NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CONSULTATIVE STATUS FOR CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE, DENIES TAWIANESE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Press Release
NGO/361

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CONSULTATIVE STATUS FOR CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE, DENIES TAWIANESE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) this morning continued its considerations of new applications for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, recommending status for the Child Welfare League,while deciding not to recommend granting such status to the North American Taiwanese Women’s Association.

Continuing the second part of its 2000 session, the Committee also recommended that the Safari Club International submit a new application through its fundation.

The Committee reviews requests by various organizations for consultative status. Based on profiles and answers provided to questions posed by its members, the Committee then recommends whether a particular NGO should or should not be granted such status in one of three categories. Organizations wishing to apply for the “general” category must be concerned with most of the activities of the Council and its subsidiary bodies. “Special” category is granted to organizations involved specifically with only a few fields of activity covered by the Council. Organizations that can make occasional and useful contributions to the Council or its subsidiary bodies are included on the “roster”.

The Committee recommended granting special consultative status to the Child Welfare League of America, a national NGO that had requested general consultative status.

The purpose of the League, based in Washington D.C., United States, is to promote the well-being of all children and their families, and in particular to give priority to the unmet needs of children lacking physical, emotional and intellectual care and nurturing. Among its national initiatives, the NGO has created the Office for International Projects to promote the well-eing of children and families internationally.

As it returned to consideration of the application by the North American Taiwanese Association, which was deferred last week after an extensive debate, the Committee recommended that the organization’s request for consultative status not be granted. (For more details of last week’s debate see press release NGO/… dated June). Last week the Committee reviewed applications for consultative status that had been deferred from its 1998 and 1999 sessions.

After Committee Chairman, Mihaela Blajan (Romania), read a letter from the President of the Association in reply to issues on the organization's Web site that members had sent to it for clarification last week, China’s representative stated that it was full of contradictions and was unconvincing. According to information on the website, the organization was started in 1999. On a page with a photograph of 12 women, however, it clearly sent greetings from its first 12 Presidents. Yet, according to the organization, it was established in 1988 with each President serving for 1 year.

He said it was obvious that one of the NGO’s objectives was to support independence for Taiwan. Its publications, including its newsletter, also indicated that support. One of those stated that Taiwanese should have their own nationality and identity, and that the country should enter the United Nations as a separate State. Such an organization did not have the requirements for consultative status and the Committee should reject its application, he stressed.

It was also pointed out that the organization’s official Web Site indicated that its bylaws had controversial aims, which were dissimilar to those in its submission to the Committee.

A number of speakers said that organizations such as the one under consideration should not be allowed to enter the United Nations, as they violated the rights of national sovereignty, flagrantly defied the purpose of the Committee and tried to obtain consultative status through fraudulent submissions. NGOs should respect the Charter and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he hoped that in every case in the future when political organizations that violated the principles of the United Nations were being reviewed, discussions would be devoid of double standards and political considerations.

Also this morning, after a lengthy exchange of views, the Committee recommended that the Safari Club International –- an international NGO requesting roster consultative status -- submit a new application through its foundation. Members felt that division of the organization dealt with conservation and humanitarian issues. It could, therefore, make a better contribution to and was more relevant and appropriate to the work of the Council. It was also agreed that the new application be reviewed at one of the Committee’s sessions in 2002.

The Club, based in Tucson, United States, has three primary mandates – wildlife conservation, education, and advocacy of hunter’s rights. It is extremely active in the international arena, especially vis-à-vis the Convention on international trade in Endangered Species and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Club has engaged in extensive conservation efforts throughout the world, such as the CAMPFIRE elephant conservation programme In Zimbabwe. Other conservation projects include the jaguar in Mexico and Venezuela, polar bears in Canada, wild sheep in Asia and black and brown bears in the United States.

The Club also has other beneficial programmes, including: Safaricare, a volunteer healthcare outreach effort that serves people in need throughout the world; and Sensory Safari, a programme to allow the visually impaired, especially children, to perceive through touch and sound, using displays and hundreds of donated mounts, skins and horns.

Among the issues raised was a request for information on the organization’s advocacy of hunters’ rights. One member, questioning the nature of the organization, said that the organization seemed to be more of a club that dealt with leisure activities than an NGO. A number of other speakers also addressed the issue of the Clubs’s finances, pointing out that it received both membership dues and other income. Clarification was requested in that aspect. The organization was also asked to verify if it received funding from the United States Congress.

Other members requested information on how the Club’s money was used -- was it for administrative or other purposes? Members expressed a great deal of interest in what the organization was doing to protect wildlife. One speaker wanted to know how the Club objectively handled its professed aims of both preserving wildlife and protecting Hunter’s rights. Members also asked what would be the Club’s real contribution be to the Council.

One speaker pointed out that economic development often resulted in the loss of habitat of animals in the area being developed. Did the organization encourage its members to hunt in those areas? Would the organization advocate a moratorium on the hunting of certain species? Did it consult with other wildlife groups to discuss what was happening with other species around the world and their ability to sustain themselves?

The Club’s representative said advocacy of hunters’ rights included use of public lands in the United States. There were aspects of the organization that would define it as a club, but there were aspects that could also make it an NGO. For example, several of its activities were of a charitable nature. For example, it operated a number of humanitarian programmes, as well as a conservation programme. He said the Club’s income came from its conventions, advertising and fundraising, among other sources. No funding came from the United States Congress. He stressed that hunters had always been conservationists, particularly in the United States. Species that were hunted were also conserved, because of the interest in their preservation.

The Club’s representative added that habitat loss was the single greatest problem in conservation. A large part of the organization’s activities focused on the preservation of animals. Also, Members did support culling activities and advocated hunting moratoriums. The organization spent a substantial amount of money on conservation issues as well.

He said the Club’s protocol on crime dealt with the issue of carrying firearms for hunting, which was allowed in a number of countries. That was a good example of advocacy for hunter’s rights. Nationals of those countries should be allowed to use firearms for hunting as many times their livelihoods depended on that and other similar activities. That could be an important aspect of the organization’s involvement with the Council. The Club also carried out case studies in many parts of the world in conservation and poverty reduction and on the ways it could contribute to international work being done in those areas. His organization had no formal connection with the National Rifle Association, he stated in response to a question on that issue.

The representatives of Algeria, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Lebanon, Pakistan, Romania, Sudan, Tunisia and the United States also made interventions during the Committee’s session this morning.

The representatives of the Child Welfare League of America responded to questions from members of the Committee.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to continue its review of new applications for consultative status within the Council.