Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights
(OHCHR)

March 23 2005

Commission starts general debate on right to development, discusses
report of Working Group on development

Foreign Minister of Germany, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of
Congo, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo
Address Commission

/noticias.info/ The Commission on Human Rights this morning started
its general debate on the right to development, hearing the
Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the right to
development present a report on the Group’s sixth session. It also
heard addresses from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, the
Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Congo, and the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo.

Joschka Fischer, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany,
said the United Nations Secretary-General had taken the initiative
for a courageous and comprehensive reform of the United Nations.
Germany welcomed that the Secretary-General and the High-level Panel
on Threats, Challenges and Change saw the need to substantially
improve the United Nations system for the protection of human rights.
Promoting human rights was not only a moral obligation but also an
important instrument for crisis prevention.

Gabriel Entcha-Ebia, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the
Congo, said the causes of spiralling violence in the world today
remained extreme poverty, hunger, diseases, illiteracy, racism and
discrimination and social inequality. One should ask whether it was
possible to create a world without violence, a world in which there
was full enjoyment of human rights, if the international community
did not take up the issue of poverty. The exacerbation of poverty led
to heightened resentment and thence to violence.

Also addressing the Commission was Soren Jessen-Petersen, the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo, who said that
during the past two weeks, the safe and secure environment in Kosovo
had been seriously tested by several events. Shocked and angry as
many Kosovo Albanians felt in response to those events, they
responded with restraint and dignity, and the few public
demonstrations that had taken place of late been entirely orderly.
All that represented a great step forward for Kosovo.

Albania and Serbia and Montenegro responded to the statement of Mr.
Jessen-Petersen as concerned countries.

Ibrahim Salama, Chairperson-Rapporteur of Working Group on the right
to development, presented the report of the Working Group on its
sixth session, saying that the Working Group believed that it had
successfully launched a promising process of further realisation of
the right to development. To sustain progress, there was a need to
maintain the same level of political will and commitment. There was
an objective alliance between globalization and the right to
development, and by definition this right was about an environment
and a process.

The Representatives of the following countries participated in the
debate: Malaysia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and China),
China (on behalf of the Like-Minded Group), Pakistan, Luxembourg (on
behalf of the European Union) Cuba, Ecuador, Nigeria, Mexico (on
behalf of GRULAC), India, Congo, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya (on
behalf of the League of Arab States), Qatar, Armenia, Ethiopia,
United States, Indonesia, Argentina and Nepal

China exercised its right of reply.

The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon to continue
with its general debate on the right to development.

Statements by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany and Minister of
Justice and Human Rights of Congo

JOSCHKA FISCHER, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany,
said there was agreement among the international community on the
need for effective multilateralism to successfully tackle the
challenges of the 21st century. The Secretary-General had taken the
initiative for a courageous and comprehensive reform of the United
Nations and the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change,
which he appointed impressively to set out the global problems.
Yesterday, he had presented his response to its report, and it was
welcomed that both the High-level Panel and the Secretary-General saw
the need to substantially improve the United Nations system for the
protection of human rights. One of the global challenges outlined in
the report was international terrorism with its totalitarian
ideology. All forms of this major threat should be fought resolutely.
However, experience in recent years showed that terrorism could be
combated successfully only with human rights, not without or even
against them. Terrorists should not be allowed to force us to
question our own values, and human rights norms should retain their
full validity.

All human rights, civil and political as well as economic, social and
cultural, should be fully implemented. Promoting human rights was
therefore not only a moral obligation but also an important
instrument for crisis prevention. Many of the human rights violations
which were of concern were discussed in detail in the Commission.
Unfortunately, this was not true of anti-Semitism. There was little
scope for combating this phenomenon in the United Nations human
rights bodies. In the last year, the human rights situation in some
countries had given cause for hope. But in many, too many cases,
there remained cause for grave concern. All acts of terrorism were
condemned firmly and utterly, but at the same time, all human rights
violations which were committed in the fight against violent acts and
in turn brought suffering was also condemned.

All indications of human rights violations should be investigated in
a transparent manner. This included granting international
organizations and independent media free access to the region.
Transparency was the only way to re-establish trust. But rapid
results were decisive. This meant that the deficits should be tackled
with determination and solutions found – solutions that were
effective for all. Constructive cooperation with the United Nations
special mechanisms and necessary reforms were essential were
required. It was strongly hoped that the Commission would do justice
to its responsibility both in the case of Sudan and in other cases of
massive human rights violations. This was its responsibility towards
the people whose rights were being so brutally violated, and its
responsibility towards the human rights that the Commission was
called upon to protect. Only when the Commission pledged its loyalty
to human rights clearly and firmly would it be able to do its job and
remain relevant as an institution.

