Concludes Dialogue on a Democratic and Equitable International Order, and on Unilateral Coercive Measures
14 September 2017
The Human Rights Council this morning began an interactive dialogue with Saad Alfarargi, Special Rapporteur on the right to development. The Council also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on a democratic and equitable international order, and the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.
Presenting his report, Mr. Alfarargi reminded that more than 30 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development, the right to development was far from being universally recognized or implemented. Billions of people were in need of improvements in their lives and were entitled to have their human rights. Only when people had access to education and financial services, health care and housing, when they could fully participate in shaping the policies that governed their lives, were they able to lead their lives to their full potential. There was an urgent need to reinvigorate the advocacy process for the implementation of the right to development. Business as usual would not be sufficient to achieve progress.
In the ensuing discussion speakers emphasised that the right to development was vital for the enjoyment of all human rights. As an inalienable right, it was crucial for maintaining sustainable international peace. Some delegations noted that the right to development was not an issue pertinent only to underdeveloped and developing countries, but also to developed countries, especially with respect to healthcare and accommodation. Others pointed out to the growing inequalities between developed and developing countries, which were largely responsible for internal and external conflicts, and they regretted the politicisation of the dialogue on the right to development.
Speaking during the dialogue were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, European Union, Tunisia on behalf of the African Group, Philippines on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Egypt on behalf of the Group of Arab States, Cabo Verde on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-speaking countries, Venezuela on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, United Arab Emirates, Sierra Leone, Brazil, Pakistan, Togo, Sudan, Venezuela, Maldives, Thailand, Malaysia, Cuba, Iraq and Egypt.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with Alfred de Zayas, Independent Expert on a democratic and equitable international order, and Idriss Jazairy, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The dialogue began on Wednesday, 13 September, and a summary of the discussion can be found here.
In the discussion on a democratic and equitable international order, delegations noted that the activities of international financial institutions particularly impacted the rights of indigenous people. Several expressed agreement that the World Bank should more systematically take into account human rights in its projects. Financing for development projects was of importance, said some speakers, agreeing with the Independent Expert when he emphasised the need for those financial bodies to encourage other economic models and move away from the neoliberal model.
On unilateral coercive measures, several delegations called for remedies and compensation for victims. Some spoke in support of the establishment of a compensation commission for victims which would contribute to strengthening the spirit of the United Nations Charter. Some speakers noted that unilateral coercive measures used against developing countries were an obstacle to development, whereas others rejected the premise that underlay the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measure, saying the imposition of targeted sanctions in fact protected human rights.
Delivering his concluding remarks, Mr. Jazairy stated that when the international community had to remove sanctions already imposed, it was more difficult to remove them than to avoid getting into a situation where sanctions had to be applied. As for his position on the Rohingyas, he noted that it was a case where sanctions had been applied and then had been lifted. On the subject of “smart sanctions,” he used the example of Syria to explain that several rounds of targeted sanctions had in effect become comprehensive sanctions.
In his last oral presentation to the Council. Mr. De Zayas said he had identified many obstacles to a gentler international order, such as theories of mercantilism and liberal economy, vulture funds, sanctions, private credit agencies that manipulated information about national and foreign debt, unilateralism and militarism, which destroyed lives and faith in the sanity of mankind. It was insane that some countries devoted 40 per cent or more of their budget to the military instead of to education, healthcare, and social justice. Forced regime change through foreign intervention was a gross violation of international law and order, and a denial of democracy of self-determination, and it could constitute a crime against humanity.
Speaking were Qatar, Sudan, Ecuador, Malaysia, Cuba, Viet Nam, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Bolivia, Unites States, South Africa, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Iran, Syria, China, Algeria, Namibia, Azerbaijan, Nicaragua, Tunisia on behalf of the African Group, Egypt and Nigeria.
