COUNTRIES TELL COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS THAT GREATER EFFORTS

ARE NEEDED TO SPUR DEVELOPMENT

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 26 March (UN Information Service) -- A series of national delegations speaking before the Commission on Human Rights this afternoon said such factors as economic interdependence, trade barriers, heavy foreign debt burdens, and insufficient levels of aid from the world's richer nations were threatening the development hopes of many of the world's less-advanced countries.

Speakers also contended that the concept of the right to development and the Commission's Working Group on the topic were not receiving the support they needed from some developed countries.

A Representative of Uganda, echoing an opinion expressed by other delegations, said market access for the products and produce of developing countries was critical for the exercise of the right to development.  Argentina termed the current global trading regime "unjust" because it raised barriers to the marketing of the agricultural products which were the economic mainstay of many developing countries.

A Representative of Venezuela said responsibility for the fulfillment of the right to development could not be limited only to States -- there also was a need for international responsibility, which must be translated into intensified cooperation to allow countries access to development.

A Representative of the Republic of Korea contended, meanwhile, that individual countries should make efforts to fulfil their responsibilities in implementing good governance, the rule of law and democracy as a means of producing a sound, balanced and solid basis for long-term and viable development.

Also contributing statements at the afternoon meeting were officials of Algeria, India, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, South Africa, Thailand, Libya, Bahrain, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Iraq, Nepal, Bangladesh, Yemen, Iran, Oman, Kuwait, Tunisia, Ghana, United Nations Development Programme, Benin, Qatar, and Ethiopia.

The following non-governmental organizations addressed the Commission: Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru (joint statement with Movimiento Cubano por la Paz and Union of Arab Jurists); International Federation of University Women (joint statement with International Council of Women; the International Council of Jewish Women; Women's International Zionist Organization; Inter-African Committee on

Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children; World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women; United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation; Zonta International; and Socialist International Women); International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements; and International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies.

Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Uganda spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Commission will continue its discussion of the right to development when it reconvenes at 10 a.m. Thursday, 27 March.

Statements

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI(Algeria) said it was disturbing that some Commission members denied the very existence of the right to development.  They believed this notion encompassed an ambiguous and unrealistic set of rights.  This perception had heavy and serious implications.  It was first a perversion of the spirit and the letter of the three major instruments which were the foundation of the
United Nations, that was, the United Nations Charter, the United Nations Declaration on the right to development, and the international pact on economic, social and cultural rights.  No single provision of these instruments could be objectively interpreted to the effect that the right to development was only a national concern.  Second, this approach was obviously in contradiction with the objectives of the recent United Nations major conferences and most particularly the Millennium Summit.

As for the report of the High Commissioner under agenda item 4, the Algerian delegation regretted the missing link between the national and international dimensions of the right to development.  The importance of interlinkages between them, therefore, had to be stressed.  The interdependence of the world and the need for enhanced solidarity between nations was an indispensable requirement for the operationalization of the right to development.  It was important to admit that the failure of the multilateral trading system to deliver so far on its promises had also led to precarious and very alarming conditions for developing countries.  Ignoring this reality implied that developing countries would be unduly held responsible for the consequences generated by the inconsistency of an international order where inequalities had never been so important inside, as well as between nations.  For the Algerian delegation, the right to development represented the counterpart to the inalienable right of people to
self-determination –- it was indeed the concrete expression of political independence.

PREETI SARAN (India) said democracy, transparent, accountable and participatory governance alone could ensure that the actions of States with regard to the right to development were in the best interests of their people.  The function of the watchdog could be performed only by the people of the country who were the best judges of their needs.  Prescriptive norms imposed from outside were counter-productive and contrary to the sovereign equality of States.  A
rights-based approach to development or the mainstreaming of human rights in development was a concept distinct from the mainstreaming of the right to development in the promotion and protection of all human rights.  Each had its place, but one could not subsume the other.  Equally important for the realization of the right to development were equitable economic relations, a conducive economic environment and cooperation at the international level. 

