Barbados, 2000

I join other delegations in

congratulating Mr. Harri Holkeri of Finland on his

election to preside over the proceedings of the fifty-

fifth session of the General Assembly, and on Finland's

able service as Co-Chairperson of the Millennium

Summit. My delegation's appreciation is extended also

to the outgoing President, the Foreign Minister of

Namibia.

I take this opportunity also to express the distinct

pleasure of the Government of Barbados at the fact that

another member of the fraternity of small island

developing States, Tuvalu, has recently taken its place

at our table.

Five short years ago, the United Nations

celebrated its fiftieth anniversary with a massive

gathering of world leaders not much different from the

event which engaged our attention for the better part of

last week. Then as now, the report card was weighed;

then as now, amid critical assessment of its deficiencies

and calls for bold reform, the Organization's continued

validity was ultimately recognized and its unique and

inherently positive role in multilateral relations

emphatically supported.

We hope that this time the Millennium Summit

will have served as more than just a familiar echo

reverberating, unchanged, at five-year intervals

through these chambers, magnified among the myriad

murmurs that linger from other occasions of

25

specialized summitry. For there is nothing inherently

magical about the passing of a millennium, or a decade,

or even a quinquennium. Indeed, the proliferation of

plus fives in this place is enough to confound the

entire fraternity of mathematicians and accountants.

And none of us is totally confident that the final

reckoning will leave us on the plus side of the ledger.

On the contrary, it seems, sadly, that we have become

consumed by the show, not the substance; the process,

not the result; the plan, not the implementation.

In this, the last year of the second Christian

millennium, as we review the progress of the peoples

of the planet over the past century, we find that, on

balance, humankind has not done very well. In many

fundamental ways, the twentieth century has not lived

up to the promises and expectations that an era marked

by such far-reaching technological change and

innovation should have produced. In contrast, it has

ushered in a time of unprecedented violence and

suffering, visited mainly upon innocent civilians by

international and internal warfare fought with

increasingly sophisticated and deadly weaponry.

The end of the ideological divide has not been

followed by an era of peace and development, as we

had all anticipated, but by a horrendous upsurge in

genocidal, religious and ethnic conflicts. The threat of

nuclear proliferation and biological warfare has only

partially receded, and the scourges of terrorism, narco-

trafficking and transnational crime continue to scar

innocent lives and threaten democratic governance.

While a few thousand souls live in obscene luxury, half

of the world's population subsist on less than two

dollars a day, and millions remain desperately poor,

with no prospects of bequeathing a better life to their

children. The new plague of the twentieth century,

AIDS, continues its decimation, with disproportionate

effects upon the poor in the developing world. In sum,

our modern civilization has not evolved into a caring

and enlightened species, but rather into one that has

often abused the positive aspects of its heightened

capacity and modernization to the detriment of

humanity and of the earth.

We well know that the United Nations is not, and

cannot be, the panacea for all the problems of the

twenty-first century, but we are convinced that it can

and should serve as a mechanism through which the

Governments of the world, and their people, can work

in common cause to find real solutions to the most

pressing global problems and challenges. In our

increasingly interdependent world, there is little chance

of success for unilateral action. This applies equally to

the Organization's mandates for the maintenance of

international peace and security and those for the

promotion of economic development and social

progress.

Since the Organization's creation in 1945, the

international landscape has changed considerably.

Internecine and intra-territorial conflicts based on

religious and ethnic differences have escalated, and the

United Nations has seen its peacekeeping role used

more in the last decade than ever before. At the same

time, the effectiveness of that peacemaking and

peacekeeping capacity has been called into question by

international public opinion and Governments alike.

We continue to expect miracles of the United Nations

in ending the bloodshed in the most troubled corners of

the world, but we seldom provide it with the tools, the

financing and the appropriate mandate to allow for

timely and decisive action. Without this support,

United Nations peacekeeping efforts will remain

reactive, and not preventive.

