CHAIRMAN: As you will see, item 6 has been structured into two parts, 6.1, World Food Security Compact, document CL 87/10-Sup.1, and other matters. I suggest that in order to help our discussion we should take up item 6.1 first, and then go on to the other points made in the CFS Meeting.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): One of the main items considered by the Tenth Session of the Committee on World Food Security as a follow-up to the proposals relating to the revised concept of world food security was the draft text of the World Food Security Compact. The Committee's discussion on the draft World Food Security Compact is contained in paragraphs 57 to 67 of document CL 87/10.
The Committee gave broad general acceptance to the draft and agreed to transmit it to the Council. However, there have been divergent opinions expressed during the deliberations of the Committee. In view of the inability of the Committee to reach a consensus on the draft Compact, the Director-General submitted document CL 87/10-Sup.1 which indicates possible additions and/or deletions to the draft text of the Compact. This is based on a careful review of the elements which are most common in the deliberations of the Committee.
As you will recall, the Director-General was not specifically asked by the Committee on World Food Security to do so, but he has taken it upon himself to review once more the draft with the hope of helping member countries to reach a consensus. The Council, while considering the draft Compact, might like to review these amendments in the interest of trying to reach full agreement.
As has been emphasized by the Director-General, the draft Compact does not contain any new or binding commitments. It draws on the consensus reached in previous international agreements and understandings in the Committee on World Food Security, the Council, Conference and other concerned bodies. In the light of the revised concept of world food security it consolidates agreements and details relating to world food security which have evolved in the last ten years or so. The Compact is a moral reaffirmation of the commitments and principles for which all men of goodwill strive. It aims at stimulating support for these objectives, improving the general policy on the environment, stimulating action towards attaining them on the part of governments and organizations, including non-governmental organizations and individuals.
As the Director-General reminded the Council at the opening of this session, in these days of disaster and famine in Africa, and deprivation and malnutrition elsewhere, every sign, every gesture, every word towards achieving this ideal is precious and is an encouragement and an incentive for governments of every sort and degree, for organizations, including non-governmental organizations, and for individuals.
Finally, the Director-General hopes that adoption by the Council of this Compact will be an appropriate and fitting action by Council on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of this Organization.
M. FRANCISCI di BASCHI (Italy): First of all, I congratulate you, Mr Chairman, on being in Rome again in order to chair this important session of the Council. I thank you for the privilege of allowing me on behalf of my country to open the list of speakers on this item of the agenda by reading to the Council a message from the Prime Minister of Italy, Mr Craxi, on this very important initiative by our Director-General. The message from the Prime Minister is as follows:
First of all, I wish to give my most cordial greetings to the members of the FAO Council and to the Director-General of FAO, who are engaged in this session in studying the draft of a world pact on food security, which I consider to be of great political importance.
This year being the one when FAO is celebrating its fortieth anniversary, I believe that all nations must join their forces to proclaim, by approving a pact on the rights of man to food security, their common will to free humanity from the spectre of hunger and malnutrition.
As long ago as my visit to FAO in November 1984 I had occasion to underscore the importance of this initiative. As Italy conceives it, the new pact must be complementary to the Universal Charter of the Rights of Man, and have the same characteristics of being a solemn moral imperative, rather than a legal commitment.
It must concern everyone. Those nations not producing enough of the essential food products must exert every effort to develop their farm resources and aim at self-sufficiency. The developed nations must give technical, organizational and financial assistance, as well as emergency food aid.
But the responsibility is not just of those who govern; it involves all those with responsibility who exercise operational decision-making functions in their spheres, as well as an influence on public opinion.
The contrast between food waste and food scarcity can no longer be accepted. The vicious circle in which poverty and underdevelopment become factors of instability and of conflict can no longer be tolerated. We must encourage economic emancipation and social progress, for these represent essential factors for a greater international political stability."
The draft of a food compact takes its place within this prospect and must reaffirm, simply and clearly, the new solidarity of the destinies of the industrialized and emerging countries. The Compact must be an expression of our faith in the future, and at the same time of the common, serious commitment of every member of the international community to play its part in the construction of a true peace with justice and therefore founded on the respect for the fundamental rights of man, the first of these being the right to existence."
That is the message of Mr Craxi. I am grateful for the opportunity of delivering it. Allow me to request that the representative of Italy be allowed to speak later in the discussion.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for that message.
O. FRIIS (Denmark): On this item, I am speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries who also took a common position on this issue during the last CFS meeting. I wish to record that we expressed the view at the last CFS meeting that the adoption of such a Compact was not in our view an issue of the first magnitude or urgency. In a spirit of goodwill and compromise, however, we indicated our willingness to go along with the proposed draft, providing a consensus can be reached without major changes to the text.
The reason why we put particular emphasis on the adoption of the Compact by consensus was that a compact of a strictly voluntary nature in our opinion would be of little value unless accepted by all concerned.
The Director-General in his opening statement on Monday expressed the view that the Compact should not be considered an issue of earth-shaking importance. The Nordic countries find themselves in full agreement with the Director-General on that point. Furthermore, it would hardly be possible to satisfy every change in the draft that the Member Nations put forward, and we think that it would be fruitless to turn the Council, and later on the Conference, into drafting committees to resolve the often minor differences. We would again stress this point because we feel that a redrafting exercise at this stage would be counterproductive and that our precious time should be used to discuss subjects which more effectively are aimed at solving the serious problems concerning food security in the world today.
It is our hope that the redrafted version of the Compact might go a step towards meeting various reservations made by some countries last time so that the text could now meet with as broad a general acceptance as possible.
On that understanding the Nordic countries are prepared to accept the draft Compact as it stands.
M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): The Australian delegation is still concerned about the priority being given to the Compact and about what it might contribute in practical terms to the work of our Organization. It is even possible that the Compact could be counterproductive by giving the world community the impression that our Organization is excessively preoccupied with rhetoric and by emotional discussions about feelings and moral principles rather than the quite practical problems involved in effectively managing programmes aimed at improving food production and food security.
Let me try to say that in another way. Our Organization, like most others, is in a sense selling something. In our case the product is a delivery system for development assistance. If we are to continue to attract buyers for our product, we need to think carefully about the design of our product, the way in which it is promoted, our marketplace and our competition. Over the last forty years a wide-range of development assistance delivery systems have been developed. Many individual countries have sophisticated organizations in this field; non-governmental organizations are active; new systems based on international cooperation have sprung up. Buyers of these systems have more choices than in the past. The market is changing rapidly, and if we are to maintain our position in the market we have to consciously adapt ourselves to these changing circumstances.
We do not want to find ourselves producing Swiss watches based on state-of-the-art mechanical mechanisms when the world is buying digital silicon chip watches from Japan. I am afraid that the Compact could put us in that position. Increasingly it is not simply good enough for us to merely project our concern to the world. We need to find new ways of projecting the real strengths of our Organization, its analytical skills, its organizational and coordination skills, its technical experience, both in-house and through its ability to attract the world's best consultancy skills, and its years of on-the-ground practical experience in food deficit countries.
Today global concern about food security is being projected in a thousand different ways, all more effective than a compact. Television pictures, politicians and even musicians are doing the job very well. Our Organization needs to concentrate on developing and projecting practical programmes which attract buyers in an increasingly difficult marketplace. We need to find a better way than the Compact to create a foundation for the work we must do together in order to achieve world food security in the next forty years.
Mr Chairman, we will not be doing justice to ourselves or to our Organization by going ahead with the Compact.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I should just like to ask the distinguished delegate of Australia whether he approves or disapproves the Compact. I personally did not understand since he did not say whether he supported the Compact, whether he has reservations, or if he does not want it. Would he kindly clarify for our record.
M.J. BLAMEY (Australia): I think it is clear, Mr Chairman, that we have reservations.
J.C. CLAVE (Philippines): Since it is obvious that one of the end products of this discussion will be the World Food Security Compact, I shall limit my observation at this time to that Compact. My observations will perhaps call for a reply from the Chair later on as these observations seek certain clarifications which may in the end define the position of my Government vis-à-vis approval or disapproval, our endorsement or non-endorsement of this Compact.
The first point is that I wish to call attention to the word "Compact" in the title. In my understanding a compact is an agreement, a contract or a covenant which binds two parties or a number of parties. If we examine the wording of the proposed Compact, our governments will not be entering into an agreement, a covenant, a treaty or a contract. I base this on the phraseology used. For instance, paragraph B.7 of CL 87/10-Sup.1 states that "governments should reaffirm". What happens, Mr Chairman, if this Compact is approved and governments do not reaffirm? That is one danger I wish to point out.
The terms of the Compact generally call upon parties to undertake certain things, and a common danger of them not undertaking these things pervades the entire document. We must not lose sight of the fact that when this document is peresented and finally approved it will be approved by plenary representatives or the delegates from our Member Nations to the Conference. Therefore, they are representatives of their governments vested with authority to approve a compact or to disapprove it. Would it not be better, considering the text now before us, to call this a declaration or something else instead of an agreement?
There is a second point that disturbs me. May I quote paragraph 4 of the Preamble to the Compact: "The Governments, organizations and individuals subscribing ..." I attach special importance to the word "subscribing", because what will happen if nobody subscribes to the Compact? The danger that I foresee is this.
Firstly, I believe - I am inspired in this thought by the comments already made by our colleagues from Italy, the representative of the Nordic countries and Australia - this paragraph gives an option or an optional right to every Member Nation of FAO either to subscribe or not to subscribe to it. What happens if they do not subscribe to it? The question of what happens is important. Does a nonsubscription mean that we are withdrawing from FAO? If we look at the objectives sought to be achieved by this Compact, they are the very undertakings that we have undertaken in the covenant under the FAO Charter. So I am worried about the effect of this Compact on our obligations and contractual relations already existing under the FAO Charter.
As I stated previously, these things are very important. I feel that when my country became a member of FAO it bound itself morally, legally, and extra-legally to the undertakings projected under this proposed Compact, which is to achieve greater production. In other words, bringing food to every human being on this earth. I thought that we had already undertaken that when we became a member of FAO.
These are the questions that I initially wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues. They are important in the process of our taking a position on whether to subscribe or not to this Compact. If we do not eventually subscribe, it would perhaps be because of a feeling that we have already become a member of FAO. We have been faithful to our commitments under its Charter, except that sometimes we may have been late in paying our fees but we are making up for our deficiencies. The fact is that I am apprehensive that this document affects the terms and covenants that our Member States have under the FAO Charter.
