the international financial institutions, and considering how to involve the United Nations in global financial matters as they related to human rights.
Subcommission Expert El-Hadji Guisse presented a report of the Subcommission's working group on transnational corporations.
Speaking at the afternoon meeting were representatives of Armenia, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Pakistan, Chile, Colombia, India, Iran, and Yemen.
Also addressing the session were Subcommission Experts or Alternate Members Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Soo Gil Park, Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros, Joseph Oloka-Onyango, Deepika Udagama, and El-Hadji Guisse.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10 August when it will start its consideration of the implementation of human rights with regard to women, including traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child, and the role and equal participation of women in development.
Statements
KAREN NACARIAN (Armenia) said human rights consciousness was paramount to the building up of societies, peace and security. Under no circumstances could economic, social and cultural rights be dissociated from civil and political rights. Denial of the right to development by raising obstacles, using force or any other measures to impede its enjoyment, amounted to gross violations of human rights. The use of unilateral coercive measures against a State in the field of exchange, trade, investment and cooperation, contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law, could have severe negative effects on the right to development. Some States seemed to persist in imposing such measures on others which resulted in vast restrictions, induced poverty and serious socio-economic problems. Deployed against developing countries and those in transition with fragile economies, the uncontrolled application of unilateral coercive measures caused political instability, civil tension and unrest, depriving the population of its sovereign right to development.
SHIN GIL SOU (the Republic of Korea) said it was encouraging to see a growing consensus emerging among members of the international community that the eradication of poverty was among the greatest ways to ensure human rights universally. The Subcommission was at the forefront of this common effort and it was hoped it would display its creativity in providing direction to the Commission on Human Rights in further action for the eradication of poverty. The paper presented by Mr. Weissbrodt concerning a code of conduct for transnational companies would hopefully serve as a basis to identify malpractices and to establish positive company reputations. One could not deny the immense magnitude with which globalization had contributed to the enhancement of human rights by boosting economic growth globally. However, it was concerning to see that some countries lacked the capacity to embrace and enjoy the benefits of globalization. A great challenge was to enable all countries to reap the benefits of economic growth. The Subcommission was entrusted to take a lead in guiding the international community in its efforts to bolster the positive aspects of globalization and mitigate the negatives so the powerful force could work for the betterment of all. It was also important to pay due regard to the problem of the digital divide and technological gap between rich and poor countries. Education would play an important role in bridging the gap by developing the potential of populations in the developing world.
ALICIA ELENA PEREZ DUARTE (Mexico) said his country was completely dedicated to economic, social and cultural rights and to development, as it was clear that this was the only way to provide well-being for all Mexicans. Among national aims were effective participation in the globalization process and sustained economic growth. A third goal was implementation of active social policies, as it was understood that globalization in itself would not help the entire population without other inclusive measures. Recent levels of economic growth were good, and inflation had decreased; social expenditures had increased and this year made up 60 per cent of the national budget and 10 per cent of GDP, a level never seen before. Currently 94 out of every 100 children between the ages of 6 and 14 went to school, and nine out of every 10 Mexicans could read and write. Life expectancy was 75 years, and infant and child mortality had been reduced; malnutrition had been cut by half over the past decade. A programme on education, health and food aimed at poor citizens helped 2.6 million families. Much remained to be done, however.
It was clear that States and the international community had to work at firming up "social pillars", as poverty and its related ills were a huge concern around the world.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARITNEZ, Subcommission Expert, said that the item under consideration was complex. The Subcommission was giving more open and vital attention to economic, social and cultural rights. At the same time, the depth of the topic opened up sub-themes which required attention. There was trepidation that the diversity of topics would dilute the work in total. Perhaps one should not add new topics, but deal with what was on the plates of the Subcommission. One managed to chew the content of the new topics, however, no one had the time to digest it. The attention to economic, social and cultural rights was well-deserved because of the inter-related nature of all human rights. There were no categories of rights. These topics deserved attention, not only with regard to developing countries, even though the situation there was more urgent. Mr. Guisse had asked pertinent questions as to the world we were giving to our children if under-development was not eradicated. The gaps between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' were widening every day. There were 800 million people who were hungry in the world today, and this was probably a conservative estimate. Where are we headed?
