Committee on NGOs

769^th Meeting (PM)

NGO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CONSULTATIVE STATUS FOR UGANDAN WOMEN’S GROUP

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) this afternoon continued its consideration of applications from non-governmental organizations for consultative status and requests for reclassification of that status that were deferred from its 1999 session.

The Committee decided to recommend the granting of general consultative status of the National Association of Women Organizations in Uganda, not to recommend the grating of roster status to the Christian Solidarity Worldwide and to defer six applications from NGOs for consultative status.

The 19-member Committee makes recommendations to the Economic and Social Council on applications from NGOs using a variety of criteria, including the applicants’ mandates, governance and financial regimes.  Non-governmental organizations with consultative status have either general, special or roster status, with different privileges and obligations accorded to each.  Those with general status can propose items for the Council’s agenda, attend and speak at meetings and circulate statements of a certain length.  Those with special status can attend meetings and circulate statements of a certain length, while those on the roster can attend meetings.  Those with general and special status must submit reports every four years on their activities in support of the United Nations.

Members of the Committee are:  Algeria, Bolivia, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Lebanon, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States.  The Committee’s Chairman is Levent Bilman (Turkey).

In considering the application requesting general consultative status by the National Association of Women Organizations in Uganda, the Committee felt that special consultative status would be more suited to the organization and therefore agreed to recommend this to the Economic and Social Council.  

The Committee then took up the application requesting roster status from Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a national human rights organization which works on behalf of persecuted Christians and others.

In objecting to the recommendation to grant the organization’s request, the representative of Sudan recalled that in June her delegation had expressed deep concern about the information provided by the organization in light of activities in the southern Sudan.  The organization had the same legal registration number in the United Kingdom as the Christian International Solidarity, an organization about which a decision was taken the year before last. 

In addition to the legal complexities regarding its registration, she added, the organization undertook unlawful activities.  It expressly mentioned in its answer that it acquired visas to work in specific countries with the exception of the Sudan.  The reason for that could only be that it was doing unlawful work.

She further stated that Christian Solidarity Worldwide did not respect the sovereignty of States.  It had also mentioned that it obtained invitations to visit the Sudan from two organizations which belonged to the rebel movement in southern Sudan.  The organization backed armed groups trying to topple Sudan’s Government.  She requested a consensus decision that the Committee not recommend the granting of its consultative status application.  The representatives of Senegal and Cuba supported Sudan.

The representative of the United States, however, felt that the organization was separate from that previously rejected, and that its motivation was providing relief.  Although the organization was critical of the Government of Sudan, he said, there was no evidence to show that it had participated in acts of violence.  He noted that while there were problems with registration, his delegation was not prepared to reject the application of the NGO.

As there was no consensus, the representative of the United States requested a roll call vote on whether the Committee should recommend the granting of consultative status to the organization.

The Committee decided not to recommend to the Economic and Social Council the granting of roster status to the organization with one country voting in favour (United States), 11 against, and six abstaining (Bolivia, Chile, France, Germany, India, Romania).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Colombia said that, had she been present, she would have voted no.

In considering the application requesting special consultative status by the Human Rights International Alliance, the representative of Pakistan said that the request had been considered during several sessions and that the organization’s response to questions was not clear.

He further stated that its list of affiliate organizations mentioned an organization known in Pakistan as a political organization: the “Jeay Sino Mahas”.  An NGO was not supposed to have a political organization as its member.  He drew attention to another organization on the list, which was rejected last year as having links with terrorist organizations: the “Tamil Centre for Human Rights”.  One affiliate organization was a political party, another organization was affiliated with terrorist activities.  The organization, therefore, in his view, did not qualify for consultative status.

The representative of the United States said he was concerned about what affiliation the organization had with the Tamil Centre for Human Rights, whose application for consultative status he had vigorously objected to because of its association with terrorist activities, and he therefore needed to consult with his Government before making a decision.  The representative of China also objected to recommending the granting of consultative status to the organization.

The representative of Chile said the organization’s work covered almost all countries of the world and had great value.  As there were still some doubts, she suggested a representative of the NGO who was present be allowed to answer questions from Committee members.  That suggestion was supported by France.

The representative of Pakistan said that he failed to understand what could be accomplished by questioning the NGO representative, since the current views had been previously expressed.

In addressing the question of his organization’s links with the Tamil Centre for Human Rights, the representative of the Human Rights International Alliance assured the Committee that his organization would look into the concerns it raised and take the necessary actions.  He stressed that his organization did not support terrorism, and that it strongly opposed violence and believed in working through the United Nations system.  He further stated that affiliate member organizations had their own constitutions, but that the organization worked with them on common objectives to further the cause of human rights.

The Chair asked the NGO representative if his organization was granted consultative status, how would he respond to a request by an affiliate member for accreditation.  The representative of the Alliance answered that all the rules of accreditation would have to be followed strictly by the affiliate organization before accreditation would be granted.  The representative of Germany said that he believed that the Human Rights International Alliance should look further into its relationship with the Tamil Centre for Human Rights before the Committee could make a decision.

The representative of Algeria wanted to know why the Alliance was seeking consultative status if most of its members already had consultative status.  The representative of the NGO said while some of those affiliate organization had consultative status, they had their own programmes and procedure which were sometimes different from that of the Alliance’s.  He suggested that the Committee judge the NGO on its own work rather than that of its member or affiliate organizations.

The application was deferred.

In considering the application requesting special consultative status by the Kashmiri American Council, the Committee, at the request of the representative of India, also dealt with the application for special consultative status from the Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights.  On the Kashmir American Council, India’s representative said the response had to be sent to his capital for consideration, and that he believed that the two organizations were political bodies.  He asked for both applications to be deferred.  He noted that while the Kashmir Human Rights Council had provided a hefty response, one question -- about the territorial integrity of nations -- had not been commented on.  The response was still under examination and he could not proceed any further.  Both applications were deferred.

In considering the application for general consultative status by the Institute for Security Studies, the representative of Algeria said the response to a question about the organization’s membership was not very clear.  She also wanted to know who exactly was the head of the organization, the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), or somebody else.  She also asked for

a specification of the various contributions by categories.  Pending answers to questions posed by Algeria, the case was deferred.

The Committee was told that no responses to questions had been received from the Africa for Christ International, an international organization requesting general consultative status, and two reminders had been sent to the NGO.  Members agreed to send another reminder to the organization requesting a response to their questions.

In considering the application requesting general consultative status for the African Community Resource Center, the representative of Ethiopia said his delegation’s questions had not been fully answered and he was therefore not in a position to take action.

The representative of Sudan said the organization’s answers to questions asked gave rise to new questions.  The organization had mentioned that it had various projects in South Sudan, and she wanted to know whether those projects in that region were done in cooperation with the rebel movement there. 

She added that the organization had also stressed in its response that it undertook various research projects on lung diseases in refugee areas, as well as among persons released from detention after having been subjected to slavery.  That was a very dangerous reference, because the organization claimed there were cases of slavery in the north of her country.  Those accusations were tendentious, she said.  She asked the organization to give a very clear explanation in respect to persons subjected to slavery in the north of Sudan.  The organization, in its response, also had mentioned another organization, the SSFE.  She asked what the nature of that organization was.

The representative of China had the impression that the organization misunderstood the concept of consultative status, as it had mentioned that it wished to participate in the voting process.  The nature of consultative status should be explained to the organization.

The representative of Algeria wanted clarification of the organization’s finances.  A decision on the application is pending further information.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, 16 January, at 10 a.m.

* *** *