General Assembly Session 49 meeting 62

Mr. Kalpagé (Sri Lanka)

I should like to thank the Secretary-General for his well-considered report on "An Agenda for Development", which contains a number of important and constructive proposals for our consideration. The Secretary-General has placed before us a document that reflects the lively discussions held during the World Hearings on Development and the consensus reached during the substantive session of the Economic and Social Council. My delegation hopes that this process to forge an agenda for development will result in a concrete programme of action acceptable to all Member States.

Development is now known to be a complex process involving complex problems that cannot be solved through a piecemeal approach or only through institutional and policy change. It is a process that takes place when a number of elements or imperatives of development interlock. It requires an integrated approach that puts in place all the imperatives of development, taking into account the specificities of each country. These elements include: an international and national policy environment that is conducive to development; a supportive multilateral system, including an effective United Nations; a free and fair trading system; technology and financing; enhanced international cooperation; effective participation of the people; efficient national institutions and organizations; human resource capacity; efficient administrative systems; growth-oriented cultural and political processes; and a supportive natural environment. To generate the development process and maintain its momentum, all these component elements must interlock.

It is imperative that the Agenda for Development should include action by all parties involved in order to bring these elements into play for the purpose of fostering the development process. Such an Agenda should have goals, objectives and targets derived by synthesizing the goals and commitments endorsed by past conferences and declarations. In some sectors, targets could be identified in quantitative terms and with a time-frame for their achievement.

We agree with the Secretary-General that

"development should be recognized as the foremost and most far-reaching task of our time" (A/49/665, para. 4)

and that new approaches to development not only should generate growth but should also distribute its benefits equitably, be human-centred and provide job-led growth. We agree that these goals should find expression in a new framework for international cooperation.

In view of the increasing interdependence of nations and the globalization of economic activity, an approach that does not imply a North-South confrontation is needed to establish a new framework for international cooperation. In such a framework, the United Nations must play a major role in policy leadership and in operational activity. This premise necessarily means that the United Nations system should be strengthened to become more effective and coherent as an agent for inducing development and not merely as a monitor to trigger an alarm system to activate mechanisms for intervention.

The Secretary-General has pointed out, quite rightly, that the United Nations cannot be a strong force for peace unless it is a strong force for development. The United Nations can become a strong force for development by being the agent of change in the sphere of development. It should be the highest forum in which to debate economic and social issues in an integrated manner, and should also be in a position to give effective policy guidance to the other multilateral bodies involved in development.

In the view of my delegation, this can be done not by concentrating the decision-making process in smaller bodies, such as the proposed extended Bureau of the Economic and Social Council, or through centralizing decision-making and adding more layers of bureaucracy, but by removing the factors that constrain the United Nations role in development. In our view, two important factors that reduce the role of the United Nations in development are the absence of an effective institutional relationship between the Organization and other multilateral bodies and the inadequacy of financial resources to meet the emerging challenges. A more vibrant and mutually supportive relationship is needed between the United Nations, as the universal, transparent and democratic policy-making political body at the global level, and the other multilateral institutions involved in development, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. This relationship should enable the United Nations to give these bodies broad policy guidance for operational activities and to review the implementation of these policies periodically. Mechanisms for these bodies to provide information to the United Nations to facilitate policy-making at the global level in the economic and social sectors should be an essential element in this relationship.

Collaborative arrangements at the field level between the United Nations funding agencies and the multilateral bodies is another much-needed aspect of this relationship. We support the proposals of the Secretary-General regarding field-level collaborative programmes.

My delegation does not believe that adding more bureaucratic layers to the decision-making process or limiting the debate on development issues will improve the impact of the United Nations on the development process. On the contrary, such tendencies could result in misguided and ill-conceived attempts at development which would fail to meet the needs of developing countries. Informed debate will facilitate enlightened policy-making, correct prioritization of goals and induce customization of approach. To maintain the trust that the international community has placed in the United Nations, its democratic and universal character should be preserved. The Second and Third Committees have an important role to play in this regard.

The importance of the United Nations as a force for development ultimately rests on the availability of resources at its command. The tendency now is to emphasize cost-efficiency measures as a solution to the financial crisis rather than to provide the new and additional resources necessary to meet the challenges faced by the Organization. Cost efficiency is important but not at the price of sapping the vitality of the Organization and perpetuating its financial crisis. An action programme is necessary to reach the agreed official-development-assistance target of 0.7 per cent of the gross national product within a specific time frame.

The imperatives of development are a function of both international and national systems. At the international level the means of implementing development programmes, namely finance and technology, must be addressed adequately. We support fully the Secretary-General's proposal for an international conference on financing to discuss ways and means of mobilizing the urgently needed resources for development. If they do not address the problems of external debt, trade restrictions and commodity prices, international programmes of action will be confined to painstakingly negotiated documents but the case of development will be lost. An Agenda for Development must contain focused action to address these issues within an appropriate time frame, in particular the external-debt problem of developing countries.

We fully agree that appropriate domestic policies are necessary for human-centred development. Measures for human- resources development are important and should be part of the Agenda for Development. However, my delegation firmly believes that human-resources development achieved in isolation, without action for the economic growth necessary to consolidate and maintain the gains in human development, will not result in sustained development. In the absence of economic growth to provide employment, healthy and educated youth will resort to involvement in terrorism, drug trafficking, prostitution and crime. This will not only set back development but also destroy the entire fabric of society. We therefore strongly maintain that the Agenda for Development should include simultaneous action for human development and economic growth. As the Secretary-General rightly states:

"For most people and most countries, economic growth is the sine qua non of development. Economic growth is not an option; it is an imperative." (A/49/665, para. 5)

Regional goals for human development and economic growth should be identified in the Agenda for Development on the basis of the potential for development and a correct assessment of the base level of economic growth. We believe that there cannot be a homogenized approach to solving development issues because nation States are different in their problems, their perspectives, their cultures, their social and economic structures and their stages of development. While it is important to look at models which provide the different actors to give impulses for growth, a particular model cannot be prescribed for all countries. The dimensions of good governance, democracy and social mobilization are important. Their exact forms and mechanisms, however, have to be adapted by Member States to suit the specificities of each.

In conclusion, my delegation reiterates the view that an Agenda for Development should include concrete proposals for action to be taken by all concerned to achieve identified objectives and specified targets within a given time frame. Such action should cover the imperatives to development, priority being given to the means of implementation of programmes, namely finance and technology. Only then will an Agenda for Development be meaningful and meet the needs and aspirations of people and contribute to their economic and social advancement.

Mr. Mra (Myanmar)

At the outset, I wish to express my delegation's appreciation to His Excellency Mr. Samuel Insanally, President of the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session, for the summary of the World Hearings on Development, contained in document A/49/320. Our appreciation also goes to the Secretary-General for his report entitled "An agenda for development: recommendations", contained in document A/49/665, which follows up his report of 6 May 1994, contained in document A/48/935. My delegation associates itself with the views expressed by Ambassador Lamamra, Permanent Representative of Algeria to the United Nations and Chairman of the Group of 77.

Since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 47/181, the international community has been galvanized into refocusing its attention on the economic and social advancement of all peoples, one of the ultimate objectives of the United Nations. From the discussions held at the World Hearings on Development, the subsequent high-level segment of the Economic and Social Council and the general debate in the current session of the General Assembly, we have had a wealth of views and analysis on the question of development. Taking into account all these views, as well as comments from other sources, the Secretary-General has provided us with recommendations to make the United Nations system an effective instrument of development. My delegation wishes to make some observations on the three key objectives which the Secretary-General has addressed in his latest report.

In the wake of the tremendous changes we have been witnessing in the world, the previous framework for international development has become inadequate. The need for a favourable international economic environment has become more urgent for development. Although each State is primarily responsible for its own development, this task has proved to be monumental in the face of an adverse international setting. This is even truer in the case of developing countries whose dependence on trade and foreign assistance continues to persist. If one adds to this situation the acute debt problem and other uncertainties in external macroeconomic forces, the prognosis for many developing countries becomes even more dismal.

The Secretary-General has submitted various recommendations to strengthen and revitalize international development cooperation. My delegation particularly supports the recommendations for bringing development assistance closer to the agreed targets for an adequate and permanent reduction in the stock of debt for reforming countries in debt crisis and for equitable access for developing countries to expanding global opportunities in trade, technology, investment and information. My delegation believes that unless we can make headway in those three areas, the recovery, economic growth and eventual development of the developing countries will be far from being realized. Progress in these areas can be made only in the true spirit of cooperation and partnership between developed and developing countries. My delegation is convinced that a true partnership is possible only with the political will of the developed countries.

My delegation welcomes the Secretary-General's recommendation that the holding of an international conference on the financing of development should be considered. Brazil's proposal for a United Nations conference on development is also welcome, particularly because of its objective of synthesizing into a coherent whole all the problems and initiatives of the sectoral conferences that have been held and are yet to be held. My delegation hopes that these ideas will be further pursued in greater detail.

The Charter of the United Nations pledges the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and the Organization is given a central role in achieving that aim. Despite this mandate and the various capacities of the United Nations in the economic and social fields and other relevant funds and programmes, the laudable ends of economic and social advancement for all peoples remain unfulfilled even after almost five decades.

