"Globalization" has become a buzz word, and it is arousing the typical disquiet that comes from the prospect of deep and inevitable change. It is the word most commonly used to designate the new era that mankind has entered.
For the first time in human history, there is a market economy stretching all the way around the globe, driven by the revolution in production, communication and information technologies. The world is fast and irresistibly approaching unity.
But globalization is not driven by economic incentives alone: there is an irresistible historic force at play that is even stronger than the determination of any government or political party. It is the force generated by new methods of production, and it is giving every segment of society a dimension far greater than that of even the greatest sovereign state. Why else would even the United States, the strongest economic power in the world, be seeking a free trade zone stretching right across the Americas, to build a large enough market to compete against other economic zones - primarily Europe - that are being organized in the rest of the world? This is a process of change that can be speeded up or slowed down, but certainly not accepted or rejected.

Should globalization be opposed or governed?
Some oppose globalization in an effort to counter the inequalities and imbalances it causes. The problem is not how to stop globalization. A return to protectionism would constitute a reactionary attempt - and an over-ambitious one doomed to failure - to halt the powerful productive forces that are driving the human race towards unification.
It goes without saying that mankind can only benefit hugely from the development of a division of labour among the different parts of the world. By tearing down the barriers that hinder the creation of a single world market, globalization increases wealth and produces new opportunities for prosperity. Of course there is a "downside", such as jobs lost through the development of automation, but there are also advantages in new jobs being created.
Thus globalization is not the problem, it is part of the solution. Globalization is a positive force underpinning the solution of the world's primary problems: poverty, marginalization and inequality.
What needs remedying is the fact that the benefits of globalization are spread unevenly throughout the world. Most of the benefits are going to the huge multinational corporations and financial concentrations that dominate the world market, and to the United States, the last of the world's superpowers. Despite its declining power, the United States nevertheless maintains a dominant position. Those who are on the losing end should not blame globalization, but rather the way they are governed.
We can hardly expect the "invisible hand" of the world market to achieve such collective values as full employment, aid to the backward countries, or environmental protection, much less international democracy.
In the absence of effective worldwide political institutions, the growth of interdependence is destined to end up by accentuating inequalities, and breeding international unrest and conflicts.
The question we must ask ourselves is this: what are the conditions for making globalization a positive force for all peoples, instead of leaving billions of people in the grip of poverty?
The inevitable challenge for the forces of progress lies in proving that they are capable of governing globalization. But first, there is an institutional issue that has to be resolved: new forms of supranational government need to be organized at the global level, to pave the way for all the peoples of the world to democratically share in controlling globalization.

The decline of the sovereign state
Globalization has been studied primarily as an economic process, while its political dimension has been largely neglected. The fact that the market has become global while governments have remained national is a contradiction that highlights a significant new development-the decline of the sovereign state.
States are no longer the only players on the international political stage. In their twilight years nation-states now share the limelight with new players: the giant multinational financial and productive corporations, and non governmental organizations.
These are the protagonists of today's "global civil society", a rather ambiguous term that encompasses progressive aspects such as an increase in the volume of world trade, the overcoming of barriers between national markets and the global market, and the emergence of worldwide voluntary movements, along with violent criminal phenomena like arms and drug trafficking and international terrorism.
International mobility allows vast capitals to escape taxation. A decline in the power of a nation to levy taxes brings with it a decline of the Welfare State. When sovereign states decline there is a parallel decline in democracy. Where democratic institutions do exist, i.e. at the national level, there is no crucial decision-making about the future of peoples. Conversely, these decisions are taken at the international level, where instead of democratic institutions, there are centers of political power (the United States) or economic power (the multinational corporations), neither of whom are accountable to the world citizens.
Democracy is therefore lamentably lacking in decisions taken at the global level.

The response of governments
The response of governments to globalization has been to pursue international cooperation, not because it is their inclination, but because they have no other choice. International meetings and organizations are multiplying: they are clear evidence that governments are seeking a solution to problems they cannot solve alone.
The most widespread definition of this way of managing globalization is the expression global governance. This is a formula that justifies the existing world order; it is based on the principle of national sovereignty, and on the dominance of multinational corporations in the world market and of the United States in world politics.
It is a formula that stands as an explicit alternative to the federalist goals of a world government and international democracy.
The assumption that underpins these goals, whose affirmation must necessarily be conceived as gradual, is that globalization cannot be governed by decision-making processes based on the principles of unanimity and veto, as adopted by internationals conferences.

