Commission on Human Rights begins discussion on the right to development

Commission on Human Rights
MORNING
23 March 2004


Independent Expert, Chairperson-Rapporteur of Working Group
on Right to Development Present Reports



The proposal to create a high-level Task Force to assist the Working Group on the right to development received broad support this morning as the Commission on Human Rights began its consideration of the right to development, hearing addresses by both the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group and the Independent Expert on that issue.

Presenting the report of the Working Group on the right to development, Ibrahim Salama, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the body, stated that among the successes accomplished by the Group during its session, the most fundamental had been the holding of a seminar on global partnership for development.

Mr. Salama also drew attention to the Working Group’s recommendation for the establishment of a Task Force, designed to create the institutional partnership necessary to mainstream the right to development. The Task Force’s guiding principle should be the strengthening of the global partnership for development and it should be structured to comprise high-level representatives from identified trade, finance and development institutions.

Among the Commission members welcoming the proposal to establish the Task Force, the Representative of Pakistan said it constituted the first tentative step out of the confines of conceptualization into the world real action for development. The Representative of the Dominican Republic also supported the proposed task force of the Working Group, adding that her delegation believed that the political will of States was fundamental to the implementation process.

Also addressing the Commission was Arjun Sengupta, Independent Expert on the right to development, who said his reports highlighted the relevance of the right to development framework in the present context of globalization. It was argued that while this process held great promise and opportunity for all human beings in realizing their rights and freedoms, it had to be managed in a manner that benefited all and left no one out.

Development, Mr. Sengupta said, was seen as a comprehensive process of economic, social and cultural development, built on a process of economic growth. Yet, analysis suggested that globalization, for developing countries, had not always resulted in increased economic growth, and where it had, had not always been associated with increased equity and social justice, or resulted in reduced poverty.

Taking part in the interactive debate with the Independent Expert, as concerned countries were the Representatives of Brazil, Argentina and Chile. The Representative of Ireland also participated. Among the issues raised, the Independent Expert acknowledged that poverty reduction was not necessarily the same as redressing disparities of income, but that wealth distribution was a structural problem, as the three Latin American cases showed.

Bertrand Ramcharan, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, thanked Mr. Sengupta for his years of indefatigable work on the right to development. He had superbly brought human rights law and economics into a brilliant synthesis and it had been a pleasure to work with him.

Among those addressing the Commission during the general debate on the right to development were the representatives of Malaysia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Egypt, China, Ireland (on behalf of the European Union), Saudi Arabia, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Chile and the United States.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Commission concluded its general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, hearing addresses by the Representatives of non-governmental organizations including the Transnational Radical Party, the African Canadian Legal Clinic, the Women’s Sports Federation, the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, the Association of World Education, the Colombian Commission of Jurists, the Women’s International Democratic Federation, the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples, France Libertes, the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, the European Roma Rights Center, the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization, the European Union of Public Relations, the Society for Threatened Peoples, the World Peace Council, the International Association against Torture, the December 12th Movement International Secretariat and the World Union for Progressive Judaism.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply this morning was the Representative of Syria.

The Commission will resume its consideration of the right to development at 3 p.m. this afternoon.

Statements on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination

PENELOPE FAULKNER, of the Transnational Radical Party, said her group continued to be concerned about the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities in the Democratic People's Republic of Laos. The repression of members of the minority Christians continued through the suspension of their social rights, imprisonment and threats of assassination. The Laos authorities did not cease to persecute the Hmong minority. In December 2003, 3,000 persons belonging to that group had died of hunger or from the impact of bombings, and about 1,000 had been arrested. The Party was also concerned about discrimination based on religion against members of the United Buddhist Church of Viet Nam. Over more than two decades, the State had persecuted Buddhists because of their adherence to the Church. She urged the Commission to press Viet Nam to cease its policy of religious discrimination and restore the Church's legitimate Item 7


OSCAR BRATHWAITE, of the African Canadian Legal Clinic, said issues such as the continuing legacy on descendants of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, poverty, the criminalisation of Black people, racial profiling, police violence, education rights and media bias reflected the reality of African descendents in Canada, which was one of social exclusion and economic marginalisation. The Special Rapporteur was commended for highlighting the issues relating to the racial discrimination of African Canadians, but a cautionary note on the reliance on the official policy of multiculturalism espoused by the Canadian Government was required. An effective anti-discrimination strategy should include a vigorous anti-racist agenda accompanied by programmes of action designed specifically for African Canadians.

