Committee on NGOs

7^th & 8^th Meetings (AM & PM)

3 February 2011

Continuing 2011 Session, Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations Recommends

Consultative Status for Seven Groups, Postpones Consideration of Nine Others

 

Several Members Express Frustration over Technical Hitches

In ‘Paperless Computer System’ Designed to Smooth Flow of Committee’s Work

Overcoming nagging problems with its innovative but often-frustrating “Paperless Computer System”, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today, after reverting to traditional printed documentation, was able to recommend to the Economic and Social Council seven civil society groups for consultative status, while it postponed consideration of nine groups pending receipt of answers to questions posed.

In its work, the Committee recommends general, special or roster status in accordance with such criteria as the applicant’s mandate, governance and financial regime.  Organizations enjoying general and special status can attend meetings of the Economic and Social Council and circulate statements, while those with general status can, in addition, address meetings and propose agenda items.  Roster-status NGOs (non-governmental organizations) can only attend meetings.

At the outset of today’s first meeting, the Secretariat informed Committee members that technical difficulties encountered in the unique, eight-year-old “Paperless Committee System” were being investigated.  The System, spearheaded by the NGO Branch of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, had been created to provide the Committee with a fully electronic mode of operation to ease its heavy workload and flow of documentation, as well as facilitate the engagement of civil society.

As problems with the System continued throughout the morning, ultimately forcing the Committee to suspend its work for 30 minutes, the representatives of Pakistan and Cuba expressed their frustration and requested, once again, that an official from the Office of Information and Communications Technology come to the Committee to explain what the problems were.

Specifically, Cuba’s delegate said accountability was now one of the main topics in the General Assembly.  It was therefore unacceptable that the Office of Information and Communications Technology would not come to give an explanation.  Member States paid assessments and the Organization had invested considerable resources to finance the System. 

The persistent problems were impeding not only the work of the Committee but the entire Organization, a matter that should not be compounded by lack of respect on the part of the Office of Information and Communications Technology.  The people there, who for the most part enjoyed a higher salary than “many in the world”, were not the “kings” of the computer system.  “Let their Lordships deign to come down and explain what is going on”, he said.

Agreeing, a representative of the Secretariat said that yesterday, he had sent a note at the highest level to convey the urgency of the issue and had also conveyed frustration of Member States.  He had been assured that somebody from the Office of Information and Communications Technology would come to address the Committee today, but was later informed that the matter was still being investigated. 

When the Committee began its work in the afternoon meeting, Malcolm Chapman from the Office of Information and Communications Technology Secretariat reported that the wireless network in the conference room was functioning normally.  The application used in the Committee, however, was experiencing problems.  It was maintained by Department of Economic and Social Affairs, whose colleagues were unable to attend.  His office was working with that department to resolve the issues.

The Committee today recommended special consultative status for the following organizations:

Association de la jeunesse Congolaise pour le developpement, a national organization based in Congo, which aims to educate and guide confused youths in certain aspects of life, especially those with a marginalized background;

Behnam Daheshpour Charity Organization, an international organization based in Iran, which receives and distributes financial and non-financial public donations to cancer victims;

Federacion Internacional de Fe y Alegria, an international group headquartered in Bolivia, which is an umbrella for 18 organizations in Latin America and Europe that focus on to the most impoverished and excluded sectors of the population, in order to empower them in their personal development and their participation in society;

Foundation for the Development of Knowledge Suma Veritas, a national organization in Argentina, assisting women to enter the workforce and to generate a nurturing atmosphere for women’s development; and

Aube Nouvelle pour la Femme et le Développement, a national organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which wants, among other things, to create an economic and socially favourable environment for women, especially in rural areas.

The Committee also recommended general consultative status for Hope International, an international organization based in the United States, which focuses on alleviating physical and spiritual poverty through microenterprise development

Pending receipt of answers to delegates’ questions, the Committee postponed consideration of the applications of the following non-governmental organizations:

Anandilal Ganesh Podar Society — a national organization in India, which aims to educate girls from the weaker section of the society, especially from slum areas and the Adivasi tribal area and to help blind and deaf girls — when Pakistan’s delegate asked what criteria were used to chose the children that needed assistance.  Which United Nations conferences had been attended and what contributions had been made?

Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum — an India-based international organization, which wants to create a special climate of solidarity and responsibility — as Pakistan’s delegate asked for details about projects being carried out in various countries, and for legal proof of those activities.

Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir Córdoba — a national organization in Argentina, which fosters discussion and action on issues such as reproductive rights, sexuality, health and citizenship of women, and their relations with religious elements, with the aim of creating space for ecumenical dialogue, developing actions for women and encouraging public dialogue on reproductive issues, among other things.  The representative of Peru was satisfied with answers given to questions posed and supported consultative status, but Pakistan’s delegate requested clarity on the NGO’s work with intergovernmental organizations.

Chamber of Computer Logistics People Worldwide — an India-based international NGO that promotes the need for higher education among youth and educates the needy — with Pakistan’s delegate asking for details on the process for appointing an “ambassador”, and about whether one staff member was an official of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Corrections India — a national organization in India, which aims to bring prisoners’ children to the highest level of dignity and social acceptance by providing counselling to prisoners and their children — as Pakistan’s representative asked how the NGO determined what was the “most rejected community”, what kind of “moral instruction” was offered, and what was the group’s involvement with prisoners’ children.

