A/66/PV.127 General Assembly

Members will recall that the General Assembly held a debate on agenda item 13 jointly with agenda item 63 and its sub-items (a) and (b) at the 32nd and 33rd plenary meetings, on 11 October 2011. I now give the floor to the representative of Liberia, who will speak on behalf of the African States to introduce draft resolution A/66/L.58.

It is with honour that I introduce, on behalf of the African Group, draft resolution A/66/L.58, entitled “Consolidating gains and accelerating efforts to control and eliminate malaria in developing countries, particularly in Africa, by 2015”. In the past 10 years, more than 1 million lives have been saved and mortality has been reduced by more than a quarter globally and by more than a third in Africa through the collaborative efforts of Governments, United Nations agencies, international organizations, donor agencies and other stakeholders. Notwithstanding those gains, the grim reality is that malaria is still a global threat, affecting 99 countries globally and contributing to 655,000 deaths per year. Africa bears the brunt of this burden. Malaria kills a child in Africa every minute. The African region accounts for 81 per cent of malaria cases occurring worldwide; 90 per cent of malaria deaths occur in the region, with 86 per cent being children below five years of age. The devastating impact of malaria on Africa cannot be overstated. The social and economic toll is significant, impacting our people, our Governments, our communities and, inevitably, our livelihoods. Financial costs to individuals and families for treatment of the disease, and in many cases for funerals, are substantial. Public health interventions against malaria and ensuring consistent supplies of antimalarial drugs burden Governments’ public health expenditures. Not to be understated is the loss in productivity and income. Malaria control remains an emergency globally, and even more so for Africa. The challenge now for the global community is to intensify efforts and commitments to avoid the reversal of the gains made thus far and to push for greater progress in sustainable interventions. That also includes the intensification of resource mobilization. It is estimated that $3.2 billion in aid will be needed through 2015 to overcome the current funding deficit and continue the fight to eliminate Malaria. “Addressing this shortfall will prevent a health disaster”, as noted by Her Excellency Ms. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of Liberia and current Chair of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance. This year’s draft resolution maintains last year’s language with the exception of a few technical updates and new developments. The new components are as follows: the welcome of the designation by the Secretary-General of malaria as one of his top priorities under his second mandate and his commitment to developing new partnerships and improving existing ones and to scaling up high-impact interventions aimed at significantly reducing the number of deaths from malaria; the call for increased support for the implementation of international commitments and goals pertaining to the fight to eliminate malaria, as stipulated in the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals; recognition of the need for additional funding for malaria interventions and for research and development of preventive, diagnostic and control tools from the international community; the recognition of the impact of the Roll Back Malaria Partnership; and the encouraging of sharing across regions of knowledge, experience and lessons learned with regard to the control and elimination of malaria, particularly between the African, Asian-Pacific and Latin American regions. The draft resolution conclusively requests the Secretary-General, in close collaboration with the Director-General of the World Health Organization and in consultation with Member States, to report on the implementation of the draft resolution at the sixty-seventh session, and specifically on progress to achieve the 2015 targets of the Abuja Declaration and the Global Malaria Action Plan, as well as Millennium Development Goal 6. Our gratitude goes out to the representatives who participated in the consultations for their engagement, transparency, constructive contributions and demonstrated spirit of compromise. Further appreciation goes out to the sponsors of the draft resolution. We invite other delegations to join the sponsorship today. We look forward to the adoption of the draft resolution by consensus as in previous years.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/65/L.58, entitled “Consolidating gains and accelerating efforts to control and eliminate malaria in developing countries, particularly in Africa, by 2015”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, the following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/66/L.58: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Honduras, Monaco, Montenegro, the Republic of Korea and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/66/L.58?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 13?

