COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS STARTS DEBATE ON RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 26 March (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights started this morning its debate on the right to development, hearing statements from the Independent Expert on the right to development, the
Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the right to development and from government representatives who stressed that despite the fact that the right to development had been recognized as a universal and inalienable right, there still remained numerous difficulties on the path to its realization.

A number of speakers pointed out that many developing countries, in particular African countries, had not only failed to achieve the development goal, but also risked being further marginalized due to the increasing debt burden, poverty, the inequitable international economic order and the HIV/AIDS epidemic.  They emphasized the need for actions at the international level to explore ways and means to promote the realization of the right to development. 

Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on the right to development, said, among other things, that while the process of globalization opened up the potential for realizing the right to development, in actual practice the functioning of the international institutions and the rule of international transactions severely constrained the ability of developing countries to adopt policies that would realize the right to development.

Bonaventure Bowa, the Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group on the right to development, said, among other things, that while the globalization process and the corresponding liberalization of market forces, trade and investment flows offered new opportunities –- they would not by themselves lead to the realization of the right to development or a reduction of poverty.  States must endeavour to eliminate protectionist barriers against the exports from developing countries and must suppress subsidies in economic sectors that negatively affected exports from developing countries.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Commission discussed a request by nine of its members to convene an urgent special sitting to consider the effects of the war on the Iraqi people.  At the request of several member States, the Commission decided to defer by 24 hours consideration of the request in order to allow for further consultations among delegations.

The representatives of the following countries addressed the Commission: Malaysia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and China), South Africa (on

behalf of the African Group), Costa Rica (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries GRULAC), Cuba, Paraguay (on behalf of Countries of the Common Market of the Southern Cone MERCOSUR), Greece (on behalf of the European Union), Syria, China, Mexico and Kenya.

The representatives of the United States, Syria and Switzerland spoke in exercise of their right of reply under the agenda item on racism and racial discrimination.

The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its consideration of the right to development.

Documents on Right to Development

Under this agenda item, there is a report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to development (E/CN.4/2003/7).  The report contains a summarized account of the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights relating to the implementation of the right to development as contained in the High Commissioner's mandate, the implementation of resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly with regard to the right to development, and inter-agency coordination within the United Nations system for the implementation of relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights in regard to the right to development.

There is a report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the importance and application of the principle of equity at both the national and international levels (E/CN.4/2003 /25).  The report describes the meaning of equity in public international law and development economics, in human rights treaties and the work of the treaty bodies, in international declarations and world conferences, and in the decisions of the Commission on Human Rights and its subsidiary mechanisms.  It also contains information on the subject received from States, international organizations, programmes and funds.

There is a report by the World Health Organization on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, the right to development, economic, social and cultural rights, integration of the human rights of women and a gender perspective, rights of the child, specific groups and individuals, indigenous issues, promotion and protection of human rights and effective functioning of human rights mechanism (E/CN.4/2003/122).  The report outlines the relationship between health and human rights and contains examples of activities by the World Health Organization with relevance to the Commission's agenda.

There is a note by the Secretariat concerning General Assembly resolution 57/223 entitled “the right to development” (E/CN.4/2003/125) in which the Secretary-General draws the attention of the Commission to E/CN.4/2003/7 containing the annual report prepared by the High Commissioner.  The High Commissioner had been requested to provide interim reports to the open-ended Working Group on the right to development, covering the activities of the Office relating to the implementation of the right to development; the implementation of resolutions of the Commission and the General Assembly with regard to the right to development; and inter-agency coordination within the United Nations system for the implementation of relevant resolutions of the Commission in that regard. 

Statements from the Podium

ARJUN SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on the right to development, said that in an increasingly globalizing world, the policies of any State, financial institutions and international organizations had a bearing on the outcomes and efforts of all other States.  To that extent it had become necessary for all these agencies and the international community as a whole to cooperate and adopt policies that enabled States to implement their right to development.