WILDA SPALDING, of the Women's Sports Foundation, said that today, with sadness, one remember the dedicated life of the late High Commissioner on Human Rights who had been deeply committed to combating racism. The Foundation drew the Commission's attention to the importance of sports in the process of eliminating racial discrimination against people of African descent. Sports had a long history of being a form of physical dialogue towards the elimination of racism. Its importance with human rights education could not be understated. Dialogue was the pulse of human rights education. The process of dialogue provided a safe environment for open discussion that would lead to understanding and thus could be achieved amongst people of different nations and races. Over 50 years ago, dialogue had created the foundation that yielded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Dialogue was still at the core that allowed for the continuing education on human rights today.

VERENA GRAF, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, drew attention to some aspects of a subtle multifaceted scheme of arbitrary measures, discrimination, intolerance, intimidation relevant to the agenda item 6 which were incurred by a specific minority -- the Pontians in Turkey. The historical settlement of the Pontians had been for ages in a region now in the northern part of Turkey, a region between Samsun and Trabzon. Thousands had left their poor villages in the last decades for big cities in Turkey or towards Europe. Most of the Pontains were Muslims. All were very much attached to their language, which was ancient Greek, and to their identity of Pontains, while the Turkish authorities, adamant about Turkish nationhood, were resorting to various measures to bar that affirmation of their identity.

JUAN PERLA, of the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventists, said the manifestation of racial and religious discrimination in many societies, sometimes with violence, and always with the denigration of men and women, was gravely disturbing. Racial discrimination was an age-old phenomenon, based on ignorance, fear, estrangement, and false pride. Religious discrimination and intolerance were equally inadmissible. In order to make progress, there was a need to recognize that tolerance was only the beginning. The United Nations, Government authorities, religious communities and non-governmental organizations were urged to continue to combat these immoral forms of discrimination. Any other approach destroyed the heart of the Christian message and the human dignity of all peoples.

DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, said a meaningful analysis of Judeophobia in the Arab/Muslim world required a close look at the recent past. However, it was in the present that the gravest dangers lay, and the Commission, the various United Nations Special Rapporteurs and all the competent United Nations bodies were appealed to speak out now and condemn this specific culture of hate and violence, and to act urgently in promoting education for interfaith understanding and reconciliation.

ANDRES SANCHEZ, of the Colombian Commission of Jurists, said the fight against terrorism had created a situation of discrimination against the vulnerable segments of the Colombian population, including indigenous, ethnic and racial minorities who were considered as political opponents. The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination had also affirmed that situation and had suggested that Colombia needed intercultural dialogue in order to resolve the problem of peace and security in the country, and to get rid of the hostility between the combating parties. The legitimate fight against terrorism should not generate discrimination, exclusion and repression. On the pretext of State security, the army had been stigmatising members of the indigenous communities. The building of an egalitarian and democratic society should be initiated through dialogue among the different groups of the society.

SANDRA AGUILA, of the Women’s International Democratic Federation, said that racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia were the direct offspring of war, conquest and exploitation of the weak by the strong. It had become necessary to create a more diverse and multi-cultural world, but it was the people of the Third World that had become the main targets of racism. The colour of one’s skin had a direct effect on access to modern scientific developments in education and health. The warlike actions of the United States in the so-called war against terrorism had exacerbated the situation, as had the construction of the Wall in Palestine. The end of such actions was demanded.

ODILE FAGETTE , of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said many high-level political authorities had underlined that racism continued to be a threat in the lives of many people in many countries. However, they still should convince the world of their actions and the measures they had taken in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. Racism had spread its influence, including in the lower class of the population, in education and culture, which needed efforts in bringing remedies to such infection. The Movement believed that social and cultural crisis, social disparities among individuals and regions of the world were the sources for the contemporary racism and racial discrimination. The events following the Durban Conference had aggravated that situation. States should endeavour to close the gaps of inequalities among individuals and nations.

