Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs ECOSOC Press Release
Excerpt from ECOSOC Press Release
on Consultative Status of CSI
ECOSOC/5871
July 30, 1999
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) wrapped up its Geneva session this morning by adopting more than a dozen resolutions and decisions relating to, among other things, continued undertakings to reduce the effects of natural disasters, tobacco-control efforts, the affects of economic sanctions on third-party countries, and the improvement of United Nations informatics systems.
National representatives also reached a compromise over a disputed recommendation by ECOSOC's subsidiary Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to revoke the consultative status of the non-governmental organization Christian Solidarity International (CSI). It was agreed to suspend the organization's status pending a reconsideration of the case by the Committee, which is to report back to ECOSOC when it reconvenes in New York on 16 September.
A number of countries, led by Sudan, said they favoured the Committee's original decision, charging that CSI had exceeded acceptable limits when it accredited the leader of an armed group fighting against the Sudanese Government to speak this spring before the Commission on Human Rights. A series of other countries, including Canada, the United States, and members of the European Union, contended that the Committee had not followed due process in reaching its decision.
Since it did not complete all of its work, ECOSOC will reconvene in September in New York.
....
The Council decided without a vote to suspend the consultative status of the NGO Christian Solidarity International and to request the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations to reconsider the question and make a recommendation to the Council at its reconvened session on 16 September. The Council also asked Christian Solidarity International to submit a summary of its position on the matter to the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.
....
Ibrahim Mirghani Ibrahim (Sudan) said the delegation appreciated NGOs that provided a valuable service in Sudan. However, concerns had been growing in the international community about the behaviour of one NGO, Christian Solidarity International. The commander of the Sudan Liberation Army had been accredited to speak for CSI. That group advocated action against the Sudanese Government. Sudan preferred to uphold the recommendation of the Committee on NGOs and revoke the consultative status of CSI. However, it looked forward to the completion of the process of the investigation. It appreciated the efforts that had been exerted in gaining a consensus.
Eduardo Tapia (Chile) said it was concerned about the procedures used to review the case, particularly the absence of due process. The Committee on NGOs did not carry out all the necessary procedures in reviewing the case. The respect for due process was the sole guarantee that helped prevent damage to the weakest.
Ross Hynes (Canada), speaking on behalf of New Zealand, Australia, and the United States, said the participation of human-rights NGOs was indispensable within the international human rights system. They must be free to speak out even when the messages delivered caused discomfort for States. The delegations considered that any and all deliberations by the Committee on NGOs must adhere to the high standards of due process. It was a matter of grave concern that that standard clearly had not been met in this case. Canada and the countries it represented were pleased that the Council had referred the matter back to the Committee. They hoped that CSI would promptly respond by making a full submission to the Committee. Canada and the countries it represented joined consensus in the decision of temporarily suspending the status of CSI, although it was unclear if that was necessary.
Johan Schalin (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the EU appreciated the sincere efforts of all parties to negotiate in good faith to reach consensus. However, it was with reluctance that it joined consensus. The EU had not been part of the negotiations that had led to the final result. Fairness and impartiality should be employed every time the Committee made such a decision. In the case of CSI, these principles had not been respected. In the view of the EU, the process followed so far had fallen short of respected practice. The decision just adopted clearly acknowledged that the process was flawed and needed a remedy. The EU would not favour such decisions in the future.
Mohamed-Salah Dembri (Algeria) said a great deal had been done involving the decision to withdraw the consultative status of CSI. What was involved was not the integrity of the Committee. It was unfortunate that some delegations called this integrity into question. It should be recalled that the real problem was a political manipulation of the Human Rights Commission. There was not a problem with the freedom of expression. Everyone was here to defend human rights. What was in question was a manipulation of the Human Rights Commission. There was a lack of integrity at the source. It was up to the NGO to clean its own house. The NGO Committee was quite an honorable international body.
Metsing Mangoaela (Lesotho) said the merits of the case were under review. Legality must start from the source. There had been very very serious charges made against CSI, and because of the gravity of the charges, it was necessary for complete respect of due process in the work of the Committee. The most serious punishment for crimes was the death penalty; anyone charged with such a crime must be given the highest level of due process and rights. The case of CSI was similar to a capital offense because withdraw of its status meant the end of its influence. Such a charge meant it deserved the highest level of protection of its rights. They must be scrupulously protected by the Committee.
More Information on NGOs
