With regard to many human rights related non-governmental organizations, the Committee simply balked at taking a decision during several consecutive sessions. The Committee on Non-governmental Organizations played an important role in ensuring the voice of civil society was heard in the United Nations. While progress had been made in the Committee this year under Turkish chairmanship in accrediting more non-governmental organizations than before, the Committee still had to make significant improvements. Other speakers said decisions of international organizations required legitimacy and United Nations organs should not suffer from selectivity and double standards. The role played by international organizations was welcomed if carried out honorably and in trust. If the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations had taken a decision weeks ago then all had to respect it and apply it. It was worrisome that attempts were being made to bypass the Committee and grant status to non-governmental organizations without following the proper procedures. Consultative status had to be adopted based on the recommendations of the Committee.
Belgium and the United States introduced the resolution on granting special consultative status to the International Lesbian and Gay Association. France introduced the decision on granting the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom consultative status at the Economic and Social Council. The United States introduced the resolution on granting consultative status to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems.
Non-governmental Organizations
Documentation
The Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2011 Regular Session, (E/2011/32 Part I), notes that at its 2011 regular session, held from 31 January to 9 February and on 3 March 2011, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had before it 352 applications for consultative status, including applications deferred from its 1999 through 2010 sessions. Of the non-governmental organizations those applications, the Committee recommended 112 for consultative status, took note of 1 non-governmental organization that had withdrawn its application, closed consideration without prejudice of 23 applications and deferred 216 for further consideration at its resumed session in May 2011. The Committee also had before it 10 new requests for reclassification of consultative status; it recommended granting 5 of those requests. It also considered one deferred request for reclassification and recommended the reclassification. The Committee considered seven requests for change of name of which it took note of six and deferred its consideration of one of the requests to the next session. In addition, it had before it 231 quadrennial reports, of which it took note of 212. Pending the receipt of responses to questions posed, the Committee deferred its consideration of 16 quadrennial reports deferred from previous sessions and 3 from the present session. Of the 27 non-governmental organizations that attended the session, the Committee heard 13 representatives of those organizations.
The Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2011 Resumed Session, (E/2011/32 Part II), notes that at its 2011 resumed session, held from 16 to 24 May and on 16 June 2011, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had before it 333 applications for consultative status, including applications deferred from earlier sessions. Of the non-governmental organizations submitting those applications, the Committee recommended 146 for consultative status, deferred 154 for further consideration at its regular session in 2012, recommended not to grant consultative status to 1 non-governmental organization and closed consideration without prejudice of 32 applications that had failed to respond to queries over two consecutive sessions. It also took note of one non-governmental organization that had withdrawn its application. The Committee also had before it six requests for reclassification of consultative status; it recommended granting three of those requests. The Committee considered eight requests for change of name, taking note of all. It also had before it 174 quadrennial reports, of which it took note of 154, including 15 reports of organizations that had been suspended in 2010 and whose consultative status had been reinstated upon receipt of the outstanding quadrennial reports. The Committee heard 28 representatives of the 34 non-governmental organizations that attended the session.
Discussion
REMIGIUSZ A. HENCZEL (Poland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed the concerns of the European Union in regard to the functioning of the United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations. The European Union considered the involvement of civil society and non-governmental organizations as an essential part of the work of the United Nations in general, including the Economic and Social Council. The European Union attached great importance to the contribution of non-governmental organizations towards open and democratic societies. The European Union was committed to the overall aspirations of Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31, which was to provide consultative status to organizations whose activities fell within the realm of the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary bodies and whose aims and purposes were in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the United Nations. The European Union remained however, preoccupied by how the Committee was currently implementing its mandate. Over the past few years, the Committee had been deviating more and more from the guiding principles of resolution 1996/31 in the consideration of applications. Some States opposed consultative status for organizations which were critical of their human rights record, or because of the views expressed by these organizations. With regard to many human rights related non-government organizations, the Committee simply balked at taking a decision during several consecutive sessions. The Non-Governmental Organization Committee adopted two no-action motions in order to avoid pronouncing itself on the application of two organizations, despite the fact that some members of the Committee had advocated for a positive recommendation. In the view of the European Union, such cases reflected the failure of the Committee to fulfill its mandate. The guiding principles for granting consultative status were being undermined.