Its failure to deliver on one of its primary mandates notwithstanding, the United Nations remains the only Organization with a universal membership and the capacity to meet the daunting challenge of development. In addition, it is the sole body with the necessary institutional base to work for the cause of development. Because of its unique character and capability, it is imperative to enhance the role of the United Nations in order to create an effective multilateral development system. It is therefore heartening to note that the Secretary-General has recommended additional policy-level functions for the General Assembly. In this connection, the idea of having plenary meetings with higher representation to discuss issues of international cooperation for development is an interesting one.

The Secretary-General has recognized that the revitalization of the Economic and Social Council is the key element in strengthening the United Nations as the centre of an effective international development system and has therefore recommended new functions to revitalize the primordial role of the Economic and Social Council. It may here be recalled that the founding fathers of the United Nations intended the role of formulating and coordinating global macroeconomic policy for the Economic and Social Council. Myanmar supports a strengthened Economic and Social Council. During the general debate of this session, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar stated,

"Myanmar shares the view that economic and social developments are prerequisites for lasting peace and security. We would therefore like to see a strengthening of the Economic and Social Council in tandem with the call for a restructuring of the Security Council to respond adequately to the new challenges of international peace and security that have emerged in the wake of the cold war." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth Session Plenary Meetings, 26th meeting, p. 7)

The enhanced role of the United Nations will be far from effective unless underpinned with increased links and cooperation with the Bretton Woods institutions. The Secretary-General has identified areas where these links and cooperation could be strengthened and has suggested channels and possible mechanisms to achieve these objectives.

My delegation sincerely hopes that there will be increased and improved coordination between the United Nations and the international financial institutions in fields identified in the report of the Secretary-General. Nevertheless, we realize that many previous attempts to improve the relationship between the United Nations and these institutions met with obstacles because of the different principles and modus operandi of each. We are of the view that there should be more transparency on the part of the international financial institutions.

My delegation also subscribes to the view that new bodies like the World Trade Organization should not be left outside the new framework for international cooperation. Ways and means of translating this idea into reality need to be explored.

It is well known that the development activities of the United Nations are multidimensional. It is also accepted that since they were launched in the early years of the United Nations, these activities have rendered valuable service to the developing countries. However, lack of coherence resulting from the fact that funds and programmes have followed separate programmes and procedures tends to weaken the impact of the activities. Therefore, the Assembly adopted resolution 44/211 in 1989 and resolution 47/199 in 1992 to have coherence in the entire system of operational activities and to benefit effectively the Governments concerned.

My delegation believes that the intention of the Secretary-General to improve programme coordination and policy coherence through frequent meetings of senior officials in the economic and social services will to some extent promote the holistic approach to the operational activities of the United Nations.

The decades-long cold war diverted our attention and resources from one of the principal objectives of the United Nations and left in its wake a widening gap between North and South. Without prejudice to the maintenance of international peace and security, we are of the view that both the Agenda for Peace and the Agenda for Development are priority tasks for the United Nations and deserve equal attention and equal resources.

My delegation considers that, without a guaranteed resource base, even an impeccable agenda for development will be pointless. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that we have made in the past and pass up the renewed opportunity to complete the unfinished task of economic and social development. We are convinced that an international consensus has been generated with regard to this task.

The report of the Secretary-General is an initial step in the right direction. Although it is short on specific action in certain areas of concern for many developing countries, it contains many positive and valuable recommendations. The General Assembly has adopted the Declaration on International Economic Cooperation, in particular the Revitalization of Economic Growth and Development of the Developing Countries; the International Development Strategy for the Fourth United Nations Decade; the New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s; and the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the 1990s.

In addition, we have Agenda 21 along with other, related documents and the Cartagena Commitment. Earlier this year the International Conference on Population and Development adopted its historic Programme of Action. My delegation believes that the Agenda for Development and all these agreements will together serve as the basis for further discussions.

In the view of my delegation, certain recommendations -- for instance, those concerning debt and official development assistance -- undoubtedly require immediate and urgent consideration; hence the need to prioritize the recommendations contained in the report of the Secretary-General. Bearing in mind the precedents set in similar cases, we believe that an appropriate format will be required for further discussion of the Agenda and in order to translate its recommendations into a programme of action or concrete measures in keeping with the aspirations of Member States.

Mr. Yaacobi (Israel)

I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary-General for his important report on the Agenda for Development.

This topic will probably determine the fate of the world: shall we descend deeper in a spiral of world disorder, wars, genocide and human suffering, or shall we shape a better future for all people? Many factors will contribute. Religious and tribal fanaticism, national psyches scarred by past traumas, totalitarian regimes, selfish interests, and more -- all these may play a negative part in determining the future of human society in the next century. But a decisive, positive role can be played by economic, social, scientific and technological progress.

Current trends give cause for concern. World population is expanding at a dramatic pace, especially in developing areas. Demographers expect that the world's population -- currently 5.7 billion -- will soar to between 7.6 billion and 9.4 billion by the year 2025. Almost 95 per cent of this growth will take place in developing countries, where it is already difficult to meet the needs of the existing populations with the limited resources at hand.

Disparities between different parts of the world continue to grow, disparities between North and South, between democratic countries and non-democratic countries, between more educated societies and less educated ones. Hunger, shortages and economic depression cause enormous human suffering. They are starving people of hope, while feeding conflicts and radicalism -- religious, national, tribal and military. The price is paid, first and foremost, by the people in the afflicted countries, but these conditions also take a toll on the entire international community.

The roots of the problem are already clear. Low levels of education prevent too many societies from realizing their full potential. Billions of dollars that could be spent on development are wasted on armies and weapons. The excessive nature of these expenditures becomes even more clear when we consider per capita spending. The historian Paul Kennedy described the probable outcome in his book, The Rise and Fall of the

Great Powers. History has shown us that countries that laboured under burdensome defence budgets and continuing military involvement became second-rate societies, economically and socially stagnant.

Most States still do not enjoy democratic systems and the benefits they bring. The standard of living in democratic societies is the highest in the world, because they produce pluralistic, open and enterprising economies. In recent years, some progress has been made towards greater democratization throughout the world, but most countries and peoples still do not enjoy democracy.

Corruption and the abuse of excessive power by the few prevent an improvement in the human condition for the many. Throughout much of the world, infrastructure remains underdeveloped. This includes communications, transportation, energy, electricity and water.

Finally, too many countries suffer from a lack of integration in the regional and global economies. Analysis of the roots of the problem points clearly to the necessary solutions: raise the level of education and professional training; reduce military expenditures by working to achieve peace and understanding; encourage democratization; open up economies to all forms of entrepreneurship; work for regional and international cooperation for integration in the global economy and for the elimination of all forms of boycotts.

Leadership is crucial to achieving these goals. The principal responsibility will fall to individual States, rulers and public opinion leaders. This has been proved in the Middle East -- the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, the agreements between Israel and the PLO, the peace treaty with Jordan, the establishment of formal relations with Morocco and Tunisia and the establishment of a framework for multilateral cooperation -- all these were brought about by the courage and wisdom of leaders. Although we still face hardships and obstacles, the direction is clear -- peace, regional cooperation, economic and commercial development, integrated infrastructures and the exchange of knowledge and information.

In this way, the societies of the Middle East will stop wasting resources on conflicts, and instead invest them in people. Their energies will be directed towards the creation of a better, more secure and more prosperous future. The main responsibility lies with the parties involved. But the international community also has an important role in assisting in the achievement of these goals. So it is in the Middle East, and so it is in other regions of the world.

International financial institutions have a responsibility to assist in creating a more advanced human and physical infrastructure. The international economic and trade system has a responsibility to assist in developing trade and economic ties, and the United Nations and its agencies, in humanitarian, social, and educational assistance.

The democratic countries, in encouraging a gradual transition to participatory societies, are aware that this should be done without coercion through the influence of the mass media, intellectuals and business leaders. The world is undergoing painful changes. Some of these are producing deep concerns, but this should not be a cause for despair. There is a chance for advancement. There are countries and regions which prove that positive change is possible, that the future can hold more promise instead of less. The key is held by the people and their leaders, by the international community, by all of us.

Mr. Butler (Australia)

Four years ago, a little over one year after the world was freed from the strictures and dangers of the cold war, the United Nations and the international community began a cycle of great global conferences and actions designed to shape a new world. The World Summit for Children, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the World Conference on Human Rights and the International Conference on Population and Development were held, and each achieved truly significant results.

Two years ago "An Agenda for Peace" was published, and today we begin our debate on an agenda for development. Next year the cycle will conclude with the holding of the World Summit for Social Development and the Fourth World Conference on Women.

The issues that have been and will be addressed by those means are simply the building blocks of a new world. They are of crucial concern to people all over the world. They are central to the health of the United Nations and to international cooperation.

The main task we face is that of coherency and direction.

It is clear that we have identified relevant global concerns and analysed them, largely accurately. In good measure, we have also listed priorities for action in ways which seem consistent with taking effective action. But the scope of the problems we face as an international community is simply daunting. For this reason, as well as the underlying structural reality of today's world -- globalism, meaning that no Government, corporation or individual can act effectively alone -- we have a compelling need to forge a coherent agenda embodying clear directions for action by all actors on "social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom". The two documents which have made up the Secretary-General's agenda for development embody sound analysis of today's and tomorrow's circumstances and point us towards the debate we must have and the decisions we must address. The report of the President of the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session on his World Hearings on Development is also a very rich source of ideas.

