Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Multiple Mechanisms
Default title
12 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
12 April 2000
Morning
The Commission on Human Rights this morning held a special dialogue on poverty and the enjoyment of human rights in which several speakers stressed the need for concerted efforts to fight poverty.
Many speakers said that foreign debt payments had been one of the main obstacles hampering the realization of development programmes designed to reduce poverty in developing countries. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were cited by a number of speakers who also expressed their appreciation of recent measures taken by those institutions to include poverty eradication strategies in their clauses.
Panellists of the special dialogue included Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Odile Sorgho-Moulinier, of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); Siddiqur Rahman Osmani, of the University of Ulster; Miloon Kothari, of Habitat International Coalition; Anne-Marie Lizin, Independent Expert on extreme poverty; and Rubens Ricupero, of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Opening the special dialogue on poverty and the enjoyment of human rights, Shambhu Ram Simkhada, the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, underlined that poverty persisted as a threat to peace, security and human dignity, and in spite of the initiatives by the international community, continued to spread and deepen. The choice of the topic of poverty and the enjoyment of human rights was timely as States, organizations, communities and individuals were currently undertaking a multitude of initiatives to address poverty.
Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed that poverty left people voiceless and powerless and distanced them from the people and institutions that made the decisions that affected their lives. That powerlessness in turn made the poor even more vulnerable -- vulnerable to abuse and vulnerable to the cyclical patterns of poverty that could keep the poor and their children in the same state for generations.
Mrs. Robinson said the link between poverty and the enjoyment of human rights was clear and strong. The reality of poverty was that the poor were denied almost all their human rights -- the right to adequate housing, primary health-care, education and food, fair legal treatment and access to justice, participation in the decisions that affected the poor, and access to information and technology.
Odile Sorgho-Moulinier, Director of the European Office of the United Nations Development Programme, said that poverty eradication was her agency's central mission and overriding objective; it was inspired by the upsurge of concern for international human rights during the last decade. Poverty could not only be defined as lack of income, but as a deprivation in the lives that people led in the most basic choices on health, education, and a decent standard of living.
Siddiqur Rahman Osmani, Professor of Development Economics at the School of Public Policy Economics and Law at the University of Ulster, said that States parties had been identified as the main parties responsible for ensuring the fulfilment of the right to be free from hunger and poverty. A State party which was failing in its obligation to ensure the fulfilment of those rights might argue that resource constraints prevented it from accomplishing its duty. However, resource constraints could not be allowed to be an excuse for such failures.
Miloon Kothari, Convenor of the Housing Rights Committee of the Habitat International Coalition, was of the view that poverty was a multi-dimensional issue and needed to be looked at from many different angles. It was also necessary to find ways to join hands with civil society, using human rights as the basis for the work.
Anne-Marie Lizin, Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, stressed that the primary responsibility in the fight against extreme poverty should be assumed by States; the absence of a political will remained a major obstacle in combatting extreme poverty. The weak administrative and economic structures of States paralysed their efforts. The debt burden, armed conflicts, natural calamities, and financial crisis contributed to the weakening of the State.
And Rubens Ricupero, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, said there was a need for more coherence and return to the notion of mutuality of interest and interdependence in the approach to globalization. The enjoyment of basic social and economic rights had become a matter of priority to a growing number of people. Today there was an important opportunity to try to ensure that there was coherence between macro and micro economic policies on the one hand and social policies and human rights on the other.
Also participating in the dialogue was Marta Santos Pais, Director of the Division of Evaluation, Policy and Planning at the United Nations Children’s Fund, who said UNICEF advocated poverty reduction through reforms in public finance, debt relief, sector-wide approaches and the targeting of social safety nets, and had established a set of global social indicators to monitor the situation of children in guiding policy reforms to reduce poverty and social exclusion.
And Reinaldo Figueredo, Special Rapporteur on foreign debt, who said it was necessary to adopt a coherent approach in tackling poverty and foreign debt. The same countries which sat on the Commission would also attend the Brussels Conference on Least Developed Countries. It was therefore essential that they be coherent.
In his concluding remarks on the special dialogue, Mr. Simkhada said that poverty was a world of darkness, but it was not unconquerable. Given the resources the world had in its hands, the sourge of poverty could be eradicated in one decade.
The representatives of the following countries also participated in the dialogue: Ecuador, Portugal, Pakistan, El Salvador, Japan, Guatemala, Malaysia, India, Venezuela, Madagascar, Bangladesh, China, the United States, Sweden and Norway.
Representatives of the non-governmental organizations Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, speaking on behalf of 19 other organizations, and Women's Caucus also addressed the meeting.
Statements
SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, introducing the theme of the special dialogue, recalled that for the last two years, the Commission had taken time out of its work schedule to reflect on specific matters of pressing concern to the realization of human rights. In previous years, the Commission had considered the rights of women and children. This year, the Commission had chosen "Poverty and the Enjoyment of Human Rights" as its focus.
The choice of poverty and the enjoyment of human rights was timely. States, organizations, communities and individuals were currently undertaking a multitude of initiatives to address poverty. The international community was reviewing States' commitments to eradicate poverty made at the World Summit on Social Development. Institutions, both with and outside the human rights machinery, were developing programmes to combat poverty. The Commission itself was considering a draft Declaration on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty and had discussed poverty in the current session in the context of the right to development and the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.
Nonetheless, poverty persisted as a threat to peace, security and human dignity, and in spite of those initiatives, continued to spread and deepen. The Commission was invited to seize the opportunity and contribute to those discussions from the perspective of the promotion and protection of human rights.
MARY ROBINSON, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, focusing on poverty as a denial of human rights, stressed that the figures illustrating world poverty were sobering with 1.2 billion people surviving on less than a dollar a day; 790 million people suffering from malnutrition; and 140 million school age children not going to school. In addition, 900 million adults were illiterate and almost 34 million people were living with HIV/AIDS, the vast majority in the developing countries. Those hardest hit by poverty were women, children, ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 51 per cent of the population lived in absolute poverty.
Further, Mrs. Robinson said that poverty affected housing, health, food and education; but it was more than just a social or economic problem. Poverty left people voiceless and powerless and distanced them from the people and institutions that made the decisions that affected their lives. That powerlessness in turn made the poor even more vulnerable -- vulnerable to abuse and vulnerable to the cyclical patterns of poverty that could keep the poor and their children in the same state for generations. So, the link between poverty and the enjoyment of human rights was clear and strong. The reality of poverty was that the poor were denied almost all their human rights -- the right to adequate housing, primary health-care, education and food, fair legal treatment and access to justice, participation in the decisions that affected the poor, and access to information and technology.
