NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS ONE ORGANIZATION FOR CONSULTATIVE STATUS WITH ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

Press Release
NGO/323

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS ONE ORGANIZATION FOR CONSULTATIVE STATUS WITH ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations this afternoon recommended that one organization be granted consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and that another be reclassified to a different status category, as it continued its two-week session.

With 19 members from around the world, the Committee is charged with recommending to the Council which non-governmental organizations should be granted consultative status, as well as which category -- general, special or roster -- each of which carries with it privileges and responsibilities. For example, those in the general category groups can recommend items for the Council’s agenda and speak in its meetings; special category groups can attend Council meetings and make shorter statements in them; and rostered groups can attend meetings.

The Committee recommended that the Universal Great Brotherhood be granted special consultative status, after a discussion of the organization’s finances.

The Committee also considered two new requests for reclassification from the roster to special category, recommending positively for the Humanist and Ethical Union and leaving its decision pending on the International Peace Bureau.

The representatives of Algeria, Pakistan and Sudan posed questions about the Union’s projects and terminology, such as “complex moral and social” aims and “supernatural power”. A representative from the organization told the Committee that those aims included freedom of religion and belief, and the elimination of world poverty. She also said that although the organization embraced a code of ethics that was contained in traditional religions, it did not identify a specific being, so that individuals could make up their own minds. “Everyone is entitled to live in peace and harmony with one another and has the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives”, the representative said.

The Committee decided to leave pending its decision on the International Peace Bureau until written replies were received to questions posed this afternoon by the representatives of the Russian Federation and Senegal. Prior to that, the organization’s representative responded to questions posed at this morning’s meeting; and support for the group’s request was expressed by a number of Committee members. Ireland’s representative and many others welcomed the organization’s involvement in disarmament, promotion of women and social development. Romania’s representative stressed the importance of its work in peace education and fostering a culture of peace. Chile’s representative reminded the Committee that it was

Committee on NGOs - 2 - Press Release NGO/323 720th Meeting (PM) 19 January 2000

considering a request for reclassification -- a matter of expanding its scope in the consultative status -- and that organization had already been scrutinized to obtain its initial status.

In her response to this morning’s questions, the group’s representative explained that most of the organization's budget was devoted to administrative expenses, and that this broad category included salary, printing, publications, rent, travel, organizing and networking. The organization focused on networking and coordinating, and used its small budget carefully. It received no money from business or government, but did benefit from a small trust fund through which income originating from its 1910 Nobel Peace Prize was managed.

The Russian Federation then asked a series of detailed questions, primarily about finances. The group rented one of the five rooms in its office to another non-governmental organization -– was that a commercial endeavour? he asked. Why did income exceed expenditure, and what was done with the balance? How were discrepancies between the Bureau’s Internet Web page and documents given to the Committee explained? From what countries did the Bureau’s management come from? What were its goals in the area of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? Senegal’s representative asked whether one geographic zone was given priority over others, and what was planned to address neglected areas.

The Committee also resumed its consideration from past sessions on the application of the African Community Resource Center for consultative status, and decided to leave its decision pending once again. Ethiopia’s representative said he had questions about the facts presented. According to his information, it was not working in his country, yet the application indicated it was. Given inconsistencies and omissions, his delegation had serious problems with the application as presented, he said. That sentiment was echoed by the representative from Pakistan, who said that he could find no proof that the organization had participated in building universities and medical centres in Africa, as stated in the application.

Responding, the Resource Center’s representative stressed that her organization was primarily a networking body. It worked in Ethiopia through the African Women’s Association. In the United States, where the Center was headquartered, it provided many social services that empowered, educated and mobilized the immigrant and refugee community. She assured representatives she could provide documentation that could support the claims presented in her organization’s application.

Also this afternoon, comments and questions were voiced by the representatives of Turkey, India, Lebanon, United States, China, France, Cuba and Colombia.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 20 January, to continue its review of non-governmental organizations’ requests for consultative status and for reclassification.

* *** *