Transnational corporations were based on profit, there were thousands of people who lived and suffered under the action of transnational corporations and international sanctions. With regard to reports and suggestions of the Subcommission Experts, the issue of a Social Forum deserved some attention and a decision, however there was very little time to dedicate to this issue. The problems concerning the drinking water shortage had been carried out in a myopic manner. The right to life and health was incredibly important, there was lack of life and health simply because of the lack of access to drinkable water both in Africa and South America. The report on globalization was impressive and comprehensive. It was important to have introduced the gender aspect with regard to globalization. It was a multi-faceted problem facing everyone in today's society. There had to be a critical re-conceptualization of thinking concerning transnational corporations through guide-lines and monitoring bodies. There was enough authority within the United Nations, not only to monitor but to actually take measures against violations of human rights.
FARRUKH IQBAL KHAN (Pakistan) said that effective measures to realize economic, social and cultural rights could not be taken without an objective assessment of the key impediments to the realization of these rights. Most of the impediments arose from the inequitable functioning of the international trade and financial structures. At the national level, the developing countries had mounted concerted efforts to reverse or at least limit the negative impact of globalization. The ability to cope with the situation was minimal due to the lack of an enabling international environment for development. The report on globalization highlighted the need to further improve the international economic structure by the promotion of greater transparency and accountability in policy-making institutions and international financial institutions.
It was hoped that the final report would accord greater priority in analysis and presentation to the question of the realization of the right to development and its importance in a globalized environment. Pakistan had consistently stressed that promotion of economic, social and cultural rights depended on devising developmental indicators to achieve an enabling environment. These indicators should include: the right to adequate financing for development; the right to equitable global trade rules; 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 to effective participation in international economic decision-making.
PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) said globalization clearly required a governing administration and regulation; conditions had to be generated to reduce its negative impacts. The concept of human development was useful and was based on a broad approach to human rights and economic progress. The United Nations needed to be more actively involved in globalization. The World Bank had taken steps to be more observant of human rights, but the Subcommission could contribute by articulating a comprehensive approach to development which took full account of human rights. There needed as well to be a link between trade, human rights, labour norms, and the environment. The Subcommission could help build bridges here, too, and could show that human rights were more important than trade.
Perhaps the Subcommission could hold an interactive dialogue with the international financial institutions. A Social Forum could be an appropriate setting for such a dialogue. It might help as well to set guidelines for the actors in the international financial field. The Subcommission was well-experienced in such standard setting, and upcoming reports on globalization might contain useful input from other Experts on this subject.
HAROLD SANDOVAL (Colombia) said that in order to achieve the right to development many factors were required, such as the convergence of the international commitment and actions at national levels. States had to create an enabling environment for the creation of sustainable and multi-dimensional development, not only economic development. The revolution of knowledge should assist the social areas so the benefits could be spread to the greatest amount of people possible. The reduction of the digital divide was required for a good basis for development as was free circulation of factors of production. The free flow of capital had to assist in the creation of jobs. The general subsidy situation undermined the export situation of developing countries. The negative impact of trade barriers was tremendous. The capacity had to be strengthened to face external crisis and technical assistance for economic and social development and infrastructure projects.
Trade liberalism had intensified commercial exchanges and had created possibilities for growth, however, the general standard of living had to be stable and socially just. An improvement of the participation of States in their economic and technological practices could be strengthened by a more multilateral approach, which would reduce the current asymmetrical economic order. Good governance and transparency were absolutely essential for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. It was important to tackle the right to development in a holistic, constructive and non-confrontational manner.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said the world was no closer to realizing the goal of the inherent dignity of man. The importance of the right to development lay in enabling the international community to address this issue effectively. Despite many important steps on the conceptual plane, the debate on the subject had regrettably remained largely mired in the relative importance given to civil and political rights on one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. The right to development represented a synthesis of the two sets of rights. Democracy, transparent and accountable governance, and the full enjoyment of civil and political rights were fundamental to the realization of the right to development. A rights based approach to development was often propagated. However, it was essential to ensure that such an approach did not imply conditionalities to development aid or development itself, thereby adding burdens and pressures already faced by developing nations. The need of the hour was to adopt a development approach to human rights. Suitable steps needed to be taken to strengthen international cooperation for realization of the right to development.
