The Economic and Social Council this morning, in the context of its agenda item on non-governmental organizations, considered the report of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations and adopted eight decisions and two resolutions on the status of NGOs and the work of the Committee.

Speaking in the general debate before the decisions and resolutions were adopted, speakers said that as a democratic institution, the United Nations depended for its effectiveness on receiving the benefit of a wide spectrum of views, including from representatives of civil society. Certain cases before the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations reflected a negative trend in the working of the Committee, giving cause for concern that the guiding principles for granting ECOSOC consultative status were gradually being undermined. The Committee should help ensure effective NGO participation, and not be a hurdle to it. The Committee should provide the opportunity for organizations representing important parts of public opinion to participate in the work of the United Nations, where the broadest spectrum of society should be heard. Speakers also said that while ECOSOC had an oversight responsibility over the Committee, reversing its decisions would undermine the Committee. NGOs should be truly independent, and not serve a political agenda - thus their admission could be judged objectively, and the process be free of political consideration.

In a decision on applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-governmental organizations the Council granted consultative status to 64 non-governmental organizations, and reclassified the consultative status of three non-governmental organizations from the roster to special consultative status.

In a decision on outstanding quadrennial reports, the Council decided to propose the suspension of consultative status of non-governmental organizations that had failed to submit their quadrennial reports for two or more consecutive periods by 1 May 2009.

In a decision on the Arab Commission for Human Rights, the Council decided to suspend the consultative status of the non-governmental organization Arab Commission for Human Rights for one year.

In a resolution on application of the non-governmental organization Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the Council, decided to grant special consultative status to the non-governmental organization Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros.

In a decision on the report of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations on its 2009 regular session, the Council took note of the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.

In a decision on applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-governmental organizations, the Economic and Social Council decided to grant consultative status to 36 non-governmental organizations; and to reclassify the following non-governmental organization from special to general consultative status: Russian Peace Foundation.

In a resolution on application of the non-governmental organization Democracy Coalition Project for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the Council decided to grant special consultative status to the non-governmental organization Democracy Coalition Project.

In a decision on non-governmental organizations with outstanding quadrennial reports, listed pursuant to Council resolution 2008/4, the Council decided to suspend immediately, for a period of one year, the consultative status of organizations listed in the annex to the report.

In a decision on dates of and provisional agenda for the 2010 session of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, adopted without a vote, the Economic and Social Council decided that the 2010 regular session of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations would be held from 25 January to 3 February 2010 and its resumed 2010 session from 26 May to 4 June 2010; and approved the provisional agenda and documentation for the 2010 session of the Committee.

In a decision on the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its resumed 2009 session, the Economic and Social Council took note of the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its resumed 2009 session.

Speaking in the general debate were the United States, Iraq, Sweden on behalf of the European Union, China, Canada, Russian Federation, Chile, Egypt, Mexico, Israel, Algeria, Brazil, Uruguay on behalf of MERCOSUR, Cuba, and Guinea-Bissau.

Speaking in introductions of resolutions were Brazil and the United States.

Speaking in general comments were China, Canada, United States, Russian Federation, and Algeria.

Speaking in explanations of the vote before the vote were Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Canada, China, Russian Federation, and Pakistan.

Speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote were Indonesia, Algeria, and Philippines.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m., this afternoon, when it will take up its coordination, programme, and other questions and take action on draft resolutions. It will also hold elections postponed from previous sessions to the membership of several United Nations bodies.

Report

The Economic and Social Council has before it the report of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations (E/2009/32 Part I and Part I/Corr.1), which notes that at its 2009 regular session, held from 19 to 28 January and on 2 February 2009, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had before it 153 applications for consultative status, including applications deferred from its 1999 through 2008 sessions. Of those applications, the Committee recommended 64 for consultative status, deferred 82 for further consideration at its resumed session, suspended consideration of the application of one non-governmental organization, took note that two non-governmental organizations had withdrawn their applications, and closed without prejudice consideration of the applications of four non-governmental organizations. It did not recommend one non-governmental organization, deferred from previous sessions. The Committee also had before it four requests for reclassification of consultative status; it recommended three requests and deferred one. In addition, it had before it 95 quadrennial reports, of which it took note of 94; it deferred consideration of one quadrennial report. The Committee heard 14 representatives of non-governmental organizations. The report also contains four draft decisions on matters calling for action by the Economic and Social Council.