The following national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations also took the floor: National Human Rights Committee of Qatar, Alliance Defending Freedom, Association pour l’intégration et le développement durable au Burundi, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Europe-Third World Centre, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Inc., Indian Council of South America, Centre for Organisation Research and Education, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, Liberation, Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development (in a joint statement with Health and Environment Program), Women’s Human Rights International Association, Conseil international pour le soutien à des procès équitables et aux droits de l’homme, United Nations Watch, and Africa Culture Internationale.
The Council will next meet today at 3 p.m. to hold the biennial panel discussion on unilateral coercive measures and human rights. It will continue the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to development on Friday, 15 September, at 3 p.m.
Interactive Dialogue on an Equitable International Order and on Unilateral Coercive Measures
Qatar outlined that last June, unilateral sanctions had been imposed on Qatar. The Government had sent a letter to the Special Procedures concerning the violations of human rights that had been caused by the blockade. Qatar regretted that there had been a total absence of reaction to these letters. How could the Special Rapporteur ensure remedies and compensations for victims of coercive unilateral measures ? Sudan said that since 1997, Sudan had experienced unilateral coercive measures which had had catastrophic effects on the country and its population. Sudan called on all States to put an end to unilateral coercive sanctions and comply with the United Nations Charter, and to create an ad hoc compensation commission for victims. Ecuador outlined that the activities of international financial institutions had many impacts on human rights, particularly the rights of indigenous peoples. Around 3.4 million indigenous peoples had been displaced because of projects finance by the World Bank. There was clearly an uneven playing field favouring companies over States.
Malaysia said that the World Bank should take into account human rights more systematically in its projects. However, Malaysia did not agree with the Independent Expert on the role of public/private partnerships which had served countries well. The 1991 law which encouraged these partnerships had had good effects on Malaysia’s economy. Malaysia regretted that unilateral coercive measures continued to be used as political tools by States. Cuba thanked the Independent Expert for his meticulous work to promote a true, democratic and equitable international order and asked for the renewal of his mandate. Cuba had suffered from a blockade which had had a deplorable effect on the population. Cuba reiterated its rejection of double standards in the field of human rights. Viet Nam was concerned that the enjoyment of human rights in developing countries was jeopardized by unilateral coercive measures. Viet Nam supported the establishment of a compensation commission for victims. It would contribute to strengthen the spirit of the United Nations Charter.
Iraq said standards were being implemented through measures, noting that Iraq closely cooperated with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Iraq had suffered from unilateral coercive measures; this was why Iraq had voted in favour of the relevant resolution. Libya said it highly appreciated the valid recommendations in the report on unilateral coercive measures. On the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, the recommendations related to the World Bank launching a new comprehensive policy taking into account human rights deserved attention. Venezuela said an equitable international order was only possible in the context of respect for the sovereignty of States. Unilateral coercive measures used against developing countries were an obstacle to development, and the Council had condemned the adverse effects of such measures.
Bolivia said financing for development projects was of importance, agreeing with the Independent Expert when he emphasized the need for financial bodies to encourage other economic models and move away from the neoliberal model. Unilateral coercive measures were illegal and violated the United Nations Charter, and victims were entitled to remedy and compensation. United States rejected the premise that underlay the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures, adding that the imposition of targeted sanctions did not violate human rights. Regarding sanctions imposed on Russia, it was noted that the parts of Ukraine territory under the control of Russian-led forces had experienced an appalling deterioration in human rights conditions. South Africa supported the equality and sovereignty of States, and called for redress for victims affected by unilateral coercive measures, including financial compensation. Unilateral coercive measures outside the framework of the United Nations Charter should not be supported.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stated that as a country that had been under sanctions imposed by the United States for more than six decades, it attached great importance to the subject. It strongly opposed economic sanctions and blockades against sovereign States as they were illegal and violated the United Nations Charter. Ukraine strongly upheld that the sanctions against the Russian Federation corresponded to its human rights violations. As for impunity from sanctions, any elections held by the occupying authorities on Ukrainian soil were illegitimate. Zimbabwe said that as a victim it was fully cognisant of the devastating effect of economic sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.