Members will recall that, at its 72nd plenary meeting on 2 December 2011, the General Assembly held a debate on agenda item 14 jointly with agenda item 117, agenda item 123 and its sub-item (a), and agenda item 124. Members will also recall that, under agenda item 14 and agenda item 117, the Assembly considered the report of the Secretary- General contained in document A/66/763 at its 112th plenary meeting on 4 June 2012. I now give the floor to the representative of Jordan to introduce draft resolution A/66/L.55/Rev.1. Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein (Jordan): I have the honour to introduce, on behalf of the main sponsors, Japan and Jordan, the draft resolution contained in document A/66/L.55/Rev.1. I also have the privilege to address the General Assembly as the Chair of Human Security Network, which consists of Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Greece, Ireland, Mali, Norway, Panama, Slovenia, Switzerland and Thailand, with South Africa participating as an observer. As the Assembly is well aware, at the 2005 World Summit our leaders and Heads of State emphasized the pivotal role of human security and mandated the General Assembly to define the notion of human security. Consequently, in 2010 the General Assembly adopted resolution 64/291, by which the Secretary- General was able to seek the views of the membership on a common understanding of the notion of human security, in accordance with paragraph 143 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome. In his report (A/66/763), which reflects the various views of Member States, the Secretary-General proposes important elements that constitute a common understanding on human security. As I announced to the General Assembly during the formal debate on 4 June (see A/66/PV.112), the delegation of Japan and my own delegation launched, on behalf of the Network, open and inclusive informal consultations that enjoyed the very active and constructive participation of all Member States. As a result, those consultations have produced for the first time a common understanding on the notion of human security for the Assembly’s consideration today. The present draft resolution recognizes human security as an approach designed to assist Member States in identifying and addressing widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their peoples. As an approach, human security calls for, first, the right of people to live in freedom and dignity and free from fear and want; secondly, people-centred, comprehensive, context- specific and prevention-oriented responses that strengthen the protection and empowerment of all peoples and all communities; and thirdly, recognition of the interlinkages between peace, development and human rights, while equally considering civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Therefore, human security is, first, distinct from the responsibility to protect and does not entail the threat or the use of force or coercive measures. Secondly, it is based on national ownership, as Governments retain the primary role and responsibility for ensuring the survival, livelihood and dignity of their citizens, while the role of the international community is to complement and provide the necessary support to Governments upon their request. Thirdly, and last but not least, human security must be implemented with full respect for the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. In addition, the draft resolution recognizes the role that human security could play in achieving development, acknowledges the contributions made so far by the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, and invites Member States to consider making voluntary contributions to the Fund. Indeed, during the past three months, Member States have shown great interest in achieving a common understanding on human security that would help in advancing its implications at the national, regional and international levels. Japan and my country, Jordan, are grateful to all delegations that participated actively in negotiations and managed to bridge the gaps between different points of view. On behalf of Japan and Jordan, I ask the Assembly to now adopt the draft resolution under consideration. Before concluding my introduction, I would like to thank all sponsors for their great and appreciated support, and of course the facilitators, Ambassador Jun Yamazaki and Counsellor Mohammad Al Nsour, for their remarkable efforts.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/66/L.55/Rev.1, entitled “Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in document A/66/L.55/Rev.1, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Australia, Benin, Chile, Fiji, Honduras, Liberia, Madagascar, Nauru, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Senegal, Tunisia and Uganda.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/66/L.55/Rev.1?

Before giving the floor to the speakers in explanation of vote, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I have the honour to speak in explanation of vote on resolution 66/290, entitled “Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome”. Before commenting on the substance of the resolution, we would like to put on record our deep appreciation for the skilful handling of the negotiation process by the two facilitators, Japan and Jordan. Despite our differences in views on certain aspects of the resolution, it has been a rewarding professional experience to negotiate that important text with all partners. We would accordingly like to congratulate the facilitators on the successful adoption of the resolution today. Pakistan considers the notion of human security an important tool for the States Members of the United Nations for identifying and addressing widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their peoples. We have accordingly supported the resolution. We also welcome the fact that the resolution clearly distinguishes the notion of human security from controversial elements such as the responsibility to protect, the threat or use of force or coercive measures, which have led to the undue polarization of this concept. Important elements, such as the State’s primacy in ensuring the survival and livelihood of its citizens, national ownership of the notion and its implementation with full respect for the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, add to the credibility of this concept. Based on the origin and evolution of the notion of human security, Pakistan continues to believe that it must have a development-oriented focus to ensure equitable progress in addressing the inherent inequalities that lead to violations of human rights at the national and international levels. Paragraph 4 of the resolution therefore conveys the core message that while development, human rights and peace and security are the three pillars of the United Nations, development is a central goal in itself, and that the advancement of human security should contribute to realizing sustainable development as well as internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals. We regret, however, that the text does not contain any reference to the right to development, which would have strengthened and appropriately contextualized the notion of human security. Pakistan looks forward to working with all partners in promoting this concept in its proper context — that is, development — and expresses the hope that its implementation will lead to genuine international cooperation, whereby Member States are assisted, upon their request, to strengthen their development capacities to respond to current and emerging threats and challenges.

