Poverty, debt burdens, widening gap between rich and poor cited in debate on right to development

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
27 March 2001
Evening & Night






Commission on Human Rights Told that in Age of Globalization,
National Policies must be Bolstered by Increased International Support


Countries and non-governmental organizations discussing the right to development told an extended meeting of the Commission on Human Rights this evening that economic globalization, if left to its own devices, would not help many of the world’s poorer people and nations, and that international financial events could overwhelm the ability of developing countries to control their destinies and protect their economies .

Speakers called, among other things, for reduction of foreign-debt burdens, a fairer set of rules for the international trade system, and greater international aid to allow developing nations to improve health and educational systems so that their populations could climb out of the cycle of poverty.

Globalization was a powerful force, a Representative of Mexico told the Commission, but nonetheless there were 1.2 billion people in the world who lived on less than $ 1 per day; and what was needed was ethical, human globalization. He said there should be better and fairer participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making; an international trade system that met the necessities of poorer nations; a new international financial architecture which freed resources for productive investments; and an effective mechanism for intervention in times of international financial crisis.

A Representative of Malaysia said the mounting power of the global economy meant that international developments or market forces could easily undermine national progress, notwithstanding the fact that a country had sound domestic policies, good governance and the rule of law. He said Malaysia favoured the creation of a mechanism for collecting funds from or imposing levies on rich countries which could then be used for much-needed infrastructure work in developing countries.

Other factors limiting development included health problems, several delegations said.
Ecuador termed the spread of HIV/AIDS a threat to the survival of nations, and pointed out that malaria caused more than 300 million illnesses each year and 1 million deaths, with 90 per cent of the cases occurring in poor countries.

Among non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation said the rising incidence of violence by non-state actors and the response of States to such violence in many underdeveloped regions had led to an increasing waste of resources that was having a devastating impact on realization of the right to development.

Contributing to the debate were Representatives of Japan, the United States, Niger, Saudi Arabia, China, Norway, Thailand, Madagascar, Indonesia, India, Qatar, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Algeria, Malaysia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Nigeria, Pakistan, Latvia, the World Bank, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Bolivia, Paraguay, Albania, Chile, Yemen, Kuwait, Nicaragua, Tunisia, Belarus, and Ethiopia.

The following NGOs spoke: International Association against Torture; International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements; Minority Rights Group International; Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation; American Association of Jurists; World Federation of Trade Unions; European Union of Public Relations; World Federation of Democratic Youth; Centre Europe - Tiers Monde; Franciscans International; Liberation; Centro de Estudios Europeos; International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations; International Institute for Peace; Women’s International Democratic Federation; Youth Study Centre; International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; and the International Indian Treaty Council.

Paraguay spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Commission will meet in closed meeting from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 March. It will reconvene in public meeting at 3 p.m., and is expected over the course of the afternoon to begin discussion of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine.

Statements

MASARU WATANABE (Japan) said his country could not be indifferent to the debate on the right to development, because the country was a developing one until as recently as several decades ago and still retained a vivid memory of those days. In 1945, Japan was in ashes, thoroughly devastated, unemployment was ubiquitous and people were starving. It was from there that Japan started to put all its efforts towards development. After World War II, Japan adopted a new Constitution which guaranteed a whole range of human rights. Laws, mechanisms and institutions were introduced to give substance to fundamental human rights and to promote and protect them effectively.

Successful economic development and human rights were inextricably linked; one was not sustainable without the other. As long as developing countries were doing their utmost to fulfil their responsibility vis-a-vis the right to development, it became extremely important for the international community to extend a helping hand to the efforts of those countries.

GEORGE MOOSE (the United States) said the all-important link between human rights and economic development was sometimes missing from discussions of item 7 on the right to development. Some Governments saw no connection between civil society, political freedom and national development. A Government that sought growth and development without respecting those core rights was unlikely to succeed for very long. Development could not precede human rights; it could only proceed in harmony with human rights. In addition, individual liberty unlocked the creative and entrepreneurial spirit. Protection of private property and the freedom to contract gave individuals the confidence to invest and innovate. Without confidence in the laws that governed them, people simply would not devote their energy and genius to any system. Any Government that hoped to achieve sustainable, long-term growth, therefore, should nurture an atmosphere in which individual talents could flourish.

Government-controlled economies never seemed to work over the long term. There was no substitute for free markets, transparent financial institutions, and respect for the rule of law. That was why US assistance programmes increasingly focused on promoting democracy, good governance, fighting corruption, and developing a free and independent media. Those were vital components of civil society, and development strategies that ignored them ran a strong risk of failure.

ADAMOU SEYDOU (Niger) said combatting poverty was the main pillar of the development efforts of the Government of Niger. It was dedicated to this task. A programme had been undertaken to ensure the right of food, education and health. Niger was a landlocked country that periodically suffered from drought. In 2000, agricultural production fell by 163,000 tons, affecting 4 million of the country’s 10 million people. A special project was therefore undertaken to construct 100 dams.

In Niger, barely one child out of three had the opportunity to attend school because of the lack of an adequate infrastructure. The Government had therefore decided to construct 1,000 classrooms in 2001. Similarly, the Government was trying to ensure that girls and boys had equal access to education. In the health field, the Government had allocated funds for the construction of 1,000 clinics. The health situation in the country was a matter of serious concern.

