In ESOSOC, Freedom Now & Palestinian Return Centre Become UN NGOs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 -- Two non-governmental organizations were accredited in the UN Economic and Social Council on July 20, with very different votes.  Freedom Now, with the support of the United States and 28 other counties, was accredited after losing 11-4 in the UN NGO Committee (see below). The speeches before the vote emphasized how the UN should accept even NGOs it agrees with.

 But on the NGO Committee's recommendation to accredit the Palestinian Return Centre, many of these same countries voted to disregard the recommendation and to exclude PRC. They said that one year was not enough time to get questions answered; PRC was accuse of links with Hamas, for which it has threatened to sue. 13 countries voted to exclude PRC, including France, Germany, the US and UK, Colombia, Burkina Faso and Greece.

  Sweden and 17 other countries abstained; 16 voted to uphold the recommendation and let PRC in, which occurred. Popularity contest or principle?

Back on May 29 in the UN's Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, the application of Freedom Now was pushed to a vote by the United States; it was badly defeated, with eleven votes against and only four votes for, with one abstention (India) and three NGO Committee members absent: Guinea, Mauritania and, tellingly, Turkey.

  The “No” voters included Sudan, on which outgoing UN aid coordinator Valerie Amos refused to comment on May 28, here, and Burundi amid its crackdown and simultaneous submission of abusive police officers for service in Herve Ladsous' mission in Mali, MINUSMA, here.

  Freedom Now speaks up for (some) political prisoners, and usually effectively (that the Zone 9 Bloggers are still in jail is telling.) Freedom NOw can and will continue their work without the dubious “legitimacy” this Committee can confer. But the question arose, why did the US push it to a vote that it knew it would lose, and badly?  Why didn't the US work to “turn” some of the votes, at least from “No” to abstention or absent?

    But the “No” camp had their points on May 29. The chair of the Committee repeatedly refused to explain why for example the vote on Freedom Now could be pushed for, while another item in the morning, similarly pushed, was deferred. South Africa raised this, and later the Chair made a point of admonishing them, “for the record,” he said.  He did not appear impartial, whatever that means in the UN. Inner City Press live-tweeted it, here and here.

   The pattern now is for defeated applications like this to be referred to the full ECOSOC Committee, where the political mix is different. Does this mean there is less focus in the run-up to selection for the NGO Committee? Some expect to hear more on this from the US, from Ambassador Samantha Power as before, here, and soon. Watch this site.
   

In UN NGO Committee, CCR Cites FOIA, UN Doesn't Have But FUNCA Presses For, Sudan on ICC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- In the UN's Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on February 3, longtime US civil rights law firm Center for Constitutional Rights spoke in favor of its application for consultative status with the UN.

   CCR's representative, Maria Lahood, described legal work in the South, more recently about Guantanamo, and mentioned the International Criminal Court. 

  Predictably, the representative of Sudan asked for the floor to seek more specifics about this work with the ICC, which has indicted Sudanese president Omar al Bashir for genocide.

   Lahood replied that CCR has filed an amicus brief about gender based violence. Sudan wanted more information, and continued to asked even as the Committee's chair said, no more questions, the floor is closed to you. Apparently answers will be given in writing, a run-around cited my many applicants as akin to extended delay or constructive denial.

  Before the microphone was shut off on Sudan, CCR's Lahood mentioned the Center's cases under the Freedom of Information Act. 

  As Inner City Press, which in full disclosure has worked with CCR on Community Reinvestment Act and FOIA cases, for example  Inner City Press v. Bd. of Governors of Federal Reserve Sys., 463 F.3d 239 (see Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press about the case, here) and the new Free UN Coalition for Access which it co-founded have pointed out, the UN itself has NO Freedom of Information Act, but should have one. Perhaps a new project.

  The next time Sudan was given the floor, its representative lodged a formal complaint against the chair, to be recorded in the minutes. We'll see.

  Back on January 29, again by Sudan, questions were directed at NGOs like Shi'a Rights Watch and the International Association of Independent Journalists. Inner City Press as before covered the Committee's back and forth, here and here.

