The goal of poverty reduction has in recent decades broadened its focus from providing for basic human needs to addressing some of the underlying causes that keep people in poverty. The Church has moved in step, widening its pastoral role, from the provision of charity, through involvement in practical long-term development programmes, to advocacy which addresses the fundamental problems, both national and international, that keep people and sometimes entire countries in poverty.

Now, as we enter the 21st century, there is a new sense of urgency that has struck a chord with policy makers in the international community. Politicians from donor and creditor countries have signed up to the goal of halving global poverty by the year 2015. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank now talk of a new poverty focus to their operations. Even the World Trade Organization has reflected on the need for international trade agreements to address developmental priorities.

The new mood in not confined to officials alone. The global Jubilee 2000 campaign to cancel the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries has won the support and energy of millions of people across the world. The events last year in Seattle also showed that there is a deep sense of popular frustration with the slow pace of progress in global efforts to reduce poverty. There are doubts too about the will or ability of governments to act genuinely in the best interests of the voiceless and most vulnerable. There is increasing consensus that only the poor, or their genuine representatives, can speak on their behalf.

The Jubilee 2000 campaign, the events in Seattle and recent policy initiatives have brought together the interrelated themes of poverty reduction and the participation of civil society in policies that affect the lives of the poor. In the past, analyses of poverty focused almost exclusively on income as an indicator of what it means to be poor. But more recent studies have highlighted other qualitative dimensions of vulnerability, such as access to resources and empowerment. It is this new recognition of the importance of the empowerment of the poor and their representatives in the fight against poverty that has drawn attention to the role of civil society participation in influencing pro-poor policies.

Until this year, most of the world's 80 low-income country governments had, by and large, to follow the dictates of donor and creditor bodies in the development of their economic policies. For these countries to be eligible for donor financing and debt relief, their governments had to agree to comply with structural adjustment conditions laid down by the World Bank and IMF. While governments agreed in formal terms to these conditions and thus converted them into national policy, many politicians and civil society representatives thought that these agreements were externally imposed and were signed only because they were the necessary price to be paid for further debt rescheduling and new loans. Structural adjustment was often criticized on the grounds that it paid insufficient attention to the needs of the poor and, at times, that was even harmful.

After the decisions taken by the G7 countries on debt relief at their 1999 Cologne meeting, a new Poverty reduction Strategy framework has been put forward by the World Bank and IMF. From now on, low income countries applying for debt relief and new aid loans will be required to develop their own Poverty Reduction

Strategy Papers. The new framework requires recipient governments to consult with civil society groups in order to establish the targets for poverty reduction and the policies best suited to achieve them.

The new development thinking places empowerment of the poor at the center of poverty reduction efforts. The poor and their representatives are now offered a role analyzing the nature and extent of poverty, in identifying some of the obstacles that stand in the way of governments adopting pro-poor policies and in contributing to the policy design process, especially if civil society finds itself in disagreement with other powerful actors in the process, such as the IMF or its own government.

In many of the world's low-income countries, the Church has a unique position: it has a wide geographical and often national presence &endash; certainly much wider than any non-governmental organization &endash; and a strong role in health and education programmes. Its pastoral role and the trust placed in it by ordinary people, especially the poor, give it potential advantages over development agencies and other civil society actors. Indeed, in some

geographical areas, its spread of activities is comparable with government. A recent World Bank study, Voices of the Poor, surveyed some 8,000 poor people across the world. Its findings showed that the poor themselves

consider the Catholic Church, the Christian churches in general and other major faiths to be almost the only institutions that they trust to act in their interests.

In response to the new challenges facing low-income countries, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, with the assistance of Caritas Internationalis and CIDSE, has decided to hold this Conference, From Debt to Poverty Reduction, to discuss this new framework for poverty reduction and the new opportunities that it provides for Church and civil participation in the formulation of policies to achieve poverty reduction. It is important to recognize that the situation of each individual country &endash; with regard to the government, civil

society and the Church &endash; mean that the implementation of the PRSP process and Church participation in it will be different. Nevertheless the introduction of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers as the basic framework for poverty reduction in 80 low income countries provides important opportunities for joint reflection and mutual learning between Bishops' Conferences.