The response of civil society
How has civil society responded? It has tried to strengthen its influence over international politics. The great concentrations of economic power have gained the greatest benefits from market globalization, allowing them to escape the control of governments. And then there are the non- governmental organizations. Some have taken on the role of opposing international organizations and globalization itself, as can now regularly be seen at every international summit meeting.
These are citizens protesting against being excluded from representation within international organizations. Other NGOs are integrated in the state system and are recognized by international organizations. They participate in international conferences in an advisory capacity and exert real influence on negotiations. One wonders, however, how representative they really are: in the absence of international elections it is impossible to measure the degree of consent supporting them.

Towards a World Parliament
The role that the movements of civil society have acquired on the international scene paves the way for new forms of political action, now termed the new diplomacy.
One of the most compelling examples is the alliance between reform-oriented nations and NGOs, which generated enough critical mass to give rise to the ICC.
According to two American academics, Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, who published an article in Foreign Affairs at the beginning of this year entitled Toward Global Parliament, an alliance such as this could give rise to a treaty instituting a World Parliament. It could begin to exist after being ratified by a minimum number of states (incidentally, the ICC will come into force after ratification by 60 states), and remain open to membership by all other states. There is too little space here to discuss this project, so I will simply mention the main task the world federalists should take upon themselves, i.e. the organisation of a NGOs coalition in order to promote a campaign for a World Parliament.
However, I would like to emphasize the difference between Falk and Strauss's project and the federalist one. What the two authors fail to state is that in order to democratize globalization, a global Parliament is not enough.
The experience of democratic regimes teaches us that no parliament can govern a country alone. A government is necessary. So the World Parliament must be seen as a crucial milestone on the way toward forming a democratic government endowed with the necessary powers to enforce the laws approved by the World Parliament.

The role of European Federation
There is no concealing the fact that the plan to bring globalization under democratic control is meeting with formidable opposition, primarily on the part of the government of the United States, which will not let its power be lessened by the international organizations that it belongs to, nor by movements arising in a global civil society. To defeat the opposition of the United States a center of power must emerge with the capability of supporting the plan for a world democratic order. The European Union could be such a power. However, if it is to speak with a single voice, Europe must complete the process of federal unification. With a Parliament elected by universal suffrage, Europe is the laboratory of international democracy. But it could also become the driving force behind the formation of a new generation of global institutions. It is reasonable to believe that Europe will hold sufficient power to relieve the United States of some of their overwhelming world responsibilities, and thus have the authority to persuade them to support the democratic reform of the United Nations.

After The Hague failure in last November, a lot of new facts have been animating the world debate on environment in the last months. As everybody knows, the talks to make the Kyoto protocol operational were suspended because the US and EU delegates were not able to find an agreement on the "clean development" mechanisms and the international "emissions trading" system. Whilst reports providing new evidence about climate change were presented in Shanghai, Nairobi and Accra, such an agreement was found in March at Trieste, Italy, during the G-8 environment ministers' meeting, but did not last, due to President Bush U-turn. How should we consider now the Bonn meeting, where the talks suspended at The Hague will be resumed?