The United States spoke up on the former, not the latter. At 6 pm the meeting abruptly ended, with the scheduling of a closed door session for 9:30 am on January 30 about the Committee's “work methods.”

  After that, US Ambassador Samantha Power, speaking by Twitter, said “very concerning initiative in NGO Committee to prevent UN from publicly reporting what member states say about NGO's seeking accreditation.... In an era of global crackdown on civil society, the UN's NGO Committee must set the example for openness & transparency. RT if you agree.”

  Among the re-tweeters was the UN Correspondents Association, a group that decided does not support the rights in independent journalists, having tried for example to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, seehere and here and here (UK Guardian here).  The need for content neutral rules at the UN... another project?

 The feed of UNCA, more properly known as the UN's Censorship Alliance, is in fact run by censors, here. They didn't even cover the NGO Committee, only playing sycophant to Power after the fact. And so it goes at the UN. Watch this site.

Footnote: the day before in the UN's NGO Committee the proposal was made to proceed, in meetings making up for those cancelled by snow, without interpretation. Cuba and Nicaragua objected, as others were sure to. We'll see.

More Sharing ServicesShare|

Tweet

At UN, Australian Lesbian Medical Association Wins NGO Committee Vote 19-6, Sudan Complains of US Double Standard on Islamic Charity

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 24 -- A week after the day against homophobia, the Australian Lesbian Medical Association won a vote at the UN for recommendation as special consultative status to ECOSOC.

When ALMA's application came up, Pakistan sought to put it off, asking for a copy of a scientific paper mentioned in its application. Bulgaria took the floor to call this a delay tactic, and called for a vote.

There are 19 members of the NGO Committee. Two were listed as "absent" -- Burundi and Cuba. Of those listed as present, nine voted yes, six voted no, and two abstained.

The nine "Yes" votes as recorded by Inner City Press in the room were the USA, Venezuela, Belgium, India, Israel, Nicaragua, Peru and Turkey.

The six "No" votes were China, Morocco -- which also opposed or questioned groups dealing with Western Sahara -- Pakistan, Russia, Senegal and Sudan.

The abstainers were Kyrgyzstan and Mozambique, which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon just visited.

Inner City Press has asked, does Ban's Secretariat monitor this NGO Committee, and try to assert leadership?

On the other hand, the US alone blocked or delayed the Islamic African Relief Agency, saying it funded Osama Bin Laden, and asking for more information: which UN agencies funded it?

Sudan complained that while the US question blocked the groups, questions about ALMA did not. But ALMA had the votes. Did the Islamic African Relief Agency? Watch this site.

Footnotes: China spotted a group which said it had consultative status on its web site while applying for it; Russia wondered if those who disagree with gay rights don't themselves have their rights violated. The NGO Committee is one of the few places in the UN where such clashes occur in the open, on the record.

At UN, Gay Rights Group Loses 9-7 in NGO Committee, Sudan Wins, Egypt Speaks

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- The International Lesbian and Gay Association has been applying to ten years for consultative status with the UN's Economic and Social Council. On Friday afternoon, Belgium called for a vote on its application. Sudan immediately countered with a No Action Motion, to block voting on Belgium's proposal and the group.

After much back and forth, the vote was called. Sudan's No Action Motion won 9 for, 7 against and one abstention (Kyrgyzstan). Surprisingly, India voted no. Cuba did not vote at all, and Mozambique was “not present.”

Here were the votes on Sudan's motion to block voting on the gay rights group:

Peru No, Russia Yes, Senegal Yes, Sudan Yes, Turkey No, USA No, Venezuela Yes, Belgium No, Bulgaria No, Burundi Yes, China Yes, Cuba __, India No, Israel No, Kyrgyzstan Abstain, Morocco Yes, Mozambique Not present, Nicaragua Yes, Pakistan Yes

After the vote, the US noted that it could re-raise the group's application at the full ECOSOC, as it did last year. A request Thursday morning to Ban Ki-moon's spokesmen for a comment on the comments on and against gay rights in the UN Committee on NGO had still not been responded to be week's end.