ABDUL WAHAB ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said realization of the right to development was primarily a collective moral responsibility based on the fundamental principles of cooperation and participation at the international level. While understanding some viewpoints concerning realization of the right to development, one found that, in many cases, it was illogical to make enjoyment of that right conditional on the fulfilment of prerequirements. Saudi Arabia believed in the importance of the development of joint interests and the need for cooperation and solidarity among the members of the international community. It had consistently cooperated with developing countries to which it had been extending development aid on easy terms through numerous channels and in various forms.

Saudi Arabia was also playing an important role in supporting financial institutions for development and specialized development agencies, including international funds, its contribution to which amounted to $ 22 billion. It also believed that there was a need to relieve the burdens of the heavily indebted poor countries.

MOHAMED SALAH DEMBRI, the Chairman/Rapporteur of the Working Group on the right to development, responding to the statement by the delegation of the United States suggesting that the Rapporteur had not mentioned the question of good governance, said that reference to good governance was made on page 40 of his report and in paragraphs 179 to 185. The Rapporteur said the Working Group had conducted its work democratically and that at no time was there any attempt to force consensus.

WANG SHIJIE (China) said that although globalization had brought new opportunities to mankind, its benefits for the people of various countries were far from even, with the gap between the rich and poor widening ever farther. The imbalance of development had become more serious in the world, and the developing countries were confronted with special difficulties in dealing with globalization. In the past decade, the number of least-developed countries had increased from 36 to 48. In the view of the growing interdependence among countries, the realization of the right to development not only bore on the enjoyment of human rights in the developing countries, but also had far-reaching consequences for international peace and prosperity. If nothing was done to narrow the gap between the North and the South, poverty would eventually undermine the overall order of human society. The international community should pay due attention to that issue and take practical action.


In order to realize the right to development, all countries should respect the principle of State sovereignty and equality, recognize the diversified nature of the world, and respect the right of every country to choose its social system and path of development on its own initiative. The international community should also create a favourable international environment for development through various measures such as adjusting the system of international financial institutions.

RONALD NESS (Norway) said the right to development was a fundamental human right that all were entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy. The realization of the right to development depended first and foremost on systematic commitment, nationally and internationally, to the respect and promotion of all human rights. Development and the fight against poverty were to a large extent based on guaranteeing the full enjoyment of all civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. The upcoming declaration of the World Conference against Racism offered opportunities as a concept and framework for poverty reduction and development cooperation. The adoption of the declaration would mark a shift from looking at development cooperation almost as charity to a new and rights-based approach to development and development cooperation.

The beneficiary of the right to development was the human person. The main responsibility for its implementation lay with the State, as was the case for all human rights. The third party in the process of realizing this right was the international community. The international community should support the State in its efforts to implement the right to development and to promote effective development policies. It was important to work together to make the international environment more responsive and conducive to development efforts.

LAXANACHANTORN LAOHAPHAN (Thailand) said the Thai Government was moving to make the concept of the right to development the centrepiece of its national development in the new Millennium. The new Constitution and the current national economic plan emphasized the need to protect and promote human rights and to provide the necessary legal infrastructure and the national mechanisms need to realize the national obligation component of the right to development. Thailand had also put strong emphasis on the full realization and implementation of the right to education and the right to health. It had guaranteed full and almost free access to basic health care and services for all Thai citizens.

In the era of globalization, the crucial task of equipping the peoples of the earth with life's basic necessities to ensure decent standards of living and quality of life required a global agenda with a human face.

MAXIME ZAFERA (Madagascar) said that since recognition by the General Assembly of the right to development in 1986, it had been recognized as an inalienable right. The Vienna Declaration reaffirmed that the right to development was part of a human being's fundamental rights. All must strive to eliminate obstacles -- especially poverty. That was of greatest concern in sub-Saharan Africa. This was a heavy responsibility. It was first and foremost the responsibility of States. And most countries had put elimination of poverty at the top of their priority list.

But as they faced other crises, they could not take on this challenge alone. Help from the international community was essential. Without political peace and security, such fundamental rights could not be realized. Partnerships to combat poverty and to promote sustainable development were being forged. It was important not to neglect other rights, even when implementation of fundamental rights was a priority.

LUCIA H. RUSTAM (Indonesia) said lasting progress towards implementation of the right to development required effective development policies at the national level as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level. Equal emphasis should be given to both the national and international aspects. The concept that the opportunity to exercise this right should be equally available to all nations and, by extrapolation, available equally to all human beings making up these nations, was a noble one. Yet it had not materialized. The unalterable truth was that economic development was not freely accessible to all. The resulting uneven distribution of wealth, within and among countries, would inevitably lead to unstable societies and to strained relations between countries, especially if these disparities were seen to benefit a select few.

Although globalization was causing the world to shrink and its economic systems to follow the same pattern, the gap between developed and developing countries remained unacceptably wide. The righting of this imbalance in order to promote the right to development must therefore become a priority. A number of remedies in this regard were already identified, which included democratization of international financial and monetary institutions, as well as the creation of open, equitable, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial systems.

SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said his country believed that rights were entitlements that required correlated duties, and that fulfilment of the right to development could only be ensured if corresponding obligations were acknowledged at the national and international levels. States had first responsibility, and India believed that democracy and a transparent, accountable Government were critical, while the people of a country had an important watch-dog role to play, as they were the best judges of their needs. Prescriptive norms imposed from outside were counter-productive and contrary to State sovereignty.

Internationally, much more needed to be done; developing countries remained starved of resources needed for development; there also was a need to assess the impact of international economic issues on States -- things such as macro-economic decision-making, poverty, debt burdens, international trade, and the functioning of international financial institutions. India regretted that a consensus outcome had not been possible through the relevant working group to date, but believed there was a good basis for future work and that the mandate of the group and that of the independent expert should be extended. The Office of the High Commissioner also should do more on the right to development, and there should be more clarity in the Office’s operations related to the right to development.

