Committee on NGOs

25^th & 26^thMeetings (AM & PM)

group granted consultative status with Economic and Social Council

as committee postpones action on proposal to suspend another

Continuing its 2008 resumed session, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today decided to recommend one civil-society group, Fondation Ostad Elahi, for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, while deciding to postpone action on a proposal to suspend the World Union for Progressive Judaism, which it deemed to have abused its status at a Human Rights Council meeting in January (see Press Release ECOSOC/6335-NGO/637 for background).

The Committee also took note of quadrennial reports submitted by 127 entities already enjoying consultative status with the Council and heard a report concerning the activities of the United Nations NGO Informal Regional Network.

Interested non-governmental organizations are granted general, special or roster status with the Council upon recommendation by the 19-member Committee, which reviews the suitability of each applicant on the basis of various criteria, including mandate, governance and financial regime.  Groups enjoying general and special consultative status can attend meetings of the Council and circulate statements.  Those that have general status can, in addition, speak at meetings and propose items for the Council’s agenda, while organizations with roster status can only attend meetings.

At each meeting, one hour is allotted to a question-and-answer session with organizational representatives, during which members might seek clarity regarding individual applications.  Today, a representative of the Democracy Coalition Project, a United States-based international organization under review, fielded questions from the representatives of Cuba, Pakistan and China regarding how it measured the commitment of United Nations Member States to principles enshrined in the Human Rights Charter and related covenants, in its assessment of the eligibility of countries for membership to the Human Rights Council.  The representative explained that his organization did so by studying the voting patterns of each country on certain General Assembly resolutions, which were thought to reflect that country’s support for human rights.

The representative of Pakistan noted that resolutions chosen by the organization for that exercise had been “selective”, and had not included resolutions touching on the elimination of racism, the right to development, the use of mercenaries and combating defamation of religions.  Agreeing, the representative of Cuba asked how the organization’s assessment regarding the eligibility of States for membership to the Human Rights Council could be valid under such limited criteria.  On a related note, China’s delegate asked whether it took into account the protection of rights of indigenous people in North America in assessing the human rights record of countries.

As the Committee reviewed the reports of organizations enjoying special and general status, which are required to submit such documents every four years, it took note of those submitted by:  the Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos; International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples; Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; Centre d’ccompagnement des autochtones pygmees et minoritaires vulnerables; Inter-Press Service International Association; International Federation for Family Development; Korean Institute for Women and Politics; RICS Foundation; and the World Organization of Building Officials.

The Committee also took note of quadrennial reports submitted by:  Human Appeal International; International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture; International Federation of University Women; International Federation Terre des Hommes; Socialist International; Federation de Tunis de Solidarite Sociale; Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants; Global Action on Aging; Wittenberg Center for Alternative Resources; World Association of Children’s Friends; Care International; International Council on Human Rights Policy; Oasis Open City Foundation; Organization of Islamic Capitals and Cities; and the World Economic Forum.

Other reports of which the Committee took note were those of:  the International Women’s Health Coalition; Kids Can Free the Children; Resources for the Future; Youth with a Mission; Cercle des amis de la foret pour le 21e siècle; International Federation of Associations of the Elderly; International Planned Parenthood Federation, Western Hemisphere Region; Nord-Sud XXI-North-South XXI; Coordination Immigrés du Sud du Monde; Japan Federation of Bar Associations; Mercy-USA for Aid and Development; Organization for Industrial, Spiritual and Cultural Advancement International; Several Sources Foundation; Association algerienne d’alphabetisation; Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations; Interact Worldwide; International Bar Association; and Rencontre africaine pour la defense des droits de l’homme.

The Committee also took note of reports from:  the Centre for Democracy; Global Fund for Women; Handicap International; International Association of Charities; International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development; All China Women’s Federation; Defence for Children International; International Movement ATD Fourth World; Japan Civil Liberties Union; United Nations Association of San Diego; International Alert; National Wildlife Federation; Network Women in Development Europe; PanAmerican-PanAfrican Association; Foundation Projekta for Women and Development Services; Global Volunteers; International Association of Peace Messenger Cities; International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations; International Institute of Administrative Sciences; and the Women’s World Summit Foundation.

Additional reports of which the Committee took note were those of:  Disabled Peoples’ International; Focus on the Family; Hariri Foundation -- The Islamic Foundation for Culture and Higher Education; International Commission on Distance Education; Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation; Association of United Families International; Buddha’s Light International Association; International Federation of Persons with Physical Disability; International Planned Parenthood Federation, Europe Region; Permanent Assembly for Human Rights; Association for Democratic Initiatives; Citizens’ Rights Protection Society; European Forum for Victim Services; Heritage Foundation; International Council on Mining and Metals; and Legiao da Boa Vontade.

