Economic and Social Council Adopts 10 Decisions, Including Granting Status to Groups Focusing on Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Deputy Secretary-General Presents Annual Overview on United Nations System Chief Executives Board of Coordination
The Economic and Social Council today adopted 10 draft decisions, including two by vote granting consultative status to two non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focusing on Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as it continued its 2018 coordination and management meetings.
The Council granted consultative status to the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea by a recorded vote of 29 in favour to 6 against (Belarus, China, Russian Federation, South Africa, Venezuela, Viet Nam), with 13 abstentions.
Several delegations spoke prior to the vote, with the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea emphasizing that the group in question had not been granted consultative status by the NGO Committee because of its politicized activities. Since it was established in 2001, it had not visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Rather, it undertook politically motivated activities to violate the country’s sovereignty.
The representative of the United States said that some members of the NGO Committee had been abusing the due diligence process, wondering if the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea’s application was being deferred for reasons other than its merits.
Several other delegates defended their right to raise questions in the NGO Committee, with the representative of the Russian Federation emphasizing that the procedure for consultative status was a routine one which applied to all applications. The United States was requesting a Council vote on those two organizations, only confirming fears that their work was biased and impartial.
In explanation of vote, Viet Nam’s representative said that the NGO Committee had a responsibility to ensure the authenticity of NGOs and to determine whether an applicant complied with the principles and aims of the United Nations.
The Council also granted consultative status to the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, by a recorded vote of 22 in favour to 7 against (Belarus, China, Iraq, Russian Federation, South African, Venezuela, Viet Nam), with 17 abstentions.
Canada’s representative said it was concerning that credible non-governmental organizations continued to be subjected to excessive and repetitive questioning. In eight years since it had applied for consultative status, the Center had been asked 70 questions, answering each question fully and transparently.
The representative of the United States said that it was regrettable that the Council had to vote on such a deserving group. “It is a frustration for all of us that support civil society,” she reiterated, adding that a vote for the Center was a vote in support of civil society participation at the United Nations.
The representative of Iran said that a political organization, funded by the United States and Canada, was being presented as an NGO. Its presentation for vote in the Council was a “manipulative move”. The United States continued to push for its political organization to gain United Nations status. Meanwhile, that country continued to block Iranian non-governmental organizations.
The representative of South Africa warned that members of the NGO Committee must not be impeded from carrying out their responsibility by those resorting to accreditation through coercion.
The Council also adopted without a vote the following draft decisions contained in the NGO Committee report on its 2018 regular session: “Applications of the non-governmental organizations Kurdistan Institute for Human Rights and Al Shara’a Humanitarian Organization for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council”; “Applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-governmental organizations”; “Requests for withdrawal of consultative status” and “Report of the Committee of Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2018 regular session”.
Turning to the report of the Commission for Social Development, the Council adopted the following four draft decisions without a vote: “Future organization and methods of work of the Commission for Social Development”; “Social dimensions of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development”; “Strategies for eradicating poverty to achieve sustainable development for all”; and “Third review and appraisal of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, 2002”.
The Council also took note of the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of the objectives of the International Year of the Family and its follow-up processes.
In the afternoon, Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed presented a summary of the Annual Overview Report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board of Coordination (CEB). Elaborating on three specific areas, she said that the CEB had decided to explore areas for United Nations system engagement on frontier technologies that included both the internal applications of new technologies and the engagement of leading external experts. Second, a leadership framework was endorsed by the CEB in response to the General Assembly’s request that the United Nations system aligned its staff capacities to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. A third system-wide initiative was an analytical framework on risk and resilience, adopted by the CEB in November 2017. That introduction was followed by an interactive dialogue.
Also speaking today were the representatives of Bulgaria (on behalf of the European Union), United Kingdom, El Salvador, Mexico, Uruguay, and Morocco.
The Council will meet again on Wednesday, 18 April, at 10 a.m. to continue its coordination and management meeting.
Non-Governmental Organizations
The Council began the day by turning its attention to the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2018 regular session (document E/2018/32, Part I).
The representative of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, welcomed steps taken to date to improve the functioning of the Committee and to make it more receptive to the voices of civil society. In a world that was increasingly hostile to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), it was incumbent upon the United Nations and its Member States to facilitate NGO access and participation, she said, adding that European Union member States would support draft decisions to accredit the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, following the repeated deferral of their applications by the Committee.
