Committee on NGOs

9^th & 10^th Meetings (AM & PM)

NGO Committee Recommends 6 Organizations for Consultative Status

 

with Economic and Social Council, Postpones Action on 16 Others

 

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) today recommended special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council for four organizations and general consultative status for two others, while postponing consideration of 16 other applications pending receipt of additional information from the civil society groups.

The Committee, established in 1946, recommends to the Council 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 the Council’s meetings and circulate statements, while those with general status can, in addition, address meetings and propose agenda items.  Roster status organizations can only attend meetings.

In other action, the Committee decided to send a letter requesting specific information from the Bureau international pour le respect des droits de l’homme au Sahara Occidental — an independent organization working in the spirit of the United Nations Charter and the core human rights instruments to protect and promote human rights in the Western Sahara — after the Morocco’s delegate raised strenuous objections to its activities, which he said aimed to undermine his country’s sovereignty.

The letter, approved with technical corrections, was presented by the Committee’s Chair, Maria Pavlova Tzotzorkova ( Bulgaria).  It sought responses to the objections levelled by the delegation of Morocco regarding the Geneva-based organization’s work, including that it was engaged in a pattern of “politically motivated activity against one Member State”; that its website contained “unsubstantiated and politically motivated attacks against a Member State”; and that such acts contravened the Council’s rules of procedure and the United Nations Charter regarding violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a Member State.

When the Committee took up the organization’s application earlier in the day, Morocco’s representative said that the true motivations of the Bureau international pour le respect des droits de l’homme au Sahara Occidental were starkly at odds with what had been presented in its application for consultative status with the Council.  Evidence of his concerns could be readily discovered on the organization’s website, which he urged the Committee to explore.  He recalled that all organizations seeking status with the Council were bound by the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Committee’s own rules of procedure.  Unfortunately, the group did not follow such guidelines.

He explained that the organization’s materials, particularly on its website, were riddled with references to the political workings of Morocco, including matters regarding a referendum.  The Committee should remember that it had never given status to groups that questioned the national sovereignty of a Member State.  If it set such a precedent today, “no country will be spared” the actions of civil society groups seeking politically motivated concessions.  With all that in mind, he urged the Committee to close its consideration of the application.

Also sparking intense debate was the application forwarded by the Australian Lesbian Medical Association — an organization for lesbian doctors, lesbian medical students and their partners working to provide support and advocacy for members, to advance the visibility of lesbian doctors and lesbian health.

While several delegations asked for more information on the scope of the organization’s work, Belgium’s representative recalled that, during recent sessions of the Committee, the group had received perhaps 10 or more queries per session.  She felt the Association was being scrutinized more than other groups because of the word “lesbian” in its name.  Belgium could not help but think that the group was being discriminated against as a result, and that was regrettable, she said.

Responding, Pakistan’s representative said that the application should be judged on its merits, not because it mentioned sexual orientation.  However, there was no reason for Committee members to “get sentimental” when terms such as “lesbian” or “gay” were used.  He went on to urge the NGO to provide specific and detailed answers to the questions previously posed so that it would not get requests for more information.

The Committee went on to take note of the new Quadrennial Reports of 369 civil society organizations contained in documents E/C.2/2012/2 and Add.1-24, bearing in mind that any questions posed by members would be transmitted to the organizations concerned.  It also took note of three Quadrennial Reports deferred from previous sessions, contained in document E/C.2/2012/CRP.2.

During consideration of the reports, delegations briefly debated the Committee’s working methods and decided to return to the issue of approving of such documents in informal consultations, with one speaker cautioning against politicizing what was intended to be a largely technical process.  Others stressed that the Committee’s job was to decide on whether to recommend consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, and as such, delegations should consider Quadrennial Reports carefully.

Delegations also held their customary interactive dialogue with representatives of civil society groups, in this case, Islamic Relief USA, Voluntary Service Overseas and WITNESS.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Monday, 6 February, to continue its work.