While there is a great deal in the Secretary-General's documents, in Australia's view, central to the debate starting today is the Secretary-General's assertion that

"It is time for the United Nations to realize its original mandate in the social and economic fields, to make the comprehensive pursuit of development the centre of its action, and, in this new context, to assist Member States in their efforts to realize their diverse development goals." (A/49/665, para. 10)

If we do less than that we will have lost the opportunity afforded us by the end of 40 years of frozen politics and, perhaps even more importantly, we would turn our backs on the Charter and its promise to the peoples of the world.

The questions we face can be put into three simple categories -- what must we do, how should we act, and what resources can we marshall in support of our actions?

On the first question -- what must we do? -- the list of concrete tasks is potentially very long. In addition, it is a well-known list and does not need to be recited in this statement. But the cycle of global conferences and recent debates in the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and other relevant forums have highlighted great areas of concern which must be addressed because of their impact upon whole populations. These include the need to take concerted action on world poverty, stabilize population growth, dramatically revise the situation of women and female children, ensure that sustainable development becomes embedded in the economic thinking of developed and developing countries alike, and address the special problems of Africa. Action to address these areas of concern should be accompanied by a serious focus on the scandalous and wasteful business of excessive expenditure on arms. There are also major issues of income distribution within developing economies which responsible authorities should be encouraged to address.

On the second question -- how should we act? -- Australia's view is that we must, as the Secretary-General has pointed out, implement the Charter in full, not just selectively, and by such action reintegrate the United Nations. This will involve not only developing further the new consensus which is emerging amongst Member States about the key features and priorities of development, as already suggested in this statement, but also a deliberate decision to elevate development within the priorities of the United Nations itself. This would mean, as the Secretary-General has recommended, further reform in the work of the General Assembly. The agenda of the Assembly should be thoroughly revised to ensure that much greater attention is given to development issues and actions. This should have the flow-on effect of a review of the committee structure of the Assembly. We would support any proposal designed to achieve these reforms in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations.

The Charter organ which is given unrivalled responsibility in the fields of human, economic and social development and which has had an unrivalled history of neglect is the Economic and Social Council. The Council has been undergoing reform, but this has been within yesterday's parameters. It must be further reformed, and there is a clear-cut case for the Council's meeting more frequently and possibly expanding its Bureau as a means by which it can receive enhanced political direction. A logical extension of such arrangements would be the establishment of a mechanism through which the Council and the Bretton Woods institutions and United Nations operational and development agencies would meet at a high level to ensure the elemental coherence and direction that should characterize the actions of the overall system and of its individual parts. Again, Australia would support any proposal designed to forge political consensus on such arrangements and would hope that such work could also be completed in time for the fiftieth anniversary.

Any such new arrangements at the political level must be matched by bureaucratic or secretariat arrangements. Accordingly, immediate action to consult upon and bring about the political changes of the kind we have just described should also look at the changes in resource allocations within relevant secretariats that should accompany and support those political changes. An example of such a change, one which the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs has proposed, is that the senior structure of the United Nations be changed as a matter of urgency. This would result in the appointment of four deputy secretaries-general, one of whom would have responsibility for economic and social issues. This would not be a small change but it is the least that is required, together with what would then flow from it, if it is to be made clear that the United Nations responsibilities for economic and social development, as set forth categorically in the Charter, are being taken seriously.

Another approach could be to ask the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme to convene a high-level committee of the heads of the major relevant operating programmes, funds, agencies and departments to prepare for consideration by the General Assembly a proposal for a more coordinated organizational structure for those entities.

The third question, that of resources, must be addressed afresh even though there are some glaringly obvious answers. In particular, new sources of financing and support to development activities must be found. New and innovative approaches to funding can be identified. This must be accompanied, however, by a more effective use of existing resources. That should be one of the outcomes of greater coherence. Specifically, components of the United Nations system should be able to work to a greater extent than in the past on the basis of their comparative advantage.

There is also the private sector, the sector of the global economy which commands the overwhelmingly largest portion of resources. There are encouraging signs of increased private-sector cooperation with programmes and priorities established by Governments either individually or acting collectively in the United Nations. But much more of this is needed.

As already mentioned, the central meaning of globality is that no sector can deal effectively with today's and tomorrow's problems acting alone. The comparative advantage of the United Nations is that it has an unequalled ability to bring about political consensus on what needs to be done. The comparative advantage of the private sector is its ability to allocate resources.

A major challenge for the future will be to ensure that these two sectors, to borrow from the words of the Charter, harmonize their actions. The possibility of this being achieved will be the greater to the extent that the United Nations analyses contemporary problems accurately, designs programmes of action on those problems which are credible and displays an unprecedented degree of common purpose rather than dispute. This possibility is more open to the Organization now than ever before.

And this is possibly our greatest challenge -- to change ourselves. As we hold this great debate on the Agenda for Development and then reach agreement on the steps that must be taken to implement it, together with the outcomes of the great global conferences, we will need to deal with each other in a fresh way. Yesterday's divisions will defeat us. Australia is prepared to take part in this debate and the hard work which must follow it. It will do so with all possible energy and with an open mind. It hopes others will do the same.

Mr. Gujral (India)

Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking you, and adding a word of appreciation, for the visionary views you expressed this morning. I am aware of your status in the national and political life of your country and the African community. Coming from India and having made my own humble contribution to national and political life for nearly half a century, I say with satisfaction that your views find an echo in our minds. This is particularly so because we have for decades been engaged in the task of the development of our nations and have achieved a creditable measure of success in raising the standard of living of our people.

The post-cold war era should generate an overriding commitment to the development of those whose growth has been impeded by the ironies of history. While appreciating the Secretary-General's initiative in this regard, I submit that the widely articulated need for an Agenda for Development arose from the perception and the reality that the emphasis and priority within the United Nations had shifted away from development. My delegation is therefore relieved to find it expressly stated in the recently released report of the Secretary-General on "Agenda for Development" that

"development should be recognized as the foremost and most far-reaching task of our time." (A/49/665, para. 4)

Indeed, development has to be defined and pursued in its comprehensive, pristine and integral sense. It has to aim at the improvement of human well-being; at the removal of hunger, disease and ignorance; at the provision of social infrastructure and public services; and at productive employment for all. Its first objective must be to end poverty and satisfy the basic needs of all the people. Economic growth that generates the required financial, physical, human and technological resources is central to development. It is and should be people-centred and context-specific. Development also has to be pursued as an indispensable requirement for peace, and recognized as being much larger in terms of scope and impact than peace. It cannot be perceived as a mere adjunct to conflict resolution or peace-building.

It bears reiteration that international cooperation for development must be anchored on the Charter principle of the sovereign equality of all States, and must proceed on the premise that it is for each Member State to choose for itself the appropriate strategies for development and development cooperation. The role of the United Nations lies in promoting awareness, seeking to build consensus and catalysing action. In doing so, however, it must scrupulously respect the principle of consent, and avoid intrusiveness and conditionality.

Flowing from this approach to development and development cooperation, I believe that the report still falls short of the expectations of developing countries regarding the message that should emanate from the United Nations. It does not make any concrete proposals in the areas of financing, technology, trade, official development assistance, debt and so on, which would take the current dialogue and agreements one step, or several steps, forward in the context of international cooperation.

It is time now, therefore, for the international political process to take over and place the firm imprint of its political will and commitment on a far-reaching and visionary Agenda for Development. The substantive aspects of long-term development and international cooperation will be determined not so much by the structures and format of multilateral cooperation, but by the political will of Member States to generate development, in the interests of peace, social equity, stability and improvement of the human condition, and by States' social environment.

Before making our own concrete suggestions regarding the issues that should constitute the substantive aspects of discussions between Member States for furthering this process, I shall briefly comment on some of the suggestions and assumptions made in the Secretary-General's report.

I support the statement that development has to be driven by national priorities and through the involvement of all sectors of society, with special measures for marginalized groups. However, the analysis under the heading "National policies for development" refers only to the socio-political dimensions of development, and does not touch upon the core issues of technology, finance, economic organization, human resources development, the legal and administrative infrastructure for economic growth, and so on.

The report also refers to five dimensions of development. It has to be recognized that development is a comprehensive and multifaceted process. Any classification into one, two or five dimensions may not capture the comprehensive nature of the process. In addition to the dimensions mentioned in the report, social development, human development, resource availability, access to technology and empowerment of the people are all among the dimensions of development. We should avoid such fragmentation of the concept of the development process, which might result in imbalances.

We would also be concerned at suggestions of an across-the-board linkage at the operational level between peace-keeping, humanitarian assistance and development. The development arm of the United Nations has usually been free from controversies, and it may suffer if it is seen as being closely identified with the peace-keeping dimension of the United Nations.

We would also be supportive of a coordinated functioning of United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, but the unique and distinctive capabilities of each have to be maintained.

I am unable to understand the suggestion that Governments should ensure that social and environmental costs are accurately reflected in prices. On the one hand, these costs are difficult to measure and there would always be an element of arbitrariness involved in the measurement. And on the other hand, at a time when the market-oriented approach is being promoted, it is difficult to visualize how one can argue for distortions to be introduced through arbitrary and "shadow" pricing of ill-defined social and environmental costs.

We support the recommendation that peace-keeping, humanitarian emergencies and the global environment should be funded from new and additional resources, and not at the expense of development assistance.

We agree that, in some circumstances, military expenditure infringes on development, but it is also a fact of life that sometimes nations have to tighten their belt to defend their territorial security, which, in turn, ensures a stable framework for developmental activity.