In the case of the Heritage Foundation, the representative of Cuba asked for more information about its participation in meetings of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council.

The Committee also took note of reports submitted by:  the International Organization for Standardization; National Safety Council; Program for Appropriate Technology in Health; SOS Kinderdorf International; Trickle up Program; Antiviolence Center; International Driving Tests Committee; International Road Federation; Pathfinder International; World Savings Banks Institute; Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation; International Council of Scientific Unions; National Bar Association; Society for the Protection of Unborn Children; World Federation of United Nations Associations; Fondation Guilé; Green Earth Organization; Hong Kong Council of Social Service; International Association for Water Law; and the International Federation of Agricultural Producers.

Other reports of which the Committee took note were those of: theAcademy of Criminal Justice Sciences; All-Russian Social Fund; Association of Medical Doctors of Asia; European Disability Forum; Life Ethics Educational Association; International Cartographic Association; International Chamber of Shipping; International Federation for Housing and Planning; Jordanian Hashemite Fund for Human Development; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Family Planning Association of Turkey; German Foundation for World Population; National Council of Women of the United States; Perhaps Kids Meeting Kids Can Make a Difference; and the World Federation of Democratic Youth.

The Committee also took note of reports from:  the Fund of Aid for Youth;Interaction, American Council for Voluntary International Action; International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development; International Longevity Center; Association for Progressive Communications; European Youth Forum, HelpAge International; International Council of Women; Movement for a Better World; International Association for the Defence of Religious Liberty; International Social Security Association; Life for Relief and Development; and the Women’s Commission Research and Education Fund.

The Committee postponed its taking note of reports submitted by:  Centrist Democratic International, when the representative of Cuba said the organization had not answered questions posed by his Government; the National Council of Women of Thailand, after the representative of China said she was unable to access the report through the Committee’s website; the International Press Institute, after China asked to see a list of Chinese participants invited to a forthcoming seminar organized by that group; Pax Christi International, after Cuba’s delegate sought further clarification on its activities in Latin America and its national affiliates; Human Rights Internet, because the representative of Cuba could not access related documents; and the Armenian Assembly of America, after Turkey’s delegate sought more information about its participation in a forum on genocide.

Other reports on which the Committee deferred action were those of:  the Ukrainian World Congress, after the representative of the Russian Federation requested more time to consider documents recently received from the organization; International Network of Liberal Women, after Cuba asked about the political affiliations of its member organizations, if any; Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme, after Egypt sought its opinion on new forms of racism; Freedom House, after Cuba asked whether entities funded by the group were in compliance with the principles of the United Nations Charter regarding territorial integrity and sovereignty, and how it maintained its independence from the United States Government, given that 80 per cent of its finances came from Federal Government funds; and the Transnational Radical Party, after China asked for more information on a joint declaration it had made on the Panchen Lama at a meeting of the Human Rights Council.

In the afternoon, Hanifa Mezoui, Chief of the Non-Governmental Section in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, reported on the work of the United Nations NGO Informal Regional Network, which is supported by the general voluntary trust fund.  The Section had presented around 70 workshops at Headquarters in 2007-2008, and organized several forums abroad aimed at strengthening partnerships between non-governmental organizations and the United Nations.

She said that in March, the Section had helped organize a two-day forum on “Promotion and Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals through Education and Outreach” in Bangkok, Thailand.  Some 100 individuals hailing from different South-East Asian backgrounds had deliberated on ways to achieve the Millennium Goals by 2015.  Meanwhile, the Third Conference of the UN-NGO-Informal Regional Network/Asia-Pacific, which the Section had also helped to organize, had been held in Beijing from 28 to 29 April under the theme “Sustainable Development and Green Olympics”.

The Informal Regional Network had contributed greatly to achieving greater representation among Asian and African organizations in consultative status with the Council, she said.  The percentage of developing-world civil society organizations with status had risen from 14 per cent in 1996 to 35 per cent in 2008.  However, a more robust regional network was needed in the Arab world, where only 164 non-governmental organizations enjoyed consultative status with the Council.

Also today, the Committee moved to note a name-change by an Italy-based organization from “Transnational Radical Party” to “Nonviolent Radical Party Transnational and Transparty”.  But after a lengthy exchange involving the representatives of China, United Kingdom, Cuba, Israel, Italy, Peru, United States, and Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), it decided to defer that action to a later time.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 5 June, to re-visit the name-change question, consider remaining applications for status, review its work methods and adopt an agenda for its next session.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record