Committee on NGOs

15^th & 16^th Meetings (AM & PM)

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE VOTES TO SUSPEND FOR ONE YEAR

CONSULTATIVE STATUS OF ARAB COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Approves Three Civil Society Groups for Special Consultative Status,

Votes to Reject Associacao Brasileira de Gays, Lesbicas e Transgeneros

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today required roll call votes to recommend the suspension of one civil society group for one year, on a request by Algeria, and to reject for consultative status another, concerned with gay and lesbian issues, as it continued its regular session for 2009.

In all likelihood, an additional meeting will be added to the Committee’s schedule in the coming weeks to reduce the backlog of work -- there are still 110 applications to be revisited -- before it heads into its resumed session in May.  In late-day action, the Committee recommended three organizations for special consultative status and deferred five more.  Absent replies from the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by today, it closed four files, without prejudice to their future applications.

In its item on special reports, the Committee returned this morning to its consideration of a complaint made formally on the first day of its session by the observer for Algeria against the Arab Commission for Human Rights, an NGO with special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.  The Mission alleged that, during a 10 June 2008 meeting of the Human Rights Council, a representative, not from that NGO, and associated with an armed terrorist group operating abroad and cited on the list of the Security Council sanctions committee created by its resolution 1267 (1999) and against whom an international warrant had been issued, had addressed the Council’s session on behalf of the NGO.

Before the Committee was a proposal, made at Algeria’s request and supported by several delegations, for suspending the NGO.  Egypt’s Committee member said the case was “very serious and obvious”.  Somebody with a criminal record, condemned by a competent court (in Algeria), had addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council.  The Arab Commission for Human Rights had abused the privilege of the status conferred on it by allowing the individual -- a member of another NGO without status -- to take the floor on its behalf.  In the course of the debate that followed, Committee members from Cuba, Qatar, Guinea, Sudan, Turkey, China, Dominica, India, Russian Federation, Burundi, Pakistan, Angola and Peru expressed their support of this position.  Colombia’s member proposed a one-year suspension.

Presenting a divergent view, the United States member said it appeared there was a clear procedural violation by the NGO because the individual (Rachid Mesli) had spoken on behalf of a non-accredited NGO.  He was prepared now to join a sanction based on that procedural violation, which should be a letter of reprimand, without a suspension or withdrawal of the NGO.  However, he was not in a position to take action today, because he did not have all the information to substantiate the claim.  That was a principled stand of the United States.  It had asked, both formally and informally, of the Member State making the complaint, for additional information, but it had not received it.

He said he also understood that Mr. Mesli had been granted refugee status in Switzerland in 2000, based on allegations currently being dealt with in the Committee.  The situation had been looked at by the United Nations in 2000 by a working group on arbitrary detention, and facts from both the condemning nation and the person being condemned had been provided.  Ultimately, the decision had been made that there was not sufficient evidence at that time to take a decision.  Similarly, the United States was not in a position to take a decision now.  The situation before the Committee had arisen in June-July 2008.  The complaint should have come earlier, perhaps at the working group meeting in December 2008.  That would have enabled his delegation to take a position today on the allegation of terrorism.

Similarly, Israel’s member agreed that the NGO breached the Committee’s guiding resolution, 1996/31, when a person not associated with it spoke on its behalf.  But, on the substance of the other questions, he had also requested additional information.  He, too, wondered why the Committee had received information about the complaint only one day before the start of the session, when the event had taken place in Geneva last June.  It was important for the working group to evolve some kind of mechanism for future such cases.  For the time being, handling such matters on a case-by-case basis made the process difficult, complicated and very lengthy.  The issue of terrorism was extremely important and sensitive to Israel, and because of that, he needed more time to study the case.

Nor was the United Kingdom in a position to support a three-year suspension; it was too heavy-handed for a case brought to the Committee’s attention just two weeks ago, its member said.  She deeply regretted the Committee had not found a mechanism to deal with such cases.  The Committee should not take any decision it would regret in the future.  She hoped it could be reasonable and further investigate this case, in order to evolve an appropriate sanction for the NGO.

