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

ICP Asks ECOSOC Prez of Tax, Freedom Now & Palestinian Return Centre

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 24 -- In the UN system, the Economic and Society Council was supposed to be equal or similar to the Security Council, which is dominated by only five countries. But a news search today for ECOSOC finds very little, except for a fight about accrediting two non-governmental organizations to the UN (see below).

Inner City Press on July 24 asked the outgoing and incoming presidents of ECOSOC about that NGO fight, and about the failure in Addis Ababa on Financial for Development to put corporate tax evasion firmly in the UN's jurisdiction. Video here.

Ambassador Martin Sajdik, leaving the ECOSOC presidency to work on Ukraine for the OSCE, said that ECOSOC does debate tax, and should be listened to. Incoming ECOSOC president Oh Joon of South Korea acknowledged that Addis was only a first step. On the NGO Committee he said it should try to get NGOs involved, not to judge them except in special cases.

Like these?

Back on July 20 two non-governmental organizations were accredited in the UN Economic and Social Council, with very different votes. Freedom Now, with the support of the United Statees 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.

Follow @innercitypress Follow @FUNCA_info

Share |

These reports are usually also available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis.

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.