CHAIRMAN: It might be useful at this point to hear Mr West offer a clarification of the point raised by the Ambassador for the Philippines.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: In a way, it is good that this point came up right at the beginning, because it enables us to clear up right away any misapprehensions which may still remain in the minds of some on the Compact, and particularly in the minds of those who, like the representative of the Philippines, appear to support the content of the Compact but are worried about this question of its legal status.
I would like to assure you as completely as I can that this issue has been very carefully studied from the very beginning of the idea which emerged in the Committee on World Food Security some time back, to have a compact. It has been studied by our legal adviser; to my knowledge it has been studied by the legal advisers of many governments present. It was discussed at the last session of the Committee on World Food Security, when the first draft of the Compact was under discussion, and I had thought that as a result of this it was generally completely understood and completely accepted by all that it was not in the nature of an international agreement imposing a legal commitment, any undertaking, binding or otherwise, which governments have not already accepted, whether in the FAO Constitution or in other international or bilateral agreements, and that it was a matter which could be dealt with by the FAO Conference by resolution, or otherwise in the Report of the Conference; and that by supporting it Member Nations would not be accepting any undertaking of a legal or binding character which they had not already accepted. This has been confirmed subsequently by further studies. At least one member government has told me that it submitted it to the highest legal authority in that country before coming here, and it was satisfied as to the truth of what I have just been saying.
As for the word "subscribing", that is used in a general sense. It does not imply that there has to be any signature, either at the time of the Conference or subsequently. The method of subscribing will be whether or not the Conference expresses in its final Report by resolution or otherwise, the adoption of the Compact. It is not necessary at that stage for every government to raise its hand and say "I subscribe" or "I support it" or "I vote in favour". If the Conference, by consensus, agrees to the adoption of the Compact, that will establish the Compact as a voluntary, non-binding, non-legal declaration.
In this connection, I would cite that there is nothing unusual about this - it has happened in the past with other things. I can think of the International Undertaking on Food Security which has already been adopted by the Conference; I can think of the Guidelines for International Agricultural Adjustment - they were all similar types of voluntary non-binding documents which caused no trouble whatsoever in the minds of the governments or of the Conference as to their implications and as to the method of their adoption.
-110-
So I would submit to the distinguished delegate of the Philippines, and to anybody else, that this is a subject which need not detain the Council for a moment further. I hope that we can therefore hear from the distinguished delegate of the Philippines that he supports the text of the document.
J. C. CLAVE (Philippines): I would really support the compact and its purposes. But, as I said, my worries are its implications. Notwithstanding the explanation by our distinguished colleague, I still feel that we must study its implications; and when our colleague says "similar documents in the past have gone through this Council and the Conference" I am also alarmed by such an attitude, because sometimes documents just pass through without being noticed, and they go into the archives later on without being implemented.
My attitude towards this Compact however is different. If my country has to bind itself to it, then we will make it a living reality in my country. I also wish to point out that I think the discussions on this Compact at different levels have indicated to all our colleagues here at FAO how controversial this document really is, indicating that our Member States are not taking it as a routine matter because, possibly, of its legal implications. I wish to reassure the Chairman and the Director-General and the rest of our colleagues that insofar as the purposes are concerned - the achievement of greater production to ensure food for every man, stabilizing supplies, improving access to food by the poor - we are fully behind it.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am rather puzzled by the fact that some delegates at this meeting appear to believe that we are wasting our time on this, whereas others say that it is very important - if I may just make that small remark?
A. ABDEL-MALEK (Liban): (langue originale arabe): Je voudrais formuler quelques commentaires sur le point 6 de l'ordre du jour, et en particulier sur le Pacte mondial de sécurité alimentaire (document CL/87/10-Sup. 1). Dans ce document nous trouvons le projet de texte du Pacte mondial de sécurité alimentaire qui a été présenté par le Dr Islam.
La délégation libanaise; ayant pris note des débats de la lOème session du comité de la sécurité alimentaire qui ont porté sur ce pacte mondial, ayant écouté avec attention les orateurs qui l'ont précédé sur ce point de l'ordre du jour, ne peut qu'approuver le Pacte sous sa forme actuelle, tel que présenté par le Directeur général et tel qu'il sera présenté à la Conférence générale de novembre pour approbation.
Il est inutile d'énumérer les avantages et les points positifs de ce Pacte qui vient véritablement à son heure afin de renforcer la sécurité alimentaire mondiale et veiller à ce que toute personne en tout temps puisse produire la nourriture dont il a besoin. Ce pacte a un caractère volontaire et de ce fait son approbation n'entraîne aucune obligation financière ou juridique. La présentation de ce Pacte mondial et la façon dont le Directeur général en a saisi le Conseil, diffèrent de la procédure adoptée par le COAG pour le Code de conduite pour les pesticides. Le Directeur général a été prié de présenter un nouveau texte à l'attention du Conseil, il a répondu de façon positive aux souhaits du Comité de la sécurité alimentaire et nous présente maintenant avec tact un texte judicieux conforme à la décision du Comité et approuvé par lui. Toutefois il convient de souligner que le Conseil peut amender le texte afin qu'il reflète les souhaits de la majorité, si ce n'est de l'unanimité des membres. Nous devons nous féliciter de cette initiative. Ce que nous souhaitons tous c'est d'arriver à l'unanimité sur une question où il n'y a pas de divergence à savoir; renforcer la sécurité alimentaire mondiale.
Nous avons été étonnés, et surpris, comme nous l'avions été lors de la lOème session du Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale, de la réaction et du comportement de certaines délégations, qui font obstruction à ce texte. Le concept de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale est maintenant familier et bien connu et !e principe, et. concept, de ce Pacte a été accepté. Le Pacte est l'aboutissement des principes, recommandations et résolutions de la Conférence mondiale de l'alimentation, de la Conférence de la FAO, du Conseil mondial de l'alimentation et des autres conférences. Nous avons toutes les assurances et toutes les indications que c'est devenu un fait.
Il convient de noter qu'il n'y a aucune obligation financière juridique ou autre de la part des états membres. Dans le nouveau texte on a supprimé des membres de phrases, qui n'étaient pas acceptés par certains. Nous devons faire preuve de responsabilité à l'égard du Secrétariat. Il doit y avoir unanimité pour l'approbation ce ce texte, tel qu'il nous a été présenté, afin que notre travail puisse donner l'exemple d'une grande réussite alors que la FAO célèbre son 40ème anniversaire. Animés de cet esprit positif et fidèles à notre souhait sincère d'arriver à l'unanimité sur ce texte, nous demandons à nos chers collègues membres du Conseil de voter à l'unanimité en faveur de ce texte. C'est, je crois, le minimum que nous devons offrir à notre organisation pour son 40ème anniversaire.
S.M. MATIUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh): In his persistent effort and search for improving the world food security, the most important and momentous initiative taken by the Director-General is the draft text of the World Food Security Compact which he submitted to the Tenth Session of the Committee on World Food Security and which is now before us for consideration. For this initiative the Director-General deserves our sincere and hearty congratulations and greetings.
After hearing the statement of the distinguished delegation of Italy who read out the message of His Excellency the Prime Minister of Italy we have little to add. My delegation expresses its sincere gratitude to His Excellency the Prime Minister of Italy for his kind message on this occasion. We entirely agree with what has been stated in the message.
As explained by Professor Islam in his introduction and further clarified by the Deputy Director-General, the main purpose of the Compact is to mobilize support of governments and enhance public opinion to the objectives of the revised concept on world food security by consolidating and crystallizing the widely held feelings and moral commitment to pursue the cause of world food security. The Compact has appropriately been addressed to governments, non-governmental organizations and individuals with a view to mobilizing support to and action for strengthening food security. We also note that the draft Compact is voluntary in nature, and its acceptance will not involve any financial or legally binding obligation or commitments. Therefore the ultimate objectives of the proposed Compact is a novel and praiseworthy one, that is, to ensure and improve food security and to ensure that all people at all times are in a position to produce and procure the basic food they need so that no child will go to bed hungry. At the same time the Compact will not have any financial or legal obligation.
We note that the Committee has unanimously supported the objectives of the Compact and gave broad acceptance to the draft Compact for transmission to this Council for consideration. However, in view of some divergent opinions, expressed in the Committee's discussions, the Director-General again took the initiative to make the necessary amendments to the draft Compact so that a full consensus can be reached. He has also made an appeal to this effect in his opening statement to this Council. My delegation sincerely hopes that with the present amendments to the draft Compact it will meet with the acceptance of all so that a full consensus can be reached.
This is the most fitting occasion to present the draft Compact for improving world food security, to the next FAO Conference for approval as it is going to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the FAO. We wholeheartedly support the text of the Compact and join with the Director-General in his appeal to reach a full consensus in this important Compact.
M. GIFFORD (Canada): As you are aware the Canadian delegation has not been very enamoured with the idea of a World Food Security Compact. As many delegations noted yesterday in the debate on Africa, what is required is action and not rhetoric. Rhetoric did not turn India from a net importer to a net exporter of grains. Rhetoric was not responsible for the vigorous expansion of agricultural production in China, and rhetoric certainly will not resolve the problems of agriculture in Africa.
It may well be that we are becoming perhaps too cynical when we suggest that action speaks louder than words, and we thus question the utility of adopting yet another set of exaltory principles, particularly when they appear to merely represent a celebration of the fortieth anniversary. To be quite frank, we much prefer to see scarce resources spent on developing useful action programmes, such as the FAO's Early Warning System, rather than adding to the stock of resolutions, declarations and other assorted documents which, while they may be of help to the Canadian pulp and paper industry, do not in our view contribute much to world agricultural development.
Our initial assessment of the value of the proposed Compact was not helped, by the way in which the first draft was presented to the Committee on World Food Security last April. To be perfectly blunt the Canadian delegation found it unacceptable to be told at the CFS that the first and only draft we had seen was the ultimate state of the drafting art, and that any suggestions for change would be irrelevant since the text was already perfect and simply required a rubber stamp. Not surprisingly the Canadian delegation was annoyed that on the one hand we were being asked to subscribe to a voluntary code of principles, and yet on the other hand we were being told that the first and only text that we had seen was there on a take it or leave it basis. It was thus largely because of the way, in which the introduction of the Compact was handled that the Canadian delegation joined with others in reserving its position with respect to the first draft of the Compact. However, we are very pleased to note, that since the last CFS meeting the Director-General has taken the initiative to modify the original Secretariat draft with a view to taking into account many of the concerns expressed at the April CFS meeting.