MOHAMED ALMALKI (Qatar) said the right to development adopted by the General Assembly in 1986 stated it was an inalienable human right. The human being, as the instruments of the UN stated, was the object of development, and therefore development needed to be carried out ensuring human dignity. One of the factors for continued development, international peace, would benefit all the peoples of the world. All obstacles to development must be eliminated at all possible levels. There was also a need to implement comprehensive development programmes at all levels.

The gap between the industrial countries and the developing ones was too wide. Globalization had increased marginalization. At a time when the right to development was asserted, the industrialized countries were trying to exploit this right to subject other States to their political and economic wishes. If these States truly believed in human rights, they would not exploit these other States in this way. International cooperation was a need, and it must be promoted to help developing countries solve their social and economic problems. The declaration of the right to development had not been followed up in practical ways by developed countries.

FREDERICO S. DUQUE ESTRADA MEYER (Brazil) said his country had developed several successful programmes in the field of development: one was targeted at promoting more efficient social policies and strengthening the participation of civil society in social initiatives; another provided financial resources to mothers who committed themselves to keeping their children aged 7 to 14 in school; this had proved a very cost-effective initiative and one that had improved the overall quality of life of poor segments of the population. A successful programme to fight HIV/AIDS, including through free distribution of drugs, had kept the rate of infection far below a dire forecast made for Brazil by the World Bank. A Brazilian programme for elimination of child labour had been effective, as had a literacy project that now was being used in other countries with the support of UNESCO.

Internationally, much more had to be done; the right to development would continue to suffer, for example, as long as international trade regimes were not fair to developing countries, as, for example, in limiting access to richer markets for developing-country agricultural products. Intellectual property rules must not undermine basic human rights, as for example, the provision of health services and affordable medicines. Brazil agreed with the independent expert that there should be system for monitoring implementation of the right to development.

GIL-SOU SHIN (the Republic of Korea) said there was a connection between the realization of human rights and economic development. Poverty was a major obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights. Thorough and frank deliberations had helped Korea address this obstacle. Coping with such a difficult issue as the right to development was vital for reaching a balanced outcome based on consensus. Achieving such an outcome would be rewarding to all, no matter how time consuming it might be. Due attention should be paid to the need to take an integrated and holistic approach to the right to development by recognizing the equal contribution to development of the two sets of human rights, civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other.

Ever-deepening globalization of the international economy could be both an opportunity and a challenge in the pursuit of development. Market-led growth and free trade were perceived by many as an efficient vehicle for poverty eradication at the national and international levels. In recent years it had been seen how the global economy worked as an engine of growth for newly emerging economies. Positive aspects such as this must be taken into account when the problems of the international economy were looked at. This perspective allowed a broader, more balanced approach in discussing these problems.

ALEJANDRO NEGRIN (Mexico) said the new Government of Mexico was firmly committed to the right to development, including through social policies carried out in an atmosphere of full respect for democracy. The right to development required various preconditions, and economic development was only one of them. Mexico's anticipated economic growth was set at 4.5 per cent, but in a country where many remained poor, much more was needed; job creation was one aim; equitable Governmental policies was another; attention to persons and groups living in situations of extreme poverty, including indigenous peoples, was another. Programmes had been aimed at enhancing education, health, and access to food; another initiative was intended to increase business opportunities and regional development.

Globalization was a powerful force, but there were 1.2 billion people in the world who lived on less than $ 1 per day; what was needed was ethical, human globalization. There should be better and fairer participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making; an international trade system that met the necessities of developing countries; a new international financial architecture which freed resources for productive investments; and an effective mechanism for intervention in times of international financial crisis.

KHEIREDDINE RAMOUL (Algeria) said the time was more right than ever to forge ahead with a coordinated approach within the United Nations system towards development. This could constitute the basis for international cooperation for combatting poverty and promoting development. The three basic rights -- food, health, and education -- must be realized, or there would not be the enjoyment of any human rights. Because of increased the interdependence of the globalized economy, the capacity of States, particularly in the developing countries, to control their own destinies was limited.

External debt was an important facet in fighting poverty. There was a flagrant denial of the right to development against the Palestinian people. This was in defiance of international law. The humanitarian assistance aimed at helping Palestinian children was taxed by the occupiers. Algeria called for an appropriate reaction from the international community which so far had been lacking. These evasions showed the selectivity in the implementation of human rights around the world.

MOHAMED JOHAR AHMAD JAZRI (Malaysia) said his country recognized that national Governments had the primary responsibility for formulating policies and programmes to give effect to the right to development. However, experience had demonstrated that domestic policies alone were not sufficient to achieve developmental goals. They must be supported by a stable and conducive international environment. Most developing counties were confronted with serious challenges and uncertainties arising from globalization. International developments or market forces could easily undermine overall macroeconomic policies notwithstanding the fact that at the national level, sound domestic policies, good governance and the rule of law were in place. The existence of a positive international regime could not be overemphasized if key development goals were to be realized.

The increasing awareness that concerted effort at the international level was a prerequisite for the realization of the right to development was a step in the right direction. Infrastructure development was a key to promoting development. Malaysia reiterated its suggestion for the creation of suitable mechanism to collect funds from or impose levies on rich countries, which could then be utilized for much-needed infrastructure development in developing countries.