Turning to the development of a rights-based approach to poverty reduction, Mrs. Robinson said the World Bank's poverty reduction strategy was based on the premise that practical action to combat poverty should be country-driven, results-oriented, partnership-based, framed within a long-term perspective, and comprehensive. Poverty reduction strategies promoted the enjoyment of human rights to varying degrees, either implicitly or explicitly. A rights-based approach went further and argued that the realization of human rights was the primary goal of poverty reduction. Adopting a rights-based approach provided the basis for more successful poverty reduction strategies.
In conclusion, Mrs. Robinson said she believed that it would be very significant if the Commission could deepen its awareness of how to adopt and advocate a rights-based approach in developing poverty reduction strategies. She welcomed the comments that had been made in the Commission concerning some of those initiatives such as the global alliance to fight poverty proposed by the Independent Expert on extreme poverty as well as comments in support of the work on the draft optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that would grant the right of individuals to submit communications concerning non-compliance with the Covenant.
ODILE SORGHO-MOULINIER, Director of the European Office of the United Nations Development Programme, said that poverty eradication was UNDP's central mission and overriding objective; it was inspired by the upsurge of concern for international human rights during the last decade. Poverty could not only be defined as lack of income, but as a deprivation in lives that people led, in the most basic choices in health, education, and a decent standard of living. This broader, human-centred definition of poverty was consistent with the human rights based concerns. UNDP addressed human rights and the eradication of poverty primarily through advocacy and through assisting Governments in developing national capacities to deal with these issues.
UNDP had embarked on the task of integrating human rights in its programming. The first entry point was the programming tools developed at the country level by UNDP country offices and by the United Nations country teams under the leadership of the UN Resident Coordinator. Another important programming activity was the joint UNDP/OHCHR programme called HURIST, aimed at strengthening national capacities in human rights. There had also been four regional workshops organized in 1999 for UNDP Resident Representatives and Government representatives in order to build their capacity in streamlining human rights in development programmes guided by the principles of universality, indivisibility, non-discrimination and participation. The use of human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were essential references for the work.
This year's Human Development Report focused on the inter-relationship between human rights and human development. Last week UNDP had launched the Poverty Report 2000 in which it assessed a broad range of national poverty programmes and drew some important lessons. The report called for a new global strategy against poverty with more resources, a sharper focus and a stronger commitment; and the development of national comprehensive anti-poverty plans and a new generation of poverty programmes which focused on making growth more pro-poor and which targeted inequality. It further emphasized that responsive and accountable institutions of governance were often the missing link and stressed the need to hold Governments accountable in the use of public funds. The report also revealed that most poverty programmes failed to target gender inequality, a denial of human rights and a major source of poverty. The recommendations revealed many similar concerns that were integral to and could be found in the body of principles and standards of human rights
SIDDIQUR RAHMAN OSMANI, Professor of Development Economics at the School of Public Policy Economics and Law at the University of Ulster, said that it was agreed that the adoption of a rights-based approach implied that the duty bearers had to be held accountable for non-fulfilment of rights. State parties had been identified as the main parties responsible for ensuring the fulfilment of the right to be free from hunger and poverty. A State party which was failing in its obligation to ensure the fulfilment of these rights might argue that resource constraints prevented it from accomplishing its duty. However, resource constraints could not be allowed to be used as an excuse for such failure.
State obligations could be identified at three levels: the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of their citizens. These levels had distinct implications. The most difficult level related to the obligation of States to fulfil the right of freedom from hunger, which implied that the State had to ensure that its citizens were extricated from the trap of poverty. As the Philosopher Isaac Berlin had noted, respect and protection were negative rights whereas the duty to fulfil constituted a positive right, that is, it concerned the obligation of the State to help the members of society fulfil their rights.
The resource question arose only in respect of positive rights. In this context, a balance should be made between resource constraint and fulfilment of rights. International covenants were cognizant of constraints imposed by resources. This was why they advocated progressive realization of these rights. When resources were constrained not everything could be done at the same time. The responsible State parties could argue that their resources were allocated to other matters of priority. The question was who should be vested with the authority of assessing whether the best use had been made of resources. A decision must come from within a society, an outside body could not impose priorities on a State. The people as a whole must decide on the use of their resources. Once an inclusive process of the kind had been put in place and a plan of action agreed upon, they could be used as a benchmark against which the performance of the state was assessed. Such an inclusive approach required full civil and political rights for all members of society so as to ensure that the weak segments of the society could participate in the process of deciding on the allocation of resources.
MILOON KOTHARI, Convenor of the Housing Rights Committee of the Delhi-based NGO Habitat International Coalition, said an estimated 100 million people were homeless, living in insecure and inadequate housing conditions, on buses, in boxes, on the streets, on roof tops, in slums, on marginal lands, and near and under railway platforms. Over one billion people were living in inadequate housing in threatening conditions, where they had no rights and were faced with evictions and health problems. Women and children were particularly affected. The implications affected the inability to control the market forces, health, education, and compliance with international and national legal human rights instruments. At the national level there was an over-emphasis on accumulation per se, globalization had reinforced poverty by consolidating the existing gaps between rich and poor according to the neo-liberal market consciousness, notoriously indifferent toward the world's poor.
Human rights instruments mechanisms had to be created where the poor could have a voice. Mr. Kothari focused on the importance of the environment and biodiverity which was critical in determining wealth and poverty. Governments were encouraged to move away from the economic agenda and focus on the environmental factor as this increased equality at all levels. The right to food had to be expanded to include equal access and the protection of the environment through human rights education. Unfortunately the mind set was growing that the poor were responsible for violence and the destruction of the environment, in fact they were the victims of this. The Commission was urged to play a leadership role in providing this paradigm shift and to take on poverty as a central focus. The Commission was encouraged to set up a working group on poverty. Poverty was a multi dimensional issue and needed to be looked at from many different angles. It was also necessary to find ways to join hands with civil society, using human rights as the basis for the work. Governments were urged to identify the obstacles, as once identified, they could be overcome.
ANNE-MARIE LIZIN, Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, said that the coherence maintained by the Bretton Woods financial institutions and the system of the United Nations should be underlined in the context of eradicating poverty. With regard to the role of the State, it was up to Governments to design means and strategies to tackle problems in the field of poverty. States had to strengthen their institutions and decentralize them in order to combat poverty and expand on programmes of development.