BRANISLAV LYSAK (Slovakia) said civil society had been standing by the United Nations since its inception. While the Council did not necessarily agree with every observation or recommendation raised by non-governmental organizations, undoubtedly, in many cases, civil society representatives drew the international community’s attention to situations that required urgent action. They were an irreplaceable source of innovative approaches, enriching traditional intergovernmental processes, with greater flexibility to adapt to local conditions and direct communication channels from the people in need up to high political representatives. Non-governmental organizations had become indispensable partners for United Nations activities in all its key pillars. Slovakia remained concerned about the persistent delays in addressing non-governmental organizations’ observation status applications by the United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations. Clearly, its members not only had their rights, but also obligations towards the applicants. While additional clarifications could be necessary in the related decision-making process, this pretext should not be misused for unjustifiable deferral of applications, some of them which had been handled by the Committee for several years.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said that the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations played an important role in ensuring the voice of civil society was heard in the United Nations. While progress had been made in the Committee this year under Turkish chairmanship in accrediting more non-governmental organizations than before, the Committee still had to make significant improvements. The Committee had failed to take note of the reports of widely respected non-governmental organizations and refused to grant consultative status to qualified and well rewarded non-governmental organizations such as the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression. The Committee also took the decision to cancel the application of International Lesbian and Gay Association. A further instance of the Committee’s failure to pursue the guidance provided by resolution 1996/61 concerning the non-governmental organization accreditation process was the simple fact that advocating for sexual-minority’s rights was not an objection on which a non-governmental organization could be denied accreditation. It was the role of the Council to correct this mistake and send a strong message that resolution 1996/61 should be applied without prejudice.
FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) said decisions of international organizations required legitimacy and United Nations organs should not suffer from selectivity and double standards. The role played by international organizations was welcomed if carried out honorably and in trust. If the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations had taken a decision weeks ago then all had to respect it and apply it. This Committee in New York decided to delay a final decision on the granting of consultative status for a period of six months to allow for some non-governmental organizations to complete some paperwork, a situation which was entirely natural. This decision was not of the liking of certain delegations, which had come to Geneva to revert it. This was an unacceptable approach to such affairs. Syria called upon Member States to avoid acting selectively and to respect international legitimacy.
MARIA AUXILIADORA GUILARTE (Venezuela) said Venezuela appreciated the work of non-governmental organizations because they made positive contributions to the international community, States and peoples without bias and hidden agendas. Venezuela said there should be strict compliance with resolution 1996/31 regarding the consultative relationship between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. Venezuela noted the principles cited by the resolution of respect for self-determination, political independence, and prohibition of interference in internal matters of States. These principles should be borne in mind when making decisions on the consultative status of non-governmental organizations. Some non-governmental organizations did not meet the requirements of resolution 1996/31. Venezuela urged members of the Economic and Social Council to comply with procedures related to granting consultative status to non-governmental organizations. Without doing so, the Council risked de-legitimization of the Council. Venezuela said that if non-governmental organizations met the requirements, they should be granted consultative status.
YASSER HASSAN IBRAHIM (Egypt) noted the important role of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations and highlighted the need to not overstep the Committee in an attempt to select non-governmental organizations for special treatment. It was worrisome that attempts were being made to bypass the Committee and grant status to non-governmental organizations without following the proper procedures. Regardless of the field of work of the non-governmental organization, Egypt was not willing to sidestep the Committee. Consultative status had to be adopted based on the recommendations of the Committee. Certain non-governmental organizations were still under consideration. Granting these organizations consultative status without considering the recommendations of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations would constitute a precedent that would threat the function of the Committee.