The developing countries continued to remain starved of resources for realization of the right to development.  More importantly, the world today was a global village where national boundaries no longer guaranteed that a country would be invulnerable to external financial and economic influences.  India was deeply disappointed that the Working Group on the right to development had not, at its fourth session, arrived at a consensus on its conclusions and recommendations.  It was regrettable that there was unwillingness by certain Groups even to engage in a dialogue on the recommendations.  The right to development could not be achieved without partnership and cooperation.  States were called upon to join the international community in the operationalization of the right to development.  India called upon the Commission unanimously to renew the mandate of the Working Group for another two years. 

OSAMA OMER ABUZAID (Sudan) said the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was a turning point in international law as it integrated development issues into the international system.  The Declaration on the Right to Development was a reflection of the international community’s commitment to tackle the suffering of some populations and societies.  Sudan reaffirmed that there was a linkage between international peace and security and the right to development.  There was a need to preserve the environment in order to save mankind.  Sudan also stressed the link between economic, social and cultural rights, on the one hand, and political and civil rights, on the other.

Sudan had enacted laws ensuring the right of groups and individuals to development and the Sudanese Constitution stated that the country was committed to sustainable development.  Sudan had passed several laws to protect the environment and was a member of a number of regional environmental organizations.  The work of the Working Group on the right to development was of great importance.  Sudan was of the view that the right to development should be linked to other rights.  However, development assistance should not be conditional.  The right to development should be enjoyed by all without any discrimination.

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said it might be appropriate to review the working methods of the Working Group in order to ensure a minimum consensus of opinion.  It was all too evident that the state of confrontation that had characterized the Group’s work, and the indifference shown by some of the parties in regard to the benefits of ongoing examination of ways to give effect to the right to development, would constitute a future obstacle.  This necessitated the consideration of feasible solutions to create an environment conducive to mutual understanding among all the parties.  Although it was important to focus primarily on the aspects of equality and non-discrimination in implementation of the right to development at the national level, it was questionable how this could be achieved without regard for the international dimension of the issues involved.

Saudi Arabia believed that rapid practical measures could be taken in favour of developing and least-developed countries, at least in the short term.  The most significant of these measures must be the waiver of debts with which the economies of these countries were still encumbered.  Saudi Arabia had taken an important step in this regard when it decided to waive the repayment of loans amounting to $6 billion from which 11 developing countries and least-developed countries had benefited.  The realization of the right to development was undoubtedly also contingent on the international community’s pledges to achieve the target of devoting 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) to foreign aid.  It was essential that political will and good intentions precede any legal obligation since a sincere desire, rather than compulsion, was the fundamental requirement for the realization of the right to development.

SHAUKAT UMER(Pakistan) said the third session of the Working Group on the right to development had engendered a measure of optimism on the prospects for a broad agreement on key entry points in national measures and international policies for operationalizing this rights.  Central to this outcome was clear agreement on the need to address both the national and international dimensions simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion.  National actions and good governance were considered essential for operationalizing this right and in addressing inequalities within nations.  It was therefore with deep regret that the delegation of Pakistan had seen the unravelling of these understandings amid regressive positions adopted by some delegations.  Pakistan was, therefore, obliged to subscribe to the view that the most plausible way for progress lay in legally binding instruments.  This belief was reinforced by the continuing deterioration in the global economy characterized by lopsided benefits of globalization. 

Globalization and interdependence had spawned increasing global fragmentation not least in the international political and security order.  More than a billion people, embroiled in severe poverty, lived in countries that had become less rather than more globalized.  Concerns, therefore, about globalization had themselves become a global phenomenon.  Frustration in the developing countries about the skewed distribution of power had seldom been greater.  This frustration was bound to cause further problems if not arrested and addressed expeditiously.

PITSO D. MONTWEDI (South Africa) said that in almost nine years since the achievement of democracy, South Africa had made important progress in improving the quality of life of its citizens.  In recognition of the central role that land played in the economic life and empowerment of the people, South Africa had introduced land reform programmes which made land available for both residential and commercial purposes, and had introduced housing schemes commensurate with the various needs of communities.  Public health programmes to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups had also been introduced.  There was clearly much more which should be done to make the dream of the practical enjoyment of all human rights a reality for all the people of South Africa. 

