Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs Review of the Christian Solidarity International
Report of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations
in the Economic and Social Council
1999 Session (1-18 June 1999)
On 28 April 1999, the Government of the Sudan filed a complaint regarding the accreditation of Christian Solidarity International (CSI), a non-governmental organization with Roster status. According to the complaint, "the Commander of the terrorist separatist group of Southern Sudan", was given the floor to speak at the fifty_fifth session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva under the umbrella of CSI. The leader of the rebel group started his intervention by identifying himself as such. The Government of the Sudan considered the action by CSI of allowing the commander to speak under its name to be a "flagrant breach and abuse of status". Consequently, by letter of 28 April 1999, the Government of the Sudan requested that the organization's consultative status with the Economic and Social Council be withdrawn.
The Chairman of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations instructed the Secretariat to forward the complaint to the members of the Committee, which was done on 3 May 1999. The complaint by the Government of the Sudan was sent to CSI under a covering letter from the Secretariat on 2 June 1999. CSI was requested to provide a special report on the incident. Some delegations wanted to have a substantive discussion on the issue before requesting the organization to provide a special report. CSI responded on 7 June 1999, stating that there was "insufficient time to prepare the 'special report' that you requested". Subsequently, by letter of 9 June 1999, CSI was requested to provide the Committee with an explanation in writing of the incident, rather than a special report. In addition, it was suggested that the organization might wish to send a representative to respond to questions raised by the Committee.
70. At the 698th meeting, on 9 June, the representative of the Sudan made a statement in which he presented his delegation's complaint against Christian Solidarity International to the Committee. In view of the potential gravity of the reported incident, the Committee agreed that such a situation could warrant a recommendation to withdraw the consultative status of the organization, subject to its response in accordance with paragraph 56 of Council resolution 1996/31.
71. At the same meeting, the representative of the United States of America requested that the following statement be included verbatim in the present report:
"The delegation of the United States believes, according to paragraph 61 (c) of Council resolution 1996/31 and previously established practices of the Committee, that the Committee has made a procedural error in requesting CSI to submit a response to the complaint lodged by the Sudanese delegation or send a representative of CSI to appear before the Committee which will take a decision by 18 June 1999. In the past, the Committee has requested non-governmental organizations to submit a special report and respond to allegations of the complaint. They may send a representative to appear before the Committee to respond to members' questions."
72. At its 711th meeting, on 17 June, the Committee reviewed the responses by CSI dated 7 and 15 June. Several Committee members found the responses unsatisfactory. Procedural objections were raised to the discussion of the question, since the item had not been previously announced in the Journal of the United Nations. The representative of the United States of America raised a point of order and moved for adjournment of the discussion on those grounds, after which, in accordance with rule 50 of the rules of procedure of the Economic and Social Council, the motion for adjournment was put to a vote. The motion was rejected by a roll-call vote of 1 to 13, with 4 abstentions. The voting was as follows:
In favour: United States of America.
Against: Algeria, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Lebanon, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey.
Abstaining: Chile, France, Ireland, Romania.
73. The complaint by the Sudan was then taken up by the Committee. Delegations agreed on the gravity of the complaint, indicating that non_governmental organizations should be seriously reminded of their responsibility in the choice of their representatives. Delegations also agreed on the need to address questions of accreditation by non-governmental organizations in consultative status. A number of delegations supported the Sudan's request for the withdrawal of the organization's status with the Council. Other delegations felt that due process had not been observed and suggested that a special report should be requested for the resumed session of the Committee. The representative of the United States requested that the decision on the recommendation to withdraw status should be presented in writing by the complaining party prior to a vote on the matter. The representative of the Sudan noted that his delegation had already submitted a written request on 28 April 1999 which had been forwarded to all members of the Committee on 3 May 1999.
74. A procedural discussion followed regarding the competence of the Committee to withdraw the status of CSI. The representative of the United States of America made a motion calling for a decision on the competence of the Committee to adopt a decision withdrawing the consultative status of CSI in view of the absence of a special report from the organization, as stipulated in paragraph 55 of Council resolution 1996/31. In accordance with rule 56 of the rules of procedure of the Council, the motion was put to a vote. The motion was adopted by a roll-call vote of 11 to 1, with 5 abstentions. The voting was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Lebanon, Pakistan, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey.
Against: United States of America.
Abstaining: Chile, France, Ireland, Romania, Russian Federation.
75. After the vote, a statement was made by the representative of India in which he noted that the Committee was competent to decide on the issue since the Committee had requested CSI to provide an explanation of the incident and to send a representative to appear before the Committee. Furthermore, paragraph 56 of Council resolution 1996/31 provided the non-governmental organization with the opportunity to make a further response even after a decision on the recommendation for withdrawal of status was taken.
76 The proposal of the Sudan to recommend the withdrawal of the consultative status of CSI was then put to a vote. The proposal was adopted by a roll-call vote of 12 to 1, with 4 abstentions (see chap. I above, draft decision II). The voting was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Lebanon, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey.
Against: United States of America.
Abstaining: Chile, France, Ireland, Romania.
77. Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of Ireland, France, India, the United States of America and Chile.
78. The representative of Ireland stated that the delegation would have preferred a temporary suspension of status for the organization pending the submission of a special report to the resumed session of the Committee.
79. The representative of France also said that the delegation wanted to have a full report from the organization before voting, and that it would therefore abstain.
80. The representative of the United States of America noted that something serious had occurred at the Commission on Human Rights but that the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had not followed due process, since the item was taken up without prior public notice in accordance with the Committee's previously agreed procedures. Moreover, the representative of CSI was not present, and the decision to withdraw its consultative status was being taken without a special report. Procedures of the Committee were well established, and the present proceeding was going against the rule of law. He would therefore vote against the Sudanese proposal.
81. The representative of Chile recognized the unfortunate situation which had occurred in Geneva, but regretted that due process had not been observed since the organization in question was not able to address the Committee. Therefore, the delegation of Chile could not endorse the proposal.
More Information on NGOs
