In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 19, updated – In one step for UN reform and transparency, a resolution was adopted on April 19 to webcast to the public the UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, which Inner City Press has covered and critiqued for some time. On June 19 there was a webcast meeting about how to further reform the UN NGO Committee, at which Freedom Now's Maran Turner mentioned a proposal to let the UN Secretariat deal with NGOs' applications. While some of the absurd blocking in the Committee might thereby be avoided, today's UN Secretariat is also lawless and engages in arbitrary retaliation, at least against the Press. Take for example the UN Department of Public Information's lack of rules on accrediting and dis-accrediting media which dares question UN corruption. Exhibit A. Ironically the Committee to Protect Journalists, which seemingly uncritically interacts with the UN Secretariat without even asking the UN to institute rules, was at the NGO reform meeting. We'll have more on this, and on wider issues of access to the UN, which continues to not have an Freedom of Information Act or process. On May 22, the webcast went to black for a time, but came back on for a vote on Uruguay's right to cede its speaking position to Amnesty International. The motion failed with 14 against (including Burundi and Turkey) and four in favor. Meanwhile the UN Department of Public Information rewards Turkish state media with a double wide office (from which it tweets in favor of the beat down of protesters in DC and asks why they were even given policy protection), while evicting and continuing to restrict Inner City Press. This is the same DPI that claims to be for NGOs, while paying to tell NGOs Detroit is a "third rate city" in "flyover country." There is a long way to go for UN transparency, or even rule of law. Inner City Press notes that a similar, even more basic reform is needed: due process rules for journalists at the UN, where currently there are none. As to the NGO webcasting, US Ambassador Nikki Haley on April 19 said, “Today's vote will bring increased transparency and accountability to the United Nations. Now all of these meetings and votes will be open for the world to see. This major win at that will greatly assist organizations that stand up to oppressive governments around the world.” We agree: see below. But when will the needed reforms - any reforms - for content neutral accreditation of media at the UN, and due process of some sort before UN censors can throw the Press, happen? After the UN Department of Public Information gave Inner City Press two hours to leave, for having covered an event in the UN Press Briefing Room related to the Ng Lap Seng UN corruption case, there has been no appeals process. Pro-UN media only recently arrived have been given office space; Inner City Press' long time shared office is being given to an Egyptian state media Akhbar al Yom whose correspondent Sanaa Youssef rarely comes in and never asks questions. For fourteen months and for now ongoing, Inner City Press is required to have UN minders to cover events on the Conference Building's second floor, unlike other media. It is lawless censorship and must be addressed.

Back on July 20, 2015 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 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 (for example on the cases of the Zone 9 bloggers in Ethiopia.) 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.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?)

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

 Copyright 2006-2017 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for