Preparatory Committee for the

United Nations Conference on

 The Illicit Trade in Small Arms

 And Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

19^th Meeting (AM)

PARTICIPATION OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS DISCUSSED

IN SMALL ARMS PREPARATORY COMMITTEE

The procedures for participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dominated the debate this morning in the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

No such decision was reached at the first of three preparatory sessions, and thus, NGOs had so far been unable to participate.  Today, the Committee, in session through 19 January, agreed on the participation of civil society groups –- which had been in the forefront of the struggle against the illicit arms trade –- but disagreed on whether to limit participation to those groups which were “relevant and competent” with respect to the “scope and purpose” of the Conference.

For its discussion, the Committee had before it, for the first time, a proposed draft decision by the Preparatory Committee Chairman, Carlos Dos Santos (Mozambique), calling for the participation of NGOs which had both attained consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and were “relevant and competent” with respect to the Conference.  

A proposal submitted by the Chinese delegation, which stimulated the debate, called for amending the reference in the draft decision, implying that all NGOs with consultative status could participate in the preparatory process and the Conference, to state that all those which were “relevant and competent” as regards “the scope and the purpose” of the Conference could participate.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Sweden said that asking NGOs with consultative status to prove their relevance and competence by providing information on their activities relevant to the scope of the Conference was tantamount to a second screening.  The Union could not support that approach.  If each United Conference scrutinized the competence of the ECOSOC-approved NGOs in all areas, it would travel down a path contrary to the wish of the General Assembly and would put Member States into an increasingly difficult position. 

Similarly, the representative of India was ready to support the Chairman’s text.  He said that NGOs had rendered a valuable service by sharpening the focus

on the small arms issue.  They would remain in the vanguard of the fight against

the illicit trade and, thus, should be allowed to participate in the preparatory process and the Conference.  He was ready to join consensus on the Chairman’s proposal on modalities of attendance.

Echoing the expressed views of several African delegations, the representative of Ghana said that “reinventing the wheel” with regard to NGO participation must be avoided.  The question should be guided by the precedent and practices of United Nations and the modalities already set by ECOSOC.  To restrict specific NGOs via a screening process rather than conform to an existing practice could lead the Committee into a thicket from which it could not find its way out.

The existing proposal was a carefully crafted compromise, the representative of Canada asserted.  All 2,000 NGOs on the ECOSOC list had an interest in small arms, including groups concerned with human rights, women, and judicial matters.  Regarding the Chinese proposal, it would be “burdensome” to decide which group was relevant and which was not.  He urged simplicity and the speedy adoption of an unamended document so that NGO partners could contribute to a dialogue from which Committee members would richly benefit.

The representative of South Africa said the Chairman’s paper was acceptable, but in order to take into account the various views of delegations, he proposed combining the language of the first two subparagraphs of the text, so that attendance should be open to NGOs, relevant and competent as regards the scope and purpose of the Conference, including those enjoying consultative status with the ECOSOC, provided that their requests are accompanied by information on the organization’s purpose, programmes and activities in areas relevant to the scope of the Conference.

The South African proposal was reasonable and could serve as a basis for a compromise that was acceptable to all, the representative of the Russian Federation said.  He added that everyone knew that most NGOs with consultative ECOSOC status had nothing at all to do with disarmament questions.  Those dealing with questions of disarmament and which could assist in a “real manner” by providing the Conference with an expert assessment of the small arms issue were welcome.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Jordan, on behalf of the Arab League of States, United States, Nigeria, New Zealand, Norway, Cuba, Indonesia, Australia, Poland, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Belarus, Algeria, Zambia, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Republic of Korea, Yemen, Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Niger, Bulgaria, Egypt and Iran.

The Observer of Switzerland to the United Nations also spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to continue its consideration of modalities of attendance of NGOs.

Committee Work Programme

The Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects met this morning to consider the Chairman’s proposed programme of work for the remainder of the current session.

The Committee is first expected to consider a draft decision on the rules for attendance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the current session as well as at the 2001 Conference (document A/CONF.192/PC/L.7).  By that draft, the Committee would decide that attendance should be open to NGOs enjoying consultative status with ECOSOC, as well as those NGOs whose activities were relevant and competent within the scope of the Conference, provided their requests were accompanied by information on those activities. 