In Part II of the report, the Committee notes that at its resumed 2009 session, held from 18 to 27 May 2009, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had before it 142 applications for consultative status, including 82 applications deferred from its 1999 to 2009 sessions. It decided to recommend to the Economic and Social Council to grant consultative status to 36 organizations, not to recommend consultative status for one organization and to reclassify the consultative status of one organization. The Committee recommended that the Council take note of the decisions by the Committee to close its consideration of the application of two non-governmental organizations and to close without prejudice consideration of the application of two other non-governmental organizations; to suspend its consideration of one application; and to defer its consideration of the application of 101 non-governmental organizations, including 62 organizations for which the receipt of responses to questions submitted during the 2009 resumed session was pending. The Committee reviewed 123 quadrennial reports, 14 of which were deferred from previous sessions, and took note of 110 such reports. It decided to recommend to the Council the suspension of the consultative status of 94 organizations for a one-year period, in accordance with Council resolution 2008/4. The report also contains five draft decisions on matters calling for action by the Economic and Social Council.

Discussion

JOHN F. SAMMIS (United States) said as a democratic institution, the United Nations depended for its effectiveness on receiving the benefit of a wide spectrum of views, including from representatives of civil society. The United States strongly supported the active participation of civil society in the work of the United Nations, and the right of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to be heard in consultations. Regrettably, the Committee which should be facilitating the engagement of NGOs in United Nations meetings had too often become an impediment instead. It now seemed to spend more time excluding qualified NGOs from accreditation than on working to include them. The United States had regretfully come to the conclusion that some delegations on the Committee were trying to use it to silence the voices of the United Nations of NGOs with which they did not agree. The United States believed that the Committee on Non-governmental Orgazinations did not properly follow its mandate in processing the applications of two United States NGOs: the Democracy Coalition Project, and the Dynamic Christian World Mission Foundation. The United States would be proposing decisions today which would enable ECOSOC to exercise its oversight authority to correct the Committee's mistakes.

MOHAMED RIDA AL-HASSAN (Iraq) said in light of the democratization that they enjoyed in Iraq, non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations worked in full independence in order for them to undertake their missions in optional conditions in a free way. Within the framework of common work, the federal and local State agencies offered support to local non-governmental organizations’ activities and programmes, such as conferences and seminars. The Government of Iraq believed that non-governmental organizations had a positive role to play in Iraqi society. The Bureau for Non-Governmental Organizations and the Council of Ministers regulated their activities in order to facilitate their work in full freedom and transparency. Through the legislative branch non-governmental organizations were able to take part in the decision making process through the non-governmental organizations branch of the Iraqi parliament. Non-governmental organizations took part in awareness raising campaigns - helping people understand political rights, disseminating information about constitutional and social rights, shedding light on the role and mandate of all three branches of the State, and helping to address the culture violence. The State Secretary for International Humanitarian Affairs took the lead role in spreading the culture of civil society in Iraq through the regulation and coordination of civil society organizations, and helping to draw up plans and programmes for the optimal use of non-governmental organizations. Iraq sought the support and help of the international community to overcome the challenges that remained, through the success of its non-governmental organizations and civil society.

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said non-governmental organizations continued to contribute to the diversity of the debate in the Economic and Social Council and other United Nations fora. The United Nations was a democratic institution built on principles of diversity, non-discrimination, and frank and respectful dialogue. All stood to gain from a variety of views being expressed, and being expressed openly. However, over the past few years there had been more and more deviations from the guiding principles in the handling of applications before, and in recommendations made by the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations. States were increasingly opposing consultative status for organizations which had been critical of their human rights record, or whose views a particular State did not agree with. Moreover, with regard to some organizations, the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations had conspicuously failed to reach a decision. There had been a resistance of some Member States of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations to the granting of status to organizations which promoted the rights of persons based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. In the view of the European Union, certain cases reflected a negative trend in the working of the Committee, giving cause for concern that the guiding principles for granting ECOSOC consultative status were gradually being undermined. The European Union urged States on the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations to work together to defend and uphold the guiding principles agreed by the Member States in resolution 1996/31.