The Council then turned to a draft decision titled “Application of the non-governmental organization US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council” (document E/2018/L.8).
The representative of the United States said the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea clearly met the criteria for eligibility for consultative status with the Council. Emphasizing the value of civil society engagement with the United Nations and its Member States, she said there had been far too many instances in which the Committee had hindered the participation of organizations with well-established international credibility. The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea had established its reputation and leading role among organizations which promoted human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to improving the situation there. However, some members of the Committee had been abusing the due diligence process, she said, wondering if the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea’s application was being deferred for reasons other than its merits. Given the significant contribution that that organization was making to the work of the United Nations, her delegation, through the draft decision and with the support of its co-sponsors, sought the group to be granted special consultative status.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said his delegation categorically rejected the draft resolution. If a non-governmental organization wanted to be granted consultative status, it should not engage in any politically motivated activity against a Member States. He said his country believed that the organization in question had not been granted consultative status by the Committee because of its notorious biased politicized aim and activities. Since it was established in October 2001, it had never visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Rather, it undertook politically motivated activities to violate the country’s sovereignty and interfere in its internal affairs.
The organization in question was composed of dishonest people, traitors and human rights plot agencies while carrying out hostile American policy, with funding from the United States Government and plot agencies, he said. It was a fake “human rights NGO” not relevant to the promotion and protect of the Korean people’s human rights. The attempt by the United States and its vassal forces to overturn the Committee’s decision not to grant consultative status was a flagrant challenge to the United Nations Charter and Council resolutions, he said, calling on Economic and Social Council members to reject the draft resolution.
The representative of the Russian Federation, making a general statement, recalled that during its January session, the NGO Committee had decided not to recommend consultative status to the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, as various Committee members had suspicions about the financial links with governmental organizations and institutions. The procedure for consultative status was a routine one which applied to all applications, but the United States was requesting a Council vote on those two organizations, only confirming fears that their work was biased and impartial. He added that after the Committee’s January session “we saw a real campaign to discredit the work of the NGO Committee” with a view to supporting political objectives. Such pressure was unacceptable, he said, adding that the Council should not reopen decisions taken by the NGO Committee. The Russian Federation would vote against the two draft decisions and called on other Council members do to likewise.
The representative of the United Kingdom, associating herself with the European Union, said civil society organizations had an important role to play in all aspects of the United Nations work, bringing with them energy, expertise and fresh perspectives. The NGO Committee should facilitate civil society access, without discrimination, and not defer applications indefinitely. The Committee on Human Rights in North Korea and the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center met the criteria set out in Council resolution 1996/31, but their applications had been unduly delayed by repetitive questioning for many years. Yet they were exactly the kinds of non-governmental organizations from which the United Nations should welcome increased participation, she said.
The representative of South Africa said that, once again, recommendations of the NGO Committee were being reopened before the Council. That was not an ideal situation, he said, noting that the non-governmental organization in question was among hundreds that remained on the deferred list pending their responses to legitimate inquiries. Stating that the NGO Committee could not work on the basis of coercive measures, he said his delegation would vote against the draft decision.
The representative of the United States asked who requested the vote.
INGA RHONDA KING (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), Vice-Chair of the Economic and Social Council, said it had been requested by China and the Russian Federation.
The Council then adopted the draft decision by a recorded vote of 29 in favour to 6 against (Belarus, China, Russian Federation, South Africa, Venezuela, Viet Nam), with 13 abstentions.
The representative of Venezuela, in an explanation of vote, said everyone had the prerogative to ask questions to determine if applicants for consultative status met the criteria laid out in Council resolution 1996/31. Her delegation had voted against the draft.
The Council then turned to a draft decision titled “Application of the non-governmental organization Iran Human Rights Documentation Center for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council” (document E/2018/L.9).
The representative of Canada, introducing that text, said that the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was highly independent and credible. In recent years, a concerning pattern had emerged. Some non-governmental organizations continued to be subjected to excessive and repetitive questioning by the NGO Committee. In eight years since it had applied for consultative status, the Center had been asked 70 questions, answering each of those fully and transparently. The group had met the criteria set out by the Economic and Social Council. She noted that civil society had an important role to play, adding that the rules of procedure must not be misused to scrutinize.