PIRIS DINDAR ZEBARI, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand,, said that on 16 March 2004, the Kurdish people in Iraq had commemorated the sixteenth anniversary of one of the most brutal mass killing attacks ever conducted in modern history. The former regime had killed 5,000 civilians, including women and children, and injured 20,000 others. Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurdish civilians in the town of Halabja south east of Suleimaniya City in the Iraqi Kurdish Region. The former Government was responsible for starting an eight-year-long war with Iran in 1980; the arrest and disappearance of more than 8,000 innocent civilians from the Barzani tribe alone in 1983; and the invasion of Kuwait, among other things.

LES MALEZER, of the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said since 1998 Australia had been in breach of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination because, inter alia, the Government, through legislation, treated Aboriginal title to land as a lesser title than non-Indigenous title. Despite renewed global concern for the elimination of racial discrimination, in Australia the known racism against the Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples continued unabated. Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples was real; it was endemic, almost expected. If elimination of racial discrimination required the return of territories and resources, then it appeared that some, perhaps many States were prepared to sacrifice the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Commission was called upon to emphasise the elimination of this form of discrimination.

CRISTI MIHALACHE, of the European Roma Rights Centre, said segregation on the basis of race, national origin, ethnicity or any other ground violated human dignity and equality, principles that lay at the core of the international human rights protection mechanisms. The efforts to combat racial segregation were particularly important for Roma in Europe as there was a strong anti-Romani sentiment currently in Europe, which frequently resulted in egregious harms, including enforced separation based on race, particularly in the field of education, housing and health care. The Commission was called upon, among other things, to urge Member States to proactively engage in eliminating the practice of segregation of the Roma within their territories, inter alia through legislation, policies and plans of action.

MASOOMA ALI, of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization, said it was important to identify the root causes of racism as a form of social consciousness and its conversion into the practice, or even the policy of racial discrimination. Racism had acquired a new lease on life with the onset of modern colonialism. Poverty and educational backwardness combined to keep racism alive. The situation called for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to set up a deadline for stopping practices that promoted continued racial discrimination, and discrimination on other grounds such as religion and ethnicity, and to establish a special committee to monitor progress on ending such discrimination.

NIRUPMA JAIMINI, of the European Union of Public Relations, said the creation of the global family remained an unfulfilled ambition for the international community. Despite all the progress mankind had achieved in diverse fields, the scourge of intolerance and discrimination remained a major obstacle in the endeavour to achieve ever higher levels of development. What was being witnessed was a fracturing of the human body that showed little sign of healing, with the war on terrorism increasingly perceived as a war between faiths. Society’s leaders, political activists, educationalists and those who preached the Gospel of different religions needed to realize that the deliverance of the human race lay in the creation of structures and environments where, from birth, each child was only taught about the oneness of mankind, irrespective of differences of colour, creed, race, or faith.

CORINA BOSSHARD, of the Society for Threatened Peoples, said two million people – 10 per cent of Syrians – were Kurds. Officially they had no cultural rights; among other discrimination, there was no school education available in the Kurdish language and the establishment of private schools was forbidden. Moreover, Kurdish names were not registered. More than 200,000 Kurds had been declared stateless. After a recent soccer match, violence had broken out in the Kurdish regions of Syria in which at least nine people were killed by Syrian security forces. The Society remained extremely concerned about the further development of the region and requested that the Commission remind the Government of Syria of its obligations as a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, appeal to the Government to assure the right of Kurds to exercise their cultural rights and to end the persecution of the Kurds, among other actions.

BRAULIO BORIS CASTILLO BARROSO, of the World Peace Council, said the institutionalization of violations of human rights had taken place in many areas since 11 September with the enactment of racist laws, such as the Patriot Law in the United States which undermined the law of habeas corpus. Despite the refusal by the US population of the Patriot Law, a new law, called Patriot Law II was enacted, allowing the Department of Justice to arrest and deport foreigners for no reason. In Guatanamo, foreigners were held without trial, and it was an international prison, against the will of the Cuban people. The US Visit Programme had extra-territorial impact against foreigners, who were subjected to a rigorous check with suspect results. The Afro-Americans, Latin Americans and other ethnic groups were the victims of intolerance, racism and segregation, including violence by the police. The Commission should condemn this approach and create a Special Rapporteur to provide follow-up on these matters.

