Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations
Global Policy Forum Monitors Policy Making at the United Nations.
 
Security Council UN Finance What's New
Social & Economic Policy International Justice Opinion Forum
Globalization Tables & Charts
Nations & States Empire Links & Resources
NGOs UN Reform  
Secretary General   DONATE NOW
 
ECOSOC Suspends The Consultative Status of ASOPAZCO - NGOs - Global policy Forum

ECOSOC Suspends
the Consultative Status
of ASOPAZCO

UN Press Release
October 18, 2000

Extract from UN Press Release (ECOSOC/5934)

In other action this afternoon, the Council decided to suspend, for a period of three years, the special consultative status of the International Council of the Associations for Peace in the Continents (ASOPAZCO) as of 28 July 2000. That decision was taken by a vote of 25 in favour to 18 against, with 9 abstentions (Benin, Brazil, Costa Rica, Fiji, India, Mauritius, Morocco, New Zealand, Sierra Leone) (see Annex I).

A draft decision on the suspension of consultative status of the International Council of the Association for Peace in the Continents (document E/2000/L.35), submitted by the Vice-President following informal consultations, would have the Council suspend, for a period of three years, the special consultative status of the International Council of the Associations for Peace in the Continents as of 28 July 2000 in accordance with paragraph 57 of Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996.

The representative of the United States said that the Economic and Social Council was being called upon to suspend the organization for three years. Her delegation had expressed that they were opposed to that recommendation, and would continue to oppose it. The International Council for the Association of Peace in the Continents was a human rights organization. Although that organization's statement had been critical of Cuba, it had not challenged the sovereignty of Member States. She believed that the organization should be judged on the content of its intervention. That content, while critical of Cuba, was within established norms. She urged all Council members to reject the recommendation.

The representative of Mexico said that it was the practice of her delegation to respect the work of the Economic and Social Council. In this case, the Committee had the competence to analyse and evaluate specific issues and draft recommendations in a motivated manner. For that reason, her delegation would vote in favour of draft resolution on the International Council for the Association of Peace in the Continents.

The representative of Japan said that her country was not a member of the Committee on NGOs. However, it had decided that the International Council for the Association of Peace in the Continents had not violated any regulations. Therefore, her delegation would vote against the suspension of the organization.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that his delegation had taken part in the consideration of the matter. He fully shared the opinion of Cuba on the abuse of consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. He was particularly concerned that the organization in question had undertaken actions against the delegation of Cuba in the past. He considered absolutely legal the opinion of the Committee on the suspension for three years and would vote for it.

The Council then adopted the text on the International Council for the Association of Peace in the Continents with a vote of 25 in favour to 18 against, with 9 abstentions (Benin, Brazil, Costa Rica, Fiji, India, Mauritius, Morocco, New Zealand, Sierra Leone).

ANNEX I

Vote on Suspension of Status of International Council of Association for Peace in Continents

The draft resolution on the suspension of consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the International Council of the Association for Peace in the Continents (document E/2000/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 25 in favour to 18 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Honduras, Indonesia, Mexico, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Against: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Norway, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Benin, Brazil, Costa Rica, Fiji, India, Mauritius, Morocco, New Zealand, Sierra Leone.

Absent: Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau.


GPF home page