Bangladesh agreed that the effectiveness of public-private partnerships was debatable and that at times the international financial institutions failed to contribute to the advancement of human rights. At the same time, they threatened the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. Iran noted that the grave impacts of unilateral coercive measures were not restricted to targeted countries. It was thus necessary to extend the paradigm from remediation to abolition and prohibition of unilateral coercive measures. Syria underlined the unlawful nature of the unilateral coercive measures imposed by the United States and the European Union for purely political motives. The time had come for the international community to accord effective remedies to the victims of unilateral coercive measures.
China was concerned that some information about certain Chinese companies in the report of the Independent Expert was not accurate. China noted that global security threats and climate change continued to spread, posing challenges to the construction of a more democratic and equitable order. Unilateral coercive measures should not become the means for States’ to impose their policies. Algeria said that unilateral coercive measures were adopted without regard to international law. They affected the rights of populations in countries. States should avoid adopting such measures outside the United Nations jurisdiction. Development could not be achieved without considering the fair distribution of resources. Namibia supported the establishment of an ad hoc commission providing remedies for victims of unilateral coercive measures. These measures violated international law and international humanitarian law. Namibia supported the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
Azerbaijan said that unilateral coercive measures only worsened the economic hardship of the populations of the countries concerned. Moreover, such measures worsened the plight of the most vulnerable segments of these populations and were inconsistent with international law. States should stop using them as a means for coercive blackmail. Nicaragua reiterated its rejection of unilateral coercive measures that contravened international law and international humanitarian law. These sanctions had increased since the 1990’s and represented an aggression against developing countries, impeding them from freely choosing their economic and social systems. They also had an adverse effect on human rights. Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that international financial institutions had an important role to play in the enforcement of human rights and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Unilateral coercive measures had a negative impact on human rights. Redress should be provided for victims of sanctions through the creation of a compensation commission.
Egypt said on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order that the report had focused on the impact of financial and economic policies implemented by international financial institutions. Egypt agreed on the importance of applying a human rights-based approach by institutions when lending countries. As for what had been said by Qatar, this was a boycott by four countries considering the support given by Qatar and especially those related to prohibiting any assistance to be given to terrorist countries. Nigeria said the imposition of unilateral sanctions went against international law; respect for the sovereign equality of nations was of paramount importance. Regarding an equitable international order, it was noted that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should support the United Nations in realizing the vision of the Charter.
Remarks by the Independent Expert on an Equitable International Order and the Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures
ALFRED DE ZAYAS, Independent Expert on the Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, said that with regard to public-private partnerships, he referred to Naomi Klein’s book “The Shock Doctrine” where many of the points he had made had also been expressed.
IDRISS JAZAIRY, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, said the international community had to get down to negotiations, with some members considering unilateral coercive measures legal and others considering them illegal. The legality of the measures could be challenged, he said, noting that to him it made no difference if the country in question was Qatar or Venezuela. The International Court of Justice might be able to look at the issue. Customary law was giving a sense of direction. The international community needed to get out of that approach, because there was an expectation that differences could be solved through negotiation. While not taking a position on merit, he said his job was to assess the humanitarian impact, because innocent people should not pay for the elites of the country. Paying tribute to the United States, which had cooperated with the mandate, and Sudan, progress had been achieved during 2016. He welcomed the support which had been expressed for the creation of a register, and for the creation of a compensation commission. He suggested that when proceeding with the Universal Periodic Review, the Council should consider the responsibility for or the impact of policies on countries controlled by countries under review. Mr. Jazairy expressed a preference for using quiet diplomacy rather than grandstanding to achieve results.
Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on an Equitable International Order and the Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures
National Human Rights Committee of Qatar agreed with the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to create a central registry of victims of unilateral coercive measures at the United Nations level. Unilateral coercive measures were a flagrant violation of human rights and as such should be rejected. Alliance Defending Freedom noted that less powerful and prosperous Member States may have been forced to change their voting patterns and even their national legislation as a result of economic and political pressure exerted by larger and more powerful Member States seeking to dominate the global human rights agenda. Association pour l’intégration et le développement durable au Burundi highlighted the problem of Hindu cow vigilantes who coerced minorities in India to give up on their traditional customs under the pretext of the protection of religious symbols.