One of the most complex issues currently being

debated in the context of an enhanced role for the

international community in the maintenance of

international peace and security is the clash between

the opposing tenets of sovereignty and humanitarian

intervention. My delegation believes that this is a

matter of such fundamental importance that it requires

in-depth discussion and the elaboration, by broad-based

consensus, of clear new rules under international law.

For while we do not believe that the international

community can stand idly by in the face of massive and

genocidal violations of the human rights of citizens by

power-hungry tyrants, we must at the same time ensure

that any international response to such situations is not

influenced primarily by the national ambitions of third

States.

Decisions must be based on clearly defined

criteria, informed by an objective verification of the

facts. Action must be confined to the saving of lives,

not the overthrowing of Governments. Humanitarian

intervention, however compelling the circumstances,

must never be used as a guise for unwarranted

interference in internal State governance.

The balance sheet for the twentieth century in the

area of economic and social development is similarly

mixed. While the United Nations, through its

26

specialized agencies and programmes, has made great

strides in the fight against hunger, disease and

deprivation, that progress has not been evenly

distributed. The goal of the alleviation and ultimate

eradication of poverty remains largely unfulfilled, with

desperate consequences for the growing numbers of the

world's population who live in extreme poverty.

Structural adjustment, the errant compass of the so-

called lost decade of the 1980s, has taken its heavy

social toll. So, too, has the burden of debt, which,

despite the promise of debt forgiveness for the least

developed countries and special initiatives for the

highly indebted poor countries, continues to constrain

future economic prospects for a large number of

developing countries. At the same time, the decline in

official development assistance has had a direct impact

on the most vulnerable sectors of society I refer to

women, children, the elderly and the infirm.

The Secretary-General has challenged the

international community to set a target for the halving

of the numbers of the population living in extreme

poverty by 2015. For this to be achieved, there is an

urgent need for a higher level of political will and a

shared commitment to create the necessary social and

economic framework to enable the poor and

dispossessed to redirect their lives.

Education remains the most powerful tool for

ensuring social progress and the betterment of living

standards for the underprivileged. It is therefore one of

the most disappointing truths of this closing century

that the international community has failed in its

collective endeavour to eradicate illiteracy, especially

among children. Although in the developing world the

adult literacy rate has increased by half, from 48 per

cent in 1970 to 72 per cent in 1998, the information

revolution now threatens to create a new category of

functional illiterates. The eradication of illiteracy and

the provision of at least primary basic schooling are

eminently achievable goals.

As an engine of social mobility, education stands

as the most important component in ensuring the

success of an individual and of a society. It is the

greatest social liberator and facilitator of peace and is

one of the fundamental pillars supporting democracy,

competitiveness and social stability.

The development of my country, Barbados,

provides ample proof of how education can empower a

people and foster upward mobility for each succeeding

generation. Education has always been one of the

highest priorities for the Government of Barbados and

a major source of budget expenditure. We are one of

the very few countries where access to education is

free at point of delivery, mandatory up to 16 years of

age and universal at the primary, secondary and tertiary

levels. Currently, the Government of Barbados is

embarked upon an ambitious programme within the

schools known as EDUTECH 2000, which aims to

ensure that every child is equipped to function

successfully in the new information age.

As we approach the new century, the world faces

probably one of the most disastrous threats to its

sustainability, a threat which has ended the lives of an

unimaginable number of persons, crippled the

economies and threatened the productive workforce of

southern Africa, and taken an increasing toll in Asia

and in my own subregion, the Caribbean. I am referring

to the pandemic of AIDS/HIV.

Current estimates indicate that there are over 33.4

million people worldwide who are now infected with

the disease. In the Caribbean region alone, that figure

numbers some 330,000, which is an astounding and

frightening statistic to contemplate for a country like

Barbados, with a population of 267,000 people. Our

region has the highest prevalence per capita in the

western hemisphere, and a prevalence second only to

that of sub-Saharan Africa. It has been reported by the

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

(UNAIDS) that, every day, there are 16,000 new HIV

infections and that 95 per cent of all reported AIDS

cases occur in the developing world.

