Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs Comments on the Secretary General's Report
by the Quaker UN OfficeJack T. Patterson
Quaker Representative to the UN
June 6, 1999Quaker United Nations Office
777 UN Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Hanifa Mezoui, Chief
NGO Section/DESA
DC1-1480
Dear Hanifa Mezoui,
This contribution to the discussion of the role of NGOs in the UN system comes in addition to that of our parent body, the World Office of the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC), through which we have consultative status with ECOSOC. It is based more specifically on the experience of this office at the general headquarters of the UN in New York.
Joining with the remarks of the FWCC, we want to emphasize the important encouragement given in the Secretary-General's Report to NGOs in their involvement with the UN at all levels and in all its parts. We are specifically encouraged that the Secretary-General recognizes the importance of providing increased access to resources within the UN to enable the most effective participation and also the recognition that the growing number of NGOs in the developing world requires creative and energetic efforts on all our parts to insure their increased participation within our own organizations and through their own organizations.
We also want to thank you and your Section for the care and attention you consistently give our office in securing accreditation for our appointed representatives.
Since its creation, the UN, as a system of nation-states, has recognized that neither it nor its member states can achieve the goals of the UN Charter alone. Achievement requires the participation, at all levels, of the "peoples" in whose name and on whose behalf the UN exists. Consequently, "consultative status" with ECOSOC was extended to qualifying NGO's as a means of representing the divergent agendas of the world's peoples and of mobilizing their considerable energies in support of UN agendas.
They were invited into "consultative status" not only because they requested opportunities to participate, but because they were needed by the UN itself if the goals of the Charter were to be fully realized. The input of NGOs was valued at three levels: policymaking, implementation of policy through programs of the UN, governments, and NGOs themselves; and, at the grassroots, where, people are found on the receiving end of those policies and programs - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. There is real value both to NGOs and also to the UN itself in having strong relationships at all three levels. NGOs, can, at their best, provide feedback loops in which experiences on the ground can be communicated back into the policymaking process creating benefits for all in the form of more effective policy and implementation.
The key question, then as now, is what kind of relationship between NGOs, member states, and UN agencies are needed to maximize effective collaboration in reaching our common goals? Or more specifically, what practices enhance or inhibit the most constructive relationships?
The actual practice of NGOs within the UN has evolved over some five decades. The Quaker UN Offices in New York and Geneva have been integral participants in that evolution. A submission to this process by James Paul of the Global Policy Forum summarizes the evolving pattern of UN/NGO relations over the previous fifty years and makes interesting observations about the current dynamic situation as well as prospects for the future.
Of course, patterns of interaction that suffice in one era may be inadequate in another. There is a periodic need for healthy self-reflection which is critical during the life of an organization. Most NGOs, particularly those who work full-time within the UN community would welcome any and all invitations to consider ways of maximizing their own effectiveness as well as the effectiveness of the UN itself. In so doing, NGOs would naturally want to take very seriously the concerns of the UN regarding their experiences and interactions with NGOs. Focusing on the larger context would require us to look together at a long-term vision for strengthening NGO/UN relations. Should there be new arrangements made to facilitate NGO input to UN fora? Should there be new fora created within the UN to enable NGO voices, especially those from Southern NGO's, to be heard more meaningfully? Does the growing number of NGO in regular consultation require new thinking about facilities, TV connections, tele-conferencing? These and other such questions would benefit from such reflection.
To-date however, the discussion of the Secretary-General's Report in meetings convened by the Assistant Secretary-General for External Relations seems largely focused on the task of defining or redefining NGO access and participation to UN buildings and meetings. This focus appears to originate from security concerns that have arisen generally and in the face of what is perceived as a dramatic increase in the number of NGOs with status at the UN. Chief McCann was invited on at least two occasions to summarize those concerns as the basis for the more restrictive arrangements for NGO's announced in the memo to NGO's of 19 April,1999, from S.Iqbal Riza, Chef de Cabinet, Executive Office of the Secretary-general re: "General Information Regarding Access to United Nations Headquarters and Related Matters."
The general consensus of NGOs responding to requests for feedback to the proposed security procedures was to question the rationale for placing serious new limits on NGO access, and therefore participation, and to disagree with the move to institute new and discriminatory arrangements when no credible case was made that the changes were necessary on the basis of some new and explainable set of threats or that the new procedures would result in any real security benefits to anyone concerned.
It is important to note that every single potential threat cited by Chief McCann involved the general public. None were specific to or even pertinent to NGOs in their interaction with UN delegates and staff. The general sense of the NGOs who have expressed themselves on this issue is that there is little security benefit derived from the new procedures but that there is significant loss of access on the part of NGOs. This loss of access will translate into lowered participation and engagement within the UN system even as the Secretary-General's Report commends NGOs for their involvement and calls for a denser relationship.
It is this disconnection between the rationale given for changes and the actual experience of NGOs working in the UN on a daily basis that is most disconcerting. Inevitably and inescapably, one looks for other undisclosed factors to explain the inexplicable. It is no secret that some delegations have long wished to restrict the access of NGOs critical of their policies. Some delegations have done so openly, others do so in closed meetings. NGOs have looked to the UN itself, the Secretary-General's Office, and especially those whose role it is to maximize the effectiveness of NGO interaction within the UN to resist such un-democratic tendencies. We encourage them to do so now and assure them that we will work seriously with them to define and implement policies and procedures that address real problems and that enhances rather than inhibits NGO effectiveness.
We would enter into such a process joyfully as we do, after all, share common goals and have a common stake in the free and unhindered flow of information and ideas in a safe and secure environment.
Sincerely,
Jack T. Patterson
Quaker Representative to the UN