The question Inner City Press submitted Feb 3 was:

“In the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs earlier this week, Morocco, Sudan, Russia and Pakistan opposed consultative statsu for the Autonomous Women's Center, after noting that its application referred to discrimination against lesbians. Pakistan's representative said that whatever UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon may have said, it was on his own behalf, not on behalf of member states. Pakistan argued in the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs on Monday that discrimination against gays and lesbians is 'not recognized by the UN.'

Please provide the Secretariat's - ideally, the S-G's -- response to this characterization of the S-G's statements and whether discrimination against LGBT is “recognized by the UN.” Will Ban be doing anything for the Autonomous Women's Center, or another gay rights group denounced Wednesday morning in the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs?”

As of 6 pm on Feb 4, there was not response. Watch this site.

Earlier on Friday, this is a summary of what was said about the Australian Lesbian Medical Association:

Pakistan's delegate asked if homosexuals are more prone to sexually transmitted diseases, in terms of having and transmitting those diseases. He asked the NGO support its response with medical documents...

Belgium's delegate did not believe the Committee should place conditionalities on the kind of documents to be provided.

Later on Friday, the representative of Egypt said he was was in an awkward position as a former member of the committee. He said that there was any acceptable and internationally recognized definition to “controversial” references and notions discussed. He did not recognize there was any legally bounding definitions for terms as sexual preferences or orientation or that such terms had been defined by any internationally recognized instrument in the human rights arena.

Meanwhile in Egypt...

At UN, Rights Groups Grilled in NGO Committee by Iran, Morocco, Cuba

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- Iran trashed, and the US spring to the defense of, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center in the UN's Committee on NGOs on February 3.

Ignoring admonishments that it was taking too much time, Iran's representative read into the record a 2006 Boston Globe article that the IHRDC received $1 million of the US's $3.5 million for democratization in Iran. The US representative broke in with a point of order. And then it was over.

In the abruptly cut off session, Iran didn't mention a 2009 article that the Obama Administration was cutting the funding. As of 2011, the IHRDC is said to receive 40% of its funding from the US and Canada. An Inner City Press correspondent's summary of the Q&A, different from the UN's more diplomatic and air-brushed version, is below.

Earlier in the week, Morocco opposed a Swiss-based Western Sahara human rights group, using procedural tactics concerning the law of NGOs in Switzerland, and a rule that an applicant must have a certificate more than two years old in order to apply for consultative status with the UN. But in Switzerland, as Cuba pointed out, NGOs do not have to register.

When a group for the disappeared in Algeria appeared to answer questions, Burundi asked why the representative why focus on the disappeared? Because my child was disappeared in 1997, came the answer. There was silence. Then Cuba asked for a delay, noting that the group's submissions were only in French. The Cuban delegate apologized for not knowing this language of diplomacy, while noting that he does speak Hungarian.

A group for the indigenous in Asia mentioned that it was working with refugees from Myanmar -- one wondered if this would block the group. The Association of War Affected Women of Sri Lanka was grilled by Cuba regarding whether its funding is “sustainable.”

The new way of opposing NGOs in the UN is on procedural grounds, by asking more and more questions, challenging certificates. Iran came right out and said that the IHRDC is a US-funded group trying for regime change in Iran. The group, in the 30 seconds given it, denied it, saying "We don't hold seminars to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran."

At UN, Jabs at NGO on Lesbian Rights from Pakistan, Sudan, Russia, Morocco

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 31 -- In the UN's committee on non-governmental organization on Monday morning the application for accreditation of the Autonomous Women's Center, which mentioned discrimination against lesbians, was questioned and opposed by Pakistan, Morocco, Russia and Sudan.

Pakistan's representative asked sarcastically if the discrimination of lesbians was “against men.” He mocked the application's reference to disability, asking if “lesbianism is a disability.”