The Canadian delegation welcomes the new draft. The suggested deletions and additions do represent in our view a significant improvement over the original text.
Having said this we still have some concerns with the second version of the Compact. For example, we do see a contradiction between what is said in Part III, paragraph 2 of the second version, the reference "In particular, developing countries should ensure that city-dwellers do not acquire a permanent preference for imported basic food which cannot be grown domestically", and what is said in the excellent Secretariat paper on the African food situation which we discussed yesterday. I say a contradiction because the African paper clearly makes the point that it is dangerous to generalize as to whether food imports represent a sign of success or failure of the economic development of the developing countries. Depending on the particular circumstances some developing countries may very well find it. economically more advantageous to import certain basic foodstuffs for their urban population. In fact we would expect the situation to prevail in the context of a developing country experiencing extremely rapid economic growth. In summary on this particular point, we are suggesting that the Secretariat should be encouraged to review the second version of the text with a view to establishing the sort of balanced perspective that we find in the African food situation paper.
I make one other specific suggestion for change in the second draft. This relates to paragraph 8 where we see the addition - and I begin at the words which are underlined - "their policy decisions on food production, stocks and imports". I would suggest here, that although this is a useful modification, we would suggest changing the word "import" to "trade", thereby taking into account the export practices of countries.
In summary at this juncture, we look forward to hearing the views of other delegations. As I said earlier we welcome the desire of many delegations to work towards achieving a text which, although some of us doubt the utility really of it, may be acceptable to all parties by the time of the November Conference.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La primera intervención en este debate lo ha magnificado porque se nos leyó un importante mensaje del señor Craxi, Primer Ministro del Gobierno italiano, en el que el Gobierno de nuestro país sede ha confirmado el apoyo a este proyecto de texto. Oímos luego con la atención y el respeto que nos merece siempre la declaración de Dinamarca en nombre de los países nórdicos, cuyo contenido apreciamos positivamente y apoyamos de manera decidida.
La tercera declaración no nos sorprendió porque, a través de nuestra participación en los Comités y en este Consejo, estamos acostumbrados a que estos órganos rectores están integrados por representantes de todas las áreas del mundo, América Latina, Africa, Asia, Medio Oriente, Europa, Norteamérica, y también las Antípodas. De manera que hay que reconocer que dentro de esa gama variada siempre existen mentalidades prosaicas y ordinarias que confundan los mercados con los principios intelectuales e ideológicos que nosotros propugnamos. No nos seducen las líneas de menor resistencia ni los halagos fáciles. Seguimos prefiriendo los relojes suizos de alta y refinada calidad. No podemos aceptar la afirmación de que los programas de la FAO deben limitarse solamente a aquellos aspectos materiales porque ello sería desconocer que en la constitución de nuestra Organización se han integrado los principios y los ideales de justicia en favor del tercer mundo. Tampoco podemos aceptar que se pretende desconocer la labor eficiente y pragmática que lleva a cabo la FAO, labor que viene siendo reiterada y ampliamente reconocida. Por todos los órganos rectores de nuestras Organizaciones hemos estado representados todos los países, incluidos aquellos que tienen sus sedes por algunas regiones un poco lejanas. Nosotros podemos asegurar a los miembros de este Consejo que en ningún momento se podrá comprar nuestras conciencias libres y democráticas, ni siquiera al son de música celestial sonada por payasos divertidos. Pero, en fin, señor Presidente, con todo respeto habrá que dejar en paz a aquellos colegas que siguen perdidos allá en su desorientación, con la esperanza de que un día, ojalá no lejano, encuentren el rumbo adecuado que les incorpore a los otros continentes.
¿Cómo es posible también, desconocer que los grandes avances y los progresos y mejoras de India y China, dos grandes países del tercer mundo, han sido logrados sobre todo a base de la fortaleza moral de sus grandes pueblos? Se dice que propugnamos palabras en vez de medidas, pero cuando se trata de lograr el consenso para aplicar medidas, entonces aparece la carencia de falta de voluntad por parte de esos mismos representantes. Tampoco consideramos pertinente que se hable de recursos, del costo del papel, porque eso es insignificante frente al alcance de este documento.
No desearíamos interpretar una declaración que habló del beneficio de la industria del papel de su país, como si esa declaración tuviera el sentido de que sólo se guía por los intereses nacionales.
En el CSA tanto la delegación de Colombia como la de México habíamos manifestado que deseábamos proponer algunas modificaciones para reforzar el texto del proyecto de Pacto sobre seguridad alimentaria. Nos abstuvimos de hacer propuestas en ese sentido particularmente porque los representantes de los países nórdicos llevaron el debate con una intervención que consideramos muy constructiva,
en la que esos países nórdicos, siempre de avanzada, manifestaron que apoyaban el texto tal como se presentaba. La gran mayoría de miembros del Comité apoyaron ese texto, y, tal como aparece en el párrafo 1 del documento, el Comité decidió transmitirlo a este Consejo. No obstante, como lo dijo el Profesor Islam en su excelente presentación, el Director General, en actitud distensiva, de comprensión y entendimiento, presenta ahora este texto con algunas adiciones y algunas posibles supresiones. Esa posición del Director General debe merecer respeto, como muestra de buena voluntad, y no de dogmatismo como trató de sugerir alguna delegación.
La delegación de Colombia quiere destacar la actuación muy responsable del Gobierno de Suiza, que ha retirado la reserva que había expresado cuando se adoptó el informe. Suiza, país de sólida democracia, ha dado un buen ejemplo, que debería ser imitado por los otros países que han expresado reserva. Numerosos representantes de países en desarrollo, como única actitud posible frente a, la reserva injustificada de Australia, Canadá y los Estados Unidos, expresamos también nuestras propias reservas. El distinguido Embajador Ariza Hidalgo, de Cuba, fue el encargado de transmitir esas manifestaciones por parte de numerosos gobiernos. Reaccionamos así porque creemos que se cometió un acto que no era coherente, correcto ni lógico, ya que en el Comité de Redacción se debilitó considerablemente el texto, y luego en la plenaria los representantes de esos mismos países insistieron en mantener sus reservas.
Nosotros quisiéramos sumarnos a lo que manifiesta el Director General en este suplemento, en el sentido de que ojalá ahora esos países retiren esas reservas, o que por lo menos asuman una actitud distinta, es decir que si de alguna manera están en condiciones de aceptar este texto, que entonces tratemos de evitar que se debilite aún más.
No queremos extendernos demasiado en este tema que pensábamos iba a ser considerado de manera tranquila por el Consejo, pero en realidad, ¿Cuáles pueden ser las razones que aún fundamentan las reservas de ciertos países? ¿Es que acaso sienten remordimiento porque son conscientes de que no están aplicando estos principios elementales?, ¿es que acaso saben que nunca van a aplicar en sus políticas estos principios?
Decimos esto, porque convendrá observar que los países que han hecho reservas son los grandes productores, dos de ellos situados en la región en la que están concentrados en más de un 65 por ciento los excedentes, pero podemos asegurar a esos colegas que no van a imprimir este texto en pergamino ni enmarcarlo para presentarnos en él a los graneros de esos países y exigir que se distribuyan esos excedentes entre aquellas poblaciones que los necesiten.
Desde 1974 la Conferencia Mundial de la Alimentación recomendó que esas reservas se situaran en regiones estratégicas disponibles a los países que las necesitaran, y once años después todo sigue de igual manera y ojalá que estos gobiernos olviden esa preocupación y se tranquilicen. Claro que nos preocupa que no quieran contribuir siquiera, por medio de este instrumento, a la seguridad alimentaria de nuestros países, porque esto indica que insisten en su propósito de perpetuar la eterna dependencia a que estamos sometidos. Se ha hablado de que el pacto no es útil ni urgente. Nosotros consideramos que este pacto es útil, que es importante, que no es nada vinculante, que no tiene carácter obligatorio, que no conlleva ninguna implicación jurídica, que es una reafirmación moral que nosotros debemos utilizar, porque el Director General nos ha ofrecido la oportunidad de dejar constancia ante la comunidad internacional sobre este código de principios, de orientaciones y de líneas que nosotros consideramos esenciales.
Apoyamos la propuesta de los países nórdicos, en el sentido de que este nuevo texto sea transmitido a la Conferencia para su aprobación.
JIN XIANGYUN (China): (original language Chinese): We read the Report of the Tenth Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) very carefully. We think that it is of great help to us in gaining an understanding of the current situation of world food and food security. It also provides information for the Council about the effective work CFS has done in identifying world food security. The Chinese delegation attended the Tenth Session of CFS in an observer capacity. While we endorse the report submitted to the Council by the Tenth Session of CFS, we wish to make a few remarks regarding the draft Compact on World Food Security.
We studied the draft Compact and we consider that it is positive in its essence and provides a basis to make it acceptable to all sides. Besides, it is actually a generalization of the relevant international documents concerning world food security. Though the Compact does not specify new commitments and does not possess legally-binding force and does not require member governments to go through any procedure for official participation, we believe that it will play its due active role in ensuring world food security with the moral commitment by the international community for world food security and through the conscientious implementation of the principles contained in the Compact by member governments.
We noted that after discussion at the Tenth Session of CFS, no full consensus was reached on the Compact. It is true that world food security is a very complex question. Therefore it is only natural that there are diverse views on the Compact. We know that the Council will not reopen a discussion on the Compact. However, proceeding from the overall interest of enabling mankind to eradicate hunger, the Council can reach a consensus on this issue in the spirit of consultation and seeking common ground while maintaining differences.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo) : Nous voudrions nous aussi vous féliciter, Monsieur le Président, du message que nous avons entendu et qu'a bien voulu adresser à notre Conseil le Président du Conseil italien pour nous encourager à faire en sorte que le pacte qui est devant nos yeux puisse être adopté et envoyé à la Conférence. Nous pensons qu'il s'agit là d'un fait important lorsqu'on sait que le Gouvernement italien déploie en ce moment des efforts pour aider les pays qui souffrent de la faim et de la malnutrition à sortir de cette situation.
Nous voudrions également féliciter le Gouvernement suisse qui a bien voulu entre-temps retirer ses réserves. D'ailleurs nous-mêmes, lors de la dernière session du Comité, étions quelque peu surpris de cette attitude du Gouvernement suisse à l'époque, parce que nous connaissons les idéaux qui animent ce gouvernement et il nous paraissait anormal qu'il puisse faire des réserves. Nous nous réjouissons donc de ce retrait.
