NGO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS FOUR ORGANIZATIONS FOR CONSULTATIVE STATUS WITH ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
| Press Release NGO/533 |
Committee on NGOs
9th & 10th Meetings (AM & PM)
ngo committee recommends four organizations for consultatiVE status
with Economic and Social Council
Defers Consideration of Six Others;
Discusses Special Reports Submitted by Two Organizations
During its two meetings today, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) recommended four NGOs for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), deferred six others until later in the session, and considered special reports submitted by two organizations.
The 19-member Committee uses various criteria to recommend general, special or roster status with ECOSOC, including applicant’s mandate, governance and financial regime. Organizations that have general and special consultative status can attend meetings of the Council and circulate statements of a certain length; those with general status can, in addition, speak at meetings and propose items for the Council’s agenda. NGOs with roster status can only attend meetings.
Taking up applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification deferred from its previous session, the Committee recommended granting special status to:
-- TheWorld Organization for Education, Science and Development -- an international organization based in Libya, which seeks, among other things, to create youth links aiming to serve youth justice and discover and train youth talents for serving humanity;
-- The United States-based Saratoga Foundation, which strives “to improve the quality of life for women worldwide”;
-- Association tunisienne des femmes démocratiques, which is devoted to the elimination of discrimination against women and promotion of equality between the sexes; and
-- Lawyers without Borders, which, according to its statement, seeks to provide “the finest legal expertise available” to underprivileged societies around the world, advance the rule of law, and promote the honesty and integrity of the legal profession.
Prior to its action on the latter, the Committee engaged in a dialogue with the representative of that United States-based international organization, who explained that its members shared their experiences with local lawyers, provided
training and assisted other NGOs. Among the questions addressed today was the NGO’s association with certain countries and organizations, and the links provided on its web site.
Nigeria’s representative –- supported by the representatives of Senegal, Sudan, Cuba, Cameroon and China -- expressed reservations regarding the application of Federation of Ijaw Communities, saying that it represented an ethnic group in the oil-producing southern part of Nigeria, which sought to destabilize the country and “take hold” of oil production. In fact, it was not really an NGO, but a political group, which had been “waging war” against the national forces. The power in that matter was vested in the national Government, which was taking numerous measures to meet aspirations of that people.
The Committee left action on that application pending until later in the session.
Responding to objections by Pakistan’s representative, the Committee also deferred the application of the Human Rights International Alliance, an international organization based in the United Kingdom. The representative of Pakistan questioned the credibility of the organization and expressed disappointment in its responses to the Committee’s queries. He insisted the organization was linked a secessionist movement and had a political agenda. However, several other delegations, including those of France, Germany, China and India, were not yet ready to reject the application, asking for further information on the matter.
As the Secretariat had been unable to establish contact with a Swiss-based international organization, Le Foyer Musulman, Association internationale pour les droits de l’homme, the Committee deferred action on its application, pending yet another attempt to contact the NGO in question.
Having received answers to several questions from a representative of the Kashmiri American Council -- a human rights organization based in Washington, D.C. -– the Committee deferred until later in the session action on its application, as India insisted on receiving written responses to its previous questions.
Pending responses to questions, action was also deferred on the application from Mulchand and Parpati Thadhani Foundation, a United States-based organization, whose mission is “to support empowerment as a process aimed at changing the forces which present barriers/obstacles to women, girl children and other disadvantaged masses by keeping them at bay”.
Responses to questions were also provided by the World Youth Alliance, whose representative said that the organization did not sponsor religious activities. If members of the organization did that, it was not under the patronage of the NGO in question. Also covered in the question-and-answer session were the criteria for membership and the sources of funding of the organization. The Committee deferred action on the application until later in the session.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee was informed about the outcome of its work for the week: on new applications, 29 organizations had been granted special consultative status; special status had been granted to 16 organizations ad referendum; four organizations had been granted roster status and seven had received the same status ad referendum. As the Committee had taken up reclassifications, two NGOs had been granted general and two special consultative status. Considering deferred applications, the Committee had granted special consultative status to six organizations and placed one on the roster.
Briefing by Committee Secretary
In a briefing yesterday to the Committee, Committee Secretary HANIFA MEZOUI presented the contribution of 18 non-governmental organizations or NGO networks which had been accredited by the 2004 high-level segment of ECOSOC on theme of resource mobilization for the financing of the least developed countries programme of action. She underlined the importance of partnership between ECOSOC accredited NGOs, as 80 per cent of United Nations activities focused on social and economic activities. The contributions would be taken into consideration by delegations in the elaboration of the ministerial declaration, which would be adopted during the segment.
