|
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 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.
* * *
These
reports
are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for Sept 26, 2011 New Yorker on Inner City
Press at UN
Click
for
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN
Corruption
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest service,
and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2015 Inner City Press,
Inc. To request reprint or other permission,
e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
|
, 