TIFERET UNTERMAN (Israel) underlined the pivotal role played by non-governmental organizations and reiterated the importance of strengthening the relationship between these organizations and the United Nations. Resolution 1996/31 instructed members of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on how to direct this process and grant status to non-governmental organizations that complied with the established standards regardless of interests. Israel was concerned about decisions taken within the Committee and delays in the granting of consultative status to non-governmental organizations without credible justification. Having reviewed the applications of the non-governmental organizations before the Council, Israel indicated that they fulfilled the criteria to be granted consultative status.
AHMAD WARRAICH (Pakistan) said that Pakistan attached great importance to the work of non-governmental organizations. The Committee on Non-governmental Organizations was a qualified forum in the United Nations system tasked to process the application process of non-governmental organizations to be granted consultative status. Therefore, Pakistan did not support the selective practice of bringing the applications of non-governmental organizations directly to the Council.
Action on Resolutions
HUGO BRAUWERS (Belgium) introducing E/2011/L.36, said the Belgian delegation asked the Economic and Social Council to grant special consultative status to the non-governmental organization International Lesbian and Gay Association. Belgium hoped this draft resolution could be adopted by consensus.
The United States joined in co-sponsoring E/2011/L.36.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States), introducing E/2011/L.37, said the United States was introducing the draft decision in order to grant consultative status to the International Foundation for Electoral Assistance. The United States firmly believed that non-governmental organizations which met the requirements set out in resolution 1996/31 should be granted consultative status. The United States hoped delegations would support the adoption of the decision by consensus.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) introducing the draft resolution on the application of the non-governmental organization Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression for consultative status with the Council, said that the organization had been registered in France since 2004 and its objectives were in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The organization aimed at promoting a culture of respect for freedom of expression and belief and the sensibilisation of diversity in tolerance in the interior of Syrian society. In 2008 the organization submitted its application for consultative status and in the last five sessions of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations, the organization had responded to its questions. Its application had been postponed on several occasions for reasons independent to the criteria set up by resolution 1996/31. For this reason, France had decided to put forward this resolution and requested all countries which attached importance to the promotion and protection of human rights to vote in favour of this resolution.
YASSER HASSAN IBRAHIM (Egypt) requested a vote on the resolution, which overran the functioning of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations and granted special treatment to some non-governmental organizations. The application of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for consultative status had been revoked because of the suspected involvement of some of its members in sexual exploitation. A questionnaire concerning the involvement of members on acts of pedophilia had been presented to the organization, but it had failed to respond. Given the lack of cooperation of the organization and the questions pending on some of its members, the Committee decided to suspend the application process. For this reason Egypt had decided to request a vote on this resolution and would vote against it.
TIMO BAUER-SAVAGE (Germany) said Germany fully respected the different positions taken on by Council members on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Nevertheless, Germany believed the International Lesbian and Gay Association’s application had been repeatedly deferred and rejected for reasons unrelated to the criteria set up by Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 for the establishment of consultative relationships between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. This resolution clearly stated that conformity with the spirit, principles and purposes of the United Nations was the main substantive criterion for granting consultative status. The International Lesbian and Gay Association had adequately responded to all questions posed in the course of the application process and had proven that its aims and purposes were in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The International Lesbian and Gay Association clearly fulfilled criteria of resolution 1996/31. Germany had no doubt that the International Lesbian and Gay Association had the expertise and capacity to support the work of the United Nations. Germany would vote for the accreditation of the International Lesbian and Gay Association in the Economic and Social Council.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said the United States would be voting yes in favour of granting consultative status to the International Lesbian and Gay Association and thanked Belgium for sponsoring the draft decision. The criteria for approving consultative status of non-governmental organizations were based on resolution 1996/31. The International Lesbian and Gay Association was committed to universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was clear that the International Lesbian and Gay Association met the criteria. The status of the International Lesbian and Gay Association had stood in the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations for two years. It was remarkable that despite the continued guidance of the Economic and Social Council to the Committee in the last ten years, the Committee continued to reject non-governmental organizations because they advocated for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Members of the Committee needed to set aside their prejudices and base their decisions on the criteria set out in resolution 1996/31.