General Consultative Status

The Committee recommended general consultative status for the following organizations:

Islamic Relief USA — a national organization that provides relief for disaster and situations of poverty and endemic disease, which it says it does without regard to the ethnicity of recipients.

Voluntary Service Overseas — an international organization based in the United Kingdom, which its representative said supported a broad scope of activities in support of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Special Consultative Status

The Committee took up a number of applications that had, for various reasons, been deferred during earlier sessions, recommending special consultative status to the following organizations:

ODHIKAR - Coalition for Human Rights — a Dhaka-based group that aims to promote human rights and advocate for incorporation and ratification of various international human rights instruments by the local government.

Reality of Aid Network — an organization based in the Philippines, which aims to contribute to more effective strategies to eliminate poverty, based on principles of solidarity and equity, through analysis of international aid and development cooperation.

World Alliance for Youth Empowerment — an India-based organization working to promote the development of young people through physical, spiritual, social and economical empowerment.

Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine — a New York-based international group of physicians dedicated to the promotion, protection and support of breastfeeding and human lactation.  It aims to unite members of the various medical specialties with this common purpose.

Postponed

Action on the following previously deferred applications was postponed pending responses to previously posed questions:

Manavata — a Mumbai based international organization aiming to create a healthy, happy and harmonious world and to build responsible citizenship.

Action on the following previously deferred applications was postponed after new questions were posed:

New World Hope Organization (NWHO) — an organization based in Pakistan, dedicated to alleviating human suffering around the world regardless of race, colour, religion or cultural background, chiefly through awareness-raising and education activities carried out in poor communities, following concern expressed by the representative of China that it had many incorrect reverences to “Taiwan” throughout its application.  Also, India’s delegate called for better explanation of the organization’s activities.

Palpung Munishasan Dharmachakra Sangh — an Indian organization dedicated to the welfare of others without consideration of sect, caste, religion, race, gender or nationality following questions posed by the delegate of China, who asked of more information could be provided about its activities in Tibet.

Programme on Women’s Economic Social and Cultural Rights — an international New Delhi-based organization working to promote women’s human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, by bringing a gender framework to policy, law and practice at local, national, regional and international levels in both conceptual and practical realms.

Pakistan’s representative asked for more information regarding its work in his country.

West Africa Centre for Peace Foundation — an Accra-based group serving young people in schools and communities through education on human rights, leadership training and peacebuilding for social development, after China’s delegate asked if the organization could provide more information on its activities and how they could contribute to the work of the Economic and Social Council.

Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights – based in the Philippines, which aims for a world where women can enjoy their reproductive and sexual rights, free from social, political, cultural and economic oppression, following questions from the representative of China regarding references to “Taiwan” in its application.  He also had reservations regarding the organization’s work in Tibet.

The representatives of Belgium and Israel hoped that the organization would quickly answer those concerns so that the Committee could act on its application.  They believed the organization was carrying out valuable work in promoting women’s health and well-being.

Amuta for NGO Responsibility — based in Israel, which works towards strengthening of universal human rights, as well as a promotion of the values set forth in the Durban Programme of Action against Racism, Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia, following questions posed regarding the scope of its activities by the representatives of Sudan and Pakistan.

Asia Catalyst — a Brooklyn-based organization that supports and promotes the development of local NGOs that advance human rights, social justice and environmental protection in Asia, following questions posed by the representative of China regarding its finances.  He also asked for more information on a pamphlet the organization published, entitled, What China Can Learn from the Western Mistake.

Asia Centre for Human Rights  — an organization based in the Republic of Korea dedicated to promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Asian region by, among others, providing accurate and timely information and complaints to national human rights institutions, United Nations bodies and mechanisms as appropriate, after the representative of China asked if it could provide more information on what contribution it had made to the promotion of social, economic and political rights, as well as social development in those countries.