ROGER WANEHAN, of the International Association against Torture, said that racism could not be defeated unless it was understood as an ideology developed to justify inhumane traffic in African human beings for the profit and benefit of Europe and its settler colonies. Now, nearly three years after the World Conference in Durban, South Africa, little progress had been witnessed. To understand that lack of real progress, the role and practice of the United States must be examined. The United States was a country that remained in denial about its bloody racist history and present practice. The presence of a few Black faces in high profile government places could not change the reality facing the majority of African people in the United States.

OMOWALE CLAY, of December Twelfth Movement International Secretariat, said Black people, ex-slaves, from the United States, were the direct historical result of the greatest crime committed against humanity and civil society - the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The uniqueness of their situation was further highlighted by the fact that they resided within the boundaries of the World’s only superpower; a power directly extracted from the long human history of North American Slavery, greed, injustices and war. The violation of the human rights of Black people in the United States merged with the injustices committed against a country like Zimbabwe. It was hoped that today and tomorrow the Commission would play a legitimate role in assisting this era in going forward by utilizing its entire means to implement and strengthen the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action.

FRANÇOIS A. GARAÏ, of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that religions were being manipulated, and thus, often defamed. Another alarming phenomenon was the deliberate wish on the part of certain officials, including religious officials, to keep individuals dependent and thus to shift the blame for actions to others and create a culture of resentment. Such logic led to the creation of a culture of resentment, whose only solution was to do away with the “other”. It was to be hoped that this was the last time it would need to be recalled that no invocation of religion should be used to justify murder. All religions and religious beliefs should be respected. All defamation of religions should be condemned.

Right of Reply

AYMAN RAAD (Syria), in a right to reply, said with regard to the statement of the Society for Threatened Peoples, that the situation in which religious and ethnic groups were living in Syria was unparalleled, since these minorities were part of the social fabric. Some organizations were not happy to see peaceful coexistence, and were trying to destabilize the situation, with the aim of undermining public order. This was not allowed by the Syrian authorities. This organization, which had just taken the floor, was trying to incite racial hatred in Syria, while the country was proud of the coexistence between different religions, and of the harmony prevailing in it. Syria would not allow its security to be undermined by this organization, which should try to speak with more credibility. The information given was unfounded and unverified.

Documents on the Right to Development

As it begins its consideration of the right to development, the Commission has
before it a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Right to Development (E/CN.4/2004/22), which contains a summary of the activities undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner, separately or jointly with others, with regard to the implementation of the right to development. Particular importance is placed on those activities, which relate to right to development issues identified in General Assembly and Commission resolutions, as well as in conclusions contained in the report of the Open-Ended Working Group on the right to development on its third session.

In regard of the implementation of resolutions, the focus issues include, among others, the priorities identified in the Millennium Development Goals such as poverty, globalization and international economic and financial issues, the role and rights of women, the rights of the child and democracy, good governance and the rule of law. The report also details activities with regard to interagency cooperation within the United Nations system on the right to development.

There is also a report of the Working Group on the right to development on its fifth session (Geneva, 11-20 February 2004) (E/CN.4/2004/23), which details the organization of the session and provides a summary of the proceedings, including consideration of the ideas and proposals raised at the high-level seminar on the right to development, of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and of the reports of the Independent Expert on the right to development, among other initiatives.

Among the conclusions and recommendations made within the report, the Working Group agrees on the importance of establishing partnerships, within the framework of the Working Group, between the Commission on Human Rights and United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, multilateral financial and development institutions and the World Trade Organization for the implementation of the right to development. The Group’s focus and its follow-up would be placed upon mainstreaming and implementation of the right to development. It also recommends to the Commission the establishment of a high-level task force on the implementation of the right to development, whose objective would be to assist the Working Group in fulfilling its mandate and whose guiding principle should be strengthening global partnership for development.