WANG QUN (China) said over the years the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had worked actively in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Economic and Social Council resolutions. China appreciated the work of the Committee. The recommendations contained herein were important guidelines for the work of the Council. In spite of the fact that the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations dealt with matters of non-governmental organizations, they were still composed of delegates of Member States. China emphasized that any decision of the Council would have a long-term impact on the credibility of non-governmental organizations, and therefore the work of the Council itself. China noted that what had been solved in New York should not be overturned here, and therefore should not be open for discussion. In this context, China urged the Council to adopt the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, which had been adopted in New York.

KEITH MORRILL (Canada) said Canada recognised the important work non-governmental organizations (NGOs) played in the work of the United Nations, enriching debates, driving important United Nations processes and initiatives, and ensuring accountability. Effective and broad-based NGO participation was essential, and Canada gave great importance to ensure that the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations was carrying out its mandate as stated in resolution 1996/31. Decisions of the Committee should be taken according to the criteria clearly set out therein. Political and ideological considerations should not be allowed to override this. NGOs should be treated in a fair and impartial manner. Delay tactics and procedural hurdles imposed on NGOs were unacceptable. These principles were not being adhered to in all deliberations. The Committee should help ensure effective NGO participation, and not be a hurdle to it. Where such serious allegations were made, it was all the more important for the Committee to stick to its mandate.

DIMITRY BIRICHEVSKIY (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation based themselves on the fact that the work between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations should be conducted in strict observance of the United Nations Charter and the Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations was the only body which had control functions in reviewing relations between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations – it was a prestigious body. Therefore the Russian Federation supported the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its work in 2009; however the Russian Federation objected to attempts to review the decisions of the Committee, including on the question of the consultative status with the Economic and Social Council to the organizations under the draft resolution before them today. They agreed with the representative of the European Union that the views of non-governmental organizations may differ; however at the same time they did not believe that they should discredit members of delegations. On granting consultative status to the three organizations in which cases were before the Council, the Russian Federation would vote no.

ALEJANDRO ROGERS (Chile) said in order to benefit from the contributions and experience offered by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), their independence and their constructive criticism must be respected. The Committee on Non-governmental Organizations should provide the opportunity for organizations representing important parts of public opinion to participate in the work of the United Nations, where the broadest spectrum of society should be heard. The applications of NGOs to be heard should therefore be considered objectively. Regarding the report of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations, Chile supported the NGO accreditation of the Democracy Coalition Project, which had been working for human rights and democratic principles for ten years, and had contributed to the work of the Human Rights Council since its inception. It fully complied with the requirements laid down in resolution 1996/31, working for the strengthening of respect for human rights and democratic principles. There was no justification for the refusal of this organization by the Committee. Consultative status should also be given to the Brazilian organization.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt) said the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations was established by the Council and the Council could agree and disagree with its decisions. Whenever the Committee took decisions that Western countries did not like, they came here and tried to discredit the work of the Committee. In the context of the non-governmental organizations contained in the report, he said if the words Islam and charity were contained in the name of a non-governmental organization, it would be considered a terrorist organization, and as such rejected. He did not say the work of the Committee was untouchable, but he was saying that the discussion should be truthful and honest – mention the right reasons why this stance was taken. Why were the organizations not being granted status? Egypt hated double standards.

SALVADOR TINAJERO (Mexico) said Mexico was convinced that the contribution of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to the work of the United Nations was essential, not just to have a richer debate but also to ensure that the Organization's work in the field was more effective. Certain applications for consultative status with ECOSOC presented to the Committee had been discussed purely from an ideological and political point of view, ignoring the spirit of resolution 1996/31, and this was the case for the Democracy Coalition Project and the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual NGO. NGOs must abide by a particular code of conduct, but NGOs did not have to share the ideology of States when applying for consultative status. This practice had a negative impact on the NGO Committee and also on the Economic and Social Committee, and did not bring the United Nations closer to the final beneficiaries of its work. These arguments should be borne in mind, and the principles of democracy, tolerance and non-discrimination should win the day, as they were the pillars of the work of the United Nations.