Asian Legal Resource Centre noted that one of the most pressing concerns in the Asian region was the annihilation of the Rohingya in Myanmar, calling for international aid in order to ease the ethnic tensions in that country. Another concern was the pressure tactics used by influential ethnic communities, like the Nagas in India. Europe-Third World Centre voiced concern over the illegal embargo by the United States against Cuba, which was now strengthened by the Trump administration. Those sanctions violated the principle of national sovereignty and were a crime against humanity due to their economic and social impact on the people of Cuba. Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Inc. raised concern over the unilateral coercive measures imposed on Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition through a total land, air and sea blockade and uninterrupted airstrikes on civilians, which amounted to war crimes.
Indian Council of South America said that the World Bank had been responsible for many violations of the rights of indigenous peoples. In Sudan, the population suffered unfairly from unilateral coercive measures imposed on the country. Such measures also had an impact on the gross State product of third countries. Centre for Organization Research and Education said that Governments that imposed unilateral coercive measures had buried the cause of populations who faced intolerance and discrimination. Muslim and Christian minorities in India were subject to human rights violations and discrimination by Hindu forces. Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik outlined that in the last election in Iran, women and non-Shiites were excluded according to the Constitution. The country had engaged in an ever increasing foreign military adventure. Missile plans had elevated the risk of new unilateral coercive measures, which could cause harm to ordinary people.
Liberation underscored that many economic projects were led without concern for indigenous people in India. It was observed that poverty was disproportionally experienced in India. Human development indicators had shown that poverty was interlinked with social factors and that it was caused by social exclusion. Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development, in a joint statement with Health and Environment Program, outlined that unilateral coercive measures had negative impacts on human rights in targeted countries. The nomination of a Special Rapporteur in 2014 was an international recognition of the importance of this issue. It was necessary to create a new paradigm preventing the impact of unilateral coercive measures as well as a compensation committee for victims. Women’s Human Rights International Association noted that there was a clear connection between the lack of the rule of law, and brutal regimes and their willingness to use force to stay in power at all costs. The extrajudicial killings of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988 in Iran represented such an atrocity. Those responsible for these crimes had never been put to justice and some were still holding high offices in the Iranian Government.
Conseil International pour le soutien à des procès équitables et aux Droits de l’Homme said on an equitable international order that it was the right of every country to express its interests, adding that the United Nations had been set up to achieve that goal, and that the Organization had to review its objectives. United Nations Watch said human rights activists had worked hard to hold those responsible for the death of Mr. Magnitsky accountable, questioning the Special Rapporteur why he was listed as receiving $50,000 from Russia, and whether he had received the money before or after describing Russia as a victim in his report. Africa Culture Internationale said some regimes in the Middle East continued to treat some areas of worship as private property, adding that Saudi Arabia had exerted pressure on some African countries to change some practices. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion was called on to undertake visits to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Concluding Remarks by the Independent Expert on an Equitable International Order and the Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures
IDRISS JAZAIRY, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, said he would not waste his time responding to discourteous remarks. Turning to Yemen, he said that it was an ongoing process which was not yet completed. The Indian Council for South America had referred to technical assistance in support of countries related to the issue of unilateral coercive measures. He noted that he had been in touch with the office, and had made himself available. Some funds could be used for that purpose, but resources were not being paid into those funds. Any donor who would be interested in supporting technical assistance work would be welcome. When the international community had to remove sanctions already imposed, he noted that it was more difficult to remove them than to avoid getting into a situation where sanctions had to be applied. As for his position on the Rohingyas, he noted that it was a case where sanctions had been applied and then had been lifted. Applying the sanctions did not achieve any result, and lifting them had not, either. On the subject of “smart sanctions,” he used the example of Syria to say several rounds of targeted sanctions had in effect become comprehensive sanctions.