A constructive partnership with the international community, based on respect, equality and dignity of all the parties, was not only essential but imperative in this regard.  The pronouncements by some developed countries which purported to suggest that collective efforts for the realization of the right to development had no corresponding obligations and duties at the international level simply flew in the face of important United Nations milestones such as the
United Nations Charter, the Declaration on the Right to Development, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and the Millennium Declaration.

ALFREDO VICENTE CHIARADIA (Argentina) said the delegation fully endorsed the statement made by Costa Rica on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC).  The Independent Expert on the rights to development, Arjun Sengupta, had visited Argentina and had been received by the highest national authorities of the Government.  He had also met with representatives of international organizations and non-governmental organizations.  The visit of the Expert would be part of his effort to address the need for an international environment to be established in which developing countries could be integrated.  The Working Group on the right to development, during its session, had analyzed the issues of international finance and economy, as requested by paragraph 7 of Commission resolution 2002/69. 

The Argentine delegation believed that trade liberalization should be on the basis of the principles of justice and equity, which were established in
article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the Right to Development of 1986.  Argentina believed that the development of international trade could impact on the capacities of States to fulfil their international obligations.  In matters of human rights, there was a link between the international trade regime and the enjoyment of human rights at the national level.  Argentina had taken note of the Expert's consideration of the barriers created on agricultural products, which were the main economic sector of developing countries.  Such countries depended on agriculture for their food security, employment and foreign currency.  Further study should be carried out on the issue.

SUPARK PRONGTHURA (Thailand) said it was clear that a world without the right to development was a world without sustained peace, security or development.  It was essential to reinvigorate the commitment to use the right to development as a springboard to ensure that the right of any individual to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social and cultural, civil and political development anywhere in this global village was no longer denied.  An effective way to facilitate such an outcome could already be found by adopting the right to development approach as a guiding principle in national and international policies and development planning.  At the heart of the right to development, development in its broadest sense must also be treated as the rights of individuals against corresponding duty holders. 

Within this context of constituting rights, the recognition of precise roles and responsibilities by all actors was all the more necessary -- be they nation States, multinational corporations, local authorities, multilateral agencies,
non-governmental organizations or civil society.  In other words, the right to development involved the whole international community at every level.  With a view to establishing for the right to development a minimum standard of norms and jurisprudence common to all human rights, the Thai delegation strongly encouraged all relevant stakeholders to seriously consider any new initiatives which aimed at mainstreaming the right to development in all relevant activities and at providing for an effective monitoring and evaluating mechanism capable of assessing progress on the right to development both at the national and international levels. 

YOUN-SOO LEE (Republic of Korea) said the right to development was construed as the realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.  A comprehensive, balanced and integrated approach, through both international cooperation and national efforts, was required to make those rights a reality.  At the international level, the March 2002 International Conference on Financing for Development and the September 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development had provided momentum for a new partnership between developed and developing countries.  That momentum could be harnessed for building consensus on common efforts to realize the right to development.  At the national level, States ought to exert their own efforts to ensure the necessary measures for realization of the right to development.  They should transform themselves into sound and healthy societies with good governance, rule of law, and democracy.

The Republic of Korea had engaged itself in developing its economy while strengthening its democracy, and had been recognized to have achieved a certain level of development.  The cooperation of the international community had been an important part of that process.  Individual countries should make efforts to fulfil their responsibilities in implementing good governance, the rule of law and democracy as a means of producing a sound, balanced and solid basis for long-term and viable development.  Korea had been and would be fully committed to the noble cause of promoting and protecting human rights and as such would continue to participate in efforts to realize the right to development.

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said the right to development was one of the most important items on the agenda of the Commission, particularly for developing countries.  The right to development was undeniably a universal and inalienable human right reaffirmed in various international instruments, including the 1986 Declaration and the Millennium Declaration, which linked this right to the concept of social equity, applicable not only to domestic societies but also to the international community.  The right to development was a fundamental right whose exercise in all its aspects was essential for the enjoyment of all other human rights.