The United Nations role in African development, including the follow-up to the outcomes of major United Nations conferences in the socio-economic areas and in access to technology, particularly information and communication technologies, had figured among the themes since 1999. She also summarized the various meetings of the NGO Forum Coalition on Civil Society, in which some 150 organizations had participated. Those meetings had been the occasion for NGOs to present their concrete recommendations for action to be taken for the realization of the Millennium Development Goals.
The Committee will continue its work at 10 a.m. Monday, 17 May.
Discussion of Reports
The Committee first took up a special report submitted by the Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, an international organization in special consultative status with ECOSOC since 1997, following a complaint by a representative of the United States at the Committee’s regular session in 2003.
At the outset of the discussion, the representative of the United States said his country was the aggrieved party in the matter. The record was clear and everybody knew what had happened. The NGO had admitted that it had accredited a person that had attacked the United States delegation during the fifty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights. According to the rules, the status of the NGO should be suspended for up to three years or withdrawn if the organization, through its representatives, abused its status by engaging in acts contrary to the purposes of the United Nations.
The NGO in question had engaged in violent and disruptive actions, he said. His delegation had filed a formal complaint last year and the NGO had responded, admitting it had accredited the person, and distancing itself from the long-time member. The NGO representative in question had attacked a 75-year-old woman, causing her great distress, heart palpitations, and disrupting the procedures of the Human Rights Commission. Non-governmental organizations engaged in such activity had to face the consequences. Some 2,430 NGOs were accredited by ECOSOC. As gatekeepers for the United Nations, 191 Member States relied on 19 people to let in NGOs that would contribute to ECOSOC’s work. If an NGO misbehaved within the United Nations, it was the Committee’s responsibility to take them out of the room for up to three years. The NGO had to be suspended for at least one year, he said.
Cuba’s representative said the Committee was faced with a complex case. The NGO had adopted a positive attitude in immediately acknowledging the mistakes it had made. The organization’s leadership had recognized the mistake and immediately presented apologies to the delegation. It had also sent four letters to the United Nations, providing exhaustive explanations of what had happened. One person, without the organization’s authorization, had committed the act. He had seen other occurrences in other United Nations bodies, including the Human Rights Commission, where it had taken several years to obtain an apology. In the current case, the reaction had been immediate. It was true that serious faults had been committed during the 2003 Human Rights Commission. Unfortunately, the representative of the NGO had not obtained the necessary visa to be present for the Committee’s meeting.
Other organizations had committed much more serious acts, he added. His delegation had accepted apologies from organizations of lesser moral stature than Tupaj Amaru. He hoped a favourable solution would be found. The Committee had never been characterized by the kind of solutions being proposed at the current time.
In the discussion that followed, speakers, while noting the need for organizations to abide by the relevant rules and regulations governing NGOs’ activities with the United Nations, also stressed the need for greater clarity on the matter before taking a decision.
The representative of Germany said that before a suspension or withdrawal of status was decided upon, the NGO, not one particular person, should have an opportunity to respond. France’s representative agreed, and asked if the Secretariat or the Committee Chairperson had information on whether the NGO would be able to provide an explanation before the Committee decided on the issue.
The representative of Turkey said that while he welcomed apologies, it was important to send a strong signal on the issue. If the door to leniency were opened, the Committee would not know what it would face in the future. Consistency was also important. A special report had been submitted. In the last session, the report had not been satisfactory to the whole of the Committee. The decision had been made to invite a representative of the NGO. Such an invitation had been transmitted to the NGO. He understood from Tupaj Amaru’s letter that they had nothing else to add to the matter. An invitation had been sent, and a letter had been received. The visa issue might need to be clarified. Did the representative really apply and fail to get a visa? Judging form the content of the NGO’s letter, the matter was clear. He did not see a procedural problem on the issue.
Cuba’s representative said the Committee had in the past accepted apologies. That process stimulated others not to commit such acts and prevented the Committee from becoming a punitive body. A decision had been taken to meet with the NGO’s representative. A visa request had been made some two months ago. Still, the visa to travel to the United States had not been granted.
Germany’s representative then noted that the Committee had decided to invite a representative of the NGO. It had not invited one specific person. In his view, it did not have to be the person who had committed the act. He would also be glad to see the letter sent to the NGO containing the invitation.
The representative of the United States said he had heard in the debate many references to past practice. If the Secretariat had records of other cases of misbehaviour -- inappropriate behaviour handled by a letter of apology -- he would like to see them.
Also participating in the discussion were the representatives of Colombia, Peru, China, Chile, Russian Federation, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Senegal, Pakistan, Cameroon and Chile.
Also considered this morning was a special report submitted by the Transnational Radical Party (TRP). The report was submitted following a complaint by the representative of Viet Nam that the NGO had provided accreditation to individuals who where members of the Montagnard Foundation, Inc., a movement considered a terrorist organization by Viet Nam, to take part in the fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights. At its 2002 session, the Committee found the report to be unsatisfactory and decided that the TRP should submit a new supplementary report.