RAFAEL PAREDES-PROANO (Ecuador) said his country supported the emphasis on HIV/AIDS in the report adopted by the High Commissioner's Office. The spread of this illness, which UNDP estimated would kill 34 million people, was a threat to the survival of nations. Ecuador hoped that more efforts would be made to combat the virus. However, there were other epidemics in the developing world which should not be overlooked. In the last UNDP report on poverty, it was revealed that malaria caused more than 300 million sicknesses each year, and 1 million deaths. Ninety per cent of the cases were in poor countries.

Governments must make investments in education so their citizens were aware of such illnesses, but the resources were often lacking depending on the size of a developing country’s external debt. Protection of all human rights in developing countries was dependent on overcoming obstacles. The principles of the right to development should be instilled in the international financial institutions.

FERNANDO LUGRIS (Uruguay) said his country attached great importance to the right to development and its consideration by the Commission. The Vienna Declaration had asserted that the right to development was an inalienable right, as were all other human rights. Uruguay had actively participated in the Working Group, which had made a great progress in shaping guidelines for the right to development. In addition, international financial institutions, United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations had also contributed to the Group. Uruguay was of the opinion that the Working Group should further strive to profoundly analyze the propositions presented by the Independent Expert on the Right to Development. It should also carry out a study on the implementation of initiatives to that end and determine obligations and rights.

Uruguay also emphasized the necessity of collaboration and coordination between the UN agencies, multilateral organizations and bilateral initiatives in the eventual preparation of a Convention on the right to development.

NORA RUIZ DE ANGULO (Costa Rica) said the right to development implied the full implementation of all human rights. However, development was one of the major challenges facing the planet. Much had occurred in terms of promoting civil and political rights in the world. But as long as half the world lived on less than $ 1 a day, the fight for equality would have to continue. Economic and social progress had to be made in all parts of the world. Economic and social progress went hand-in-hand with a peaceful planet. Costa Rica did not have an army, and hence could spend more on health and education. That formula had produced results.

Global development had to be a tool for combatting global poverty. But that could not be the only area where nations intervened. Development opportunities could happen through trade and investment. Costa Rica argued for an equalization of the benefits of globalization. Nations like Costa Rica faced the challenge of developing a financial structure that could help it through difficult times. Small countries did not create financial crises, but they did suffer through them. If financial structures were not established, developing countries would see their chances of economic growth shrink. Poverty would increase and peace would be jeopardized. The developed countries should commit themselves to true implementation of development rights. These should not just be words in the wind of international fora.

P. I. AYEWOH (Nigeria) said it was the cardinal responsibility of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The pursuit of the realization of the right to development at the national level imposed on States the obligation to adopt policies and measures, set priories, allocate resources and in general ensure the existence of an enabling environment. Nigeria commended the Working Group for identifying a number of specific actions that should be implemented at the national level. In addressing the international dimensions of the realization of the right to development, the Working Group had underscored the need for concrete steps based on the commitments made at the Millennium Summit to make the right to development a reality for everyone.

The interdependence of societies in the present-day global village imposed the need for international solidarity and cooperation for the realization of the right to development. There was a need for a bolder approach and new initiatives to address the implementation of important human rights. All actors in the process should demonstrate constructive commitment and genuine will to move forward.

BARRISTER SHAHIDA JAMIL (Pakistan) said it was an inescapable reality that the right to development could not be promoted without addressing the obstacles that existed at the national and international levels. While a State could never relinquish its primary responsibility for adopting policies and measures to promote the realization of the right to development, in an increasingly globalized world, the duty could not be assumed exclusively at the national level. In the wake of globalization, the most daunting challenges faced by the developing countries were to counteract the erosion of their sovereignty and narrowing of their ability to make choices from options in economic, social and cultural policies. These challenges were further compounded by inequitable functioning of the international economic system.

Many developing countries had been marginalized from the benefits of global economic development. Disenchantment with the inadequacy of much needed reform at the international level was growing. While technology and means of communications were bringing people closer together, they had also brought the suppressed and disenchanted people together to fight against the negative consequences of globalization. The uncomfortable reality was that the economic regression in the majority of the developing countries persisted despite their efforts to liberalize, attract investment flows and integrate into the global trading system. There were constraints and vulnerabilities at the national level and an absence of equity in the international financial and economic architecture.

RAYMONDS JANSONS (Latvia) said that while the right to development was a concept that had already been accepted universally, the definition of the right had yet to gain international agreement. Latvia welcomed the work done by the Working Group during the last inter-sessional period. However, Latvia felt that the pace of work of the Working Group demonstrated that a comprehensive conceptual framework was needed to translate the right to development into a clear policy dialogue. It was hoped that the next sessions would result in a broad consensual outcome.

Latvia believed that development should be centred on human rights. The importance of democracy and good governance became more and more evident over time. It was clear that the State should bear the main responsibility for creating conditions favouring the realization of the right to development.


ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS, of the World Bank, said the right to development was the process through which a society managed and assigned rights and obligations over all productive assets, including services. This required country ownership, transparency and inclusion. And it was not for the Bank to force a societal consensus on these matters.

The right to development embodied a debate on equity and, thus, it demanded that it be linked to the process of wealth creation. Otherwise, the right to development remained void of economic meaning. While the right to development would be the milieu through which societies defined the "desirable", economic and financial forces tended to define the "possible." Thus, the Bank's emphasis on trade-offs, affordability and universality, and the importance of incorporating the role of the private sector into the debate.

SAMIR AL-NAMA (Iraq) said that despite its affirmation as an inalienable right at the Vienna World Conference and at the Social Summit, the realization of the right to development was far from being achieved.

