Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
The Question of NGO Participation: The Speaking Notes of Ambassador Ahmad Kamal Amb. Ahmad Kamal
Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN
Speaking Notes for a Statement to the Sub-Group
on Non-Governmental Organizations5 May 1997
We met on 25 April 1997, to start a fresh round of consultations to break the deadlock on the question of the mandate of the Subgroup.2. The delegates had four proposals before them, namely, the President’s proposal, the JCC proposal, the Chinese proposal and the Egyptian proposal. In addition, I had circulated a "white paper" in which I had tried to identify the middle ground for a compromise.
3. At the last meeting, no consensus could emerge on any of the four proposals or the ‘white paper’. There was, however, agreement on three points, namely, the terms of the mandate of the Subgroup as specified in the JCC and Egyptian proposals, the request to the Secretary-General for a report, and the requirement that the Subgroup report back to the High-level Working Group.
4. There was massive support for the Chinese proposal on the need for introducing regional balance in the NGO participation, although some said that they would like to propose changes in the Chinese formulation.
5. There were continuing divisions on the core question of whether the Subgroup’s mandate should include examination of NGO participation in all areas of work of the United Nations or only in the General Assembly, its Main Committees and is Special Sessions.
6. There was some agreement on a step-step approach. But one side would have liked the process to end with the General Assembly and the Main Committees; the other side maintained that such an approach should indicate examination of other bodies of UNGA.
7. Again, one side objected to the word "begin". The other insisted on its inclusion.
8. In my summation at the last meeting, I stressed that most important aspect of our work was to begin the process. We must have a starting point. The continuing division among the delegates, no matter what their arguments were, had the effect of stalling and delaying the whole process.
9. I also had the opportunity of addressing NGOs on 30 April 1997 and listening to their views. My conclusions once again are that (a) the NGOs have unanimously demanded that they be allowed to observe the negotiating process; and (b) an overwhelming majority of the NGOs has urged the Subgroup to begin the process by examining the NGOs’ participation in the General Assembly and the Main Committees.
10. In the light of the comments made by delegates at our last meeting, I have attempted yet another non-paper which tries to address the concerns of both sides in a fair and impartial manner.
11. The paper that I have circulated today may not be perfect. It may require minor adjustments. Please do not reject the language in paragraph 2 by repeating suggestions with the aim of evolving a consensus text.
12. During the last 9 meetings, I allowed delegates to speak at length to put forward their arguments. We have passed that stage now. Today, I would request you to avoid making general statements and go straight into the language. Your drafting suggestions would effectively reflect your positions which need no explanation or elaboration.
13. You do not have to convince me about a particular formulation. The essence of our exercise is that you have to persuade your negotiating partners to accept your point of view or, alternatively, you should be able to accept their point of view, with necessary adjustments. I would strive to translate your will for consensus into language.
More Information on NGOs and the General Assembly