The is also a note by the secretariat on the right to development (E/CN.4/2004/116), in which the Secretary-General draws the attention of delegations to document E/CN.4/2004/22, containing the annual report of the High Commissioner, in response to the request of the General Assembly made in resolution 58/172 to submit a report to the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session and an interim report to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixtieth session on the implementation of the resolution, including efforts undertaken at the national, regional and international levels in the promotion and realization of the right to development.

Presentation of Report by Chairperson of the Working Group on Right to Development

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Right to Development, introducing his report on the fifth session of the Group, said that there had been a political will among countries to move ahead, even when the Group had had very heated debates. The Group's success was based on the agreement made in the session. The Group resisted the temptation of definitions; it did its best to shift its debate from generalities to specifics, from rhetoric to concrete, and from theoretical to implementation. But the most fundamental reason for its success was the holding of the seminar on global partnership for development. During the seminar, the Group listened to competent and experienced people and it interacted with them in a very useful debate.

As to the feature, the Group agreed to establish a new approach and methodology. A striking feature of the seminar in the Working Group was that it reflected an emerging consensus between States, development agencies and financial and trade institutions to strengthen the global partnership for development, taking into account the principles of accountability, non-discrimination, equality, the rule of law, good governance at all levels and international cooperation. Those were attempts to integrate human rights in the activities and programmes while contributing to the promotion of the right to development. There was also a need for a structural and multi-disciplinary dialogue on a continuous basis between UN agencies and multilateral financial and development institutions to find ways to the implementation of the right to development.

With regard to the proposal on the Task Force, he said that it was conceived to create the institutional partnership necessary to mainstream the right to development. Its guiding principle should be the strengthening of the global partnership for development; and it would comprise high-level representatives from the identified trade, finance and development institutions.

RAJMAH HUSSAIN (Malaysia), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the Declaration on the Right to Development highlighted that “States had the duty to cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development”. In this connection, there was hope that the High Level Task Force on the implementation of the right to development would generate a committed strategic partnership between friends and allies of the right to development to extend the fruits of globalization to the poor and the marginalized. There was a need for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to adopt a more analytical approach in his report that developed appropriate linkages between the substantive outcomes of the major United Nations summits and conferences in the economic and social fields and the right to development. The High Commissioner should also provide an overall assessment on the progress of the implementation of this right.

OMAR SHALABI (Egypt) said the right to development was an ongoing effort in which all must participate at both the national and international levels. It was important to create favourable conditions at both levels, which meant that States must make efforts, including the adoption of policies and procedures in the national sphere to foster favourable conditions for development. Moreover, the implementation of this right could not be viewed in isolation from the international climate. Globalization had had adverse effects on national economies, especially those of developing countries. A global partnership should be developed and States should accept their international responsibilities when negotiating economic agreements. A new global order based upon order, equity, transparency and non-discrimination should be established.

Furthermore, he said, the international community should not forget the necessity of aiding developing countries in bringing about the development of their peoples. The international community should take advantage of every opportunity to promote the right to development, including through establishing a security network to protect developing countries from globalization, among other mechanisms. Finally, the importance of international cooperation was underscored with respect to achieving expected results in regard of the right to development. That right was not limited to the establishment of a relationship between a donor and a developing country alone, but included the cooperation of all actors to facilitate development.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said the right to development was an inalienable human right. Regrettably, the benefits of globalization had yet to be globalized. Most of the developing countries, including least developed countries, were becoming more and more marginalized in the process and the basic right to survival was under threat. States bore the primary responsibility for the realization of the right to development. Every State should create favourable conditions, both at the national and international level, for its people to actively participate in and benefit from the process of development. Any efforts in reducing poverty should aim at sustained economic growth. Development was multi-dimensional; it was more than just double-digit growth rate. Unless social and environmental dimensions were addressed in an integrated manner, economic growth itself could not be sustained over the long run. Development should be human centred. Due regard should be given to the different levels and stages of development in different countries when implementing the right to development. At the same time, it was highly necessary to create an enabling environment at the international level. A fair, equitable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system and effective participation in international decision-making, which embodies international good governance and democracy was indispensable for developing countries to realize the right to development.