India had recently undertaken many actions in relation to the right to development. The Union budget for the financial year 2000-2001 would put India on a sustained, equitable and job-creating growth path. Particular emphasis had been placed on strengthening the foundations of the rural economy, human resource development, universalization of primary education, health services and a review of the existing legislation and government schemes to promote further the role of women in the national economy.
ALI-ASGHAR MIRIAN (Iran) said there had been little progress in implementing the right to development. A holistic and comprehensive approach was required. There should be effective development policies at the national level and establishment of equitable economic relations and favourable economic development at the international level. At present, unfortunately, a handful of developed countries decided crucial macro-economic policies which had far-reaching effects on the world economy, in particular on developing countries, without any participation of the latter in the process. The international economic environment could not be responsive to the needs of the world majority if the developing countries were sidelined in macro-economic policy coordination.
One obstacle to development that merited discussion was the use of unilateral coercive measures against people in other countries. At present certain countries were using their predominant positions in the world economy to intensify pressure against developing countries, and this was clearly against international law. Iran welcomed the proposal for establishment of a forum under the Commission on Human Rights for the exchange of views with international financial institutions.
AHMED HASSAN BEN HASSAN (Yemen) said that the right to development had gone through many forms and discussions since the ILO's Philadelphia Declaration in 1944 and the Universal Declaration for Human Rights in 1948. Yemen had gone a long way in the field of human rights through the establishment of a National Committee on Human Rights. The Government was carrying out a difficult financial and administrative reform programme, with cooperation from international institutions. This programme had had positive results which the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund had lauded. The free elections of 1993 and 1997 had also been welcomed by friendly States and international institutions. Yemen appreciated the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and protect human rights, especially in light of globalization. Although globalization had positive effects, it had also created problems for developing countries because of the wide gap between developing and developed countries. This gap has to be bridged.
SOO GIL PARK, Subcommission Expert, said rights, including the right to development, must be seen as matters of human necessity as it applied to the need for water, or to the escape from poverty. Economic, social and cultural rights were best seen in such practical terms; concrete measures and standards were needed. What could be done to better the conditions of those who were poor? How could violations of economic, social and cultural rights be addressed? What forum could serve as a place for resolving complaints? What he had read about the needs of millions of people, many of them women and children, for drinking water, had astonished and frightened him. It was important to determine what human-rights instruments and laws were pertinent and what remedies could be provided.
The excellent report on globalization correctly noted that norms and institutions in international trade, including the World Trade Organization, were woefully indifferent to the cause of human rights and distributive justice. Serious reforms in the policies of such institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, were needed to take human rights and the plight of people in need more into account. The playing field was not level. It would be good if future reports on globalization could deal with what specific rights had been violated by this immense and powerful process, and what remedies could be used.
Mr. Park said he agreed with Mr. Weissbrodt's proposal for development of international standards, eventually binding, on the operations of transnational corporations. More work had to be done in scrutinizing transnational corporations (TNCs) and in understanding and holding the accountable for human-rights violations. Ways and means had to be found to overcome the pervasive lack of information about these corporations. And countries where TNCs were headquartered should not close their eyes to the activities of TNCs outside their borders, especially as many developing countries were too weak to object to the sometimes abusive activities of TNCs.