First of all, we would like to thank the facilitators, the representatives of Jordan and Japan, for their efforts to arrive at a common agreement on the term “human security”, in keeping with the provisions of the Charter and the principles of international law, while reaffirming the rights of people to development, freedom and a life of dignity free from poverty and despair. My country’s delegation joined the consensus on resolution 66/290, entitled “Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome”, on the basis of our firm conviction of the importance of clearly and precisely defining this important concept and that any ambiguous definition could lead to politicization and unilateral interpretations, undermining the foundations of the international law that govern international relations. All of these factors could seriously jeopardize the implementation of this important concept. My delegation should like to reiterate its understanding of the resolution. We wish to emphasize the fact that the concept of human security encompasses the following principles. First, it involves a commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter, in particular the need to uphold the territorial integrity of States and to respect the principle of non-interference in their internal affairs, the exclusive responsibility of the State to protect its citizens, and its right to assess the risks and dangers to its people’s security and decide on the means to deal with them. In other words, any assistance on the part of the international community should be granted upon the request of the State concerned, with its consent, in order to implement the international consensus embodied in many United Nations resolutions on humanitarian action, the most important of which is resolution 46/182. In this respect, we affirm that the human security of individuals cannot replace the security of the State and society or be given priority over them. Second, thie concept involves the basic principles of international humanitarian law, in particular the right of peoples to self-determination — especially peoples under foreign occupation — and the inalienable rights of all peoples to exploit their natural resources in accordance with international law. Third, the concept of human security is based on the right to development. Indeed, human security is based on sustainable human development, economic development and the elimination of poverty and underdevelopment by bridging the gap between North and South, by ensuring justice, energy security and the transfer of technology, and by eschewing unilateral economic sanctions imposed by States and other entities against developing countries in a manner not consistent with international law. Fourth, the concept of human security is based on universality and not selectivity, and on the need to avoid any double standards in addressing international crises, while safeguarding the specific cultural and religious elements of all communities. The concept of human security has not been created to apply only to the States of the South. There must be guarantees for its implementation by all Member States, without recourse to discretionary political Powers and far from the hegemonic centres of power. Fifth, there is a need to focus on worldwide institutional reform in order to formulate an adequate response to threats to humanitarian security, as trade laws and international investment law do not stipulate the need to establish a link between economic concerns and international human rights. Some multinational companies engage in practices that are in violation of individual economic rights in the countries where they operate. Sixth, reform of the system of international assistance is an important question that has an impact on the way in which humanitarian and security issues are dealt with. This entails the need for developed countries to be convinced to offer assistance to poor countries, as the increasing pressures that developed countries are bringing to bear on natural resources mean that they must compensate poor countries for the damage done. Seventh, hegemonic Powers must stop fanning internal tensions in States by providing funding, equipment and media and political coverage to further their own agenda. This exacerbates the problems in such countries, where citizens already find it difficult to ensure their livelihoods and throw off the yoke of poverty.