The international community must ensure that the right to development was defined and fully implemented at the international level.  The right to development involved an obligation of States, especially of developing countries, vis-à-vis their domestic societies.  Development, seen in all its dimensions, was centered on the individual and it was essential to make democracies more stable.  However, responsibility for the fulfillment of the right to development could not be limited only to States; there also was a need for international responsibility, which must be translated into intensified cooperation to allow countries access to development.  In this regard, developed countries and the international financial institutions had a special responsibility to promote conditions that would enable developing countries to realize the right to development. 

HAROLD ACEMAH (Uganda) said Uganda recognized and accepted that States had the primary responsibility for their own economic and social development.  It believed that the United Nations, as well as other multilateral and regional organizations had an important contribution to make in efforts to create an enabling international environment conducive to the realization of the right to development.  In the globalized world, events at the local level had a global reach while those at the global level had repercussions at the local level.  It was imperative to create mechanisms that would promote synergies and enhance coherence between national policies and global processes.  Uganda believed that market access for the products and produce of developing countries was critical in the exercise of the right to development. 

Uganda recognized that poverty eradication was one of the key elements in the promotion and realization of the right to development.  At the national level, Uganda had adopted and was in the process of implementing a Poverty Eradication Action Plan, which aimed at reducing absolute poverty by half by the year 2020.  However, it was concerned that Africa, as a region might not be able to achieve the Millennium Development Goals of halving poverty by the year 2015.  The international community should assist African countries in their efforts to achieve the Goals by providing increased and sustained Overseas Development Assistance (ODA).  There was need to implement effectively and fulfil the internationally agreed targets adopted, by consensus, at various international conferences and Summits within the agreed time frames.

NASSER I.S. ALZAROUG (Libya) said the right to development could not be separated from other fundamental human rights.  More practical measures were needed to remove obstacles to the enjoyment of this right.  Priority must be given to eliminating ineffective methods for achieving the right to development.  Measures must be taken to address poverty, the debt burden, and the international economic order.  Sanctions constituted an obstacle to achieving better living standards for several populations around the world.  The international community must address this practice, which violated the right to development of many countries.  Peace and development and the strengthening of democracy were all dimensions of the right to development.  Development required comprehensive approaches that took into consideration the concerns mentioned above.

In this connection, the delegation of Libya expressed its concern as to the tragic situation in Iraq following the unjust and illegal invasion by the
United States and its allies.  This aggression constituted a flagrant violation of human rights, including the right to development.  Governments were called upon to ensure an end to these hostilities. 

ALI E. ALSISI (Bahrain) said the right to development was defined as a specific development process allowing for the realization of all human rights.  Today’s world -- characterized by globalization, communications technology, international trade, investment and financing -- strengthened interdependence between States but ignored the principles of justice and equity.  Bahrain believed that education in human rights principles should be an integral part of all school curricula.  This was a responsibility of States.  Nevertheless, the international community should lend technical support to States.  Developed countries should also open up their markets to developing countries and facilitate their access to new technologies. 

The Government of Bahrain was convinced of the importance of social development and was implementing policies aimed at achieving economic development and growth.  Among the measures Bahrain had taken were steps to promote the rights of women, widows and orphans and to protect the family and the unemployed.  The Government placed human development at the center of its policy and took account of all its aspects, which explained why Bahrain had been ranked first among Arab countries in the area of human development.

ANTOINE MINDUA KESIA-MBE (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the right to development was essential for his country, which had suffered a war of aggression for the last four years, with a litany of systematic, flagrant and massive violations of international law and human rights.  Implementation of the right to development was only possible in a peaceful environment.  There was a close relationship between peace, development and human rights in general.  The Congolese people were not able to fully enjoy their human rights and the right to development.  The continued deterioration of terms of trade, the burden of external debt and the inherited colonial economy, among other things, had affected the economy of the country.

Rwanda and Uganda, which were leading a war of aggression against the Congo, had been illegally plundering the natural resources of the country.  The Commission knew that the Rwandan army, besides amassing Congolese wealth, had been threatening the Ugandan army in Congolese territory for the control of natural wealth in the District of Ituri.  The occupation of part of the Congolese territory by foreign forces and the pillaging of its natural resources constituted an impediment to the right to economic development of the country.  The
socio-economic conditions of the Congolese population in the territories occupied by the rebels were suffering.