The impact of the measures of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization with regard to a State and particularly in the reduction of the state of poverty had to be evaluated. She asked if it was possible to expect interaction where their mandates were not applicable. Concerning the role of non-governmental organizations, they had to be consolidated and integrated in the efforts of a State endeavouring to reduce poverty through a rights-based approach.
How could the exact responsibility of States in the fight against extreme poverty be measured, Ms. Lizin asked. The State held primary responsibility in the fight against extreme poverty. The absence of a political will remained to be a major obstacle in combatting extreme poverty. Nevertheless, weak administrative and economic structures paralysed the efforts of some States. The debt burden, armed conflicts, natural calamities, and financial crisis also contributed to the weakening of the State.
RUBENS RICUPERO, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, said that there was a need for more coherence and a return to the notion of mutuality of interest and interdependence in the approach to globalization. The enjoyment of basic social and economic rights had become a matter of priority to a growing number of people. Today there was an important opportunity to try to ensure that there was coherence between macro and micro economic policies on the one hand and social policies and human rights on the other.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank had expressed concern at finding themselves isolated from the United Nations. They had also expressed doubt as to whether their poverty eradication strategies could guarantee the enjoyment of human rights. It was indispensable to adopt a coherent approach in trade negotiations which should ensure reciprocity, especially with regard to developing countries. A good opportunity for coherence was for every State to participate actively in the Brussels Conference on the 48 Least Developed Countries. The conference would be a challenge for poverty reduction.
MARTA SANTOS PAIS, Director of the Division of Evaluation, Policy and Planning at the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said that since the 1980's the organization had advocated child-friendly reforms and gauged the ways in which macroeconomic reforms, social sector adjustment programmes and public spending affected children. UNICEF advocated poverty reduction through reforms in public finance, debt relief, sector-wide approaches and the targeting of social safety nets, and had established a set of global social indicators to monitor the situation of children in guiding policy reforms to reduce poverty and social exclusion. Fantastic changes had been achieved in the short life of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; it stood as a unique worldwide normative and ethical framework for action.
Yet millions of children remained untouched by this progress, severely hit by poverty. This reality often hit girls hardest - fewer girls than boys enrolled in school and remained in school, as a result fewer than 25 per cent of women in some African countries were literate. At the same time, official development assistance had declined since 1992. The pattern of vulnerability of poor and marginalized children gained additional magnitude when associated with HIV/AIDS and armed conflict. In all of these circumstances, children were the first victims. Only by investment in children would it be possible to promote and sustain poverty eradication. UNICEF was involved in the eradication of poverty through the promotion of a child-friendly world where children could play, learn and grow, and where their safety and health could be protected. With strong political commitment, appropriate public action and genuine community participation, it was a dream that could come true within less than one generation.
MS. SORGHO-MOULINIER said there was a need to increase resources to combat poverty. The United Nations Development Programme had been trying to tackle the phenomenon for a long time. Overseas development assistance had to be increased and resources had to be reorientated so as to make economic growth more favourable to the poor, who should be able to have a say in development programmes.
MR. RICUPERO said that providing rights was not enough if the conditions for the implementation of those rights were not there. Countries were starting off from astronomically different points. If affirmative action and promotion of the disadvantaged was necessary at a national level, it was equally important at an international level. Rights had to be supplied along with the means to enjoy those rights. Official development assistance played a significant role in this achievement.
MRS. ROBINSON said her Office was seeking to strengthening relations with the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme. One should recognize that tackling poverty should focus on the participation of the poor themselves.
MR. OSMANI said that a participatory approach to tackle poverty did not only work in countries like Switzerland with grass roots democracy. The participatory approach was adopted in Brazil for example. As for the obligation of States to cooperate in eradicating poverty, one had to distinguish between goals and instruments. The right to food and the right of freedom from poverty were goals. Cooperation was an instrument to achieve these goals and did not fall within the category of rights. Poverty should not be attributed only to the international political and economic system but also to domestic policies.
MR. KOTHARI said there was a very active civil society movement against globalization which had put forward concrete proposals, such as the - sink or shrink the World Trade Organization - proposal. It was important for the Commission to demand the reform of the multilateral processes. On the question of conditionality, the fear was perhaps real but somewhat misplaced. If human rights were a coherent challenge, the existing institutions in developing countries could actually be their best defence against conditionality. It was important that these issues be stressed at the upcoming social summit; if not the human rights approach would not go very far.
THE CHAIRMAN made concluding remarks on the special dialogue. This had been a sobering discussion on the devastating effects of poverty on human rights. Poverty was a world of darkness, but it was not unconquerable. Given the resources the world had at its hands, the scourge of poverty could be eradicated in one decade. Tackling poverty was a fundamental human rights issue. The realization of human rights was the primary goal of poverty reduction. The Commission could make a difference by promoting a rights-based approach and by responding to the call of the development and financial agencies for guidance in the integration of human rights and the implementation of a rights-based approach.
Everyone was entitled to a social and international order in which human rights and fundamental freedoms could be achieved. The international community had a moral duty to eliminate poverty and to support efforts at the national level. Alongside civil and political rights, more attention had to be paid to the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. Every Government had a scared responsibility to make the best possible use of its resources and to give priority to the realization of basic economic and social rights for all its people. The incidence of poverty had to be monitored with the view of coming to grips with the scale and dimension of the problem and tackling the plight of the poor in a tangible and equitable manner.
LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA (Ecuador) said that the debt burden was the main obstacle in the efforts to fight extreme poverty. He said he was concerned about the inconsistency of the consensus reached in the United Nations system and the actions of the international financial institutions. The reduction of external debt should be given priority because of the fact that it was absorbing the resources of the developing countries which otherwise would have invested them in programmes of poverty eradication. He thanked the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for its negotiating efforts in the reduction of the external debt of poor countries.
ALVARO MENDONCA MOURA (Portugal) said that it concurred with the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty that poverty infringed on the principle of human dignity and non- discrimination as well as on economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights and the exercise of citizenship. The Special Rapporteur was asked how he viewed the dichotomy between increased social exclusion on the one hand and the strengthening of citizenship on the other. The European Union considered poverty unacceptable and had made resources available to combat the phenomenon. However, some countries did not have enough resources. Another question was why measures taken so far to tackle poverty had not been successful.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that it was time to accept that poverty was growing, income disparity had increased and an estimated 1.6 billion people were worse off than 15 years ago. The economic regression across the Third World indicated that the problem was external. The recent countries afflicted by the economic crisis had been those countries that were the most integrated into the global economic system. The delegation of Pakistan suggested the development of a set of international rights which nations should hold each other to, including the adequate financing for development, the right to equitable global trade rules, fair access to knowledge and technology, the right not to be subjected to discrimination in global economy and the right to effective participation in international decision-making on economic issues. In the implementation of these rights, there could be a real advance in the strategy for the eradication of poverty.