The Council adopted, with a vote of 29 in favour, 14 against and 5 abstentions, resolution (E/2011/L.36) on the application of the non-governmental organization International Lesbian and Gay Association for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, in which the Council decides to grant special consultative status to the non-governmental organization International Lesbian and Gay Association.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (29): Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.
Against (14): Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Egypt, Ghana, Iraq, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Zambia.
Abstentions (5): Bahamas, Cote d’Ivoire, Guatemala, Philippines and Rwanda.
HUGO BRAUWERS (Belgium) thanked the members of the Council who had supported the draft resolution granting consultative status to the International Lesbian and Gay Association. The organization was committed to combating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as well as promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, the organization intended to contribute to the Council and its subsidiary bodies by providing information about violations of human rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender people throughout the world. Belgium was pleased by the Council’s decision on the organization since it sadly noticed that within the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender organizations had been subjected to discrimination, and their applications had been systematically deferred through questionable delaying tactics. The discriminatory treatment that the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender non-governmental organizations were subject to in the Non-governmental Organization Committee reflected the fact that the guiding principles for granting Council consultative status were being undermined. Belgium respectfully urged the members of the Non-governmental Organization Committee to work to defend and uphold the principles agreed to in resolution 1996/31. Should new cases of flagrant unfair treatment of non-governmental organizations’ applications occur, Belgium would not hesitate to bring them once again to the Council plenary.
IQBAL AHMED (Bangladesh) said Bangladesh valued the work that non-governmental organizations had carried out in Bangladesh. Considering the heavy agenda and the work load of the Council, it was almost impossible for Council members to scrutinize the cases of non-governmental organizations as much as the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations did. Bangladesh had full confidence in the work of the Committee and believed that any decision taken by the Council in overturning the work of the Committee could have negative consequences. Bangladesh believed that the Council should uphold the decision taken by the concerned specialized committee with regard to granting consultative status to any non-governmental organization. For this reason Bangladesh voted against this resolution.
MARIA AUXILIADORA GUILARTE (Venezuela), speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Venezuela voted in favour of the decision because it was convinced that democracy should be expressed through the exercise of citizenship, including by the most vulnerable communities. In moving forward on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, it was necessary to look at the activism of the organizations combating such discrimination. More space should be allocated to organizations pursuing such work. Venezuela had no objection to consultative status being granted to the organization.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States), introducing draft decision E/2011/L.37, said that non-governmental organizations that met the criteria for consultative status as set out in Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 should be allowed to fully participate. The United States asked that the Economic and Social Council grant consultative status to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. This application had been pending for over two years. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems had answered over 20 questions, some repetitive. The organization had proved it met the criteria of resolution 1996/31. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems had already established a long and constructive history of working with the United Nations and Member States. It had provided electoral assistance in many countries in operation with the United Nations bodies. It was hard to think of a non-governmental organization more worthy of United Nations consultative status. One Member State, in particular, had opposed granting consultative status to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems helped citizens realize civic participation as a fundamental right and freedom. It had made valuable efforts to United Nations operations around the world and for that reason the United States hoped members of the Economic and Social Council would approve the draft decision by consensus.
The Council adopted, without a vote, resolution (E/2011/L.37) on the application of the non-governmental organization International Foundation for Electoral Systems for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, in which the Council decides to grant special consultative status to the non-governmental organization International Foundation for Electoral Systems.
HUGO BRAUWERS (Belgium) reiterated Belgium’s concern about the working mechanisms of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations. Non-governmental organizations contributed to the debate in the Council and contributed to the expression of a variety of views. Belgium was committed to the principles of resolution 1996/31. In past years the Committee had deviated more and more from the principles of this resolution. Moreover with regards to many human-rights related non-governmental organizations, the Committee simply deferred decisions for several sessions. The non-governmental organization met the criteria for consultative status and for that reason Belgium was grateful that its consultative status was granted by consensus.