RON ADAM (Israel) said Israel was a member of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, covering its work for over 10 years. There were times when non-governmental organizations had an easier time gaining status and others when they had a harder time gaining status; however one thing was clear, since the inception of the United Nations in 1945, the United Nations system had been giving non-governmental organizations the proper representation in forums that they deserved. Non-governmental organizations did more sometimes than Member States. Israel supported the work of non-governmental organizations. Civil society in Israel was wide and diverse, and represented all facets of life without any discrimination on any ground. Israel supported the draft resolution on the ground today, and believed that there were cases where the Economic and Social Council should be involved or assist in the work of the Committee, and they did not see any problem with this in terms of the work the Committee, so long that the decision made was the right decision taken.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria appreciated the work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in United Nations debates, but hoped that there would be a larger number of NGOs that were rooted in developing countries and were locally-funded so as to be reflective of the reality of civil society. Consultative status carried with it obligations as well as rights, and breaches of these should not be tolerated. Officials of NGOs should not be the subject of international arrest warrants, nor tainted in their integrity, as this would taint the moral authority of civil society organizations which was needed to advance the cause of human rights and development. NGOs should be truly independent, and not serve a political agenda. Thus the admission could be judged objectively, and the process could be free of political consideration. Algeria supported the recommendations of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations as such, out of respect for the body, and although it had strong reservations on one of the decisions. The reason for this position was that it did not feel that it should re-open the decision taken by the technical body, namely the Committee, and should not undermine the latter for political considerations as appeared to be the case this morning. Algeria shared the views expressed by the representative of Egypt in this regard.

GUILHERME PATRIOTA (Brazil) said the Economic and Social Council should not take decisions based on retribution or payback, they should seek to evolve to objective criteria, based on the merit of non-governmental organizations seeking consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. There was no issue with sides here, the Council had the responsibility of oversight with the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, and to ensure that it worked under the guidance and framework adopted by its 54 members. It was true that organizations containing the words “charity” and “Muslim” should not take bearing on whether or not they would be granted status. Conversely, certain non-governmental organizations dealing with issues of gender and homosexuality should not be considered as organizations seeking to promote homosexuality – they represented a constituency, citizens and human beings, and had very relevant contributions to give to the work of the United Nations. All organizations that fulfilled the regulations under the Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 should be granted status. The Council should be seeking plurality and diversity – not a single line of thought. The Council should stick to its technical nature and not get involved in the politics of its members. According to decision 4 contained in the report before the Economic and Social Council, to not grant status to the Brazilian association for gays, lesbians and transgendered persons, the delegation did not agree with this. The organization fulfilled all the requirements stipulate by the Committee. The Brazilian Government knew the non-governmental organization well and their work was related to issues discussed within the Council, notably human rights and health issues. They were important partners of the Government in the implementation of programmes in the area and fulfilled a crucial role in this respect – the fight against HIV/AIDS to name one.

ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO RODRIGUEZ (Uruguay), on behalf of MERCOSUR, said with regards to the decision suggested by Brazil that the Council override the decision of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations on the Brazilian association, MERCOSUR supported this. The Committee gave a decision saying that the organization should not be granted consultative status. In the context of highlighting diversity and democracy as essential values in societies, the MERCOSUR countries fully supported interaction and cooperation with civil society, believing that the granting of consultative status to an NGO should in all instances be based on a consideration of the specific merits of each organization and on the principles of the United Nations Charter. In keeping with the specific declaration adopted at the ninth meeting of the High Competent Authorities for Human Rights of MERCOSUR and Associated States, these countries were convinced that it was essential to support initiatives that were designed to dismantle the prejudices which underlay discrimination due to sexual orientation and identity and expression of gender. Granting consultative status to an NGO such as the Brazilian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender organization would contribute to the work of the NGO in the field of human rights, and accrediting this organization would be constructive in allowing for greater diversity of views and opinions, and this was basic for the work of the United Nations Organization to be effective.

RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba) said Cuba endorsed the participation of civil society - genuine, independent and non-politicized in the work of the United Nations. The contribution of non-governmental organizations was of great value, and in wishing to respect the work of the United Nations, the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations was set up. Cuba agreed with what had been said, that there was some suspicion with what had been the motives of what some had said. The Council had to respect the technical nature of the work of the Committee. Some accusations were made on politicization; however these accusations came from some countries that politicized the work of non-governmental organizations themselves. To ensure that the Committee acted effectively, the Committee had to have the cooperation of non-governmental organizations that were applying for consultative status. In the case of the Dynamic Christian World, this non-governmental organization used evasive tactics with respect to the questions put to it by the Committee, and thus Cuba agreed with the Committee’s recommendations, and believed the Council should abide by those decisions. The Council had to ensure that the doors of the United Nations remained open to the work of civil society, who were not supporting a politicized agenda, as was the case with the Democracy Coalition Project – which served a specific agenda of countries within the United Nations system.

SERIFO BALDE (Guinea-Bissau) said the status of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was a most sensitive issue, and all NGOs were congratulated. The work done by the Committee was fully supported by Guinea-Bissau, as it was honest, correct, and very difficult.

Action on Decisions and Resolutions Present in the Report of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations

In decision I contained in the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (E/2009/32 Part I and Part I/Corr.1), entitled applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-governmental organizations, and adopted without a vote, the Council: grants consultative status to 64 non-governmental organizations; reclassifies the consultative status of three non-governmental organizations from the roster to special consultative status; notes that the Committee took note of the quadrennial reports of 94 non-governmental organizations for the reporting period 2004-2007; notes that the Committee decided to close without prejudice consideration of the applications of four non-governmental organizations; and notes that the Committee decided to take note of the withdrawal of the applications of two non-governmental organizations.

By decision II, entitled outstanding quadrennial reports, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to propose the suspension of consultative status of non-governmental organizations that had failed to submit their quadrennial reports for two or more consecutive periods by 1 May 2009.

By draft decision III, entitled Arab Commission for Human Rights, the Council decides to suspend the consultative status of the non-governmental organization Arab Commission for Human Rights for one year and to request the organization to submit a list of its members and associates by 1 April 2010, prior to considering reinstatement of its consultative status.

In decision IV, entitled Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros, adopted by a vote of 13 in favour, 25 against and 12 abstentions, the Council decides not to grant consultative status to the non-governmental organization Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros.

GUILHERME PATRIOTA (Brazil) said it was clear from his statement earlier, that they could not go along with the draft decisions and requested that there be a vote, in which they would vote no, meaning that they did not agree with the rejection of status for Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros by the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations.

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union firmly believed that each non-governmental organization (NGO) should be assessed as per ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, and be afforded treatment in accordance with established practice. The principles of non-discrimination and diversity were key in this regard. The resolution explicitly confirmed the need to take into account the full diversity of NGOs. The Brazilian NGO fulfilled the right criteria. Organizations could not be denied the opportunity to make their views known at the United Nations just because States did not agree with their positions. A decision to this effect would amount to discrimination - the Brazilian organization represented a constituency that had the same right as others to express themselves at the United Nations and would add value to the discussion therein. The European Union would vote against the Committee on Non-governmental Organization’s recommendation, and strongly urged all others to do so.

KEITH MORRILL (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said they recognized the need for diverse non-governmental organizations’ voices in their work. The Brazilian non-governmental organization in question was a credible organization, and fulfilled all the requirements in resolution 1996/31. Therefore Canada would vote no on the draft resolution.

In a resolution entitled Application of the non-governmental organization Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (E/2009/L.25), adopted after a vote of 25 in favour, 12 against, and 13 abstentions, the Council, having considered the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2009 regular session and draft decision IV contained therein, decides to grant special consultative status to the non-governmental organization Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros.