ALFRED DE ZAYAS, Independent Expert on a democratic and equitable international order, thanked civil society organizations for their comments. Non-governmental organizations deserved greater space and attention in Council discussions because they provided invaluable research and information. Mr. De Zayas rejected ad hominem attacks on Special Procedure mandate holders. In his last oral presentation, he thanked the Council for having created a mandate that allowed for the convergence of political, economic, social and cultural rights. Over the years, Mr. De Zayas had identified many obstacles to a gentler international order, such as theories of mercantilism and liberal economy, vulture funds, sanctions that hurt the most vulnerable, as well as private credit agencies that manipulated information about national and foreign debt. All those endangered the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Unilateralism had always hindered the building of a just international order. Militarism destroyed lives and faith in the sanity of mankind. It was insane that some countries devoted 40 per cent or more to the military instead of to education, healthcare and social justice. Forced regime change through foreign intervention was a gross violation of international law and order, and denial of democracy of self-determination, and it could constitute a crime against humanity. Mr. De Zayas endorsed the efforts of civil society in drafting a declaration on the right to peace, and there was a legal basis for it. In many fora human rights were being invoked selectively, language was corrupted, and good initiatives were rejected. A human rights industry had emerged to perform business as usual. International solidarity was needed, commitment to the rule of law, strengthening of regional courts, and a new enforceable bill of rights.
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to development (A/HRC/36/49).
Presentation of Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development
SAAD ALFARAGI, Special Rapporteur on the right to development, recalled that the right to development was first mentioned in 1966, when the then-Foreign Minister of Senegal, Doudou Thiam, referred to the right to development of the “Third World” before the General Assembly, reflecting on the decades of failure of States to meet the goals of the first United Nations Development Decade. He linked that failure to the failure of newly decolonized States to resolve the growing economic imbalance between the developing and developed worlds. The Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by the General Assembly on 4 December 1986, was built on the edifice of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was adopted with the great majority of States supporting it.
More than 30 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development, the right to development was far from being universally recognized or implemented. Billions of people were in need of improvements in their lives and were entitled to have their human rights. The particular value of the right to development was that it shifted the focus away from statistics and goods to the well-being of people. Only when people had access to education and financial services, health care and housing, when they could fully participate in shaping the policies that governed their lives, were they able to lead their lives to their full potential. There was an urgent need to reinvigorate the advocacy process for the implementation of the right to development. Business as usual would not be sufficient to achieve progress. Mr. Alfaragi outlined that, while economic growth was a quantitative concept, development was a qualitative concept.
Among his areas of focus, the Special Rapporteur highlighted that he intended to focus on working to remove structural obstacles to the implementation of the right to development such as politicisation. There were other adverse trends such as the global financial and economic crisis, the energy and climate crisis, corruption, illicit financial flows and austerity. There was a need to develop a constructive dialogue and consult with States and other relevant stakeholders to identify good practices relating to the realization of the right to development in the context of the implementation of 2030 Agenda. Another area of focus would be exploring practical measures and providing recommendations for the realization of the right to development at the national and international levels.
Mr. Alfaragi underscored that this was his first report to the Human Rights Council. He was well aware of the complexities and sensitivities that surrounded the debate on the right to development. It was important to avoid duplication of work being done throughout the United Nations system and to ensure synchronicity and consistency in all activities. He was looking forward to working together with relevant Special Procedure mandate holders, especially those working on mandates closely related to the right to development.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said conceptual and practical differences had to be overcome to realize the right to development, adding that the most pressing issue was the rhetoric of questioning the basis of that fundamental right by certain countries. The Council was requested to foster efforts for finalizing consideration of critera and operational sub-criteria conducive to the implementation and realization of the right to development. European Union expressed support for the right to development, saying the right required the realisation of civil and political rights together with economic, social and cultural rights. The European Union was not in favour of the elaboration of an international legal standard. Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said development was a comprehensive process aimed at improving the well-being of populations. Due consideration to the right to development by both developing and developed States was essential if implementation of the 2030 Agenda was going to be successful.