Speaking as an observer, the representative of Viet Nam said the reason for his country’s concern had been made clear. The President of the Transnational Radical Party, Kok Ksor, was a terrorist who was instigating terror in pursuit of the Montagnard Foundation, Inc.’s publicly proclaimed goal of establishing a so-called “State of Degar” in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam. The TRP’s latest reports only repeated all the arguments, which the Committee had found unsatisfactory. It could not be denied that Kok Ksor was a terrorist and that the organization engaged in terror to pursue unjustified political aims.
It was time that the Committee take action to correct the situation, he said. The separatist desire of establishing “an independent State of Degar” within the sovereign State of Viet Nam was too clear for the Transnational Radical Party to deny. By the end of 1999, Kok Ksor had formally announced the establishment of the so-called independent State of Degar among exiles in North Carolina, United States, and had claimed himself to be “President”. The issue had been dragging on for three years now. The time that had elapsed had only made it clear that Kok Ksor was a terrorist and that he and the Montagnard Foundation, Inc. were resorting to increasingly dangerous forms of terror to destabilize Viet Nam and threaten its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The organization was abusing its consultative status with ECOSOC.
The United States’ representative said he did not see evidence to support the Vietnamese delegation’s assertions. It was easy to call someone a terrorist. Perhaps, someone in his lifetime had committed terrorist acts. However, people could change after making mistakes and could admit their mistakes. When a person had achieved a status among their community, it was possible for people in that community to invoke that name and perform criminal acts. If there was evidence that the person was directing separatist activities, it was a serious matter, but it was a matter for the Security Council, not the NGO Committee.
In the ensuing debate, several speakers questioned whether it was within the Committee’s mandate to discuss the nature of a non-governmental organization and whether it was a terrorist organization. Others, however, said that the issue fell well within the Committee’s purview, noting the evidence that the NGO was abusing its status as an accredited organization of ECOSOC.
The representative of Germany, noting that it was a politically charged and complicated legal issue, said the NGO Committee was an administrative committee of ECOSOC, and as such, not the right forum to discuss political issues. What was being asked was a legal impossibility. The Committee could not suspend an NGO as a means of coercing it to do something.
Cuba’s representative thanked Viet Nam for the new information it had provided. Looking at that information, it seemed that the NGO had displayed a separatist nature. Delegations must ensure that NGOs abide by the United Nations Charter. Violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity were serious issues and the Committee should be seriously concerned with it. The NGO was a separatist organization fighting the territorial integrity of a sovereign State. Moreover, past actions of people did have to factor into the Committee’s deliberations. Viet Nam had shown a flexible position, he added.
The representative of China said he was shocked by the information provided by Viet Nam’s delegation and supported Viet Nam’s proposals. Kok Ksor should be condemned. In the past two years, the Transnational Radical Party had been asked to provide a special report. Its attitude had been arrogant regarding that request. If the Committee allowed that behaviour to continue, it would not only lose its own credibility but also harm the United Nations. He hoped that the Committee would sanction the NGO’s activities in accordance with the principles of the United Nations, especially the relevant provisions of resolution 96/31.
Sudan’s representative also expressed concern with the information provided, noting that while he could not judge the behaviour of the organization, he could evaluate whether the behaviour was in line with the principles of resolution 96/31. The NGO, by the information presented, had engaged in separatist issues within a State. That was a source of great concern. He did not regard it to be in line with the principles and objectives of ECOSOC.
The representative of Pakistan said there was no international definition of terrorism, nor an exhaustive list of terrorists. Resolution 96/31 said that if an organization clearly abused its status by engaging in a pattern of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, their membership could be suspended or withdrawn.
Zimbabwe’s representative said the allegations were serious. The Committee could not wash its hands and say it was an issue beyond its mandate. The organization in question was accredited to ECOSOC. It was unacceptable for accredited organizations to abuse their privileges by providing platforms to promote separatist elements.
Italy’s representative said the Committee had no mandate to consider the allegation regarding the terrorist nature and activity of the NGO. Should the Committee consider it, however, the allegation of terrorism would have to be proven. Mr. Ksor had been invited to participate in different meetings of the
United Nations and had met with representatives of Italy and European Union parliamentarians in the recent past. The main issue was whether the NGO had abused its status. Mr. Ksor had participated in the Human Rights Commission and different forums, with no claims against his participation. Also, no mention had been made that a supplementary report had been presented by the organization. There had been no abuse of the rules and procedures and the purposes and principles of the United Nations and resolution 96/31. He hoped the Committee would be able to bring to a close the review of the special report.
Also participating in the discussion were the representatives of France, Romania, Peru, Chile, Cameroon, Iran and the Russian Federation.
* *** *