NESTOR CRUZ TORUNO (Nicaragua) said that Nicaragua was a member of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations. The conclusions of the Council’s subsidiary bodies should not be subject to further considerations. The decision to overrun the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations created a bad precedent for the Council and its subsidiary bodies. Nicaragua did not join the consensus on this draft decision. The altruistic view of civil society in the world was spread through the work of non-governmental organizations, and no organization should use this in the detriment of others.
NANCY MADRIGAL MUNOZ (Cuba) said the Council had just witnessed the award of consultative status to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Cuba regretted and rejected the practice which undermined the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations and resolution 1996/31. The actions of the Committee should be scrupulously followed because it analysed the details that were often not noticed by the Economic and Social Council. Actions taken today de-legitimized the Committee and opened the door for countries to support the introduction of non-governmental organizations that politicized the Council. Cuba supported the role of non-governmental organizations in the United Nations but such participation should strictly comply with 1996/31. In Cuba’s view the International Foundation for Electoral Systems did not meet the criteria for consultative status. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems was directly responsible to the United States Agency for International Development and as such, was subversively acting against Cuba and others in the Latin America and Caribbean region. The adoption of the decision cast a shadow over the laudable work of the non-governmental organizations in the United Nations system. Cuba expressed its total disagreement on the adoption of the decision on the International Foundation for Electoral Systems.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said the United States deeply appreciated that the Economic and Social Council had adopted the decision on the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. The United States expressed sincere gratitude to all who had supported the granting of consultative status to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, and was particularly grateful to France and Belgium. The Council had just had the opportunity to hear the allegations against the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which did not become truer the more vigorously and often they were repeated.
LUIS ESPINOSA-SALAS (Ecuador) said Ecuador recognized the value of the work of non-governmental organizations which had been very helpful in enriching debates, including those on human rights and migration. Concerning the decision, for the benefit of future debates, it would be a good idea for non-governmental organizations to dissipate any doubts concerning their objectives and funding by providing ample information concerning these issues.
MARIA AUXILIADORA GUILARTE (Venezuela) reiterated Venezuela’s unlimited commitment to the United Nations Charter. Venezuela saw debates leading to consensus based decisions as contributing to the fulfillment of United Nations objectives. Venezuela was disappointed by the fact that a draft decision had been adopted, providing consultative status to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems non-governmental organization, against which accusations of involvement in destabilization in democratic countries had been made; and there were complaints to the effect that this organization had performed covert interventionist actions in accordance to the instructions of its donors. For these reason, Venezuela disassociated itself from the consensus and requested that this was included in the minutes of the meeting.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) introducing draft decision E/2011/L.38, said the draft decision would grant the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom consultative status at the Economic and Social Council. The Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom promoted the fundamental freedoms of expression and belief in Syrian society. The non-governmental organization had applied for consultative status and pursuant to the rules of resolution 1996/31, had handed in its candidacy. The Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom had fully replied to all questions posed to it by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, but its status had been set aside due to unclear reasons unrelated to 1996/31. The repeated and systematic recourse to non-motion procedures was in violation of the practices and dialogue engaged in the Council.
The Council adopted, without a vote, resolution (E/2011/L.38) on the application of the non-governmental organization Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, in which the Council decides to grant special consultative status to the non-governmental organization Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said the application of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression would be the first non-governmental organization to be granted ECOSOC consultative status. The application of the organization had continued to be deferred by the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations and had been threatened by closure. The Council had spoken in support of civil society voices. A powerful statement was made by standing with them.
JIANG YINGFENG (China) said China supported the work of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations and was of the view that their decision to defer or refuse organizations should be respected. Some countries pushed the Council to grant recognition to some non-governmental organizations. This practice would have a negative impact on the work of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations and was not conducive to the healthy development of the Council. China disagreed with this practice and for this reason, China voted against the resolution giving consultative status to the International Lesbian and Gay Association. China also disassociated itself from the consensus on the resolutions granting consultative status to the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, and asked the Secretariat to record this opposition in the records of the meeting.
