COMMITTEE ON NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS DECIDES NOT TO RECONSIDER DECISION TO RECOMMEND SUSPENSION OF TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY

Press Release
NGO/381

COMMITTEE ON NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS DECIDES NOT TO RECONSIDER DECISION TO RECOMMEND SUSPENSION OF TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY

At the conclusion of two meetings today, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), a 19-member standing body of the Economic and Social Council, decided not to reconsider its earlier decision recommending that the Council suspend the consultative status of the Transnational Radical Party for three years.

The Committee made that decision by a roll-call vote of 5 in favour of reconsideration to 12 opposed, with 2 abstentions, as it met in a one-day resumed session, authorized by the Council in July, to consider special reports. The only issue before the Committee today was the consideration of a written response it had requested of the Transnational Radical Party.

The decision to recommend suspension, taken on 23 June, had been based on prior deliberations of a complaint made by the Russian Federation and contained in a letter to the Committee Chairman. That complaint stated that a representative of Chechen separatists had addressed the Commission on Human Rights under the banner of the Transnational Radical Party. Expressing concern over the NGO’s activities, the Russian Federation had requested that action be taken and the NGO’s consultative status be withdrawn.

Committee members are charged with reviewing and making recommendations on applications for consultative status with the Council, based on criteria, including the group’s mandates and financial information. Non-governmental organizations granted consultative status are general, special or roster status; each carries with it privileges and responsibilities aimed at the creation of a mutually beneficial relationship with the Council.

Comments on Transnational Radical Party’s Response

The Chairman, MEHMET LEVENT BILMAN (Turkey), recalled the events surrounding consideration of the issue and opened the floor for comments on the Transnational Radical Party’s report.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that after careful study of the responses, he believed that not much new information had been given. In fact, the response confirmed that the Transnational Radical Party was a political organization whose principles and activities repeatedly contradicted the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

Committee on NGOs - 2 - Press Release NGO/381 766th & 767th Meetings (AM & PM) 27 September 2000

He went on to say that the Party’s representative, A Idigov, claimed that he had mistakenly “misrepresented” himself before the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Looking closely at the facts, however, showed that his statements were not merely a matter of accuracy, but evidence of the Party’s consistent policy supporting aggressive separatism and its repeated attempts to put the territorial sovereignty of the Russian Federation into question. He also noted that his delegation had made every effort to obtain consensus and had displayed flexibility to ensure that the Committee could speak with one voice on the issue. He reaffirmed his earlier request for a three-year suspension of the Party’s consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.

The representative of the United States said that his delegation had noted the long hours spent discussing the issue. He also noted the spirit of cooperation and flexibility that had been shown by Committee members in order to achieve consensus. But now, at the end of the Committee’s procedural mandate, one question remained: What acts contrary to the United Nations Charter and Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 had the Transnational Radical Party committed that warranted punitive action?

He said that while Mr. Idigov had perhaps misrepresented himself to the Commission on Human Rights, he had apologized, and the Commission had accepted that apology. He said that Mr. Idigov had also reportedly made statements critical of the Russian Federation’s activities in Chechnya. Those were not actions that warranted suspension of status. There was no apparent “pattern of acts” that warranted punishment. In fact, it appeared that the Party was trying its best to abide by the rules of the Committee. The United States, therefore, disassociated itself with the earlier consensus, noting that the recommended punishment far exceeded any acts the Party might have committed.

The representative of France said that, based on careful consideration of the Party’s responses, it was clear that suspension of that organization’s consultative status proposed by the Russian Federation did not appear justified. Without a doubt, the Party had committed an error in its statements before the Commission on Human Rights, but that error had been recognized and corrected. The representative said that the mistake warranted nothing so grave as suspension of status. The organization had not committed acts in contradiction to the aims and principles of the United Nations. He requested a recorded vote by roll call.

Following those statements, the Committee held an exchange of views on several points of order concerning the recorded vote requested by the representative of France. Since a decision had already been reached to suspend the Party’s consultative status, why was a vote being taken? some delegates asked. Was the recorded vote for the purpose of reconsidering the decision? In addition, representatives exchanged views on whether the report had contained any new information and whether that warranted reconsideration of the earlier decision.

Taking part in the exchange were the representatives of Cuba, France, Algeria, Sudan, China, Algeria, Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Turkey and Tunisia.