The conference will address the fundamental and important issue of how the Church should respond to the invitation to participate in the design of poverty reduction policies. As a trusted voice and representative of the poor, how should the Church meet this challenge?

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace

November 2000

b) FROM DEBT RELIEF TO POVERTY REDUCTION

Opening Address by Bishop Diarmuid Martin
Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace

Vatican City, 3 December 2000

When I joined the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace as Under Secretary in December 1986, I found that the first task given me was not something I had expected an Under-secretary would be asked to do. I was given a heap of galley proofs and sent off to a room to correct them.

They were the proofs of a document on the theme of international debt. Here I find myself fourteen years later, on a similar dark December evening, still talking about the same theme. Within the Roman Catholic Church at least, that 1986 document of the them Pontifical Commission "lustitia et Pax", entitled: At the service of the international community: an ethical approach to the international debt question, became a milestone. In many countries it brought reflection on the debt question into the mainstream of Church reflection.

This then set in motion a movement which many years later reached another milestone with that short, but often quoted, phrase of Pope John Paul II, in Tertio Millennio Adveniente n.51, "Christians will have to raise their voice on behalf of all the poor of the world, proposing the Jubilee as an appropriate time to give thought, among other things, to reducing substantially, if not canceling outright, the international debt which seriously threatens the future of many nations". The preparation and the celebration of the Jubilee has been a further milestone in bringing the theme of the Jubilee into focus for millions of Christians around the world, and with them so many millions of others linked with the Jubilee 2000 campaign.

What has happened in this period of fourteen years? Where are we going on the debt question? After the enthusiasm of the celebration of the Jubilee what should be our priorities. Certainly the 1986 document was a significant one, and it had it's influence on the process of international action in favor of debt relief. But reaction was not entirely positive. I remember one distinguished figure at the time saying to me that the document was not just naïve and idealistic, but actually irresponsible and dangerous. Talking like this, he said, would only lessen the possibility in the future of the developing countries having access to finance for the development projects the so urgently need. Certainly that kind of thinking has changed a great deal. Today very few would challenge the fact that substantial debt relief is an urgent necessity for the poorest countries of the world. Today, not addressing debt relief is a major obstacle to permitting the poorest countries to have access to the type of finance which they really need for development.

Re-reading the 1986 document, it is interesting to note how little it speaks of the poor. In listing the fundamental ethical principles which should inspire debt relief, it mentions at n.5: "Foster the participation

of all". But when you read the paragraph, "all" meant "financial and monetary officials" together with "political and economic leaders". One footnote quotes from the Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Christian Freedom and Liberation of March 1986, which notes that "The serious socio-economic problems which occur today cannot be solved unless new fronts of solidarity are created: solidarity of the poor among themselves, solidarity with the poor to which the rich are called…" and then calls for " a general movement of solidarity". But this was just a passing comment of a footnote.

In 1986, even in a major Church document, the international debt question was considered primarily an economic question. Certainly it was noted this was an economic question with ethical consequences.

All could, however, be resolved through mechanisms of negotiation among governments, Banks and financial institutions. Naturally one has to take into account the context of the Latin America debt crisis of the 1980's and especially the particular nature of that crisis and the players involved. But one can say that the same view of debt relief &endash; a question of technical negotiations between economic actors &endash; prevailed in the international field until very recently. It was recognized that the social consequences of the debt question gave it clear ethical dimensions, but all of this would be best resolved by a more resolute use of the negotiation measures and a greater spirit of compromise.