It will be agreed that only national Governments elected by the people and responsible to the people can be in a position to determine in their own context the appropriate levels of military expenditures and their relationship with other expenditures. There is at the same time a need for reductions in military expenditures at the global level and on a non-discriminatory basis. Non-aligned countries are pursuing at this session of the General Assembly an initiative for a special session on disarmament; that forum should be appropriately utilized for this purpose. I submit that it is important that more work be done to identify the peace dividend and transfer it to development assistance.

The report correctly states the need for effective follow-up to consensus decisions reached at conferences. There is a need to clearly identify the bottlenecks that have hindered the translation into reality of past commitments. This is especially critical in the area of flows of finance and technology.

We would be supportive of the Economic and Social Council's playing its due role in promoting awareness, generating consensus and giving policy guidance in the area of development cooperation. However, at a time when the trend is towards democratization and universalization of participation, it is the Economic and Social Council as a whole which must be entrusted with this task. Arbitrarily created expanded bureaux cannot command legitimacy or claim any representative character. We must recognize that neither the United Nations nor its institutions can function as boards of private companies geared towards greater efficiency or the profit motive. The real success of the United Nations lies in consensus-building, in political acceptability and in the political management of the processes. Universality, transparency and democratic decision-making are essential.

We would also be wary of suggestions that potential humanitarian or economic crises would lend themselves to bureaucratic or technocratic predictions. We would not like to foster a new speculative market in trying to predict emerging crisis situations. The political dimensions of problems have to be handled in terms of sustained processes and not in a fire-fighting mode.

We also support an enhanced role for the United Nations in multilateral development cooperation. For this purpose, focus has to shift from the question of governance to the question of funding of the operational activities for development.

I would like to touch upon the substantive issues in international development cooperation on which we would expect the Agenda for Development to carry the process forward. There is indeed a need for a substantial expansion of official development assistance. The global partnership for sustainable development entered into at Rio was based on providing developing countries with substantial new and additional resources to meet their huge sustainable-development requirements. However, official development assistance declined by $6 billion in 1993 compared with the previous year. Moreover, I regret to say, has there been no serious attempt to meet the target of 0.7 per cent of the gross national product of developed countries to be allocated for official development assistance. Lending from the most significant source of multilateral funds, the World Bank, has not increased in real terms since the 1980s, and net resource flows have since turned negative. There is also a need to increase substantially funding from the International Development Association to provide critically needed financing in low-income countries for social infrastructures, human resource development, environmental protection and the eradication of poverty.

Radical measures are necessary for reducing in the debt and debt-servicing burden of developing countries. While we welcome the formulation and implementation of various debt-reduction schemes, there is still a pressing need for a concerted effort on the part of creditors to find an early and durable solution to the debt problems of all developing countries, while being sensitive to the specific problems and requirements of individual countries. Particular recognition should be given to those debtor countries which have honoured their commitments despite difficulties, and special measures should be adopted to alleviate their burden. Low-income countries and those tackling the problem of widespread poverty also need special attention. With the increased focus on the environment and social development, schemes such as debt-for-environment and debt-for-social-development swaps should be considered. The debt burden and the load of servicing these debts is proving so burdensome that this single factor retards development more than any other.

These efforts should be supplemented by measures to accelerate the flow of private investment to developing countries and to ensure its wider distribution across regions and sectors. We also have to find ways, including through the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to tackle problems arising from the potential volatility of some private-capital flows. International safety nets should be considered to protect the integrity of development programmes in the face of sudden capital outflows. Effective macroeconomic policy coordination is also necessary to ensure that the volatility of these flows is reduced.

Speaking at the recent Madrid Conference marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Bretton Woods institutions, the Finance Minister of India stated that the world community would gain by using the IMF as the principal forum for multilateral surveillance and coordination of national fiscal and monetary policies. Attempts at coordination through exclusive groupings of major industrialized countries have achieved only limited success, if any.

Similarly, in the area of trade we would need a further look at the questions of the terms of trade for products of developing countries; market-access barriers; commodity prices and markets; avoidance of unilateral actions in violation of multilaterally agreed measures; continued and enhanced provision of preferential market access through non-reciprocal concessions, such as those of the generalized system of preferences; and so forth. We should also send a very clear message against overburdening the agenda of the World Trade Organization and against attempts to use environmental and social concerns for protectionist purposes.

Regarding technology, the Agenda must devise measures for facilitating access by developing countries to new and high technologies of critical importance for an interdependent rather than a subsidiary pattern of development. The international community should work towards making these technologies, as well as environmentally friendly technologies, available on preferential and concessional terms to developing countries. Barriers to access to technology must be removed.

To sum up, the intergovernmental process must now guide the Agenda for Development towards concrete measures of international cooperation targeted at the eradication of poverty and the improvement of human well-being in a people-centred political and social context -- that context being autonomously evolved. It must be based on a greater recognition that long-term peace and security are predicated on development. Sustained and accelerated economic growth in developing countries would make for global ecological sustainability and should be central to development efforts at the national and international levels.

Mr. Schori (Sweden)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries.

Mr. Schori (Sweden)

A prominent person has said that the other name for peace is development. In other words, without development there would be no lasting peace. But the reverse is also true, that without peace there will be no development. The third necessary cornerstone of civilized society is democracy. All the parts of this triad are equally important and mutually reinforcing.

The founders of the United Nations had a vision of peace, security and development. We should build upon this vision, making it relevant for today, thereby making true development possible.

The role of the United Nations in development has to be strengthened. The foundation has been laid. In Agenda 21 sustainable development was established as a global objective. The Agenda for Peace focused on peace and security. The process is now continued with the Agenda for Development.

In his first report the Secretary-General identified five dimensions of development: peace, the economy, environmental protection, social justice and democracy and human rights. The Nordic countries recognize these five dimensions as crucial to an evolutionary concept of development.

External assistance, reform and restructuring of international cooperation alone are not sufficient for development to take place. Development is first and foremost a national responsibility. There is no substitute for sound national policy. However, development is also a common global responsibility. More and more we can see how nations are joined in a common fate.

During recent years the financial resources of the United Nations for long-term development have decreased at an alarming rate, while increasing demands have been put on the Organization. This does not add up.

Mr. Schori (Sweden)

The Agenda for Development therefore gives us an important platform for discussing priorities and a sensible division of labour in the international system.

The world is now going through profound changes. New countries have been born. Democracy is gaining ground all over the world. We see more and more international economic actors totally independent of Governments. New ideas and new cultural interaction emerge every day. In all this there is an enormous creativity and dynamism, which serve as a great potential for true development. At the same time, we must recognize that there is interdependence. We therefore need a system for global economic governance. The United Nations should be at the centre in the search for such a system. The year 1995 will provide us with ample opportunity for this discussion.

The Nordic countries are among the most active advocates of a reformed, revitalized and restructured United Nations. The reason is our deep conviction that the United Nations, this unique and indispensable Organization, has a vital role to play in the economic and social fields.

The advantages of the United Nations as a universal meeting place, as well as its normative and operational roles, should be made clear. Step by step we have to strengthen the United Nations in order to enable it fully to play its intended role in the economic and social fields. We also have to make it more attractive as an agent for development.

The reforms have to create a strong financial basis. They have to focus the tasks of the United Nations, and they have to improve the governance of the system. There is an obvious link between these three.

The decrease of the relative share of the United Nations as a channel for development aid is a reflection of political choices made by Member States. These choices are shaped by such factors as national economic conditions, competing needs for international support in other areas and Governments' assessments of the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the United Nations funds and programmes.

As the Secretary-General points out in his report, more resources are needed. But voluntary contributions alone are not sufficient as a basis. The Nordic countries attach the greatest importance to an improved financing system which is stable, predictable and assured. We also urge other countries substantially to increase their contributions. The financing of the United Nations should be based upon the principle of burden-sharing.

By concentrating United Nations activities on areas where the different organs, funds and programmes have their strengths, we can reverse the marginalization of the social and economic activities of the United Nations.

The report of the Secretary-General specifies some crucial areas in which the United Nations should provide leadership and focus attention. I should like especially to emphasize the empowerment of women, poverty alleviation and support for African development. Preventive and curative development will always be needed, but let me stress the importance of having a long-term focus for all development activities. The environmental dimension, as expressed in the concept of sustainable development, is of course also crucial.

The problem of land-mines as the cause of death and human suffering, especially for children, and as a hindrance to development, needs to be addressed urgently. The Secretary-General's proposals in this context should be supported in deeds as well as in words. Indeed, as the representative of India said, more needs to be done to identify the peace dividend and transfer it to development assistance.

We support the Secretary-General in his efforts to create a more integrated and coordinated United Nations response to country priorities, thereby strengthening the United Nations role as a competent and effective adviser in long-term development, assisting in capacity-building and in national priority setting.

This process of specifying priorities as well as defining mandates and roles should be an important part of continued work on the Agenda. The needs at the country level must always serve as the basis. The Nordic countries share the view of the European Union and of other delegations that continued work on the Agenda should be carried out in a working group under the General Assembly. The work in this group should be run parallel to other reform activities -- for example, the negotiations on a new financing system.

Another aspect of the reforms is that international organizations have to find ways to reach their goals with increasing efficiency and effectiveness. An international organization should be selective in its work and focus on what it does best. We believe such an organization seeks partnership with other multilateral and bilateral organizations, as well as with non-governmental organizations and the private sector. It is result-oriented, with a clear link between normative and operational activities. It is flexible and has a willingness to respond rapidly to change. It is cost-effective in administrative and operational activities. And it is transparent in administrative and budgetary matters.

