NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE DEFERS ACTION ON COMPLAINTS LODGED BY CUBA, CHINA

Press Release
NGO/364

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE DEFERS ACTION ON COMPLAINTS LODGED BY CUBA, CHINA

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) this afternoon deferred taking action on a complaint lodged by Cuba against the International Council of the Association for Peace in the Continents (ASOPAZCO) until Friday, 23 June, in the morning.

The Committee also deferred consideration of the complaints against Freedom House by China and Cuba pending written responses by that organization to written questions from the Committee. An explanation was also requested from the United Nations Office in Geneva.

As the Committee met to continue its review of special reports, it resumed consideration of the complaint by the Cuban delegation that began at today's morning session. That complaint was submitted by Cuba based on what it considered to be improper conduct by ASOPAZCO at the recently concluded fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva from 20 March to 27 April. Cuba is calling for withdrawal of the NGO’s consultative status. (For more details, see Press Release NGO/363 issued today.)

The complaint against Freedom House by Cuba was submitted because Maria Dominguez, an accredited representative of the NGO at the fifty-sixth session of the Commission, was also a member of another organization, Universidad Latinoamericana de la Libertad “Frederich Hayek”. At its last session, the Committee had recommended that that Universidad’s request for consultative status with the Council not be granted due to its connections with the Cuban-American National Foundation and other politically motivated organizations, which carry out political activities against the Cuban Government.

According to the complaint submitted against Freedom House by China, the NGO, during the fifty-sixth session of the Commission of Human Rights, had invited some anti-China elements to hold a panel discussion against the Chinese Government. The United Nations Secretariat had surprisingly also provided Chinese interpretation services for the discussion.

Also this afternoon, the Committee began consideration of a complaint by the Russian Federation about the Transnational Radical Party. According to the complaint, during the Commission’s session, the representative of Chechen separatists and terrorists, A. Idigov, had made an address under the banner of the NGO.

The Committee will return to its deliberations on the Party tomorrow.

Committee on NGOs - 2 - Press Release NGO/364 759th Meeting (PM) 21 June 2000

Statements were made by the representatives of Chile, China, Cuba, France, Germany, Russian Federation, Sudan and the United States.

Representatives of Freedom House and the Transnational Radical Party also addressed the Committee this afternoon.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 22 June, to continue its consideration of special reports

Letter of Complaint by Cuba

In a letter dated 27 April and circulated in the Committee, Cuba states that at the fifty-sixth session of the Commission of Human Rights, Maria Dominguez, a representative of the NGO, Freedom House, was also member of another organization, Universidad Latinoamericana de la Libertad “Frederich Hayek”. That organization’s request for consultative status with the Council was recommended to be rejected by the Committee at its last session due to its connections with the Cuban-American National Foundation and other politically motivated organizations, which carry out political activities against the Cuban Government.

Response by Freedom House

In response to Cuba’s letter, Freedom House, in a letter to the Chief of the NGO Section, Economic and Social Council, dated 9 June, states that Maria Dominguez is a distinguished attorney, legal scholar, professor and expert on human rights. She is also the Executive Director of the Human Rights Institute at St. Thomas University in Florida and a professor in that institution’s Master of Human Rights Programme. Two years before the last United Nations Human Rights Commission session, she was a member of the United States Government’s delegation to the Commission meeting in Geneva. It was precisely because of her expert knowledge about how the Commission works that she was asked to be part of Freedom House’s delegation.

The letter goes on to say that the Committee’s decision not to certify another organization had no relevance to the propriety of Freedom House’s conduct. Professor Domingues was invited as an individual and as a scholar and expert in her own right. She did not represent any other organization or professional affiliation in her role as a member of the Freedom House delegation.

Freedom House goes on to say that, if the Commission were to establish the principle that no person could participate in the work of another NGO accredited to the United Nations if that person had an affiliation with another organization denied accreditation, that regulation would have important implications for the work and the sovereignty of most NGOs, currently part of the United Nations system.

Normally in open societies, the letter states, the principle of volunteerism and participation in many NGO activities is widely accepted. Eminent persons in the United States and other countries participate voluntarily in a broad range of groups. That was the essential foundation of a civil society. Freedom House believes individuals should be judged and assessed on the basis of their own conduct, just as organizations should be judged on the basis of their own positions, statements and conduct

Letter of Complaint by China

In a letter to the Director-General of the United Nations Office in Geneva, dated 29 March, the Permanent Representative of China states that on 29 March, during the fifty-sixth session of the Commission of Human Rights at the Palais des Nations, Freedom House invited some anti-China elements to hold a panel discussion against his Government. Surprisingly, the letter stated that the United Nations Secretariat provided Chinese interpretation services for the discussion. That incident was quite unprecedented in the history of the Commission and other forums of the Organization. It seriously violated the relevant regulations and the Rules of Procedure of the United Nations.

The Chinese Government was, therefore, expressing its deepest concern and lodging its protest. It was requesting the United Nations Office in Geneva to: immediately investigate the matter; provide a clear explanation of and response to the issue to the Chinese delegation; and reserving China’s delegation the right to take further steps and request follow-up measures in that regard.