This followed not only previous fights in the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs but December's debate after which lesbians and gays were added to a UN resolution against extrajudicial executions from which the US abstained. In the run up to that vote, not only the United Arab Emirates for the Arab Group and Tajikistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference but also Benin for the African Group urged that the LGBT amendment be opposed.

Now late January, some of the opposition has become more technical. Morocco argued that since the Autonomous Women's Center changed its name in 2009, it has not been in operation for the two years necessary for accreditation. Serbia, where the group is based, spoke in its defense.

Russia and Sudan, where women including a UN staff member have been sentenced to whipping for wearing pants, both joined the opposition to the Autonomous Women's Center. Sudan specifically joined in the opposition of Pakistan.

Pakistan's representative later in the session said that whatever UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon may have said, it was on his own behalf, not on behalf of member states. Pakistan argued in the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs on Monday that discrimination against gays and lesbians is “not recognized by the UN.”

In the past, Ban has dodged such questions by saying “it's up to member states,” or that he won't speak on particular application or motions pending for a vote before UN bodies. He has been out of town for days, but one wonders what if anything he will have to say about the mocking of gays and gay rights in the UN's North Lawn Building, three floors beneath his office, on January 31. Watch this site.

At UN, Gay Rights Debated, NGO Admitted as Egypt, Saudi Arabia & Russia Call It Selective

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un6ngoglbt071910.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 19 -- The culture war at the UN, to block the granting to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, re-ignited on July 19 in the ECOSOC committee. The blocking was over-ridden, and the non governmental organization granted consultative status with the UN, on a vote of 23 in favor, 13 against, and 13 abstaining.

As Inner City Press exclusively reported in June, in the NGO Committee the application of IGLHRC was “deferred” at the request of Egypt, China and Russia among others.

On July 19, US Deputy Permanent Representative Rosemary DiCarlo introduced an ECOSOC resolution to overrule the NGO Committee and grant consultative status to IGLHRC. In statements before the vote, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outright opposed the group and U.S. motion.

Eight more speakers signed up. Belgium's Permanent Representative Grauls, on behalf of the European Union, spoke in favor of IGLHRC, saying a “no” vote would be discrimination. Norway and UK DPR Parham echoed this, as did Argentina, where gay marriage was just legalized.

St. Lucia questioned if gay and lesbian rights are the priority in this time of economic crisis, and answered “no.”

Australia tried to respond to St. Lucia, but Ambassador Maged of Egypt cut in that the time for general statements had passed. So, a rare attempt at actual debate in the UN was immediately cut off, by a diplomat said to be seeking a UN job.

The voting began, then was halted by a point of order. "What does the Present button mean?" Then a question, are your votes reflect correctly on the screen? But the screen was black.

The resolution passed, the NGO was admitted, 23 in favor, 13 against, 13 abstaining and some not voting, including Iraq. Those voting no included China, Russia, Velezuela, Morocco, Malaysia, Egypt and Pakistan. Abstainers included Turkey, India, Ghana and Ukraine...

Note: Seven hours after Inner City Press published the above report, President Obama and Ambassador Susan Rice issued statements praising the vote, and other media then covered it.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un6ngoglbt071910.html

At UN, Gay Rights NGO Blocked from Consultative Status by Egypt, Qatar, Russia and China, Turkey Abstains

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un5ngoglbt060310.html

UNITED NATIONS, June 3 -- The UN rebuffed a gay rights group on Thursday, in a little covered bureaucratic meeting of its NGO Committee. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission had applied for consultative status. Egypt, Qatar and others peppered the group with questions, including on whether its advocacy for gay rights might impinge on freedom of religion and of "discussion."

Finally, the US called for a vote. Egypt objected, saying that its questions to the group had not been "answered in a straight way." Some in the quarter-filled meeting room laughed. But Egypt persisted, prevailing in placing its motion, to put the application on ice, ahead of the US's motion for an up or down vote on giving consultative status.

Standing openly with the US were Romania and the UK, which to its credit called the Inner City Press to the impending showdown. Ultimately on the vote, only three more countries took the US / UK position: Colombia, Peru and Israel.