CASTRO GRANDE (El Salvador) said that one should think of capital flow which would contribute to the improvement of a State's development. The issue of migrant workers also had to be considered and more attention had to be given in terms of contribution to the labour force.
REINALDO FIGUEREDO, Special Rapporteur on foreign debt, said it was necessary to adopt a coherent approach in tackling poverty and foreign debt. The same countries who sat at the Commission would also attend the Brussels Conference on Least Developed Countries. It was therefore essential that they be coherent.
HIDEAKI KOBAYASHI (Japan) said that there had been difficulties in incorporating a human rights based approach in official development assistance. The difficulty for donor countries lay in being misunderstood as exerting undue influence over domestic policy in the recipient countries. This often made the transition of assistance and the implementation of programmes difficult. Japan used to base assistance on economics only. But the Japanese Government had questioned whether economic concerns only brought about welfare and democracy. In June 1992 some key principles had been adopted. Now economic cooperation policies gave full attention to the promotion of democratization and basic human rights and freedom. This trend was reflected in Japan's economic assistance pattern. This could also be seen in the US-Japan Common Agenda technical assistance programme which focused on issues such as school attendance.
LUIS ALBERTO PADILA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said that in many countries, governance might not be as one expected it to be, so that some good ideas might not be implemented without any problems. The developing countries needed the material needs such as capital to pursue their development programmes.
ZAINAL RAJA NUSHIRWAN (Malaysia) wondered whether poverty eradication was a matter of priority on the United Nations agenda. The rights-based approach should include a development-based approach to human rights and should not be an instrument of conditionality. In a globalized world and as part of the mutuality of interests approach, States should be obligated to cooperate in the eradication of poverty.
A. GOPINATHAN (India) said the existence of poverty caused the denial of civil and political rights and the lack of development was a clear obstacle in the enjoyment of human rights. The democratic development of human rights and development were mutually reinforcing. The rights-based approach was a good idea for poverty eradication, however, the recognition of rights did not entail their immediate fulfilment. The most significant problem was the lack of resources. The delegation of India put a number of questions to the speakers of the day. When would the achievement of the overseas development assistance target be completed? Were not human rights used as a conditionality in aid or as a tool for protectionism in the rights-based approach? How could one humanize the phenomenon of globalization? With regards to civil society participation in the eradication of poverty, it was questioned what would be its obligations in the battle and who would monitor its actions.
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said that there was a relationship between human rights and the enjoyment of economic rights. If enjoyment of economic rights was lacking, the human rights of citizens could not be respected. Policies to alleviate poverty, debt reduction and structural adjustment programmes had to be implemented so that people could better enjoy their human rights.
MAXIME ZAFERA (Madagascar) said more attention was now being given to the developing countries. Measures of vigourous nature should be taken to tackle extreme poverty and to sustain economic development. There should a firm political will on the part of the developed countries and financial institutions. The need for resources had been acute, particularly in countries in the Sub-Saharan region. What action should be taken by the international community concerning alleviation of external debt?
ISMAT JAHAN (Bangladesh) said it was the responsibility of governments to ensure the fulfilment of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. However, an enabling external environment was also essential. Any poverty eradication strategy should include empowerment of the poor and marginalized, and investment in human resources. Often the issue was not lack of resources but inequitable distribution of resources within the country and among countries, with unbridled consumption on the one hand and stark poverty on the other.
CYNTHIA NEURY, of the Centre Europe Tier Monde, speaking on the behalf of 19 non-governmental organizations, said there was more and more talk on extreme poverty, natural disasters and the issue of foreign debt. The eradication of poverty was praiseworthy, but in cases like Mozambique emergency measures should be a given, and not seen as part of the plan for the eradication of poverty. Poverty eradication was not the same as emergency measures, but both should work for the realization of human rights. All reports highlighted from different angles that the gap between rich and poor had deepened considerably, affecting the majority of the world's inhabitants. A fundamental cause in the current crisis was the line of organization. Finding a distinction between poverty and extreme poverty did not solve the problem, neither did the discussion on cancelling the debt of one nation or the other solve the debt burden on all of the developing countries. The World Bank’s strategic framework against poverty was not functioning, and many States had suffered from the negative effects and the directly related poverty of the structural adjustment policies.
REN YISHENG (China) said the gap between the developed and the developing had been largely hampering the developing countries from realizing their development. During the last 20 years China had been implementing programmes of social integration through employment aimed at reducing poverty. All countries should develop a quality system of education to realize progress and to bring people away from poverty.
BARTRAM BROWN (the United States) said that the rule of law was necessary if human rights were to be upheld. While the United States concurred that human rights should be further integrated into the international economic system, it stressed that without economic growth, no improvement in human rights could be brought about. A human rights-based approach had its appeal. However, there was currently limited consensus as to what a human rights- based approach meant. Further, rather than adopting a convention on poverty, the United States felt that it was more important to concentrate efforts on adopting concrete measures to surmount the phenomenon, such as the least developed countries initiative.
LARS RONNAS (Sweden) said human rights was a necessary value system in the struggle against poverty. Human rights should be understood for what they were, state obligations not detailed recipes. The Government of Sweden believed that a broad perspective on human rights was required, including those at risk of vulnerability and those who lacked power. Women and girls constituted the majority of the poor, any action ignoring this fact was inadequate. The Swedish Government encouraged cooperation, for this political will was required and the international community needed to be ready to help. Sweden was fulfilling this assistance in its overseas development assistance contribution. A major challenge was the cooperation and coordination of all the actors within the United Nations system.
TURID KONGSVIK (Norway) said that his country was contributing to the development of other States through international cooperation which was considered as a right and not as a charity. It was also following a policy in which all rights were seen on equal footing. The lack of the exercise of certain rights might hamper development. The right to assembly and demonstration might prompt States to speed up development programmes.
CHARLOTTE BUNCH, of Women's Caucus, said that women were the main victims of poverty and the vast majority of women in developing countries lacked control over economic resources. Most women in these countries lived in poverty, near poverty and in fear of poverty. Poverty was also at the root of violence against women. The link between the poverty of women in developing countries, particularly in Africa, and their being denied land, property and inheritance rights was also highlighted. The spread of HIV and armed conflicts also contributed to the feminization of poverty.