The Russian Federation did not join in the consensus adoption of resolution 66/290, on human security, because the text does take many of our proposals into account. Moreover, we are not convinced of the need for the very concept of human security or its added value for the work of the United Nations. We are not convinced that the notion of human security can offer anything particularly new to the work of the Organization; rather, we are afraid that it could lead to an excessive politicization of discussions. In our approach to human security, we base our views on the fact that the term “human security” should be used only in the context of socio-economic development, in line with such principles as the non-use of force or threat of force, which run counter to the principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter concerning the non-interference in the internal affairs of States and respect for national sovereignty. Governments, which bear the primary responsibility for ensuring the security of their citizens, must themselves identify the challenges that, under each country’s specific national conditions, create obstacles to survival or to ensuring their peoples’ well-being and dignity. The role of the international community is to provide Governments, at their request and with their consent, the assistance necessary in building their capacity to overcome those challenges.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the facilitators of resolution 66/290, Ambassador Jun Yamazaki of Japan and Counsellor Mohammed Ali Al Nsour of Jordan, for their tireless efforts and the transparency they demonstrated. In the spirit of being constructive, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela decided to join the consensus in the Assembly on this resolution. Nonetheless, we would like to emphasize that, although we have made progress towards a common understanding of the concept of human security, we must continue to work together on the process of defining that concept, its scope and its implementation within the United Nations system. We will always be ready to participate in a totally open and and collaborative fashion in that process. My delegation took an active part in the negotiations on this resolution, presenting its view of the concept of human security clearly and transparently. For the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, that concept can in no way challenge State security; in that sense, the concept of human security is subordinate to State security. State security is the cornerstone of the Charter of the United Nations. The chief concern of those who drafted the Charter was to put an end to acts of aggression between States. A system was therefore established that would safeguard the security of States, embodied in the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence and non-interference in States’ internal affairs. In that regard, it should not be the role of human security to weaken States’ security or endanger the system of international relations that governs relations between nations. On the contrary, the role of the concept of human security should aim to complement the role of State security. By emphasizing development, human security can become a national policy capable of promoting human well-being. The State continues to be the entity best able to ensure the security and the greatest happiness of its citizens and of people throughout the world. For that it will rely on the backing of the concept of human security.

The United States values the concept of human security as an important innovation in our thinking about the purposes and principles of the United Nations. It encourages us to think about the interconnected nature of security in the twenty-first century, and insists that we keep high on our agenda consideration of the vulnerability and insecurity that plague too many individuals around the world, whether from extreme poverty, disease, natural disaster, oppression or conflict. Those are important values. We express our appreciation to the delegations of Japan, Jordan and others, which have led efforts to elaborate the concept. In the context of the United Nations, human security has been a sensitive issue. There is a wide array of views on what human security is and is not, and a shared definition or understanding has been elusive. Indeed, from the concept’s very beginnings there has been a tension between the ideas of freedom from want and freedom from fear. In our view, both of those are important to a holistic understanding of human security. While we appreciate the efforts that have led to the adoption of resolution 66/290 today, the United States wishes to explain its position on three of its elements. First, we believe the text does not sufficiently capture the diversity of views on human security and, in particular, gives insufficient weight to the very real human insecurity and fear that arise from such threats as human rights abuses, discrimination and conflict. Secondly, with reference to paragraph 3 (d), while we agree that the concept of human security is distinct from the responsibility to protect and its implementation, we do not see that the reference to the responsibility to protect is necessary or helpful in advancing either human security or the responsibility to protect. Thirdly, with regard to paragraph 3 (h), the United States has strong reservations about the use of selective references to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. The Charter is a prescient, sophisticated and balanced document. It affirms the centrality of human rights and fundamental freedoms alongside other essential purposes and principles of the United Nations. The United States firmly opposes the selective treatment of Charter principles, which only serves to diminish the true value of the Charter as a whole.

China would like to emphasize the following three points with regard to the issue of human security. First, the concept of human security originated with United Nations Development Programme reports on development. Human security is in essence an issue of development. Helping developing countries to emerge from poverty as quickly as possible, achieve sustainable economic and social development and implement the Millennium Development Goals should be a priority and the central aim of a human security policy. Secondly, Governments have the primary responsibility for ensuring the survival, development, dignity and security of their peoples. Human security must be based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, namely, respect for national sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs and other basic principles of international relations. The pursuit of human security should not lead to the use of coercive measures, and even less should it be used as an excuse for carrying out humanitarian intervention. Thirdly, Member States still have different interpretations of the definition and the concept of human security. It is necessary to continue the in- depth examination of its content and extension so as to achieve a clear and widely accepted definition. China hopes that the General Assembly will continue its examination of the notion of human security.

