Committee on NGOs

13^th & 14^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations Recommends Six Entities for Status

with Economic and Social Council, Defers Consideration of 25 Applications

 

Divergent Views Emerge as Members Discuss Permissible

Level of Participation of Observers in Reviewing Applications

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today recommended six entities for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and postponed consideration of 25 applications in the penultimate day of its 2011 regular session, which heard extensive debate over the appropriate rights and procedures required to pose questions to groups seeking standing in the 19-member body.

General, special or roster status is granted 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 United Nations Economic and Social Council and circulate statements, while those with general status can, in addition, address meetings and propose agenda items.  Roster-status NGOs can only attend meetings.  Organizations with general and special status must also submit a report every four years.

The Committee reviewed the applications of a range of organizations for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, considering new applications, new requests for reclassification and requests for reclassification that had been deferred from previous sessions.

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

International Human Rights Observer Pakistan, a national organization working to educate and create awareness on fundamental freedoms and rights enshrined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to advocate for the effective implementation of the international human rights already signed by Governments;

Vivekananda Sevakendra-O-Sishu Uddyan, a national organization working out of West Bengal, India, to support the holistic development of the Indian community in a self-sustainable manner, in particular through microfinance projects and various community development programmes;

Afromedianet, a France-based international network of leading journalists and independent experts specializing in human rights, development issues and humanitarian affairs in Africa;

Athletes United for Peace, an international NGO in the United States promoting peace, education and friendship through sport programmes and events for young people;

5^th Pillar, a United States-based international NGO working to set up Right to Information Act (2005) service centres for raising awareness among Indian citizens about eliminating corruption at all levels of society; and

Council for American Students in International Negotiations, a national organization in the United States that generates discussion and instils knowledge about international issues at universities across the country, and works to create a core group of young leaders to engage communities in global affairs.

The Committee today recommended that review of the following applications be postponed:

Assyrian Aid Society – Iraq, a national organization in Iraq promoting Assyrian culture and heritage and maintaining a “structure” capable of responding to unexpected crises that require immediate mobilization to help Assyrians in need.  Turkey’s delegate noted the NGO had not answered a question about its position on sovereignty and territorial integrity and she wished to have that clarified.  Morocco’s delegate asked whether the NGO was registered, as it had not made efforts to bring its legal status in line with 2010 law.

Caribbean Electric Utility Services Corporation, an international organization in Saint Lucia, which facilitates the development of world class electric energy services for all peoples of the Caribbean and provides industry specific services to enhance the capacity of its members.  Venezuela’s delegate said the association did not meet requirements of resolution 1996/31.  Did the association provide specific services to its member companies?  Also, what social programmes did it offer to communities?

Creating Resources for Empowerment in Action, an international organization in India empowering women to articulate, demand and access their human rights by enhancing leadership and focusing on issues of sexuality, sexual and reproductive rights, violence against women, human rights and social justice.  Pakistan’s representative asked for details of its activities and about its membership.

Equit Institute, a Brazil-headquartered international NGO working in the intersection of gender and development.  China’s delegate asked about its activities in China.

Indira Gandhi National Foundation, an international organization in India working for the welfare of the State engaging in social service by working for the betterment of the underprivileged.  Pakistan’s delegate said its independent character was in question, as funding came mainly from Government projects.  He asked why one list provided contained 43 permanent members, and the original application noted only seven members.  Also, how could it consider itself an international organization when it worked only in India?

International Institute of Security and Safety Management, an international organization working in India to promote international and national cooperation, awareness and strategic understanding between NGOs on safety and security, conflict resolution, disaster management and other related areas.  Pakistan’s delegate asked how the NGO could include serving officers in the armed forces on its Board, and to provide information about its activities.

Isfahan Minority Rights and Development, a national organization aiming to improve the situation of Somalia through human rights advocacy and protection, particularly by arranging workshops raising the capacity of marginalized communities.  Belgium’s delegate wondered how the NGO planned to contribute to the Council’s work, given its very small budget.

Mahabodhi International Mediation Centre, an Indian national organization aiming to establish an integrated community to provide humanitarian services to impoverished people in the remote Ladakh area and to provide a mediation service to those international communities seeking spiritual development.  Pakistan’s representative inquired about its membership, which included Government officials, and for details about its funding sources.