New evidence about climate change: Shanghai, Nairobi and Accra reports
In January 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , the organisation created by the United Nations in 1988 to assess global warming trends, met in Shanghai to agree on what evidence of global warming should be used to set global environmental policies. At the end of a four-day meeting, IPCC drafted a report which foresees that global temperatures could rise by almost 6 degrees Celsius over the next century: such prevision doubles the top end of the increase previously predicted, 1.4 to 3.0 degrees.
Rising temperatures could trigger droughts, floods and other disasters from shifts in weather patterns, threatening to disrupt fishing, farming and forestry, and killing much of the globe's coral reefs. Rising seas could flood heavily populated coastal areas of China, Bangladesh or Egypt. The most extreme projections say that melting Antarctic ice could raise sea levels by up to three metres over the next 1,000 years. The report shows also more clearly than ever that rising temperatures are the fault of industrial pollution, not of changes in the sun or other natural causes.
In February IPCC released in Nairobi, Kenya, a second volume describing how global warming affects civilisation and the natural environment. While highlighting the uncertainties, it details expected changes in ecosystems, extreme climate events, and much more. Commenting on the report, Michael Zammit Cutajar, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change noted that it had powerful implications on how man shall deal with poverty and sustainable development over the coming decades. "No country can afford to ignore the coming transformation of its natural and human environment. The poor and the vulnerable are at the greatest risk and this report is a timely reminder that we need to pay more attention to the costs of inaction, and that the costs of action to cut emissions are just part of the climate change equation," he said.
The costs to cut emissions are economically feasible: this statement emerged from the Accra meeting in February, during the preparation of the third volume of IPCC report, finalised on technology and policy options for reducing greenhouse gases and calling on governments to recognise the economic and competitive benefits of making an early transition to climate-friendly economies. The costs of climate changes policies could be minimised through "no regrets" strategies, which constitute nowadays a substantial range of technically feasible and cost-effective measures. For example, raising energy efficiency not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but can make industries and countries more competitive. Market-based incentives such as deposit-refund systems can encourage people to trade-in their cars for more energy-efficient models. Technology and performance standards can reward manufacturers for selling climate-friendly goods, or penalise those who do not.

Trieste G-8 environment meeting: a tentative agreement
IPCC reports were recognised by G-8 environment ministers, who Òshared the strong concerns about the environmental threats for our planet during the meeting held in Trieste in March. The ministers reaffirmed their desire to reach a global accord on implementing the Kyoto Protocol and adopted a statement of intent attempting to bridge their differences on how negotiations should be taken forward. In particular, the compromise missed at The Hague was found in Trieste. At The Hague, the European Union and the US government could not come to an agreement on how much credit countries would get towards their greenhouse gas emission reductions from carbon sinks - trees and plants that absorb carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The forest-rich US pushed for increasing the amount of credits given for carbon sinks. The US favoured allowing states failing to meet targets to buy credits from countries that have met their goals, as well as counting carbon sucked up by forests and farms. The EU opposed both proposals, arguing that nations must make real cuts to greenhouse gas pollution. Now in Trieste the G-8 ministers recognise the importance of continuing consultations on issues such as sinks [É] and the importance of capacity building and technology transfer, as far as Clean Development Mechanism.
The only cloud on this compromise was the fact that at Trieste the United States did still not say what its exact position was on global warming or on the greenhouse gas emission targets agreed at Kyoto. During his election campaign, Bush referred to Kyoto as "unfair to America" and said he would not implement it. In Trieste however Christine Todd Whitman, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, told reporters: "The president has said global climate change is the greatest environmental challenge that we face and that we must recognise that and take steps to move forward." Adding that the US would not backtrack from the agreement. A positive signal came also from Ms. Whitman's declaration that the administration was considering regulating, for the first time ever, power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide.

