Mother of Vietnamese blogger 'burns herself to death'

The government is cracking down on bloggers who criticise its policies

Originally posted at bbc.co.uk: The mother of a prominent Vietnamese blogger has died from her injuries after setting herself on fire in front of government offices, her family says.

She was protesting against the detention of her daughter, Ta Phong Tan, who is facing charges of anti-state propaganda, another daughter told the BBC's Vietnamese service.

Dang Thi Kim Lieng set herself alight in southern Bac Lieu province.

Her daughter faces trial in August and could be jailed for 20 years.

Dang Thi Kim Lieng went alone, without telling anyone, to the local government building in Bac Lieu, the second daughter told the BBC.

Ex-policewoman

The police have made no comment, but activists and lawyers said that Mrs Dang died while being taken by police to a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City.

She was said to be extremely worried about the fate of her daughter, who she had not seen since her arrest last September.

Ta Phong Tan was arrested by the authorities with other bloggers, who are also accused of subversive activities in a state that controls the media and has little tolerance for criticism.

She is a former policewoman who built up a following with her reports on police abuses and injustices in the legal system.

The police newspaper denounced her writings as toxic and she was charged with distorting the truth and denigrating the Communist party and state.

Ta Phong Tan had posted a large number of articles on the "Free Journalists' Club", a banned website that has been a focus of the government crackdown on its internet critics.

She denied all the charges against her and has remained in detention since her arrest.

She was due to stand trial alongside another famous blogger, Phan Thanh Hai, who wrote about various sensitive issues, including a dispute with China over maritime boundaries, alleged corruption and case studies of famous dissidents.

Human Rights Watch has accused the Vietnamese government of stepping up its repression of dissidents over the past year and of jailing dozens of peaceful activists.

It said Mrs Dang's apparent suicide looked like an act of desperation to show the authorities what they were doing to the families of dissidents.

read more

Your New Human Rights Councilor

Vietnam invents a U.N. procedure to silence critics.

The Security Council's latest fumble on Syria might represent the U.N.'s biggest failure of the last month, but it's hardly the only one. So as a reminder of all the little things the U.N. also gets wrong, we present the latest machinations involving a U.N. group ostensibly concerned with human rights.

Vietnam's Communist Party-led government recently blackballed a nongovernmental organization's attempt to secure accreditation to the U.N. The Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation, or KKF, is a small group based in New Jersey that tracks the plight of the Khmer ethnic minority in Vietnam. Mainly that involves compiling and disseminating well-respected reports of rights abuses such as Hanoi's harassment of Khmer Buddhists who refuse to join state-sanctioned religious organizations.

That's probably why Hanoi pitched a fit when in May the KKF received an accreditation from the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council, or EcoSoc. This would have allowed the group to participate in a range of U.N. conferences, and would have allowed KKF speaking time in relevant meetings to raise its concerns about Hanoi's rights record. More than 3,000 other nongovernmental organizations have been accredited over the years, so KKF would hardly have stood out.

Vietnam's government launched an aggressive campaign against the group. Rather than pushing to refer KKF's status back to the accreditation committee for additional review, which is the usual course in the rare instances when a decision proves controversial, Hanoi proposed a resolution at a recent meeting to strip KKF's accreditation directly.

In this way, Hanoi was able to put the decision on KKF's accreditation in the hands of a body—EcoSoc's general membership—where Vietnam could trade political horses with its neighbors and harness support from other authoritarians such as Russia and Venezuela. The resolution passed last week with support from 27 states, including democratic members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines that should know better. Another 14 EcoSoc members, including the U.S., voted in KKF's favor, and 10 countries abstained.

Rights activists note that with this stroke Vietnam has created a new procedural tool that other rights abusers can use to silence their own critics at the U.N. They also suggest that this dust-up raises additional questions about Hanoi's fitness to sit on the Human Rights Council in 2014, a position for which Vietnam—no joke—is currently said to be campaigning despite its long tradition of jailing dissidents.

The mistake these activists make is looking at the U.N. as they'd like it to be, not as it really is. Having thwarted critics of its rights record, Hanoi will fit right in with the likes of China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia on the Council. Originally posted at http://online.wsj.com

read more

Worldwide condemnation of Vietnam’s bid to silence Khmer Krom’s voice

Originally posted at khmerkrom.net: The latest drama played out on the international stage this week, no more shocking then who are the actors involved: Vietnam versus the human rights defender Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation (KKF).