The AIDS pandemic is, in our view, the gravest

economic and social crisis facing the global community

as we enter the twenty-first century. Many of our

leaders and policy-makers are only now beginning to

grasp the enormity of the problem and to fully

appreciate the devastating impact which AIDS is

having, and will continue to have, on the economic

sustainability of every country, from the smallest, most

undeveloped nation to the largest, most economically

viable State, because AIDS is not only a human and a

social tragedy it is also an economic one. It attacks

our present workforce not only in its productive, but

also in its reproductive capacity, thus simultaneously

decimating the economic potential of two generations.

It is a sobering reality that AIDS is now the leading

cause of death among young men in the Caribbean, and

it is projected that the disease may cause a decline in

27

the region's gross domestic product by as much as 4 to

6 per cent over the next decade.

We cannot tackle this grave crisis solely on the

basis of current strategies and financial flows.

Containing the spread of AIDS and dealing with its

economic impact is an immediate priority which will

require a major commitment of human and financial

resources. In this regard, I am pleased to note the

serious attention now being given to the crisis by the

World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank

and other international financial institutions. Just

yesterday in Barbados, a major conference was

convened under the auspices of the World Bank,

UNAIDS, the Pan American Health

Organization/WHO, the United Nations Development

Programme, the Caribbean Community and the

Canadian International Development Agency to bring

together high-level Caribbean health, education,

economic development and labour-policy makers to

map out a new crisis strategy for the Caribbean region.

Barbados applauds the recommendations of the

Secretary-General that the United Nations should adopt

as an explicit goal the reduction of HIV-infection rates

in persons 15 to 24 years of age by 25 per cent within

the most affected countries before the year 2005 and by

25 per cent globally by 2010. The United Nations must

make AIDS education and research a priority for the

coming century. Determined leadership is needed to

persuade Governments and international

pharmaceutical companies that a partnership must be

developed to combat the disease, both through research

and through the provision of drugs at reasonable cost to

those who are most in need.

The trafficking in and abuse of illegal drugs have

paralysed the development of many of our societies.

They have also eroded the productivity of the work

force and led to social discord, violence and a

conspicuous erosion of values and respect for the rule

of law. The countries of the Caribbean have not

remained untouched by this affliction, both as

transhipment and, more recently, sadly, as consuming

States.

In the fight against this menace, the United

Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) has

played a crucial role and its subregional office in

Barbados deserves special mention for its active

support for our own efforts. In Barbados, UNDCP

assistance has been invaluable in the establishment of

the Integrated Drug Programme through our domestic

National Council on Substance Abuse and also in

facilitating our community outreach efforts. Of

particular note too, has been its role in the

establishment of an Anti-Money Laundering Authority

in Barbados.

As a small island developing State, Barbados is

very aware that the natural environment performs for

us free basic services without which human beings

could not survive. At the same time, certain industrial

and technological advances have threatened the

biodiversity of many of the small island developing

States. Therefore, for ecological reasons and for

reasons of sovereignty and sustainable development,

Barbados, on behalf of the Association of Caribbean

States, last year launched an initiative leading to the

adoption of resolution 54/225 on promoting an

integrated management approach to the Caribbean Sea

area in the context of sustainable development. We are

grateful for the recognition by the General Assembly of

the efforts of the Caribbean to protect and preserve our

most precious resource.

The functions of the Caribbean Sea are many and

multi-layered. It is the source of our food, it is the main

attraction which drives our tourism markets and it is

our primary and most reliable link with the outside

world. The destruction that would be caused if there

were an accident involving nuclear waste or oil in our

waters would be beyond catastrophic and it would take

centuries for our environment to fully recover. We look

forward to continued assistance from the international

community in helping us to achieve the objectives of

that resolution to maintain and protect this, our most

vital natural resource. It remains the ultimate goal of

the region to have the Caribbean Sea recognized as a

special area within the context of sustainable

development.

In this spirit, Barbados also welcomes the newly

established United Nations Open-ended Informal

Consultative Process on Ocean Affairs and intends to

be an active participant in the consultative process. We

welcome the efforts of the General Assembly to

address the problems of over-exploitation of living

marine resources and the degradation of the marine

environment.