The representative of the United States said that it was regrettable that the Council had to vote on such a deserving NGO. The Center could actively contribute to the work of the United Nations as the group annually considered the human rights situation in Iran. Members of the Economic and Social Council played a crucial role in giving a voice to the voiceless. The group’s application had been pending for seven years. “It is a frustration for all of us that support civil society,” she said, adding that a vote for the Center was a vote in support of civil society participation at the United Nations.
The representative of Iran said that a political organization, funded by the United States and Canada, was being presented as a non-governmental organization. Its presentation for vote in the Economic and Social Council was a “manipulative move”. To further expose the nature of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, its financial reports should have been shared, he said. “Cherry picking and double standards by the United States does not surprise us,” he added. The United States continued to push for its political organization to gain United Nations status. Meanwhile, that country had continued to block Iranian non-governmental organizations. The Center did not even shy away that it was established through a United States Department of State grant. “It is definitely not an NGO,” he reiterated, denouncing intrusive acts by external players.
The representative of South Africa said his delegation had in the NGO Committee voted to reject the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. Members of the NGO Committee must not be impeded from carrying out their responsibility by those resorting to accreditation through coercion. He reiterated that his delegation would vote against the accreditation of the group.
The Council then adopted the draft decision by a recorded vote of 22 in favour to 7 against (Belarus, China, Iraq, Russian Federation, South Africa, Venezuela, Viet Nam), with 17 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of El Salvador said that it had abstained from both votes, adding that his country was against the setting of a precedent that may affect other subsidiary bodies of the Economic and Social Council.
The representative of Venezuela said her delegation voted against the group, emphasizing that all members of the NGO Committee had the right to question all NGOs wishing to gain consultative status.
The representative of Viet Nam said the NGO Committee had a great responsibility to ensure the authenticity of NGOs. Therefore, the Committee had the right to raise questions to determine whether an applicant complied with United Nations principles and aims. Her delegation had voted against both draft decisions.
Next, the Council turned to the draft decision on “Applications of the non-governmental organizations Kurdistan Institute for Human Rights and Al-Shafa’a Humanitarian Organization for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council” (document E/2018/L.10).
The representative of Iraq introduced the text which, if adopted, would return the applications of the two organizations concerned to the NGO Committee. Noting that applicants for consultative status must have been active for at least two years, he said the two groups had not been registered with the Iraqi competent authorities. He said his country was not against granting them consultative status and would assist them in registering in line with national law.
The representative of the United States said she was concerned that the draft decision was unprecedented and unnecessary. Noting that several Council members had spoken at length today about protecting the prerogative of the NGO Committee in cases involving human rights organizations, she asked where their voices were now with regard to reversing that committee’s work.
The Council then adopted the draft without a vote.
The Council then turned to first chapter of the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2018 regulation session (document E/2018/32, Part 1), which contained three draft decisions.
It first adopted without a vote draft decision I on “Applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-governmental organizations” (document E/2017/L.16), as amended by the adoption of draft decisions “L.8”, “L.9” and “L.10”.
It then adopted, again without a vote, draft decisions II and III, respectively titled “Requests for withdrawal of consultative status” and “Report of the Committee of Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2018 regular session”.
Introduction of reports
The Council then turned to social and human rights, taking up the report of the “Commission for Social Development” (document E/2018/26) and the report of the Secretary-General on the “Implementation of the objectives of the International Year of the Family and its follow-up processes” (A/73/61-E/2018/4).
NIKULÁS HANNIGAN (Iceland), Chair of the Commission for Social Development, noted various events attended by representatives and civil society, noting discussions on innovation, interconnectivity, disability, youth and family, as well as on the eradication of poverty. In the report’s four recommendations, Member States were urged to continue to strengthen social development and promote social inclusion. The resolution on social dimensions for new partnerships for Africa’s development stressed that such collaboration was integral to the continent’s development. Meanwhile, the resolution on ageing encouraged Member States to include older persons in the implementation and attainment of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
ALBERTO PADOVA, Officer in Charge, Division for Social Policy and Development in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, introduced the report of the Secretary-General on the “Implementation of the objectives of the International Year of the Family and its follow-up processes”. The report aimed to contribute to the exchange of good practices in family policymaking. It focused on Member States’ efforts towards creating national frameworks for the design, implementation and monitoring of family policies. It also presented concrete examples of efforts to promote work-life balance and empower women and girls. In addition, the report emphasized that Member States increasingly recognize the importance of family-oriented policies, such as social security provisions and child allowances for poverty reduction, and recommended Member States further recognize that family-oriented policies were integral to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
The representative of Mexico said the text before the Council was a step in the right direction towards avoiding overlaps between the Commission for Social Development and the General Assembly. However, consideration should be given to modifying the Commission’s mandate and those of other subsidiary bodies. Regarding the implementation of the objectives of the International Year of the Family, he stressed focusing on policies that would uphold the well-being of families and the connection between the 2030 Agenda and human rights.