Today, as this meeting shows and as we shall see later, the link between debt relief and poverty reduction is far more to the fore. But it would be naïve to think that the more narrow economic viewpoint has entirely vanished. Indeed, many of those who fourteen years ago said that debt relief was dangerous, realize today that certain debts are costing more to keep on their books that it would to forgive them. So they advocate a type of bookkeeping exercise as a form of debt relief. Cleaning up the books would be the simplest way to get the problem out of the picture, without all the bother of getting involved in the more complex picture of linking debt relief with the fight against poverty and telling other governments how to run their country.

Again looking back on these fourteen years, I am struck by another phenomenon. After having been accused in 1986 of naiveté and idealism in drawing attention to the social consequences of the Latin American debt question, today one continues to be amazed by the almost natural way in which current writing about development in Latin America refers to the "lost decade". In the midst of various analyses of social progress in

Latin America, one finds, almost as a parentheses, references to the sudden interruption of economic growth and a sudden downturn in social progress due to the debt crisis, mentioned simply in passing, as if this did not even

require any explanation. It is easy years later to recognize the negative effects of delays in addressing the social consequences of debt crises: but it is still difficult today to create the real sense of urgency about debt relief and the futility of half measures.

Today, the focus has indeed changed and since the launching of the enhanced HIPC process it is more common to address the question of debt relief in terms of the on the conditions of the poorest countries. In

most of these countries, the heavy debt burdened is owed in great measure to governments and international institutions. It is also true that much of the debt accrued through loans which were granted for the purposes of

development. A strange paradox of the debt crisis of the poorest countries today, is that it is the botched development process of yesterday that is still causing a blockage on the development needed tomorrow.

The greatest change that has taken place over these years is, however, the fact that the fight against poverty has managed to assert itself as the true priority to be fostered in relations between richer and poorer countries.

Other measures, including debt relief, have to be seen only means to achieve that task.

That at least is the politically correct language that is used. No one truly believes however that development ministries have priority over finance ministries in government spending decisions. But progress is being made,

and even finance ministers will begin to evaluate the results of the spending of development ministries not just by checking receipts that moneys have been expended, but also by looking at the concrete and measurable effects on poverty. Not indeed that finance ministries are the ones best adapted to monitor such expenditures.

Let us now look at the new situation, the one we are facing and the one which will be the subject of our reflections in these days. Let me first look at the question of terminology.

Take the term poverty reduction. I was horrified in these days to realize that I had been partly responsible for the title of our meeting: debt relief to poverty reduction. It is technically correct and uses words which any international civil servant would recognize. But as Church organizations we have to be careful not to use just the language of the d ay. It is not out target to reduce extreme poverty by 50% by the year 2015. As Christians, we have to state that any situation in which persons are not enabled to live out their God-given potential is unacceptable.

It is always interesting to remember the origins of terminology. The debate between "poverty eradication"/"poverty reduction" is a political debate, with interested parties on each side. The countries of the north object to the term "poverty eradication" as being unrealistic. Pragmatism requires that we be more humble and say poverty reduction. But if one were today in the North to propose changing title of the Convention on the elimination of all discrimination against women to one on the reduction of discrimination against women, one would be very quickly &endash; and rightly &endash; accused of social heresy. The sound-byte advisors of the World Bank are prepared to consider " a world without poverty" at least as a legitimate dream. We must do likewise.

I hope that I do not appear here as quibbling over words. It is important that we are clear about out fundamental vision. It is only in the way that we will be able to set out a future program which is not just the enhanced version of a outdated or indeed defective model, but a true vision to ensure that we overcome the debt crisis definitively and that debt relief truly will open the door that will permit the poor to be able to fully realize their God-given potential.

The fight against poverty is about enabling people to realize their God-given potential, to live as men and women in the image and likeness of God. Debt relief and anti-poverty measures must therefore be structured in such a way that they create empowerment rather than dependence. The days of decisions being made behind closed doors are various Clubs of donor countries, or above the heads of the government and people of the countries concerned must be definitively declared over. Handing over the driving seat to the poorer countries

will not however be easy for those who have been doing the driving for a long time and who enjoy driving. In the long term, the aim of development policy is that of creating sustainable, participative and democratic communities. This can only be done through participative and democratic means.