Iraq, for its part, had made significant progress in the 1970s and the rate of poverty had decreased. However, because of the war of aggression by the United States and the United Kingdom and the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the situation in Iraq had since worsened considerably, taking the lives of many peoples. The sanctions had affected the Iraqi people since in 1991. Such economic embargoes imposed against Iraq and other Third World countries should be lifted.

MAHSEN EMADI (Iran) said despite the fact that the Vienna Declaration and programme of action reaffirmed that the right to development was a universal and inalienable right, efforts had been made to deny even the existence of such a right or its content, including the definition of its beneficiaries.

Iran continued to believe that the right to development was an integral part of fundamental human rights, and was an issue that should bring countries of the North and South together. To achieve this goal, countries of the North, recognizing unequivocally their obligation to assist the process of development, must show more sensitivity to the needs and requirements of development. Unfortunately, the experience of the Second Working Group, held recently in Geneva, was not encouraging. Concerns had to be felt at the impediments placed in the path of the full realization of the right to development. The slow process in the working group emanated from the lack of a political will on the part of some countries.

HANY SELIM-LABIB (Egypt) said the efforts of the Working Group had led to further conclusions which included the points of view of the participants. Egypt supported the suggestions of the Chairperson and recommended that other countries follow suit.

Many delegations had called for cooperation in matters of human rights; however, the use of selectivity was not acceptable in human rights. Before the Commission was a historic opportunity which might lead to a positive compromise and conclusions that would greatly help developing countries.

FLORENCIA BALLIVIAN DE ROMERO (Bolivia) said that in 1982, Bolivia had a democratic regime. Since that time, there had been several elections which demonstrated its good faith and wish to be part of the international community. Bolivia had signed most of the international human rights treaties. It had joined the World Trade Organization. It had opened its domestic market. In the last 15 years, balance had been maintained, and Bolivia had paid its external debt. It had been cited as a model country. Its fight against drug trafficking had been given a universal stamp of approval because of its success. Bolivia had done its part.


However, despite all this, it had not been able to overcome its underdevelopment, and the gap between Bolivia and the developed world had widened. Today, there was a very strong economic recession. Various sectors of the economy were at a standstill. In recent months, the Government had launched a plan of reactivation, and efforts were being made to eradicate poverty. Despite these efforts, Bolivia felt it was as far as it had ever been from realizing economic and social progress. Someone had not kept their part of the bargain, and it was not Bolivia.

FRANCISCO BARREIRO PERROTTA (Paraguay) said his country recognized the right to development as a universal human right, having a national and international dimension, which required national and international conditions conducive to its full attainment. In order to achieve the right to development, States should effectively cooperate among themselves and create international solidarity.

The right to development required the international community to discharge its obligations, too, so as to allow realization of the right. Since the right to development was an integral part of human rights, a mechanism should be designed to implement it. The international community should provide the necessary technology and financial support t developing countries which, without it, could not fulfil their ambitions for development.

KSENOFON KRISAFI (Albania) said that in realizing the right to development, the role and the responsibility of the State was of the utmost importance. However, efficient and functional international cooperation remained a necessity. Albania aimed at harmonizing these two factors, and had achieved significant results towards development and integration. For example, it had left behind the macroeconomic tensions inherited from the collapse of the economy and the armed conflict in Kosovo, and had achieved stabilization of the internal situation. This had helped the economy enter the path of fast and sustainable development

At the dawn of the new century, Albania had a functional democracy, a new and modern Constitution, tangible economic progress, a free media and a civil society in evolution. The country had completed a three-year programme of reconstruction and stabilization which had been supported by the IMF. For three consecutive years, the annual GDP growth had been at stable levels of 7 to 8 per cent. The level of inflation was approximately 2 per cent, and the internal budgetary deficit was gradually being reduced -- currently fixed at 3.4 per cent of GDP. The privatization process was going ahead with fast and satisfactory rhythms, and public order was being reinstated.

PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) said that the declaration of the right to development was the result of a long process which made it an integral part of human rights. The Vienna Conference had consolidated the right to development as an inalienable and universal human right. It was therefore indispensable to conserve the spirit of Vienna and construct a logical programme for realization of the right

The Working Group had initiated and analyzed the suggestions of the Independent Expert on the form of a Convention on the right to development, and the manner in which it would be implemented. In order to realize the right to development, the international community had a collective responsibility. The Chairperson of the Working Group should be lauded for his efforts and for the progress made by the Group.

MOHAMED SAEED AL-ATTAR (Yemen) said the Working Group, it was hoped, could continue its efforts and achieve positive results to add to those to date. It was clear that there were many problems and difficulties in the path of the right to development; developing countries had immense problems to face. Among them were that development aid had fallen substantially in recent years; rather than the list of least-developed countries decreasing, it was increasing. Yemen was one of those countries, and together with brother countries and friendly countries was pursuing a tripartite development plan. Still the percentage of poor continued to rise for various reasons.

The negative aspects of structural reform which had been felt in many countries because of the strictures of the World Bank and debt burdens and other factors meant there had to be a new relationship between rich and poor nations. There had to be more help, and a greater attempt to address the causes of poverty, rather than the symptoms. There should not just be nice words, but specific actions.

SADIQ M. S. MARAFI (Kuwait) said the right to development was inalienable and extremely important; man was at the centre of development and its main beneficiary, and hence it was necessary to create conditions that ensured that development was extended to all. More also had to be done to ensure peace and security. Kuwait had taken a number of measures to improve the living standards of its citizens and to enhance their human rights; also to ensure their rights to education, decent housing, and health care.