MANUEL CUADROS RODRIGUEZ, Subcommission Expert, said that after twenty years of applying policies of structural adjustment, the world had gone through cycles of crisis but also growth. Despite progress in growth, over 3 billion people were living in poverty and 8 million people died every year because of the lack of food and water. Many young people did not have access to education, and in Sub-Saharan Africa a child had a bigger chance of dying from malnutrition than of going to secondary school. There was an increase in marginalization. Free economies required predictable markets, which in turn required democracy. Democracy required social cohesion. It was clear that human rights and democracy were interlinked. Even the World Bank had for the first time included economic and social rights in its work. In general, the idea of governance of globalization was a certainty which was expanding every day in civil society. It was essential that these aspirations not be diluted. For the first time there was a consensus that lasting development was not possible if it did not include human rights.
On the international level, the International Monetary Fund should combat poverty in all developing countries with sustainable goals. Fulfilling these goals could be linked to financing. The World Bank's new approach involved this configuration and civil society. In the area of foreign debt, one should consider initiatives for exchanging debts for the guarantees of rights. The time had come to have more effective mechanisms using specific indicators with countries fulfilling their obligations. Internally, the main responsibility lay with the States. They had to fulfil their duty for the population as a whole.
JOSEPH OLOKA-ONYANGO, Subcommission Expert, said he appreciated all the comments made on the study on globalization and its effect on human rights. A whole gamut of issues had been covered, from conceptual to practical. There had been many suggestions about how to move ahead. He and his colleague, Deepika Udagama, would engage in further discussions on the matter. Dialogue should perhaps be carried out with international and regional financial institutions; follow-up also was needed on the relationship of transnational corporations to globalization. The place and role of States in globalization had to be clarified -- globalization was transnational, yet in the end human rights were the responsibility and the property of States. Non-government organizations and other non-State actors also had to be considered. What kind of dialogue should be held with them?
International human-rights law had to be identified and clearly restated as it applied to globalization, and new standards had to be developed. Debate should be focused sufficiently on recognizing and fostering the positive aspects of globalization -- attention should not be paid only to the negatives. And the Special Rapporteurs and the Subcommission needed to decide which specific issues within this broad subject should be focused on.
DEEPIKA UDAGAMA, Alternate Subcommission Member, said she was encouraged by the positive responses, insightful remarks, comments and suggestions by Subcommission members, non-governmental organizations and observers from Member States. Unfortunately time did not allow treating them individually. The next stage was to sharpen the focus of the report. There was a need to deal with two major areas. First, the monitoring of the impact of specific policies on human rights. Reference had been made to policy making and the processes and complaints procedure of the World Trade Organization in the debate. The report would try to have a deeper look at this. The role of the State would also be further investigated. There was concern as to the imbalance and problems brought about by economic imperatives of developing countries. Transnational corporations were major players and the report would be incomplete without looking at their impact. The second area which would be dealt with was the international human rights principles related to economic globalization. A re-statement and a framework to make human rights mechanism operational were necessary. The United Nations should take centre stage in this operation.
EL-HADJI GUISSE, Subcommission Expert, presenting report (E/CN/4/Sub.2/2000/12) of the Subcommission's working group on transnational corporations, said the group had met four times and had had extensive participation from non-governmental organizations . It had been decided to hold a few additional meetings; Mr. Weissbrodt would continue to consider rules or instruments that could be developed, whether it was a code of conduct for transnational corporations (TNCs) or some other mechanism. Mr. Eide would suggest principles for implementation of any rules that were drafted. Mr. Guisse himself would produce a paper describing possible human-rights violations of TNCs and describing the related responsibilities of States, TNCs, and civil society in reaction to those specific violations. The group would work on a possible declaration on the activities of transnational corporations, led by Mr. Kartashkin. And various NGOs would suggest possible studies or meetings that could be held.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/SC/00/7 of 4 August 2000, the right of reply of the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on page 4 should read as follows:
A representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said in a right of reply that Mr. Yokota's allegations regarding disappearances of human rights defenders in Japan had been unsubstantiated. These problems of disappearances had existed in Japan for a long time and had nothing to do with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In fact it was the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which was the victim, as 6 million Koreans had been forcibly used as labourers by wartime Japan and 200,000 Korean women had been forced to serve as sex slaves and 1 million Koreans were killed during the colonial era of the Korean Peninsula by Japan.
* *** *