President Bush U-turn
Ms. Whitman declarations at Trieste were welcomed by environmentalists, but provoked sour reactions elsewhere. Some US coal industry representatives were quick to point out the contradiction between the administration's plans to encourage use of coal and its hopes to cap carbon dioxide emissions, a by-product of coal combustion. Some senators, also not pleased, wrote to the president calling for clarification of his climate change policy, in particular the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
The answer was a letter¹ to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, Roberts on March 13th , considered an about-face on a campaign promise to require reductions in emissions of "four main pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." The president noted that carbon dioxide was not considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and said a recent Department of Energy review had determined "that including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices. At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages and other western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers."
The position against the Kyoto protocol was instead coherent with the campaign promises: the ÒAdministration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously. But Mr. Bush oppose(s) the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centres such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.
Last statement against exclusion of developing countries from Kyoto protocol needs a reply: the U.S. is the state responsible for 25 percent of global CO2 emissions, and according to WRI², emissions of U.S. power plants exceed the combined emissions from 146 countries, about 75 percent of the world's nations. It was the rich world that created todayÕs problem by emitting greenhouse gases while industrialising over the past century; it is only fair that rich countries act first to curb emissions. The Kyoto process envisages that developing countries will take on targets at a later stage.
The economic impact of the Kyoto protocol needs also some deepening. Estimates of the costs of complying with the Kyoto protocol vary considerably, ranging from zero or even net gain to staggeringly high. The IPCC reckons that a modestly flexible treaty would reduce global GDP by between 0.1% and 1.1% in 2010. Much depends on assumptions about technological progress, the economy's flexibility and the extent to which the treaty incorporates "flexible mechanisms" designed to improve its cost- effectiveness.
World reaction to Bush letter
The letter of President Bush to the Senators triggered a storm of criticism from around the world. The European Union and Japan expressed deep dismay at the new U.S. position. The EU said the global talks on climate change would suffer a serious blow without the US commitment to the Kyoto protocol. However, the EU remained committed to ratifying the Kyoto protocol by 2002. Even Canada, a key ally of the US in environment talks, expressed its disappointment. Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson said Bush's controversial change of mind would damage the chances of major world powers reaching greenhouse gas pollution reduction targets agreed in Kyoto in 1997.
Japan strongly urged Washington to reconsider the Kyoto protocol. The upper house of Japan's parliament adopted unanimously a resolution which considers Òextremely regrettable that the U.S. Bush administration has announced its abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol". The chamber "strongly urges the United States, which is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, to continue to take part in negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol".
Russia, following the European Union, criticised Washington for rejecting the treaty. Its position is however more soft due to possible economic advantages that may come if the emissions trading system were implemented. Russia is among the world's biggest polluters, but its greenhouse gas emissions fell by some 30 percent in the last 10 years due to a sharp decline in industrial production after the introduction of market reforms. Therefore it could make big money from selling unused pollution quotas if such a market were established.
One of the few favourable reactions came from Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter. Mohammad al-Sabban, senior economic adviser to the Oil Ministry and head of the Saudi delegation to the United Nations, said in an interview with the Middle East Economic Survey that his country understood Mr Bush's position against implementing Kyoto.

US alternative to be presented in Bonn
Finding itself increasingly isolated on the world stage for its rejection of the Kyoto treaty, the Bush administration put forward alternative guidelines for a new international global warming agreement. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage outlined on beginning April the longstanding US objections to the Kyoto accord: the exemption it offers to developing countries; the burden it puts on the US as the world's biggest offender to curb emissions; and the lack of consideration given to new technologies and market-based ways of tackling global warming.
Mr Armitage said the new US proposals would be ready to be presented to the convention on climate change to be held in Bonn in July, where the COP6 (Conference Of the Parties) talks suspended at The Hague will be formally resumed.
The EU reaction was expressed by the president of the European commission, Romano Prodi, and the Swedish prime minister, Goran Persson, who argued that it would be better to amend the Kyoto agreement to make allowance for US objections than to tear it up entirely. "If certain parts of the agreement prevent the United States from ratifying it, we should negotiate about those parts rather than bury the entire agreement," the two leaders wrote in the Swedish regional daily newspaper Goteborgs-Posten. "In our opinion, it would be a tragic mistake to tear up the agreement and start over from scratch. We would lose time, and that would make us all losers."
EU tried and came to another agreement during the ninth annual session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) on late April in New York. EU supported a UN compromise proposal which would allow the US trading a commitment to plant forests as carbon sinks or buy carbon credits from other nations instead of reducing its emissions to the levels demanded by Kyoto.
But negotiations faded when a State Department memo was leaked. The memo, issued on 1st April, states that Washington opposes the Kyoto pact "under any circumstances". The memo suggests the US Government to consider climate change solutions based only on market forces and improved technology.
Consequently, the EU considered the opportunity of going ahead with or without the agreement of the United States. Indeed, the treaty could be implemented without US participation if it is ratified by 55 countries which produce 55% of global greenhouse emissions.