It is obvious that the first requirements for enabling people to realize their potential is investment in them as people. This means improving human capacity. It begins with survival and thus investment in health and nutrition. It includes education and broad formation for work and livelihood, for family life, for community building.

This will of course also involve much greater investment in human and social infrastructures. Here we must address courageously questions of good governance, respect for the rule of law and for human rights, the

establishment of an efficient public administration fully at the service of citizens, the promotion of an honest police force and judiciary. And this course requires a transparent and efficient political system which will guarantee an ethical and legal framework for free economic activity and the promotion of common social goals. We must fight against corruption, both the big corruption which robs nations of their wealth and the small corruption which also robs the poor.

The role of government is an important theme at a time when there is much talk of "small government", of removing government from direct involvement in economic question, of privatizing public enterprises. There

are cases where government may have to intervene in the private sector, even &endash; if only for a determined period &endash; assume direct responsibility on areas traditionally considered the task of the private sector. Similarly, it

is possible for the private sector to efficiently provide public goods. Government must provide an efficient framework within which the market can work: but its task cannot be simply reduced to this. Government

bears a primary responsibility for the common good, for harmonizing economic and social development.

In any case, efficient social infrastructures and an efficient public administration will not be achieved by decree. This will not happen without investment in the formation of those whose task it will be to

make these systemic aspects work. It will at times require a cultural change by those involved. And it will require in a particular way that both services and formation are present in an appropriate way right

across the geographical and culture framework of the nation. It must address the question of old and new inequalities. Too often there is a concentration of services in the large cities, thus contributing to the

phenomenon of urbanization. Macroeconomic and social development required much more stress on the local, establishing sustainable communities, that is, communities that are sustainable, economically, ecologically and humanly. Let me give just one example, from a topic which has been addressed by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, namely land reform. Land reform will not work if it is considered only in terms of dividing up under-utilized land and giving it to landless peasants. Land reform must be accompanied not just by movements for the landless, but also by movements for those whom live on the land, movements and policies which ensure that rural communities become truly livable.

The recognition of this new fundamental link between debt relief and a people centered, participatory policy of enhancing human potential will inevitably require an even more radical change the way we look at debt

relief. Despite all the new language, there are many who still really think of debt relief and poverty reduction as two fundamentally different realties and dynamics which it is currently politically useful to link, perhaps with

the hope that when this Jubilee is over it will be possible to get back to business as usual.

If we wish to foster a comprehensive development strategy then debt relief must be restructured in such a way that it best enhances, broad based, self generated human development. When the criteria of debt sustainability are set out in purely macroeconomic terms, the tendency is to fix sustainability just at the level of survival, rather than at a level which will truly permit a new start and new opportunity. If we want to enhance a form of development which is self generated then we will have to pay much more attention to the productive use of the fruits of local economic growth and savings, leaving as much room as possible for reinvestment of those savings in those areas of growth which have shown themselves to be positive and fruitful. This all presupposes, of course, that the level of debt relief be much wider than they are today. Situations in which debt repayments go up after debt reduction, or those in which debt repayments still swamp social expenditure are simply not going to

work for the long term fight against poverty.

But all too often today the fruits of such home-grown growth are used to cover outstanding debt repayments and it is left to international assistance to address the needs of social development, if such assistance has not

already somehow been funneled to cover certain loopholes in the debt repayment schedule. As an outsider it would certainly seem to me that priority should be given to enhancing home grown-growth and reinvesting it in home-grown success stories, especially job creation. These are the types of policies which lead to empowerment rather than to dependence.