Also by the draft, the Committee would decide that NGOs may attend all those preparatory meetings of the 2001 Conferences not designated as closed.  The Preparatory Committee would further decide that representatives or registered NGOs would be allowed to address the Conference and its preparatory meetings during one meeting specifically allocated for that purpose.

In addition, the Committee was expected to consider draft rule 33 of the draft rules of procedure for the Conference (document A/CONF.192/PC/L.8). According to that draft rule, every effort should be made to reach consensus agreement on substantive matters before a vote can be taken.  If a matter of substance came up for a vote after all measures to reach consensus had been exhausted, the President should defer the vote for 48 hours, during which time with the assistance of the General Committee, he should make every effort to facilitate general agreement.

The Committee is then expected to consider a working paper submitted by Japan which proposed elements to be considered for inclusion in part III, on “international cooperation and assistance” of the Chairman’s proposed plan of action for the 2001 Conference (document A/CONF.192/PC/27).  That draft proposed greater participation of the United Nations to extend an integrated approach to security and development.  It also urged enhanced coordination of other international and regional organizations with respect to disarmament, demobilization and reintegration.  It further called on States in a position to do so, to assist other States, upon request, in formulating post-conflict programmes such as weapons collection and destruction.

Discussion of Draft Decision on NGO Attendance

The representative of China said that while his delegation supported the participation of NGOs, he proposed to amend the reference implying that all NGOs having consultative status with ECOSOC could participate in the preparatory process and the Conference, to read that all those which were “relevant and competent” concerning the scope of the Conference could participate.  He would add the word “relevant” before that reference to NGOs and add the word “accredited” before the reference to NGOs, with regard to their participation in the Preparatory Committee and the Conference.  Where the word “registered” appeared in reference to the NGOs, he would change the word to “accredited”.

The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union had supported the Chairman’s draft decision.  The first addition by the Chinese delegation was basically unnecessary.  There was no precedent for excluding any of the organizations which had enjoyed consultative status with ECOSOC.  The second and third proposals seemed “logical” and had not presented particular problems for the Union.

The representative of South Africa said the Chairman’s paper was acceptable.  Having listened to the suggestions made by the Chinese delegation, he could agree that “accredited” could be inserted before the reference to NGOs.  To satisfy the Chinese delegation, he proposed combining the language subparagraphs (i) and (ii) to read, as follows:

“With respect to the attendance of non-governmental organizations at the sessions of the Preparatory Committee and at the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, attendance should be open to:  non-governmental organizations relevant and competent as regards the scope and purpose of the Conference, including those enjoying consultative status with ECOSOC, provided that their requests are accompanied by information on the organization’s purpose, programmes and activities in areas relevant to the scope of the Conference.”

Response to Key Proposals

A wide-ranging discussion ensued.  Several delegations called for consensus on the existing draft text; many others were willing to accept the South African proposal; and a few delegations agreed with the specific proposals submitted by the Chinese delegation.

The representative of Jordan, speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said the League supported the proposal by China to add the word “relevant”, as that would allow preservation of the mandate of the Conference to achieve the desired objectives.

The representative of the United States said it was unclear why the representative of China had proposed that change. The ECOSOC already had in place a procedure for reviewing NGO participation.  It was during that process that the United Nations confirmed the relevance and competence of NGO participation in the business of the Organization.  He would support the draft as submitted by the Chairman. 

He said that the insertion of the word “accredited” might imply a degree of formality and “cumbersomeness”.  Such a requirement needed to be applied early in the process because of the relatively complex task of obtaining visas. Thus, he favoured the use of the word “registered”,  which was a less formal word.  He sought clarification on the distinction between the reference to “private” meetings as opposed to “closed” ones.

The representative of India said he acknowledged the extremely important role being played by NGOs with regard to the small arms issue.  They had been in the forefront of the struggle against the illicit trade and had rendered valuable service in sharpening the focus on that issue.  NGOs would remain in the vanguard of the fight against the illicit small arms trade.  Thus, they should be provided with an adequate opportunity to participate in the preparatory process and the Conference.  India was ready to join consensus on the Chairman’s proposal on modalities of attendance.