Association Graines de Paix — a Swiss organization working towards intercultural peace through the development of teaching tools and activities with an aim of supporting relations of peace and of preventing violence, following concerns by China’s delegate regarding references to “Taiwan” throughout its application.

Assyrian National Congress — a California-based organization working to promote the human rights of the Assyrian people, following a host of questions regarding its activities, scope and documentation posed by the representatives of Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Asylum Access – a San Francisco-based organization, which, through legal aid, strategic litigation, policy advocacy and community education, aims to empower refugees in Africa, Asia and Latin America to assert their human rights.

The representative of Cuba said that her delegation had noticed that the group carried out work in Ecuador.  As far as she could tell, it was not a registered NGO in that country.  Could the organization provide information on that point?

The representative of the United States said that Asylum Access had noted on its application that it was officially registered in Ecuador.

Cuba’s delegate asked if the organization could simply provide the Committee with its certificate of registration.  The representative or Venezuela added her delegation’s voice to that request.

The delegate of the United States, drawing attention to the Committee’s rules of procedure, noted that the Asylum Access had fulfilled the body’s requirements and answered its questions.  If the Government of Ecuador had special legal requirements, perhaps the Committee should address its concerns to that country.

Responding, Cuba’s speaker said the organization did not have a cooperation agreement with the Government of Ecuador and that her delegation would like to know the status of that process.

The Committee Chair said the queries would be passed along to the NGO and that the Bureau would also seek information from the Ecuadorian Mission to the United Nations regarding procedures for registration of non-governmental organizations in that country.

AUA Americas Chapter Inc. — a Washington, D.C.-based organization working to increase public awareness and understanding of the Assyrian culture and people, to promote human rights and indigenous rights, and to provide charitable services to persons of Assyrian descent.  The representative of Turkey requested more information regarding its association with the Assyrian Universal Alliance, as well as for an updated financial statement.

Australian Lesbian Medical Association — an association for lesbian doctors, lesbian medical students and their partners, founded in 2001 with the aim of providing support and advocacy for members, to advance the visibility of lesbian doctors and lesbian health, and to provide a network for lesbian doctors.

The representative of Sudan asked for more information on the scope of the organization’s work.  He asked if it was working in Africa, and if so, could it provide the names of the local groups with which it was affiliated.

Belgium’s representative said that she believed that the organization had already received many questions; during each session at least 10 questions had been asked of it.  She felt that it was being scrutinized more than other groups because of the word “lesbian” in its name.  Belgium could not help but think that the group was being discriminated against and that was regrettable.

Next, Israel’s delegate said that by her count, the organization had received some 50 questions from the Committee.  While the Committee must respect the right of members to ask questions, the Committee must also be fair to an organization doing very important health-care work.  “I wouldn’t want to have them spend time answering questions again and again rather than carrying out their work,” she said, agreeing with the Belgian delegation.

Taking the floor again, Sudan’s representative said he would like to know whether the organization had any relationship with groups in Africa.  He would also like to know about its finances.  He was in no way trying to hinder the group’s work.  He hoped to receive written replies to his questions soon.

Joining the comments made by the delegations of Belgium and Israel, the representative of the United States said that she hoped the Committee would be able to take a decision on this matter when it met again in May.

The representative of Pakistan said that the application should be judged on its merits; no group should be judged because it mentioned sexual orientation.  At the same time, there was no reason for members to get “sentimental” when terms such as “lesbian” or gay” were used.  He went on to urge the NGO to provide specific and detailed answers to the questions previously posed so that it would not get requests for more information.

Autonomous Women’s Center — a Belgrade-based group working to empower women in overcoming trauma caused by domestic violence through psychological and professional legal support, so they could make autonomous decisions and enjoy their right to life without violence, following questions posed by the representative of Pakistan regarding references in its application to what the Center referred to as United Nations declarations on sexual orientation.