BRIAN CAHALAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that it was a new stage of the debate on the right to development, and it was hoped that the constructive spirit and consensus approach achieved in the Working Group would be the basis for consultations at this session of the Commission and in the future. Effective international cooperation and development policies at the national level were central for the realization of the right to development. While recognizing the duty of States to cooperate internationally in order to realize all human rights and fundamental freedoms, the voluntary nature of commitments and partnerships at the international level was needed in the common efforts to realize the right to development. Core principles such as equality, equity, non-discrimination, transparency, accountability, participation and international cooperation, including partnership and commitments, were important for the realization of the right to development. The right to development should have specific regard to the rights of women, and a gender perspective should be applied as a cross-cutting issue; the rights of the child should be integrated in all policies and programmes. Each country had the primary responsibility for its own economic and social development. This could be complemented, in a mutually reinforcing way by the international community, especially in the case of poor and least developed countries. Policy responses should be country and/or situation specific.

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said as in the case of other rights, the state of inertia that had impeded the realization of the right to development in past years undoubtedly reflected a lack of the political will required for its realization. More specifically, historical experience had shown that development which was not based on respect for human rights was doomed to failure, and that human rights would remain illusory as long as the economic and social dimensions of development were neglected. For development to be comprehensive, there should be interaction between all its aspects. This was what the concept of development really meant. Full realization of the right to development was the best way to ensure the realization of all human rights. To achieve this goal, sincere intentions were indispensable. The ongoing dialogue and discussion on this question, which had proceeded in phases ranging from inertia to modes of progress, reflected a single inescapable fact, namely the existence of a crisis in regard to the realization of this right. This in itself constituted discrimination between human rights in their comprehensive and interdependent sense. At the same time, unconditional support should be extended to the developing and least developed countries which, although suffering from financial and social problems, were unquestionably rich in cultural values and principles. Greater concern should be shown for the destinies of the peoples of the Third World.

GLADYS JOSEFINA AQUINO (Dominican Republic), said her country attached great importance to the right to development because of the fact that the implementation of such a right world allow many people to change their quality of lives. Her delegation supported the outcome of the seminar on global partnership for development organized by the fifth session of the Working Group, whose main principles were to bring together States, development agencies and financial and trade institutions. The delegation also supported the proposed task force of the Working Group for the promotion of the right to development. In her delegation's views, the political will of States was fundamental to the implementation process of the right to development. A genuine dialogue between the development institutions and States. The process of the right to development needed a serious responsibility from the States. The international cooperation was an integral part of the right to development, and States should be willing to do so. Trade played an important part in the development of the developing countries. The developed countries should treat the developing countries fairly in their effort to strengthen international trade.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said the proposed high-level Task Force constituted a first tentative step out of the confines of conceptualization into the world of real action. In reality, economic regression in a majority of countries persisted, despite efforts to liberalise, attract investment flows and integrate in the global trading system. The constraints and vulnerabilities at the national level were a result of imbalances and the absence of equity in international economic relations. These imbalances were unsustainable. Recent events had proved that the relationship should be extended to include security. In a world united in the war against terrorism, pervasive poverty and underdevelopment should be identified as a common enemy that needed to be combated in all its forms and manifestations in the interest of durable peace and security. The right to development owed its genesis to the historical wrongs committed in the wake of lopsided development; and the prevailing international economic environment did not bode well for the realization of this inalienable right. In fact, it circumscribed the ability of countries to create a favourable environment for its realization. A legally binding instrument would lend the rightful recognition to the right to development as an integral part of fundamental human rights.

JORGE FERRER RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said there was concern for the attempts by developed countries to redefine the right to development as a simple individual right and as a utopian hope for the future. What the developed countries were after was introducing the notion of progressivity, which had hitherto served as an excuse to put off indefinitely the realization of the economic, social and cultural rights of peoples. International cooperation, as an inescapable duty and obligation, and the need for an international order conducive to the realization of all human rights, which the developed countries were now trying to deny, were not only political duties and obligations, but Common Law obligations. In their rhetoric, wealthy countries emphasized constantly their alleged concerns and commitments with human rights, conflict prevention and poverty reduction in the world, however, these concerns, like others, were fraught with demagogy, deceit and double standards. The most serious and immediate dangers haunting the right to development, in addition to the persistence of the unjust, immoral, unsustainable and unequal current international order were wars. Without peace, development was not possible, and without development there would be no peace.