The Independent Expert said that the new African initiative, NEPAD, came closest to the proposed model for realizing the right to development.  A group of African countries had organized themselves to adopt and implement a programme for realizing human rights and economic development with targeted social development.  They had also identified the nature of international cooperation that would be necessary for implementing the programme and were trying to build up partnership arrangements with bilateral donors and multilateral agencies.  However, NEPAD fell short of the right to development approach by not integrating fully the human rights standards with the social development programmes.  Moreover the partnership arrangements were not based on a recognition of binding obligations of the international community, so that the African community could be assured that if they carried out these programmes in accordance with human rights standards, they would be supported in terms of resources and appropriate cooperation by the international community.

The Independent Expert said that even if the States implemented all their policies with empowerment and transparency, these programmes could remain underfunded if the international community was under no obligation to meet these requirements.  While the process of globalization opened up the potential for realizing the right to development, in actual practice the functioning of the international institutions and the rule of international transactions severely constrained the ability of the developing countries to adopt policies that would realize the right to development.

BONAVENTURE M. BOWA, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the open-ended Working Group on the right to development, introduced the report on the fourth session of the Working Group which was to be circulated.  He said that in his capacity as the Chairperson-Rapporteur, he had underlined the critical importance of progress in discussions in the Working Group to the millions of people living in abject poverty.  It was the job of the Working Group to find practical solutions to the problems under consideration.  The report was the outcome of two weeks of very positive debates during the session of the Working Group and extensive subsequent consultations.  The report consisted of a factual summary of the proceedings prepared by the secretariat and a second part reflecting his own views and observations on the progress made in the course of the fourth session of the Working Group. 

There was an appreciation of the High Commissioner’s report for its strengthened content and approach and his effort in having secured a significant increase in the participation of international agencies and institutions.  There was, however, scope for further improving the substantive participation of the Office of the High Commissioner in future deliberations of the Working Group, in particular, for reporting on the relevant initiatives in the Office’s field offices and its technical assistance projects.  In this context, he recommended that the Office consider collecting good practices related to the implementation of the right to development in development programmes and policies.

It had also been stressed that while the globalization process and the corresponding liberalization of market forces, trade and investment flows offered new opportunities, they would not by themselves lead to the realization of the right to development or a reduction of poverty.  He was of the view that States must, among other steps, endeavour to eliminate protectionist barriers against the exports from developing countries and to suppress subsidies in economic sectors that negatively affected exports from developing countries.  The Commission was informed that there had been a near consensus in the Working Group on the need for the collection and analysis of concrete examples and good practices in implementing the right to development.  The Working Group also wanted to encourage the Independent Expert on the right to development to develop country specific studies in the developed as well as the developing countries. 

Interactive Dialogue

A Representative of Greece, speaking on behalf of the European Union, pointed out that the Special Rapporteur had devoted a lot of attention to the role of international financial institutions in promoting the right to development and asked the Special Rapporteur whether he saw a need to mainstream human rights in the policies and practices of World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  Greece also asked the Special Rapporteur whether he had carried out research on national implementation of the right to development

A Representative of Cuba pointed out that developed countries had reached their current level of developments when the “rules of the game” were different, and asked whether the policies pursued by international financial institutions were conducive to promoting the right to development in developing countries.  Noting that all rights entailed duties and obligations, but that some States challenged this link, Cuba asked what would be the best way to resolve this dichotomy.

A Representative of Norway took the floor to point out that human rights instruments placed obligations on the State; therefore, the State was the sole duty holder.

A Representative of Argentina asked the Special Rapporteur whether he intended to carry out an in-depth study on the loss of national autonomy in the sphere of economic policies.

In response, the Independent Expert said he was of the view that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should incorporate human rights in their policies and practices.  Indeed, these institutions had already incorporated many principles of human rights in their policies, including good governance, participation and empowerment.  However, they had stopped short of using the concept of equity and responsibility associated with the language of human rights. 

