Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs Final Decision to Withdraw CSI's ECOSOC Status
Summary of the ECOSOC Meeting
October 26,1999
By Jennifer Schense, Legal Adviser, NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court
The president of ECOSOC began by noting that both NGO Committee reports call for the withdrawal of CSI's ECOSOC consultative status. The president conducted extensive informal consultations with every member of ECOSOC, but a compromise solution could not be reached, so for that reason, a vote was called for. Syria and Cuba further requested a roll call vote (ECOSOC regulations require 2 requests for a roll call vote; otherwise voting is by a showing of hands only). Then the president called for statements before the vote:
US: believes that CSI erred by bringing John Garang to the UN Commission on Human Rights, and should have reviewed his statement before he made it. However, according to 1996/31, withdrawal is not warranted. The Sudanese government may have been offended, but only one single questionable act was committed by CSI and that one act shouldn't negate all the good works they conduct in the field, which are the true pattern of acts which should be considered. At least the NGO Committee should provide CSI with an explanation in writing as to why their status was withdrawn, as required in paragraph 56 of 1996/31.
Finland (on behalf of the European Union, Liechtenstein and all Central and Eastern European countries associated with the EU...these were listed but I didn't get the list): NGOs are indispensable partners and should be ensured the right to speak up. They should also respect the rules and be responsible for their actions according to 1996/31. All NGOs should be held to the same standards; in this regard, the procedure which the NGO Committee followed was not a model of good practice. NGOs in this position should have a reasonable deadline to prepare an explanatory report, with time allowed for the exchange of written explanations between the NGO and the Committee. In return, NGOs must be prepared to respond promptly to requests for information from the Committee. Specifically regarding CSI, CSI acknowledged its error and apologized at the NGO Committee hearing. Further and more importantly, there was no pattern of acts which 1996/31 requires for withdrawal of status. For this reason, the EU can't support the draft decision; however, the EU acknowledged the efforts of the Sudan to reach a consensus solution, along with the efforts of others, including the president of ECOSOC.
Cuba: the NGO committee gave great attention to the CSI issue and complied with all necessary procedures.
Sudan: NGOs are important and many are active in Sudan, through Operation Lifeline; Sudan welcomes NGOs with open arms. However, practices such as those which CSI undertook pose a danger to the security of Member States of the UN and trample on their sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is essential to ensure the efficiency and transparency of the work of each individual NGO so that the rights of all NGOs to access the UN are respected. The Sudan thanked the president of ECOSOC and other delegations for having so vigorously sought a compromise solution and indicated that the Sudanese delegation has tried to bring an objective view, maximum flexibility, and a purely technical treatment to this topic. CSI refused to admit its error and poisoned the atmosphere of compromise by issuing press communiques, casting doubt on the abilities of the NGO Committee.
Canada: Canada believes in the importance of the work of NGOs at the UN, especially human rights organizations. The Human Rights Defenders Declaration is a good example of efforts to meet the need to protect the ability of NGOs to speak out, even if it causes governments discomfort. Clearly CSI didn't act appropriately and while CSI has acknowledged its error, CSI didn't totally explain its actions at the NGO Committee hearing. Canada sought an intermediate option for CSI as withdrawal of status is not warranted and in light of that, cannot support the draft decision to withdraw status. In the future, the NGO Committee should be more scrupulous in abiding by 1996/31, while calling on NGOs also to abide by the resolution's terms.
Japan: thanked the president of ECOSOC for his efforts to build consensus around a compromise solution. Withdrawal is a very serious matter. However, due process was followed by the NGO Committee and ECOSOC is now ready to act. NGOs must comply with 1996/31. Japan examined CSI's report to the NGO Committee (CSI has roster status, so doesn't have to submit quadrennial reports). CSI has done good work, but its activities in southern Sudan have been a problem and serious mistakes have been made. Japan respects the decision of the NGO Committee; there was more than one single mistake made. Japan will support the withdrawal of status. However, CSI's case was very unusual and Japan believes that the trust between ECOSOC and other NGOs will not be disturbed. When CSI reapplies for ECOSOC status [note from Jennifer: I'm not clear on when that would be and didn't hear any indication in that direction today at the meeting] CSI should receive fair consideration at that time.
Lesotho: The Ambassador expressed disappointment that consensus on a compromise solution couldn't be reached. CSI clearly erred in bringing Garang to Geneva (CHR), but this was one single act. It's activities in southern Sudan are irrelevant to this discussion. There is no pattern of activities as called for in 1996/31 and it seems that the organization didn't deliberately do wrong. Lesotho doesn't support any penalty for the organization, although Lesotho would have supported a compromise for temporary suspension if that could have been reached. Lesotho will vote against the withdrawal of status. Further, the NGO Committee didn't do its work properly, in relation to its obligations under 1996/31. ECOSOC should issue clear instructions to NGOs to make it clearer how 1996/31 translates into obligations for them.
Comoros: supports withdrawal of ECOSOC status.
Table of ECOSOC Vote on Christian Solidarity International
Statements after the vote:
Algeria: Sudan was cooperative and it was the other party (CSI) which refused the compromise position. This vote is a clear message to NGOs that they are welcome and that their role is recognized, but that they must obey the rules of the UN. Further, it is recognition of the fact that the NGO Committee has done a good job, despite what its detractors say.
New Zealand: New Zealand is unsatisfied that no compromise solution was reached. The substantive requirements in 1996/31 for withdrawal of status were not met, so New Zealand voted against withdrawal.
Norway: speaking also on behalf of Iceland: Due process was followed in this case, but there must be more transparency in the work of the NGO Committee. CSI messed up in Geneva and subsequently apologized, but its response to the NGO Committee inquiries were unsatisfactory. NGOs must adhere to the rules or the work of all NGOs will be undermined. Norway preferred a lesser penalty of suspension.
Syria: supported the withdrawal of status and places full trust in the NGO Committee, which looked at this question in depth. The NGO Committee is competent and should be respected.
Venezuela: regrets the need for a vote on this matter and supports the work of the NGO Committee.
Turkey: NGO participation in general is good, but Turkey would have preferred a consensus compromise solution in this matter.
Djibouti: supported the withdrawal of ECOSOC status as a matter of principle.
President of ECOSOC: the president noted that he had worked hard to heighten the status of ECOSOC at the UN in his tenure as president and that in regard to this matter had consulted with all members of ECOSOC informally to try to resolve it through consensus. The compromise would have been a three year suspension followed by a reexamination of the issue. 29 delegations supported this measure, which was a clear majority of ECOSOC members. These efforts were in vain though because of the intransigence of the party most directly affected (CSI). .
More Information on ECOSOC and the Suspension Case
of Christian Solidarity International (CSI)
More Information on NGO Access to the UN