GABRIEL ENTCHA-EBIA, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the
Congo, said that two major events had seriously affected the
realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide in
2004: the tsunami, which had reached from Southeast Asia to the coast
of Africa; and the upsurge in violence characterized by proliferation
of the causes of conflict, including terrorism, organized crime and
weapons proliferation. Welcoming the solidarity witnessed in the wake
of the tsunami, the Congo hoped that similar generosity would be seen
outside of disaster situations, particularly to the benefit of those
countries suffering from underdevelopment.

The causes of the spiralling violence remained extreme poverty,
hunger, diseases, illiteracy, racism and discrimination and social
inequality, he stressed. One must ask whether it was possible to
create a world without violence, a world in which there was full
enjoyment of human rights, if the international community did not
take up the issue of poverty. Would it be possible to maintain
security while a large part of society lived in poverty? The
exacerbation of poverty led to heightened resentment, and thence to
violence. However, the right to development remained an omnibus right
whose realization led to enjoyment of other human rights.

For its part, the Government of the Congo had developed a three-year
economic and financial programme, which made it possible for the
country to benefit from the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility,
and which envisaged a doubling of expenditure to fight poverty in the
present year. The national programme for the demobilization,
disarmament and reintegration of ex-combatants had recently been
launched, and the Government maintained the importance of addressing
the problem of the environment in ensuring sustainable development.
Other priority issues included protection of the rights of indigenous
people and realization of the rights to food and to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health — which must take
into account the effects of HIV/AIDS and malaria, and women’s rights.

Furthermore, economic, social and cultural rights must receive the
same level of attention as civil and political rights, he affirmed,
as all human rights were interdependent, inalienable and indivisible.
Congo had put in place an institutional framework founded upon the
principles of good governance and transparency, which guaranteed full
enjoyment of all these rights. Also raising the importance of
realization of the right to self-determination, he expressed hope
that the Sharm el-Sheikh summit would constitute an important step in
the right direction to enable the Palestinian people to exercise this
inalienable right. The persistence of violence in Iraq must also be
addressed in order to permit the Iraqi people full exercise of their
right to self-determination.

Statement by Special Representative of the Secretary-General for
Kosovo

SOREN JESSEN-PETERSEN, Special Representative of the
Secretary-General for Kosovo, said during the past two weeks, the
safe and secure environment in Kosovo had been seriously tested. In
that time, one had seen the indictment of the Former Prime Minister,
his voluntary departure for The Hague less than 24 hours after the
indictment, negotiations for the formation of a new Government, the
anniversary of the events of March 2004, and an attack on the
President. Shocked and angry as many Kosovo Albanians felt in
response to those events, they responded with restraint and dignity,
and the few public demonstrations that had taken place of late been
entirely orderly. All that represented a great step forward for
Kosovo.

As a United Nations body, the United Nations Interim Administration
Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) incorporated a strong human rights
component in its mandate, which was reflected in all areas of its
operation. However, success would ultimately depend on how much of
the mechanism one created for the protection of human rights remained
after UNMIK’s mission had ended. It was important that the Kosovo
institutions and the people had ownership of the human rights
principles and mechanisms and ensured their sustainability. There had
been several positive indications recently. The substantially
improved security climate, reflected in the absence of major
inter-ethnic crimes in the past year, was a sign that lessons from
the riots of March 2004 had been learnt ~V the lesson that violence
was not in the interest of Kosovo. The local judiciary had handled
the bulk of the cases following the riots of 12 months ago and,
whereas several perpetrators had been brought to justice, no cases of
miscarriage of justice on account of ethnic bias had been reported.

After a period of temporary inertia, Kosovo was now gathering
positive momentum that needed to be accelerated by the international
community. After one year, direct dialogue between Pristina and
Belgrade had resumed last week ~V and most importantly on the urgent
humanitarian issue of missing persons. Within Kosovo, there was an
emerging consensus on the process of decentralization that would
bring municipal authorities close to the citizens and would promote
integration. There was a growing realization among Kosovo Serbs that
participation in the democratic process would be more beneficial to
their common future in Kosovo.

Response from Concerned Countries

VLADIMIR THANATI (Albania), responding as a concerned country to the
statement by Mr. Jessen-Petersen, said he wished to thank the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for the enormous amount of
work he had done in Kosovo. In Kosovo, control and decentralization
of institutions continued every day, as had been noted by the Special
Representative, and the set of successes and developments regarding
the fight against poverty, despite remaining problems, was a source
of optimism. The Special Representative’s report also showed that,
individually and collectively, Kosovar society felt a responsibility
to build a multi-ethnic society, and to lay its foundations,
including respect for human rights, in all institutions.