New World Hope Organization, a Pakistan-based international organization dedicated to alleviating human suffering around the world regardless of race, colour, religion or cultural background and working in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Kosovo, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Bolivia.  India’s delegate said the application was unclear about past and planned activities.  He also requested information about plans in India and for detailed sources of income for the last five years to determine how income had been used.  He also wondered if any active military officers served on the NGO.

Palpung Munishasan Dharmachakra Sangh, an international organization aiming to promote, encourage and support all activities contributing to peace and cooperation through the use of humanitarian principles and non-violence.  China’s delegate asked the NGO to correct language on its website to “ Tibet, province of China”, and requested information about its budget and details of its 2010 spending.  Pakistan’s representative also inquired about its income.

Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights, an international organization based in the Philippines, which informs, links, engages and strengthens organizations and individuals worldwide to promote and improve the reproductive and sexual health and rights of all women and girls.  China’s delegate requested details on activities in China, including the 2009 Asia Pacific Regional Consultative Meeting.  Belgium’s delegate, seconded by Bulgaria’s delegate, said the NGO had replied to detailed questions for years and her delegation was ready to grant status to it.

A representative of the Holy See, speaking as an observer, expressed serious reservations about the NGO, saying it wished to advance abortion rights around the world, which “flies in the face” of the consensus reached at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (UNFPA) in Cairo.  Any such organization working against consensus reached by States must reconsider its purpose.  For that reason, he did not support the NGO.

All India Christian Council, a national organization in India working to protect and serve the interests of the Christian community, minorities and oppressed castes.  India’s delegate said the NGO had “skirted” previous questions about providing copies of its statement made at a particular event and whether it believed “caste-based discrimination” was a race question; did it support discrimination based on caste?

World Toilet Organization, an international organization advocating for access to proper sanitation for the world’s 2.5 billion people who lacked it.  China’s representative asked for details about its budget deficit, and for language on its application referring to Taiwan, province of China to be corrected.

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a United States-based international organization comprised of European, Japanese, and American automobile manufacturers to advocate technically sound public policy positions that met needs for clean, safe, efficient and affordable personal transportation.  Venezuela’s delegate asked for the registration certificate and details on whether its aim in joining the Council would be to influence State decisions, to ensure that public policies that countered industry interests were not taken.

American Bible Society, a national NGO headquartered in the United States making the Bible available to every person in a language and format each could understand and afford.  Pakistan’s representative wondered about the NGO’s response to updating its reply to question 2.  China’s delegate asked about activities carried out in China.

Amuta for NGO Responsibility, a national NGO in Israel promoting principles outlined in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, such as:  the protection of and adherence to universal human rights; tolerance and respect for diversity; cooperation, partnership, and community; and a “culture of peace”, among others.  Venezuela’s representative wondered about criteria used in research to denounce actors in the Arab Israeli conflict and how it aimed to create transparency in those areas.  Further, did it have links to people or organizations that defended settlement activities in Arab occupied territory, including in East Jerusalem?  Morocco’s delegate asked for responses to questions 12 and 14.

Senegal’s representative said the NGO outlined it did not take any position on international law; however, among its goals, the NGO said its reports had an impact on the United Nations and Government policy.  Could it explain that apparent contradiction?

Asia Catalyst, an international NGO in the United States promoting the development of local NGOs that advanced human rights, social justice and environmental protection in Asia.  China’s representative asked for details about an international conference on AIDS held in Bali in 2008.

Asia Center for Human Rights (ACHR), an international organization in the Republic of Korea working to establish a human rights protection mechanism and to improve the human rights situation in Asia — with Cuba’s representative asking whether the NGO had contacted the Bangladeshi Government about its work and carried out its activities in partnership with it.  Pakistan’s delegate inquired about criteria for selecting people for human rights training in various countries, and about how the human rights protection mechanism would be realized, especially given the diversity of religions in the region.

Israel’s delegate said the NGO had provided a response to the queries about the human rights mechanism and Bangladesh had been answered.  He asked that the same questions not be repeated.  In general, he asked that delegates not repeat questions, as the NGO’s application had been in the process for quite a long time.

A representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking as an observer, had serious concerns about the NGO, especially about its independence.  The president of the Asian Center was also the director of an NGO on “North Korean” human rights.  Further, the two groups used the same building, jointly organized conferences on “North Korean” human rights, drafted reports on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and sent joint delegations to the United Nations to lobby against his country.  Its highly politicized statements were not in line with the purposes of the United Nations Charter.  Citing one particular statement, he said there was no doubt that such subversive remarks contravened the Charter.

