Committee on NGOs

2001 Session

9^th Meeting (AM)

NGO COMMITTEE CONSIDERS CASE OF FREEDOM HOUSE

The Committee on Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) this morning considered the case of Freedom House, a United States-based NGO, as it began its consideration of special reports and complaints by Governments.    

The Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations said his Government had lodged a complaint against Freedom House regarding activities by some of its members during the 56^th session of the Commission on Human Rights.  The NGO’s request for consultative status had been considered in the Committee in 1995, and that request had been denied.  That decision had been reversed by a vote in the Economic and Social Council due to pressure from the United States.

That pressure was not surprising, he continued, as Freedom House operated as another agency of the United States Government.  The organization was “a machinery of subversion, closer to an intelligence service than an NGO”, he said.  Documents showed receipt of money by illegal groups in Cuba and evidence of clandestine activities.  The current Cuba programme of Freedom House involved the recruitment and training of journalists from Eastern Europe and sending them to Cuba for subversive activities.

He went on to say that the Committee had before it a letter from the Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations Office in Geneva concerning serious and politically motivated violations committed by Freedom House during the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on Human Rights.  Among the violations was the fact that the NGO had accredited as its representatives members of terrorist organizations.  Also, accredited Freedom House representatives had lent their badges to non-accredited persons of Cuban origin in order to enter the Palais de Nations, which was not only illegal but put diplomats at risk, he said.

Cuba would always support legitimate NGOs, which could provide valuable contributions to the work of the United Nations, he added.  However, it would always object to those NGOs that were being used as agents by certain governments to violate the sovereignty of other States.

China’s representative said the organization’s special report had only been received this morning.  Countries could not react on the spot.  China had not asked for a special report, but had requested an answer to a question regarding the listing of Taiwan Province of China as an independent nation in the organization’s documentation.  In its special report, the NGO had provided an unsatisfactory answer by touching “upon unnecessary, vague matters”.

He said that the activities of Freedom House reflected very obvious political aims, and it seemed to be involved in subversive activities against

Member States.  The organization did not comply with the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and the provisions of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, nor did it make a constructive contribution to the Organization.

Deploring the arrogance of Freedom House, Sudan’s representative recalled that the NGO had asked Member States not to vote for her country last year during the elections for non-permanent members of the Security Council.  By doing so, it was merely reflecting the position of the United States against Sudan.  The NGO received its information from sources that were anti-Sudan and from those operating in rebel held areas of the country.  It appeared that the NGO was not aware of its responsibilities as an organization in consultative status with the United Nations.

The representative of the United States noted it was not the first time criticism had been raised against Freedom House.  Freedom House was an organization interested in the preservation of Human Rights and could voice its opinion on Human Rights.  In the Commission on Human Rights, Member States were critical of other Member States, and civil society had the right to do so as well.  Criticism of the organization had been raised by those countries that received criticism from that NGO. 

It had been alleged that Freedom House received its orders and direction from the United States Government.  He agreed that if a foreign policy goal of his Government was to bring world peace and support for peoples and nations to express their voice, Freedom House was in compliance with that policy, but his Government did not give directions.  The fact that Freedom House criticized the United States for shortcomings in its own democracy was evidence that it was acting as it saw fit.  The NGO had fully disclosed its Government funding, which had come from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and not the CIA.  His Country’s law prohibited the CIA from funding organizations that sought to alter United States policy, something Freedom House did.

He found it distressing that one delegation had kept the organization under surveillance in Geneva.  How did a delegation know all names and faces of an NGO’s representative? he asked, adding that he found it “a bit intrusive”.  He reiterated his delegation’s support for the organization as a valuable member of civil society interested in human rights.  It was not advocating violence or any other activity contradictory to the United Nations Charter.

The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the activities of Freedom House warranted concern due to the increasingly political motives behind its activities.  The NGO had set up the American Committee for Chechnya, and in that Committee’s materials, the region of Chechnya was not shown as part of Russia.  That Committee had also organized trips to the United States for Russian separatists and terrorists.  In addition, many of that Committee’s statements had smelled of “Russiaphobia”.  As a result, he doubted the NGO’s claim that it was not directly engaged in “activities” in Member States.

The representative of India, while recognizing the valuable work the organization had done regarding human rights, raised some questions related to the organization’s rating of countries on its Web site.  He noted that his Country, maybe one of the largest democracies in the world and one of the oldest among developing countries, had gotten a rating of 2.3 out of 10 and that his people were “partially free”, as in other developing countries.  He noted that all developed countries had been ranked as “totally free”.

Ensuing debate focused on the question whether the document submitted by Freedom House could be considered a “special report”.  Cuba’s representative asked to hear from the organization’s representatives and to discuss answers given in writing to questions on 24 May.  She reiterated that the document submitted was not a special report, it simply answered questions, but did not give an overview of the organization’s activities in Cuba, as asked.

The delegate of the United States disagreed, saying the organization had complied with the Committee’s request.  Some delegates expressed confusion and asked for clarification on the format of a special report.

The Committee would decide this afternoon on the wording of the request to the organization on which it is to submit a special report.

Background

The Committee had before it a note by the Secretary-General conveying a Special report by Freedom House (document E/C.2/2001/3) giving an overview of a complaint filed by the delegation of China on the grounds that the organization had invited anti-China elements to hold a panel discussion directed against the Government of China and had requested and obtained interpretation provided by the United Nations for that meeting.  At the Committee’s 2000 resumed session, delegations had raised additional questions on the activities of Freedom House and had stated that the organization carried out politically motivated acts against Member States.  In the special report submitted by Freedom House, contained in the note, the NGO answered questions posed by the Committee.

The Committee had also received a letter, dated 27 April, from the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the United Nations offices in Geneva addressed to the Chairman of the 57^th Session of the Commission on Human Rights alleging that Freedom House had exhibited politically motivated and inappropriate behaviour and had systematically violated the norms and provisions established in Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31.  Complaints of the Cuban mission concerned accreditation of representatives, distribution of documents and materials and irregularities with the use and misuse of badges.

The Committee, a standing body of the Economic and Social Council established in 1946, considers applications submitted by NGOs for consultative status and their requests for reclassification; considers quadrennial reports submitted by those organizations; implements the provisions of Council resolutions 1996/31 and the monitoring of consultative relationships; and considers other issues as requested by the Council.

The Committee’s membership consists of 19 countries: five members from African States; four members from Asian States; two members from Eastern European States; four members from Latin American and Caribbean States; and four members from Western European and other States.  Its current members 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 representatives of Germany, Bolivia, France, Algeria and Chile also participated in the debate.

This afternoon, the Committee will meet to continue its consideration of special reports and complaints by Governments.

* *** *