He also welcomed the engagement witnessed between the leadership in
Kosovo and that in Belgrade to resolve remaining problems, including
the situation of Serbs living in Kosovo, disappeared persons, and the
peaceful return of Serb refugees to Kosovo. The Government of Albania
had frequently emphasized its intention to maintain the situation of
peace throughout the Balkans. The successful solution of the
situation in Kosovo was not just a concern for Albania, but
throughout the Balkans.

DEJAN JAHOVIC (Serbia and Montenegro), responding as a concerned
country to Mr. Jessen-Petersen’s statement, said the statement had
been listened to with great attention, and Mr. Jessen-Petersen’s
appearance was a welcome development. Serbia would continue to be
interested in the human rights standards and their implementation in
Kosovo. The human rights situation of the non-Albanian minorities,
including the Serbian minority, was of extreme importance, as it
remained extremely precarious, and had been so ever since Serbia had
lost control of the territory. This would however be discussed more
in detail later in the session.

The situation in Kosovo with regard to human rights was changing
slowly, and not always for the better. The latest report of the
Secretary-General had confirmed this fact. The most fundamental of
the standards to be introduced was the guaranteed right of minorities
to live, travel and work freely in Kosovo. The living conditions for
the Serbian Roma and other minorities were very difficult. The
confinement of some minorities to restricted areas had caused great
difficulty including problems linked to health and education. These
were only a few examples of the ongoing problems faced by
non-Albanian minorities, and this should not be tolerated by the
international community, nor by the Kosovar leaders. It was good to
be optimistic and to push the process forward, and there were some
positive signs, as mentioned by Mr. Jessen-Petersen, but it was
necessary to be realistic and to address the existing problems
without ignoring them for the sake of political opportunity and quick
solutions.

Documents on the Right to Development

Under its agenda item on the right to development, the Commission has
before it a number of documents for its consideration.

There is the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(E/CN.4/2005/24) which contains a summary of the activities
undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner, separately or
jointly with others, with regard to the implementation of the right
to development. Particular importance is placed on those activities
which relate to the right to development issues identified in
resolutions of the General Assembly and the Commission on Human
Rights, as well as in the agreed conclusions contained in the reports
of the open-ended Working Group on the right to development. Among
the subjects addressed in the report are human rights and poverty
reduction; the Millennium Development Goals; globalization and
international economic and financial issues; the role of the human
rights of women; democracy, good governance and the rule of law; and
the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

There is the report of the Working Group on the Right to Development
on its sixth session (E/CN.4/2005/25), presented by its
Chairperson-Rapporteur, Ibrahim Salama. The Working Group recognizes
that States should undertake, at the national level, all necessary
measures for the realization of the right to development and that
States have the duty to take steps, individually and collectively, to
formulate international development policies with a view to
facilitating the full realization of the right to development. The
Working Group further recognizes that an unsustainable debt burden is
a major obstacle for developing countries in achieving Millennium
Development Goals and in making progress in the realization of the
right to development. The Group recommends that States should be
encouraged to undertake independent impact assessments of trade
agreements on the right to development and encourages States to
consider using these assessments in the context of all the relevant
international trade forums.

There is a document (E/CN/4/2005/63) which contains the written input
from the World Health Organization to the Commission concerning its
initiatives and activities of relevance to the present session of the
Commission, including the right to development.

There is also a document (E/CN.4/2005/133) which contains a written
submission by the United Nations Development Programme providing
information on its activities in several areas being discussed by the
Commission, including the right to development.

Presentation of Report of Working Group on the Right to Development

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the
right to development, said since the Declaration on the Right to
Development was adopted 20 years ago, it had remained largely a
controversial issue with disputes over the legal nature of the right
to development, divisions as to definition of it and confusion with
regard to its scope. Although the Working Group avoided definitional
debates, both the letter and the spirit of its agreed conclusions
clearly indicated that the right to development was not a right to
assistance, not a license to claim the fruit of the work of others or
to share their wealth, and not a romantic remnant of a certain idea
of social justice. The agreed conclusions and recommendations also
excluded that the right to development would be seen as a simple
addition of all human rights, a synonymous of a rights-based approach
to development, an act of charity, a wishful thinking, or merely an
impossible mission.