Presentation of Reports of Independent Expert on the Right to Development

ARJUN K. SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on the Right to Development, said his reports highlighted the relevance of the right to development framework in the present context of globalization. It was argued that while this process held great promises and opportunities for all human beings in realizing their rights and freedoms, it had to be managed in a manner that benefited all and left no one out.

It was necessary now to concentrate on the nature, the design and mechanism of development policy, which was recognized as the obligation corresponding to the right to development, although the debate about the conceptual, philosophical and legal problems around the notion of the right to development had not yet been settled. Development was regarded as a comprehensive process of economic, social and cultural development, built on a process of economic growth, with expanding output and employment, institutional transformation and technological progress. The outcomes of that process were the realization of all the human rights and fundamental freedoms that had been internationally recognized. But the process itself also had to be carried out in a manner consistent with human rights standards.

The report on country studies on the implementation of the right to development were based on country missions of the Independent Expert to Argentina, Chile and Brazil, three countries that represented contrasting experiences of implementing a similar liberal model of economic reforms, and yet with different outcomes. The countries had benefited from economic growth in terms of income and employment growth and reduction in poverty levels, however, the performance could not be sustained for long, particularly in the case of Argentina, and to a lesser extent, Brazil. In the case of Chile, the growth was sustained over a longer period with a result that not only included rapid reduction in poverty but also all-round improvement in major social sector development indicators.

Analysis suggested that globalization, for developing countries, had not always resulted in increased economic growth, and where it had, had not always been associated with increased equity and social justice, or resulted in reduced poverty. Through all these concrete studies it should be possible to demonstrate that there were development policies which could use the efficiency-promoting and growth-producing liberal market process, and complement its specific rights-based policies to create an enabling international environment and country-specific framework for inclusive economic growth for realizing the right to development as a process of realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile), speaking as a concerned country, said that in the context of the case studies carried out by the Independent Expert on the development of individual States contained within his report, Chile welcomed his highlighting of the interrelation between national and international processes in implementing the right to development. Chile’s success in the context of development reflected the consistent emphasis placed upon national growth in equality, carried out through social policies aimed at increasing public health, education and living standards, among other factors. The Government had, since 1990, adopted a national development strategy, whose principle objectives included respect for macroeconomic concerns as well as improvement in the quality of life, including through overcoming poverty and other forms of exclusion.

The State had been active in social development, he acknowledged. The Government felt that action in social policy was essential to the development of human capital. As noted by the Independent Expert, the reduction of poverty in Chile by 50 per cent within 11 years had been made possible by sustained economic growth combined with social programmes promoting equity and equality of opportunity. Steps had been taken to implement equality based programmes, and women, children, members of the indigenous population, the disabled and the aged had been identified as needing special attention. Finally, in regard of the interrelationship between national and international development processes, it was agreed that each State retained the primary responsibility for development. Yet, there was a responsibility of the international community to support national efforts with regard to the right to development and to realize that development could take diverse forms.

ANTONIO CARLOS DO NASCIMIENTO PEDRO (Brazil), speaking as a concerned country, said the Expert had done many things in Brazil and he had an extraordinary capacity for summarizing, in 14 paragraphs, some of the complexities of the national situation, including problems such as poverty and violence. However, Brazil’s Government was determined and committed to pursuing the social programme. The right to development went well beyond the discussion of mere economic issues, but was far broader and not so one-dimensional. Brazil and the Expert both emphasized this. Brazil was focusing on this matter from a rights-based approach, and would always be open to furthering concrete achievements in discussions and implementation of concrete measures for furthering the right to development. The Brazilian Government had become ever more active in this field, and was convinced that international mobilization was necessary at the global level to achieve the eradication of poverty and the achievement of this right.