The representative of Canada said that simple solutions were often the best, and the Chairman’s document was such a solution.  The paper should be adopted as written.  It was a carefully crafted compromise and he would be inclined “to leave it there”.  All of the 2,000 NGOs on the ECOSOC list had an interest in small arms, including human rights groups, women’s groups and lawyers.  Regarding the Chinese proposal, he said it would be “burdensome” to decide which group was relevant and which was not.  He urged simplicity and the speedy adoption of the document as it stood so that NGO partners could be engaged in a dialogue from which the Committee would richly benefit.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that the NGOs which were indeed dealing with questions of disarmament could assist in a “real manner” by providing the Conference with an expert assessment of the small arms issue. Everyone in the Committee, however, knew full well that most NGOs with consultative ECOSOC status had nothing at all to do with disarmament questions.  He had great respect for the topics on which they worked, but the Conference would deal only with small arms and light weapons.  Following the logic that all NGOs with consultative status could take part in the Conference would be tantamount to saying that all of them would deal with questions apart from trafficking. 

He said he supported the proposals that the text should be more specific.  He was interested in the success of the Conference and not in making it too politicized.  Including an enormous number of NGOs not directly involved in issues of disarmament might lead to unnecessary politicization.  Everyone must strive to prevent that.  The South African proposal was reasonable and could serve as a basis for a compromise that was acceptable to all.

The representative of Nigeria agreed with the Chairman’s proposed language.  The ECOSOC was responsible for establishing modalities of NGO attendance, and that was the rule of the United Nations.  Furthermore, consultative status was not very easily granted.  A United Nations Conference should follow the rules of procedure of the United Nations. 

The representative of New Zealand said that excluding the participation of civil society in the discussion would penalize States’ participants in the Conference.  The Chairman’s paper was a carefully-crafted compromise.  He could support it as it stood, or with South Africa’s proposal.  He agreed with the United States and others that the ECOSOC process contained enough safeguards.

The representative of Norway said he would support South Africa’s suggestion of combining subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph A.  Regarding the question of “accreditation” versus “registration”, “registration” was sufficient.

The representative of Cuba said that the question of modalities should not become politicized.  It was an organizational rather than a political issue. While everyone had agreed that NGOs had the right to participate, it must be ensured that those that did could make valuable contributions.  The lack of proper organization of NGOs had “real difficulties” at various international Conferences.  Members should not run that risk by allowing the participation of too many NGOs.  Rather, those with a relevant and direct interest in the Conference objectives should participate.  A slight change in subparagraph (b) by stating that the NGOs referred to in subparagraph (ii) would submit their requests for participation.

The observer of Switzerland to the United Nations said he fully supported the Chairman’s approach, and would echo the views of Sweden, the United States and Nigeria.  In subparagraph (b) he would delete the world “Member” before the word States.

The representative of Indonesia said he hoped the issue could be resolved as soon as possible on the basis of the Chairman’s paper.  He would, however, support any consensus that emerged.

The representative of Australia said he hoped the Chairman’s paper would form a basis for swift agreement, as it was already the product of considerable debate.  He did not wish to divert attention from the present text, but if it was to be edited or redrafted, he would be happy to support South Africa’s proposal.

The representative of Poland agreed that the Chairman’s proposal was a good basis for agreement.  Her delegation, particularly, supported subparagraph (b) indicating that States participating in the Conference would decide on a “no objection” basis regarding NGO attendance.

The representative of Ghana said that “reinventing the wheel” with regard to NGO participation must be avoided.  The solution must be guided by the precedent and practices of United Nations and the modalities already set by ECOSOC.  To restrict specific NGOs via a screening process, rather than conform to an existing United Nations practice, could lead the Committee into a thicket from which it may not find its way out.  

The representative of Chile supported the concept of shared responsibility with NGOs, with respect to the small arms question.

Thus, in keeping with the holistic character of the problem, their access should be facilitated rather than hindered.  He supported the Chairman’s text but would also be happy with the approach of South Africa.

The representative of Japan said he wondered whether 2,000 NGOs would attend the Conference and, if so, how to accommodate them in the Conference Room.  It might be reasonable to ask them to indicate their desire to attend.  It would useful to have a list of those wishing to attend and then decide not to admit them all.  Some restrictions should be placed on the attendance of NGOs with ECOSOC status.  That would not require detailed information about their activities.