Kuwait was among the major international donors to development projects; it believed in such programmes, provided that countries had the necessary conditions to allow development. The main recipients were Arab countries and developing countries. Kuwait also participated in international fora that dealt with development issues. The report before the Commission did not take into account Kuwait's view on the matter of international sanctions; Kuwait felt that such sanctions against some countries that had violated international law were not violations of the right to development as long as the sanctions were administered properly by the United Nations.

LESTER MEJIA SOLIS (Nicaragua) said Nicaragua fully endorsed what was said by Mexico. The right to development was an inalienable human right. It was a human right whereby all human beings were empowered to take part in this particular process and enjoy the results of it. Nicaragua had been hit by several catastrophes that caused serious economic, social and political problems. But its people wanted to work hard, and today the country was working towards sustainable equity that would benefit future generations. In the current stage of socio-economic and institutional change that the country was experiencing, human rights took priority in the rule of law.

Nicaragua was the most indebted country on the American continent. Its debt in 1999 amounted to 59 per cent of the social spending in the budget. The country had endorsed foreign debt forgiveness. At the same time, the Government had carried through various social programmes, including health, sanitation and water projects. One of the main components was a strong safety net to protect the most vulnerable sectors of society. There was great difficulty in achieving peace and development for all. Everything seemed to indicate that residents would continue to be poor. Growing inequality around the world was the best demonstration that the market was not enough and that there needed to be equitable distribution of resources.

RAOUF CHATTY (Tunisia) said the right to development continued to be debated years after it had been recognized; there were still differences in concept; continuation of the task required further efforts in the working group to identify points of convergence and to recognize with good will the points of disagreement in order to better understand them. Globalization was making the gap between rich and poor nations ever greater, and if responsibility for development was first and foremost that of States, it was clear that an international response was indispensable on such matters as trade, transfer, sharing of technology, and aid. It was a matter of solidarity among nations.

Tunisia's President had recommended at the Millennium Summit that greater attention be given to development, to retiring debt, and to protection of the environment. Tunisia had a deep faith in the solidarity of States and peoples; it had focused its efforts on development, making the human being the centre of all attempts to that end. This approach had enabled it to significantly increase the well-being of its citizens; programmes of the Government were multi-faceted and included micro-credit projects. The working group on the right to development should hold a 10-day session next year, and the mandate of the Independent Expert should be extended.

SERGEI ANOSHKO (Belarus) said there was a need for unity among all human minds to achieve the right to development. Without it, the implementation of theoretical rights was impractical. The destruction of the environment negated the most fundamental right -- the right to life. Belarus had suffered the worst of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The country had welcomed international assistance at the time of the disaster, but as the years went by, such assistance dwindled, and Belarus had to spend up to 25 per cent of its budget to pay for the catastrophe. In the Republic of Belarus, it was indeed necessary to have international and regional cooperation.

Belarus had seen unemployment decline over the last two years, and real income increase. It was doing everything to improve the lives of its citizens. It had a programme of sustainable development.

DANIEL TESHOME (Ethiopia) said implementation of the right to development must be seen from an integrated perspective. One set of rights should not be given priority over others. There was a correlation between development, democracy, human rights and the environment, and also a need for equitable shared growth. The central objective of development was the human person. Democracy, good governance and the full enjoyment of human rights, whether civil and political or economic, social and cultural, were at the same time prerequisites for development in the broad sense of the term. True development required that individuals and groups be able to take an active part in the decision-making process and programmes in their own country.

It was equally important to ensure the participation of developing countries in decision- making on major international economic issues. Structural inequalities in the international trade system, the debt burden, protectionism, deteriorated terms of trade and declining aid flows were challenges to be addressed. The international community should come up with a multi-pronged debt strategy to resolve the external debt problem, which constituted a major impediment to development efforts in many countries. It was also incumbent on the international community to provide additional and predictable resources, as well as to take measures to reduce or eliminate tariffs and unfair trade practices, which undermined the participation of developing countries in the new international trade regime.

ROGER WAREHAM, of the International Association Against Torture, in a joint statement with the December Twelfth Movement International Secretariat, said part of the African strategy to redress its historically coerced underdevelopment had been to demand compensation for the losses sustained from the trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery and colonialism.

The Association noted that Cuba did not simply criticize the obstacles placed by developed countries on the right to development, but provided a model of what should be done. Cuba for decades had trained doctors from developing countries for free. It had now extended that offer to underdeveloped peoples within developed countries. Cuba was providing some 500 full medical scholarships to African, Latino and indigenous peoples in the United States.

PIERRE MIOT, of International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, said that to give the right to development the priority it deserved, poverty had to be addressed. Genuine participation of the people was an important component of successful sustainable development. Eradicating poverty was not just an objective -- it was a challenge for the twenty-first century. In order to overcome poverty, there must be real political will. The international financial institutions and the WTO had their parts to play, but it was up to States to reform them. States also had to take action to foster sustainable development.

Many initiatives had been shown to be effective. Great importance was attached to the work being done in the Working Group, and it was hoped that there would be proper follow-up to the efforts of the group.


CHRIS CHAPMAN, of the Minority Rights Group International, recalled that last July, the Group had published a study on the Afro-descendent community of Cambacua in Paraguay. In the 1950s, the Paraguayan Government had forcibly dispossessed the community of over 90 per cent of the land it was living on. No compensation for the loss of the land had ever been paid to members of the community. As a result of that loss, most of the members of the community had been obliged to give up their traditional occupations as farmers and seek poorly paid work in the capital, Asuncion. Some had left the community altogether.

The Paraguayan State should return the lands occupied by the Cambacua community prior to 1957, or, if that was unfeasible, pay adequate compensation for the loss of the land.