Letter from Russian Federation on Transnational Radical Party

In a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on NGOs, the Russian Federation expresses its grave concern over the activities of the NGO Transnational Radical Party. During the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Right, held in Geneva, 20-27 April, the representative of the Chechen separatists and terrorists, A. Idigov, addressed the Commission under the name of the NGO.

The letter states that, in his statement, Mr. Idigov identified himself as the representative of the President of Chechnya in Europe and to the United Nations. On behalf of the Transnational Radical Party, this person was, therefore, propagating ideas, which were completely incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter. By offering its banner to those who were responsible for the widespread taking of hostages, slave labour and trade, burglaries, torture and summary executions, the Party seriously violated its consultative actions with the Council.

The letter states that the study of other activities of the Party showed the recent incident in Geneva was not the sole violation by the organization of the regulation governing the relationship between the United Nations and NGOs. In its quadrennial report of 9 May 2000, the Party mentioned that, since its affiliation with the Council, it had followed issues related to international drug trafficking.

In reality, the letter notes, the organization aggressively promoted the legalization of drugs by launching civil disobedience campaigns, distributing drugs, and denouncing anti-drug legislation. Leaders and members of the NGO had been repeatedly arrested for such actions in different countries. It was, therefore, the Russian Federation’s firm belief that the general philosophy of the NGO and its public behaviour flagrantly abused its consultative status with the Council. The Committee was, thus, requested to take action and withdraw the Party’s consultative status.

Response by Transnational Radical Party

A letter to the Chief of the NGO Section, Economic and Social Council, dated 9 June, states that Mr. Idigov spoke on behalf of the NGO. He was fully accredited and spoke about gross and systematic human rights violations, the right to self- determination, and the need to end conflict through negotiations. He called for respect for the peace agreement reached between the Government of the Russian Federation and representatives of the Chechen government in 1997. At that forum, Mr. Idigov also recalled that President Maskhadov, his government and the parliament of the republic were legitimately elected under international supervision of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Mr. Idigov is a well-known politician with a track record of working for peace. To the Party’s knowledge, he is neither a terrorist nor has he ever participated in such activities. The Party does not dispute that serious violations of human rights have been perpetrated on both sides in the conflict in Chechnya, but that does not necessarily implicate him. He has consistently called for an end to violence and for peace, which was why he went to Geneva. The Party is dedicated to the Gandhian principles of non-violence and it would be unthinkable for the Party to knowingly accredit a terrorist.

The letter goes on to say that there is no evidence of any proceeds coming to it from the illicit drug trade and it has never supported the free circulation of psychoactive and psychotropic substances. Rather, it has always affirmed the need to prevent the diffusion of the substances and to remedy the “illegal liberalization” of the drug market and the civil, economic, political and social consequences of the deficiencies in current prohibitionist legislation. Also, the Party’s drug-related activities at the United Nations have always been in conformity with the rules and regulations guiding its consultative status.

Statements

Complaint against Freedom House by Cuba and China

The representative of China said that it encouraged NGOs to make use of their ability to contribute to the United Nations, but they must also respect the principles of the Charter and the rules and regulations of the Organization. During the fifty-sixth session of the Human Rights Commission held in Geneva from March to April, Freedom House behaved improperly. Freedom House had asked the Secretariat to provide free translation service and a venue to host a briefing. There was irrefutable evidence of Freedom House’s deceptive behaviour and that was a serious violation of its consultative status.

He said that in 1995 the Committee had turned down the application of Freedom House for consultative status because its activities indicated that it was politically motivated. The NGO also recruited members of heretical cults, which threatened human rights freedoms. It had allowed a member of a cult from China to register under its name and to participate in meetings in the United Nations. There had been more than 1,000 deaths as a result of its teachings.

He said the organization had also launched vicious attacks against the Committee. It openly accused countries that sat on it of being authoritative and tried to create conflicts among members. Those were acts perpetuated against Member States that were in violation of the Charter. He recommended that the consultative status of Freedom House be withdrawn.

The representative of Cuba said that in 1995 the Committee on NGOs had decided not to recommend consultative status for Freedom House because there were questions about its democratic procedures and structure, as well as about its financing and the role played by federal funds from the United States. The United States State Department also seemed to be influential in the operations of the NGO.

In 1995, he added, there was a very interesting report from the organization that categorized States as “free” and “partially free”. There was no evidence that human rights work was being done. Nevertheless, through a politicized initiative, Freedom House was granted consultative status with the Council. It continued, however, to conduct political activities. During the last session of the Commission, a woman was accredited who was known to be involved with a terrorist organization. The organization continued to launch political attacks against a number of countries, thus, violating principles of territorial integrity.

The representative of Germany expressed confusion about the issue and interest in meeting with representatives of the NGO. Was there a rule that an organization could not accredit a member of another NGO, even one that had not been granted consultative status by the Committee? he asked.

The representative of the Sudan said that Freedom House’s quadrennial report stated that during its 2000 conference it had focused its attention on Cuba, China and the Sudan. According to news reports, the organization considered those States undemocratic, while other States sitting on the Committee were democratic. How did they pass judgement on Member States?