The adoption by consensus of resolution 66/290, entitled “Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome”, as the first substantive resolution on the notion of human security only reflects the level of maturity that the discussions within the General Assembly have reached on the notion since 2005. Egypt was pleased to join the consensus, which enabled the general membership to lay down one of the foundations guiding future discussions of the notion by the Assembly. In that regard, we extend our appreciation of the skilful handling of the negotiation process by Japan and Jordan and for ensuring that the principles of transparency and objectivity are observed. We also appreciate the constructive engagement of most delegations in the negotiation process. Although, as of yet, we have not developed a clear definition of the notion of human security, the parameters of the common understanding reached in the current resolution set the framework for the general membership to continue its consideration of the notion within the following criteria. First, in particular, it is distinct from the concept of the responsibility to protect and thus does not entail the threat or use of force or coercive measures. Secondly, that it does not replace or undermine the principle of State security. Thirdly, while it seeks to promote the right of people to live in freedom and dignity free from poverty and despair, it should fully respect the principle that Governments retain the primary role and responsibility for ensuring the survival, livelihood and dignity of their citizens. Its implementation should be in full accordance with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, namely, the sovereignty of Member States, respect for their territorial integrity and non-interference in their domestic affairs. For Egypt, the central goal of human security is to support the pillar of development — an aspect that we recognize has been stressed in resolution 66/290. We will strive to work towards achieving that. In that regard, the advancement of human security should contribute significantly to achieving the goals of sustainable development, as well as internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals. Egypt reaffirms that future discussions in consideration of the notion of human security must be only within the General Assembly. They should be in accordance with the aforementioned parameters, referenced in the current resolution, including deliberations on the modalities of its application within the United Nations system, thus enabling the general membership to ensure its good use for the benefit of all Member States.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union.

I will deliver this explanation of position on behalf of the European Union and its member States. First, let me thank the facilitators, Ambassador Jun Yamazaki of Japan and Counsellor Mohammad Ali Al Nsour of Jordan, for their commendable leadership and tireless efforts throughout this process, which has successfully produced the first substantive resolution of the General Assembly on human security (resolution 66/290). As the General Assembly has proceeded to the adoption of the resolution, allow me to share a number of considerations. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm that the European Union remains committed to promoting and will continue to support human security as a comprehensive, integrated, people-centred and prevention-oriented approach to address interrelated threats to the security, livelihood and dignity of people and vulnerable communities. As such, it remains also one of the priorities of the European Union at the upcoming sixty-seventh session of the General Assembly. The European Union has actively engaged in the General Assembly with a view to reaching an agreement on the resolution. We acknowledge that significant progress has been made in advancing human security since the adoption of resolution 64/291 in 2010. The reports of the Secretary-General and General Assembly debates, as well as intergovernmental negotiations, have contributed to that progress. The resolution adopted today is the overall positive outcome of our collective efforts. However, ultimately, what matters most is the work at the field level and its impact on people’s lives and livelihoods. If we are to achieve further progress, future intergovernmental deliberations at the United Nations should be guided by such field work, ongoing projects and their lessons, and best practices. The elements of the common understanding contained in the resolution are useful to elucidate the boundaries of the human security concept and to avoid possible interferences with other approaches. The European Union and its member States continue to believe that reaching a common understanding on human security is not an end in itself but a means of advancing implementation of human security in United Nations activities at the field level in a coherent and non-duplicative manner. Throughout the process that led to the adoption of the resolution, we have reiterated the basic principle of interdependence and mutual reinforcement of the three pillars of the United Nations. The report of the Secretary-General (A/66/763) rightly recalled that human security is precisely about linking the three pillars through the protection and empowerment of the individual. We therefore very much welcome the human rights references in the text, the explicit mentioning of the interlinkages between peace, development and human rights in the preamble and paragraph 3 (c) and the references to empowerment and people-centred responses. Such elements are central to human security, and we will continue to strongly underline the equal status and interdependence of those three pillars. We will not enjoy development without peace and security or without development; we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. With reference to paragraph 3 (e), we underline that coercive measures must remain part of the toolbox available to the United Nations and other international and regional organizations, as well as individual States, in order to ensure that States comply with their obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. That is important to the European Union as sanctions are an instrument of our foreign policy. In that context, we reaffirm the primary responsibility of States to fulfil their obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. As stated in paragraph 3 (h), human security must be implemented with full respect for all the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The European Union and its member States fully support that view, while strongly opposing any selective approach that singles out only some of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and omits others that are equally relevant and important. Selective quotation of the Charter can potentially undermine the core principles of the United Nations and negatively affect our work at the Organization. Promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all is central to human security. Furthermore, Article 2 of the Charter is absolutely clear on the principles that should guide the United Nations and its members in the pursuit of the Organization’s objectives. Respect for all human rights and the rule of law must remain at the core of any application of the human security approach. Human rights should be mainstreamed and integrated into all aspects of the work of the United Nations, and human security should not be an exception. Promoting the rights of those in vulnerable situations is a key concern, including with respect to their representation in decision-making, as well as ensuring them better access to justice, services, work and social opportunities. These are issues that need our full attention, and the human security approach should enhance our ability to work even harder to reach these goals. The EU will continue to support a pragmatic and action-oriented approach, focusing on working in areas where human security can bring added value in terms of the protection and empowerment of individuals.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda items 14 and 117.