The peninsula’s reunification was a cherished goal of Koreans, no matter where they lived, he said.  If Korea was not divided, the so-called human rights issues would not have been raised.  What was needed were not resistant forces, but rather, understanding and unity.  If the Center was granted consultative status, the Council would be turned into a place of confrontation between the “North and South”, and hostility would grow.  He strongly opposed recommending consultative status.

The United States delegate, on the issue of independence, said non-governmental meant that States might not always agree with what such groups might say.  She reminded the Committee that resolution 1996/31 was clear on that.

Bulgaria’s representative, seconded by Israel’s delegate, asked whether Pakistan’s delegate would be satisfied with the response given.

Responding, Pakistan’s representative said the system was not working and the document provided did not contain an answer to his question.  He would review it once a full response was provided.  Other queries posed must also be answered.  He would be more than happy to review responses once they were provided.

Assyrian National Congress, an international organization in the United States promoting the programmes and activities of the Economic and Social Council in the media and attending Council conferences on the protection of human rights.  Venezuela’s representative asked about a 12 November 2010 response about no affiliation with any political party in the Middle East, since the organization’s website indicated it worked with an umbrella organization created by a political party, and with the Syrian-American Leadership Council.  She asked for “truthful” responses.

Pakistan’s delegate wondered how the NGO could be present in 2,000 countries, and requested clarity on whether it received contributions from political groups, as he did not believe that was not in line with resolution 1996/31.  He asked for details on minorities with whom the organization worked.

Morocco’s delegate wondered how the NGO protected its independence, especially when it was financed by “groups that had shown varying political trends or preferences”.

India’s delegate said the NGO had been rejected by the Committee in 1999, and its application closed, on the basis that the application did not conform to resolution 1996/31.  He wondered if the NGO had changed its constitution, objectives, activities or affiliations, since that time, so that the Committee could reconsider the application.

The United States representative wondered if there as anything barring an NGO from re-applying in the case of an application’s closure.

Andrei Abramov, Chief of the NGO Branch of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said the resolution was clear on the matter.  And nothing prevented the NGO from reapplying after three years.

Cuba’s delegate asked for information on its activities in the Middle East.

Bridging the Gulf, a Netherlands-based international NGO, which contributes to regional cooperation in the Gulf region, and supports initiatives taken in the areas of human security, human rights, women´s rights and the development of civil societies.  Venezuela’s delegate wondered what “the bridge” between the European and Gulf regions included.

Iran’s delegate, speaking as an observer, said the title of the NGO was ambiguous.  Non-governmental organizations should be named in accordance with United Nations terminology.  It was “unacceptable” to “invent names” for a specific sea area.

The Chair reminded the delegate that observer delegations were not allowed to pose questions.

Questioning the nature of Iran’s statement — and whether it was, in fact, a question for the organization — delegates entered into a spirited discussion as to whether or not observers could pose questions for NGOs.  Some delegates, including from Venezuela, referred to past sessions, where questions had been allowed from observer States, while others said they were less interested in previous years and were more concerned with speeding the procedures of the Committee.  In that vein, the representative of Belgium stressed that “opening the door to non-members” to ask questions could create great difficulties in the Committee’s work.

On the same matter, the representative of Cuba worried that there seemed to be a “select group of elite” members in the Committee that did not wish other voices to be heard, and added that such exclusion was “scandalous and unacceptable”.  The representative of the United States countered that closing the door to non-members of the Committee was not a matter of exclusion, but instead one of respecting the Committee’s elected system.

The Chair, noting that the Committee was divided, said the Iranian delegate’s question would be transmitted to the NGO.

Also taking part in that discussion were the representatives of India, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Kyrgyzstan and Peru.

British Humanist Association, a national NGO in the United Kingdom promoting humanism and supporting people who seek to lead good lives without religious beliefs, with Burundi’s delegate asking about its independence, as it received Government funding.  Bulgaria’s representative pointed out that Government funding constituted less than one third of the total.

Bureau international pour le respect des droits de l’homme au Sahara Occidental, a national organization in Switzerland supporting the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter and other United Nations instruments for protecting human rights.  Mr. Abramov, thanking the organization for providing ample evidence of its existence from 2007, said unfortunately, the Secretariat had not transmitted the Committee’s question about the two names associated with the group.  The Secretariat would resend the query.

Morocco’s delegate said the NGO should answer the question about its name, and provide acceptable documents about its existence.  Senegal’s delegate asked if the NGO was working under its own name in Morocco, why it focused on that country and for details about the exact mission of its representatives in other Maghrebian countries.  Pakistan’s representative asked if its work was confined to Morocco.