Much the same must be said about the relationship between debt relief and trade policy. It is patently absurd for wealthier nations to grant debt relief to countries and then to prevent them from functioning as productive participants in global free trade, especially in the areas they have particular advantage. It is patently unfair for the wealthier nations to insist on the poorer countries opening their markets, if the wealthier countries continue to exercise enormous protectionism and dedicate huge internal subsidies in the agricultural and garment sectors. The concept of a comprehensive development framework must also be applied to the policies of donor countries, ensuring that it is comprehensive and coherent with its own principles.

The new vision must also affect the relationship between debt relief and employment. The social dimension of debt relief covers not only traditional education and health policies. It must also include an economic policy which will create both more jobs and better conditions of work. Workers, women and men, must be able to enjoy conditions of labor which respect their own dignity and their family responsibilities. Comparative advantage in labor costs is important, but never an absolute.

The new vision of linked debt relief, development and the fight against poverty will also give new impetus to the work of conflict prevention. War destroys so many lives, it prevents development, it impedes children

from going to school and destroys the social fabric and the environment . Leaving grievances to fester is short sighted. When conflicts begin every effort must be made to stop the fighting as soon as possible and to return

to the table of negotiation. Every day of war is a day too late.

Let us look now at the concept of civil society. Again here we must be careful to look precisely at what we are talking about. Civil society is a complex reality. It can represent participation, transparency and closeness to people and their problems. But not necessarily so. Civil society can be undemocratic and elitist. It can be the hidden privatized arm of governments or it can be steered from outside. It can be single issue driven or ideologically oriented. Certain groupings of civil society are more attractive than others to the donor community, perhaps because they speak the same language, can fill-in the forms better, or have the sort of scale and capacity that matches that of the donor country of organizations. This does not mean that they are the best partners. What is important, in our context, is that civil society be able to be a voice for all the poor, that it bring to the debate local knowledge, local experience, local values.

Ensuring that civil society is truly local and representative is a difficult task. Where government itself may be suffering from a certain democratic deficit civil society may appear as a threat. Here a dispassionate, disinterested and diplomatic approach of international organizations can hold to be a catalyst for that dialogue to take place.

A strong civil society inevitably means greater participation in public life, including let us remember even economic life. Civil society can also form the basis of an active provider of services, as well as being an important factor in fostering that initiative and creativity which is the basis of both democracy and a market economy.

In undemocratic and malfunctioning societies, civil society, with all its limitation and deficiencies, may be the only possible school for the future democracy, the only hope for the future. I find it interesting that those

countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have done best in the post-cold war situation, are those where there was the germ of civil society even during the Communist period. Those countries in which the system was most oppressive and left least room for the expression of civil society are those that are having the greatest difficulty in adjusting to the new realities.

It is important to ensure that those countries which are not eligible for participation in debt relief just now, due to conflict or serious problems of governance, are not considered definitive basket cases, but that ways be

found, as for example that suggested in these days by the United Kingdom Chancellor o the Exchequer, to entice and encourage them to change in the future, and already today to foster some elements of strong civil society.

You may feel that I have perhaps digressed a great deal from what I was supposed to do in this talk, namely to set the scene for the concrete development of our work here. But I think that some of these reflections will

help us to focus on the issues we will discuss.

We have come here to take stock, to evaluate and to look to the future. We have not come here to canonize or to condemn the new policies proposed by the International Financial Institutions (nor indeed to canonize our own methods and procedures). I was struck by the comment of the President of the World Bank the other day when asked how this new system was working: he replied, these are things that will produce results in five or

ten years, rather than in five or ten minutes! It is going to be a long haul, but this is all the more reason for planning, for keeping our eyes on the end we wish to achieve and not allow ourselves to be hijacked in this or

that direction along the way. We need to be able to show not just flexibility, but also to promptly recognize mistakes when they occur and be ready to change direction when necessary. Each situation will be different. The days of one-size-fits-all policies are over. A strategy is not a straight jacket.