The representative of the United States said that, in some cases, perhaps delegations were better placed to clarify the workings of the United Nations and in that, she would do her best.  She believed that organization was referring to a statement signed by a large number of countries at the General Assembly in 2008.  Further, a statement on sexual orientation and gender identity was approved by the Human Rights Council in March 2011.  In June 2011, the Human Rights Council had adopted a resolution on that issue.

While he appreciated the efforts of the United States to clarify the matter, Pakistan’s representative said that the issue was that the information had been incorrectly cited by the NGO.

Responding, the representative of the United States requested that it correct its references in the documents.

Bridging the Gulf — an organization based in The Hague, established to contribute to cooperation in the Gulf region, and to support initiatives taken in the Gulf region in the areas of human security, human rights, women’s rights and the development of civil societies.  The representative of China posed questions regarding its finances.  The representative of Venezuela asked for more information about the scope of the organization’s work.

The Committee next turned to consider the application of the Bureau international pour le respect des droits de l’homme au Sahara Occidental, an independent organization working in the spirit of the United Nations Charter and the core human rights instruments to protect and promote human rights in the western Sahara.

Morocco’s representative noted that the application had been made available only in French, and as such, some Committee members would have difficulty taking a decision on it.  He went on to say that the Committee should now be familiar with some of the more politically motivated aims of the organization under consideration.  He urged the Committee to explore the group’s website, where it set out some of its aims and goals that went far beyond the protection and promotion of human rights.  While the group had submitted an application, the Committee could not close its eyes to the information it put on its website.  He recalled that all organizations seeking consultative status with the Economic and Social Council must support the principles of the United Nations Charter.  Unfortunately, the current group did not follow such guidelines.

He said that the organization’s application was riddled with references to matters regarding the political workings of Morocco.  He urged the Committee to remember that it had never given status to groups who questioned the national sovereignty of the countries in which they worked.  If the Committee set such a precedent today, “no country will be spared” the actions of other groups seeking politically motivated concessions.

He went on to cite several articles of the rules of procedure of the Economic and Social Council regarding the activities of organization’s seeking consultative status with that body.  He reiterated his concern that if the Committee were to take a decision on a group that was hostile to the country in which it worked, it would be setting a precedent.  He urged the Committee to reject the organization because it was not in line with the Charter and its work did not conform to what was required by the Committee’s rules of procedure.  He added that he was not trying to force a decision today.

Taking the floor next, the representative of Senegal said that, in its application, the NGO under consideration said that it respected the United Nations Charter, but its website revealed a different picture.  Indeed, the website included direct attacks against Morocco.  He said the NGO should be very cautious, especially regarding references to a referendum on the Western Sahara.  The organization should “stay out of politics”.  Senegal supported the proposal to close consideration of the application to send out a strong signal to other civil society groups that they should think twice about attacking the sovereignty of a Member State.

The representative of Belgium noted that French was one of the Committee’s working languages.  As for the substance of the application, he suggested that the NGO Section send a notice to the organization informing it of the objections raised by one or two Member States on the Committee.  Indeed, the rules of procedure allowed for such a notice, which would in turn allow representatives of the organization to come to the Committee and address the concerns raised.

Responding, Morocco’s delegate said that he didn’t believe the Committee was at the stage where it could discuss addressing anything to the organization.  He had acknowledged that perhaps other Committee members were not prepared to take a decision today and that the issue might require further discussion.

The representative of Venezuela said that her delegation had taken note of the information provided and it was not prepared to consider closing the application today.  Venezuela appreciated that Morocco was not trying to pressure members in any way.  The delegation would be sending the information to Caracas, and she hoped the Committee could return to the matter at a later date.

Cuba’s delegate thanked Morocco for the information it had provided today.  Indeed, Cuba, like other Committee members, now had a lot of new information to send back to its capital.  Therefore, the Committee should defer the application and return to the matter at a late date.

The Chief of the NGO Branch, ANDREI ABRAMOV, asked for the Committee’s guidance on next steps.  If such a decision was made, delegations would need to discuss the language of any letter sent to an organization on behalf of the Committee.  In the meantime, they would also need to decide on the status of the application.

