UN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL: COMMITTEE ON NGOS

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000612

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON PHUM USUN
SUBJECT: UN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL: COMMITTEE ON NGOS

REF: A. USUN 516

B. STATE 70801

C. STATE 60300


1. Summary: At its resumed session May 29 - June 6 and June
25, ECOSOC,s Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations
(CNGO) recommended ECOSOC consultative status for a number of
U.S. NGOs, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)
and the Hudson Institute. Action on the Democracy Coalition
Project's application was deferred until the Committee's next
session in January 2009, along with the applications of
several other NGOs. The application of the Human Rights
Foundation was rejected (ref A). ECOSOC is expected to
approve most or all of these decisions when it considers the
Committee's report July 21; as instructed (ref B),USUN will
seek to have ECOSOC overturn the Committee's decision against
the Human Rights Foundation. End summary.


2. During the resumed session, the CNGO had before it 126
applications for consultative status, including applications
deferred from earlier sessions. Of those applications, the
CNGO recommended 64 for consultative status, deferred 57 for
further consideration, and closed consideration of two
organizations. It did not recommend consultative status for
one organization and two organizations withdrew their
applications. The CNGO also reviewed the quadrennial reports
of 138 accredited NGOs.


3. Among the recommended NGOs were several US-based NGOs
including African Child Care Association, American
Association of University Women, Health for Humanity, Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS),Hudson Institute, International
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Junior Achievement
Worldwide, National Women,s Studies Association,
Partnership for Global Justice, and Service for Peace.


4. The Hudson Institute, which had been deferred from prior
sessions, faced strong Cuban opposition due to an article
written by an affiliate of the Institute that criticized
Cuba,s human rights record. The Hudson Institute also faced
some last minute criticism from Russia, China, Qatar, Egypt,
Pakistan, Angola and Sudan when Anne Bayefsky, a senior
fellow of the Institute, published an op-ed article in the
New York Daily News critical of the CNGO during the same week
the Institute was asking the CNGO to recommend it for ECOSOC
accreditation. In the end, however, the Committee
recommended the application to ECOSOC, which is expected to
approve it on July 21.


5. The CNGO also recommended granting consultative status
to the previously deferred application of the US-based Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society. HIAS had faced strong opposition from
Egypt, Qatar, and Pakistan and from observer delegations
Syria and Palestine, who questioned its refugee resettlement
activities and its stance on UN resolutions dealing with
Palestine. After repeated appearances before the Committee
by HIAS representatives, however, and lobbying by Ambassador
Khalilzad and others, the application was finally approved.


6. A Dutch Gay and Lesbian NGO, Federatie van Nederlandse
Verenigingen Tot Integratie Van Homoseksualiteit, whose
application had been previously deferred, was recommended for
consultative status by a one-vote margin, over strong
opposition led by Egypt, Pakistan, and Qatar. The UK called
for a vote on the application and the result was 7 in favor
(Columbia, Dominica, Israel, Peru, Romania, UK, and US) and 6
opposed (China, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, and Sudan),
with 5 abstentions (Angola, Burundi, Guinea, India, Turkey)
and 1 absence (Cuba). Cuba's absence may have been the key
in this narrow victory, and it is not unlikely that the NGO's
opponents will try to overturn the Committee's decision in
the ECOSOC meeting July 21.


7. Of the applications deferred until the January 2009
CNGO session, several are U.S. NGOS including Assyrian
Academic Society, Democracy Coalition Project, the Human
Rights House Foundation, International Association of Women
Judges, International Reading Association, and the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Most of
these applications were deferred because some Committee
members posed more questions to the NGOs (a common tactic,
used by some members of the CNGO to defer consideration of
the applications of NGOs with which they do not agree
politically).


8. The application of the Armenian Fund, U.S.A. was closed
because the NGO and its representative, who addressed the
CNGO in person, refused to adhere to the UN terminology for
the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. The NGO
representative stated that to use the UN terminology would be
picking sides in the controversy, which the NGO could not do.
The application of Italian NGO Ma Qualcuno Pensi ad Abele
was also closed, the Committee deciding the NGO had failed to

respond to the CNGO's questions.


9. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM),led by Cuba, filed a
complaint against the U.S. NGO World Union for Progressive
Judaism (WUPJ). The NAM complaint alleged that during the
sixth special session of the Human Rights Council, on "Human
Rights Violations Emanating from Israeli Military Incursion
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory," held in Geneva on
23-24 January 2008, the representative of the WUPJ had
violated the principles governing NGOs in ECOSOC consultative
status by not abiding by a ruling of the Council president to
stay within the scope of the agenda item in addressing the
Council. The NAM complaint asked for withdrawal of the
WUPJ's ECOSOC accreditation. The CNGO finally agreed to
close the matter with only a letter of reprimand. Per
instructions (ref C),the United States joined consensus on
the letter, but made a statement in which it underlined the
36 years of exemplary service the WUPJ had provided to the UN
and expressed its regret that the CNGO did not close the
matter, without the letter of reprimand, once it had received
apologies both in writing and verbally from the WUPJ's
representatives.


10. In the January 2008 session of the CNGO, the United
States succeeded in adding to the agenda of the CNGO,s
working group an agenda item, entitled, "Ways to ensure that
NGOs, being considered for consultative status or reviewed
for any other matter, are not involved in any international
criminal activity, including terrorism, as envisaged in
ECOSOC resolution 1996/31." Cuba, Egypt, and Qatar opposed
this initiative, saying the issue is outside the scope of the
mandate of the CNGO and the use of UN terrorist and criminal
lists will be prejudicial to Islamic NGOs because the main UN
terrorist list is the al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions list
maintained by the 1267 Committee of the Security Council.
During the CNGO's resumed session in May-June, Cuba, Egypt,
and Qatar tried to limit the time of discussion on this
matter in the working group so they could claim the group had
discussed the issue without reaching a consensus. USUN,
however, was able to get the same agenda item added to the
2009 agenda of the working group.


11. Comment: The CNGO's contentious 2008 sessions show the
extent to which some members of the CNGO tend to make
decisions based on political considerations rather than the
merits of the NGOs applying for accreditation. This was
particularly evident in Cuba's virulent opposition to the
Human Rights Foundations's application. Under these
circumstances, overturning the CNGO's decision against the
Foundation will be an uphill battle.
Khalilzad