VASSILY NEBENZIA (Russian Federation), speaking after the adoption of the decision, said the Russian Federation voted against consultative status for the International Lesbian and Gay Association, and as with other delegations, would like to dissociate itself from the decision granting consultative status to the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Unfortunately, there was no full consensus. Some said productivity in the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations had considerably declined but, in fact, the number of non-governmental organizations granted consultative status had increased. Further details were often needed to grant such status. If sufficient details were not provided, it was not possible to consider requests to be granted consultative status. However, those that had defended the rights of these organizations had not mentioned that accusations of paedophilia against organizations had not been redrawn. The Russian Federation congratulated the victors of the vote, although it was shame for the Economic and Social Council. A way out of the situation was to discuss reports more thoroughly. The Russian Federation was categorically against not following the decisions of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.
HUGO BRAUWERS (Belgium) said that Belgium was concerned about how the application of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom was handled by the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations. This was an example of how the Committee was drifting away from its mandate. The negative trends of the Committee reminded States that civil society actors were there to enrich the work of the United Nations. Belgium thanked all members for adopting the decision by consensus, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of the Council.
HEBA MOSTAFA RIZK (Egypt) said that the Council should not override the work of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations. The decision of the Council concerning the granting of consultative status should be based on the work of the Non-governmental Organizations Committee. This had not been the case in the previous two non-governmental organizations. This was not about discrimination against non-governmental organizations but was to avoid the Council undermining the work of its subsidiary body, the Non-governmental Organizations Committee.
SHOKO HARUKI (Japan) said that the consultative status of non-governmental organizations should be granted to those organizations which worked and whose principles were in accordance to the principles of the United Nations Charter. This decision should be based exclusively on the established criteria. While the Non-governmental Organizations Committee should look at applications, it was regrettable that in many cases the Committee had deferred decisions.
MARIA AUXILIADORA GUILARTE (Venezuela) said Venezuela had expressed concerns regarding the non-governmental organization which had not been answered. The organization did not satisfactorily respond to issues raised by several members of the Committee. Venezuela did not agree to the granting of consultative status. Venezuela had requested information concerning authorization of the Syrian Government for the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression to carry out activities in its territory. Despite these concerns, members of the Council decided to grant it consultative status. Venezuela requested that the report reflect that the delegation of Venezuela disassociated itself from the consensus.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI. (France) said that granting the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom consultative status was in keeping with criteria of resolution 1996/31 of the Economic and Social Council. The Centre represented the vibrancy and diversity of Syrian society.
LUIS ESPINOSA-SALAS (Ecuador) said Ecuador dissociated itself with the decisions taken on E/2011/L.37 and E/2011/L.38.
RANDHIR JAISWAL (India), in explanation of the consideration of draft decision E/2011/32, said India was fully in support of the report under consultation but requested that the granting of consultative status to the organization under consideration be sent back to the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said that the United States delegation was deeply concerned about this. While the United States respected and had closely worked with India and had no doubt about the concerns of the Indian Government concerning the non-governmental organization, the delegation had questions concerning the best way forward. Revoking a non-governmental organization that had already been granted status from the floor seemed irregular.
RANDHIR JAISWAL (India) said India was not asking for revoking the status of the non-governmental organization but referral back to the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations. In case this proposal was not acceptable, the delegation would like to call for vote.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) said the United States was trying to be constructive. The United States had no instructions on this and would not like to be in a position of voting against a motion by India. There were other procedures within the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations or alternatively if this proposal had been proposed with more time available, an informed decision could be made. It seemed like rather than considering a vote on this it would be better to raise this issue within the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations in January. The best decision would be to take note of India’s concerns and raise the issue in January.
RANDHIR JAISWAL (India) inquired whether the United States’ proposal meant that the consultative status of this non-governmental organization would cease until a decision could be made in January.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) clarified that the non-governmental organization would have consultative status until January, but after careful consideration in the context of the Committee on Non-governmental Organizations, the status of the organization could be assessed.