GEHAD MADI (Egypt) said Egypt had participated fully in the Working Group on the right to development in order to help developing countries achieve this right.  Unfortunately, no consensus had been reached due to the unwillingness of developed countries to deal with the right to development in a serious manner; they refused to recognize it as a fundamental human right.  It was necessary also to look at the effect of trade liberalization on developing countries, since globalization had both positive and negative impacts.  It was stressed that the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) required the support of the international community to enable it to ensure the speeding up of the development process and the achievement of human rights in Africa. 

The Special Rapporteur on development had visited Egypt, and the Egyptian delegation took the opportunity to thank him for his comments and input.  The Special Rapporteur could rest assured that all of his recommendations had been taken into consideration by the Government and it was hoped that the implementation of the recommendations would improve the economic and social development of the country and improve its cooperation with non-governmental organizations.  Egypt was looking forward to more constructive discussions of the Working Group and hoped that the Special Rapporteur would be given sufficient support to enable him to work for full respect for the right to development.

DHARI KHALIL MAHMOOD (Iraq) said the right to development was a fundamental human right reaffirmed in several United Nations instruments and declarations.  However, the realization of this right required international cooperation to eradicate poverty, famine and disease.  Embargos and military aggression prevented developing countries from tapping their resources.

Iraq had previously focused on improving health, education, social services and infrastructures.  However, these achievements had been eroded by the military aggression carried out against Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom over the past 12 years.  Two million Iraqis had died as a result, most of them children, and unemployment, poverty and diseases were on the increase.  Places of worship, residential areas and infrastructure had been destroyed.  The international community was obliged to put an immediate end to this aggression; otherwise all international instruments would be void of their meaning.

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) said the time had come to make a departure from the philosophical debate to the practical operationalization of the right to development.  The realization of the right to development could be possible only through the promotion of mutual cooperation, collaborative efforts and sustained international support, all the more so since many least-developed countries had to grapple with the challenges posed by poverty, under-development, human trafficking, HIV/AIDS and other deadly communicable diseases and growing marginalization in a rapidly globalizing world.  These were challenges of global scope and dimension demanding global action and cooperation in tandem with national efforts and commitment.

The continued existence of widespread absolute poverty in the midst of astounding revolutions in science and technology was a grim reminder to all of us that all was not well.  Similarly, the grinding poverty of more than a billion people in this day and age was a formidable impediment to the full and effective enjoyment of human rights, and this had rendered peace, democracy and sustainable development fragile all over the world.  In implementing rights-based development, national efforts and international cooperation should reinforce each other in a spirit of partnership and as a solid expression of collective responsibility.

RUHUL AMIN (Bangladesh) said that it was important that every effort be made to reinvigorate the Working Group on the right to development since this was the only forum dealing with the issue in a comprehensive manner.  Bangladesh was troubled by the lack of political will on the part of some countries to uphold the international consensus on the right to development and the commitment to operationalize the right in all its aspects.  It was agreed that the primary responsibility for development rested on national governments.  However, the success of a country’s development efforts required an external environment that complemented domestic initiatives.  This was the essence of the partnership in the context of the right to development.

The challenges of development were more pronounced in a globalizing world.  Globalization should not mean further marginalization of developing countries.  The world was living through a troubled time, in which declining overseas development assistance (ODA), trade barriers, increasing debt burdens, and decreasing market shares for the Least Developed Countries were a sad testimony.  Unless there was international consensus on the fundamentals of a supportive international environment, development efforts would be seriously jeopardized.

AZAI HASHEM (Yemen) said the duty of the developed nations towards developing countries should not be only financial.  Yemen had been engaged in a process of decentralization through the strengthening of the rule of law.  The democratic process was also taking on momentum.  People were being encouraged to participate in the development process of the nation.  A series of development programmes had been designed to enhance the economic growth of the country, including the implementation of a five-year development plan.