Voting to block the gay rights group's access were Egypt, Qatar, Security Council Permanent members Russia and China, Angola, Burundi, Sudan and Pakistan. Turkey, ever the self conscious bridge, abstained.

Qatar listed some if its questions, about whether the group sought "special rights for LGBT."

The UK said that allowing this block, based on repetitive questions, set a bad precedent. Even if the group answered every single questions, the UK said, the detractors would never be satisfied.

And for now, at least in the NGO committee, the detractors are in the majority.

Footnote: Inner City Press asked the spokesman for General Assembly president Ali Treki for a statement. Upon taking office, Treki called homosexuality an abomination. Now his spokesman's draft response talks about tolerance, but has a paragraph crossed out. But at today's UN the votes are what they are.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un5ngoglbt060310.html

UN Reverses Again on NGO Expulsion, Dodges Questions on Uzbek Border Closing and Nigerians in Bakassi, Malay Visit

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unngo3credentials112309.html

UNITED NATIONS, November 23, updates below -- After first taking the entry pass of a non governmental organization which spoke at the General Assembly stakeout after the vote on the Goldstone report on Gaza and then denying it, the UN on November 23 announced that the entry pass would be restored. The NGO disagrees.

As Inner City Press first reported, the NGO was asked to sign a statement or "admission" that it had broken "some security rules." The initially offered statement alleged a political basis for the expulsion, but the UN refused the statement. According to Monday's UN announcement it had apparently been sanitized. But see below.

In the same November 23 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked three question, not a single one of which got answered. Video here, from Minute 19:03. Is the UN aware of Nigerian complaints about the treatment of their countrymen in the Bakassi peninsula? Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe said the Department of Political Affairs would update her if any important new development occurred. So this is not important?

Inner City Press asked about Uzbekistan closing its border with Kazakhstan. Does the UN, which a new center in Ashkabat, have something to say? Ms. Okabe said she would ask the Department of Political Affairs.

How about a read out of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's November 22 meeting with the prime minister of Malaysia? If it was a meal, Ms. Okabe said, we won't have a read out. Not even if Sri Lanka was on the menu?

Worse, when a correspondent asked about Honduras and the elections slated for Sunday, Ms. Okabe answered as if the question were about Pakistan. Video here, from Minute 18:46. In any event -- no comment on either! Watch this site.

During the November 23 noon briefing, Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe read out loud:

"And I just got an update to what we had mentioned to you when we were asked about updates regarding the pass card belonging to Anne Bayefsky. We have just been informed by the Department of Safety and Security that there has been an amicable agreement, in which Ms. Bayefsky would admit to have breached some security rules and would have her pass cards returned to her.So, that’s what I have for you."

Afterwards, Inner City Press received this:

Subj: update
From: anne@hudsonny.org
To: mlee@innercitypress.org
Sent: 11/23/2009 10:52:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

Hi Matthew,

Just to let you know that I was told by a reporter this evening that the UN had announced at the noon briefing they had reached an agreement with me to sign some kind of confession written by them and to return my pass thereafter. I am very surprised that the UN would fabricate such an announcement for the world's press knowing full well that no such agreement had been reached. All I knew was that they intended to require me to sign a statement (which they would draft unilaterally) and if I were to sign their statement (which I had not yet seen at the time of the press briefing), then they intended to return my pass.

Watch this site.

Update 2: And 23 and 1/2 hours after the questions was asked, this arrived, which we publish in full:

Subj: Your question on Nigeria and Bakassi
From: unspokesperson-donotreply at un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 11/24/2009 11:57:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

Regarding your question yesterday about "a call in the Nigerian parliament for the UN to take action about incidents that happened in Nigeria in the Bakasi peninsula and to somehow enforce this Greentree Agreement" ...

"UN Civilian Observers are liaising closely with the Government of Cross-River State in Nigeria to assess the situation of those displaced from Bakassi. The UN is working with both Nigeria and Cameroon in the framework of the Follow-Up Committee to ensure continued compliance with Greentree Agreement."