These principles must be applied to each individual organization, but reforms must also be carried out as an effort of the entire multilateral system. Priorities and allocation of responsibilities, as well as roles and division of labour, need to be further defined. This is particularly true when it comes to the cooperation between the United Nations system and the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization.

The present series of summits and conferences is an expression of the international community's understanding of and commitment to various important and mutually reinforcing aspects of development. Further, these conferences create an indispensable opportunity for the formation and strengthening of public opinion on these important issues. We now need to build a bridge from Rio, passing Vienna and Cairo, to Copenhagen, Beijing and Istanbul. The Agenda for Development might very well be that bridge.

In all these conferences the well-being and security of the human being is put at the centre of development. The importance of socially oriented policies is emphasized. The crucial role of women in development is recognized.

This is not something unique to the United Nations system. A broader view of development issues has also gained ground within the World Bank, as shown in its report, "Embracing the Future." In the International Monetary Fund, social policy has become a complement to economic priorities.

Building on this new human-centred perspective, the United Nations is in unique position to play a leading role. The social Summit in Copenhagen will be an opportunity to confirm this.

In order to respond to the new challenges and to ensure an effective follow-up, it is necessary to bring the results of the conferences back into the United Nations system itself. In this context, the Nordic countries support the idea of developing a common framework for the follow-up of the major conferences. The role of the General Assembly should be enhanced and substantive discussion brought back to the Assembly.

We therefore welcome the thinking in the Secretary-General's report on the role and function of the General Assembly. The further strengthening of the role that the Economic and Social Council is meant to play in international development cooperation is equally important. One crucial function is to provide an opportunity for both donors and recipients to discuss and assess aid programmes and policies, serving as an international development-assistance review committee, as proposed by the Secretary-General. This is also very much in line with the reform proposals presented in the Nordic United Nations Project. What we should create is a United Nations in which every separate body has a clearly defined role and responsibility, in which we avoid duplication and potential gaps, while distinguishing between the normative and operational functions. This is our common responsibility.

In conclusion, international cooperation and commitments must be taken seriously. No matter what we decide at global conferences, if words are not translated into deeds, then we have failed. Security and solidarity are two sides of the same coin, and action begins at home. Real progress can only be measured by real change.

The message is clear. National responsibility is vital for success. There has to be consistency between our international commitments and our domestic actions, and without respect for our common goals our efforts will be in vain.

We in this Assembly come from different nations and cultures, and we adhere to different religions, but we have to make a joint effort to overcome differences and take on our common challenge. Mankind's quest for peace, development and solidarity is timeless.

In the thirteenth century the Persian poet Muslih-uh-Din Sa'di wrote:

"All people are members of the same family They have a common origin in creation. If one limb is struck by pain all the others are gripped by anxiety. If the suffering of other people does not hurt you You do not deserve to be called human."

Mr. Wisnumurti (Indonesia)

It is my distinct pleasure to speak on agenda item 92, "Agenda for Development," possibly our greatest challenge, not only at this session of the General Assembly, but for many years to come. I should like to express my delegation's sincere appreciation to the Secretary-General for his specific recommendations, as set forth in his follow-up report (A/49/665) on the Agenda. We should also like to thank the President for his lucid introductory remarks on both the report of the Secretary-General and the note (A/49/320) by the President of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly. My delegation would also like to take this opportunity to associate itself with the statement made by Mr. Ramtane Lamamra, the Ambassador of Algeria, in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of 77.

With the entire report now before us, albeit a belated second part, my delegation is of the opinion that the Secretary-General has to a large extent complied with the two General Assembly resolutions, 47/181 and 48/166. This second part of the report is indeed more focused on the core issues of development than the initial part, and I believe it represents a sincere effort to reflect the requests of Member States, not only in the relevant resolutions, but also during the high-level segment of the substantive session of the Economic and Social Council and in the views expressed at the World Hearings conducted by the President of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly. Given the great importance we attach to the promotion of development and the acute need for revitalizing international cooperation to that end, my remarks at this stage will be of a preliminary nature only.

With these two reports, the Member States of the United Nations once again have an opportunity fully to address this paramount initiative, an Agenda for Development. If we can be successful in this endeavour, we will have come a long way towards fulfilling the Charter of the United Nations and particularly, in the aftermath of the cold war, towards ensuring that the United Nations will be not only a strong force for peace, but also a strong force for development, the two ideals that represent the two great challenges of our time. To this end, I believe that the Agenda should not only seek to revitalize the United Nations for the promotion of development, but should also strive to ensure that the Organization is recognized as the authoritative forum for dealing with global socio-economic issues and development cooperation.

The Agenda for Peace having been launched, the second great contemporary task facing the United Nations is, I strongly believe, that of promoting development. Landmark global changes, newly emerging opportunities and the need to further promote development, to eradicate poverty and hunger and to close the prosperity gap between developed and developing countries have made the elaboration of an Agenda for Development more compelling than ever. The Agenda therefore should not only be seen as a complement to the Agenda for Peace, but should also be viewed essentially on its own merits as the fulfilment of the United Nations Charter in the economic and social fields, which, I believe have been for too long sidelined by the dominant preoccupations of the cold war.

Against this backdrop we can agree with the general thrust and thinking outlined in the introductory section of the report, in particular the proposition that development, which has many dimensions, should be recognized as the foremost and most far-reaching task of our time and that the emerging consensus on the priorities and dimensions of development should find expression in a new framework for international cooperation in order to contribute fully to the realization of our development goals. In this regard, there is no denying that sustained economic growth is not an option; it is an imperative and the mainspring of development. We also fully agree that, within this new framework, the United Nations must play a major role in both policy leadership and operations.

Recognizing that development is the primary responsibility of each country concerned, my delegation fully concurs with the recommendation of the report that development is first and foremost driven by national priorities and is best pursued through the partnership between Governments and the private sector. At the same time, in today's world of growing interdependence and rapid globalization, the external environment is decidedly important.

In this context, it is pertinent to point out the dire need to continue to promote an external economic environment that is conducive to the achievement of sustained economic growth and sustainable development. To this end, we cannot but fully agree that equitable access to expanding global opportunities in trade, technology, investment and information must be provided, particularly for developing countries. Accordingly, we strongly consider that it is important, as recommended in the annex of the report, that the agenda should seek an adequate and permanent reduction in the stock of debt, as well as its cancellation for the least developed countries, particularly in Africa.

My delegation wishes to emphasize in this connection that in pursuing these objectives, innovative measures are required. As already pointed out in the Secretary-General's report on the debt situation as of mid-1994, despite some progress, as demonstrated by recent debt indicators, there is still something basically lacking in current approaches. For this reason, I believe that the proposal emanating from the ministerial meeting of the non-aligned countries on debt and development, held last August in Jakarta, for a once-and-for-all arrangement to settle all outstanding debts and substantially reduce all categories of debt, including the multilateral debt of all types of debtor countries, is now imperative and should be encompassed by the agenda. Such an innovative approach would address the full stock of debt at one and the same time, so that the total reduction would exceed the critical mass and thus allow growth and development to resume.

We are convinced that, while the agenda should be comprehensive, it should not be seen as a substitute for the numerous United Nations agreements and instruments already in place; rather, it should pave the way for their full implementation. The agenda should also, as pointed out in the report, forge a new framework for development cooperation between the developed and the developing countries in which common interests and mutual needs would provide the basic rationale for a new partnership to implement the goals already established at various United Nations conferences. Within this framework, we could consider, as recommended in paragraph 35 of the report, that the commitments to the goals and targets of past conferences be synthesized, costed, prioritized and placed in a reasonable time perspective for implementation. To this end, the fiftieth session of the General Assembly should focus on the need to forge such a framework for development cooperation.

Furthermore, since the availability of resources to implement the outcomes of those conferences is of the utmost urgency, it is critically important that the initiative to convene an international conference on financing for development also should be given top priority for consideration by the Assembly.

We also note that the Secretary-General has recommended that the General Assembly identify the critical issues for deliberation. However, to implement this recommendation, it is essential that the Secretary-General provide assistance, as called for in General Assembly resolution 47/181. The reference in the report to the various issues of importance for achieving sustained economic growth and sustainable development, such as international trade, technology, investment, information, the empowerment of women, poverty eradication, food security, full employment and the special initiative to support African development, without any clear-cut proposal for action does not adequately meet these requirements.

In that light, we believe that effective deliberations on such substantive themes could be served only through a constructive dialogue and partnership, as called for in General Assembly resolution 48/165 on the renewal of the dialogue on strengthening international economic cooperation for development through partnership. Such a dialogue on these themes and on other critical issues identified by the Assembly could be conducted, as recommended in the report, in the early part of the General Assembly session, with high-level representation. We firmly believe that the recommendation for special sessions of the Assembly on major aspects of international cooperation for development should be strongly considered.

As to the recommendations for an effective multilateral development system, we fully concur that the United Nations has a unique role in promoting development -- including in policy leadership and operations -- given its universality, its unparalleled network and its capacity to build consensus on various issues critical to development. Therefore, my delegation concurs with the report on the need to enhance the role of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, as well as to strengthen the links between the Organization and the Bretton Woods institutions on the one hand and the sectoral and technical agencies on the other.

We also agree that such cooperation between the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions should be pursued through joint initiatives on, inter alia, poverty-reduction strategies, capacity-building and improved public sector management. In this context, there is also a need to develop appropriate working relationships with such new organizations as the World Trade Organization so as to enable the United Nations to ensure that its approach to development is fully comprehensive.