Les autres gouvernements, nous les connaissons, nous connaissons leur attitude et nous savions que les réserves qu'ils avaient faites n'étaient pas des réserves pour la plupart d'entre eux, mais plutôt un refus catégorique. C'est pour cette raison que je ne voyais pas l'opportunité pour le Directeur général de tenir compte de tous ces avis qui ont été exprimés pour refaire le texte qu'il vient de nous présenter. Nous pensions qu'un consensus, ou tout au moins une large majorité s'était dégagée en faveur de l'ancien texte, que nous considérions acceptable. Nous avions dit à l'époque que ce texte nous paraissait faible et que nous-mêmes avions des propositions à faire, mais puisque d'autres avaient estimé que le texte était trop fort, nous étions prêts à retirer ces amendements et faire en sorte que le consensus puisse être obtenu.
Pour cette raison, on est surpris de constater que certains gouvernements continuent à s'opposer à ce texte qui, à notre avis, après la toilette que vient de lui faire le Directeur général, nous paraît avoir encore été affaibli et malgré cette faiblesse on ne l'accepte pas encore.
Je partage le point de vue exprimé par le représentant du Danemark selon lequel le Conseil ne peut se transformer en Comité de rédaction et par conséquent nous devons faire en sorte que le texte, tel qu'il vient d'être amendé par le Directeur général, puisse être envoyé en l'état au niveau de la Conférence.
On nous dit qu'il faut agir et depuis le début de notre session nous n'avons parlé que d'actions. Cela est normal. Mais ces actions doivent être soutenues par un certain nombre de principes et je crois qu'il s'agit des principes qui ont été réaffirmés dans le texte qui est devant nous et que nous n'avons pas le droit de refuser. L'adoption du texte ne signifie pas que la FAO va rester inactive et attendre que les gouvernements agissent d'eux-mêmes pour que la faim et la malnutrition soient éradiquées dans le monde.
Il est normal qu'à la veille du quarantième anniversaire de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture nous puissions adopter un texte qui, comme l'a souligné le Secrétariat, n'a aucune contrainte juridique et ne comporte aucun engagement financier supplémentaire. Nous estimons que toute l'aide qui est actuellement mise à la disposition des pays en développement est basée sur des principes moraux, parce qu'il n'y a aucune contrainte réelle à demander à tel ou tel pays d'accorder telle ou telle aide. Nous savons que les pays qui accordent une aide de manière sincère et objective - parce que nous savons aussi que beaucoup d'aide, et notamment l'aide bilatérale, est soumise à des pressions politiques que nous avons toujours condamnées - nous savons donc que ces pays qui accordent une aide sincère le font sur la base des principes moraux que le Pacte réaffirme. Nous ne voyons donc aucune raison pour qu'on puisse s'inquiéter de l'adoption d'un tel Pacte qui, à notre avis, reflète toutes les opinions qui sont exprimées dans plusieurs instances internationales.
Voilà ce que nous voudrions dire à ce stade des discussions. Nous recommandons par conséquent que ce Pacte, qui nous paraît utile et important, puisse être transmis au niveau de la Conférence pour son adoption.
G.E. GONZALEZ (Argentina): Mi delegación se refirió, Sr. Presidente, con cierta extension en la última reunion del CSA sobre los aspectos principales que se incluyen en el Proyecto de Pacto; por ello en esta ocasión trataremos de ser sumamente breves.
La Argentina reitera en este Consejo su apoyo al Proyecto de Pacto por entenderlo útil, importante y urgente. Considera que el mismo contribuirá ciertamente a crear conciencia en la comunidad internacional, ya que no tiene otro carácter vinculante obligatorio que su propio valor ético y moral. Hemos escuchado con atención y agradecimiento el mensaje del Sr. Presidente del Consejo de Ministros de Italia, Honorable Bettino Craxi, y estamos seguros de que sus palabras valientes y sinceras nos ayudarán a encontrar una solución adecuada a las aparentes diferencias de enfoque en cuanto al valor y el contenido del Pacto.
Esperamos que el texto con la propuesta de modificaciones introducidas recientemente por el Director General y que tienen en cuenta algunos de los puntos de vista adelantados por varias delegaciones en la última reunión del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial permitan su aceptación definitiva aunque, debo remarcarlo, algunas de estas propuestas debilitan, a nuestro juicio, su texto más allá de lo deseable. Su texto está muy lejos de ser ideal, y como lo señalamos en el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, y como lo señalaron varias delegaciones en aquella ocasión, que hoy se reiteró, estaríamos en condiciones de ofrecer numerosas propuestas para incluirlas. Nosotros nos abstenemos de hacerlo pensando en que el Pacto sólo puede ser útil si cuenta con el consenso de la Comunidad Internacional en los aspectos fundamentales. Para la Argentina, por ejemplo, la seguridad alimentaria mundial no se garantiza con políticas de control de la natalidad, sino con el aumento de la producción y con una mejor distribución de la riqueza. Sin embargo, nos adherimos con todo entusiasmo al Pacto, al Proyecto del Pacto, con la salvedad o el entendimiento de que las referencias que allí se hacen a la demografía se relacionen con la política demográfica general excluyendo el tema específico del control de natalidad.
H. REDL (Austria): In considering the Director-General's proposed concept of a World Food Security Compact, we believe that the arguments raised for and against this most interesting draft text are still fresh in everyone's mind. However, what is important in the proposed Compact, in our opinion, is that its principles do not unduly recall any binding obligations, but contribute fundamentally to reinforcing a moral commitment to pursue the course of world food security.
My delegation wishes to make an appeal to the repeatedly demonstrated spirit of mutual understanding which has traditionally prevailed in this Council. We hope that after thorough discussion this Council will come to a full consensus, and will put forward the World Food Security Compact for adoption.
M. SUBRAMANIAN (India): I am afraid that in discussing this valuable report of the Committee on World Food Security and the Compact which has been recommended almost unanimously by that Committee, we are moving away from the main objective for which this recommendation has been made. We should not spend our time on interpreting the words of the English language. To my mind, coming from a country which does use the English language substantially as a part of its official business, there is a difference between a declaration, a compact and a convention. What this is not is a convention; this is not a convention because a convention, in international parlance, would have required ratification. It is certainly not a mere declaration, because a declaration is merely a declaration of intention. I think no one can agree more with our colleagues from Australia and Canada that what is expected is action in the national and international spheres. I fully support their suggestion that our intentions should be reflected in action, but I think this Council has the right and responsibility to provide guidelines for national and international action in this regard. And if in its fortieth year FAO cannot draw up guidelines to provide food security for the poor of the world, one might ask oneself what is the relevance of FAO to the international community.
The Director-General is seeking to assist us in providing guidelines at national and international levels, more so because international commodity trade has failed to provide the means of giving succour to the poor of the world. If normal commodity trade balanced by the normal movement of food from surplus to deficient countries had been able to undertake more in this dire hour of need, I am sure the Director-General would not have strained himself to give assistance in providing these guidelines. I appeal to all member countries of FAO, and say to them that we should accept this Compact as a guideline for national and international action. This is necessary so that the vast action required, whether it be multilateral or bilateral, by and large is governed by our perception of the basis on which this effort should take place, and of the direction in which it would be channelled.
From paragraphs 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the report of the Committee, it is clear that we seek to provide guidelines for ourselves. In so doing we are crystallizing and I quote, "in a simple way what were widely-held feelings constituting the moral commitment to pursue the course of world food security". This is not just an expression of intention. This is a clear perception of our responsibility. This is a clear indication of the lines on which action should he taken to discharge that responsibility. I can quite see that guidelines, by their very nature, are capable of being a plague in a local context. I think the FAO Charter guarantees to sovereign members of freedom - and I would rather use the word "obligation" - to understand the spirit in which such compacts are made and apply them in their local context for national and international action. I do not see that there is any conflict in providing guidelines for ourselves, and in our sovereignty to apply those guidelines in the context of our own national and international relations.
This being so, it would be appropriate that in the fortieth year of FAO we record this consensus, this commitment to provide food security for the poor of the world and since the Compact would be a broad guideline and on the basis of its national policies and international cooperation could be structured, I appeal on behalf of myself and all my colleagues that we should unanimously accept these guidelines as the basis for future action. We should not unduly concern ourselves about the binding nature of what are described as guidelines, nor should we unduly concern ourselves with the need for action.
We have acted first. In the debate yesterday and the day before, we were unanimous in commending what a number of countries have done, and also what FAO has done, to galvanise support for the world's hungry millions. It is in the context of that experience that guidelines have been evolved. I appeal to my colleague from Australia, and others, that they should not pursue this in the context of good intentions preceding international action. This is a guideline which the Director-General has distilled in the context of international action which is already going on and which has been strengthened at its finest hour by the support of all the member countries of this august Council, and of FAO. Therefore, it is necessary that we continue the action together. It is also important that we provide ourselves with the necessary guidelines by which this support can be marshalled, coordinated and implemented in an organized fashion as befits the international community in general.
I would assure you, that there cannot be any perception other than that to which I have referred on the nature of this Compact. It provides guidelines for action. I would draw attention to an important guideline, namely, that food aid should not be used for political purposes. I am quite sure there is no international organization which can reinforce these guidelines except one like ours, with the commitments we have to democracy, the alleviation of poverty, and a better international agricultural order in general. If we are all committed to this, reservations would destroy the spirit in which we have come to this. There may be reservations about the manner in which the guidelines will be implemented, but in this Committee of nations there cannot be any reservation with regard to the commitment of Member Nations, to the acceptance of useful guidelines for coordinating international support for the hungry millions of the world. If this is so, I have no hesitation in adding the support of my Government to our common resolve in this regard.
J. POSIER (France) : Lors de la dernière réunion du Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale ma délégation a exprimé son accord sur le projet de Pacte mondial de la sécurité alimentaire. Elle a en particulier souligné que ce pacte ne manquerait pas de contribuer de façon positive à la prise de conscience par tous les acteurs concernés, pays développés comme pays en développement, des nécessités qu'impose la recherche d'une sécurité alimentaire mondiale.
Ma délégation continue d'apprécier le bien-fondé de cette initiative. Elle constate que dans la nouvelle version du Pacte proposée à l'examen du Conseil le Directeur général de l'OAA a tenu compte d'un certain nombre des observations présentées par les délégués au Comité de sécurité alimentaire mondiale. La délégation française a cependant noté que les remarques construetives qu'elle avait faites lors du même Comité n'étaient pas prises en considération. Je pense en particulier aux politiques de prix, à l'organisation des marchés nationaux et internationaux, à la coopération économique régionale et à l'amélioration de l'environnement économique et monétaire international, tous points que la France considère comme étant parmi les plus importants dans le processus de développement agricole des pays.