The representative of Morocco stressed that if a letter was sent to the organization, his delegation would insist on the inclusion of language stating that the objections had been raised because the organization was questioning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a Member State.

The representative of the United States said that her delegation had always been in favour of informing an organization under review of the charges being levelled against it.  At the same time, this seemed like a bilateral issue.

The representative of India said that his delegation understood that questions posed to an organization were posed on behalf of the entire Committee.  Had letters been sent from one Member State?

Mr. ABRAMOV responded that, as far as he knew, no letter had ever been sent on behalf of one Member State.

Sudan’s representative said that Morocco had suggested that debate on the application be closed and his delegation agreed with that request.

The Committee Chair, MARIA PAVLOVA TZOTZORKOVA ( Bulgaria), urged all delegations to get together during the lunch break, discuss the matter, and come back prepared to take a decision.

When the Committee returned to the matter in the afternoon, Ms. TZOTZORKOVA presented a draft letter that would be submitted to the organization by the Secretariat.  It set out the objections that had been raised to its application, including that it was engaged in a pattern of “politically motivated activity against one Member State”; and that its website contained “unsubstantiated and politically motivated attacks against a Member State”; and that such acts contravened the Council’s rules of procedure and the United Nations Charter regarding the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a Member State.  The Committee approved the letter, with technical corrections.

Interactive Discussion

When the Committee began its interactive discussion today, it first heard from the representative of Islamic Relief USA, a national organization that provides relief for disaster and situations of poverty and endemic disease, which it says it does without regard to the ethnicity of recipients.

In reply to a question from the representative of Turkey in relationship to assistance provided for the earthquake in his country, he said that the funds were raised from communities in the United States.  In reply to India’s representative, he said that in kind donations were in the form of such equipment as hygiene kits.  Fund-raising dinners along with United Nations themes and specific projects and other events were held around the United States, with marketing among the non-Muslim community — including corporate donors — as well as the Muslim community, which donated the majority of funds.

In reply to questions by Morocco’s representative, the organization’s representative said that, in providing poverty relief, the major focus was needy women and children through small-enterprise and educational and skills training projects.  Asked about investments by that same representative, the organization’s representative said that the only investment he knew of was the headquarters building.  To a question by Israel’s representative, he said his organization partnered with many United Nations agencies.  Consultative status would help him to do more work with the United Nations and other international organizations.

After laudatory comments by the representative of Morocco, Sudan and the Observer for Palestine, General Consultative Status was recommended.

Voluntary Service Oversees, an international organization, gave an overview of its international presence and, in reply to the representative of Belgium, the representative said they supported a broad scope of activities in support of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.  The main object was promoting international citizenship and solidarity, particularly through North-South and South-South cooperation.  After a recommendation by Morocco’s representative and agreement by Belgium, the Committee decided to recommend General Consultative Status.

WITNESS, an organization based in Brooklyn, which helps people use video and online technologies to reveal human rights violations, said in reply to a question by Belgium’s representative that it had been partnering with various organizations to help them use video to combat human rights violations, including child sex exploitation and trafficking.  In reply to Sudan’s representative, he said the organization had many projects in Africa.  To Cuba’s representative, he said that the organization selected projects in a wide variety of human rights areas where video records could make a difference.  Forced evictions and gender-based violence were its main focuses.

China’s representative said that there were many erroneous materials about Tibet, China, on the organizations website, which compromised his country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  However, positive discussion had taken place with the organization, he noted, but he stressed that words had to be met with deeds.  If concrete measures were taken to win the goodwill of China, China could then offer a positive response.  The organization’s representative said that they had no projects in China and it had addressed the terminology issues on its website.  In addition, a site for the dissemination of other persons’ videos — over which the organization had no control over terminology — had closed.  It was committed to respecting the United Nations Charter on its website.  No action was taken on the organization’s request.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record