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,
see here
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.
, 