* *** *
56th session
12 April 2000
Morning
The Commission on Human Rights this morning held a special dialogue on poverty and the enjoyment of human rights in which several speakers stressed the need for concerted efforts to fight poverty.
Many speakers said that foreign debt payments had been one of the main obstacles hampering the realization of development programmes designed to reduce poverty in developing countries. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were cited by a number of speakers who also expressed their appreciation of recent measures taken by those institutions to include poverty eradication strategies in their clauses.
Panellists of the special dialogue included Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Odile Sorgho-Moulinier, of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); Siddiqur Rahman Osmani, of the University of Ulster; Miloon Kothari, of Habitat International Coalition; Anne-Marie Lizin, Independent Expert on extreme poverty; and Rubens Ricupero, of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Opening the special dialogue on poverty and the enjoyment of human rights, Shambhu Ram Simkhada, the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, underlined that poverty persisted as a threat to peace, security and human dignity, and in spite of the initiatives by the international community, continued to spread and deepen. The choice of the topic of poverty and the enjoyment of human rights was timely as States, organizations, communities and individuals were currently undertaking a multitude of initiatives to address poverty.
Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed that poverty left people voiceless and powerless and distanced them from the people and institutions that made the decisions that affected their lives. That powerlessness in turn made the poor even more vulnerable -- vulnerable to abuse and vulnerable to the cyclical patterns of poverty that could keep the poor and their children in the same state for generations.
Mrs. Robinson said the link between poverty and the enjoyment of human rights was clear and strong. The reality of poverty was that the poor were denied almost all their human rights -- the right to adequate housing, primary health-care, education and food, fair legal treatment and access to justice, participation in the decisions that affected the poor, and access to information and technology.
Odile Sorgho-Moulinier, Director of the European Office of the United Nations Development Programme, said that poverty eradication was her agency's central mission and overriding objective; it was inspired by the upsurge of concern for international human rights during the last decade. Poverty could not only be defined as lack of income, but as a deprivation in the lives that people led in the most basic choices on health, education, and a decent standard of living.
Siddiqur Rahman Osmani, Professor of Development Economics at the School of Public Policy Economics and Law at the University of Ulster, said that States parties had been identified as the main parties responsible for ensuring the fulfilment of the right to be free from hunger and poverty. A State party which was failing in its obligation to ensure the fulfilment of those rights might argue that resource constraints prevented it from accomplishing its duty. However, resource constraints could not be allowed to be an excuse for such failures.
Miloon Kothari, Convenor of the Housing Rights Committee of the Habitat International Coalition, was of the view that poverty was a multi-dimensional issue and needed to be looked at from many different angles. It was also necessary to find ways to join hands with civil society, using human rights as the basis for the work.
Anne-Marie Lizin, Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, stressed that the primary responsibility in the fight against extreme poverty should be assumed by States; the absence of a political will remained a major obstacle in combatting extreme poverty. The weak administrative and economic structures of States paralysed their efforts. The debt burden, armed conflicts, natural calamities, and financial crisis contributed to the weakening of the State.
And Rubens Ricupero, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, said there was a need for more coherence and return to the notion of mutuality of interest and interdependence in the approach to globalization. The enjoyment of basic social and economic rights had become a matter of priority to a growing number of people. Today there was an important opportunity to try to ensure that there was coherence between macro and micro economic policies on the one hand and social policies and human rights on the other.
Also participating in the dialogue was Marta Santos Pais, Director of the Division of Evaluation, Policy and Planning at the United Nations Children’s Fund, who said UNICEF advocated poverty reduction through reforms in public finance, debt relief, sector-wide approaches and the targeting of social safety nets, and had established a set of global social indicators to monitor the situation of children in guiding policy reforms to reduce poverty and social exclusion.
And Reinaldo Figueredo, Special Rapporteur on foreign debt, who said it was necessary to adopt a coherent approach in tackling poverty and foreign debt. The same countries which sat on the Commission would also attend the Brussels Conference on Least Developed Countries. It was therefore essential that they be coherent.
In his concluding remarks on the special dialogue, Mr. Simkhada said that poverty was a world of darkness, but it was not unconquerable. Given the resources the world had in its hands, the sourge of poverty could be eradicated in one decade.
The representatives of the following countries also participated in the dialogue: Ecuador, Portugal, Pakistan, El Salvador, Japan, Guatemala, Malaysia, India, Venezuela, Madagascar, Bangladesh, China, the United States, Sweden and Norway.
Representatives of the non-governmental organizations Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, speaking on behalf of 19 other organizations, and Women's Caucus also addressed the meeting.
Statements
SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, introducing the theme of the special dialogue, recalled that for the last two years, the Commission had taken time out of its work schedule to reflect on specific matters of pressing concern to the realization of human rights. In previous years, the Commission had considered the rights of women and children. This year, the Commission had chosen "Poverty and the Enjoyment of Human Rights" as its focus.
The choice of poverty and the enjoyment of human rights was timely. States, organizations, communities and individuals were currently undertaking a multitude of initiatives to address poverty. The international community was reviewing States' commitments to eradicate poverty made at the World Summit on Social Development. Institutions, both with and outside the human rights machinery, were developing programmes to combat poverty. The Commission itself was considering a draft Declaration on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty and had discussed poverty in the current session in the context of the right to development and the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.
Nonetheless, poverty persisted as a threat to peace, security and human dignity, and in spite of those initiatives, continued to spread and deepen. The Commission was invited to seize the opportunity and contribute to those discussions from the perspective of the promotion and protection of human rights.
MARY ROBINSON, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, focusing on poverty as a denial of human rights, stressed that the figures illustrating world poverty were sobering with 1.2 billion people surviving on less than a dollar a day; 790 million people suffering from malnutrition; and 140 million school age children not going to school. In addition, 900 million adults were illiterate and almost 34 million people were living with HIV/AIDS, the vast majority in the developing countries. Those hardest hit by poverty were women, children, ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 51 per cent of the population lived in absolute poverty.
Further, Mrs. Robinson said that poverty affected housing, health, food and education; but it was more than just a social or economic problem. Poverty left people voiceless and powerless and distanced them from the people and institutions that made the decisions that affected their lives. That powerlessness in turn made the poor even more vulnerable -- vulnerable to abuse and vulnerable to the cyclical patterns of poverty that could keep the poor and their children in the same state for generations. So, the link between poverty and the enjoyment of human rights was clear and strong. The reality of poverty was that the poor were denied almost all their human rights -- the right to adequate housing, primary health-care, education and food, fair legal treatment and access to justice, participation in the decisions that affected the poor, and access to information and technology.