The Independent Expert said that few governments had incorporated the right of development in their social policies.  He indicated that he had carried out a study of Nepal, which had started incorporating this right in its policy, but required the cooperation of the international community, and was undertaking a study of Argentina and Chile.  In the current process of globalization, some old practices pursued in the past by the industrialized countries of the West could no longer be used by developing countries.  From this point of view, there was indeed a loss of autonomy in the area of economic policy.  However, globalization also offered enormous potential for increased investment, technology transfer and trade, which could be realized if the international community cooperated with the developing countries.

The Independent Exert pointed out that the Declaration on the Right to Development stated that the State was the primary duty holder, and not the sole duty holder as Norway claimed.  The idea was that the State must fulfill its duties, but States also needed the support of the international community.

Statements on Right to Development

HUSSAIN RAJMAH (Malaysia), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and China, said that the Non-Aligned Movement and China were very concerned that one decade after the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, very little progress had been made in translating into action the commitment to realizing the right to development.  Today, some of the developed partners of the Non-Aligned Movement had defaulted on that commitment.  Their actions in the Working Group on the right to development obviously undermined the mandate of the Group.  The negative trends that had emerged during the recent fourth session of the Group were a matter of serious concern to the Movement.  The positions taken by some of the Movement's developed partners were retrogressive and counter-productive, reflecting a clear absence of political will to realize their international obligations under the Declaration on the Right to Development and the Vienna Declaration.  It was unfortunate that they had now relegated the realization of the right to development only to national obligations and bilateral cooperation, instead of promoting a comprehensive international approach and cooperation for the realization of that important human right.

The Movement continued to stress the need for an effective international approach, dialogue and cooperation in order to realize the right to development.  There should be a meaningful and result-oriented dialogue at the international level on the realization of this right.  The Movement reiterated its commitment to the realization of the right to development and to the fulfilment of the mandate of the Working Group.

SIPHO GEORGE NENE (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the commitments undertaken in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action should urgently receive the attention of the international community.  The commitments were to redress the historical injustices emanating from the practices of slavery and colonialism which had left in their trail the current effects of poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, economic disparities, social exclusion, instability and insecurity.  In Durban, the international community collectively agreed to provide remedial measures within the framework of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) and to increase joint cooperation in many identified areas, such as market access, trade liberalization and technology transfer.

At the very core of the right to development lay the fundamental principles of the full and effective enjoyment of all human rights as enumerated in the international human rights covenants.  It should never be a matter of random picking and choosing, according to the convenience of some, of which rights should enjoy priority over others.  The African Group believed that the two human rights covenants should be treated with the same emphasis.  There could never be any doubt that economic, social and cultural rights were important to the enjoyment and full realization of all human rights.  The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action reaffirmed in their universal language the importance of treating all human rights equally, fairly and with the same emphasis.  It was disappointing that the current session of the Working Group on the right to development had dismally failed to produce an outcome.  The African Group appealed to all members of the West European and other groups to demonstrate commitment to the realization of the right to development.

MANUEL A. GONZALEZ-SANZ(Costa Rica) said that the Declaration on the Right to Development, the Declaration of the World Conference on Human Rights, as well as numerous resolutions by the Commission had established a solid foundation for the implementation of the right to development, which was universal, inalienable, indivisible and interdependent.  The realization of this right was a challenging task that required strong political will.  Millions of people in the world were deprived of their basic human rights.  The international community had a collective responsibility in promoting and protecting the right to development and all States should commit themselves to making this right a reality. 

Developing countries were aware of their obligations to design policies to promote this right.  If international conditions were not equitable, however, national efforts to raise the level of development would be undermined.  In today’s world there was growing evidence of the link between peace, equity, international solidarity, progress and respect for human rights.