India’s member felt it was not the Committee’s role to question the decision of Algeria’s judiciary.  He did not know whether the Committee was competent to judge the matter.  It should be looking at the NGO, and not at the substantive part of the information, in terms of what crime had or had not been committed.  If a Member State alleged something, the Committee must be clear-minded and decide whether or not to give status to an NGO.  It was not its mandate to investigate an issue.  In his view, Algeria’s proposal was “a bit mild” -- the Mission was calling for a suspension, and not a withdrawal, of status.  He personally would not feel safe in the United Nations building if someone convicted of terrorism charges walked into the building because he had status.  The Committee should decide at the earliest convenience, at least on suspension, if not on withdrawal.

The member from the Russian Federation asked to hear from the observer for Switzerland, where the incident had taken place.  He also regretted that the complaint by Algeria had not been brought to the Committee’s attention long before the start of the session.  Nevertheless, a violation of 1996/31 had occurred and the evidence presented to the Committee was exhaustive.  In that regard, his delegation was ready to take action on the matter in the course of this session.

China’s member agreed, stressing that the Committee should take action immediately to prevent similar things from happening in the United Nations.  Only by being decisive and taking an immediate decision on such a matter could it maintain the authority and seriousness of the consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.

After protracted debate, in which Algeria’s observer also spoke, as did the observer for Switzerland, who confirmed that Mr. Mesli had indeed obtained the status of refugee in Switzerland in 2000, a proposal emerged by Peru, and tweaked by other members, as follows: that the suspension of the NGO be for one year instead of three, with the additional provision that the organization be requested to send an updated list of all its members and associates before the May 2010 session.  The United States called for a recorded vote.

By 18 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (United States), the Committee voted (in a roll call) to suspend the consultative status of the Arab Commission for Human Rights for one year and to require it to submit an updated list of all its members and associates before the May 2010 session.

The Committee next picked up its consideration of the application of Associacao Brasileira de Gays, Lesbicas e Transgeneros (document E/C.2/2009/CRP.1), a national organization based in Brazil aimed at strengthening and organizing gay, lesbian and transsexual groups in order to contribute towards the building of a free and egalitarian society.

The contentious discussion over this application, begun yesterday, continued this afternoon.  (See Press Release ECOSOC/6383)

[After several questions yesterday to the NGO representative, mainly from Egypt’s member, concerning, among other topics, the organization’s position regarding paedophilia, the United Kingdom’s member formally proposed granting the NGO status, given that rounds of questions had been asked and answered since 2007, including in writing, and the answers were satisfactory.  When some members requested that the new set of replies be put in writing for the Committee, Romania’s member proposed that the question of whether or not to grant status to the NGO should be put to a vote, saying that the request for written replies was another way of denying status to organizations concerned with gay and lesbian rights.]

Romania’s member reiterated his request from yesterday, calling for action on the matter, without further delay, considering that the organization had been a subject of the Committee’s attention for more than two years and it had replied to all possible questions and allegations, including with regard to paedophilia.  It was obvious there would be no resolute decision and no consensus on the NGO.  Keeping the application in limbo would damage the Committee’s credibility.

Egypt’s member said the Committee should not take a rushed decision on any application as long as there was the “slightest shadow of doubt” about its involvement in paedophilia.  The answers provided so far were not sufficient to clear the case and make members comfortable that the NGO did not have any member or associate involved in such a deplorable act.  He hoped the Committee would act accordingly.

After members from Israel and Romania asked the Committee to hear from Brazil, the observer took the floor and stated that the NGO was supported by the Government of Brazil in that it had worked with the Government in implementing national programmes to combat HIV/AIDS and had made a tremendous contribution in that respect, and against violence against certain segments of the population.  It had also received the Human Rights Award in Brazil in 2007.  It was abundantly clear that the Brazilian authorities held the association in “high esteem”.

He said that, as for the question of paedophilia, in Brazil, that was a crime and subjected to legal punishment, against whoever practiced or encouraged it, “so we would never accept an association in Brazil that would promote it or accept among its members anyone who encourages or practices that type of crime”.  According to the official records of the Ministry of Justice, there was no record of criminal convictions in Brazilian territory up to last week of the person in question; nor had he been the subject of any criminal case for paedophilia.

The NGO had clarified and reiterated to the Committee on numerous occasions that it would take appropriate measures against paedophilia, he said.  In Brazil, there was a presumption of innocence taken by the court, and he hoped that presumption was applied by the Committee, which he hoped would bestow consultative status to the association.  There was cultural diversity, but all delegations should see beyond that to whether the NGO fulfilled the principles and objectives of the United Nations.  As a representative of his Government, he could “vow” that the association fully fulfilled those requirements.