Cependant la position de la France doit être bien claire. Le texte actuel, s'il ne répond pas à tous nos souhaits, va bien dans le sens d'une meilleure sécurité alimentaire dans le monde et je pense qu'il est urgent de l'adopter. Ma délégation ne souhaite pas que cette session du Conseil s'engage dans une nouvelle rédaction du texte du Pacte et renouvelle l'appel qu'elle a lancé à l'issue des débats du Comité de sécurité alimentaire mondiale pour qu'un consensus s'établisse aussi rapidement que possible.
Y. A. HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): My delegation should like to thank Dr Islam for his introduction of this subject, and also the Director-General for his efforts in drafting the World Food Security Compact.
The delegation of my country has participated in the deliberations of the Committee on World Food Security at its Ninth and Tenth Sessions. In the Ninth Session the delegation of my country called for the drafting of the Compact, and in the Tenth Session it endorsed the draft. We approved the Compact because it combined the general principles which constitute some sort of guidelines for the governments, organizations and individuals in order to attain world food security in its three-fold dimensions.
We agree with His Excellency Bettino Craxi, the Prime Minister of Italy, that the Compact should be considered an integral part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We also commend the efforts made by the Director-General since the Tenth Session of the Committee on World Food Security to make the Compact an acceptable formula for all States, particularly those who previously had some reservation about it.
Despite the controversy provoked by the revised version of the Compact which we have before us, we do not want to be involved in that controversy because we do not wish the Council or the Conference to act as a drafting committee.
Mr Chairman, since we believe in the basic objectives of the Compact we endorse it and we recommend its transmission to the Conference for adoption.
J.M. WATSON (Panamá): Señor Presidente, señor Director General: La delegación de Panamá desea reafirmar en este foro el hecho de que Panamá, al ser un país pacífico y pacifista por tradición y vocación, cree en los principios que garantizan la paz y considera que uno de estos principios básicos es el de la seguridad alimentaria, tal como lo hemos concebido. Por tal motivo reafirmamos nuestro apoyo al Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial propuesto, ya que el objetivo del mismo es el de aumentar la seguridad alimentaria mundial asegurando que todas las personas estén en condiciones de producir o conseguir los alimentos básicos.
Para nuestra delegación el Pacto, aunque no recoge a cabalidad y con la fuerza suficiente todos los aspectos del problema, representa, como bien lo dijese el señor Director General de la FAO, un faro de esperanza para aquellos que nada poseen. Sólo quien sufre puede comprender lo que representa la esperanza, lo que puede significar un principio, la importancia de un ideal que para algunos es romanticismo, falta de resultados prácticos para otros, y de eso los panameños sabemos algo. Puede representar un incentivo, un motivo para seguir adelante, el combustible moral para el logro de un objetivo.
Todos sabemos que la esperanza es lo último a morir y que el fin de la esperanza coincide con el inicio del caos, el fin de la paz.
Es indudable que el proyecto inicial se basó en el consenso de compromisos y acuerdos anteriores alcanzados en el propio Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial y en otros órganos interrelacionados con la seguridad alimentaria mundial y que el Pacto se diseñó de tal manera que plasmara e incorporara los principios incluidos en ellos. Sin embargo, a nuestro juicio la propuesta de un nuevo texto presentado por el señor Director General, el cual recoge enmiendas y algunas observaciones expresadas en los debates del 10° período de sesiones del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria, mejoran el texto inicial con la esperanza de obtener un consenso.
Es por ello que nuestra delegación apoya la propuesta contenida en el documento CL 87/10-Sup.1.
Y para terminar, en nombre de nuestros principios de país que cree en la solución negociada de los problemas, instamos a todos los países para que en base a las nuevas propuestas formuladas por el señor Director General encontremos la solución que permita aprobar por unanimidad un Pacto de tanta importancia para la esperanza de los que tienen hambre, siguiendo el ejemplo de la distinguida delegación de Suiza, país al cual felicitamos por tan digna decisión.
A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): We welcome the draft Compact. We appreciate the fact that the Director-General took it upon himself following the last Committee on World Food Security to review and revise the draft to accommodate all divergent opinions expressed.
We welcome the heart-warming statement of the Prime Minister of Italy, which was read out by the distinguished Ambassador of Italy this morning.
We are aware that the Charter of the FAO designates it as the leading agency in the United Nations system for promoting world food production and alleviating hunger and malnutrition from this world. Since the Charter of this Organization is to banish hunger, to which we all subscribe, then we are only renewing our commitment by articulating that there should be enough food production in the world, that there should be stability in food supplies, and that all of those who are in need should have enough to eat.
It is inconceivable to my delegation that any country, large or small, developed or developing would stop for a fleeting moment and say that it does not believe in world food security. Therefore, I would wish to take comfort from the thought that no country present wishes hunger and poverty to be the law of mankind. The manner in which the major donors, such as Australia and Canada, have so generously responded to the call of the Director-General concerning the African situation, I would believe that they have already affirmed their abiding faith in the concept of world food security, and hence to this concept presented before us.
I have every hope that in the name of international cooperation we will adopt this Compact with universal consensus, which will be a fitting tribute to the forty years of this Organization's creation.
Sra. M. FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Venezuela en este momento sólo quiere expresar de manera clara y categórica su apoyo a este Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial.
Por una comunicación expresa de nuestro Gobierno hemos recibido las instrucciones de expresar en esta mañana su pleno apoyo al Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial como ha sido presentado.
Nosotros creemos en los principios morales; la tradición venezolana ha sido fundada precisamente en los principios morales y no en los principios de la fuerza o en los principios pragmáticos y por eso nos adherimos a la Carta de las Naciones Unidas porque es la Carta de las Naciones Unidas una declaración de principios morales para que todos los países que en ellas se encuentran integrados puedan cumplirlos; si no fuera porque es una declaración de un Pacto de carácter moral, las Naciones Unidas no podrían mantener en su seno algunos países que violan esos derechos por diferentes modos.
Por esa razón, pues, creemos que este Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial tiene que ser un pacto de carácter moral, puesto que no hay ninguna manera de fuerza coercitiva que se pueda imponer a los países miembros de la FAO para cumplir estos principios, pero sí ya han demostrado la mayoría de ellos de manera clara, de manera contundente, mediante su ayuda a los países, como es el caso de Africa, mediante la participación en estos programas de ayuda alimentaria, cuya iniciativa corresponde a nuestro Director General. ¿Por qué en un caso como éste que no es sino la ratificación específica de lo que viene haciendo la FAO durante 40 años, de lo que ha hecho últimamente en el caso de Africa frente a una situación de emergencia, no puede convertirse luego en la conducta normal de estos países integrantes en la FAO para corresponder a lo que ya se viene practicando durante todo este tiempo?
Por esa razón, pues, creo que no hay mucho que argumentar en favor del texto que por los considerandos, sino simplemente hacer una declaración categórica de nuestro respaldo a la adhesión de este pacto, y sólo nos quedaría invitar a los países que todavía no han manifestado su solidaridad con estas ideas que lo hagan lo antes posible.
J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): México ha sido uno de los países que de manera más firme y decidida han apoyado la idea de establecer un Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial. Lo hemos apoyado porque su finalidad es revitalizar la acción de la comunidad internacional para continuar luchando contra el hambre en el contexto del concepto revisado de la seguridad alimentaria mundial. Lo consideramos, pues, un intrumento que debe ser util, en tanto que implica el apoyo de todos los países a ciertos preceptos fundamentales que, aunque no sean vinculantes jurídicamente ni obligatorios, sí conllevan una conciencia universal sobre un problema fundamental, tan fundamental como la vida misma. En consecuencia, nos hubiera gustado que este proyecto de pacto ubicara claramente responsabilidades para enfrentar la inseguridad alimentaria presente y futura. No ha sido así, pero en todo caso deberá desatar acciones en favor de una cooperación internacional más eficaz y orientada.
Apoyamos el Pacto y exhortamos a todas las delegaciones a que lo acepten por consenso.
Queremos felicitar sinceramente a la Secretaría por el esfuerzo realizado para incorporar las opiniones expresadas por los Estados Miembros durante el décimo período de sesiones del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial. Consideramos que esa es la única manera positiva de trabajar para lograr un proyecto que exprese verdaderamente el consenso que buscamos, sin debilitar su contenido y sin el cual el instrumento que nos ocupa perdería toda validez.
A mi delegación le interesa que el Pacto sea un instrumento internacional serio que corresponda realmente a la gran responsabilidad que representa en el mundo de hoy la eliminación del hambre y que al mismo tiempo haga honor al prestigio de la Organización y a su noble tarea. Es por esta razón, señor Presidente, que haré algunas propuestas que en el concepto de mi delegación acercan el proyecto a estos objetivos. Son propuestas fundamentalmente de forma.
En primer lugar, los preámbulos de este tipo de instrumento tienen la ventaja de situar el problema no sólo en su contexto actual, sino en un marco más amplio que incluye las acciones y las decisiones que se han tomado previamente sobre el tema central que se tratará en la parte resolutiva o sobre otros factores que inciden en el. Esto tiene la doble ventaja de poner en evidencia que no se actúa de una manera aislada, sino como seguimiento de anteriores decisiones y además facilita la adopción del instrumento porque reafirma que existe ya una base de acuerdo que todos los gobiernos han establecido. Ahora bien, consideramos que el preámbulo actual es muy original y podría mantenerse, 'pero sería muy importante mencionar en él el Artículo 25 de la Carta de Derechos Humanos, el Artículo 11 del Pacto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, el Artículo 10 de la Declaración sobre el Progreso y Desarrollo en lo Social, y también alguna referencia a la Declaración para la Eliminación del Hambre y la Malnutrición.
Al referirnos a la parte tercera, estamos de acuerdo en suprimir el título a las Organizaciones Ínter-gubernamentales, ya que no hay ninguna acción que les corresponda en el texto, a menos que incluyera un párrafo en ese sentido. Nos parece también un acierto eliminar los dos subtítulos A y B. Consideramos que esta parte mejora notablemente con las nuevas propuestas y tendría solamente algunas pequeñas modificaciones de redacción o bien de expresión más usual o correcta en español. Por ejemplo, en el párrafo 5, tercera línea, sobrarían las palabras "del país" y en la cuarta línea, para estar de acuerdo con el tono del párrafo, habría que poner "los sectores más pobres", en lugar de simplemente "los pobres".
