Committee on NGOs

2001 Session

7^th Meeting (AM)

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE DEFERS THREE REQUESTS

FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF ECOSOC CONSULTATIVE STATUS

The Committee on Non-governmental Organizations this morning deferred three requests for reclassification and concluded its consideration of one organization, as it considered requests from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for reclassification of their consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

The Committee deferred to its resumed session in January 2002 the request of the International P.E.N. and the International Association of Charities for reclassification from roster to special status, and of the Armenian Relief Society for reclassification from roster to general status.  It concluded consideration of the International Peace Bureau’s request for reclassification from roster to special status.

International P.E.N. had requested reclassification from roster to special consultative status in 1998.  At the Committee’s 2000 resumed session, the representative of Cuba had referred to reports indicating that the organization was actively interfering in the internal affairs of her Government.  She had requested additional information on the “fact finding missions of the organization in Cuba”, such as which Cuban authorities had been contacted during those missions.  No answer to those questions had been received, she said.

The representative of China remarked that, if an application had been reviewed several times and the organization in question had not answered queries, the application could be closed.  That had happened in the past and it did not mean denying the request.  Chile’s representative, while agreeing with China, said International P.E.N. should have a second chance to reply.  The representative of the United States said that, in this case, the organization had always answered questions in the past.

After a debate, during which the representative of Cuba noted that the NGO had not answered questions for three years and apparently was not interested in answering them, the Committee decided to defer action, pending answers received before its next resumed session in January 2002.  The questions would be re-sent immediately.

The Armenian Relief Society (ARS) had asked for postponement of consideration of its request for reclassification from roster to general status, since none of its representatives could be present.

Turkey’s representative said the case could be considered, since presence of the organization’s representative was not required.  He said the organization had

“pan-Armenian” goals, as stated in its charter and other statements, and had a political nature.  Application for consultative status with ECOSOC had been denied in 1985, because it had links with Armenian terrorist groups.

Continuing, he said the organization also supported financially -- and shared headquarters with -- the Armenian Youth Federation.  At its summer camp, the Federation re-enacted an actual terrorist attack that had resulted in the death of the Turkish ambassador’s wife in Portugal.  Despite questions about the organization’s affiliation, the ARS had failed to mention the Youth Federation.  He said the ARS was a controversial NGO that promoted hatred, violence and revenge and was banned by Armenian authorities.  The Committee should reject the organization’s request, he said, and he reserved the right to reconsider its present status with ECOSOC.

The representative of Azerbaijan, in his capacity as observer, noted that official documents of the NGO had referred to the region of Nagorno-Karabakh -– part of his country –- as an independent State.  In addition the staff of the organization had conducted illegal activities in that region.  It also had political ties to the Armenian National Committee of the United States, which engaged in political lobbying.  He supported the rejection of the group’s request.

While supporting the organization’s work in his country and taking into account the serious allegations of Turkey and Azerbaijan, Lebanon’s representative proposed that the case be deferred to January 2002 to allow delegations to consult with their capitals and to offer the organization an opportunity to respond.

The International Association of Charities, an organization affiliated with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) -- and therefore on the “roster” list of ECOSOC NGOs -- had requested reclassification from roster to special consultative status.  The Committee decided to defer action on the request pending the outcome of a discussion of its working group on the methods of work on the matter.

The International Peace Bureau had expressed the wish not to further pursue its request for reclassification from roster to special consultative status, and the Committee decided to conclude consideration of the request.

Non-governmental organizations with consultative status are classified under the "general", "special" or "roster" categories.  Those in the general category must be concerned with “most of the activities” of ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies.  The special category concerns those "which have a special competence in, and are concerned specifically with, only a few of the fields of activity covered by the Council".  The roster category relates to NGOs which "can make occasional and useful contributions to the work of the Council or its subsidiary bodies". 

Different privileges and obligations are accorded to each category.  Non-governmental organizations with general status can propose items for the Council agenda, attend and speak at meetings and circulate statements.  Those with special status can attend meetings and circulate statements, while those on the roster can only attend meetings.  Organizations with general and special status must report every four years on their activities in support of the United Nations.

The representatives of Germany, France, Sudan, Algeria, Bolivia, India, Pakistan and Colombia also spoke this morning.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to consider organizations whose defining characteristics are not in strict conformity with the provisions of Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 and implementation of Economic and Social Council decision 1996/302.

* *** *