Flying just under the international radar for over 20 years, KKF hits the stage and received world wide support from the most powerful countries including United States and the European Union when Vietnam tries to get them kicked out of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

It’s all started when in May 2012, ECOSOC’s Committee on Non-governmental Organisations, in a consensus decision, approved KKF’s application for special consultative status with the Council. Vietnam protested strongly against the decision at the time.

This week a resolution to overturn the decision was tabled by Vietnam along with El Salvador and fellow ASEAN member States Burma, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

In a supporting speech for a no vote, the United States say KKF is “a peaceful advocacy organization based in the United States. It did nothing other than help marginalized Khmers people in Viet Nam and raise awareness of their situation” according to the UN document.

The United States representative recognize the KKF “had participated in United Nations bodies for more than a decade and its principles were in line with the Charter” and continue to urge the Council to oppose the resolution citing “The role of civil society was to express independent views. If the Council opposed accreditation, it risked denying the whole reason the United Nations valued civil society in the first place”.

Representative from Ireland speaking on behalf of the European Union agrees that there’s nothing new about KKF, and that “The Union believed that it was not appropriate to oppose accreditation for an organization simply because it expressed views different from those of Governments represented on the Council”.

Vietnam accused KKF of having a separatist agenda based merely on statements made on KKF website which expresses the Khmer Krom people’s frustration with the Vietnamese government for the over a century of oppressions, ethnic cleansing through Vietnamization, massacres, land grabbing and being treated as a second class citizen.

Sure Khmer Kroms want the right to self-determination as granted by the UN International Covenant on Civl and Political Rights, which Vietnam is a signatory.

The KKF’s policies are clear. Its aims and purposes are, through the use of peaceful measures and international laws, to seek freedom, justice, and the right to self-determination for the Indigenous Khmer-Krom peoples living under the oppression of the Vietnamese government in Southern Vietnam called Kampuchea-Krom in Khmer. There is not even a thread of evidence to suggest that any KKF activities support Vietnam’s claim.

By comparing some of the statements on KKF web site to same “pretext, the Pol Pot­Ieng Sary clique of the abhorrent, genocidal Khmer Rouge regime … massacres of thousands of innocent Vietnamese civilians from 1977 to 1979” is not just insulting to the Cambodian people as a whole, but also blatant disregard and disrespect for the dignity of the estimated one hundred and fifty thousands Khmer Krom who were massacred by the Khmer Rouge during the same period. Not to forget the many thousands of Khmer Kroms who were sent by Vietnamese communist government to the front line and get murdered in defense against the Khmer Rouge.

KKF is the Khmer Krom’s only voice on the international stage. Although the Council has voted to revoke KKF consultative status, it has bolster its profile even higher through this drama with the support from the US, EU and the International non-governmental organisations including Human Rights Watch.

Vietnam have taken notice of the strength of Khmer Krom’s unity, hence like a cowardice bully, attempt to trample on it. Only time will tell the extends of ramification on Vietnam itself for its own action. It has not dampened Khmer Krom's spirit; to the contrary in fact.

read more

Khmer Krom NGO Status Revoked

Thach Ngoc Thach speaks during an interview at RFA, July 18, 2012.

Originally posted at rfa.org: The United Nations has revoked the special consultative status of a non-governmental organization representing the indigenous Khmer Krom group in Vietnam, drawing protests from human rights groups which accused the global body of buckling to pressure from Hanoi.

Member states of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on Monday voted 27-14, with 10 abstentions, to rescind a consensus decision in May approving the application by the Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation (KKF) for special consultative status with the Council.

Vietnam protested strongly against the May decision and proposed a resolution overturning the move along with El Salvador and fellow Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states Burma, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

The United States and the European Union meanwhile had expressed their opposition to the resolution revoking the special status of the KKF representing the Khmer Krom, an ethnic group that U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) says faces serious restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly, association, information, and movement in Vietnam.

The ECOSOC had “caved to Vietnamese pressure," a joint statement by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (OPHRD) and the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) said.

The OPHRD is a joint program of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT).