En el párrafo 7 consideramos sería básico y conveniente dejar después de la palabra "cooperación con los países en desarrollo y entre sí".
En el artículo 9 nos parece sería mucho más adecuado sustituir en la primera línea "países pobres" por "países en desarrollo que lo necesiten". En general, señor Presidente, y esto se aplica también a otros párrafos, nosotros preferimos la terminología "países en desarrollo" y "países desarrollados" a la utilización de "pobres" y "ricos", que no nos parece adecuada y se presta a otras consideraciones. Estaría, además, más de acuerdo con la terminología y clasificación del sistema de las Naciones Unidas.
En lo que se refiere al artículo 11, nos parece que la primera enmienda es aceptable, pero deberíamos mantener en el resto del párrafo la propuesta inicial.
En la parte cuarta ya anteriormente mencioné la conveniencia de sustituir la expresión "pobres y ricos" por "desarrollados y en desarrollo", y esto se aplica también al artículo 2 de esta parte. En el párrafo 3 no estamos muy de acuerdo en que las organizaciones no gubernamentales deben ser las primeras en organizar los contactos. Creo que debemos decir simplemente "deben organizar".
La parte quinta de este documento es la que nos presenta más problemas, ya que no estamos muy convencidos de que las expresiones que se utilizan responden en realidad a las ideas que las sustentan.
En el párrafo 1 nos parece inaceptable la utilización de un lenguaje casi religioso, y en concreto la palabra "sagrado" debe sustituirse por "primordial" o "fundamental". (Debo advertir que el Estado Mexicano es laico).
El párrafo 2 debe decir "opinión pública", ya que no solamente opinan los países más ricos, y por lo tanto debe sustituirse aquí también por "desarrollados o altamente desarrollados". Creemos, sin embargo, que la opinión pública de todos los países tiene un papel importante y podría, por tanto, decirse "la opinión pública, especialmente la de los países altamente desarrollados".
Me he permitido hacer estas recomendaciones porque considero que es oportuno fortalecer este texto, al que damos todo nuestro apoyo.
Finalmente, en ese conocimiento lógico, frío, pasional y patente de los intereses económicos, políticos y militares de los países poderosos, no somos ingenuos ni pretendemos ser románticos. Sucede simplemente que frente a la fuerza los débiles sólo podemos interponer principios, argumentos razonables, producto de negociación y conciencia universal de los problemas. No tenemos nada más que ofrecer y nos negamos a la sumisión y a la postración permanente. Creemos que la conciencia tiene una función en este mundo, así como el diálogo en la negociación tiene una función práctica, no sólo retórica, a pesar de los cínicos. En la medida en que las condiciones objetivas de hambre, violencia y recesión económica muevan a la opinión pública mundial y también tengan en cuenta los intereses económicos de los industrializados, los preceptos y razones del Pacto cobran peso. Nosotros siempre interpretamos el rechazo al proyecto de Pacto como el rechazo a la conciencia universal, al problema evidente que es la gran inseguridad alimentaria. Por tanto, también interpretamos que quienes los rechazan conceden importancia a la función de conciencia y a su consecuente obligatorie-
dad moral, a pesar de que sus intereses prácticos lo contradigan. Interpretamos también que es una clara negativa a la cooperación internacional en su forma más altruista, con lo que se pone en duda los verdaderos intereses detrás de nuestras declaraciones y acciones de cooperación y ayuda.
Nos congratulamos de que Suiza haya retirado sus reservas y felicitaciones al Primer Ministro señor Craxi por su mensaje y solidaridad.
Lamentamos que ciertos países le tengan más temor a la función de la conciencia y el diálogo y reiteramos nuestra exhortación a que reflexionen y acepten por consenso la adopción de este Pacto.
A. LOUCA (Cyprus): The delegation of Cyprus has studied carefully the supplementary document submitted by the Director-General, which provides deletions and additions as suggestions on which the Council could reach a consensus. The Director-General was not requested to do this but, with his well-known frankness and courage, he has taken the initiative and presented this improved document to us. The changes he has suggested seem to us mostly to respond to the views expressed during the debate at the last CFS session and they bridge adequately the divergent opinions.
It is a common feeling that both developing and developed countries should join forces in the common
objective of obtaining the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. The value of the
Compact will be in stimulating support for these objectives, and in improving the general climate for action towards attaining them.
Another essential message of the Compact is in pointing out that every individual has a sacred duty to be concerned for those less fortunate, and it indicates the various roles that must be played by individuals in every walk of life in every country, in eradicating hunger and malnutrition. We find the text to be quite moderate and balanced, and we consider the proposed changes to be a substantial improvement to the text.
With these observations, the delegation of Cyprus would like to give its full support to the text. We hope that the Council will transmit the revised text as it stands to the Conference with its full endorsement.
Mrs. M. FENWICK (United States of America): The United States delegation acknowledges and appreciates very sincerely the efforts of the Secretariat to revise the proposed World Food Security Compact to accomodate the concerns expressed by some of the delegations to the Committee on World Food Security, and 1 would like to say to my colleagues also that in judging my country, 1 trust you will pay some attention to our actions as an evidence of what our concerns are and what our intentions are.
However, in regard to this Compact, the United States continues to have a number of reservations concerning the Compact which have not been met by the proposed revision. Therefore, the United States delegation cannot associate its Government with the Compact and wishes to maintain its reservation to the Compact as expressed at the Committee on World Food Security in April. We request that our expression of disassociation be shown in the Council Report and that it also appear in the published Compact itself.
R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): May 1 start by saying the obvious. Where there is significant international agreement which did not exist before, the United Kingdom is in general in favour of this being recorded in some way to guide our successors. The attention which has necessarily been attracted to food security by recent tragic events may have led us to identify common thinking which did not exist before. if so we welcome the incorporation of these thoughts in a non-binding document of the sort we have before us in the draft form and a non-binding document to which we can subscribe by consensus.
It is a matter of judgement at this stage when work should cease on improving the draft. There seems to be a general agreement that any Compact should be considered for adoption at the General Conference and as a contribution to marking forty years of the world of FAO. So, in theory the document could be continuously improved as the modifications of wording are further considered in detail and new ideas come forward.
As my country's delegate to the Committee on Food Security has made clear, we could go along with the text as it was at an earlier stage. That is on the basis of the understanding repeated today by Mr West, that it is a non-binding document. Of course, had we thought otherwise we would have had to examine it with greater and more legalistic care.
However, we are concerned not merely to get a document with which we can live but one in which we can take some pride, and for this reason we welcome the further work of the Director-General on the text with a view to its obtaining the widest possible support. The changes suggested by the Director-General seem to us in every case, with one minor exception, to be improvements, and we would wish to see them in the text sent forward from this Council to the Conference. The one exception which is a minor one is merely a point of logic, and this concerns the proposed insertion in paragraph 5 of the wording; "Governments should make all efforts so that agricultural work receives a higher status". It seems to me somewhat illogical in a document which is supposed to have a permanent validity to ask that the status of agricultural work should continuously be given a higher status in relation to other activities, and perhaps we can just say "a high status", or use the wording used later "a higher status than it currently receives", although that is really nit-picking.
There is one more substantive improvement in wording which we wish to see in order to avoid inclusion in the draft of statements which could be misleading, and so preventing us from having a document in which we can take the pride that 1 mentioned before. The one section, which inadvertently 1 suspect, provides misleading advice to developing countries is in Section III, A.2. An amendment could easily be made without doing mischief to the valid thought behind the Section. The Section calls on governments to ensure that city-dwellers do not acquire a permanent preference for imported basic foods which cannot be grown domestically. This advice is fine for countries where there are possibilities for local production which would provide adequate or nutritious diet, but what about countries where this does not apply; countries say which are coral atolls or city states, or other countries probably mainly small ones, where the welfare of the population as a whole will be maximized by an open trading position as regards all foodstuffs, basic or otherwise. 1 do not think the draftsmen had in mind that such governments should condemn their countrymen to a diet of the basic products of their own land rather than participate fully in trading with neighbours and trading partners. We would not wish to give international respectability to such a siege mentality. As 1 said before, this point can be made by amending paragraph 8 to read in a way which would meet this point. It could read as follows: "In particular, developing governments should ensure that city-dwellers do not acquire a permanent preference for imported basic foods which cannot be grown domestically" - that is the same. The new bit is "or which would not be realistically obtainable in the future".
These comments are offered in the hope of making the document a more valid one. It is our hope that the best draft which we can reach today should be sent forward without further amendment after the conclusion of this meeting to the Conference for adoption.
SJARIFUDIN BAHARSJAH (Indonesia): Mr Chairman, 1 shall be brief, but first of all since this is the first time that my delegation takes the floor, 1 would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and the three Vice-Chairmen.
We are a nation of 150 million, and today we thank God that we are self-sufficient in food, but it
has been a long and hard struggle, and during that long period we have experienced a bitter feeling
of belonging to that group of the world where there is food insecurity, and food insecurity in our
case means food insecurity for 150 million which is bitter indeed.
We have also learned valuable things from our hard struggle towards producing enough food for our population. We certainly agree with our fellow delegates from other countries when they say that what we need is action. However, again and again, in our case at least, we found that action has to be preceded first by a mental attitude translated into strong political will, commitment by all parties, and then translated into guidelines and principles. At least in our case without these strong commitments, without the right mental attitude and political will we would not have been successful.
We have examined the Compact based on our experience during that long struggle. We have found that those principles which were formulated in the previous text and were formulated for the developing countries, have been the minimum principles that we have adhered to too, in our own long struggle, and we also found that those principles that had been formulated again in the previous text to be guidelines for the developed countries, had they been adopted when we were having our struggle we would have been greatly assisted, and the long struggle would have been s.ignificantly shorter. Therefore, we are not hesitating in adopting this Compact.
Talking at the regional level,we in Asia, have the Asian food reserve which was founded very much on the principles here again formulated in the Compact. Therefore, 1 am happy here to say that I have authorization of the Asian countries represented in the Council to voice their support to this Compact. After saying this, however, we feel that the principles as formulated in the Compact are the minimum principles that we think should be adhered to by everybody. We are seriously trying to reach our goal of enough food for everyone. We of Asia stand ready, if required, and we would very much like to do so to strengthen even the Compact and make it an obligation of all countries to adhere to so that we can really step forward towards achieving our goals.