ASHOK K. BEHURIA, of Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, said there was a growing emphasis on adoption of a rights-based approach to development and it had also been recognized that poverty was both a cause and consequence of the violation of human rights, including the right to development. In this connection, the Secretary-General's goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015 had received widespread international acclaim. But it was unfortunate that integration of the right to development in national plans for action for human rights was still a far cry from reality. States, particularly in underdeveloped regions, responding to the process of globalization from highly unequal stages of growth and development, had not yet accorded legal and Constitutional recognition to this right as an inalienable and fundamental human right.

Human rights were interrelated and so were the problems inhibiting their realization. Apart from efforts to improve the socio-economic conditions necessary for observance of human rights, it was necessary to examine the causes of the declining capacities of States to address the problem of poverty and underdevelopment. The rising incidence of violence by non-state actors and the response of the States to such violence in many underdeveloped regions had led to an increasing waste of resources. The rising trend of insurgencies and militancy, generated and promoted by external forces, and in some cases by States, was having a devastating impact on the realization of the right to development. In most cases, economic development itself had been seriously jeopardized by these activities.

ELMANO FREITAS, of American Association of Jurists, said the right to development was in crisis because of the institutional offences against it. In Brazil, the Government did not make efforts to cultivate the image it was given as an economic power ranking tenth or twelfth in the world. According to the World Health Organization, Brazil stood 125th in the world. In matters of literacy, Brazil ranked 76th because of its high rate of illiteracy.

The destruction of rural culture and imposition of new culture had continued, along with the Brazilian policy of forest destruction. Farmers had been discouraged from carrying out their traditional trade because of the policies of international financial institutions and the criminalization of their claims. The negative effects of the process of globalization had damaged the subsistence means of farmers and other poor workers.

SUZANNE KHOREY, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said the right to development presupposed the existence of basic freedoms and an environment conducive to productive human endeavour. While such conditions evolved in most developed nations, many underdeveloped countries were burdened with political systems and societal problems that denied people the opportunity to fully exploit their potential.

How some nations created conditions for development while others merely placed hurdles before their people was best illustrated by case studies -- India and Pakistan. Both became independent at the same time. But while India tenaciously adhered to democratic principles and ensured an environment allowing its people to steadily move along the path of social and economic development, in Pakistan democracy had been like a hyphen linking long spells of military dictatorship. This example was cited to show how rulers who set agendas quite unrelated to the real requirements of their people usurped the right to development. The people of Pakistan needed economic betterment, education, and a sharing in the latest scientific and technological advances which would contribute to the strengthening of the development process.

SAMIRA KABIR, of the European Union of Public Relations, said the right to development might have some meaning in most other countries but not in Afghanistan, where not only had the past been destroyed but the future, as long as the Taliban remained in power, was completely bleak. People who were deprived of their basic rights could not speak about the right to development.

The recent destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan was a criminal act committed by the Taliban. In Kabul, over 80 per cent of the people were unemployed and most Government offices were non-functional. The Taliban were religious students trained in Pakistan. The Taliban regime had fully deprived Afghani women of their rights and the concept of democracy had been eradicated from the country.

ANIS MANSOURI, of World Federation of Democratic Youth, said peasants, as part of the human family, lived from farming to produce food for the life of other human beings, and thus contributed positively to the world. To peasants, farming was more than an industry. It was a way of life. It was the culture, history and livelihood of the largest number of inhabitants of this planet. Peasants and small farmers were the rightful guardians of a rich, diverse and unpolluted environment, and as such, there should be special legislation which enshrined and protected the rights of peasants and small farmers.

Peasants and small farmers had fundamental rights, including the right to life, the right to guard and use natural wealth and resources according to their individual abilities, the right to their agriculture production, the right to consume their produce, the right to market their production and their intellectual property, the right to unite and organize, and the right to self-expression.

MALIK OZDEN, of Centre Europe - Tiers Monde, recalled that the Declaration of the Right to Development was a result of consensus. It was not astonishing that the Independent Expert and some countries sought to define the concept. The mandate of the Expert was not to define the right to development but to submit a study on the state of the its advancement and the manner in which it could be implemented.

The fact that the Independent Expert declared that the Declaration of the Right to Development was not an international instrument would strengthen the position of those who attempted to demolish the universally recognized right to development. The definition of the right to development given by the Expert was incorrect. If development was a process, the right to development was not a process; and his use of the notion of process was excessive. The exact terms of the Declaration should be reaffirmed.

JOHN QUIGLEY, of Franciscans International, said the basic human right to development was an essential part of human nature, and it was a formative part of each persons's individual personality. Development was the base and matrix for all human life, distinguishing humans from other forms of life on the planet. It was universal as each child was born with his or her own right and responsibility to develop. If a person were to live and grow physically for 70 years but refused to develop mentally, emotionally and personally, it would be considered a tragedy.

Within the human family, an operational model of the right to development was seen as care, support, sharing and exchanging geared towards the development of independent persons who were capable of acting together. Without having any formal training in human rights, a mother or father would preserve, promote and protect a child's right to develop. The family, the first social unit, enjoyed both a right and a responsibility to develop, to be itself most completely for its members and within its neighbourhood. A neighbourhood had a similar relationship and right to develop and responsibilities towards the persons in the neighbourhood and within the city; the city had its own set of rights and responsibilities for development; and the region within the State, and the State within the international community.