In order to upgrade the social and economic status of the population, the Government had put in place a number of services.  Health services had been strengthened and new centres had been established to serve people living in remote areas.  Yemen supported the report of the Independent Expert on the right of development and the work done by the Working Group on the right to development.

ALI A. MOJTAHED SHABESTARI (Iran) said the realization of the right to development called for responsibility and accountability by all to creating a fair and conducive international economic environment.  The current international economic order was not only obstructing the economic and social welfare of developing countries but also exacerbating ever-increasing poverty and despair which, in turn, contributed to the emergence of violence and political instability in some countries.  The overall orientation of the world economy, in particular the macroeconomic policies and the multilateral trading system, was widely blamed for the economic setbacks and debilitating recessions experienced by a number of poor countries.  The prevailing international economic system would not assist in the realization of the right to development.  Instead, it favoured those countries with a higher stock of assets, thus imposing further marginalization on developing countries.

States must ensure that protective barriers in their countries against exports from developing countries were removed.  Improving market access for developing countries was one of the most important steps that the rich countries could take in fighting global poverty.  Sustainable development would not be achieved unless active participation by all countries in the process of
decision-making was assured.  To this end, the right of accession of every country to international, financial monetary and trade organizations must be facilitated free from any political considerations.

AHMED MOHAMED MASOUD AL-RIYAMI(Oman) said that the right to development should be considered on an equal footing with other human rights.  People around the world were still awaiting the results of the pledges made in the Declaration on the Right to Development.  This was a source of frustration which could undermine the credibility of the Commission.

The Working Group on the right to development was essential for ensuring that people were freed from the spectre of poverty.  International efforts should focus on the realization of this right and the establishment of a more just international order that would enable the countries of the South to achieve their development goals.  Oman had incorporated the right to development into its Constitution in 1996.  On the international level, it had been very active and had participated in the work of the United Nations to come up with an instrument that would promote the realization of the right to development.  Oman had also contributed $2 million to efforts to combat poverty in Africa.

AISHA M.S. AL-ADSANI(Kuwait) said Kuwait attached great importance to the right to development with the human being at its centre.  The Government had lived up to its commitments by improving the living conditions of its citizens, including those foreigners living and working in the country.  The State was also giving much attention to the condition of women, whose situation had also improved.  The development measures of Kuwait had been appraised by the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Kuwait was among the biggest donor countries in the field of economic and social development.  It had so far donated a high amount of money, including grants in credit forms, for the financing of a series of development projects.  Ninety-eight countries had been the beneficiaries of the donations and loans of Kuwait.  In recent years, the State of Kuwait also had written off the loans of many developing countries, particularly African countries. 

HABIB MANSOUR(Tunisia) said the adoption of the Vienna Declaration had made it clear that the right of development was a fundamental human right.  Yet the right to development had not been achieved, far from it.  Deprivation and extreme poverty were affecting more than one fifth of the world.  For the billion and a half people who lived below the poverty line, the concept of the right to development had no meaning.

It was therefore necessary to ensure that the forces of globalization be changed and made into an effective instrument for the fulfilment of the right to development of all peoples.  Strategies needed to promote comprehensive and sustainable development, and be founded on solidarity, so that development could become a reality for all.  The Commission was reminded of the appeal made by Tunisia during the Millennium Summit for a co-development contract to achieve the right to development through the creation of a world charter for peace and development.  It also had to be stressed that one could not even begin to speak of progress without addressing the urgent need to fight poverty.

FRITZ K. POKU(Ghana) said the right to development had featured in the deliberations of the United Nations for quite some time.  Unfortunately, very little progress had been made towards its operationalization.  Deliberations on the right to development had been characterized by dramatic political posturing, unbridgeable positions and negative tactical shifts.  National positions had ranged from cautious support to outright hostility.  It was most unfortunate and deeply regrettable that the Commission, which represented the conscience of the world, had been unable to reach agreement on the operationalization of the right to development.

The strong linkage between human rights and development could not be denied.  However, a sterile debate over which should take precedence did not advance the cause of a holistic approach to human rights and the realization of the full dignity of the human person.  Ghana could accept a linkage between the fulfilments of State obligations that would trigger international assistance.  However, it could not accept the view that only nations had duties in ensuring the full realization of the right to development for their citizens.