Ahead of the vote, the OPHRD, along with 12 international and regional human rights groups, urged ECOSOC member states to oppose the draft resolution and to “support the ability of civil society organizations to freely participate in the work of the United Nations.”

In the statement, the OPHRD pointed out that special consultative status is granted to NGOs that “have a special competence in, and are concerned specifically with, only a few of the fields of activity covered by the Council and its subsidiary bodies, and that are known within the fields for which they have or seek consultative status.”

Resolution condemned

In Tuesday’s joint statement, Vo Van Ai, president of the Paris-based VCHR, condemned those U.N. member states that had joined Vietnam in rescinding the decision.

“It is shameful that many U.N. member states caved in to Vietnam’s pressure and became an accomplice in stifling the rightful voices of human rights defenders,” he said.

“It sends a chilling signal to the people in Vietnam that the international community is not on their side in their quest for greater freedom.”

Souhayr Belhassen, president of the FIDH, said that Vietnam, which intends to run for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, has repeatedly attacked independent human rights defenders at home and abroad, reflecting its “consistently dismal human rights record.”

“Before it is even elected to the Human Rights Council, Vietnam is already busy obstructing human rights groups from cooperating with the U.N. to promote human rights,” he said.

“This kind of intimidation must not be tolerated anywhere in the U.N. system.”

Gerald Staberock, secretary-general of the OMCT, called the resolution “an expression of fear to hear unpleasant truths and opinions.”

“The basis of any commitment to human rights defenders is the recognition of their very existence and their right to speak and to be heard, and the states have failed in this test—Vietnam in the first place,” he said.

Plans to reapply

Thach Ngoc Thach, the president of the KKF who led a delegation to join the ECOSOC, said his federation would reapply for membership in the next three years.

“The federation will continue to advocate to countries that didn’t vote or voted in absentia to support our bid for next time,” he said.

He added that Vietnamese allegations that the Khmer Krom are seeking independence from Vietnam were untrue.

“We cannot accept these allegations,” he said.

Thach Ngoc Thach said that even though the KKF was refused the right to act as an ECOSOC member, the federation remains recognized by the international community for its work on behalf of the Khmer Krom.

“This should not be considered a failure because we have received support from the U.S., France, and England. The countries that support Vietnam are Russia and China,” he said.

“The communist countries are supporting each other.”

Persecuted group

The Khmer Krom, many of whom have moved to Cambodia to escape persecution, are from southern Vietnam’s lower Mekong delta region, which Cambodians sometimes call "Kampuchea Krom," or "Lower Cambodia." As Khmers, they are ethnically similar to most Cambodians, and are considered outsiders in Vietnam.

The Vietnamese government has banned Khmer Krom human rights publications and tightly controls the Theravada Buddhism by the minority, who see the religion as a foundation of their distinct culture and ethnic identity.

In 2007, the Vietnamese government suppressed protests by over 200 ethnic Khmer Buddhist monks in Suc Trang who were calling for religious freedom and more Khmer-language education.

On the other side of the border, the Khmer Krom who leave Vietnam for Cambodia remain one of the country’s “most disenfranchised groups,” HRW has said.

Because they are often perceived as Vietnamese by Cambodians, many Khmer Krom in Cambodia face social and economic discrimination.

They also face hurdles in legalizing their status in the country, as despite promises to treat them as Cambodian citizens, authorities have failed to grant many Khmer Krom citizenship or residence rights, according to HRW.

Reported by Samean Yun for RFA’s Khmer service. Translated by Samean Yun. Written in English with additional reporting by Joshua Lipes.

read more

Special Thanks !

We on behalf of the KKF Youth around the world want to give a special thanks to the states that have supporting Khmer Krom Indigenous Peoples, that given us big support: Special Thanks to States Member: Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lativa, Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States of America for voting for my organization the KKF yesterday at The United Nations "ECOSOC". Also, we want to give a special recognition to the United States for their relentless lobbying on behalf of the Khmer Krom Federation(KKF) for the past months.

 

read more

Viet Nam: UN caves in to Vietnamese pressure, rejects the consultative status of the NGO KKF

JOINT PRESS RELEASE - THE OBSERVATORY

Viet Nam: UN caves in to Vietnamese pressure, rejects human rights group’s consultative status

Bangkok-Paris-Geneva, July 24, 2012. The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (an FIDH and OMCT joint programme) and the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) condemn the resolution passed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) overturning a previous decision to grant consultative status to the non-governmental human rights organisation Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation (KKF).