The implementation of the right to development required growth with
equity. On the other hand, this noble mission of the right to
development did not transform it into a “magic wand” with “super
jurisdiction” over legally established mandates in the name of human
rights. The agreed conclusions and recommendations also addressed the
legal nature of the duty to cooperate in its proper perspective and
right sequence by stating that “mutual commitments, as part of the
duty of international cooperation, could lead to specific binding
arrangements between cooperating partners to meet the right to
development requirements. Such arrangements could only be defined and
agreed upon through genuine negotiations”.

Relevance and credibility were fundamental requirements of any human
rights standard setting exercise so that its outcome could make a
real difference on the ground and so that it was considered seriously
by all relevant actors. Relevance and credibility within the right to
development framework required that all topics under consideration
had an established human rights angle and were likely to produce
added value. The notions of partnership and mutual commitments were
at the heart of most of the agreed conclusions and recommendations
under the consideration of the Commission. The Working Group believed
that it had successfully launched a promising process of further
realisation of the right to development. To sustain progress, there
was a need to maintain the same level of political will and
commitment. There was an objective alliance between globalization and
the right to development, and by definition this right was about an
environment and a process.

General Debate on the Right to Development

DATO’HSU KING BEE (Malaysia), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned
Movement and China, said the right to development had assumed
additional importance this year when development issues had taken
center stage, particularly with the upcoming Millennium Review
Project. Within the Commission on Human Rights, the right to
development process had embarked on a new road with the establishment
of the High-Level Task Force on the implementation of that right. The
Task Force, which was essential to assist the Working Group in
fulfilling its mandate by proposing action-oriented recommendations
on issues determined by the Working Group, should serve to bypass the
lengthy course of unnecessary and repetitive conceptualization. Its
work should be further refined and enhanced with a view to achieving
a clearer focus on the right to development.

The Non-Aligned Movement also welcomed the consensus outcome of the
sixth session of the Working Group, she said, and the set of
recommendations representing a common understanding towards practical
implementation of the right to development, especially regarding
implementation of the Millennium Development Goals and the Social
Impact Assessment in the Area of Trade and Development. Moreover, the
consensus reached on policy space and its relevance to the right to
development must be viewed as a positive step towards realization of
the right to development. That right did not concern poverty
eradication alone, but also building partnerships to ensure economic
growth and development for all. There was no room to re-interpret the
right to development, or to modify its terms of reference. The right
to development must be mainstreamed into the policies and operational
activities of major international organizations and institutions so
as to evolve a truly global partnership for full realization of the
right.

LA YIFAN (China), speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, said
the right to development, like all other rights, entailed obligations
that should be met by States, and should be enjoyed by every human
person and all peoples of the world, as emphasized in the Declaration
on the Right to Development. States’ obligations defined in the
Declaration should create the national and international conditions
favourable to the realization of that right, a task that could only
be achieved through international cooperation. International
cooperation should not be subjected to conditionality or any form of
sequencing of commitments at the national and international levels,
nor should it be treated as a matter of charity, or viewed in the
context of a donor-recipient relation, but rather as a duty to
cooperate that States had adhered to in the Declaration.

International cooperation for the implementation of the Right to
Development should translate into Official Development Assistance,
grants or loans, but should also go beyond that narrow prism to
entail the creation of an environment, free from structural
obstacles, that was conducive for the enjoyment of that right. That
had become an imperative in the midst of a globalizing world that
imposed immense challenges on developing countries struggling to
fulfil the basic needs of their people. It also promoted an
unfavourable multilateral trading system that restricted access for
developing countries and allowed for export subsidies to
significantly undermine its development efforts, and where an ever
growing-gap between developed and developing countries was
threatening world stability.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said more than a decade ago, the basic
tenets of the right to development had been reaffirmed as an integral
part of the architecture of fundamental human rights. However, it
could not be disputed that the right to development was yet to
graduate from mere exhortations, and was far from being translated
into concrete and concerted international action – one that could
make a difference for the billions in misery whose lives continued to
be rocked by pervasive poverty on a daily basis. The reality of
pervasive poverty amidst plenty was morally unacceptable and
politically unsustainable. It should not be swept under the carpet of
inadequate governance. It needed to be acknowledged that the right to
development owed its genesis to the historical wrongs committed
during a process of lopsided development. These should be rectified
through a concerted and result-oriented international action with the
involvement of the relevant international organizations and
institutions of economic governance.