The impact of resources for social programmes and that of structural impact policies was significant. International cooperation was essential. Brazil had always repeated and maintained this not only in terms of development assistance, but over and above this it was necessary to maintain international dialogue with the main countries concerned. The visit of the Expert was welcomed, as the dialogue with the essential tools of the Commission provided an outside view, offering alternatives and suggestions, and it was in this spirit that the conclusions of the Expert were accepted. The question of social spending as an investment was of particular interest, and was a suggestion that required further thought and consideration.

FEDERICO VILEGAS BELTRAN (Argentina), speaking as a concerned country, said that the right to development was among the nucleus of the Argentinean overall development policy. The crisis in December 2001 had plunged the population and the country into poverty, and the rate of extreme poverty affecting the population had reached 29.5 per cent. The crisis mainly affected the vulnerable groups of the population, whose situation had already been precarious. The rate of unemployment had also gone high with the real consequences that affected the whole families. The Government had, however, taken measures to repair some of the damages caused to the Argentinean economy. Despite the serious economic and social crisis still persisting in the country, the Government had taken measures to support the population as a whole. The crisis had impacted on the living conditions of the people, including on the enjoyment of their human rights. The adverse consequence of the crisis had been felt by the population as a whole and the cooperation of the international financial institutions was deemed important in Argentina's efforts to tackle the problem and to bring solutions to the crisis.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile), speaking as a concerned country, said the Independent Expert had justly referred to the continuing problems of distribution of wealth in Chile. The problem itself was linked to the historical background of a number of countries. This remained an issue of continued concern for the Government, which was pursuing all possible paths to redress it.

. BRIAN CAHALAN (Ireland), speaking as part of the interactive segment, asked several questions, including whether a distinction needed to be made between policies on poverty reduction and income increasing. Also, with regard to missions to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, further information was required, and the views of the Independent Expert as to how to ensure that social sector spending benefited the poorest was asked for.

ARJUN K. SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on Right to Development, responded by saying that these issues required extensive discussion. With regard to poverty reduction, this was not necessarily the same as redressing disparities of income. These three Latin American cases were perfect examples of that. Wealth distribution was a structural problem. The only question was that it became a rather long procedure. He had tried to point out the possibilities of thinking about some policies of asset redistribution, for example in the context of micro-finance that targeted the groups that were perennially at the poor state due to income distribution. In all the three countries, there were certain specific social characteristics of income distribution that needed to be addressed in a long-term manner.

With regard to the point made by Brazil on the question of social sector spending and the fiscal problem, the right to development was not contrary to the neo-liberal model, but required complementary policies to this. The way to build up social sector spending was to look at it from a point of view other than that of pure consumption. Social sector spending would have returns over a certain period of time in a non-tangible manner for the economy as a whole, and this was where international cooperation became important, as it should promote this as a form of investment for which provisions should be made.

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed his appreciation of Mr. Sengupta’s years of indefatigable work on the right to development. He had superbly brought human rights law and economics into a brilliant synthesis. It had been a pleasure to work with him. The acting High Commissioner and his colleagues thanked the Independent Expert and looked forward to continued work with him in the future and to drawing upon his experience.



Continued General Debate on the Right to Development

TAMALA LONGABERGER (United States) said that development was an economic phenomenon, a measurement of nation States. Yet States did not have rights, people did – States had responsibilities to their peoples. Thus, the discussion should be focused upon each person’s right to development, which, in the United States, began early with good health, good nutrition, a safe community and a safe home. Individual development continued through the person’s education, including the right to free elementary education for all, enshrined within the Universal Declaration. And the principle that underlined access to education extended to the business world, where a free market allowed new ideas to compete with old ones.

The United States was a developed country, she continued, but not because of some ephemeral right to development. It was developed because the country’s Constitution and laws protected the rights of its citizens to compete in a free market and to reap the benefits of their hard work. Every person in the world should have the same opportunity to make a better life for her/himself; Governments should work to protect that right and to create an environment where working people thrived. Yet, the United States also understood that some countries, ravaged by civil war or other catastrophes, needed development assistance to lay the foundations of their education, health and basic infrastructure and thus it gave generously to UNDP, UNICEF and other United Nations agencies. However, simply giving money to the poor and disadvantaged was insufficient; it was also important to identify those countries that were helping, not hindering, the economic development of their people.




* *** *