The General Assembly will resume its consideration of agenda item 117 to hold a specific meeting focused on development, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/265, of 30 June 2006. Members will recall that the General Assembly held a debate on agenda item 117 jointly with agenda item 14, sub-item (a) of agenda item 123 and agenda item 124, on 2 December 2011. Members will also recall that under agenda item 117, the Assembly adopted resolution 66/2 at its 3rd plenary meeting, on 19 September 2011. I am pleased to welcome all participants to this development dialogue of the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly. The General Assembly development dialogue was established as a specific meeting focused on development aimed at assessing the progress being made in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This year’s theme is “Macroeconomic policies for the future we want: sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals”. The objective is to examine how macroeconomic policymaking affects the achievement of the MDGs and how it can accelerate progress in transitioning to a more sustainable development paradigm. Just this past June, I was in Rio de Janeiro and witnessed the adoption by world leaders of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) Summit. The document, entitled “The future we want”, has the goal of defining pathways to a safer, more equitable, cleaner, greener and more prosperous world for all. Achieving those objectives requires the balanced integration of the three pillars of sustainable development, namely, economic development, social development and environmental protection. The Rio+20 outcome document, endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 66/288, provides a solid foundation for advancing social, economic and environmental well-being. It also calls for a wide range of actions, including the establishment of a process to develop and fully define global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the General Assembly. The outcome document also recognized the importance of adopting forward-looking macroeconomic policies that promote sustainable development and lead to sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth. In addition, such policies should increase productive employment opportunities and promote agricultural and industrial development. The recent global economic downturn has severely disrupted economic growth worldwide and caused significant setbacks in the progress being made towards achieving the MDGs. The global financial and economic crisis has now turned into a jobs crisis, with millions of men and women — especially young people — becoming unemployed or underemployed. An increasing number of families and individuals are struggling to sustain their livelihoods. Many others have to cope with a reduced income and high and volatile food and energy prices. Current macroeconomic governance and policies have proved less than adequate in containing the risks emanating from the current fragile global economy. There is a growing recognition of the fact that macroeconomic policymaking needs to be revisited and reshaped to better achieve macroeconomic stability and sustainable development. However, there is always a cure for every scourge. I have full confidence in the ability of the international community to overcome the problems posed by this difficult and challenging time by providing the necessary collective response. Particular focus is being placed on how macroeconomic policymaking can be reshaped to achieve stability, create employment and decent work, and promote productive capacities, including in the green economy. That revision is crucial for reducing poverty, advancing social equity, achieving the MDGs and thereby advancing sustainable development. It will therefore be important to give full consideration to an effective integration of macroeconomic policy-making into the post-2015 development agenda. Today’s dialogue will help us to build on the outcomes of the Rio+20 summit. It provides an excellent opportunity to deepen our understanding of the interlinkages between macroeconomic policies, sustainable development and the achievement of the MDGs. The deliberations of the General Assembly will feed into the work of both the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals and the High-level Panel on the Global Development Agenda beyond 2015. Regarding the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, allow me to recall that I have designated Her Excellency Ambassador Maria Luiza Viotti, Permanent Representative of Brazil, to serve as facilitator on my behalf in the establishment of this process. I reiterate my call to all participants to extend their cooperation and support to her, particularly by exercising flexibility and a spirit of compromise. This development dialogue is a timely conclusion to the efforts made under my presidency in the field of sustainable development and global prosperity, one of the four key pillars I chose for our focus during the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly. Over the past year, we have had several opportunities to address the anxieties of peoples worldwide on the critical issues of jobs, food security, and how to secure a better future for our children and their children. It is in that context that, among other initiatives, I convened the high-level thematic debate on the state of the world economy and the high-level thematic debate on excessive fluctuation of commodities prices. I would like to take this opportunity to thank delegations, the Secretary-General and all my partners for their cooperation and support towards the success of those meetings. The United Nations exists for these noble objectives — to coordinate international efforts to serve the best interests of people worldwide. I am therefore glad that our dialogue here today is being held in the same spirit to find the means to invest in the future we want. I look forward to members’ active participation, creative ideas and concrete recommendations to effectively address this challenging theme. To help steer our deliberations here today, we are fortunate to count on the assistance and expertise of two accomplished experts. The Secretary-General’s Senior Adviser on Economic Development and Finance, Ms. Shamshad Akhtar, will act as moderator of the interactive session. Ms. Nancy Birdsall, our guest lecturer, is founder and President of the Center for Global Development, a prestigious thinktank based in Washington, D.C. To both of them I would like to express my appreciation for accepting my invitation to participate. I wish us all successful deliberations. I now give the floor to the Deputy Secretary- General, His Excellency Mr. Jan Eliasson.