Turning to the development of a rights-based approach to poverty reduction, Mrs. Robinson said the World Bank's poverty reduction strategy was based on the premise that practical action to combat poverty should be country-driven, results-oriented, partnership-based, framed within a long-term perspective, and comprehensive. Poverty reduction strategies promoted the enjoyment of human rights to varying degrees, either implicitly or explicitly. A rights-based approach went further and argued that the realization of human rights was the primary goal of poverty reduction. Adopting a rights-based approach provided the basis for more successful poverty reduction strategies.
In conclusion, Mrs. Robinson said she believed that it would be very significant if the Commission could deepen its awareness of how to adopt and advocate a rights-based approach in developing poverty reduction strategies. She welcomed the comments that had been made in the Commission concerning some of those initiatives such as the global alliance to fight poverty proposed by the Independent Expert on extreme poverty as well as comments in support of the work on the draft optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that would grant the right of individuals to submit communications concerning non-compliance with the Covenant.
ODILE SORGHO-MOULINIER, Director of the European Office of the United Nations Development Programme, said that poverty eradication was UNDP's central mission and overriding objective; it was inspired by the upsurge of concern for international human rights during the last decade. Poverty could not only be defined as lack of income, but as a deprivation in lives that people led, in the most basic choices in health, education, and a decent standard of living. This broader, human-centred definition of poverty was consistent with the human rights based concerns. UNDP addressed human rights and the eradication of poverty primarily through advocacy and through assisting Governments in developing national capacities to deal with these issues.
UNDP had embarked on the task of integrating human rights in its programming. The first entry point was the programming tools developed at the country level by UNDP country offices and by the United Nations country teams under the leadership of the UN Resident Coordinator. Another important programming activity was the joint UNDP/OHCHR programme called HURIST, aimed at strengthening national capacities in human rights. There had also been four regional workshops organized in 1999 for UNDP Resident Representatives and Government representatives in order to build their capacity in streamlining human rights in development programmes guided by the principles of universality, indivisibility, non-discrimination and participation. The use of human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were essential references for the work.
This year's Human Development Report focused on the inter-relationship between human rights and human development. Last week UNDP had launched the Poverty Report 2000 in which it assessed a broad range of national poverty programmes and drew some important lessons. The report called for a new global strategy against poverty with more resources, a sharper focus and a stronger commitment; and the development of national comprehensive anti-poverty plans and a new generation of poverty programmes which focused on making growth more pro-poor and which targeted inequality. It further emphasized that responsive and accountable institutions of governance were often the missing link and stressed the need to hold Governments accountable in the use of public funds. The report also revealed that most poverty programmes failed to target gender inequality, a denial of human rights and a major source of poverty. The recommendations revealed many similar concerns that were integral to and could be found in the body of principles and standards of human rights
SIDDIQUR RAHMAN OSMANI, Professor of Development Economics at the School of Public Policy Economics and Law at the University of Ulster, said that it was agreed that the adoption of a rights-based approach implied that the duty bearers had to be held accountable for non-fulfilment of rights. State parties had been identified as the main parties responsible for ensuring the fulfilment of the right to be free from hunger and poverty. A State party which was failing in its obligation to ensure the fulfilment of these rights might argue that resource constraints prevented it from accomplishing its duty. However, resource constraints could not be allowed to be used as an excuse for such failure.
State obligations could be identified at three levels: the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of their citizens. These levels had distinct implications. The most difficult level related to the obligation of States to fulfil the right of freedom from hunger, which implied that the State had to ensure that its citizens were extricated from the trap of poverty. As the Philosopher Isaac Berlin had noted, respect and protection were negative rights whereas the duty to fulfil constituted a positive right, that is, it concerned the obligation of the State to help the members of society fulfil their rights.
The resource question arose only in respect of positive rights. In this context, a balance should be made between resource constraint and fulfilment of rights. International covenants were cognizant of constraints imposed by resources. This was why they advocated progressive realization of these rights. When resources were constrained not everything could be done at the same time. The responsible State parties could argue that their resources were allocated to other matters of priority. The question was who should be vested with the authority of assessing whether the best use had been made of resources. A decision must come from within a society, an outside body could not impose priorities on a State. The people as a whole must decide on the use of their resources. Once an inclusive process of the kind had been put in place and a plan of action agreed upon, they could be used as a benchmark against which the performance of the state was assessed. Such an inclusive approach required full civil and political rights for all members of society so as to ensure that the weak segments of the society could participate in the process of deciding on the allocation of resources.
MILOON KOTHARI, Convenor of the Housing Rights Committee of the Delhi-based NGO Habitat International Coalition, said an estimated 100 million people were homeless, living in insecure and inadequate housing conditions, on buses, in boxes, on the streets, on roof tops, in slums, on marginal lands, and near and under railway platforms. Over one billion people were living in inadequate housing in threatening conditions, where they had no rights and were faced with evictions and health problems. Women and children were particularly affected. The implications affected the inability to control the market forces, health, education, and compliance with international and national legal human rights instruments. At the national level there was an over-emphasis on accumulation per se, globalization had reinforced poverty by consolidating the existing gaps between rich and poor according to the neo-liberal market consciousness, notoriously indifferent toward the world's poor.
Human rights instruments mechanisms had to be created where the poor could have a voice. Mr. Kothari focused on the importance of the environment and biodiverity which was critical in determining wealth and poverty. Governments were encouraged to move away from the economic agenda and focus on the environmental factor as this increased equality at all levels. The right to food had to be expanded to include equal access and the protection of the environment through human rights education. Unfortunately the mind set was growing that the poor were responsible for violence and the destruction of the environment, in fact they were the victims of this. The Commission was urged to play a leadership role in providing this paradigm shift and to take on poverty as a central focus. The Commission was encouraged to set up a working group on poverty. Poverty was a multi dimensional issue and needed to be looked at from many different angles. It was also necessary to find ways to join hands with civil society, using human rights as the basis for the work. Governments were urged to identify the obstacles, as once identified, they could be overcome.
ANNE-MARIE LIZIN, Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, said that the coherence maintained by the Bretton Woods financial institutions and the system of the United Nations should be underlined in the context of eradicating poverty. With regard to the role of the State, it was up to Governments to design means and strategies to tackle problems in the field of poverty. States had to strengthen their institutions and decentralize them in order to combat poverty and expand on programmes of development.