KEITH MORRILL (Canada) said Canada was surprised by the circumstances and had no doubt that the concerns of India were based on sound reasoning. However, the Council had managed to agree on two items and vote on one item, which was a favourable outcome. Canada asked if there was time for India to present on the issue and asked if it was possible to delay action until India could present information and delegations could receive information.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) agreed that all necessary should be done to avoid having a vote on the issue. Postponing adoption of the report would be a reasonable approach. The allegations should be taken seriously, but more time was needed to consider them and get instructions.
RANDHIR JAISWAL (India) thanked Canada for the constructive proposal and hoped that it could be raised in the remaining time of the substantive session of the Council.
JOHN SAMMIS (United States) requested an explanation from the Secretariat on how this would take place. If this was to be taken out of the report the delegation inquired how then it would take place in accordance to procedure.
The Council adopted, without a vote, as orally corrected, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 1) on the applications for consultative status, requests for reclassification and change of name, quadrennial reports received from non-governmental organizations and applications closed without prejudice, in which the Economic and Social Council decides to grant consultative status to 112 non-governmental organizations, to accept the name change of 6 non-governmental organizations, and to note the quadrennial reports of 205 organizations.
The Council adopted, without a vote, as orally corrected, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 1) regarding the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2011 regular session, in which the Economic and Social Council takes note of the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2011 regular session.
The Council did not take a decision on the non-governmental organization Movement Against Atrocities and Repressions. The decision on Movement Against Atrocities was suspended for further consultation.
JOHN SAMMIS. (United States) requested clarification on what was just adopted. After receiving an explanation, the United States affirmed that basically the agenda item remained open until the Council had taken note of the entire report.
RANDHIR JAISWAL (India) thanked the Chairman for the decision adopted. India indicated that regarding concerns on this non-governmental organization, information had been received that members of this non-governmental organization had been involved in the hijacking of aircraft and therefore India requested that the Council delay the decision on this issue.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 2) on applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-governmental organizations, which requests the Economic and Social Council to grant consultative status to 146 non-governmental organizations listed in the draft decision.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 2) on the closure of applications for consultative status of non-governmental organizations that had failed to respond to queries over the course of two consecutive sessions, in which the Economic and Social Council decides to close without prejudice consideration of the requests for consultative status made by 32 non-governmental organizations after those organizations had failed, after three reminders over the course of two consecutive sessions of the Committee, to respond to queries posed to them by members of the Committee.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 2) on the suspension of consultative status of non-governmental organizations with outstanding quadrennial reports, pursuant to Council resolution 2008/4, in which the Economic and Social Council decides, in accordance with its resolution 2008/4 of 21 July 2008, to suspend immediately, for a period of one year, the consultative status of 103 non-governmental organizations, and requests the Secretary-General to advise the concerned organizations of their suspension.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 2) on the reinstatement of consultative status of non-governmental organizations that submitted outstanding quadrennial reports, pursuant to Council resolution 2008/4, in which the Economic and Social Council decides, in accordance with its resolution 2008/4 of 21 July 2008, and recalling its decision 2010/219 of 19 July 2010, to reinstate the consultative status of 16 non-governmental organizations which have submitted their outstanding quadrennial reports.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 2) on the withdrawal of consultative status of non-governmental organizations in accordance with Council resolution 2008/4, in which the Economic and Social Council decides, in accordance with its resolution 2008/4 of 21 July 2008, and recalling its decision 2010/218 of 19 July 2010, to withdraw immediately the consultative status of 61 non-governmental organizations and requests the Secretary-General to advise the concerned organizations of this decision.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 2) regarding dates of and provisional agenda for the 2012 session of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, in which the Economic and Social Council decides that the 2012 regular session of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations will be held from 30 January to 8 February and on 17 February and its resumed session from 21 to 30 May and on 8 June 2012 and approves the provisional agenda for the 2012 session of the Committee.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision contained in report (E/2011/32 Part 2) on the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2011 resumed session, in which the Economic and Social Council takes note of the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2011 resumed session.