NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSES CUBA'S COMPLAINT AGAINST INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR PEACE IN THE CONTINENTS

Press Release
NGO/363

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSES CUBA'S COMPLAINT AGAINST INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR PEACE IN THE CONTINENTS

The decision to present a complaint against the International Council of the Association for Peace in the Continents (ASOPAZCO) to the Committee on Non- Governmental Organizations was not based on persecution of a humanitarian organization, but because it was a political entity which was using the facilities of the United Nations for its activities, a representative of Cuba told the Committee this morning.

As the Committee began its consideration of special reports, the Cuban representative said that an in-depth investigation had been done on ASOPAZCO and it was a network that was weakening the credibility of non-governmental organizations in consultative action.

It was not the first time that her Government had had to deal with actions by that terrorist organization, another member of the Cuban delegation stressed. Most recently, in violation of the United Nations Charter, ASOPAZCO had circulated propaganda against the President of the country at the recent Geneva meeting of the Human Rights Commission, in addition to many other similar actions. The organization had also been fraudulently conducting its subversive activities by using the name of the United Nations.

The complaint being addressed in the Committee this morning was submitted by Cuba based on what that country considered to be improper conduct by ASOPAZCO at the recently concluded session of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Cuba both listed the issues of concern in a letter dated 27 April addressed to the President of the Human Rights Commission, which was circulated to members, and expressed its views in an open meeting today.

There was, however, no representative of the NGO present at this morning's session to answer the accusations levelled against it by Cuba or to respond to questions from members and observers. A report dated June 2000 addressed to the Chief of the NGO Section, Economic and Social Council, was circulated to members. That document contains ASOPAZCO's response to Cuba's letter of complaint.

During a lengthy discussion which took up the Committee’s entire morning session, the representatives of the United States, Algeria, Sudan, Bolivia, China, France, Germany, Lebanon, Russian Federation and Tunisia addressed Cuba’s complaint. Iran also made an intervention in its capacity as an observer.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to continue its consideration of special reports.

Committee on NGOs - 2 - Press Release NGO/363 758th Meeting (AM) 21 June 2000

Cuban Letter

In a letter dated 27 April, Cuba stated that at the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights, representatives of ASOPAZCO distributed information published by organizations in Miami, United States. Those organizations support and finance subversive activities inside and outside the Cuban territory aimed at overthrowing the constitutionally elected Government.

They distributed all kinds of propaganda, including a very aggressive one against Cuba and the Cuban authorities, the letter continues. Such information is being published by the Unidad Cubana, Directorio Revolucionario Democrático Cubano, Asociación de Exprisioneros y Combatientes Politicos Cubanos, Municipios Cubanos en Exilio, as well as the projects “Cuba Habla” and Fundación para los Derechos Humanos en Cuba. The latter two are both supported by the Cuban American National Foundation, a powerful lobby established in the United States to work against the Cuban Government both inside Cuba and through domestic policy mechanisms in the United States.

ASOPAZCO also accredited Silvia Iriondo and Victoria Ruiz as members to attend the Commission’s recent session, the letter states. Both persons are linked to political activities against the Cuban Government. Ms. Iriondo participated personally in the illegal flight to Cuba on 24 February 1996, which caused one of the most serious crises between that country and the United States. Recently, Ms. Iriondo has also been appearing at the centre of the group of kidnappers of the little Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez. Ms. Ruiz was also imprisoned in Cuba because of her activities against the constitutional order, in violation of Cuban national legislation.

The letter also states that representatives accredited to the session were hostile to members of the Cuban delegation, using offensive language and harassing them in the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The NGO was violating Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 by acting against the Government of a Member State, the letter states.

Response of NGO

In response to what it called "formal accusations", ASOPAZCO, in a report dated June 2000 and circulated in the Committee, stated that it was perfectly aware of the resolution, which established the basis of the relations between NGOs and the subsidiary bodies of the Council.

In response to Cuba’s first accusation, the NGO said that it did not distribute propaganda by Cuban exile organizations, or by any other organization including itself, during the Commission’s session. Historically, the organization had never authorized or distributed propaganda and did not do so this year. Moreover, the organizations mentioned by Cuba in its letter had no relationship to ASOPAZCO.

Regarding its links with the Cuban American National Foundation, which Cuba referred to as the instigator and protector of certain Cuban exile organizations, ASOPAZCO stressed that it was a Spanish organization with no relationship to the Government of the United States. It was also not involved in lobbying activities or with domestic United States policy or the Cuban American National Foundation. Therefore, any publications by those organizations mentioned in Cuba’s letter must be analysed for their content separate from ASOPAZCO. The organization totally rejected the accusation that had been levelled because none of those publications had been prepared, edited or distributed by it.