The representative of the Russian Federation said that NGOs should adhere to resolution 1996/31. He also wondered what criteria Freedom House used in judging democracy.

The representative of China asked whether the briefing in Geneva had been a consultation undertaken in Chinese. If not, why did the NGO deceive the United Nations?

Freedom House’s representative said the NGO was created before the United Nations 60 years ago and that its co-Chairman, Eleanor Roosevelt, had a role in framing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also dealt with problems migrants and women faced, among others. He said that it judged the status of the individual citizen, not of the entire country. He said the organization did not consult with the United States Government to come to its decisions on individual freedoms, as it even criticized that country.

He added that Maria Dominguez had been in Geneva representing the interest of Freedom House. Her affiliation with any other body was, therefore, irrelevant. He said the question on the interpretation service appeared to have been made complicated. The representative of Freedom House had merely gone to the United Nations to urgently request interpretation services to assist a number of Chinese who were present at the meeting.

The 1995 decision not to grant status to the Committee had apparently been a devious attempt to exclude the organization, as the Council later granted it that status, he said. The organization was a human rights one and campaigned for the undoing of such violations. It was critical of almost every country. Also, all the funding that it received was open for observation when it filed its taxes each year.

The representative of Cuba said that Freedom House’s role was contradictory -- one year it was an NGO, while in another it was affiliated with the United States Government. Since the Committee was talking about civil rights, could it describe its work in dealing with racist and migrant issues? He still questioned the work of the organization, as it had not outlined the borders between its independence and its affiliation with the United States Congress.

The representative of Freedom House noted that his organization submitted proposals for programmes to international entities, including the National Endowment for Democracy. If they were rejected by the latter, then Freedom House would undertake those programmes themselves. The situation in the United States with regard to racist issues was changing, and Freedom House was instrumental in driving several of those changes, he stressed.

The representative of Cuba asked for an explanation about the structure and work of the organization.

The representative of China insisted that the Secretariat had said in the letter that it was Freedom House that requested the interpretation services. He wondered whether the organization’s Geneva meeting was official?

The representative of Freedom House said his organization had on its Board of Directors a distinguished group of American citizens who represented individuals from a number of sectors. Throughout its history, it had distinguished civil rights leaders and actors on its Board. The staff carried out decisions made by those persons in the NGO’s offices around the world. Assessments of human rights levels were made by specialists who were familiar with the countries to which they were assigned. He also said that the request for interpretation services was not an infraction.

The representative of Cuba requested that the organization provide in writing details of its structure and decision-making mechanisms, its links to the United States Government and its financial structure.

The representative of France said that resolution 1996/31 did not provide for withdrawal of consultative status if an NGO requested interpretive services.

The Chairman of the Committee, LEVENT BILMAN (Turkey), deferred consideration of the complaint pending responses in writing from the NGO, as well as a written explanation from the United Nations Office in Geneva to written questions from the Committee.

The representative of Cuba said that there had been an apparent act of fraud by creating the impression of an official meeting in Geneva by requesting those services. In that light, the Chinese delegation had presented sufficient evidence.

Complaint against the Transnational Radical Party

The representative of the Russian Federation stated that his Government’s complaint was based on the presence of the representative of the Chechen rebels at the Commission’s fifty-sixth session who was openly spreading propaganda against the Russian Government. The above-mentioned incident was not the only violation of the rules governing the relationship between an NGO and the Economic and Social Council.

The representative of Germany noted that the Party had admitted to misbehaviour on its part. His Government did not share the drug policy proposed by the organization, but other European States did. Advocating the legalization of drugs was not a violation of resolution 1996/31. But did the organization also advocate the illegal trafficking of drugs? he asked. He requested that the Russian delegation provide evidence that the organization was promoting paedophilia and child pornography.

The representative of Cuba said an apology from the Party was not sufficient, particularly if it was guilty of committing such acts as those mentioned today. From the inception, his delegation had had doubts about the nature of the Party. The representative should provide information about its operations.

The representative of Chile said it assessed the organization’s response and felt that it was satisfactory. However, could the representative provide some clarification to the accusation of the Russian delegation?

The representative of the Transnational Radical Party said that Mr. Idigov had never sided with any separatist group. He had been one of the leaders of the negotiating team, along with the Russian Government, that had reached the peace accord in 1997. Furthermore, the Chechen Platform was based on dialogue and did not support secession or independence for any province in any part of the world. Mr. Idigov had never had any problems in entering other countries, he added.

Regarding allegations about its support for the spread of drugs, he said the Party had stated in its written response that its activities were not aimed at spreading illegal or psychotropic substances. Rather, its policies were aimed at reform of drug laws, as well as the fight in international crime and reform. By criticizing anti-drug laws, the Party might have given the wrong impression.

He said that his Party had co-organized a conference on paedophilia with the European Parliament in 1998 with victims, witnesses and journalists among the participants. The Party was concentrating its activities in that area with developed countries, mainly in Europe, and had organized another conference on that phenomenon’s impact on the Internet. It never expressed any support for paedophilia, he stressed.

* *** *