We believe that, before considering the establishment of a council of international development advisers to support the work of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council in providing effective leadership in development, as proposed in paragraph 48 of the report, further clarification and thorough study would first be required. As to the proposal for an expanded bureau of the Council, meeting inter-sessionally, we are of the view that we should not promote any idea or proposal that might impart executive powers to such a bureau, as we consider that it would serve only to further curtail broad-based participation in the decision-making process in the already limited membership of the Council. For these reasons, we would rather have the Assembly consider the feasibility of the Council bureau's conducting inter-sessional consultations to facilitate the work of the Council and garner broader input, instead of advancing the idea of an expanded bureau. Moreover, we attach great importance to ensuring that this arrangement not be institutionalized.

Since we believe that the reports on an agenda for development warrant thorough and ongoing study and analysis, we support the proposal to create an open-ended ad-hoc working group under the purview of the General Assembly. Among its functions would be to thoroughly analyse the report and to reach consensus on specified relevant actions.

In conclusion, we hope and trust that the agenda for development will succeed in arresting the erosion of the United Nations role as well as help avert its being eclipsed by other institutions, especially with regard to the critical core issues of development, and that the Organization will resume its rightful role as defined in its Charter.

Mrs. Balcazar de Bucher (Colombia)

It is an honour for me to be addressing you, Sir, and this Assembly of representatives from all parts of our world and, on behalf of my country and my Government, to refer to the subject of development from an alternative perspective.

The President of the General Assembly has affirmed that

"Many profound changes in the world call for rethinking of development" (A/49/320, para. 14)

and we are gathered here in the broadest forum in our world to seek possible grounds for agreement through a dialogue among peoples of different cultures, languages, religious creeds, and from different social and political systems. We are here, so to speak, in an antechamber of the World Summit for Social Development to chart a course together in the delicate, complex and urgent field of development.

We recognize that the United Nations fulfils a unique role because of its universality, its capacity to create a world consensus on policies and the means to implement them. The United Nations has progressed a great deal in reasserting the development issue and in building an agreement. It has done this in spite of profound difficulties in communicating, in spite of prejudices and the clash of special interests, and, above all, in spite of the invisible nets in which language itself traps us:

Mrs. Balcazar de Bucher (Colombia)

"the prison house of language",

Mrs. Balcazar de Bucher (Colombia)

as Jameson terms it.

Also working against agreement are the different ideologies about development, about progress and the means to achieve it. The very word "development" has been changing in meaning. It has been enriched by a multidisciplinary critical approach; by confrontation between the rigidity and tight structures of theories and the infinite complexities of social life.

We have moved from an approach that aimed at economic progress per se without taking into account the human factor to contemporary thought, which considers development to be more than a mere by-product of economic factors and which rightly focuses its attention on the human person as the priority objective of our plans and as the initiator of the changes that can lead to continued development.

We have also arrived at the conviction that at the national and international levels alike the success of our plans cannot be founded on a monologue written at the desks of technicians; in the daily lives of peoples unforeseeable logic is at play which has an impact on whether the well-intentioned plans addressed to them succeed or fail. It is necessary to promote dialogue among the protagonists of development, among the different institutions and social categories; among Governments, civil society and the private sector established as valid interlocutors and participants in a social covenant that rallies together the will of the community in order to overcome poverty, injustice and discrimination.

The approach that has considered the human being as the undisputed master of his environment free to exploit it and plunder it with impunity has caused irreparable damage and has impoverished our Earth. The approach which surely will hold sway in the twenty-first century is that of a subject conscious of his almost symbiotic relationship with an environment which is affected by his actions and which, in turn, affects him by its reactions. This change in contemporary thinking about the subject/object relationship goes hand in hand with an awareness of the natural world as finite and of the inevitable need to preserve natural resources, to rationalize their use in order to achieve sustainable development.

The contemporary trend towards an integral view of the person means that we have gone beyond the exclusive hegemony of the human being's rationality. We recognize now that the path towards more advanced knowledge, even in the pure sciences, includes the development of intuition, of sensitivity. Nor can we envisage development without leaving room for creativity, for the aesthetic dimension of peoples, and for the capacity of art to form and to transform. The conscious planning of development requires profound respect for the cultural differences of peoples. The diversity of cultures is the wealth of humankind. It is well known that those who are pejoratively described as primitive may hold world views more refined and subtle than those of the most complex social systems. Although it may seem paradoxical, some say that progress, within an integral approach to development, means recovering past ways of life. It is not unusual to find in contemporary thought a consideration of myth as a factor that produces balance and a readiness to reinstate the sacred, which does not however presuppose a return to obscurantism but is rather a recognition of another dimension to what is human.

As this century draws to a close, we have become aware of the interrelationship of the different peoples of the world. It is not possible to keep development as the privilege of the few. That is true not only on ethical or humanitarian grounds but also because for their very survival, given the globalization of economic, ecological, migration-related and health phenomena, those who have the most must cooperate within a framework of respect for national sovereignty with those who have not achieved basic levels of well-being and of quality of life.

We have understood that our civilizations are mortal. The echo of the famous sentence pronounced by Paul Valery before the League of Nations,

Mrs. Balcazar de Bucher (Colombia)

"We the civilizations are mortal",

Mrs. Balcazar de Bucher (Colombia)

is resounding in a deeply moving way and all the more dramatically as we confront the most catastrophic destruction of our environment because we have torn the delicate fabric, destroyed the fragile balance through the arrogance and short-sightedness of traditional science. While it is true that on the one hand this science has prolonged human life and made it easier, on the other hand it has also unleashed the factors that place the survival of the human race at risk.

Technology transfer must be carefully evaluated in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the developed countries. Universities in the developing countries must have access to the up-to-date knowledge that an advanced, environment-friendly technology produces. This must be done without turning some parts of the Earth -- under the pretext of assistance towards development, but in fact for purely commercial reasons -- into recipients of obsolete artefacts and processes that destroy life. In more than one way, for example, the technology applied to weapons production destroys life, because for their production resources are diverted, resources that should be used for alleviating poverty and ending hunger, for education, housing and health programmes and for the production of capital and consumer goods.

As is pointed out in the "Agenda for development" submitted by the Secretary-General, peace, economy, justice, democracy and the environment are various dimensions of development. My country adheres to this dynamic and changing vision of models of development, while also suggesting that some other dimensions that we have mentioned here be considered. In addition, we are aware of our responsibility as a member of the Economic and Social Council, as we are aware also of the need to revitalize it so that it can carry out the function envisaged for it in the Charter of the United Nations and so that it can serve as the governing and unifying body for development programmes.

We have the satisfaction of knowing that on the national level the Colombian Government, under the leadership of President Ernesto Samper, has committed itself to an alternative development plan that is moving forward in step with the principles and goals outlined here and expressed in the most recent documents on the subject produced by the United Nations. Ours is the Government of the social leap forward, because, as the President has said, economic growth without social growth is not worth while. This social growth is the foundation for achieving internal peace. Ours is also the Government of the era of the people, one that bases its plans on dialogue, the promotion and defence of human rights and the establishment of a new social pact in which women, the young, ethnic minorities, organized civil society and the private sector play a leading role. It is a Government in which the State attends to the urgent problems of abject poverty with a well-financed network of social solidarity and intervenes to redress failings and injustices caused by the process of adjustment and modernization. As our President says, the economic opening has to have a heart.

Finally, I wish to quote the Secretary-General, who in his report of 11 November this year states that

"development should be recognized as the foremost and most far-reaching task of our time". (A/49/665, para. 4)

Ms. Menon (Singapore)

My delegation would like first of all to thank the Secretary-General for preparing the follow-up report setting out his recommendations on "An agenda for development", contained in document A/49/665. This 19-page report is compact, succinct and straight to the point. We also welcome the annex, which gives the key recommendations in a clear, readable way. We hope the report will be widely disseminated and stimulate thoughtful and informed discussions that will lead to agreement on an agenda for development.

Two years ago the Secretary-General presented his report "An Agenda for Peace", in which he made suggestions for enabling the United Nations to respond quickly and effectively to threats to international peace and security in the post-cold-war world. Increasingly, the threats to international peace and security are coming from intra-State rather than inter-State conflicts. The 1994 United Nations Development Programme "Human Development Report" index indicates that 79 out of 82 global military conflicts since 1991 have been intra-State in nature.

In many cases, it was hunger, illiteracy, deprivation, unemployment and poverty which prompted these civil wars. If we are to get to the root of the problems and conflicts that the post-cold-war world is faced with, we must tackle the problems of development. Without economic and social progress, which gives all individuals in a society a stake not only in its preservation but also in its greater prosperity, there can be no lasting peace.

On the other hand, development can come about only with peace and security. I would like to take the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries as an example. The peace and security in our region came about through the determination of ASEAN leaders to put aside their differences and build on areas of common interest. Trade and investment flows into the region have escalated. This has resulted in the ASEAN region's achieving some of the highest growth rates in the world. Singapore is now considered a country with a newly industrialized economy. Malaysia and Thailand are poised to achieve that same status, followed by Indonesia, the Philippines and Brunei Darussalam.

While my delegation agrees with the Secretary-General that

"Excessive military spending and its consequences are deeply inimical to development goals", (A/49/665, para. 33)

such spending comes about because there is no peace and stability in the first place. With peace and security there will be no need for excessive military spending. The resulting savings can go towards development. In sum, when there is development and security, there will not be a need for excessive military spending. Without peace, the attempts to curb military spending and arms transfers will fail miserably. Thus, "An agenda for development", if it is to be successful, must be considered in conjunction with "An Agenda for Peace".