SIMON MUNZU, of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said the UNDP had submitted a consolidated report on its activities in relation to all relevant resolutions adopted by the Commission at its fifty-eighth session.  This year's report covered key UNDP actions in the field of human rights and in terms of its cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  It also set out activities relating to resolutions of last year’s Commission on subjects such as human rights and extreme poverty, health and access to medication in the context of HIV/AIDS pandemic; the promotion and consolidation of democracy; the administration of justice; and freedom of opinion and expression.  The UNDP looked forward to receiving feedback on this initiative and was ready to provide additional information and clarification where required. 

The right to development lay at the core of the mandate of UNDP -- it was the agency's mission to provide partners in developing countries, through a network of over 135 field offices, with knowledge-based advice on the entire range of issues that pertained to reducing poverty, building institutional capacity, and managing the challenges of globalization, as well as improving good governance.  At the national level, the deepening of democracy required a focus on strengthening the democratic institutions that formed the necessary foundation for achieving national development goals.  At the international level, the UNDP highlighted the urgency of forging a much more democratic space in which international institutions and transnational coalitions operated with the highest degree of transparency and gave developing countries both a seat at the table and a meaningful say in decisions that affected them.

ELOI LAOUROU(Benin) said the right to development referred to the imperative satisfaction of vital rights such as the rights to education, to food, access to health service, housing and to the preservation of a healthy environment, as well as the right to the equitable repartition of national resources.  If the right to development was a "particular process of development in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms could be fully realized", it was expected that the different actors should play the role assigned to them individually and collectively.

It was important that the States and Governments assume their obligations in the realization of the conditions in which human rights and fundamental freedoms were protected, as well as in the promotion of democracy, good governance and transparency in public affairs.  The people should also be able to participate in the process of development at all levels.  Efforts should be made to create conditions for sustained economic growth.  Greater attention should be paid to the issue of access to markets, the burden of foreign debt, and public assistance to development.

MOHAMED ALI AL-MALKI (Qatar) said the right to development was a legitimate and inalienable right enshrined by the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development.  Peace and stability were the main factors for promoting development.  However, wars and conflicts had become the main characteristics of certain countries.

Poverty was one of the main obstacles to achieving human rights and must therefore be eradicated through international cooperation.  Developed countries often flouted human rights by demeaning people from developing countries in order to subjugate them to their economic ends.  Fifty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the sad fact remained that more than
1 billion people still suffered from poverty, hunger and illiteracy because cooperation between developed and developing countries had not been taken seriously.

SELESHI MENGESHA DIGAFE(Ethiopia) said it was incumbent on the international community to allocate and mobilize additional and predictable resources, as well as to take measures to reduce debt burdens and eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers and unfair trade practices, which continued to undermine the participation of developing countries in the current international trade regime.  It was also crucial to forge a genuine partnership for development in which developed and developing countries would participate in a framework of interdependence and joint responsibility in decision-making on major international economic, financial and trade issues.

The NEPAD played a significant role in promoting partnerships toward the realization of the right to development on the African continent.  The regional framework, however, could not achieve its purpose without the assistance of development partners at the international level and the sustained efforts of Africans themselves.  Therefore, the development of solid and long-term partnerships based on mutual trust was very crucial.  At present, about 15 million people were threatened by looming famine in Ethiopia.  Famine did not only prevent the full enjoyment of human rights -- it was an absolute denial of the right to food.  Such a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented magnitude called for a quick and adequate response from the international community. 

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", speaking on behalf of Movimiento Cubano por la Paz and Union of Arab Jurists, said the right to development as a human right was inalienable and it was the basic necessity behind the rights to food, clothing and adequate housing -- fundamental material needs of the present civilization.  States had made a commitment during the Johannesburg Sustainable Development Conference to recognize the rights of peoples the right to sustainable development and their control over the natural resources of their respective countries.  They also had affirmed that human beings would be at the centre of all sustainable development. 