In the first part of our meeting we will listen. We want to refresh our minds on what the actual debt situation of our countries looks like. We want to hear what these new PRSP's are, what is involved. We want to see how these strategies are developing on the ground; what are the problems emerging; where things have they worked well; what has gone wrong. And we do all this recognizing the new opportunities and possibilities which PRSP's can open for the poor and expressing our appreciation for all those who want them to work.

Naturally, all of us wish to know how far these PRSP's are really something new, rather than being structural adjustment with a social veneer. We want to see how far they really have begun to lead down the path of participatory, home-grown development. We want to see how far it will be possible to ensure that there is a genuine process of open evaluation. On the answers to these questions will depend on the response of the Church, the response concerning how much of our resources it is useful to invest in PRSP's, how much we should align our policies with PRSP's, where are the areas where we would best serve the poor and bear witness to our values by working, as we have in the past, independently. We need to look at what we use our resources, how we can improve our capacity, what type of formation we should invest in.

I come back to my fixation with language! I am a little perplexed with the use of the word "Paper" in the term Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. It gives the impression that this could be a once-off venture. The term Paper does not fit in not very high on the real-time hit parade list, coming well below policies, strategies and action plans.

If we are convinced that we need a new development model, then we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that things will happen by a momentary change in international policy. Together we can really do something. What a success story that would be for our generation. What a success story it would be for the Jubilee Year, if our generation were to be attributed even just a passing footnote in the history of humankind, which noted that in some strange way, suddenly at the end of the twentieth century something really did happen in the condition

of the poorest of the world.

c) INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

by His Excellency, Archbishop Francois-Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan
President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace

My Dear Friends,

May I first of all say to each and everyone of you, simply and from my heart, Welcome and Thank You. I know what it means form many of you who have traveled long distances to be here. I myself have just arrived this morning from Australia, having been before that for some time in Asia.

I welcome you in the name of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and especially of my collaborators here. This meeting fits into a tradition of the Pontifical Council, a tradition in which men and

women of different continents and different backgrounds come together to establish or to deepen a dialogue on important themes in international life. Today we have representatives of Bishops Conference from Africa,

Asia, Latin America. We have representatives of Catholic development agencies, of governments and of international organizations to talk about international debt and about the fights against poverty.

I was almost tempted to say that we are here from North and South: except that in the community of the Church there should be no North-South-divide. The Church is by her very nature a sign of the unity, in Jesus Christ, among all humankind. We are here, yes with our own special problems and responsibilities, but we are here above all as brothers and sisters, determined to make our increasingly interdependent world into a world of true solidarity.

The circumstances on which we live are different, yet all of us are concerned about the dramatic situation of such widespread poverty in our affluent world. Most of you here today, however, live with that reality of harsh poverty each day. We have a special responsibility to listen to you and through you to the voices of the men and women of your communities and local Churches.

I come a poor country, Vietnam. I have witnessed the poverty of the Vietnamese people as a priest and as a bishop, in freedom, in imprisonment and in exile. I have watched in situations of restriction of religious freedom and of occupation, of corruption and of war. I have seen prosperity and even starvation.

But I have also witnessed the extraordinary capacity of the poor to survive. Even in the most difficult situations they show creativity, industriousness, solidarity between generations, remarkable initiative. I have watched the hard work of the fishermen, the daily toil of the peasants, the sharpness of the small businessman. I have seen that during the harshness of war. I have seen that in the initiative of emigrant communities who arrive in their new land with nothing in the hands and who carve out a dynamic new life for themselves and their families.

I can well remember, especially in those periods in which I was in house arrest and could be at least a little nearer to the reality of my people than when I was in prison, watching the diligence of the poor peasants.

Especially early in the morning, by sunrise, you could feel that atmosphere of quiet diligence, of women and men extracting the very most out of the small possibilities that a little personal land offered.

The poor never lose hope. Otherwise they would just die. Our meeting is not just about technical questions of debt relief and debt sustainability, it is about sustaining the hope of the poor and enabling them to release the potential they have.