RUBINA SHAIKH GREENWOOD, of Liberation, said the water situation in Indian Punjab was critical. The region was getting only 25 per cent of the water from its own rivers; and the remainder was being diverted to other regions of India. That diversion had resulted in a shortage in meeting the Indian Punjab's need for irrigation and had forced farmers to dig tube wells and extract ground water beyond its sustainability. The environmental degradation of the region had been the end result, there was ground water depletion, degradation of watersheds, water pollution and salinisation. Further global warming trends would only add to these problems.

The destruction of dams on the Indus to serve the elite had altered both the volume and the course of the river. Pakistani regions were thus confronted with both demographic and ecological disaster due to mismanagement of the river systems.

LAZARO T. MORA SECADE, of Centro de Estudios Europeos, said attaining the right to development meant that an international environment of working together was necessary. Governments needed tools to realize the right to development. It was unacceptable to hear developed countries and the financial institutions impose policies that fostered poverty and exclusion. How was it possible to talk about human rights for all if the issue of external indebtedness was not addressed? This was a why plundering the resources of a developing country was worse than colonization ever was. How was it possible to talk about the right to development without addressing HIV/AIDS?

It was paradoxical that there was so much talk about the right to development when the United States, for 40 years, had maintained a blockade against Cuba, despite the urging of the international community.

GHULAM MOHAMMAD SAFI, of the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said that an area usually neglected during the debate on the right to development was the human person affected by armed conflict and foreign occupation. Though peace was necessary for the development of all areas of society and for survival itself, just and lasting peace was the prerequisite for economic and social development. In the debate, unfortunately, the need for international peace and security did not receive the attention it merited.

The question of peoples in territories under foreign occupation also needed attention. Who was to create conditions propitious for the attainment of the right to development for peoples under occupation? Unless serious attention was paid to such issues, there would always be people who would continue to be denied the fruits of development. That should not be accepted.

MUMTAZ KHAN, of International Institute for Peace, said even though the people of Kashmir lived in a region of considerable poverty, there was some hope that the international community would pay attention to it since it carried a heavy burden for supporting the least privileged regions. When there was talk about the fruits of globalization and the need to bridge the digital divide, there was an essential need to carefully scrutinize presence of infrastructure facilities, Government policies and popular institutions capable of alleviating poverty. Where infrastructure facilities were missing, the international community, especially the IMF and the World Bank, would have to move in. Where existing Governments encouraged discriminatory practices, the international community had to exert pressure. And where popular institutions were curbed through the undemocratic means, a serious effort needed to be made to evolve counter measures.

After Kashmir was divided, some dummy administrative institutions were established, but the people of Gilgit Baltistan were completely deprived of their fundamental rights. This region did not have any representative institutions, or even the presence of non-governmental organizations engaged in any development activity. Eighty-five per cent of the Gilgit Baltistan population was illiterate. For a population of 2 million, there was no university, no medical college and no engineering institutions.

DORA CARCANO, of Women's International Democratic Federation, said that in the year 2000, the world's population had reached 6 billion, with 47 per cent being in Latin America. The Latin American region had now external debt with of over $ 600 billion. The International Monetary Fund was imposing new adjustment measures to be taken by States as a pre-condition to new loans. Inside the countries, meanwhile, social problems such as suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution and beggary continued to expand.

Economic development had been impeded by external factors such economic sanctions imposed against the population. This social injustice against the people of the region should be rectified and their economic rights respected.

JAVIER LABRADA ROSABAL, of the Youth Study Centre, said humanity never before had had this much capacity to create wealth -- and the world had never before had so much poverty, and so great a division between rich and poor, between development and underdevelopment.

The United States of America sought to be a judge of human rights. There could be no talk of development when one out of three people in the Third World lived in poverty; 40,000 children died every day. Cuba managed to maintain development in all spheres. Its efforts had not been only for Cubans -- it had shown its commitment to the international community. Over 2,500 Cuban doctors were living and practising all over the world. Cuba had not been able to do more in terms of development because of the genocidal blockade imposed on it by the United States.

TAHIR MASOOD, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the Indian denial of fundamental rights to Kashmiris was all encompassing and had bludgeoned their fundamental rights, including their right to development. The continuous turmoil in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, as a result of Indian repression, had had a debilitating effect on the economy of Kashmir.

Kashmir, once a paradise on Earth and a major tourist attraction, today was strewn with the ugly presence of 700,000 Indian troops. Economic activity in the valley had come to a dead halt. Living conditions were worse, as was the infrastructure. The valley had faced many winters with freezing temperatures with inadequate power supply. People lacked basic facilities. Like their brethren in the occupied Palestinian territories, Kashmiris were enduring a grinding poverty.

ANTONIO GONZALES, of International Indian Treaty Council, said the right to development for indigenous peoples included by necessity their right to freely determine the processes and forms of development which maintained and strengthened their traditional cultures, and spiritual, social and economic relationships with their lands and ecosystems which provided the basis for their survival. As an example, in the state of Alaska in the United States, the Gwich'in Athabascan, traditional peoples who were dependent on traditional subsistence and relied on the porcupine caribou for their survival and development as a people, were now under threat because the United States Government, led by its new President, had announced that it would aggressively pursue efforts to deregulate environmental procedures to exploit the region known as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

In order to ensure full exercise and recognition of their right to development, indigenous peoples should have formal, meaningful and direct participation in national policy decisions, as well as in relevant debates within the United Nations, its specialized agencies, and international trade and financial bodies.

Right of Reply

A Representative of Paraguay, speaking in right of reply in response to a statement by Minority Rights Group International, said that the country's Constitution stipulated that all citizens were equal and enjoyed the same rights. There was no special privilege provided to certain groups. If there was a problem concerning land, the country's courts could be seized to decide on the matter.



* *** *