In order to implement sustainable development, the mode of production should be changed and the anarchical system of production and development should be replaced by rational production plans.  States should recognize indigenous groups as peoples and should respect their cultural diversity and conserve their values and knowledge.  An environmental norm should also be established in regions where indigenous peoples were living.  The United States, Australia, Canada and
United Kingdom were among the "Axis of Environmental Evils".

CONCHITA PONCINI, of the International Federation of University Women, speaking on behalf of the International Council of Women; the International Council of Jewish Women; Women's International Zionist Organization; Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children; World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women; United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation; Zonta International; and Socialist International Women, said gender discrimination was the source, not the cause, of women’s vulnerability.  Women had for hundreds of years worked in the informal economy, helping to keep the family alive and well.  They had not been recognized, nor had a voice as contributors to economic growth and development, because the work they performed at home or outside the formal economy was excluded from national statistics and considered as limited to the domestic and household spheres.

Estimated at a staggering 70 per cent of the poor, women had seen the globalization process widen the gap in economic disparities between women and men.  This phenomenon was exacerbated by unfair prohibition of ownership of property by women in many countries and by their lack of other land rights.  No international strategy for sustainable development could be effective if the root causes of inequality were not addressed.  Women also needed to be represented in an equitable manner in decision-making.  The best way to measure commitments to gender equality was to follow the money -- gender-responsive budget analysis could help Governments decide on the reallocation of resources to help achieve human development and gender equality.

PIERRE MIOT, of International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, said trade liberalization had not provided the expected advantages for numerous rural communities in developing countries, especially coffee producers.  There were 25 million coffee producers in more than 70 countries.  For the past several years, these producers had been victim of variations in the market price of coffee, which had fallen by 50 per cent over the past three years and was now at a 30-year record low.  Seeking foreign currencies, producer countries had increased production considerably while new countries had also started production, thus avoiding the exodus of rural populations to their cities and resulting in excess supply.

Consumption could not absorb excess supply and regulatory mechanisms put in place by States to manage surpluses and guarantee stable prices had been dismantled.  Furthermore, the International Coffee Agreement was not renewed in 1989 and the market was abandoned to the law of supply and demand, thus opening

the way to the activities of speculators who wagered on trends in production and prices.  Stocks were now entirely in the hands of several transnational corporations, which controlled 48 per cent of the world’s coffee production.

PRAMILA SRIVASTAVA, of the International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, said human development as an ultimate goal and as a means to other goals was undeniably accepted in principle and in policy.  Therefore the right to development occupied a very fundamental position, subsuming the rights to food, water, health and education.  The promotion and protection of the right to development faced many more challenges in the developing and underdeveloped countries than in developed countries.  Economic, social and educational deprivations still predominated and countered factors that could facilitate human development in these countries.  Many of these countries were still hindered by colonial legacies which had not liberated collective mindsets to align indigenous needs and resource-based paradigms of development models. 

At the international level, the effects of globalization and information and communications technology had no doubt made the world smaller, but whether these influences had given momentum to development issues was still a big question.  Strategies to promote and protect the right to development needed to address these contextual perspectives.  In this context, non-governmental organizations could play a significant role in deprived sections of society and in helping people with special needs.

Rights of Reply

A Representative of Rwanda, speaking in right of reply, said Rwandan troops had withdrawn long ago from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and they had not looted the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s natural resources.  The Rwandan troops had gone into the territory of the Congo in pursuit of the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda who had fled into the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

A Representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, speaking in right of reply, said the Ugandan and Rwandan armies were a thousand kilometres into the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  United Nations reports were clear:  the Rwandan army was pillaging the wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

A Representative of Uganda, speaking in right of reply, said the statement of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had taken the Ugandan delegation by surprise.  Uganda was committed to withdrawing its troops and was in the process of doing so.  The only troops that remained were there at the request of the United Nations.  There had been no pillaging or any such practices, and Uganda totally rejected these baseless allegations.

A Representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in a second right of reply, said the delegation of Uganda was denying that its troops had been looting the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s resources, but this looting had been affirmed by the international community.  Although an agreement had been signed between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Ugandan Government on the withdrawal of Ugandan troops, troops still remained on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

* *** *