And on Uzbekistan, even three days later, still nothing. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unngo3credentials112309.html

UN Finally Admits Barring NGO After GA Stakeout Speech, Cites Technicality, Precedent Not Needed

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unngo2credentials112009.html

UNITED NATIONS, November 20 -- Days after denying it had stripped the entry pass of a non governmental organization representative who spoke November 5 at the General Assembly stakeout microphone after the Assembly's vote on the Goldstone report on Gaza, the UN on November 19 reversed itself and acknowledged the action.

Inner City Press, which covered the expulsion on November 5 and later asked the UN to confirm it, on November 19 asked for the reason and precedent for the stripping of credentials. Outgoing spokesperson Michele Montas denied that speaking at the GA microphone was the reason, but could not cite any precedent for expelling an NGO for a minor entry violation.

The Wall Street Journal of November 20 chimed in on the topic, citing this reporter's work. Some wondered if the UN only confessed to the expulsion because of inquiries by the WSJ; other hearkened back to a meeting by five senior UN officials, including Ms. Montas, as which legal action against both the WSJ and Inner City Press was discussed.

The UN likes to expel its critics, then deny doing so.

From this week's transcripts on l'affaire Bayefsky:

November 16: Could you give us a status report on Anne Bayefsky, whether her credentials have been restored, or whether there is a plan to restore them or…?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: No, no. Her credentials and the credentials of her organization are not changed at this stage. She belongs to a non-governmental organization. It’s possible in the future that there could be a review, but at this stage there has been no removal of credentials from that non-governmental organization or from Ms. Bayefsky.

Then on November 18, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: you’d said, regarding this non-governmental organization that had the pass stripped after speaking in front of the General Assembly the day of the Goldstone Report vote. I think you said on Monday, there has been no change in the status, but I spoke to the person and they can’t get into the building. So can you explain how what you say is consistent with the person actually not having their pass, and who made the decision to remove it and what the process is to follow up on that?

Associate Spokesperson: Well, the accreditation of the NGO has not changed. That non-governmental organization is still accredited with ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council]. In terms of pass cards, I believe their passes had been taken at the time of the incident that occurred when they spoke without authorization. I believe that those were being kept so the NGO could then pick them up. So I believe the NGO can pick up those passes once more. That’s what I was informed.

Inner City Press: Okay. Because the person says they were asked to fill out a statement and if they didn’t turn it in exchange for getting the pass, then the pass was never returned. I just wanted to clear that up, since you’d said that there had been no change, that was your understanding.

Associate Spokesperson: As far as I am aware, the NGO is an accredited NGO, so it’s still entitled to have passes. Until that changes, they have accreditation through ECOSOC.

Then on November 19, Spokesperson Montas reversed course, and Inner City Press followed up:

Spokesperson Montas: We were asked about the situation of a pass card belonging to Anne Bayefsky yesterday. We have received some information from the Department of Safety and Security (DSS) about the matter, and I’d like to make the following clarification:

On Thursday, 5 November 2009, at approximately 1800 hours, Ms. Anne Bayefsky, an accredited member of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Non-Govermental Organization (NGO) Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, utilized her UNHQ-issued building pass in an unauthorized manner at the security turnstiles to grant access to Mr. Joel B. Pollak into restricted areas of the Headquarters complex. Further, Ms. Bayefsky transferred her Geneva-issued UN building pass to Mr. Pollak, in whose possession it was discovered. Based on these breaches of security protocol, both passes were retrieved. The outcome of the security inquiry will be forwarded by DSS to the Department of Economic and Social Affairs/ECOSOC for their determination as to final disposition. So I hope this clarifies what was said yesterday. We got more information today on the issue.