Globalization was perhaps the virtual ideology of modern existence
and a concept brimming with promise, but the reality, unfolded so
far, had belied the expectation of the ideologues. Its benefits were
too distant for too many who had no voice in its design and no
influence on its course. A truly global cost-benefit analysis of
globalization, beyond the continental and hemispherical confines,
would reveal that the international economic environment was
characterised by deep-seated imbalances. The problems of developing
countries were aggravated by a shrinking policy space in the wake of
increasing international obligations. While States had the primary
responsibility for creating conditions favourable to the realisation
of the right to development, it was rendered meaningless in the
absence of the much-needed policy space to tailor development
strategies in accordance with country-specific needs and
circumstances.

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European Union
and associated countries, reiterated the European Union’s commitment
to the right to development as defined in the Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Action. Human beings remained central to the process of
development, of which they were not merely the beneficiaries, but in
which they must be involved as active players. Respect for human
rights also constituted a prerequisite for effective and sustainable
development policies and contributed to the fight against poverty,
including through the free expression of the will of individuals and
their involvement in the conduct of public affairs. Fundamental
principles such as equality, equity, non-discrimination,
transparency, accountability and participation were the central
elements of an approach based on human rights for development, and
particular attention must be given, in that process, to full
participation of marginalized and disadvantaged groups.

States must fulfil their legal obligations regarding respect for
human rights, including the right to development, he added, noting
that the European Union had long emphasized the importance of good
governance, the rule of law, democracy, action against corruption and
a sound national economic environment to ensure development.
International cooperation was also important to create conditions
favourable for development, and the Union’s commitment had been
expressed through development cooperation partnerships and agreements
such as the Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the Union and
African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. However, such partnerships
remained voluntary; a legally-binding international instrument was
not a viable option for implementation of the right to development.
The European Union supported the efforts made by the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote integration of the
right to development, and other human rights, into the United Nations
system, including through the Action 2 agenda. The establishment of
the High-Level Task Force was also welcomed.

MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA CASEIRO (Cuba) said the negative impact of
neo-liberal globalization, which took away the autonomy of developing
countries with regards to decision-making to draft development
policies suitable to their realities; the huge protectionist barriers
imposed by developed countries; unequal exchange in trade; decrease
in and failure to comply with the commitment to Official Development
Aid; and the unsustainable burden of the foreign debt as a factor of
permanent decapitalization of the economies of South countries, were
some of the main obstacles which hampered the realization of the
right to development. Cuba’s own experience showed that although
sustained huge efforts and the proven political will and commitment
of its Government had led to undeniable advances in the realization
of the right of its people and all its citizens to development, it
was not possible to achieve full sustainable development if the
unfair patterns governing the international economic, financial and
commercial order did not change.

In the case of Cuba, the negative consequences stemming from that
prevailing unfair international order were accompanied by the impact
of the tightened and illegal economic, financial and commercial
blockade imposed by the United States against the country for over 45
years. This blockade was not only the main obstacle to the
realization of the right to development, but it represented a massive
and flagrant violation of all the human rights of the Cuban people.

HERNAN ESCUDERO MARTINEZ (Ecuador) said practically five years after
the Millennium Declaration and Goals, Ecuador was committed to these
goals and their follow-up. It was important to supervise and keep
under constant review the progress made in implementing the right to
development and to keep it up to international levels, as this would
help in analysing obstacles in its way. The obstacles were identified
at the last session of the Working Group, particularly with regard to
the crushing weight of foreign debt which was a serious obstacle.
Progress should be made on developing more practical proposals and
appropriate mechanisms to overcome these obstacles and allow States
to enjoy the right to development fully.

The size of the foreign debt caused opportunities for investment to
shrink. Development was intimately linked to the liberalisation of
international trade, with full access in the spirit of
non-discrimination for all to the markets of developed nations. The
Doha Development Round at the World Trade Organization could not end
successfully if there was no concrete response to these requirements.
Internal efforts in each country were also essential for progress, as
was democratic participation, and the policies and strategies adopted
should be so from a human rights angle. The industrialised countries
should take into account in their international commercial, financial
and economic strategies the need to strengthen developing countries
and not to weaken them, thus impeding their access to this right.

JOSEPH U. AYALOGU (Nigeria) said the Government of Nigeria had
elaborated a programme of economic reforms — the National Economic
Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) — in order to meet the
challenges of development. That programme aimed to lay a solid
foundation for sustainable socio-economic transformation and poverty
eradication, and to constitute part of the national contribution to
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and the objectives of
the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. Among the objectives of
the NEEDS programme figured rapid, broad-based GDP growth outside of
the oil sector, diversification of the production structure away from
oil and mineral resources, and a systematic reduction of the role of
the Government in the direct production of goods. Strategies to those
ends included privatization, deregulation and liberalization of key
sectors of the economy and the coordination of national sector
development strategies for agriculture and industry through small-
and medium-scale enterprises and services. Democracy had so far
yielded good returns for the Nigerian capital market.