Switzerland’s representative, speaking as an observer, said the NGO’s statute was proof of its existence.  A letter and a bill from 2002 had been uploaded to the website, and further, a representative of the NGO was sitting next to her, meaning there could be no doubt about the NGO’s existence.  Also, there had never been a name change.  The statute was the clearest proof under Swiss law that the organization existed.  Morocco’s representative still objected to the fact the statute uploaded to the website had no seal.

Child Helpline International, a Netherlands-based international organization responding to children in need of care and protection, and voicing their concerns to policymakers and decision-makers by establishing a global network of children’s helplines.  China’s delegate requested that problems with terminology on its website be corrected and that written confirmation of changes made be provided.  Belgium’s delegate pointed out that requests such as that of China could become cumbersome if asked of all organizations.

Collectif des Familles de Disparu(e)s en Algerie, a national organization in France working to find people who have disappeared and to shine the light on all victims of forced disappearance in Algeria.  Burundi’s delegate wished to know what countries were included in the organization’s activities.  As the NGO had been exiled from Algeria, how did it carry out its work?  China’s representative asked about its relationship with the Open Society Institute.  Pakistan’s representative pointed out his questions previously asked had not been answered.

Council for International Development, a national organization in New Zealand working to achieve high quality international development programmes which focus on the alleviation and eradication of poverty, and to enhance the capacity and participation of member agencies.  China’s representative asked the NGO to use correct terminology on its website.

The Committee then turned its attention to its traditional question-and-answer session.

Launching the discussion, a representative of Association Panamena de Corredores y Promotores de Bienes Raices said his group had been working since 1973 to promote the principles of fair property ownership and recommend laws whereby every citizen could have his or her own house.  In Latin America, Panama had the largest number of citizens who owned their own houses, and that was due in part to the work of the Association.  It had called for regulation of the real estate market, including the requirement of real estate licenses.

Concerning the Association’s scope in providing advice to the Panamanian Government — and, in turn, its potential contribution to ECOSOC — he said the NGO provided research primarily to defend the right to private property.  It also provided free houses to needy families, and, therefore, was working to meet the basic needs of the poor.  The organization planned to continue to highlight good practices in real estate and hoped to promote that work on the global level through the work of the Council.

Next, a representative of Christian Solidarity Worldwide took the floor to respond to a query about his organization’s affiliations, saying it had no connection whatsoever to the Swiss-based organization, Christian Solidarity International.  It would be happy to provide a letter from the British Government to that effect, if necessary.

Responding to a further question about its work, he said his organization had no offices in the Horn of Africa or in sub-Saharan Africa.  Its work was performed through advocacy trips to the region, through local partners, and — in the case of Sudan — with private individuals whose identity was protected.  The organization fully respected the rule of law of any country where it worked, and employed legitimate sources for all its research.  It was happy to provide and circulate a mission statement to those effects.

Regarding a query about the organization’s recent submission to the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council, he said that, under that mechanism, NGOs without consultative status were able to make written statements under their own names.  Therefore, his organization had done so legitimately.

A representative of Human Rights House Foundation, responding to a question about its relationship with the Human Rights House Network, said his organization was based in Oslo, Norway, in a “House” along with eight other organizations.  That House was 1 of 14, located in other regions, which comprised the Human Rights House Network.  It was a forum for cooperation and did not have legal status.  As a foundation, it pursued its own objectives, goals and advocacy work.

He said the Foundation worked on four programmes with the Network:  capacity building for partners of the Network; institution building; advocacy and awareness raising; and fundraising.  To a question about its budget, he said the Foundation helped Network partners in fundraising, notably by giving advice, but it did not serve as an intermediary between the donor and recipient of funds.  In the past, that work had been undertaken with a group called Voice of Tibet; however, it had stopped such work.

His Foundation only focused on four regions and had no plans to expand that scope, he said.  If organizations in other Houses, especially in the United Kingdom House, engaged in other regions, that was not up to the Human Rights House Foundation to decide.  He could not provide a full list of those operating in other countries, as he had no control over those decisions.

Responding to another question, he said his organization participated in the Freedom of Expression forum each year and did not have any other relationship with Human Rights Foundation.

In other business, the Committee appointed Vice-Chair Marghoob Saleem Butt ( Pakistan) to also serve as Rapporteur.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 9 February, to conclude its session.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record