GUILHERME PATRIOTA (Brazil) thanked all those who were sensitive to their arguments and voted no, with respect to the recommendations made by the Committee. The next step for the Economic and Social Council on the consultative status of Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros was to consider a draft decision by which this Brazilian non-governmental organization would be acknowledged and receive the status it was requesting - to have special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. Therefore, Brazil presented the draft decision in document E/2009/L.25, and urged all Member States to vote yes on this document.

In decision V, entitled Report of the Committee on Non-governmental Organisations on its 2009 regular session, the Council takes note of the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.

L.29 which was an amended version of the below text was rejected by a vote of 24 in favour, 23 against and three abstentions.

It was replaced by following text:

In a decision contained in the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (E/2009/32 Part II), entitled Applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-governmental organizations, and adopted without a vote, the Economic and Social Council decides: to grant consultative status to 36 non-governmental organizations; to reclassify the following non-governmental organization from special to general consultative status: Russian Peace Foundation; to note that the Committee took note of the quadrennial reports of 110 organizations (years of reporting are 2004-2007); to note that the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations decided to close without prejudice consideration of the request for consultative status made by the following two non-governmental organizations; to note that the Committee decided to suspend its consideration of the application for consultative status submitted by the non-governmental organization Ethiopian Human Rights Council; and to note that the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations decided to close its consideration of the application for consultative status submitted by two non-governmental organizations.

JOHN F. SAMMIS (United States), in introduction of L.29, said that the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations had suggested that the application of the Dynamic Christian World Mission Foundation be closed. The United States was greatly concerned about this. The non-governmental organization (NGO) had refused to provide the names and addresses of all its members living in one Member State. The United States had found nothing which obliged the NGO to do so. The organization should have its application considered based on the actual requirements of resolution 1996/31. With the proposed resolution, the United States was not asking ECOSOC to accept the NGO, but to send the issue back to the Committee, who could legitimately determine then whether the NGO fulfilled the requirements of resolution 1996/31.

WANG QUN (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said China was opposed to the amendment proposed by the United States contained in E/2009/L.29, for the simple reason that the Dynamic Christian World Foundation did not meet the qualifications set out by the Economic and Social Council for consultative status. Since May 2007, this non-governmental organization had been refusing to properly answer questions raised by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations; they lacked the responsibility to do so, as well as respect for the work and mandate of the Committee, and for these reasons China believed that they did not have the ability to contribute to the work of the Economic and Social Council. In May this year, in New York, based on fair and complete deliberations on this non-governmental organization, following all the procedures, the Committee came to the decision to close the consideration of this organization, and believed that this decision should have already been dealt with and solved in New York. Any attempt to re-open or challenge this decision would not only hurt the credibility of the Committee, but also have a long-term negative impact on the work of the Council. China in this context called for roll-call vote on L.29, and urged all Member States of the Economic and Social Council to vote no on this draft resolution.

DIMITRY BIRICHIVSKIY (Russian Federation), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Russia wished to support the statement made by China, and to express its position on the fact that the Council ought not to go against decisions made by the Committee in order to maintain the prestige of that body.

KEITH MORRILL (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L. 29, said the decision to deny the Dynamic Christian World Foundation consultative status was in their view incorrect, and therefore should be reconsidered by the Committee. The non-governmental organization’s refusal to provide the names and addresses of their members was not a requirement to be fulfilled by non-governmental organizations applying for such a status, and therefore Canada would vote yes on this draft resolution.

WANG QUN (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the said non-governmental organization did not conform to the criteria of the Economic and Social Council’s consultative status. With regards to the United States-proposed amendment, China would vote against it.