The collective efforts of our Governments to

alleviate poverty and disease and to help our human

capital to take full advantage of the opportunities for

28

economic and social advancement take place within the

parameters of a challenging new international order.

Naturally, I refer to the phenomenon of globalization.

Globalization is not entirely new. It has existed in

various incarnations among trading nations throughout

history. What makes the modern incarnation different,

however, is the manner in which the accompanying

information revolution is making possible the

integration of trade, investment, finance, production

and services across national boundaries. What also

distinguishes it is the philosophy of multilateralism,

which offers all countries, developed and developing, a

say at least in theory in shaping the rules which

will henceforth govern international economic

transactions. Nor is globalization as a concept

inherently negative. The precepts of expanding market

access, trade liberalization, increased technological

advancement and more efficient and effective

mechanisms of manufacturing and agriculture are all

positive elements. It is in the rigid application of these

elements, however, and their application without regard

to the social dimension of development, that distortions

have arisen which threaten to widen further the income

gap between the developed and the developing worlds.

I reiterate that the true challenge of the new

multilateralism will be to ensure that globalization does

not become an instrument of oppression for the peoples

of the developing world, but, rather, becomes a means

of offering a better life to all of our peoples.

In our efforts to sensitize the developed world to

the need for adequate transitional measures for

developing countries and for recognition of the special

vulnerabilities of small economies, Barbados has

frequently pointed to the fact that our Caribbean

countries are being asked to undertake in 10 years a

process which was carried out by the advanced

industrialized societies over a period of more than 40

years, spread over eight rounds of multilateral trade

negotiations between 1947 and 1994. In this regard, we

have emphasized that, however clinically sound a

procedure might be, the compression of its application

into too short a time period can often be a fatal therapy.

One of the greatest essential inequalities of the

contemporary global economy is that, while the

developed world was allowed an extended period over

which to properly phase in trade liberalization, to its

benefit, smaller, less endowed societies with less scope

to absorb the shocks of adjustment are expected to

make a potentially beneficial adjustment over an

incredibly short period of time. It would not have

worked for the developed world; it will not now work

for the developing, and is in fact the consideration

which argues the case for longer phase-in periods to

apply the changes in the global trading regime.

Barbados is not opposed to globalization. We

have already indeed begun the process of restructuring

our economy and repositioning our society to meet that

challenge. But our efforts, we believe, must be met by

a similar display of good faith on the part of the World

Trade Organization, which must, as my Government

has repeatedly stated, review, repair and reform itself,

adopt an ideology that is developmental and embrace a

developmental agenda that is progressive and balanced

in its substance, its processes and its outcomes.

That display of good faith is also necessary in

promoting constructive and mutually beneficial

dialogue between the industrialized countries and their

developing country partners on the crucial matter of the

regulation of international financial centres in their

jurisdictions. My country has spoken extensively in

other forums about our serious concerns over the

unilateral manner in which the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development has

proceeded on its so-called harmful tax competition

initiative, and on the real motives underlying this

unfortunate move. The setting of international rules in

the area of financial services cannot properly be done

by a grouping of 29 countries to the exclusion of all

other interested parties. In this age of enlightened

multilateralism there is no place for the application of

unilateral, extra-territorial solutions to international

economic developments.

On balance, we must not allow our frustration at

the many missed opportunities to obscure the fact that

the twentieth century has produced much that is

positive. As we look forward, in the words of the Prime

Minister of Barbados, the Right Honourable Owen

Arthur:

We face the prospect that the simultaneous

operation of the enormous power of technological

change, the dismantling of barriers to the

movement of output, capital, ideas and skills, and

the emergence of rules-based, consensus-driven

institutions of global scope will create a new

global society that is capable of affording

development to all, and of putting the scourge of

poverty behind us for ever. We will leave the

twentieth century and enter the twenty-first

conscious of the dangers, but excited by the

prospects.