In May 2012, ECOSOC’s Committee on Non-governmental Organisations, in a consensus decision, approved KKF’s application for special consultative status with the Council. Vietnam protested strongly against the decision. On July 23, member States of ECOSOC, in a vote of 27 in favour to 14 against, with 10 abstentions, adopted a resolution to rescind that decision. The resolution was tabled by Vietnam along with El Salvador and fellow ASEAN member States Burma, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

In a joint letter[1] issued on July 18, 2012, the Observatory, along with 12 international and regional human rights groups across the globe, urged ECOSOC member states to oppose the draft resolution and to “support the ability of civil society organisations to freely participate in the work of the United Nations”. Special consultative status is granted to non-governmental organisations that “have a special competence in, and are concerned specifically with, only a few of the fields of activity covered by the Council and its subsidiary bodies, and that are known within the fields for which they have or seek consultative status”.

Before the vote, representatives of Cuba, Indonesia, Philippines, Lao PDR, Nicaragua, Russia, and Venezuela took to the floor in support of the resolution. On the other hand,, the United States and Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed  their opposition to the resolution. “It was not appropriate to oppose accreditation for an organization simply because it expressed views different from those of Governments represented on the Council”, said the representative of Ireland.

“It is shameful that many UN member states caved in to Vietnam’s pressure and became an accomplice in stifling the rightful voices of human rights defenders. It sends a chilling signal to the people in Vietnam that the international community is not on their side in their quest for greater freedom”, said Vo Van Ai, president of VCHR.

KKF is headquartered in the United States and conducts human rights advocacy globally. KKF aims, “through the use of peaceful measures and international laws, to seek freedom, justice, and the right to self-determination for the Indigenous Khmer-Krom Peoples”. It has an established track record in engaging with UN human rights mechanisms and providing valuable and quality information on abuses against the Khmer Krom minority group in Vietnam. Vietnam’s ambassador to the UN, Le Hoai Trung, labeled KKF’s activities as “politically motivated” and characterised KKF’s aim to seek freedom and justice for the Khmer people as a “grave offence” to the “sacred, national value” of national unity.

In the 2010 joint report Vietnam: From “Vision” to Facts: Human Rights in Vietnam under its Chairmanship of ASEAN, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) documented human rights violations against the Khmer Krom, including religious persecution, land confiscation, and excessive use of force. In the last five years, the Observatory and VCHR documented instances of arbitrary arrests and forced defrocking of Khmer Krom Buddhist monks in retaliation of their peaceful protests against religious persecution[2].

In another example of its diplomatic offensive against criticisms abroad, in September 2010, Vietnam lobbied the government of Thailand to obstruct a press conference in Bangkok where FIDH and VCHR were to launch their joint report on Vietnam.[3] Vietnam’s hostilities against independent human rights defenders and groups at home and abroad are nothing new and reflect its consistently dismal human rights records, said FIDH and VCHR.

Vietnam intends to run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, which requires member States to uphold the highest human rights standards. “Before it is even elected to the Human Rights Council, Vietnam is already busy obstructing human rights groups from cooperating with the UN to promote human rights. This kind of intimidation must not be tolerated anywhere in the UN system”, said Souhayr Belhassen, President of FIDH.

"The political intervention led by a coalition of Asean States overturning the decision of the competent committee excluding civil society access is an expression of fear to hear unpleasant truths and opinions. The basis of any commitment to human rights defenders is the recognition of their very existence and their right to speak and to be heard, and the states have failed in this test - Vietnam in the first place", said Gerald Staberock, Secretary-General of OMCT.