CLAUDIA PEREZ ALVAREZ (Cuba) said the existing world international economic order constituted a system of plundering and exploitation like no other in history.  The world economy was today a huge casino.  The growing servicing of the foreign debt of developing countries, that in absolute terms had already been paid several times, consumed a considerable portion of the resources coming from exports and eroded the financing means available for development and the realization of human rights.  The commitment made by developed countries to allocate 0.7 per cent of their Gross National Product (GNP) to official development assistance today only reached 0.22 per cent of GNP as an average.  Only five European countries met or surpassed the planned goal.  The
United States, the most industrialized country of the world, ironically had the sad record of having the lowest percentage -- only 0.11 per cent.

The cost of one nuclear bomb equaled the education budget of 23 developing countries with a child population of more than 160 million.  The price of a war tank was enough to build schools for 30,000 students.  Developing countries, which were the ones that spent most on weapons, had the responsibility to make sure that these resources were allocated to development and not to war.  The Cuban people continued to be victims of the genocidal blockade imposed by the United States for over 42 years, in an open violation of the right to the economic and social development of the Cuban nation.  Six in every 10 Cubans had been born and lived under the conditions imposed by this criminal policy.  The Cuban people appreciated the overwhelming support of the 173 countries that had condemned the United States blockade against Cuba in last year's General Assembly, and demanded that this human rights violation end.  

RUBEN RAMIREZ LEZCANO (Paraguay), speaking on behalf of Countries of the Common Market of the Southern Cone MERCOSUR, said the countries of MERCOSUR attached great importance to the right to development, as human beings were the main subjects of development.  They must therefore be active participants and the main benefactors of the right to development.  The Vienna Declaration had made it clear that the right to development was a human right and an inalienable right of all people.  It was only if all rights, including the right to development, were realized that all human rights could be enjoyed.  The MERCOSUR countries had worked together to raise the standard of living of the people of the region.  Together they believed that the only consistent way of realizing the right to development was through national and international measures.  However, it was stressed that measures at the international level must take place in an international atmosphere conducive to the right to development.

One concrete aspect affecting the realization of the right to development in the MERCOSUR region was agriculture.  Agriculture underpinned development and job security.  Distortions in international trade of agricultural products therefore had a negative impact on developing countries.  Protectionism and subsidies to the agricultural sectors of most development countries were in effect discrimination in international trade.  The MERCOSUR called on governments to bear in mind international human rights principles and obligations when they negotiated rules that governed international trade. 

TASSOS KRIEKOUKIS(Greece), speaking on behalf of the European Union and the acceding and associated countries, said the European Union was committed to the right to development as an integral part of human rights as set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action which the European Union strongly supported.  The European Union considered that the individual was the central subject of development and should actively participate in the realization of the right to development.  The Union firmly believed that the protection and promotion of human rights, including the right to development, were the responsibility and the privilege of every State.  Other States and the international community could and should cooperate in achieving those goals.  Poverty, especially in its extreme forms, had a serious negative impact not only on the development process but also on the ability of individuals to enjoy fully all their human rights.  Respect for human rights was a prerequisite for effective and sustainable development policies and thereby would contribute to the fight against poverty, including through the free expression of will by individuals and their participation in the conduct of public affairs.

The European Union and its Member States were major actors on the international development scene, and had been committed for a long time to development cooperation, putting the promotion of human rights at the core of their relevant policies.  Each State had the primary responsibility to ensure its own economic and social development and to promote the realization of the right to development.  Such a process should be based on the principles of full participation, non-discrimination and equitable access to the benefits of development.  Access to information and communication were crucial factors in order to empower individuals and secure their active participation in the development process.  A free and independent media, with its scrutiny and questioning of the public and private sector activities, had a crucial role to play in every society, achieving greater openness, transparency, responsibility, accountability and legitimacy.