Environmental Management for Livelihood Improvement Bwaise Facility — a national organization in Uganda, aiming to empower communities to implement development plans and programmes that promote sustainable development — because Morocco’s delegate wanted more information about the organization’s certificate of registration.

China Youth Development Foundation — a national organization in China committed to helping young people build capacity, and to improving the environment for the development of young people by providing aid, giving a voice to young people’s interests and carrying out social advocacy — as Cuba’s representative asked whether the NGO still wanted to be considered for consultative status, as earlier communication indicated the organization wanted to postpone consideration for internal reasons.

Centre des Droits des Gens-Maroc — a national organization in Morocco working in the area of education and awareness raising about human rights and equality between the sexes; and to reform laws to ensure they conform to international human rights instruments — when Morocco’s delegate wanted more information on the NGO’s study regarding speech about human rights.

Foundation for Human Horizon — an international Indian-based organization, which supports volunteer-based, honest and experienced civil society groups in serving their populations' critical needs around education, health care and welfare, without regard to religion or race — as Pakistan’s representative was not satisfied with answers provided to a question regarding activities carried out in countries other than Pakistan.

Launching the traditional question and answer period, the representative of Hope International, responding to a query about its proof of existence, said the organization had been established in Switzerland in 2005, having submitted all documents to prove its existence to the Secretariat at that time.  It also had received a message of congratulations from the President of the Confederation as proof of its establishment.  On a query related to the Economic and Social Council’s 2009 Annual Ministerial Review, he said the organization had not been able to attend, as it had not yet received Council status.  That was “deplorable”, he said, because that Review had focused on health and Hope International had created medical and treatment centres for young people and the poorest populations.

However, Hope International had attended other conferences, he said, citing meetings of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural), on the suggestion of the Government of Madagascar, with which it had maintained contacts.  As for any work with specialized agencies, he said Hope International had worked with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), among others, and had contributed to international conferences on the Millennium Development Goals and women’s rights.

Further, he said the organization had partnered with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) on large-scale broadband installations, with the goal of creating plugs for computers for connection to the internet.  It also had responded to requests from the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies, including the Council.  It was international in scope with activities in 13 countries.

The Committee then recommended general consultative status for the organization.

The next speaker was a representative of Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, a United States-based international NGO that was discussed yesterday, who said in response to questions from representatives from Cuba and Venezuela about the NGO’s independence given the considerable amount of Government funding, that grants were received from the Governments of the United States and Canada, but that those Governments did not review or influence the NGO’s research.

During the last fiscal year, Government funding amounted to 40 per cent of the budget, with the remainder provided through donations.  As the representative noted that the NGO had received funding in 2004 and 2005, before the date of registration in 2006, she said that registration was based on an Internal Revenue Service registration, but that the organization had been active before that.

As for reliability of sources used, she said sources of information consisted mainly of witness testimony and documents.  Witnesses came from all social strata and religions, which enabled the organization to cross-reference and eliminate some witness statements as unreliable.  It was unfortunate that often, people accused of human rights violations could not be interviewed.

Responding to a question of Venezuela’s delegate about the motivation behind the publication of a report on the 2009 presidential elections in Iran, she said that report had been completed last year after information was received about human rights violations in that country in the post-election period.

Asked by the representatives of India, Pakistan and China what the motivation was that lead to the foundation of the organization, and why only human rights violations in Iran after 1979 were being taken into account, she said the Center had been founded to document human rights abuses in Iran and preserve memories and evidence.  That motivation was premised on the idea that abuses and violations should be made public and the perpetrators should be held accountable.  There was no money available to study human rights violations in Iran before 1979, although she did not deny that human rights violations had taken place before 1979.

In a general statement, the representative of Iran, an observer to the Committee, said that Government financing of the NGO was not as innocent as it looked.  The “Iran Democracy Fund” had been established in 2004 by the Government of the United States, which corresponded with the second tenure of President George W. Bush, and in line with his policy of “making change” in Iran.  The founders of the Center were smart enough to have been the first to benefit from that fund to the amount of one third of available moneys. 

Drawing attention to the fact that the dates of registration were different in the English and Persian version of the certificate, he said that in 2005, a seminar had been held in a Persian Gulf State where participants had told the BBC that the aim of that seminar was to train Iranian human rights defenders on how to overthrow the regime.

In concluding remarks, the organization’s representative said:  “We don’t hold seminars on how to overthrow the Government of Iran.”

The representative of Nicaragua requested that answers provided be submitted in writing.

In other business, document (E/C.2/2011/L.1) was distributed containing a draft decision submitted by the United States about a proposed draft text that would take note of the 2008 quadrennial report of Amnesty International.  Cuba’s representative noted that delegations had not had the chance to interact with the NGO in question as the matter would be taken up tomorrow.  He opposed the distribution of the document at this time.  “The procedure is threatening and unacceptable,” he said, adding that it was an “arrogant” way of exercising pressure.  The representatives of Sudan and Venezuela also spoke on the matter.

Responding, a Secretariat representative said any delegation had the right to submit documents to the Secretariat for distribution to the Committee.  The document was submitted yesterday and it was his duty to distribute any such documents.  The item would be taken up tomorrow.  It was in the hands of delegations to decide what to do with the proposal.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, 4 February, at 10 a.m. to consider deferred applications and new and deferred quadrennial reports.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record