We meet today on the First Sunday of Advent. Advent is the Season of Hope. It is the hope in Christ's coming to establish a new heaven and a new earth. It is the hope which comes from the dream of a new heaven and a new earth which is symbolized in the birth of Christ, whose feast we will celebrate at Christmas. Jesus, Son of God, born poor and homeless, thus embracing our human condition and recalling the unique dignity that is present in each brother and sister of ours anywhere in the world.

d. WORLD'S PARLIAMENTARIANS CALL FOR DEEPER DEBT CANCELLATION AT VATICAN JUBILEE GATHERING

Four thousand politicians from around the world called for further action to cut the debts of the world's poorest countries when they met for the 'Jubilee of Parliamentarians' hosted by Pope John Paul II at the Vatican.

The parliamentarians met in Rome for two days of debate and reflection on the theme of Jubilee. The only non-parliamentarian organisation invited to address the global gathering was the Jubilee 2000 campaign, represented by Adrian Lovett, Deputy Director of Jubilee 2000 UK Coalition, underlining the importance of the debt cancellation issue to parliamentarians from around the world. He called for a worldwide commitment to continue the fight for debt cancellation as "the unfinished business of the Jubilee Year," and urged parliamentarians to focus on the Genoa G8 Summit in July 2001 as a deadline by which a 'new deal on debt' must be agreed.

The first motion passed by the parliamentarians undertook "to develop a more comprehensive initiative for the cancellation of the debt" going beyond the existing Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative agreed in Cologne in 1999. It stated that the HIPC initiative had "proven to have important limitations, both in view of the limited number of eligible countries, and because of the restrictive policies applied...". It said a new initiative could include immediate cancellation for countries that have suffered natural disasters, a new understanding of 'debt sustainability' reached through a fair process, and the use of an international arbitration process to judge between the interests of creditors and debtors.

Adrian Lovett told the parliamentarians: "Debt cancellation must be deeper and must reach more countries. To make it deeper, the multilateral institutions - principally the IMF and World Bank - must cancel more of the debt owed to them. While G7 nations are now committed to cancelling 100 per cent of the debt they are owed by some countries, the institutions they control - the IMF and World Bank - are planning to cancel only 30 per cent. ... That is why I urge you to call on those two institutions to cancel 100 per cent of their debts for countries committed to poverty reduction.

He added: "There is one further opportunity for the world's leaders to act. In July next year, Italy hosts the next G8 summit, in Genoa. After the anger that swept the world at the failure of leaders to act at this year's summit in Okinawa, people from around the world are demanding something better. And those people will come to Genoa, peacefully and positively, expecting something better. I urge you to call on the world's leaders to wait no longer, but to act now to forge a New Deal on Debt - so that when they come to Genoa next July, they &endash; and we &endash; can say: we have acted. We have delivered. We have ended the debt crisis."

I hope and pray that our work in these days will be a small contribution to opening a new path to hope for the poor of our day

d. CARDINAL SODANO'S SPEECH AT U.N. MILLENNIUM SUMMIT

September 8, 2000

Mr. President,

I have the honor to convey to this Assembly the cordial greetings of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and his encouragement to the Representatives of the world's countries assembled here in New York to reaffirm their confidence in the work of the United Nations Organization. It is the fervent hope of the Holy See that at

the dawn of the third millennium the UN will contribute to the building of a new civilization for the benefit of all mankind, a civilization which has been called the "civilization of love".

1. The first duty of the United Nations is to preserve and promote peace throughout the world. This was the essential aim of the founders of the Organization and it remains an imperative today. Still too often war brings affliction and suffering to peoples. In the face of new outbreaks of violence, especially civil and ethnic

conflicts, the UN is duty bound to intervene within the framework of its Charter to restore peace.

In the name of the Pope I pay tribute to all that the UN has already done in this field, and I pay homage to the memory of the soldiers and civil personnel who have died in the course of peace-keeping operations.