Press contact:

VCHR: Vo Tran Nhat: +33 1 45 98 30 85

FIDH: Karine Appy +33 1 43 55 14 12 / + 33 1 43 55 25 18

OMCT:            Isabelle Scherer: +41 22 809 49 39

---

[1]              http://www.fidh.org/Viet-Nam-In-open-letter-NGOs-call

[2]              FIDH and VCHR, Vietnam: From “Vision” to Facts: Human Rights in Vietnam under its Chairmanship of ASEAN, September 2010, pg. 25. Available at: http://www.fidh.org/VIETNAM-From-Vision-to-Facts-HUMAN

[3]              See, i.e., Observatory Press Release of September 13, 2010.

read more

UN Committee on NGOs accredits 129 NGOs, defers 130

Originally posted at ishr.ch: The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) held its resumed session in New York from 21-31 of May 2012. The Committee is tasked with considering the applications of NGOs for consultative status with the UN[1] as well as the quadrennial reports submitted by NGOs already in consultative status. The Committee makes recommendations to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which can either approve or overturn a decision.[2] During this session, the Committee granted consultative status to 129 NGOs and deferred the applications of 130.

 

This session was similar to others in that some Committee members continued to oppose NGOs that hold views they do not agree with, or that have been critical of a government’s human rights record. The Committee approved 70 (59%) of the 119 new applications at this session—an improvement over an average approval rate of 47% over the last 10 sessions.[3] However, the rate of approval of previously deferred applications[4] remains disturbingly low. Of the 162 applications deferred from previous sessions, only 59 (36%) were approved this session. This is in keeping with an average approval rate of 30% for deferred applications over the last 10 sessions.

 

The Committee has come under criticism in recent years for failing in its core task of giving civil society a voice at the UN and deviating from the guiding principles in ESOCOC resolution 1996/31 in its handling of applications for consultative status and review of quadrennial reports. It is widely accepted that membership of the Committee[5] lies at the root of these negative trends. The Committee is known for excessive politicization and the balance of the Committee’s membership tends towards States that do not support a vibrant civil society at the UN.[6]

 

These States use various strategies to control the review process and defer applications, such as asking (often repetitive) questions that go beyond the scope of what NGOs are required to submit with their applications. These tactics are used to wrongly delay, deny, and close the applications of credible NGOs whose work addresses significant human rights concerns of relevance to the UN. In this sense, such action by the Committee is a form of reprisals against human rights defenders. By using these tactics, some NGOs waiting for accreditation have had their applications deferred for up to 10 years.[7]

 

Targeted NGOs include those dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), women’s rights, reproductive rights, minority issues, caste, and freedom of expression and association. They also include national NGOs working on human rights in States that are not supportive of civil society.

 

Among many others, the Committee continued to block applications from organizations working on caste issues (International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN)[8]), minority issues (A.U.A. Americas Chapter[9]), human rights (Scholars at Risk (SAR),[10] WITNESS,[11] International Federation of Liberal Youth,[12] Collectif des Familles de Disparu(e)s en Algérie,[13] Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC),[14] sexual and reproductive rights (Alliance for Reproductive Health Rights (ARHR),[15] Youth Coalition for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (YCSRR)[16]), and SOGI issues (Australian Lesbian Medical Association (ALMA)[17], Homosexuelle Initiative Wien (HOSI-Wien).[18]

 

Continued discrimination against NGOs dealing with SOGI

As in previous sessions, some of the more contentious moments concerned the applications of organizations that work on SOGI. In response to continuing questioning by Morocco, Sudan and Russia for ALMA and HOSI-Wien, Belgium, Israel and the US spoke out to decry the obvious discrimination against these organizations. Israel expressed concern with the Committee’s ‘extreme and irrational’ aversion to NGOs working on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and criticised the argument that LGBT is ‘undefined’, when the same States that make this claim have codified who belongs to these groups and how the state can sanction them. The US expressed serious concern that the Committee refuses to accredit any NGOs dealing with SOGI by consensus, [19] despite guidance by ECOSOC that these organizations meet the criteria in ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. Belgium and the US expressed their hope that all questions had now been asked and that the Committee would grant status to these organizations at the next session. The US noted that all delegations should be on notice and not use a procedural no-action motion[20] to further defer consideration of the applications. However, it is worth noting that the US and Belgium mentioned this at the previous session as well. In fact, this year marks the first since 2006 that pro-civil society members have not pressed the Committee to act by making a motion to recommend status for an NGO dealing with SOGI issues.