I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address this session of the development dialogue on behalf of the Secretary-General, who is today in Geneva. It is a particular privilege and pleasure for me to again be in the Hall and to speak from the podium. Economic policy has been front page news since the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008, as we all know. We should expect those issues to stay in the headlines for some time. Many countries continue to face deep-rooted economic problems that seriously affect vulnerable segments of their populations. I am gratified that those issues are being scrutinized by experts, the media and the public. There is a great deal of healthy debate, while policymakers are struggling to come up with appropriate and effective approaches to economic problems with tangible social and environmental ramifications. The debate has been hovering between two choices. The first is to provide more fiscal stimulus to get back on the growth track, unclog credit channels and take measures to bring down unemployment. The second choice is to shift into fiscal austerity to reduce public debts to more sustainable levels. The decisions facing policymakers in developing countries are particularly difficult to make. Commodity and financial markets are volatile. Policymakers may need to create fiscal and monetary reserve buffers to cope with the external shocks. But they know that those precautionary steps can also impact their capacity to invest in development. The choices they make today are not theoretical; they will have effects on whole societies, on families and especially the poor. Women and youth are particularly vulnerable. That is why we should welcome the intention of the President of the General Assembly and the development dialogue to establish a clear connection between macroeconomic policies and the fundamental objective of achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). One of the most important tasks for the United Nations and its Member States and, in fact, all other stakeholders during the next three years and four months is to work tirelessly for the achievement of the MDGs. That is our duty and responsibility. Macroeconomic policies of today should facilitate that task. Achieving the MDGs by 2015 is part of the future we want and that the people of the world deserve. We then later face the daunting task of formulating a bold, yet practical, development agenda for the post-2015 period that embraces economic, social and environmental perspectives. I note that the President referred both to the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals, set up in Rio de Janeiro, and the High-level Panel on the Global Development Agenda beyond 2015, which is starting its work in September. We must not lose sight of that broad and long-term perspective. The conventional approach to economic development in recent decades focused on low inflation and balanced budgets as the best ways to stabilize economies in the short run and ensure growth in the long term. Those policies did not make full employment an explicit target. It was almost as if macroeconomic policies were not part of the work for daily sustenance and poverty reduction. In reality, as the President just underlined, those policies can spell the difference between stability and crisis, between prosperity and poverty, and even between life and death. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development recognized the importance of those interlinkages, not least the need for creating jobs. Participants supported forward-looking macroeconomic policies that promote sustainable development. The aim was nothing less than sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth. That is and must be the way forward in order to increase productive employment opportunities and promote development. That means that we have to allocate more resources to the key sectors: employment, education and health. That would reduce poverty and open doors to a better future for coming generations. At the same time, it would contribute to economic stability and long-term growth. We also have to invest in protecting the environment, our common future. If the environment is degraded, crops may fail, food prices may go up and natural disasters may become more frequent and more deadly, as we have noticed recently. The economic, social and, indeed, political implications of environmental degradation and climate change are serious and far- reaching. As participants begin this dialogue, I urge them to have a broad and forward-looking vision. Short-term gain should never occur at the expense of long-term progress. Professor Jan Tinbergen, the first Nobel Prize laureate in economics and the first chair of the United Nations Committee for Development Policy, formulated an important rule for economic policymaking. He stated that we should always have as many policy instruments as we have policy targets. That means that we need more instruments as we add more targets. The way to do that is to integrate economic policy decisions with social, environmental and industrial and labour market policies. Before I was appointed as Deputy Secretary- General, I was in fact a part-time blogger. I wrote about the issues participants are discussing today — poverty, hunger and, very often, the lack of clean water and acceptable sanitation facilities. My audience was made up of policymakers, but also concerned citizens. I tried to bring the plight of individuals, which I had seen far too much of, to a broader public. Although today’s discussion is mainly among experts, I urge participants to remember the men, women and children whose lives are affected by their deliberations and decisions. Let us focus on how we can reach them and help them. In the end, all our efforts should be aimed at well-being and a life in dignity for all. I wish participants a meaningful, creative and productive development dialogue.