The representative of Uruguay said, with regard to the report concerning the International Year, that her country would continue at the United Nations to promote a broader definition of the family.
The representative of El Salvador said his delegation was happy with updated inclusions in the report of the Commission for Social Development, including references to such hot topics as the multidimensional nature of poverty. He added that the Council should avoid unjustified duplication when considering links between different population groups. Turning to the International Year of the Family, he endorsed the statement made by his colleague from Uruguay.
The Council then turned to Chapter I of the report of the Commission on Social Development on its fifty-sixth session (document E/2018/26), adopting without a vote four draft resolutions in Section A respectively titled “Future organization and methods of work of the Commission on Social Development”, “Social dimensions of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development”, “Strategies for eradicating poverty to achieve sustainable development for all” and “Third review and appraisal of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, 2002”.
It also adopted, without a vote, a draft decision in Section B of the same report titled “Report of the Commission for Social Development on its fifty-sixth session and provisional agenda and documentation for the fifty-seventh session”.
The representative of Mexico said his delegation hoped that in the future, documents regarding persons with disabilities would be reflected in the outcome document of the High-level Meeting on Disability and Development.
The Council went on to take note of the Secretary-General’s report on the “Implementation of the objectives of the International Year of the Family and its follow-up processes” (document E/2018/4).
Completing the morning’s work, the Council, under its agenda item “Social and human rights questions”, turned to the sub-item “Comprehensive implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action”. The Vice-Chair said no advance documentation had been submitted and no draft proposal was before the Council.
Introduction of Report
AMINA MOHAMMED, Deputy Secretary-General, presented a summary of the Annual Overview Report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board of Coordination. The Board’s main role was to strengthen synergies and promote coherence and coordination among the organizations of the United Nations. She recalled that the Board had adopted a new meeting format to ensure that it was well-positioned to provide forward-looking guidance. The Secretary-General had invited his Special Envoy on Youth to address the Board at its second regular session. The Board focused on also supporting the application of technological innovations by Member States for the achievements of the Sustainable Development Goals.
She elaborated on three specific areas. First, the Board examined the opportunities and challenges offered by scientific and technological advances and decided to explore areas for United Nations system engagement on frontier technologies that included both the internal applications of new technologies and the engagement of leading external experts. Second, a leadership framework was endorsed by the Board in response to the General Assembly’s request that the United Nations system align its staff capacities to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. A third system-wide initiative was an analytical framework on risk and resilience, adopted by the Board in November 2017. Also that month, the Secretary-General called for engagement by Board members on three key issues that deserved commitment from the entire leadership of the Organization: promoting gender parity, combating sexual exploitation and addressing sexual harassment within the Organization.
Interactive Dialogue
The Council then held an interactive dialogue with Simona Petrova, Director of the Secretariat of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination.
The representative of Morocco, welcoming the Chief Executives Board’s approach to improve coordination between United Nations bodies, encouraged boards of the United Nations system to pursue a comprehensive approach to climate change and sustainable development. He also reiterated Morocco’s support for the Secretary-General’s vision for a more sustainable funding strategy.
The representative of Mexico said the Council must become a space for Member States to discuss, between themselves and with the United Nations system, development issues and implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The Council should be less bureaucratic and more of a venue for substantive dialogue. Mexico favoured “root and branch” reform of the Council so that it could do more and do better.
Ms. PETROVA, responding to the issues raised, said the Secretary-General, mindful of Member States’ initiatives, particularly via the Council, had made reform of the work of the Chief Executives Board a priority. The Board’s work was largely in sync with national priorities, she said, emphasizing that it was striving to ensure that it supported all efforts at all levels without creating new silos.
Conveying the Secretary-General’s regret for being absent today, she said he was clear in his mind that the United Nations could serve as a platform for Member States to discuss and try to understand the impact of technological progress on social, economic and sustainable development policies. In doing so, the Organization could help Member States come up with shared visions and strategies that would enable future generations to better adapt to technological change.