Peace is always fragile and it is important to try to forestall outbreaks of conflict, as well as to keep them from spreading. This is why the UN needs to develop its capacities in the area of preventive diplomacy. For its part, the Holy See will always support initiatives in favor of peace, including those aimed at strengthening respect

for international law and controlling arms proliferation.

2. The second duty of the UN is the promotion of development. Even today a significant part of the world's population lives in conditions of poverty which are an offense to human dignity. This is all the more unacceptable when at the same time wealth is rapidly increasing and the gap between rich and poor is growing wider, even inside the same country.

Furthermore, other evils such as war, the destruction of the environment, natural disasters and epidemics are often exacerbated by the presence of poverty. How can we not draw attention to the fact that the majority of these scourges affect Africa in the first place, and how can we not ask that Africa be given special attention, and that efforts be made which are really capable of meeting its needs?

The present situation calls for a moral and financial mobilization, directed to precise objectives, and with a view to obtaining a drastic reduction of poverty. Among these objectives, there is the introduction of incisive measures for the cancellation of the debt of poorer countries, the increase of development aid, and wider access to markets. Furthermore, programs should be launched to ensure that social progress goes hand in hand with economic growth. Development is a global notion, the aim of which is the promotion of people's dignity and well-being, considered in its fullest sense. The means to reach this may be summarized in a word: solidarity.

In this regard, Mr President, allow me to repeat that the commitments undertaken at the international conferences and meetings devoted to these issues should be respected. It is disappointing that there has been so little progress on fundamental questions such as debt reduction and the level of public development aid.

3. The third duty of the United Nations is the promotion of human rights. Many documents have been drawn up, both to define these rights and to guarantee respect for them through appropriate mechanisms. These efforts must continue, since the struggle for human rights never ends, and I would make special mention of the first of these, the right to life, which is so endangered today. Pope John Paul II expresses his support for the World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, to take place next year in South Africa, and he encourages every initiative aimed at preventing the spread of racism and intolerance.

But in addition to this concrete approach to human rights, human rights must be affirmed by giving them a solid ethical basis, for otherwise they will remain fragile and without foundations. In this regard, it is necessary to reaffirm that no one creates or concedes human rights; rather, they are inherent in human nature. In the Holy

See's outlook, the natural law, inscribed by God on the heart of every human being, is a common denominator of every person and of all peoples. It is a universal language, which everyone can come to know and on the basis of which we can understand one another.

4. A fourth duty of the UN is that of guaranteeing the equality of all its members. In this sense, some reforms will be necessary to adapt the UN structure to present realities and to reinforce the legitimacy of its action. The Organization must be fully representative of the international community and cannot appear to be dominated

by some members in particular.

It is essential to listen to and respect each member when it comes to taking common decisions, and all the more so when deciding policies that concern on fundamental moral and cultural values. In this area, it is not licit to try to impose certain minority modes of living in the name of a subjective understanding of progress. "The Peoples of the United Nations", mentioned in the Preamble of the Charter, have the right to have their dignity and traditions respected.

From this perspective, I wish to recall the position of the Holy See with regard to anctions imposed by the Organization to oblige a State to carry out its international obligations. A precise process of evaluation and revision should be put in place in each case, as well as procedures to ensure that these measures will not weigh

above all on innocent segments of the population.

Mr President, Christians, who this year have been commemorating the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, feel solidarity for the efforts which the international community is undertaking so that the world of the future may be freed from violence, injustice and selfishness. The Catholic Church proposes to contribute to this work above all through her proclamation of the Gospel of Christ since, without spiritual progress, the material progress of

nations will be vain and illusive. This conviction has guided the Church throughout her history and it is also her commitment for the third millennium.

e. Some of these documents are available on

http://www.coc.org/

WB & IMF Spring documents (April 2001) at

http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/dcs/devcom.nsf/(documentsattachmentsweb)/April