The representative of Malaysia the modalities defined in the Chairman’s paper were practical, clear and acceptable.  He could, thus, support a consensus on them.

The representative of Belarus said that, looking back, a number of incidents had occurred at disarmament meetings which had been linked to the participation of NGOs.  The focus must be on the work and the Committee’s mandate.  He supported South Africa’s proposal, which would take account of all concerns and, at the same time, not restrict the participation of all NGOs. Regarding the Chinese proposal, he supported the inclusion of the word “accredited” in subparagraph (c).  He would also prefer the word “accredited” to be used in subparagraph (e).

The representative of Algeria said it was important to reserve the participation of those ECOSOC-accredited NGOs and those most concerned in the field, with judgements of their competence based on objective criteria.  Despite some difficulties, he could join a consensus that was, based upon the criteria which served as ECOSOC’s basis for participation.  Regarding the Chinese proposal, he had no difficulty accepting the addition of the words ”competent” in subparagraph (i), and no difficulty accepting South Africa’s proposal to merge (i) and (ii). 

The representative of Zambia said he could accept the minor amendments submitted by South Africa.  The contribution of NGOs had been “great” and it was important that they should be allowed to participate without any problems.

Also, the representative of Colombia said he would support the South African proposal.

The representative of Brazil said the Chair’s document was a good basis for discussion.  Previous experience had shown that the participation of civil society organizations in the work of United Nations conferences and Committees could be very useful.  His delegation was not totally convinced of the need to submit information on organizations already enjoying consultative status to a second screening or to a “no-objection” rule screening.  He would be prepared to support South Africa’s proposal if consensus built toward its recommendations.

The representative of Argentina said NGOs could play a key role in implementation of the action plan.  Thus, he supported the Chairman’s working paper and would not object to adopting minor amends if that help the Committee reach consensus on this issue.

The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the proposals by China and South Africa were, in practical terms, a request to for NGOs that had consultative status to prove their relevance to the scope of the Conference by providing information on their purpose and activities.  This was tantamount to a second screening.  The Union was not in a position to support that approach.  If every United Nations conference scrutinized the competence of the NGOs in all areas, that might lead down a path contrary to the wishes of the General Assembly.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said his delegation could support the Chairman’s proposal as it stood.  Broad partnership between governments and NGOs was critical to tackling small arms issues.  His delegation felt that the South African proposal was the best way to reach a solution.

The representative of Yemen said issuing an amended document with consensus required further consultations.  To save time and be able to move to more substantive issue, perhaps these issues should be considered on an informal basis.

The representative of Côte d’Ivoire agreed that the working paper contained the modalities and conditions necessary for the effective participation of NGOs.  His delegation would like to see consensus reached and would go along with minor amendments.  Otherwise, the document was already acceptable.

The representative of Cameroon said that if consensus emerged around the proposal made by South Africa, his delegation would have no objection.  He thought, however, that the document could be accepted as it stood.

The representative of Niger said, like most delegations, he agreed that the Chairman’s proposal was a good working document that could easily lead to a consensus, taking into account today’s proposals.

The representative of Bulgaria said the participation of NGOs in the preparatory work and the Conference itself would provide additional expertise and mobilize support and political will.  His delegation aligned itself with the statement made earlier by the European Union and supported intervention made by Sweden in support of the document as it stood.

The CHAIRMAN said it had been very difficult to consult on the paper, and he had attempted to reflect the views of all delegations as well as to bear in mind the experiences of other major United Nations conferences.  Mindful of the proposals made and the reactions to them, he proposed and appealed to the Committee to take a decision now, so those NGOs wishing to do so could participate in the deliberations this week.  The proposal would include those amendments proposed by China, with the understanding that NGOs would need to act in due time to follow the requirements of the United States Government regarding visas. 

The Chairman also suggested that the Committee take on board the South African proposal, with the understanding that NGOs with consultative ECOSOC status did not have to resubmit documents for their accreditation.  Those organizations were already recognized within the United Nations system, and information could be requested by any State at any time.  That would perhaps, in part, take into account questions expressed by the European Union with regard to South Africa’s concerns.  He stressed that while the Committee would not have a “perfect document”, it should take a decision.  The document would be recirculated this afternoon with those amendments.