The Commission must help to make the right to development meaningful
where it mattered most, he stressed. Africa remained off track to
achieve the Millennium Development Goals due to the continent’s
disproportionate share of the world’s poor, as well as the tragic
consequences of deadly conflicts and poor governance. If the Goals
were to be met, there must be increased overseas development, and
debt relief or debt fulfilment. The international community should
work to create an enabling environment conducive to development and
elimination of poverty through the Commission’s future work on the
right to development.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA GONGORA (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the
Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), said the right to
development was an inalienable right in the promotion and protection
of all other human rights, particularly the right to economic, social
and cultural rights. GRULAC considered that the concept of the right
to development targeted human beings. The implementation of the right
to development required a political will and an effective policy of
development. In addition, international cooperation should be
effective in promoting the right. As it was defined in the
Declaration, the right to development was a fundamental right, like
the other human rights. The right also included the right to
self-determination in deciding the economic and financial policies
that fitted the realities of each country.

The effort of the implementation of the right to development required
equitable economic relations among States. States should also adopt
policies with the view to eradicating poverty alongside their
development efforts. Developing countries should take measures to
democratize their societies and be able to participate equitably in
international trade. The foreign debt services had continued to
hamper the full implementing of the right to development by taking
away the resources necessary for national development. The
development of many countries in the third world was not guaranteed
by the social development policies they adopted. The measures they
took could not avoid the international economic crisis that might
negatively impact on their countries. The international community
should make efforts to close the current gap of economic inequality
among nations.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said it was a matter of concern that more
than 55 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights, the goal of the inherent dignity of man was nowhere
close to realisation. The importance of the right to development,
which represented a synthesis of civil, political, economic, social
and cultural rights, lay in enabling the international community to
address these important issues effectively. The time had come to
translate concepts and ideas into action. The development agenda had
assumed centre-stage today. Issues of poverty, deprivation,
marginalisation, and inequalities at the national and international
levels were of even greater relevance today. There should be a move
away from conceptual debates to concrete action, where clarity was
necessary even as there was a move forward. Development in its true
sense was a process of a rights-based approach to economic growth.

The realisation of the right to development required first and
foremost effective policies at the national level. States had the
primary responsibility and obligation. Rights were entitlements that
required co-related duties and the realisation of the right to
development could be ensured only if the existence of corresponding
obligations were acknowledged both at the national and international
levels. The realisation of the right to development thus required
equitable economic relations, a conducive economic environment, and
cooperation at the international level. Developing countries
continued to remain short of resources required for realisation of
this right. The work of the United Nations organizations, agencies
and funds, and international bodies such as the World Trade
Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
needed to be continually improved and adapted to the imperatives of
the right to development and much more needed to be done on the
international level.

ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo) said debt burdens constituted a major
obstacle to development for numerous developing countries in that
resources that should have been allocated to meet the fundamental
needs of the people were instead spent in debt servicing. For that
reason, the Government of Congo had raised the issue, subsequently
taken up by the High-level Task Force and the Working Group on the
right to development, that donor countries and international
financial institutions should develop alternate methods to promote
debt viability including through subsidies, and the provision of
additional contributions for debt relief in excess of the Highly
Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) provisions. The feasibility of debt
depended upon a range of variables, including the specificities of
the country, the quality of its institutions, and its vulnerability
to external shocks. Debt relief for HIPC countries should be carried
out in such a manner to supplement bilateral official development
assistance.

The Congo had, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund,
elaborated a three-year economic and financial programme, which had
enabled it to reduce poverty and increase growth. Such programmes
could clearly be of benefit to developing countries. The Congo also
welcomed the United Kingdom’s recent decision to no longer tie
development aid to liberalization of trade and privatization of the
economy in poor countries.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) said Egypt associated itself with the statements
of the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the Like-Minded
Group. The right to development was adopted 20 years ago but the
world had not yet make progress in that field. This was because of
the lack of political will and the concentration on certain human
rights and not others. All human rights were interdependent,
inalienable and indivisible. Various obstacles that each developing
country had met with had challenged the full realization of the right
to development. The realization of the right to development was
urgent because of the increasing challenge that it posed in economic
and social fields. At the national and international levels, there
was a need to design policies of transparency for the implementation
of the right to development. Egypt would like to see the results of
the document submitted by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights on the right to development.

