A/HRC/36/35 Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group, covered all the broad consensual categories and elements enshrined in the Declaration on the Right to Development. Those standards could serve as basic policy guidelines and pave the way for the establishment of a normative framework. The myriad problems faced today required a multifaceted approach by States, internally, externally and collectively, including a gender-based approach, quality education, equitable and preferential market access, technological advances and support for debt servicing, which could help to establish a fair and human rights-sensitive economic and financial order. 23. The representative of Algeria, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, noted that social and economic stability was important to ensure not just the needs of present generations, but also of future generations. The Working Group should focus on international cooperation and solidarity in relation to the right to development and the need to work on new approaches to realize the right. 24. The representative of Brazil stated that the Working Group had to conclude unfinished business and make progress with deliberations in order to be more relevant to the discussions on development, especially the 2030 Agenda. The 2030 Agenda placed people squarely at the centre of development, just like the right to development, international cooperation and the removal of obstacles to development. The profile of the right to development had to be raised, including by mainstreaming it in the work of the Human Rights Council and the United Nations system as a whole. 25. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that, without the realization of the right to development, enjoyment of all other human rights could not be attained, and that it required the development of an adequate international legal framework in the context of the 2030 Agenda. Unilateral coercive measures against countries in the Global South impeded peoples from advancing towards full sovereignty and development, thereby violating basic human rights. The world economic crisis created by the capitalist system, the denial of resource and technology transfer and the foreign debt burden all impacted on the implementation of the right to development. 26. The delegate from Ecuador, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned Movement, stated that a genuine global partnership was needed that would make it possible to restructure relationships between developed and developing countries and to address the unfair distribution of wealth, reform discriminatory and perverse power structures, establish an independent and transparent international mechanism to manage sovereign debt, promote fiscal justice, clamp down on tax evasion and havens and advance towards a binding instrument on business and human rights. 27. The delegate from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, expressing agreement with the European Union, stated that the United Kingdom fully supported the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. The right to development required the full realization of civil and political rights and the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights, in addition to credible development policies and good governance. The United Kingdom was not in favour of an international legal standard of a binding nature on the right to development. It was fully committed to delivering the Sustainable Development Goals, both at home and around the world, and considered the agenda a framework through which the world could combat the most pressing challenges of our time. 28. The delegate from the United States of America stated that the United States was committed to international development as a critical element of its foreign policy. The United States considered that there was a strong link between human rights and development. However, for several reasons, it has long-standing concerns about the concept of the “right to development”, in terms of definition and how it has been framed. For those reasons, it had consistently expressed objection to references to “the right to development” in General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions, and had serious reservations with respect to the direction of the related work and had made several proposals. Although it fully agreed that changes were necessary, because of those and other concerns that it had expressed in several previous Working Group sessions, and which have yet to be 7