Philippines, speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), recognized the right to development as an inalienable human right by virtue of which all were entitled to benefit from economic, social, cultural and political development. All States were encouraged to engage constructively in the discussions for the full implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development, including in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals. Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, welcomed the Special Rapporteur and his initial report, reiterating that the right to development was an inalienable right for all peoples. Member countries were working toward ensuring justice by setting up a system based on financial effectiveness as well as effectiveness of expenditure on the regional levels, in order to improve living conditions for all. Cabo Verde, speaking on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries, said the whole issue of development was vital for the Community, as it was mostly comprised of developing countries. The Community was in no doubt as to the relevance of the right to development, as gaps called on everyone to work to close them.
Venezuela, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, reminded that the right to development was vital for the enjoyment of all human rights. As an inalienable right, it was crucial for maintaining sustainable international peace. United Arab Emirates noted that the right to development was not an issue pertinent only to underdeveloped and developing countries, but also to developed countries, especially with respect to healthcare and accommodation. Sierra Leone stated that the right to development should be used as a measuring tool when assessing the achievements of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Brazil noted that the realisation of the right to development contributed to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, especially of the most vulnerable populations, pointing out to the convergence between Government planning and the Sustainable Development Goals. Pakistan stressed that poverty, illiteracy, disease, discrimination and inequality were serious challenges to the realisation of the right to development. Transnational initiatives, such as China’s “One Belt One Road” united regions in shared development and prosperity. Togo pointed out to the growing inequalities between developed and developing countries, which were largely responsible for internal and external conflicts. Togo regretted the politicisation of the dialogue on the right to development.
Sudan attached great importance to the right to development as a part of fundamental rights that affected other rights such as the right to heath and the right to access drinking water. Sudan highlighted that the right to development was contained in its Constitution and national law. Venezuela assured that it highly valued the Declaration on the Right to Development and supported all the initiatives contributing to achieving the rights contained in this Declaration. Venezuela was concerned about increasing inequalities between developing and developed countries and supported the idea of creating a “special rapporteurship” which would help build a world of solidarity. Maldives outlined that the full implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals would be an enabler to the realization of the right to development as they explicitly recognized it and opened a door for States to come in to ensure mutual understanding on how it should be realized. Maldives recalled that, as a small island developing State, it was highly dependent on the support of the international community for its development efforts.
Thailand welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur and underscored the importance of creating synergies in order to achieve the right to development and the 2030 Agenda that were mutually reinforcing. One crucial element was to ensure the engagement of all stakeholders in the realization of the right to development. Malaysia said that challenges to the fulfilment of the right to development remained multiple and complex. In the case of Malaysia, the key challenges included sustaining development and mobilizing talents to innovate against the so-called middle-income trap. Inclusivity and diversification of development opportunities positively contributed to reducing poverty. Cuba concurred that politicisation and inauspicious global trends had a negative impact on the realization of the right to development. Cuba regretted that the Special Rapporteur had not participated to the last meeting of the Working Group on the right to development. It called upon all States to support his mandate.
Iraq reaffirmed its commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Addis Ababa Programme of Action. Iraq could not ignore the displacement caused by the ISIS terrorist group as well as environmental degradation; development goals could not be assured until security goals were assured. Egypt welcomed the interactive dialogue and noted that the report set out the main lines of the strategy that the Independent Expert intended to pursue. States which did not recognize the right to development should review their positions and policies; politicization and lack of commitment were all challenges preventing the enjoyment of the right to development.
Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development
SAAD ALFARAGI, Special Rapporteur on the right to development, said comments from delegations were encouraging. Responding to a question from Sierra Leone on how his mandate fit into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, he said that at the national level, developing a specific methodology was one priority. At the regional level, it had been mentioned in the report that reaching good practices in implementation was important, and this was an area where he wanted to do more work. The question was how to implement the right to development. The right to development meant all rights together.
For use of the information media; not an official record