Comments & conclusion
Whatever the Bonn meeting may produce, the failing of the Kyoto protocol, the unilateral ratification by the EU, the negotiation for a new treaty or even the end of the Rio process, we have to consider the dismaying decisional, or better not-decisional, process which has been operating in the environmental field for the last months.
Setbacks, U-turns, about-faces and missed compromises we have seen are all aspects of the failing international environmental governance. Once more the so called "global governance", this myth national governments are telling us, shows its limits.
The terrible fact is that such demonstration of national states inability may cost us dear: if we human beings are unable to control the climate change process, we run a risk of a catastrophe. There is full awareness of such a risk: the process started at Rio in 1992 testifies that governments, NGOs, civil society, people are conscious of the risk and of the necessity to act.
We may cite the words of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking in Bangladesh on March 14^th, the day after Bush penned his letter against Kyoto, as an example of this wise consciousness: "It is said that we face a choice between economic growth and conservation, when in fact growth cannot be sustained without conservation. It is said that it will be too costly to make the necessary changes, when in fact cost-effective technologies and policies are available. And it is said that developing countries should focus on development, saving the so-called luxury of environmental protection for later, when in fact the environment provides many of the precious resources and capital that societies need today to develop and sustain themselves".
The risk is well known, the necessity to act too: what is missing? Why are we human beings unable to save ourselves? The answer is that we are entrapped in the binding limits of national sovereignty, which we are trying to soften with the international co-operation, believing in the myth of global governance, not understanding that the method is incorrect. Each problem needs a response adequate to its seriousness, and the seriousness of the environment question is so high to deserve a really strong and effective action. But to date, no government had the courage to renounce a piece of sovereignty in order to preserve the environment. No government dared to delegate real power to super-national institutions, letÕs guess a World Authority for the environment, capable to act for the safeguard of the whole mankind. Would we need a Leviathan?