A second point which my delegation finds difficult to accept is the assertion that "Land-mines are a major obstacle to development" (ibid.). Yes, they are, once a conflict has broken out and land-mines are used indiscriminately. However, we will all have noted in a recent civil war that the machete is as effective a weapon for killing civilians as any of the modern weapons available today. As we have pointed out above, the major obstacle to development is the existence of conflict situations. Ways and means must be found to achieve global, or even regional, peace and stability so that development may flower, thereby further reinforcing the foundation for peace and security. The Secretary-General's call for

"An outright world-wide ban on the production and transfer of land-mines and their components" (ibid.)

puts the cart before the horse.

Let me stress that my delegation is not objecting to reductions in military spending or discussions on the use of land-mines. Rather, we are pointing out that such actions will be futile without peace and stability, a condition now absent in many parts of the world.

My delegation also hopes that international conferences, properly conceived, prepared and followed up, can have a real impact on the lives of ordinary people everywhere. It is not sufficient to create new bureaucracies in New York, Geneva or other world capitals. In this context, we commend the Secretary-General for his suggestion that

"A common framework should be developed to follow-up major United Nations conferences, past and future. Goals and targets in the economic and social development field endorsed by past international conferences and summits should be synthesized, costed, prioritized and placed in a reasonable time perspective for implementation." (ibid., para. 35)

It has been noted by many that after each major United Nations conference there has been no proper follow-up and coordination. The proposal for a framework to coordinate the various conferences will allow for the effective implementation of the programmes of action adopted in these United Nations conferences.

The United Nations has a vital role to play at the multilateral level as a catalyst for international cooperation. As the Secretary-General states,

"The United Nations cannot be a strong force for peace unless it is also a strong force for development," (A/49/665, para. 9)

A more integrated effort and more coordination of the different components of the United Nations system will be required if the objectives of social and economic development are to be attained.

Clearly, more resources for development are also required. The developed countries that have not yet done so should strive to reach the agreed target of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product for official development assistance. However, more coordination and integration within the United Nations system should also go a long way towards reducing unnecessary and duplicative expenditures, which divert scarce resources from the really urgent tasks of people-centred development.

As the Secretary-General points out in his report, the task of development is primarily the responsibility of each State. In this respect, good governance, education and basic infrastructure-building are the essential ingredients for the foundation of a civil society. However, for development to take place at the national level, it is necessary to have a supportive international environment for development. The Secretary-General has rightly pointed out that external macroeconomic forces -- trade, debt management, direct investment, capital flows and access to technology -- must support development objectives. National endeavours and international efforts are complementary and must go hand in hand.

The Secretary-General's report does not attribute sufficient importance to these external factors. For many countries, they can be critical in determining the success or failure of national development efforts. As the Group of 77 pointed out in its Declaration of 24 June 1994, an Agenda for Development should forge international consensus on the mutual benefits of global trade liberalization.

However, it is not enough to simply speak of trade liberalization. Specific trade policies should be agreed upon to help the least-developed countries to benefit from a more open trading environment. Some thought should be given to more local processing of raw materials so that the least-developed countries will be able to benefit from greater value-added exports. The developed countries must remove tariff escalation for such processed exports from the least-developed countries. The Agenda for Development should also make concrete proposals on how to bring about increased investment flows and other forms of resource flows to developing countries,

especially the least developed among them.

In this context, my delegation is pleased to note that the Secretary-General has recognized the urgent need to give added momentum to development efforts in Africa. That continent contains the majority of least-developed countries in the world -- 33 out of 47. Apart from the problems of drought and desertification, the greatest impact on these countries has come from the reduction in external resource flows.

Singapore is already helping African countries bilaterally within the limits of its resources, through technical assistance. We therefore support the efforts of the international community to give urgent attention to Africa's economic recovery and development. My delegation feels that there should also be more support for the United Nations system's activities and programmes for economic and technical cooperation between developing countries.

It is timely and appropriate that this report on an Agenda for Development is being considered just as the United Nations is on the threshold of commemorating its fiftieth anniversary in 1995. We hope that the occasion will be an opportunity for the international community to rededicate itself to one of the primary objectives of the United Nations, as set out in its Charter:

"to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples".

Mrs. Stewart (Canada)

We live in a shrinking global community where our interests are increasingly interwoven and our hopes for the future are more and more dependent on one another. For this reason, Canada has from the outset welcomed the idea of an ambitious Agenda for Development. We agree with the Secretary-General that development is the most pressing challenge of our time.

We need a fresh framework for international cooperation for economic and social development, one that puts aside past rivalries and builds on shared values. If we are to be successful in developing this new vision, one of those shared values must be respect for human rights.

We can support much of the two parts of the Agenda presented by the Secretary-General. We agree that peace, the economy, social justice, environmental protection and democracy constitute central pillars of development. Solid building blocks for this new view of development are emerging from a series of important global conferences. The vision is a human-centred one, which sees development as being about the sustainable improvement of human well-being through the removal of hunger, disease and ignorance and through the productive participation in society by all.

On the threshold of the twenty-first century, we have come to understand that social and economic development are two sides of the same coin, that our real purpose is not simply economic growth, but human well-being. The United Nations has a particular role to play in fostering the integration of social and economic considerations, just as it does in underscoring the interconnection between development and peace.

The eradication of mass poverty must be a central goal of a renewed framework for international cooperation. As is suggested by the Secretary-General, this framework would recognize the centrality of appropriate national policies to foster development. These include respect for human rights, systems of democratic and accountable governance, the full participation of women, and an enabling environment for civil society and the private sector.

I refer not only to values, but even more to the economic impulse that the full participation of people can bring to the development process. We therefore welcome the recognition, within the United Nations, not only of the vital role of civil society, but also of the importance of engaging it in the formulation of new policies.

A supportive international environment is clearly also required. It must pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest, while also recognizing the diversity among developing countries. An open and rules-based trading system is one of the key features of a supportive international environment. This is why we firmly believe in the need for the full and effective implementation of the agreements reached through the Uruguay Round. This is the best way to ensure the access to global market opportunities that the Secretary-General rightly calls for.

Some of the poorest countries continue to struggle with unmanageable debt burdens. Canada fully agrees with the Secretary-General that more substantial measures need to be taken to reduce the debt load of severely indebted countries that adopt appropriate policy reforms. We also need to ensure that development programmes reach people who need them. For its part, Canada is committed to providing 25 per cent of its official development assistance for basic human needs.

The report of the Secretary-General makes important suggestions on broad approaches. There is also a need to be specific on priorities for the United Nations itself and on internal reorientation. The Agenda for Development is a vehicle to provide inspiration and a framework for the international community as a whole, as well as a blueprint for the role of the United Nations. The United Nations cannot successfully tackle every important issue. The challenge is to ensure that the value of the Organization's contribution represents more than its small share of financial flows.

Mrs. Stewart (Canada)

Last month the Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, described Canada's commitment to the United Nations as a cornerstone of our foreign policy. It is because we attach such importance to the United Nations that we stress the need for accelerated reform of its economic and social sectors.

The Canadian Government is itself currently conducting a foreign-policy review. The touchstones for that review are affordability, the relevance of the actions envisaged, and effectiveness in serving the interests of Canadians. What this means is that in future we will undoubtedly need to be more selective in the choices we make. Our resources are limited, as are those of the United Nations. We must have the courage to rethink the roles and mandates of all our multilateral institutions, including those of Bretton Woods. These questions will be taken up at the next economic summit of the Group of Seven, to be held in Halifax, Canada. We want to work urgently with the United Nations community, since there should be as wide a discussion of these subjects as possible, at all the levels concerned. The relevance of certain institutions must be rethought and a real solution must be found to the problem of duplication, including the question of relationships with the specialized agencies.

This is not to suggest that we are oblivious to the progress that has been made in recent years in promoting stronger coherence and direction. It is true that useful steps have been taken, but it is becoming increasingly clear to us that the core functions and comparative advantages of the United Nations must be fully understood before specific reforms are undertaken.

Mrs. Stewart (Canada)

Drawing on its universality, neutrality and physical presence in many parts of the world, the comparative advantages of the United Nations are: global objective-setting; advocacy and monitoring in areas such as human rights, population and the environment; the provision of neutral policy advice; the collection and dissemination of information; the provision of access to the world for some of the poorest countries; and the provision of a framework for international humanitarian activities. These are not rigid categories, but rather are suggestive of a framework for channelling the energies of the United Nations towards areas of real value.

One important step is to eliminate duplication and ensure complementarity with other institutions, such as the Bretton Woods group. We believe there is a need to re-examine how the trade and development function is handled in the United Nations in the light of the emerging mandates of the World Trade Organization. The role and contribution of the United Nations regional economic commissions also merit close attention. Canada will wish to be certain that the vast array of intergovernmental machinery that has developed over time adjusts to future needs.

We advocate strengthening the human rights and environmental functions within the United Nations. Dealing more effectively with humanitarian needs is also important, through improved early warning arrangements, preventive development and a more seamless continuum between relief, rehabilitation and resumed development. This is especially pressing in conflict situations. The Rwandan tragedy has demonstrated that our early warning and conflict-prevention capacity should be further reinforced and dealt with in conjunction with development problems.