In conclusion, Egypt hope that the political will and the necessary
aid and support would become available to ensure implementing the
right to development at all levels.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said the progress of the Working
Group on the right to development had made in promoting access to the
right to development was to be commended. It was note-worthy that
during the six sessions of the Working Group, progress had been made
in this right, and it was hoped this would continue. The state of
inertia which had impeded the realisation of this right should not be
allowed to continue. Development that was not based on respect for
human rights was doomed to failure. Human rights would remain in
usury as long as the economic and social elements of development were
neglected. The full realisation of the right to development was the
best way of achieving all other human rights. It was hoped the
Working Group would soon formulate specific criteria for the
implementation of this right.

Without equality among rights, in particular the right to
development, all other rights would suffer. Unconditional support
should be given to the developing countries that were rich in culture
and history. Greater support should be given to these countries by
the international community. The Government of Saudi Arabia had
contributed significantly to the funding of development in many
countries, and had waived $ 6 billion owed in this context in order
to strengthen the efforts of these countries.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab
States, welcomed the work of the Working Group on the right to
development, and of the High-level Task Force, and stressed that the
international community must give strong support to ensure the
implementation of the right to development, including by moving from
the conceptual to the practical level in this regard. The Working
Group’s mandate should be extended for an additional year to enable
this progress. While agreeing that the human person was the focus of
development, the League of Arab States did not agree with the narrow
viewpoint that civil and political rights should be separated from
economic, social and cultural rights, and in particular the right to
development.

Welcoming the emphasis on the responsibility of the State and the
international community to initiate implementation of the right to
development, she said that the League of Arab States remained
convinced that the weight of debt remained one of the greatest
obstacles to development, particularly for the poorest countries, and
to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Among initiatives
to be considered for debt relief should figure writing off such
debts. This would encourage States to enter into the world market, as
would reflect positively on the promotion of human rights. Moreover,
there should be consideration of making provisions for countries that
did not meet the criteria of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries
initiative to qualify to receive special assistance under it. Also
welcoming the consideration of the issue by World Trade Organization
members, she stressed that it was the international community’s
responsibility to achieve results within the Doha framework.

MESHAAL AL-ATTIYAH (Qatar) said in a world where poverty and
marginalization of vulnerable groups was increasing, the right to
development had gained a place on the agenda of the Commission
because of the lack of implementation of this right, and the effect
that that had on the rest of the human rights. The right to
development included permanent sovereignty over natural resources,
self-determination, equality of opportunities and ensuring the proper
conditions for humans to enjoy their economic, social, cultural,
civil, political and other rights.

Poverty had disastrous effects on humans and their enjoyment of all
human rights. The spread of disease, hunger and illiteracy around the
world had become very serious, and the situation was worsening
because of the widening gap between rich and poor countries. All
States should respect and implement the right to development together
with the other human rights. Qatar had been endeavouring to implement
the right to development, which it believed would benefit its people.
A number of other measures had also been taken in the field of
education and cultural aspects. The implementation of the right to
development would contribute to the further stability of the world
economy.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said the generic nature of the right to
development represented rather compelling evidence of synergies of
all rights, civil and political, as well as economic, social and
cultural rights, for the comprehensive implementation of national
development policies. While Armenia recognised the clear distinction
between these two sets of rights, and while it gave due note to the
progressive nature of the economic, social and cultural rights, its
evolving national experience of pursuing the right to development
represented a rather interesting case of linkages and
interdependencies of different human rights within the development
agenda. While economic development as such was a considerable driving
force behind the effective realisation of the right to development,
Armenia’s case demonstrated compelling interdependence between the
priorities of reducing inequalities and improving governance.

Armenia’s development agenda had been subject to uninterrupted and
extensive cooperation with both the international financial
institutions as well as with the broader United Nations machinery.
Armenia had traditionally supported the relevant resolution in the
Commission concerning the right to development, and looked forward to
entering into the deliberations of the new text with a view to
extending support to it. A consensual nature and broad-based support
to the resolution would be welcomed, as the signs of gradual
convergence of positions on this issue were noted. The Working Group
with its extended mechanisms had evolved into an important forum for
collective thinking, for further concept developments and for the
exchange of best practices concerning the right to development.

LULIT ZEWDIE (Ethiopia) said the consideration of the right to
development on the agenda at the annual sessions of the Commission
showed the importance of the realisation of this right for the
promotion and protection of the basic human rights and freedoms of
all people, particularly people in the developing world. The
Government of Ethiopia attached great importance to the realisation
of the rights of people to development, combating poverty and
ensuring sustainable development had been at the top of the
development agenda.