1 The full letter can be found at www.usinfo.state.gov
2 World Resources Institute, www.wri.orgi

In understanding the concept of Food Security, one may start by considering household as a fundamental unit. A food secure household can be defined as one that has access to enough food for individual members of the family to lead a healthy life. Food is the basic requirement of any human being. But still, it is a dream to have nutritious food to a sizeable section of the world's population. Food shall ensure total growth of mind and body of all human beings. Food is not just calories; it is a part and parcel of culture and ecology. Agriculture is the foundation of life style and civilization.
More people have died as a consequence of hunger in the past 50 years than have been killed in all the wars, revolutions and murders in the last 150 years. No one died of hunger because there is not enough to grow around. There are enough resources and know-how to grow enough, store enough, distribute enough, and provide enough to everybody on earth. Hunger persists not because we cannot end it, but because we lack the will to get the job done.
We produce cereals to feed everyone, but cows, pigs and chicken consume a third of these. In the rich countries, apart from millions of tonnes of oil, cakes are used as animal feed although these can be consumed by human beings.
After the Second World War, there was a great hope for the world, especially for the Third World Countries, in wiping out poverty. Initially, most nations moved in the right direction in their quest for higher standards but over the decades because of both external and internal factors and natural disasters, many emerging economies became precarious. Twice as many countries are short of food today as there were in the 1950s. In the 1960s, the world's economy expanded healthily with most developing countries attaining GDP growth rates of around 5 per cent per annum. In the 1970s, there was an increase in oil prices, high inflation and increasing fiscal deficits, production short falls and price fluctuations and the growth was confined to a very narrow base controlled by a small section of the population.
The low growth rate of agriculture in 1973-80, compared to 1965-73, in all regions, indicates the lack of attention paid to this sector. The result was that, despite the efforts of many Third World Countries, income distribution became increasingly distorted, economic growth faltered, and poverty and hunger became widespread.
In the 1980s, due to a sharp fall in oil prices, high interest rates, worsening debt burden and the mismanagement of resources at the global level aggravated external and internal imbalances in many countries. The full brunt of these events has naturally fallen on agriculture and the worst hit have been the poor in the countryside and marginal farmers and landless labourers.
During the colonial period, vast tracts of land in the colonies were used to cultivate crops like rubber, tobacco, cocoa, spices, coffee, sugarcane and cotton and they were exported. But this continues, although the colonies became independent and, in the process, the traditional food sector was neglected. The entire Third World Countries suffered because of the onslaught of this monoculture. As per the FAO, 40 per cent of all tobacco land is in the Third World. Valuable agricultural lands in the Third World are forced to produce cash crops for the sole benefit of the First World Countries. Not only fertile lands are sacrificed for cash crops, the commercialization of agriculture has led to the irrational use of food. Now, we concentrate in producing food to feed animals for meat production. For example, in Latin America, about 20,000 sq. km of land is converted for cattle grazing and this is due to the boom in the meat export market to the United States. For example, in India, cattle are an important source of manure and energy apart from providing food. But because of Trade Liberalization, export of cattle meat has started and this is going to be ecologically disastrous in the future. It is a pity that no attempt has been made to ensure that food exports and cash crop production should be carried out only when the food needs of the people are met.
A 1990-study of the FAO predicts that the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture will slow the growth of food consumption worldwide, especially in the low income, food deficit countries. Asia, Latin America and Africa will lose both revenue and food security. East Asia will import 60 per cent more agricultural products than they did previously. South Asia will experience loss in its food trade. Latin American countries will find their agricultural bill rising, particularly for high price wheat, rice, fats, oils, meat, sugar and dairy products. The cost of agricultural imports in the African countries will grow from $4 billion in 1998 to $14 billion in 2000. Higher food costs due to increased monopolization will lead to further declines in consumption and famine will spread. According to one source (World Resources Institute, 1998), global expenses on agricultural research has increased to 258 per cent over the past three decades, but not much has been spent on local food crops and farmers of marginal lands have not been touched.
Environmental concerns loom large on the horizon and represent a continuing threat to household food security. UNEP warns about an environmental time bank and that the world risks losing all its productive land in less than 200 years to desertification if the present annual loss of 27 million hectares continues. Given that food insecurity and malnutrition are directly related to environmental degradation, a systematic approach has to be followed in determining the desirable level of investment in environmental preservation. The explosive mixture of poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries undermines the global ecological balance and food security.
Weeds, pests and insects can be chemically controlled but the chemicals raise the environmental issues. Their indiscriminate use is harmful to human beings. So there is need for environmentally sound methods of pest/ insect control. Overpowering images of famine and drought make it clear that there is no purpose served impeaching ecological and intergenerational equity to millions of people who are hungry. Instead, there has to be a community-led food security program, argues noted agricultural scientist Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, that protects the ecological foundations essential for sustainable food and water security.
A major share of the active rural population in developing countries is engaged in agriculture and, within agriculture, food production employs the majority. Training of small holders covers basic literacy, bookkeeping, accounting, group organization, improved farm practices and environmental measures. Women are in fact the main food producers, income earners and guardians of family health and nutrition. Available data for 52 countries suggest that women constitute 20 per cent of total agricultural labor force. So special attention must be given while training women to enhance both their productive capacities and their contribution to family nutrition.
People's participation in the decision making process is very important. The involvement of small poor landholders, landless poor women in the design, preparation, implementation and evaluation of projects can make all the difference to escaping from poverty.
To enhance food security, production support has to be extended to individual small holders, so that they can raise productivity and not only meet their own needs but also supply the requirements of other food deficit households. Rural women are becoming farm laborers with increasing male migration to cities and any effort to raise rural food security must address them directly. Indigenous farming systems often contain a wealth of environmental knowledge, which needs to be assessed and adopted. NGOs can help food insecure households to achieve production and also can provide inputs, credits, training and technology together with support for marketing and storage.
Specific arrangements for food security at the global level or regional levels, through establishment of emergency reserves have been under consideration for a long time. In 1984 at Bucharest, a conference on global economic cooperation among developing countries on food and agriculture strongly supported efforts to set up a regional arrangement. However, progress has been relatively slow. In the SAARC, efforts are on to continue the set up such as this one.
Most developing countries do not have adequate storage capacities, which make it difficult for them to purchase food in good years and carry the stocks to bad years. In order to cope with the needs of a growing number of people, food security is primarily a question of purchasing power on entitlement.
Consolidation of land holdings, through community participation, is essential in both planning and implementation of land reforms and land settlement schemes. The development of micro enterprises for the rural poor is desirable as they not only provide purchasing power by raising rural incomes, living standards, and help stem the flow of rural migration to cities.
The right to food and right to life can be achieved only through International Cooperation. Whether the problem is trade, debt or the role of women in environment, we will have to play a vital role in stimulating the decisions of the political machinery and sensitizing global leaders to exercise their political power to eradicate poverty.
The opening of the world market and the stability of the international monetary system depend on favourable political conditions. The decline of the United States role as world policeman and world banker demands a better balance of power, based upon the participation of an increasing number of world regions (the European Union, the Indian sub-continent, Latin America and so on) in the joint management of global problems. But, since co-operation produces a precarious order, the solution of global issues, such as food security, needs a world government, which can stem from the strengthening and the democratisation of the UN.