The European Union viewed partnerships between developing and developed countries as an efficient means to help achieve sustainable growth in a framework of full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy, the rule of law and the sound management of public affairs.  The Union supported the initiatives of NEPAD, the long-term objective of which was to place African countries firmly on the road to development.  Good governance at the national and international levels was essential for the realization of the right to development.  It also constituted a solid basis for poverty eradication, especially social justice, sustained economic growth, political stability and environmental balance.  The debt burden of developing countries diverted scarce resources away from basic infrastructure and services, thus limiting the capacity of those countries to realize the right to development.  The Union was aware of the efforts that indebted developing countries were making to meet their debt servicing obligations despite high social costs and reaffirmed its pledge to work for durable, equitable and development-oriented solutions in that field.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said that although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reaffirmed the universality of human rights regardless of race, sex and origin, the application of these rights remained selective.  Eloquent declarations and promises were made in numerous international conferences but in many parts of the world daily reality consisted of massacres, ethnic cleansing and deportations.  Israel was responsible for gross human rights violations in the occupied territories, the Golan and Lebanon, depriving farmers of the produce of their land, demolishing houses and polluting water.  It was high time for the international community to shoulder its responsibility and put an end to the occupation, which made the realization of the right to development impossible. 

Recent decades had seen an acceleration for some of the world's population, but a source of frustration for the rest of mankind.  Despite great progress made in science and improvements in standards of living and health care, human beings throughout the world continued to be hostage to their basic needs.  Two countries, which claimed to be the first Western democracies, were now violating the rights of the Iraqi people.  The right to education was violated by the bombing of the University of Baghdad and schools.  The only right that women had in Iraq was to bury their husbands and children.  The Iraqi population was being terrorized and deprived of food and medicines.  Remaining silence in face of these crimes was equivalent to supporting them.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said that in the process of economic globalization, many developing and African countries had not only failed to achieve the development goals, but also risked being further marginalized.  The realization of the right to development depended on the joint efforts of the international community and States.  Undoubtedly, States had the primary responsibility in realizing the right to development.  The international community must now focus on the policies and measures that States must adopt since countries varied from one to another.  The successful experience of one country could not be entirely applied to another, though it might offer some perspectives and enlightenment.  Both the Declaration on the Right to Development and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action had affirmed that people of all countries had the right to freely decide their political status and economic, social and cultural development. 

In realizing the right to development, the international community must undertake the following major responsibilities.  First, the international community must respect the right of all peoples to freely choose their social system and path of development and create an international environment of peace and security.  Secondly, it must guarantee the right of equal participation of the developing countries in formulating the international rules.  The international community must also change the irrational international economic and trade order.  Thirdly, the international community must provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries and reduce and exempt the debt of the least developed ones.  Developed countries must demonstrate political commitment and more importantly take concrete actions.

MARICLAIRE ACOSTA (Mexico) said that the Vienna Conference, which had celebrated its tenth anniversary, had provided the international community with an important opportunity, and had clearly reiterated that the right to development was inalienable and indivisible from other human rights.  The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action had established that States had the right to formulate policies toward their development with the participation of the people.  The policies should also focus on the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights.  Mexico recognized that States had the primary responsibility concerning the right to development.  However, to achieve that right a renewed commitment of the international community was essential through cooperation.  International cooperation was fundamental in the promotion of development.  The major participation of the developed countries should include economic and financial decisions, the promotion of multilateral trade and access to their markets by developing countries.  The globalized world required the integration of the developing countries into the economic and commercial system.  Recently, the international community had renewed its interest in the process of the right to development.  The Millennium Declaration and the Johannesburg commitments also represented concrete process towards the realization of the right to development.

MICHAEL OYUGI (Kenya) said that over the years, there had been a persistent tendency in the Commission to focus almost exclusively on civil and political rights.  Good governance, democracy, freedom of expression and related liberties were no doubt important, and should be respected and defended.  However, equally crucial were economic, social and cultural rights.  Thus, the right to development too should be promoted with equal vigour for it was inalienable and universal.  The issue of development had in fact assumed even greater importance as many countries and peoples redoubled their efforts in the quest for it.  Unfortunately, the implementation and realization of that right had not been accorded due attention at the Commission. 

