PRESS CONFERENCE ON PREPARATIONS FOR SPECIAL ASSEMBLY SESSION ON OUTCOME OF 1995 SOCIAL SUMMIT

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE ON PREPARATIONS FOR SPECIAL ASSEMBLY SESSION ON OUTCOME OF 1995 SOCIAL SUMMIT

Seven key issues had kept the Commission for Social Development negotiating into the night during its recent thirty-eighth session, the Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, John Langmore, told correspondents at a press conference at Headquarters this morning. Those issues were the nature of globalization, the role of the State vis-à-vis the private sector, the treatment of migrants, the role of the family, official development assistance (ODA), how to treat debt and how to deal with unilateral measures that were not in accordance with international law.

Correspondents were also briefed by one of the Commission's Vice-Chairmen: Luis Fernando Carranza-Cifuentes (Guatemala) and by Didier Le Bret (France) and Asith Bhatta'charjee (India).

[Since 8 February, the Commission for Social Development has been negotiating a document that will be its contribution to an upcoming special session of the General Assembly to review efforts to implement the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995) and identify further initiatives. The Commission will contribute a review and appraisal of efforts for the world gathering, which will be held in Geneva from 26-30 June.]

Mr. Carranza-Cifuentes said the years since the Social Summit had brought progress, but much remained to be done. One of the Summit's primary achievements was that it had led to the policy shift, whereby the human being was placed at the centre of development efforts. There had also been successes in measures to eradicate poverty. But a number of external forces impeded achievement of the Copenhagen goals, including the processes of globalization, and some countries' lack of resources and infrastructure for providing services such as medical care and education. There was need to improve economic situations and to develop innovative approaches to overcome forces that impeded development, including, in some cases, cultural elements.

Mr. Langmore said that, based on reports received from about 80 countries, a thorough evaluation of results had been developed and presented in the Secretary-General's comprehensive report on the implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development (document A/AC.253/13-E/CN.5/2000/2). It showed that each of those countries, and the international community as a whole, were giving more attention to social development issues, including poverty eradication, employment growth and social integration.

The next stage of discussion for the preparatory committee for the special session would centre on new initiatives, he said. As part of this process, the first preparatory committee session had commissioned 25 papers from within the United Nations system suggesting initiatives to address poverty, unemployment and other issues central to the goals of social development. The compilation of

Special session Press Conference - 2 - 25 February 2000

summaries and proposals was probably the most effective piece of cooperation within the United Nations system of the past decade. It drew on the expertise of about 15 agencies, each of which prepared reports on major topics and presented concrete proposals for action. These would be the basis for the remaining negotiations leading to Geneva.

Mr. Le Bret said Member States and the United Nations system had responsibility to really implement the outcome of the Social Summit, which had been the largest gathering of world leaders, with 170 heads of State and government in attendance. Now the Commission had almost completed its contribution document, which was the review and appraisal of 189 Member States on what had been achieved by Copenhagen. The document presented a balanced picture of what had been achieved.

Nothing less than the credibility of the entire United Nations would be at stake in Geneva, he said. To maintain credibility, the United Nations must bring to Geneva concrete initiatives that would help social development goals become more of a reality than they were now. If the right initiatives were not found, the United Nations would lose credibility, particularly since other entities were working hard, including the World Bank. The statement made by the representative of the World Bank during the Commission for Social Development was strikingly similar to that of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), he noted.

Geneva would provide the opportunity to discuss social issues without generating fears -- justified or not -- among developing countries, he said. There were different ways to tackle social issues, and he hoped the Geneva session would start a real dialogue, not one cloaked in conditionalities.

Mr. Bhatta'charjee said one could view the progress achieved to date as a glass half empty or half full and he would focus on the former. The poverty situation had gotten a little worse. The international trading order, which provided opportunities for income for developing countries, was unequal and was becoming more so. International trade was one way a country provided resources for social development and economic growth, particularly in a globalizing world where barriers were being reduced. But if measures prevented products or factors from finding their "legitimate parking areas", the world would always be divided between rich and poor. Opportunities for income for developing countries were not increasing at the rate at which poverty and social development issues had to be tackled.

A correspondent said it was Member States' credibility -- not that of the United Nations -- that was at stake in Geneva. Countries spoke of trade liberalization but maintained trade barriers and wasted money on arms. Those realities should be addressed before demands were placed on the United Nations.

Mr. Le Bret said discrepancies between commitments and achievements were not just due to a lack of political will -- there were many factors involved. Politicians must respond to their constituencies. Member States were fully aware of the realities, but domestic factors were not always in line with

Special session Press Conference - 3 - 25 February 2000

international commitments. For example, the international community was focusing on debt relief, but budgetary constraints meant that money for this would come from funds that had been dedicated to ODA.

Mr. Langmore added that the draft of new initiatives currently being negotiated included a section on increasing access for the products of developing countries, and the reduction of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. It would be interesting to see what happened to that section during negotiations.

Asked what lessons had been learned since Copenhagen and what new initiatives were expected, Mr. Carranza-Cifuentes said that the negative side of globalization was one of the impediments to achieving social development. One primary lesson from the past five years was that the informal economy was extremely significant in size and effect, and must be taken into account. Regarding resource mobilization, in countries where funds were scarce, policies must be implemented to get resources from domestic sources as well as externally. Those were some of the lessons learned so far.

Mr. Langmore said two countries had had major achievements in reducing poverty since 1995: China and Ireland. Both had experienced rapid economic growth while increasing the range and effectiveness of their social policies. But many other countries had experienced little economic growth, internal conflicts or international wars, spread of HIV/AIDS and a lack of resources. There were preconditions for poverty reduction, he said.

A correspondent asked whether wealthy nations were calling for free trade. Mr. Bhatta'charjee said developed countries spoke of free trade, but according to the 1999 trade and development report issued by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), they were implementing protectionist measures, including non-tariff barriers on trade and conditionalities that restricted the flow of goods from developing to developed countries. Also, developed countries used bargaining power to keep the terms of trade disadvantageous to developing countries. Internally, much had to be done in terms of fiscal reform and better tax collection. But, in an increasingly interdependent world, there should be a level playing field or else developing countries would be marginalized.

* *** *