P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Our delegation views the draft Compact positively. We note the Directors-General's explanation that it is a crystallization of feelings. Of course a crystal can give varying hues depending on the angle from which it is viewed. This in part, we believe, explains the divergence of views and to some extent the reservations which have been expressed. Consensus may well therefore depend upon the skilful twisting of language, while holding the course steady as we secure compromise.
The. Compact is intended to be voluntary but nevertheless of rare symbolic value, and must therefore have some entrenched principles which impact upon the conscience. Of course it will not make sense to conclude an attempt to send forward to the Conference a Compact which is not acceptable and implementable. My delegation shares the resolve and initiative which lies behind the Compact. We agree that we know that mere rhetoric will not really help in the fight towards world food security. In like manner, we do not propose to join in rhetoric which is designed to delay acceptance. Our delegation notes the reservations of some countries. We also feel that some of the proposed amendments tend to detract from the loftiness of humanitarian feeling that lies behind this proposal. In this regard we congratulate those who have found it possible to withdraw reservations, and also those who have offered positive suggestions for the drafting committee. We urge the Council to apply broad and noble vision on this issue. It can be done, especially when we recognize the Compact is not legally binding. After forty years of valuable work we trust that this august body will find it possible to adopt, as a fitting tribute to this special anniversary, the proposed Compact which my delegation supports.
F.J. FERNANDEZ DE ANA MAGAN (España): El proyecto de Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial en la formulación corregida por el Director General tiene para nuestra delegación un importante contenido moral que nos hace considerarlo como un paso adelante ante el escándalo del hambre en algunas partes del mundo.
El cultivo de estos valores no tiene por qué ser contrario a la práctica y valiosa ayuda que se viene realizando por parte de numerosos países. Posiblemente la formulación de este texto podría ser mejorado dando entrada a algunas modificaciones propuestas por otros países, consiguiendo de esta forma un consenso en la Asamblea lo más amplio posible.
Consideramos muy positivas las correcciones de léxico propuestas por México al texto en español. Entendemos que la aprobación de este documento sería enormemente positivo para la búsqueda de una mayor sensibilización de todos los habitantes de este planeta, ante los que sufren por hambre, sea cual sea su motivo.
Mi delegación está de acuerdo con este proyecto, aunque estaríamos abiertos a una mejora de su formulación, si esto fuera posible, con el fin de darle mayor fuerza.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): My Government takes a favourable view of the Compact. We wish to thank the Director-General for the explanation he has given to us regarding the role and the status of that Compact in his introductory statement. In so doing he dispelled our original fear that the creation of a new human right to freedom from hunger was intended to be put forward. We regretted, however, that it had not been possible during the last session of the Committee on World Food Security to deal with it and to take on board some constructive proposals for amendments submitted by several delegations.
My delegation wishes to thank the Director-General for having taken into account a number of these proposals in the revised draft now before us. Nevertheless we should have liked to have seen some terms used which we had in mind. Those were, for example, in the first sentence of II, to speak rather of a common challenge, as stated yesterday by Colombia and Canada, instead of speaking of a common responsibility. Then in the first sentence of paragraph 2 we would have preferred to be stated there "the moral right", which the delegate of Congo referred to this morning, instead of "the fundamental right". \
Having said that, if the other delegations feel that the version before us is the best common denominator for accommodating all positions, we are prepared to go along with the present text in order to achieve a consensus.
Having stated the constructive position of my country, I should like to take up the idea of the delegate of Lebanon, who stressed the wish that the unanimous position among the Member States should hopefully be reached and that if necessary suggestion for changes be made.
In this spirit, and without of course wishing to convert our Council here into a drafting committee, I should like to draw attention to four points. The first one concerns the introductory sentence in the preambular paragraph. This first sentence sounds to me rather passive. Instead of speaking of insecurity of food supplies, which is something passive, we would say something like: "The need to strive for food has accompanied mankind throughout history". But perhaps this is nothing but wording.
There is another point on the same preambular paragraph, and this is perhaps an essential issue. We would have liked to see a certain positive tone at the outset of that text, making reference also to what the international community has achieved already in improving food security. In this context I would mention two points, first that agricultural production has almost doubled since the early 1950s, and another important issue is that farmers all over the world now do produce food for 900 million people more than in 1974 at the time of the World Food Conference. This seems to us a tremendous achievement which should not be forgotten in the context of the fortieth anniversary of the Organization.
My third point is that we are missing a reference to the need for reducing and preventing food losses. This is without any doubt a very important element in the efforts to achieve greater food security and it concerns all, developing countries as well as developed countries.
My fourth point concerns the pillar of food security, and that is the farmer. I think there is no doubt about that. The farmer appears in paragraph 4 of V. Of course there is another mention of the small farmer in paragraph 5 on page 3 of the English text. We would have preferred that in paragraph 3 of III the idea would be introduced, where it says "so as to stimulate food production", particularly through the small farmers, and then say something about their important role.
Having put forward these thoughts we would like to make another remark, and this is the last one, with regard to the mentioning of the introduction of all the decisions taken internationally in fora and on subjects which might have a direct or indirect bearing on food security and quoting them at the beginning in the preambular paragraph. We feel that this would overload the text and would make it even more difficult to be read afterwards by those mostly concerned, namely the farmers.
K SHIOZAWA (Japan): Our reaction to the original draft of the Compact when it was presented to the Tenth session of the CFS was one of doubt as to whether such an arrangement was really necessary. Even after having heard the prolonged debate at the CFS, we are not fully convinced of the necessity and usefulness of the Compact. At that time, however, my delegation expressed its position that we would not impede any consensus.
Now we have the revised draft text before us and my delegation appreciates the effort made so far by the Director-General in trying to seek a compromise. We have the impression that the revised text has in fact been improved to some extent, taking into account various remarks made by several delegations at the CFS. My delegation can go along with the revised text on the Compact.
At the same time, we have also noticed that several members are still having difficulty in accepting this draft text. They are all very important exporting countries of agricultural products. They are also main donors. We are of the opinion that such an arrangement could bring about a meaningful result if the arrangement were adopted unanimously. My delegation would therefore like to request the Director-General, as the delegate of the United Kingdom and some other delegates have already suggested, to make further efforts in trying to seek unanimous support. We are still open to any improvement in the text if such improvement will facilitate its unanimous adoption.
M. BALLA SY (Sénégal): Je me souviens encore que lors de la conclusion des débats d'hier vous disiez qu'il serait intéressant d'organiser des consultations entre les producteurs eux-mêmes pour connaître leur opinion. Je constate même que dans le document CL 87/10 le Secrétariat a finalement cédé au charme de la fameuse et désormais consacrée pensée selon laquelle nous devons écouter les petits paysans. Ce matin nous avons également entendu certaines réserves sur le Pacte appuyé par des membres nous recommandant de donner la priorité à des actions concrètes sur des actions rhétoriques. A ce propos permettez-moi de faire une petite confidence, c'est que, demander à des pays ou à des gouvernements des pays africains d'écouter les petits paysans c'est presque une recommandation superflue tant il est vrai que dans nos pays nous sommes tous de petits paysans. Personnellement je vous dirais que lorsqu'en prenant congé de ma famille pour venir représenter mon pays au sein de cette Organisation, un oncle, pas très instruit mais tout de même très intelligent, comme vous l'avez toujours dit,et vous-même et ceux qui disent que l'on doit écouter les petits paysans, me demandait pourquoi je devais quitter mon pays pour aller à l'étranger, quand je lui ai exposé l'objet de ma mission et l'objet poursuivi par cette Organisation il était presque amusé et il s'est demandé si on venait de créer cette nouvelle organisation ou si elle existait depuis longtemps et ce que ces pays avaient fait pour ceux qui sont dans nos profondes campagnes.
J'étais un peu découragé par cette observation mais à la réflexion je pense que c'était très pertinent parce qu'il nous disait que si en 1945, lorsque les 44 pays (c'est moi qui l'interprète) avaient déclaré qu'ils s'engageaient à améliorer la production pour mieux répartir les produits agricoles afin d'améliorer le niveau de l'alimentation, je crois qu'à ce moment-là notre Afrique, pauvre aujourd'hui, était très riche en aliments et que c'était peut-être le monde occidental qui avait besoin d'elle.
C'est donc dire que nous devons nous interroger pour savoir, après ko années, ce que nous avons fait de ce serment qui est d'ailleurs affiché avec beaucoup de talent dans le Hall du bâtiment A et je vous avoue que parfois je me recueille devant ce serment et je pense que vous devriez inviter beaucoup de pays qui nous disent qu'aujourd'hui nous devons mener des actions, à se recueillir souvent devant ce serment qui a été fait dans leur propre pays et que nous devons tous honorer puisque nous sommes les dépositaires de ces valeurs morales et idéologiques de ces hauts responsables qui doivent mériter toute notre estime.
Je voudrais dire aussi que malgré les appels du Directeur général de la FAO et les pertinentes analyses de ses brillants collaborateurs la crise alimentaire mondiale ne cesse d'empirer. Ce qu'il y a de regrettable dans tout ceci c'est que depuis plus de 20 ans nous ne cessons dans les différents comités de répéter que la sécurité alimentaire repose sur l'amélioration de la production et que celle-ci est compromise dans la plupart de nos pays par une insuffisance de moyens techniques et financiers. Pourtant que contastons-nous? Tous les documents que nous avons étudiés - celui que nous étudions aujourd'hui ne fait d'ailleurs que répéter ceux que nous avons étudiés hier - montrent que l'aide publique internationale au développement ne cesse de diminuer. Comment alors allons-nous passer aux actes si les pays pauvres manquent de ressources, de technologies adaptées, d'intrants agricoles, et si leurs produits agricoles n'arrivent plus à pénétrer dans les marchés internationaux jalousement protégés par des mesures discriminatoires. Il ne fait donc aucun doute que devant cette situation nous n'avons plus le droit de nous tromper en continuant à déclarer que nous devons agir alors que nous ne faisons pas ce qu'il faut faire. Nous faisons certes beaucoup, nous donnons beaucoup d'aide alimentaire, compte tenu de sa destination, c'est-à-dire (excusez un terme assez terre-à-terre et peut-être vulgaire) qu'elle va dans les ventres vides pour ensuite être digérée alors qu'il s'agirait plutôt de nous offrir une marchandise qui pourrait fructifier en permanence c'est-à-dire réhabiliter l'agriculture. Le projet de Pacte que mon pays appuie pleinement ne pourrait donc que traduire notre volonté d'agir car aucune de ses dispositions ne nous empêche de le faire. Au contraire, elles nous y invitent. Si nous refusons cette invitation nous ne pourrons plus faire croire à ces pauvres paysans qui semblent tant nous préoccuper et dont nous connaissons mieux que quiconque les préoccupations puisque nous sommes déjà nés et que nous continuerons à vivre à leurs côtés puisque nous ne sommes que des petits paysans si bien que nous ne pourrons plus leur faire croire que nous allons agir alors que depuis ko ans ils attendent d'être aidés dans le sens souhaité.