The representative of the Russian Federation, who had brought the complaint, reiterated the view that the Transnational Radical Party had misrepresented itself to the Human Rights Commission and was not an NGO, but a political party.

It was then decided that no consensus on whether the response submitted by the Transnational Radical Party was satisfactory. The vote would concern the question: Did the Committee wish to reconsider its earlier decision?

Speaking before Vote

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said that the Committee had already reached a decision on the issue in June. Therefore, any action taken today would be a flagrant violation of the rules of procedure. He said that he had repeatedly spoken against review of the Committee’s earlier decision to recommend suspension of status. There was no new information in the Transnational Radical Party’s response, and in fact, the organization’s response made clear that it challenged the territorial authority of other countries, as well as committed other affronts to the United Nations Charter.

Also speaking before the vote, the representative of Cuba concurred with the statements made by the Russian Federation. She echoed his sentiments that no new elements had been introduced in the Party’s response and that, therefore, it was not necessary to reconsider the Committee’s earlier decision. The response had, in fact, presented some very controversial elements. According to the rules of procedure, if there was any reason to believe that the practices of an organization contravened the work of the United Nations, its status with the Economic and Social Council, consultative or otherwise, should be suspended.

Voting

The proposal to reconsider the Committee’s decision to suspend consultative status was defeated by a roll-call vote of 5 in favour (Germany, Romania, United States, Chile, France) to 12 against (Algeria, Bolivia, China, Colombia, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Lebanon, Russian Federation, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey), with 2 abstentions (Pakistan, Senegal).

Explanation after Vote

The representative of Germany said he had voted for a reconsideration of the Committee’s earlier decision. The Russian Federation’s complaint had proved unfounded since the earlier decision had been taken.

The representative of Algeria said she had voted against reconsidering the earlier decision. She had spared no effort to reach consensus and could not support a proposal reconsidering a consensus decision.

Recalling that a majority had confirmed the decision to suspend for three years the consultative status of the Transnational Radical Party, the representative of the Russian Federation said that signified a stand against actions threatening the sovereignty of States and against other practices, such as child prostitution. The reaffirmation had also supported the United Nations Charter. Those who voted against reconsideration had stood up in defence of the Committee. The Russian Federation had done all it could to achieve consensus. It would be flexible with the political party and would lift the sanctions against it.

The representative of Pakistan said he had abstained from the vote, because of the consensus decision achieved in June. He welcomed the strong message being sent to the Council, but regretted the lack of consensus.

He had voted against the proposal to reconsider the earlier decision because no new elements had appeared in the report under consideration, the representative of Turkey said. He had gone with the consensus decision to suspend rather than withdraw status earlier and had expected another consensus decision today, he added.

The representative of France said he had voted yes for the same reason as Germany. He also did not feel bound by the vote, because he had requested a vote to reconsider the earlier decision and had not gotten it. He reserved the right to return to the Economic and Social Council once all arguments had been heard. Perhaps in the future, the Committee should not transmit any draft decisions before fully concluding a matter.

Recalling that the United States had dissociated itself from the earlier consensus on the decision, the representative of that country said he had voted yes on reconsidering the earlier decision. He thanked the effort that had been put into resolving the situation. As a result of today’s vote, he did not feel bound by the earlier decision regarding any action arising next month in the Economic and Social Council. Verbatim transcripts of today’s meeting should include the response of the Transnational Radical Party, he added.

The representative of Chile said he had voted to reconsider the earlier decision. Further, he could not accept the terms that the Russian Federation had applied to those who had voted against reconsideration. Chile respected territorial integrity and did not promote any crimes mentioned by the Russian Federation.

The CHAIRMAN recalled that, in June, delegations had spent energy, time and effort to reach consensus. It was appreciated and successful. After the consensus, there had been dissenting opinions. Nevertheless, it had been a consensus decision. Since that time, a clear indication had come from many circles that the Committee’s original decision had been correct. The Committee’s integrity had been protected, even though the turn of events had been disappointing.

In response to the United States, an exchange of views took place resulting in the Chairman’s announcement that only the statements of those speaking today could be reflected in the record. Algeria took part in that exchange.

The Committee plans to meet again in a resumed session from 15 to 26 January 2001.

* *** *