Mobilising the people behind the policies and strategies to acquire
real growth, combating dependency and strengthening districts and
counties to enable them to acquire the capacity to support and lead
the people’s development activities were also the areas given
attention in the development endeavours in Ethiopia. Efforts had been
made to organise grass-roots level participation to discuss and
enrich knowledge on developmental issues and good-governance. The
importance of gender equality for development and poverty reduction
had been given due attention. However, like many developing
countries, meeting the Millennium Development Goals had been a
difficult task for Ethiopia. Constraints such as insufficient
resources, lack of capacity, debt and the unfair international trade
system continued to pose great challenges.

LINO PIEDRA (United States) said that the eradication of poverty
around the world remained an important part of the foreign policy of
the United States which supported development in many areas. In 2003,
the United States had been the originator of more than 70 per cent of
all financial flows reaching developing countries from G-7 developed
world through private investment, private philanthropy, public aid
and private remittances. Totalled together, the United States
accounted for more than $ 340 billion in financial flows in that
year. These numbers underscored the importance of the country’s
commitment to freedom, and to free and open markets for world
development.

The United States understood the right to development to mean that
each individual should enjoy the right to develop his or her
intellectual or other capacities to the maximum extent possible
through the exercise of the full range of civil and political rights,
he stressed. Each person had inherent human rights to life, liberty
and an adequate standard of living, as laid out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Taken together, these rights could be
seen as a blueprint for human development within which one could
speak about an individual’s right to development. One could not,
however, speak of a nation’s right to development for the simple
reason that nations did not have human rights. States had the
responsibility to provide their citizens with political and civil
rights, and economic and social freedoms essential to each
individual’s full development; failure to do so crippled development.
Time and again, it had been shown that States, which respected and
protected civil and political rights, and which respected the
economic rights and freedoms of individuals — including the right to
property — had stronger, more vibrant economies than those in which
such rights were flouted.

MUHAMMAD ANSHOR (Indonesia) said the mainstreaming of the right to
development into the activities and operational programmes of all
international organizations and agencies would contribute to a more
effective application of the right. However, Indonesia still believed
that in the implementation of the right to development at the
national level, States should retain a wide discretion with regard to
their independence and especially in the formation and implementation
of their national policy. International cooperation and partnerships
undoubtedly had a key role to play in the right to development. The
Government of Indonesia was especially heartened by the fact that the
Office of the High Commissioner, in its activities, regarded the
fundamental nature of the right to development as being a synthesis
of civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social
and cultural rights on the other.

Indonesia was greatly looking forward to the submission of a concept
document by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights to the Commission. The Indonesian delegation was of the
opinion that there was a crucial need for a legally binding
instrument concerning that right as had been requested by General
Assembly resolution 59/185.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the right to development was a matter
of importance, since in order to fully achieve economic, social and
cultural rights, it was important to implement measures at both the
national and international levels and to implement necessary public
policies. National measures should be accompanied by a favourable
international economic environment, including liberalization of
trade. A better-prepared session of the Working Group with greater
participation of agencies in the system and Experts would give rise
to more appropriate conclusions that were better designed.

The meeting of the Working Group had arrived at its conclusions
however, and they were evidence of a job very well done. Some of the
experiences and practices considered could enrich the discussions and
in themselves were measures designed to help implement the
Declaration. It was hoped the consultations on the Draft Resolution
would have favourable results.

DIWAKAR PANT (Nepal) recalled that the right to development had been
confirmed as an inalienable human right, that the equality of
opportunity for development remained a prerogative both of nations
and of individuals, and that the individual remained the central
subject and beneficiary of development. States had the primary
responsibility for the implementation of the right to development,
but the international community also had a responsibility to support
national development efforts. A holistic and comprehensive approach
should be adopted at all levels to promote effective implementation
of the right to development.

The efforts of the Working Group on the right to development to move
from the philosophical level to that of practical implementation must
be supported, he added, and the High-level Task Force’s
acknowledgement that a number of the principles underlying the
declaration on the right to development guided the policies of the
multilateral development and financial institutions merited
attention. In addition to continuing the momentum for constructive
and cooperative engagement between the High-level Task Force and
those institutions, the Task Force should suggest concrete measures
to facilitate implementation of the right to development. He also
welcomed the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights in support of the right to development.

Right of Reply

LI WEN (China), speaking in a right of reply in reference to the
statement delivered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany
this morning, said the Minister had mentioned China among the
countries that he considered were violating human rights.
Regrettably, the Minister omitted human rights violations in one of
his allies. His concerns of human rights violations were politically
motivated. China would very soon be holding a dialogue with Germany
and the human rights issue would also be raised.