The United Nations Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, opening the Millennium Summit on September 5th, 2000, the largest-ever gathering of world leaders, challenged world leaders to protect their people from misery and to develop an agenda that would forge peace and bring an end to poverty and disease. Likewise, in his remarks at the opening, the US President Bill Clinton spoke of the dawn of a new era where globalisation and information technology are bringing people closer, and of the kind of challenges and responsibility lying ahead of the UN. In this overall context, broadly, there are five dimensions for development.
Peace is regarded as the foundation of development itself. Though development has taken place after crises or wars (for example, Japan, Germany), peace is fundamental for economic progress. Tensions occur when there is no development. The meaning of peace-building is to pinpoint and support the foundations which tend to fortify peace, so as to prevent a relapse into conflict. As such, peace-building can give a push to development for nations that have recently recovered from crises.
The second factor is the economy itself. The engine of development is economic growth: without economic growth, there cannot be any sustained increase of household and government consumption, of private or public capital formation, of health and security levels. Two pre-requisites are necessary for sustained growth. They are: (a) conducive domestic environment and (b) a supportive global environment. Unless there are viable national policies, increased aid will do more harm than good. There have been efforts by the developing countries to form, in response to the G-7 of industrialised countries, a cohesive group of seven or fifteen of their own. The outcomes however have so far been very disappointing.
The third factor is the environment, as a basis for sustainability. The environment has a key effect on the countries at all stages of development. Environmental degradation decreases both the quality and quantity of many resources utilised directly by people. Water pollution destroys fisheries. Increasing salinity and the erosion of topsoil lowers crop yields. Quite often, agricultural devastation has led to famine and malnutrition. Rapid and excessive logging and the devastation of rain forests have razed vital natural habitats, and frustrated global bio-diversity.
Justice as a pillar of society also contributes to overall development. Development occurs within defined social conditions, but all aspects of society are influenced by development. Economic progress and technological transformation influence human relationships, societal structures, values and lifestyles. More harmonious social and economic relations and societal cohesion supply a solid and adaptable basis for attaining long-term growth. One should recognise the significance of the social dimension for development and act upon it. Each country should address social development within its own society, and each also has a duty to progress towards a more internationally-oriented solution to these challenges. The current period of a changed global atmosphere provides a golden opportunity to do so in an ambience that is relatively free from excessive ideological tensions. It is an opportunity to be seized and turned to advantage.
Lastly, democracy contributes to good governance. The connection between development and democracy is intuitive, yet it remains difficult to explain. Empirical evidence has shown that development and democracy appear in the long-term to be inseparable, however events have not always pointed to a clear causal link between the two processes. In a sample of countries a certain level of development has paved the path for democratisation. In other countries, democratisation has led the way to an economic revolution.
Based on the above dimensions of development the world has entered the new century and millennium with new visions and hopes.
The world we are living in is one of diversity, with nearly two hundred countries and regions and more than two thousand five hundred nationalities and ethnic groups of varying civilisations, religions and beliefs, values and traditions. This is the reality; but diversity is to be considered a valuable asset, not a source of conflict. The essential approach must be to promote mutual respect, tolerance, inclusiveness, exchange and co-operation. Recognising the world of diversity and guided by the principle of seeking a common ground while resolving differences, the countries and regions will coexist and boost the development of human society. Denial of the diversified world and an approach of intolerance and discrimination will bring mutual repellence and wars.
A new international political and economical order of justice, equality, respect for diversity, mutual benefit, dialogue and co-operation should be established in the 21st century. Democratic relations are the call of the 21st century. It implies that the internal affairs of a country should be decided upon by the people of that country; the international affairs among the countries of the world, big and small, strong and weak, should be dealt with through consultations on an equal footing. In other words, a superpower or a small group of big and rich powers should not monopolise world affairs.