I thank the Deputy Secretary- General for his statement. I now give the floor to the representaive of Mexico, who will speak in his capacity as Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council. Mr. De Alba (Mexico), Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council (spoke in Spanish): Allow me to recall, at the start of this dialogue, that almost four years ago the global financial system was on the brink of collapse. A new great recession similar to the one that occurred in the 1930s seemed inevitable. In order to avert the risk of systemic collapse, there was a need for an unprecedented degree of international cooperation and for bold and united decision-making by our political leaders. Despite progress and signs of recovery, in various parts of the world recovery still seems distant, owing to the slow pace of the return to global economic growth together with the persistent level of trade protectionism, which has worsened in many markets. That scenario of economic uncertainty no doubt jeopardizes the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, targets that represent a very important multilateral consensus to achieve sustainable human development. The consequences of the global environmental, food, economic and financial crises have had a negative impact on global development, the result of which has been weaker trade, more stringent terms of financing throughout the world and an increase in poverty, hunger and unemployment, which has, in turn, given rise to social tensions in various parts of the world and has endangered environmental ecosystems. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals therefore also depends on the world’s economic recovery and on support for, and the implementation of, international development commitments on the part of advanced economies in favour of developing economies. That was clearly shown in the 2012 World Economic Situation and Prospects report, which was broadly analysed during this years’ substantive session of the Economic and Social Council. Similarly, in coming here today, we see that it is increasingly evident that we need concerted and determined actions leading to a macroeconomic policy framework for sustained and inclusive development, one that creates quality jobs. It is essential to change the direction of fiscal policies, replacing the short-term consolidation approach with one of long-term growth in order to achieve sustainable public finances. Global economic policies need to be redesigned in order to strengthen their impact on job creation, by transitioning from primarily stimulating demand to promoting structural change with a view to sustained growth. As a result of the Rio+20 International Conference and its precursors, we have been able to reaffirm the validity of sustainable development as a paradigm of development. We also agreed in Rio to start a process to develop sustainable development goals and establish a process which allows us to develop a sustainable development financing strategy. That strategy will be aimed at mobilizing resources and strengthening global efforts to fight poverty and address problems relating to seas and oceans, food security, water, energy, biodiversity, forests, desertification, urban development and sustainable transport. The development dialogue organized by the General Assembly today provides us an opportunity to address those issues, but also — I would like to emphasize — the need to complement the efforts under way, in particular those that were mentioned by both the President of the General Assembly and by the Deputy Secretary-General, in order to achieve a redefinition of the post-2015 development agenda. Such an agenda should include a new version of the development goals, incorporate the sustainable development goals and does not leave aside the efforts that we still have to make to achieve the goals established in the year 2000, which, as the Deputy Secretary-General aptly stressed, deserve all of our attention in the next three years. In sum, with an overall vision of the actions that should be promoted, we should move towards a more sustainable development model that effectively integrates its three pillars. That is the major challenge before the United Nations. It is the major challenge for the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, namely, to integrate those three pillars in a balanced manner and to renew the global financial and economic architecture.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 117. The informal plenary meeting on the topic “Macroeconomic policies for the future we want: sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals”, will be held immediately following the adjournment of this meeting.