...Inner City Press: On the announcement or the clarification that you gave on this Bayefsky pass -- and thanks for that -- I just wanted to know two things. One is, is there no relation between this continued suspension of the pass and the person speaking at the General Assembly stakeout on 5 November? Because that seemed to trigger the incident, and…

Spokesperson: Well that was part of it. I gave you the two issues that were pending in terms of the security breach, and I already said about the intervention in front of the Security Council stakeout that it was a matter for… Whoever speaks at the stakeout has to be introduced either by a Member State or by an organization within the UN system. An NGO cannot step up unless that person is accompanied by a Member State, cannot step up to the microphone and just make a statement.

Inner City Press: No, no, I understand that, I just want to know if that’s part of the basis for the suspension of the pass or…?

Spokesperson: No, I already said what the basis was.

Inner City Press: Okay.

Spokesperson: …the introduction of someone with a pass that was hers.

Inner City Press: And has DSS ever run across a similar situation with other NGOs and not suspended their passes?

Spokesperson: Not that I know of. In every case where there is a security breach the passes are temporarily suspended until the case is fully investigated.

Inner City Press: And just one last thing on security breaches, is there any update in terms of suspensions or removal of suspensions on the -- I’m trying to think of the best way to say it -- the “chicken episode”? Because these two gentlemen were suspended.

Spokesperson: I don’t know what was done after what I told you. I can, of course, follow up on whether there were any other measures taken.

Inner City Press: Notice the name of the company wasn’t said to give them any publicity. We’ll just call them the “chicken company” for now.

Spokesperson: The “chicken company” yes, thank you so much! [Laughter]

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unngo2credentials112009.html

UN Claims "No Removal of Credential" of NGO Barred Since Stakeout Speech

By Matthew Russell Lee
|www.innercitypress.com/unngo1credentials111609.html

UNITED NATIONS, November 16 -- Eleven days after a non-governmental organization's representative had her UN identification pass taken away for speaking at the General Assembly stakeout microphone, UN Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq was asked if her credentials had been restored.

"There's been no removal of the credentials of Ms. Bayefsky or her organization," Haq claimed, on camera. Video here, from Minute 17. But a simply phone call to Ms. Bayefsky reveals that her I.D. card, required to gain access to the UN complex, has not been returned. [Click here for Inner City Press' first exclusive report of Ms. Bayefsky's ejection from the UN.]

Ms. Bayefsky told Inner City Press of that after her pass was confiscated by UN Security, she was asked to draft and sign a written statement, after which her pass would be returned to her. She spent more than two hours writing the statement, and included in it a comment by a UN Security official that "the Palestinian Observer was very upset" at what she had said at the microphone, after the Assembly's vote on the Goldstone report about Gaza.

Then, Ms. Bayefsky say, the UN through Security official Anne Hammenrudh no longer wanted her to sign or turn in the statement. Rather, she was told that the matter would be referred to the Assembly's Committee on Non Governmental Organizations, which doesn't meet until the end of January. [Click here for previous Inner City Press coverage of the Committee on NGOs.]

So while Ms. Bayefsky is, for now, barred from the UN for the rest of the year, UN Spokesperson Farhan Haq says "her credentials are not changed" and "there's been no removal of credentials."

In the very same briefing, Haq explained of the UN's removal of a poster about Chinese Web censorship from its Internet Governance Forum in Egypt that the poster was "already on the floor, face up" and that the UN "folded it, undamaged." Still, the poster and its message were removed, just like Ms. Bayefsky. Click here for that story.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unngo1credentials111609.html

At UN, Algeria Seeks Ouster of "Terrorist" NGO, Secret Complaint Withheld by UN

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un2ngoalgeria012509.html

UNITED NATIONS, January 25 -- A secret complaint was lodged at the UN by Algeria on January 19 against the non-governmental organization the Arab Commission for Human Rights.

While the complaint, set to be ruled on in a closed-down meeting on January 26 has yet to be publicly released, it appears to allege that the group allowed its spot before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on June 11, 2008 to be taken by another NGO, Alkarama, which is critical of Algeria's and others' records with regard to political prisoners, freedom of the press and related issues.