We should note that one of the great historic achievements of the 20th century is that more than one hundred countries have freed themselves from colonial rule and won their independence, sovereignty and dignity. They began to participate in international affairs as equal partners, yet their road to full participation should be made easier by the international community by seriously taking into consideration the problems which are the most important for them.
Economic globalisation is an irresistible tide. If it manages to fight poverty, it will greatly spur the world economy and benefit humanity at large. Despite its great advantages, the adverse effects of globalisation have increasingly attracted world-wide attention. For developing countries with limited capabilities, the challenges and risks posed by globalisation appear much greater than the opportunities offered. Besides, globalisation has foreseeable but hardly predictable implications in social, political and legal areas. We hope that the UN, WTO, World Bank and the IMF will work jointly to convene a future General Assembly session devoted to studying and deliberating on the problematic issues of globalisation and its management.
Eradication of poverty is still a priority on the agenda of the international community. Approximately 1.2 billion people - 500 million in South Asia - struggle for survival on less than $1 per day. The countries concerned should double their efforts to reduce poverty, and the international community should provide more assistance. The developed countries should renew their pledge to devote 0.7% of their GNP to official development assistance programmes, to help developing countries to gain access to markets, and to facilitate technology transfers.
Environmental protection is extremely vital to us and to the well-being of future generations. We urge all countries to implement "Agenda 21" with a great sense of urgency and achieve noticeable advancements before 2002 - the 10-year follow-up to the Conference on Environment and Development.
The protection and promotion of human rights is a great goal of the UN charter and is a solemn commitment of all countries. Developing countries knew through their inhuman suffering under colonial rule that human rights and dignity cannot be separated from national independence and sovereignty. Human rights are indivisible and interrelated. The West's inclination to extolling political rights while depreciating economic and social rights, or vice-versa, is one-sidedness. Divergences in perception and interpretation do exist and can be ironed out through dialogue and co-operation rather than resorting to confrontation. Human rights issues should not be politicised to serve as a means of exerting pressures or as an excuse for poking one's nose into the domestic affairs of others. The plight of the disadvantaged and the vulnerable, such as women, children, persons with disabilities and the aged, should be given special attention. We urge that an international covenant be drafted and signed.
Separatism and terrorism are cancers of the international stability and security. In the world of today, fewer than 20% of all countries are ethnically homogeneous. Many cases of separatism demonstrated that it is instigated and supported by external demagogues with evil intentions and that it is interwoven with terrorism. The international community should not permit political maps to be redrawn and countries dismembered.
To keep pace with the rapid world development and contribute to world's peace the UN should undergo necessary reforms, based on the purpose and principles of the UN charter and targeted at their better implementation. The success of UN reform lies mainly with:
a) the adequate representative presence of developing countries in the Security Council and the transparency of its consultation process;
b) the strengthening of the roles of the General Assembly and the ECOSOC for the benefit of the developing majority;
c) satisfactory responses of the IMF and the World Bank to the concerns voiced in the UN; and
d) timely and full payment by member states of their financial obligations.
It is heartening that all the countries (150) participating in the Summit have focused on the issue of UN reform. Both President Bill Clinton and the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, have urged all the member states to work collectively for the betterment of the world. Mr Clinton in his address underscored the need to provide the UN with adequate tools for peacekeeping operations; and that the institution must work to fight poverty, diseases, narcotics and illegal trade in precious stones. All these things come with a price-tag, and all nations, including the US, must pay for it. These prices must be fairly appointed and the UN structure of finances must be fairly reformed. In a similar vein Annan urged the leaders to study the report produced by a panel of independent experts that have detailed suggestions for strengthening the UN in the crucial areas of peace and security; Mr. Annan said that the world body must be strengthened across the whole range of its activities.
In addition, the Summit adopted the 21-point agenda on 8 September 2000, hailing the remarkable 'convergence of views' on its ambitious goal to reduce poverty - in the words of the UN Secretary General Annan: 'a promise to take action by 2015 towards achieving our first priority, the eradication of extreme poverty'.
However, the very vital query is: to what extent are we all going to translate these assertions into practice to attain the targets so boldly proclaimed?