The representative of the United States asked that the amendment proposed by South Africa be clarified for the Committee.

The representative of South Africa read the proposed amendment:

“With respect to the attendance of non-governmental organizations at the sessions of the Preparatory Committee and the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, attendance should be open to non-governmental organizations relevant and competent as regards the scope and purpose of the Conference, including those enjoying consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, provided that their requests are accompanied by information on the organization’s purpose, programmes and activities in areas relevant to the scope of the Conference."     

The representative of Cuba inquired if that proposal meant that all NGOs with consultative status would have their participation in the Conference guaranteed or would attendance still be decided on a “no objection” basis?

The Chairman said that it was his understanding that the process of objection to NGOs with consultative status was considered at the ECOSOC level. It was important to note, however, that the Conference was a sovereign entity and could make its own decision in that regard.

The representative of Canada said it was his understanding that the accreditation process was a lengthy one.  He wondered what bearing that might have on some of the organizations wishing to participate at the Committee’s Thursday meeting.

The CHAIRMAN said the organizations that would appear Thursday had or would soon submit their information to the Secretariat.  That information would then be submitted to the Committee on Wednesday.  The Committee would then make a decision on that list, with the understanding that those already enjoying consultative status were already accredited.

The representative of the United States said that in the spirit of compromise, his delegation would not insist on specific issues of accreditation that had been proposed earlier.  He appealed to other delegations to approve the proposal.  Though that might not be “perfect”, it would certainly serve the objectives of the Committee to achieve consensus on substantive issues.

The representative of Algeria wondered about the participation of NGOs not already enjoying consultative status.  His delegation would like to have a sufficient period of time to review the list of those organizations for approval.

The representative of Jordan, again speaking on behalf of the Arab League of States, said his delegation supported South Africa’s proposal.

The representative of China hoped that the issue of participation could be resolved quickly and called for a clarification of South Africa’s proposal.  He also supported Algeria’s proposal that the list of NGOs wishing to participate should be submitted to delegations as early as possible.  In that regard, those enjoying consultative status did not need to submit further information as to their competence to participate in the Conference.  But perhaps it was still necessary to present the names of those organizations to the Committee.

The representative of Egypt asked for some clarification as to whether the representatives of NGOs came within all the rules of procedure for the Conference.

The representative of Nigeria would have preferred to see South Africa’s proposal in written form, but would support it with the understanding that those NGOs already enjoying consultative status did not have to be submitted to another screening process.  He urged that such a list be considered by the Committee in a “quiet and diplomatic” way.

The CHAIRMAN said he would request the Secretariat to forward the list of organizations requesting participation in due time for the Committee’s consideration.

The representative of Algeria said the matter of the time period for consideration of the information submitted by NGOs was important.  His delegation felt that a week would be reasonable for review.  Less time than that would make thorough consideration rather difficult.  Once the Committee had reached agreement on this issue, the Chairman could inform members as to the period of time for review.

The CHAIRMAN reassured members that they would be given ample time to take due consideration.  The particular problem before the Committee however, was how to handle the requests of those organizations wishing to participate in Thursday’s meeting.  He also assured members that preparations for the third preparatory meeting in March would take the issue of timely review of the requests of NGOs into consideration.

The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said his delegation would like to see the text in written form in order to verify the language on the resubmission of information and the procedure by which participation could be opposed.

The representative of Iran supported South Africa’s proposal but said it would be important to be clear that the basic guidelines for participation would be “relevance and competence” concerning the scope of the Conference.

The representative of the Russian Federation said this entire exercise had in essence been devoted to the single issue of whether to allow all NGOs with consultative status with ECOSOC to participate in the Conference.  In order to submit a clear and concise report to his Government, he said it might be helpful for delegations to be more clear on the active participation of organizations that had no direct relation to the topic of the Conference.  He supported the

comments by Algeria with regard to the need for time to analyse the list of organizations that had sought accreditation to the Conference.  As for the organizations set to address the Committee Thursday, he proposed that the nature of those statements should not be formal.

At the conclusion of this lengthy exchange, the CHAIRMAN suspended the meeting, with the hope that the Committee could return this afternoon and reach a consensus agreement on the issue of NGO participation. 

* *** *