AFTAB A. KHOKHER (Pakistan), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said as a matter of principle Pakistan always supported the participation of civil society in the United Nations on economic and social issues, and recognised that NGOs could contribute to discussions. But participation was not unrestrained - the Council had established a clear procedure to ensure objective participation, granting NGOs special status based on their work and credentials. The NGO Committee had decided to close the consideration of the application of the NGO in question. Pakistan would vote in support of the decision and against the proposed amendment contained in L.29. The Committee objectively determined qualifications by reviewing application forms. The holding-back of information was tantamount to disrespect of the mandate of the Committee. The decisions of the NGO Committee were arrived at after comprehensive consideration and deliberation, and should not be re-opened unnecessarily and for political motivations. Pakistan would vote against the proposed amendment.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA (Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on draft decision L. 29, said they appreciated the role and contribution of non-governmental organizations whose areas of work covered the work of the Economic and Social Council and subsidiary bodies. Indonesia regretted that a consultative status was not granted in the case of the Dynamic Christian World Foundation. They voted against the amendment L. 29.

In decision II from the same report, entitled Application of the non-governmental organization Democracy Coalition Project for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the Economic and Social Council decides not to grant consultative status with the Council to the non-governmental organization Democracy Coalition Project by a vote of 12 in favour, 29 against and seven abstentions.

JOHN F. SAMMIS (United States) said the Democracy Coalition Project was a highly regarded non-governmental organization in the United States that conducted research and advocacy on democracy worldwide. The Democracy Coalition Project worked to build coalitions among and between the non-governmental organizations in the South. It provided important expertise that the entire United Nations system could draw upon. It was hard to think of a non-governmental organization that was closer to what had been envisaged in resolution 1996/31. Questions raised by the Committee should be directed at whether the non-governmental organizations reached the requirements contained in resolution 1996/31. The Democracy Coalition Project responded to all the questions raised by Committee members, either through written responses or presentations. The United States called for a vote on the Democracy Coalition Project’s application to the Committee, when it saw that some members were asking questions that delayed the consideration of the non-governmental organization. The United States called on States to vote no on the decision of the Committee to not grant consultative status to the Democracy Coalition Project, and to vote yes on draft decision L. 28.

DIMITRY BIRICHIVSKIY (Russian Federation) said Russia had already voiced its position, including in the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) with respect to the Democracy Coalition Project. Russia repeated that it did agree that NGOs could have differing views on various issues discussed in the United Nations, however, organizations which discredited individual Member States and at times misled the Members of the Committee with respect to certain matters did not deserve consultative status. This was confirmed by the Committee. Russia called on all Members of the Council to confirm the decision of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations as put forward in E/2009/32 Part II.

WANG QUN (China) said China supported the statement made by Russia and its position. China also supported the draft decision II as contained in E/2009/32 Part II. If there were proposals which were not in conformity with decision II, China would vote against them.

KEITH MORRILL (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Democracy Coalition Project was a credible non-governmental organization, advocating for democracy around the world. They met all the requirements contained in resolution 1996/31 of the Economic and Social Council, and the decision to deny consultative status would set a dangerous precedent, and should be reversed. Canada would vote no on draft decision 2.

KARIN STENSON (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union supported the application of the Democracy Coalition Project. All Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) should be treated in accordance with Council resolution 1996/31, and the established practice of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations. The resolution provided that NGOs would be provided consultative status on a range of grounds, including having aims and purposes in agreement with the spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the view of the European Union, the NGO had demonstrated clearly that it fulfilled these criteria. In the debate leading up to the negative recommendation by the Committee, some States held that the organization did not qualify for consultative status, as it had been critical of some Governments or Government actions, and this went against the rules of conduct for NGOs as contained in the text of resolution 1996/31. A denial of the application on this basis was discriminatory, and could foster a climate where organizations did not dare to speak out from fear of losing their status. The European Union members would vote against the resolution denying the NGO consultative status.

In a resolution on Application of the non-governmental organization Democracy Coalition Project for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (E/2009/L.28), adopted after a vote of 30 in favour, nine against, and eight abstentions, the Council decides to grant special consultative status to the non-governmental organization Democracy Coalition Project.

JOHN F. SAMMIS (United States), introducing the draft decision L.28, said having voted no on the last draft decision, they had a chance to vote yes on this draft decisions, which included in the report that the Economic and Social Council decided to grant status to the Democracy Coalition Project.