Regarding the accusation that it had presented credentials to Ms. Iriondo and Ms. Ruiz, the report states that the former was a member of a legally constituted organization and was also involved in humanitarian activities. The incident referred to in Cuba’s letter that Ms. Iriondo participated personally in an illegal flight to Cuba on 24 February 1996, causing one of the most serious crises between that country and the United States, was truly one of the gravest ones to be remembered. In that incident, four civilians died while flying three small planes of "Brothers to the Rescue" –- an organization that flies above the Florida Straits in search of Cubans in fragile boats trying to reach the coast of the United States.

Two of those planes, the report continues, were shot down in international waters by Cuban military aircraft. The third plane, which was carrying Ms. Iriondo and three other persons who survived, returned to Miami. The entire incident was condemned by the European Union, the General Assembly, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Special Rapporteur for Cuba in his report to the Commission in Geneva, the Commission on Human Rights, the Organization of American States (OAS) and a United States Federal Court. Several governments, including those of Spain, Canada, France and the United States also condemned the incident.

The report goes on to say that there was also no need for it to pay attention to the activities of Ms. Iriondo in the “so-called” Elian Gonzalez case, which was also mentioned in Cuba’s letter, since they took place after the Commission met in Geneva. Furthermore, freedom of expression of each citizen and the activities surrounding current events were of no concern to the organization, since they did not occur in its name nor were they sponsored by it.

Regarding Victoria Ruiz, the report states that ASOPAZCO was aware that she belonged to the Cuban Committee of Peaceful Dissidents and also the Cuban Feminine Union. As a member of organizations not recognized by the Cuban Government, Ms. Ruiz was detained on numerous occasions -- the last time for organizing a religious procession with several of her colleagues. During the past few months she has been in exile and works in human rights organizations, none of them of a political nature.

The report goes on to stress that none of the members of ASOPAZCO behaved in a hostile manner or had conversations with any of the Cuban delegates in Geneva, or offended or insulted them, as was stated in Cuba’s letter. The organization knew and upheld the norms of the statute governing NGOs. That was why the NGO was surprised by threats made by the Cuban delegate in Geneva, Juan Antonio Fernandez, to take away its status. Apparently when asked if he was threatening the organization, Mr. Fernandez’s response was “No, it is not a threat, it is a reality”.

The report states that the ASOPAZCO felt defenseless in its current position and failed to understand the complaint presented by the Cuban Government.

Discussion

During a lengthy discussion which took up the Committee’s entire morning session, Algeria’s representative expressed regret that the organization’s

Committee on NGOs - 3 - Press Release NGO/363 758th Meeting (AM) 21 June 2000

representative was absent. If it was at all interested in the allegation, its representative would be present. She said it was a large NGO and it was a serious case. The organization was apparently international yet she wondered whether it only investigated human rights violations in Cuba alone, or also in Europe where its main offices were based. She also sought clarification on whether it accredited persons to attend United Nations meetings who did not belong to it? Also, what was the criteria for that accreditation?

The representative of the United States said the organization described itself as a human rights organization and outlined other work it had done in other countries. Ms. Ruiz had brought the attention of the Commission to the situation of several persons who had experienced problems in Cuban prisons. Her organization was obviously speaking out about problems it perceived in that country. The Commission had pointed to the number of human rights problems in Cuba and the organization seemed to be addressing those issues. It did not seem to want to overthrow the Government.

The Cuban representative emphasized that her delegation had presented a case that was very well substantiated. The Committee was a technical one and she was surprised at the double standards being used in the Committee’s deliberations on terrorist activities. ASOPAZCO had accredited known terrorists and the Human Rights Commission had circulated documentation which reflected that fact. The elements of the case were sufficiently serious and substantiated and the Committee had precedents of similar violations of resolution 1996/31. She reiterated the request for the Committee to withdraw ASOPAZCO’s consultative status. She also requested that an organization with ties to ASOPAZCO –- United Towns for North/South Cooperation –- submit a special report on its activities to the Committee at the January 2001 session.

Sudan’s representative stated that when NGOs participated in United Nations forums, in particular in the Human Rights Commission, they were expected to act in compliance with all the rules and procedures in force. Her delegation always listened with interest to the statements of NGOs and sometimes realized that their accusations of violations of human rights were directed at specific countries. That was the purpose of those organizations.

She said, however, that delegations should take note of the facts when certain organizations made statements and declarations with political aims –- particularly when they were aimed at overthrowing Governments of Member States and when they had known links with separatist organizations. That directly impinged on the sovereignty of Member States.

The representative of Cuba then remarked that it had always been the policy of the Committee to be flexible with regard to clarifying issues. In May, ASOPAZCO had been given the opportunity to be present at the Committee’s session, as well as at this one. Nevertheless, in an effort to be flexible, her delegation would wait until Friday before action was taken. It seemed as if the organization was using tactics to force the Committee to delay taking action.

The representative of Chile said it was significant that the organization had its head office in the United States. Its current response was complete and it would now be appropriate for the new information provided by the Cuban delegation to be given to ASOPAZCO for its response.

* *** *