Strengthening the coherence and impact of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council in the economic and social fields is essential. The Council must fulfil its coordination role within the United Nations system and play a key role in the follow-up to international conferences. We are open to the idea of an enlarged Bureau of the Economic and Social Council, but that is no substitute for improved coordination with the agencies. It is time to consider how better to reflect the greater integration of social and economic issues in the work of the Second and Third Committees of the General Assembly.

The deliberative role on global economic issues of both bodies can be improved, but they should not try to compete with more specialized bodies. Their value lies in bringing moral and political force to global objectives, not in designing specific mechanisms. A further opening of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to a wider range of views, such as in the World Hearings on Development, should be encouraged.

Assistance programmes can be improved. Consolidation and integration should be considered to impart critical mass and focus and reduce unnecessary overheads. We should also ask ourselves whether assistance programmes of the scale on which the United Nations operates should not be geared even more to the needs of the poorest countries. Coordination with specialized agencies remains a vital concern.

This debate marks the beginning of a new phase in our work on an Agenda for Development. I have sought here to set out the Canadian view on some of the key issues that need to be addressed. In terms of next steps, we should look to the early establishment of a working group that would build on the good base offered by the Secretary-General. It could sharpen the expression of priorities within the United Nations and make suggestions on the changes required to act on them effectively.

As we near the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, the Agenda for Development presents us with an opportunity to revitalize our approach to development and to reposition the United Nations in the centre of the development debate. This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to let go.

Mr. Mwakawago (Tanzania)

At the outset, my delegation would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Secretary-General for his introductory report, which set in motion this very timely and crucial debate on an Agenda for Development. The report, which the Secretary-General submitted in the month of May, was both insightful and elaborate and provided the Members of the United Nations with useful information on the Secretary-General's reflections on the perspective of world development in the twenty-first century.

The President of the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session carried the banner further in defining the Agenda by organizing the World Hearings on Development, which assembled a wide range of leading personalities in a span of one week to exchange views on this important topic. The Note by the President summarizing this debate has proved very useful in the elaboration of the subject. Once again, may I extend my congratulations to Mr. Samuel R. Insanally, Permanent Representative of Guyana, for his initiative and stewardship. At this point, I should like to thank the President of the Assembly at this session for the concise and pertinent summary he made of the Agenda for Development.

Last but not least, my delegation would like to record our agreement with and support for the statement that the Chairman of the Group of 77 made on behalf of the members of the Group and China.

The high-level segment of this year's session of the Economic and Social Council provided us with the opportunity for the first time to discuss among ourselves our views on "An Agenda for Development", and last week we were happy to receive the recommendations of the Secretary-General which were derived from this extensive debate. It is the view of my delegation that a consensus is emerging on the direction the Agenda for Development should take after its imperative nature has been recognized. My delegation would like to underscore the Secretary-General's conclusion that development is a far-reaching imperative effective action on which is crucial for the well-being of humanity as a whole.

Needless to say, global peace and security will be jeopardized unless we create a world that is more balanced, both socially and economically. The role of the United Nations in this changing world is crucial, as never before. While individual States bear the primary responsibility for their own development, the United Nations, according to the Charter, promotes solutions to international social, economic and related problems.

My delegation wishes to discuss further a common theme that featured in the discussions in the World Hearings and in the recommendations of the Secretary-General on the idea of the globalization of the world system. Globalization is referred to as the increasing integration of world markets for goods, services, capital and technology. It also includes wider dissemination of ideas, culture and lifestyles.

It is my delegation's view that for the Agenda for Development to achieve its purpose and the process of globalization to be complete, all economies have to become players in the world market system. As long as the poorest 20 per cent of the world's population receives only 0.2 per cent of global commercial bank lending, 1.3 per cent of global investment, 1 per cent of global trade and 1.4 per cent of global income, and continues to rely on exports of primary commodities, the globalization process will entail further marginalization of those countries into the periphery of the world economy.

Within the domestic environment the poor have limited access to credit, capital, technology and other production inputs in their countries. In sub-Saharan Africa the informal sector increased by 6.7 per cent a year between 1980 and 1989, substantially faster than the modern sector. Between 1980 and 1985, while the modern sector added only 500,000 jobs to the urban labour market, the informal sector created some 6 million new jobs. By 1990, the informal sector employed more than 60 per cent of the urban work force, more than twice the share employed by the modern sector.

The poor are disproportionately threatened by the environmental hazards and health risks posed by pollution, inadequate housing, poor sanitation, lack of water and shortage of other basic services.

The process of marginalization which begins at the domestic environment manifests itself in the international arena. Most developing countries adopted market-oriented policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, offering greater incentives to the private sector through structural-adjustment programmes and economic reforms. The record in the past five years has shown that those reforms have not brought a significant increase in investment. First, profit or net- income expectations have been low, because of a generally weak economy and declining export commodity prices. Secondly, the poor and deteriorating state of infrastructure in many countries has driven up the costs of private investment. Present levels of public investment in many countries are insufficient to reverse this, and are unlikely to increase significantly, because of fiscal adjustment.

The lofty ideals of the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s have since the beginning of the present decade fallen far short in implementation, in that the net aggregate resource flows to Africa have declined, and were 22 per cent lower in 1992 than in 1990. The declines in the net aggregate resources flow to Africa in the 1990s further compound the problems of underdevelopment and poverty in the continent.

Africa participated in the Uruguay Round negotiations and urged its conclusion, but in terms of its implications I cannot do better than to quote the statement made by my President during his address to the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly on 4 October 1994, when he said:

"We from the developing world, and especially those of us from Sub-Saharan Africa, signed that agreement not because we were happy with it, or because we thought it took care of our interests. We signed it because the alternative was equally tragic. In truth, this new agreement will only mean the entrenchment of poverty in our countries unless compensatory measures are urgently taken in our favour." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth Session, Plenary Meetings, 16th meeting, p. 6)

The role of the United Nations system is pivotal in bringing all nations into the globalization process. Without a central authority, even of a moral force, international relations will remain relations of conquest and subjugation. An Agenda for Development should clearly specify the role of the United Nations, and especially its relationship with the specialized agencies and the Bretton Woods Institutions, which should be an integral part of the United Nations system. It should also clearly identify the division of labour with regard to policies and activities in order to enhance effective action in the economic, social and related fields within the United Nations system and the regional commissions, taking into account the need for effective coordination between them.

May I conclude by extending the full support of my delegation to the suggestion made by the Chairman of the Group of 77 that a committee of the Assembly should be constituted and entrusted with the task of elaborating on an Agenda for Development, including the role of the United Nations system, and giving impetus to renewing the efforts already made.

Mr. Kittikhoun (Laos)

Let me begin by expressing my delegation's appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for his rich and thought-provoking report (A/49/665) on an Agenda for Development.

Allow me also to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the President of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly for his useful note on the open-ended and broad-based consultations on an Agenda for Development as well as his summary on the World Hearings on Development, which contains a wealth of views and proposals generated at those consultations and Hearings.

I should be remiss if I failed to express our thanks to the President of the Economic and Social Council for his summary of the high-level segment, held on 28-29 June 1994, devoted to the theme "An Agenda for Development", in which he skilfully identified the priority issues to be addressed.

While supporting fully the statement made on this item this morning by the Permanent Representative of Algeria, Mr. Lamamra, on behalf of the Group of 77, I wish to focus in this debate on some points which are of great interest and concern to us.

In his report of 6 May 1994 on "An Agenda for Development" the Secretary-General emphasized that "Development is in crisis" (A/48/935, para. 5). Furthermore, he has pointed out, very rightly, in his present report of 11 November 1994 that

"The United Nations cannot be a strong force for peace unless it is also a strong force for development" (A/49/665, para. 9)

In our view, there is a need for the international community to make a real political commitment to the United Nations in determining policies, evolving measures and taking decisions on development issues, in much the same way as it acts on issues of peace and security, taking into account the present world's dynamic, complex and changing realities. The issues of peace, security and development, indeed, are mutually reinforcing and are increasingly recognized as indivisible. As we all know, there can be no development without peace and certainly no peace without development.

Given that the Agenda for Peace has already been put in place, my delegation appreciates highly the ongoing efforts of the international community to seek, in a timely fashion, bold and fresh ideas for launching a new campaign towards establishing an Agenda for Development to complement that Agenda.

The concept of development, as we understand it, is evolving. There is a view that its many dimensions have been expanded to include political, social, economic, humanitarian and environmental fields. While we concur that development must be seen in its many dimensions, it is our considered view that these dimensions should be addressed in an integrated and simultaneous manner and implemented in accordance with each country's set priorities taking into account the diversity of its culture, traditions and stage of development. All peoples the world over have the sovereign right to choose freely their path of development without any outside pressure or interference and they must be given a chance to opt for whatever system they deem appropriate both for themselves and for their future.

A strong and efficient Agenda for Development should be clear and action-oriented and focus on economic growth, sustainable development and the eradication of poverty. It should also seek to ensure the effective implementation of the existing international agreements and commitments in the field of development. Along the same lines, the Secretary-General stresses in his present report that

"at its core, development must be about improvement of human well-being, removal of hunger, disease and ignorance, and productive employment for all. Its first goal must be to end poverty and satisfy the priority needs of all people in a way that can be productively sustained over future generations" (A/49/665, para. 6)

To translate these objectives into reality, the international community is invited to take innovative concrete measures by allocating the new financial resources necessary to respond to the global needs for socio-economic development.

It is also important to note that for an Agenda for Development to be meaningful, it should encompass, among others, the core