The impact of the measures of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization with regard to a State and particularly in the reduction of the state of poverty had to be evaluated. She asked if it was possible to expect interaction where their mandates were not applicable. Concerning the role of non-governmental organizations, they had to be consolidated and integrated in the efforts of a State endeavouring to reduce poverty through a rights-based approach.
How could the exact responsibility of States in the fight against extreme poverty be measured, Ms. Lizin asked. The State held primary responsibility in the fight against extreme poverty. The absence of a political will remained to be a major obstacle in combatting extreme poverty. Nevertheless, weak administrative and economic structures paralysed the efforts of some States. The debt burden, armed conflicts, natural calamities, and financial crisis also contributed to the weakening of the State.
RUBENS RICUPERO, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, said that there was a need for more coherence and a return to the notion of mutuality of interest and interdependence in the approach to globalization. The enjoyment of basic social and economic rights had become a matter of priority to a growing number of people. Today there was an important opportunity to try to ensure that there was coherence between macro and micro economic policies on the one hand and social policies and human rights on the other.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank had expressed concern at finding themselves isolated from the United Nations. They had also expressed doubt as to whether their poverty eradication strategies could guarantee the enjoyment of human rights. It was indispensable to adopt a coherent approach in trade negotiations which should ensure reciprocity, especially with regard to developing countries. A good opportunity for coherence was for every State to participate actively in the Brussels Conference on the 48 Least Developed Countries. The conference would be a challenge for poverty reduction.
MARTA SANTOS PAIS, Director of the Division of Evaluation, Policy and Planning at the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said that since the 1980's the organization had advocated child-friendly reforms and gauged the ways in which macroeconomic reforms, social sector adjustment programmes and public spending affected children. UNICEF advocated poverty reduction through reforms in public finance, debt relief, sector-wide approaches and the targeting of social safety nets, and had established a set of global social indicators to monitor the situation of children in guiding policy reforms to reduce poverty and social exclusion. Fantastic changes had been achieved in the short life of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; it stood as a unique worldwide normative and ethical framework for action.
Yet millions of children remained untouched by this progress, severely hit by poverty. This reality often hit girls hardest - fewer girls than boys enrolled in school and remained in school, as a result fewer than 25 per cent of women in some African countries were literate. At the same time, official development assistance had declined since 1992. The pattern of vulnerability of poor and marginalized children gained additional magnitude when associated with HIV/AIDS and armed conflict. In all of these circumstances, children were the first victims. Only by investment in children would it be possible to promote and sustain poverty eradication. UNICEF was involved in the eradication of poverty through the promotion of a child-friendly world where children could play, learn and grow, and where their safety and health could be protected. With strong political commitment, appropriate public action and genuine community participation, it was a dream that could come true within less than one generation.
MS. SORGHO-MOULINIER said there was a need to increase resources to combat poverty. The United Nations Development Programme had been trying to tackle the phenomenon for a long time. Overseas development assistance had to be increased and resources had to be reorientated so as to make economic growth more favourable to the poor, who should be able to have a say in development programmes.
MR. RICUPERO said that providing rights was not enough if the conditions for the implementation of those rights were not there. Countries were starting off from astronomically different points. If affirmative action and promotion of the disadvantaged was necessary at a national level, it was equally important at an international level. Rights had to be supplied along with the means to enjoy those rights. Official development assistance played a significant role in this achievement.
MRS. ROBINSON said her Office was seeking to strengthening relations with the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme. One should recognize that tackling poverty should focus on the participation of the poor themselves.
MR. OSMANI said that a participatory approach to tackle poverty did not only work in countries like Switzerland with grass roots democracy. The participatory approach was adopted in Brazil for example. As for the obligation of States to cooperate in eradicating poverty, one had to distinguish between goals and instruments. The right to food and the right of freedom from poverty were goals. Cooperation was an instrument to achieve these goals and did not fall within the category of rights. Poverty should not be attributed only to the international political and economic system but also to domestic policies.
MR. KOTHARI said there was a very active civil society movement against globalization which had put forward concrete proposals, such as the - sink or shrink the World Trade Organization - proposal. It was important for the Commission to demand the reform of the multilateral processes. On the question of conditionality, the fear was perhaps real but somewhat misplaced. If human rights were a coherent challenge, the existing institutions in developing countries could actually be their best defence against conditionality. It was important that these issues be stressed at the upcoming social summit; if not the human rights approach would not go very far.
THE CHAIRMAN made concluding remarks on the special dialogue. This had been a sobering discussion on the devastating effects of poverty on human rights. Poverty was a world of darkness, but it was not unconquerable. Given the resources the world had at its hands, the scourge of poverty could be eradicated in one decade. Tackling poverty was a fundamental human rights issue. The realization of human rights was the primary goal of poverty reduction. The Commission could make a difference by promoting a rights-based approach and by responding to the call of the development and financial agencies for guidance in the integration of human rights and the implementation of a rights-based approach.
Everyone was entitled to a social and international order in which human rights and fundamental freedoms could be achieved. The international community had a moral duty to eliminate poverty and to support efforts at the national level. Alongside civil and political rights, more attention had to be paid to the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. Every Government had a scared responsibility to make the best possible use of its resources and to give priority to the realization of basic economic and social rights for all its people. The incidence of poverty had to be monitored with the view of coming to grips with the scale and dimension of the problem and tackling the plight of the poor in a tangible and equitable manner.
LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA (Ecuador) said that the debt burden was the main obstacle in the efforts to fight extreme poverty. He said he was concerned about the inconsistency of the consensus reached in the United Nations system and the actions of the international financial institutions. The reduction of external debt should be given priority because of the fact that it was absorbing the resources of the developing countries which otherwise would have invested them in programmes of poverty eradication. He thanked the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for its negotiating efforts in the reduction of the external debt of poor countries.
ALVARO MENDONCA MOURA (Portugal) said that it concurred with the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty that poverty infringed on the principle of human dignity and non- discrimination as well as on economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights and the exercise of citizenship. The Special Rapporteur was asked how he viewed the dichotomy between increased social exclusion on the one hand and the strengthening of citizenship on the other. The European Union considered poverty unacceptable and had made resources available to combat the phenomenon. However, some countries did not have enough resources. Another question was why measures taken so far to tackle poverty had not been successful.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that it was time to accept that poverty was growing, income disparity had increased and an estimated 1.6 billion people were worse off than 15 years ago. The economic regression across the Third World indicated that the problem was external. The recent countries afflicted by the economic crisis had been those countries that were the most integrated into the global economic system. The delegation of Pakistan suggested the development of a set of international rights which nations should hold each other to, including the adequate financing for development, the right to equitable global trade rules, fair access to knowledge and technology, the right not to be subjected to discrimination in global economy and the right to effective participation in international decision-making on economic issues. In the implementation of these rights, there could be a real advance in the strategy for the eradication of poverty.