Avons-nous donc le droit de continuer à répéter ce que nous avons toujours dit et redit, ce que la FAO nous a toujours montré pour perpétuer de notre côté les conditions de la misère et de la pauvreté.
A ceux qui souhaitent que nous parlions aux petits paysans je dirais qu'en ma qualité de fils de ces derniers nous voulons des moyens financiers, techniques des intrants et des moyens de rentabiliser notre activité.
En conclusion je voudrais me féliciter des déclarations fort constructives des représentants de tous les pays qui ont proposé l'adoption de ce Pacte. A ce propos qu'il me soit permis de citer entre autre s particulièrement les déclarations des représentants de l'Italie, du Danemark et de la France dont l'exemple déjà connu dans ce domaine doit être suivi. Aux autres, qui ont manifesté une bonne volonté en essayant tout simplement d'améliorer le texte, je voudrais également adresser toutes mes félicitations et ma profonde admiration. Je pense enfin qu'il est du droit de chaque pays souverain d'exprimer une réserve sur un document de cette nature, mais de le faire d'une manière aussi préremptoire aussi bien sur le rapport que sur le document lui-même est une action que nous ne pourrons pas regretter puisque le pacte en réalité ne devrait pas comporter de réserves mais ce serait plutôt le rapport du Conseil.
Je voudrais donc encore une fois inviter tous les pays ici représentés et qui ont toujours manifesté le besoin de contribuer à ce monde de paix et de solidarité, mais avec peut-être des idées et des intentions différentes, que ce Pacte est une occasion pour notre Organisation de coller d'une manière beaucoup plus sincère et significative au serment que les 44 pays fondateurs de l'Organisation avaient déjà fait il y a ko ans.
L. ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos comenzar felicitando y adheriéndome totalmente a la extraordinaria y profunda intervención que acaba de realizar el representante de Senegal. Creo que ha hablado con el corazón en la mano de las realidades por las que atraviesa el continente mas afectado de los que aquí queremos, con un Pacto, tratar de dar un impulso a sus soluciones; esto es lo que el Pacto puede hacer y tratar de impulsar su solución.
Señor Presidente, nosotros participamos con bastante actividad, y por que no decirlo, con pasión en el 10° período de sesiones del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial. Discutimos nuestro apoyo total al Pacto de Seguridad Alimentaria porque consideramos que es el momento en que la humanidad tome conciencia de la necesidad de pactar, por lo menos moralmente, en resolver uno de los azotes mas grandes de hoy.
En aquella oportunidad desafortunadamente la discusión fue muy mala; no esperamos una respuesta realmente ante un Pacto inocuo, un Pacto moral, un Pacto de buenas intenciones que se mezclara la moral con el comercio. Me parece que, entonces, si se maneja el comercio sin moral, ese comercio no puede tener mucha alternativa.
Aunque participe con fuerza en el anterior Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, no quise hablar de los primeros, no quise, mi silenciono creo que se iba a interpretar como falta de interés, sino como actitud constructiva para esperar realmente una reacción positiva después de los esfuerzos que hizo la Secretaría de la FAO y el Director General en modificar lo que se ha hecho; es modificar, a nuestro juicio con bastante objetividad, buscando equilibrar las proposiciones que dieron lugar a las reservas en el pasado Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial. Sin embargo, vemos, desafortunadamente, que se repite esta situación. Esta situación se repite y para nosotros es lamentable porque no creemos que en la FAO exista el veto; aquí no existe veto; aquí puede haber criterios encontrados y debe oírse a una gran mayoría porque no creo que podamos paralizar el trasladar a la Conferencia un documento porque tres delegaciones no tengan instrucciones.
A estas alturas, sencillamente, sinceramente no creíamos que tuviéramos que repetir las discusiones anteriores y las decisiones; así que creemos que podemos explicar a aquellos que piensan que esto puede ser inútil, porque nosotros somos de los que hemos preconizado, con todos los que en esta sala han hablado de la conciencia, del llamado a la conciencia y a la moral que son realmente las fuerzas que deben impulsar la voluntad política de nuestros gobiernos, Y si los que plantean esto olvidan después de un buen almuerzo aquí en Roma que hay cifras espeluznantes de muertes por hambres y que yo digo que son resultado de esa capacidad analítica practica y administrativa de los mas grandes países industrializados; ahí esta la causa del hambre y de la muerte y de la inseguridad alimentaria: la capacidad analítica, administrativa, practica, superinteligente, prepotentes. Hay que empezar a manejar la moral y la conciencia; hay que empezar a manejarlas porque es posible que este Pacto haya puesto en evidencia que en el mundo la historia se ha escrito con razones ciegas e inconscientes pero también con razones morales y racionales. Esto es lo que este Pacto ha puesto en evidencia, todo expresado por los hombres dotados de conciencia que han actuado por la reflexión o por la pasión, persiguiendo unos fines. No trato de negar que cada uno de nosotros aquí habla expresando los intereses de sus fines; creemos que es fácil, que hay colegas que han hablado de que son laicos, otros que son religiosos, pero creo que es fácil acomodarse cada uno a su religión y con una confesión periodica limpiar su conciencia después de analizar la responsabilidad que tenemos con el hambre, con la miseria, con la malnutrición, con el desempleo, con el analfabetismo histórico y técnico, pues hay dos analfabetismos, con la insalubridad, con la mortalidad infantil.
Mientras no hagamos todo esto parte de nuestra conciencia somos cómplices de la malnutrición y de la muerte. Si tenemos que hacerlo parte de nuestra conciencia creemos que el homo sapiens esta formado por su acción a base de su conciencia, todo lo hace conscientemente.
El inicio de la reunion para mí fue realmente maravilloso y fue una de las cosas que me impulso a no pedir la palabra al principio. Las palabras expresadas por la representación de Italia me causaron efecto porque creemos que hay que felicitarla por la interpretación cabal de los objetivos de este Pacto.
Creemos que ademas hay demostraciones palpables de que no todos los grandes no tienen conciencia; hay respuestas aquí muy pausibles, muy felicitables, la de los nórdicos en nombre de los cuales hablo la distinguida representación de Dinamarca, el enfoque que hace la distinguida representación de Francia, la de Austria, y no se si olvido algunas de las que realmente han dado un enfoque certero y constructivo
Nosotros, en función -lo dijimos la otra vez, igual que la distinguida representación de Mexico-, en función de lograr un acuerdo, lo apoyamos en todas sus partes, igual que el anterior, en todas sus partes; sin embargo, debemos aclarar que hay cuestiones que consideramos debían ser mas fuertes porque son problemas que no va a resolverlos la sola expresión.^ Por ejemplo, en los principios generales del párrafo 4 se ha suprimido el "deben" por el "podran". Se le ha quitado la palabra "deben" y se ha puesto "podran".
Yo creo que moralmente no deben utilizar los alimentos como medios para ejercer presiones políticas, porque poder tienen para hacerlo, realmente tienen poder, lo están haciendo por su poder, utilizando
los alimentos para ejercer presiones políticas. Por eso creo que aquí, si se va a discutir, se debe incluir la palabra "deben", no "podran", pero repetimos, si esto trae problemas para la adopción, no lo proponemos.
Igualmente, en el párrafo 5 de la tercera sección, después de pequeños agricultores , nosotros estamos de acuerdo en poner "y campesinos sin tierra , que son los mayores y la preocupación de mi distinguido amigo Grabisch. Creo que es correcto con respecto a los pequeños agricultores, pero me trae Grabisch en seguida a colación unas ideas después de oír las maravillosas palabras del Senegal, pero aquí faltan también los mas poderosos, porque los pequeños y los sin tierra son pobres producto del orden económico impuesto, son productores de subsistencia, no son los que fundamentalmente van a resolver la situación alimentaria en el mundo, son beneficiarios, son sujeto del beneficio. ¿Por que no incluimos a los transnacionales y a los grandes poseedores, los que mejores tierras regadas tienen y con todos los insumos, y que ayer maravillosamente redefinió el Director General en su ultima intervención sobre Africa? A esos que tienen es a los que tenemos que pedir. A los pequeños debemos ponerlos como beneficiarios. Pero, repetimos, si esta proposición de Cuba puede traer algún problema para retrasar la adopción de este Pacto, no queremos que se tome en cuenta. Creemos que la vida avanza, somos convencidos de que el mundo debe ir cambiando porque en el mundo todo cambia. Nacemos y nos morimos y nacen regímenes y se mueren regímenes y tendrán que seguir cambiando. El río jamas va a dejar de seguir fluyendo. Por el momento hay tiempo para algún día poner "deben" y algún día poner "transnacionales". Ahora lo aceptamos como esta.
Queremos expresar que la reserva expuesta por el distinguido representante de Estados Unidos no debe incluirse en el Pacto; debe ser incluido en el Reporte, porque el Pacto no debemos mancharlo con una reserva de esa naturaleza, independientemente de que en ultima instancia creemos que la oposición del mas grande productor refuerza el Pacto. Refuerza el Pacto realmente, pues si el gran productor se siente responsable moral y por conciencia la solución es esta y reacciona en esa forma tan fría, tan decidida, no entrar a discutir sencillamente la reserva, refuerza el Pacto, pero no debe en ninguna manera detener que este Pacto pase a la Conferencia porque por suerte aquí no hay veto.
Con estas palabras, señor Presidente, quiero pedir que incluya a Cuba entre los países que pueden trasladar a la próxima Conferencia la adopción de este Pacto en la forma que ha sido presentado por el Director General.
CHAIRMAN: The United States wishes to intervene on a point of order.
Mrs. M. FENWICK (United States of America): Mr Chairman, I feel that when a country has been mentioned by name it is right for that country to respond.
We are not the largest producer, we are the largest donor. I think that our request that the position of the United States should be clearly and, I think, very moderately stated is a reasonable one. It expresses what has happened here. It expresses the view of my Government concerning the Compact, and I trust that that request will be honoured.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours.
La séance est levée I 12 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas.