The Kenyan delegation had taken note of and endorsed the report of the fourth session of the open-ended Working Group on the right to development which was submitted by its Chairperson.  The proposal for a compilation and analysis of good practices relevant to the implementation of the right to development was also commendable.  It had become increasingly clear that greater involvement of major international organizations in the deliberations of the Working Group was necessary.  Implementation of the right to development required the constructive involvement of all countries, including the developed ones.  That would entail adopting effective development policies at the national level, as well as nurturing equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.  The Working Group had itself urged that amongst other measures, countries should eliminate protectionist barriers against exports from developing countries.

Rights of Reply Relating to Debate on Racism and Racial Discrimination

A Representative of the United States, speaking in right of reply in response to concerns raised by some speakers yesterday about racial discrimination in the United States, said that his country continued to be one of the most open societies in the world.  He categorically denied that racial discrimination had been institutionalized in the United States.  The United States took steps to ensure that all ethnic groups received equal treatment under the law and the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated hate crimes.  The United States valued the diversity of its population and for more than two centuries had welcomed people of all races and would continue to do so.  The delegates who were concerned about discrimination in the United States should look at their own backyard.

A Representative of Syria, exercising his right to reply, said that many speakers had accused Arabs of anti-Semitism.  This was a strange notion since both Jews and Arabs were Semites.  Arabs and Jews had always lived together in peace, until the establishment of Israel.  Criticism of Israel was not anti-Semitism but a refusal to accept Israel's lawless behaviour in the region.  Crimes committed were often called anti-Semitic, however this must apply to crimes committed not only with Jews as victims, but also situations consisting of Arab victims.

A Representative of Switzerland, speaking in a right of reply in reference to the statement made by the Association for World Education, said his delegation had taken note that as mentioned by the speaker of the Association, that the decisions of the Tribunal of Derne of 14 May 1935 and that of the Court of Appeal of 1937, concerning "The protocols of the Elders of Zion" were outrageous.

Corrigenda

In press release HR/CN/03/13 of the afternoon of 21 March 2003, the statement of Azerbaijan should read as follows:

MURAD N. NAJAFOV (Azerbaijan) said the right to self-determination could not and should not be interpreted as the sanction or encouragement of any actions breaking or undermining the territorial integrity or the political unity of sovereign and independent States.  To cover the aggression of Armenia and its continued occupation of primordial territory belonging to the Republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia used two versions of the right to self-determination -- by fuelling a separatist movement in Karabakh and sending terrorist groups and armed units to Azerbaijan.  Armenia claimed a supposed right of the Armenian people to self-determination by so-called "reunification" of Armenia and the
Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan; and at the same time Armenian official statements claimed non-involvement of Armenia in military actions on the territory of Azerbaijan, thus putting forward false information on "the independent
Nagorno-Karabakh republic" as an expression of the will of the "Karabakh people".  It was necessary for the international community to completely eradicate cases of encouragement and support of separatist forces from the outside.

In press release HR/CN/03/14 of the morning of 24 March 2003, the right of reply of Azerbaijan should read as follows:

A Representative of Azerbaijan, speaking in right of reply in response to a statement made by Armenia, said the proclamation by the Armenian Representative

that the basis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict lay in the aspiration of Armenians of the Nagorno-Karabakh area of Azerbaijan for
self-determination did not stand any criticism.  It was well known that the rights of minorities, which were different from the right of peoples to
self-determination by being not collective, but individual rights, could not serve as an argument for separation or partition of a State.

In press release HR/CN/03/15 of the afternoon of 24 March 2003, the right of reply of Azerbaijan should read as follows:

A Representative of Azerbaijan, speaking in right of reply, said that Armenia covered its aggression against Azerbaijan by the principle of
self-determination.  Armenians living in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan could not be considered as the independent subjects of international law for
self-determination.  Any decisions, referenda and elections held by the separatist in the Nagorno-Karabakh region had no legal power in the absence of Azerbaijanis expelled by force from the region.

(For the press releases mentioned above, please consult www.unog.ch and select ‘United Nations News from Geneva’.)

* *** *