CASTRO GRANDE (El Salvador) said that one should think of capital flow which would contribute to the improvement of a State's development. The issue of migrant workers also had to be considered and more attention had to be given in terms of contribution to the labour force.
REINALDO FIGUEREDO, Special Rapporteur on foreign debt, said it was necessary to adopt a coherent approach in tackling poverty and foreign debt. The same countries who sat at the Commission would also attend the Brussels Conference on Least Developed Countries. It was therefore essential that they be coherent.
HIDEAKI KOBAYASHI (Japan) said that there had been difficulties in incorporating a human rights based approach in official development assistance. The difficulty for donor countries lay in being misunderstood as exerting undue influence over domestic policy in the recipient countries. This often made the transition of assistance and the implementation of programmes difficult. Japan used to base assistance on economics only. But the Japanese Government had questioned whether economic concerns only brought about welfare and democracy. In June 1992 some key principles had been adopted. Now economic cooperation policies gave full attention to the promotion of democratization and basic human rights and freedom. This trend was reflected in Japan's economic assistance pattern. This could also be seen in the US-Japan Common Agenda technical assistance programme which focused on issues such as school attendance.
LUIS ALBERTO PADILA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said that in many countries, governance might not be as one expected it to be, so that some good ideas might not be implemented without any problems. The developing countries needed the material needs such as capital to pursue their development programmes.
ZAINAL RAJA NUSHIRWAN (Malaysia) wondered whether poverty eradication was a matter of priority on the United Nations agenda. The rights-based approach should include a development-based approach to human rights and should not be an instrument of conditionality. In a globalized world and as part of the mutuality of interests approach, States should be obligated to cooperate in the eradication of poverty.
A. GOPINATHAN (India) said the existence of poverty caused the denial of civil and political rights and the lack of development was a clear obstacle in the enjoyment of human rights. The democratic development of human rights and development were mutually reinforcing. The rights-based approach was a good idea for poverty eradication, however, the recognition of rights did not entail their immediate fulfilment. The most significant problem was the lack of resources. The delegation of India put a number of questions to the speakers of the day. When would the achievement of the overseas development assistance target be completed? Were not human rights used as a conditionality in aid or as a tool for protectionism in the rights-based approach? How could one humanize the phenomenon of globalization? With regards to civil society participation in the eradication of poverty, it was questioned what would be its obligations in the battle and who would monitor its actions.
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said that there was a relationship between human rights and the enjoyment of economic rights. If enjoyment of economic rights was lacking, the human rights of citizens could not be respected. Policies to alleviate poverty, debt reduction and structural adjustment programmes had to be implemented so that people could better enjoy their human rights.
MAXIME ZAFERA (Madagascar) said more attention was now being given to the developing countries. Measures of vigourous nature should be taken to tackle extreme poverty and to sustain economic development. There should a firm political will on the part of the developed countries and financial institutions. The need for resources had been acute, particularly in countries in the Sub-Saharan region. What action should be taken by the international community concerning alleviation of external debt?
ISMAT JAHAN (Bangladesh) said it was the responsibility of governments to ensure the fulfilment of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. However, an enabling external environment was also essential. Any poverty eradication strategy should include empowerment of the poor and marginalized, and investment in human resources. Often the issue was not lack of resources but inequitable distribution of resources within the country and among countries, with unbridled consumption on the one hand and stark poverty on the other.
CYNTHIA NEURY, of the Centre Europe Tier Monde, speaking on the behalf of 19 non-governmental organizations, said there was more and more talk on extreme poverty, natural disasters and the issue of foreign debt. The eradication of poverty was praiseworthy, but in cases like Mozambique emergency measures should be a given, and not seen as part of the plan for the eradication of poverty. Poverty eradication was not the same as emergency measures, but both should work for the realization of human rights. All reports highlighted from different angles that the gap between rich and poor had deepened considerably, affecting the majority of the world's inhabitants. A fundamental cause in the current crisis was the line of organization. Finding a distinction between poverty and extreme poverty did not solve the problem, neither did the discussion on cancelling the debt of one nation or the other solve the debt burden on all of the developing countries. The World Bank’s strategic framework against poverty was not functioning, and many States had suffered from the negative effects and the directly related poverty of the structural adjustment policies.
REN YISHENG (China) said the gap between the developed and the developing had been largely hampering the developing countries from realizing their development. During the last 20 years China had been implementing programmes of social integration through employment aimed at reducing poverty. All countries should develop a quality system of education to realize progress and to bring people away from poverty.
BARTRAM BROWN (the United States) said that the rule of law was necessary if human rights were to be upheld. While the United States concurred that human rights should be further integrated into the international economic system, it stressed that without economic growth, no improvement in human rights could be brought about. A human rights-based approach had its appeal. However, there was currently limited consensus as to what a human rights- based approach meant. Further, rather than adopting a convention on poverty, the United States felt that it was more important to concentrate efforts on adopting concrete measures to surmount the phenomenon, such as the least developed countries initiative.
LARS RONNAS (Sweden) said human rights was a necessary value system in the struggle against poverty. Human rights should be understood for what they were, state obligations not detailed recipes. The Government of Sweden believed that a broad perspective on human rights was required, including those at risk of vulnerability and those who lacked power. Women and girls constituted the majority of the poor, any action ignoring this fact was inadequate. The Swedish Government encouraged cooperation, for this political will was required and the international community needed to be ready to help. Sweden was fulfilling this assistance in its overseas development assistance contribution. A major challenge was the cooperation and coordination of all the actors within the United Nations system.
TURID KONGSVIK (Norway) said that his country was contributing to the development of other States through international cooperation which was considered as a right and not as a charity. It was also following a policy in which all rights were seen on equal footing. The lack of the exercise of certain rights might hamper development. The right to assembly and demonstration might prompt States to speed up development programmes.
CHARLOTTE BUNCH, of Women's Caucus, said that women were the main victims of poverty and the vast majority of women in developing countries lacked control over economic resources. Most women in these countries lived in poverty, near poverty and in fear of poverty. Poverty was also at the root of violence against women. The link between the poverty of women in developing countries, particularly in Africa, and their being denied land, property and inheritance rights was also highlighted. The spread of HIV and armed conflicts also contributed to the feminization of poverty.
* *** *