The complaint gets more explosive with the statement that NGO representative, Mr. Rachid Mesli, has been charged in and by Algeria with terrorism, and is on the UN Security Council's Resolution 1267 terrorism list.

While invocation of terrorism has become the ultimate trump card in such debates, the UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions has previously had to consider whether "Rachid Mesli is a prisoner of conscience, who was detained solely because of his activities as a human rights advocate." See, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2000/4/Add.1 at 82, available here. Amnesty International said that those proceedings against Mesli "clearly violated international standards for fair trial."

Neither Algeria nor the UN Committee have been willing for the past week to release to the Press any of the documents or evidence that make up the case.

But Mesli's prepared remarks for June 11, 2008 remain online on Alkarama's web site, here, and state of Algeria that

"nothing should justify maintaining the state of emergency and the exorbitant powers granted to military intelligence services (DRS). This is the situation which resulted from the cancelling of the electoral process of 1992, causing 200,000 deaths and more than 10,000 disappearances. The mechanism of UPR should not be a false door to reality and be consistent with the findings of Treaty monitoring bodies and special procedures. This is not just for the Human Rights Council's credibility but also for the entire system of protection of human rights in the United Nations."

Algeria's complaint was discussed on January 19 and January 23 in the NGO Committee of the Economic and Social Council, with a decision on whether to suspend or withdraw the group's UN accreditation now scheduled for Monday, January 26, in closed-down "informal" consultations. Inner City Press, which first reported the controversy, then asked the chief of the UN's NGO Section, Hanifa Mezoui, for a copy of the written complaint that Algeria filed.

Ms. Mezoui answered, "Not yet, because we are not even dealing with the case. You will have all the paper you need on Friday."

Inner City Press reiterated that it would like to see the complain, if only to prepare to report further on it on Friday. Again Ms. Mezoui said no, "because today it will be only confusing, scaring people."

Thanking Ms. Mezoui for her advice on how to report, Inner City Press reminded her that when a country files a letter with the Security Council, for example, it becomes a public document available to the press, whether or not it might be frightening or confusing.

Ms. Mezoui said, "we're not going to give you the document now, because you heard what happened. It is still under review with no decision. Whatever you write would be...". Her voice trailed off.

This is why the UN needs a Freedom of Information rule, to require the release of documents.

Inner City Press asked the Algerian representative for a copy, but none was given. She did, however, provide Inner City Press with an explanation on the night of January 23 during a reception commemorating Sudan taking over the Group of 77 and China. Notably, Sudan also chairs the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs, and its Deputy Permanent Representative pushed Algeria's complaint, Agenda Item 8, forward throughout the week. His boss, the Permanent Representative, on January 23 told Inner City Press with some mirth that the two NGOs will be thrown out. We'll see.

Some wonder if the complaint, and some other countries' support for the complaint, doesn't spring from human rights testimony delivered by the groups. Cuba spoke in favor of the complaint, noting that it too has faced NGOs who try only to undermine the nation. [Twice last week the U.S. representative on the Committee refused to provide the Press with a copy of the Complaint, saying both times that he doesn't have "instructions" yet from Washington. The UK representative suggested the Monday proceeding, which will be closed to the Press. It should be noted that both the US and UK governments deploy the terrorism moniker to their advantage.]

The UN is run and owned by member states, a number of speakers on January 23 argued, and these governments should not be subject in the UN to critiques that are "unsubstantiated." But what if they are substantiated?

The Algerian representative told Inner City Press that Mr. Mesli has been charged with "providing communications equipment" to a terrorist group, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

The Algerian representative twice asked Inner City Press if it has an interest in the group, Alkarama. There were no other media organizations seated in the ECOSOC Committee on NGO meetings on January 19 and January 23.

There is the question of whether or not Mr. Mesli is a terrorist, although Algeria is sure to claim that since their courts say so, it is so. There is the question of whether it is in fact without precedent for accredited NGOs to allow other to speak. But there is also the question of why the UN feels it can without basic documents like this complaint, and then seek to deliberate and rule on it in secret.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un2ngoalgeria012509.html