Egypt’s member raised some questions about a short fictitious story -- My Ideal Boy -- penned by an associate of the NGO, which the NGO itself said touched on the issue of paedophilia.  The matter was currently being investigated by the authorities.  Until he heard a decision, the Committee could not hear any application tainted with any shadow of paedophilia.  He made a motion for adjournment of the debate on granting consultative status to this NGO.

The Chairman informed the Committee that a maximum of two representatives could speak in favour of the motion and two could speak in opposition to it, after which it would immediately be put to a vote.  Members from the United Kingdom and Peru spoke against the motion to adjourn the debate on the application of Associacao Brasileira de Gays, Lesbicas e Transgeneros; members from Pakistan and Qatar spoke in support of Egypt’s motion to adjourn the debate.

The motion to adjourn the debate was rejected by a vote of 9 against (Angola, Burundi, Colombia, Dominica, Israel, Peru, Romania, United Kingdom, United States) to 7 in favour (China, Egypt, Guinea, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sudan), with 2 abstentions (India, Turkey).  ( Cuba was not in the room for the vote.)

When the Committee moved to a roll call vote on whether to grant special consultative status to the NGO, it heard explanations of vote before the vote from a number of delegations, including Egypt, United Kingdom, Burundi and the United States.

Then, the Committee rejected the proposal to grant the NGO consultative status by a roll call vote of 8 against (Guinea, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sudan, Burundi, China, Egypt) to 6 in favour of status (Israel, Peru, Romania, United Kingdom, United States), with 4 abstentions (India, Turkey, Angola, Dominica).  ( Cuba was not in the room for the vote.)

Members from Israel and the United Kingdom explained their position after the vote, with the latter representative saying she deeply regretted the Committee’s decision to reject the NGO.  That ran contrary to the principles of the United Nations and did nothing more than reinforce the view that the Committee could not properly undertake the work for which it was tasked.  The gay and lesbian community should contribute to the work of the United Nations.  “Simply put, it is their right.”

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the observer for the Czech Republic associated herself with the statement delivered by the United Kingdom, adding that non-governmental organizations formed an essential part of the work of the United Nations.  The European Union attached great importance to their work.  Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 explicitly confirmed the need to take into account the full diversity of NGOs at national, regional and international levels.  Discrimination of any kind was contrary to the broader spirit of United Nations debate and of the European Union.  The NGO supported United Nations activities in a variety of fields, such as health, gender, development and human rights.  Economic and Social Council decisions in 2006 and 2007 had recognized the contribution of the work of the NGO.

She said: “Withholding its status, the NGO Committee acted in a discriminatory manner against the NGO, which has every right to participate in the work of the United Nations.”

The observer for Brazil, saying he had already spoken on the merits of the organization, regretted that the Committee had failed to grant it consultative status.  It had failed to evaluate the merits of the organization on the basis of the requirements set out by resolution 1996/31 and instead acted as a “censorship chamber” on what kind of NGOs were allowed to express their views and contribute to the work of the United Nations.  However, he thanked those delegations who understood what kind of contribution the NGO would make.

The Committee next decided to close the following files, without prejudice, for failure to respond by 28 January:  International Centre for Peace Studies; Social Alert; Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights; and Women’s Business Development Center.

The following organizations were approved for special consultative status:

Association Malienne d’Initiatives et D’Action pour le Developpement (document E/C.2/2009/CRP.1), a national organization based in Bamako, Mali, aims to support local initiatives for the socio-economic and cultural development of disadvantaged rural and urban populations;

Ambassadors for Children (document E/C.2/2009/CRP.1), a United States-based international organization dedicated to serving children around the world through short-term humanitarian service trips and sustainable programmes; and

Environment Action Association (document E/C.2/2009/CRP.1), a national organization based in Seoul, Republic of Korea, which has as its mission passing on the beauty of nature to future generations by promoting environmental preservation; educating the public and advocating; providing policy strategies and alternatives; and monitoring environmental pollution based on its organizational motto of “Clean Water, Clean Air and Green Environment”.

Deferred applications were International Human Rights Observer, Agape International Spiritual Center of Truth, International Human Rights Observer, Better Life Programme for the African Rural Woman and International Sustainable Energy Organization.

The Committee will meet again to conclude its regular session at a time to be announced.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record