DIMITRY BIRICHIVSKIY (Russian Federation), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said they wanted to express disappointment with the result of the previous vote. In their view, the adoption of a whole series of decisions which went against those of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations seriously undermined its authority, and furthermore, it created a grave precedence for the future. If it was the case that on every occasion, the Council overturned the decisions taken by the Committee, the delegation of the Russian Federation failed to understand the reasons for having the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations. In this context the delegation suggested that they voted against the draft decisions presented by the delegation of the United States. Furthermore, clarification, in draft decision 2, in E/2009/32 part II, indicated the Council decided not to grant consultative status to the Democracy Coalition Project organization. In the draft submitted by the United States delegation, it said that special consultative status was granted by the Council. The delegation of Russia asked if there was a difference between these two decisions and between consultative status and special consultative status and if so what was its substance?

KARIN STENSON (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union reaffirmed its commitment to consultative status for Democracy Coalition Project, and the European Union would vote in favour of the resolution, and would encourage all Member States of the Council to do likewise.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Algeria voted for the draft decision as a matter of principle. Once the proposal of the Committee was defeated through a vote, they could not support the result of that vote following and therefore Algeria abstained on voting on L. 28.

EDUARDO MARTIN R. MENEZ (Philippines), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the Philippines placed full value on the full and transparent participation of civil society in general and NGOs in particular in ensuring accountability in institutions in carrying out their mandates. The attribution of consultative status for ECOSOC was a sensitive issue. The Philippines, not being a member of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations, did not participate in the deliberations. The oversight role of ECOSOC was, based on the exchange of documents, a difficult one. Until the procedure of the Committee was found flawed, then its decisions should be upheld, however, the Philippines felt obliged to abstain from the vote.

In decision III, entitled non-governmental organizations with outstanding quadrennial reports, listed pursuant to Council resolution 2008/4, adopted without a vote, the Council decides, in accordance with its resolution 2008/4 of 21 July 2008, to suspend immediately, for a period of one year, the consultative status of organizations listed in the annex to the report, and requests the Secretary-General to advise the concerned organizations of their suspension.

In decision IV, entitled Dates of and provisional agenda for the 2010 session of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, adopted without a vote, the Economic and Social Council decides that the 2010 regular session of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations will be held from 25 January to 3 February 2010 and its resumed 2010 session from 26 May-4 June 2010; and approves the provisional agenda and documentation for the 2010 session of the Committee.

In decision V, entitled Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its resumed 2009 session, adopted without a vote, the Economic and Social Council takes note of the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its resumed 2009 session.


MOHAMED CAMCERA (Guinea) said with regard to the decision on the suspension of a non-governmental organization which had it Headquarters in Guinea, despite the fact that the vote already had taken place, the delegation asked the President of the Economic and Social Council to take a decision. The non-governmental organization was late in sending its quadrennial report; however given its geographical expansion across the continent with over 40 offices across Africa, this should be taken into consideration. In addition to its scope, it set up human and health programmes to help victims of torture, disseminate information on United Nations programmes, and human rights, which were all well known. It was an innovative and active non-governmental organization in Africa and since 2002 had been a framer of one of the largest projects to date - the establishment of the African Centre for the Rehabilitation of Torture and Violence. Given its impact, Guinea appealed to the President of the Economic and Social Council to give two extra months of time for consideration of this non-governmental organization.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), in a general statement, said that Algeria went along with consensus on the texts. It took this opportunity to pay tribute to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their work to fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, among others. This should be supported if poverty and extreme poverty were to be combated. The role of NGOs as advocates for human development meant that they had to respect the deontological code and code of ethics. Every NGO was responsible for the ethics of its members, who should defend scrupulously the moral code defended by the NGO. Any member of the NGO who was wanted by justice or was under an international arrest warrant, particularly in the case of those affiliated with terrorist groups should be removed from the NGO. Terrorism was in itself a negation of human rights and a violation of the United Nations Charter. In order to remain credible, NGOs should not allow those who were wanted internationally to have a mask behind which to resume and recreate a form of respectability.


For use of the information media; not an official record

ECOSOC09031E