 

Committee continues to defer quadrennial reports of human rights organizations

The Committee also continued to exert its pressure on NGOs that already have status by deferring the quadrennial reports of certain organizations. Notably, the Committee again deferred the 2005-2008 quadrennial report of Human Rights Watch[21] due to additional questions from China and Sudan. Due to questions from China and Cuba, the Committee also deferred the 2007-2010 quadrennial report of Freedom House, though it finally took note of Freedom House’s earlier 2003-2006 report.[22] Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Sudan disassociated themselves from the Committee’s consensus decision in that regard.  The representative of Cuba stressed that the organization had taken a ‘hostile and aggressive’ position towards a number of Member States, in particular developing countries. Regarding the treatment of quadrennial reports generally, the US underlined that, per ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, the review is not meant to be a ‘requalification’ of status but merely an update on activities. The US elaborated that if states believe that NGOs are not in compliance then they should take action by moving to suspend or withdraw the status of the NGO.

 

Committee rejects proposal by US to close application of NGO with alleged terrorist ties

Another contentious moment occurred when the US made a motion to have the application of the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA)[23] closed, alleging that it had financed terrorist groups. Despite the US arguing that the organization had had sufficient due process and time to respond to all allegations, Sudan contended that there was no evidence to justify the accusations and that the NGO ought to be given more time to respond.[24] Sudan tabled a ‘no-action motion’ to block the US proposal. The debate was effectively adjourned when the Committee voted 9 in favour, 5 against with 2 abstentions on that proposal.[25] Thus, the IARA remains on the list of applications deferred to future sessions.

 

Committee withdraws status of NGO at Pakistan’s request

At this session the Committee also decided to withdraw the status of Interfaith International, an NGO that was previously suspended for two years in 2010 as a result of a complaint that Pakistan lodged with the Committee.[26] The original decision to suspend was taken despite the concerns of some states, including the US, that such harsh measures were unwarranted and inconsistent with NGOs' right to freedom of expression and opinion. NGOs also expressed concern at the time that the decision was hurried and failed to even respect the limited procedural safeguards required by ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31.[27] At the present session of the Committee, Pakistan lodged a complaint that the NGO had violated the terms of its suspension by continuing to engage in activities on UN premises[28] and using its consultative status insignia. Though the decision was taken by consensus, both the US and Belgium called the punishment disproportionate, stating that an extension of the suspension would have been preferable.

 

Vietnam urges Committee to reconsider decision to grant status to NGO

A final controversy took place in the Committee on the last day when the Permanent Representative of Vietnam made an oral statement registering Vietnam’s protest against the Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation’s (KKF) application for consultative status, which had been approved consensually earlier in the session. The KKF is a US-based NGO that ‘through the use of peaceful measures and international laws, to seek freedom, justice, and the right to self-determination for the Indigenous Khmer-Krom Peoples living under the oppression of the Vietnamese government in Kampuchea-Krom.’ Vietnam said the NGO advocates and promotes secession and that its ‘dark aims and ill-will and illegal acts’ make it utterly unqualified for consultative status. Vietnam asked the Committee to take appropriate action to prevent KKF from getting consultative status. Several delegations—including Pakistan, Cuba, Russia, India, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Turkey—noted that they would carefully consider the request and take appropriate action at ECOSOC in July. Only the US spoke against the application being reconsidered by ECOSOC, arguing that they and other delegations considered the application closely and that a review of the materials submitted by Vietnam did not justify an overturning of the decision by ECOSOC. If reconsidered, it appears this would be the first time a consensus decision to grant status would face potential overturning by a vote in ECOSOC. This could place China in a difficult situation, as a traditional ally in the Committee of countries opposing NGOs that work on minority issues. China’s position has consistently been that the decisions of the Committee should be respected by ECOSOC.[29] In this respect, it is notable that China remained silent in the Committee during this discussion.

 

Conclusion

On a more positive note, of the applications previously deferred for several sessions that were approved at this session, the following were related to: reproductive rights (the Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR))[30]; women’s rights/issues (Autonomous Women’s Center Pakistan, Women Deliver, Inc[31]); caste issues (the All India Christian Council (AICC)[32]); and human rights (Programme on Women’s Economic Social and Cultural Rights,[33] Krityanand UNESCO Club Jamshedpur,[34] International Senior Lawyers Project,[35] Human Rights Now,[36] Human Rights Association for Community Development in Assiut (HRACDA),[37] UPR Info,[38] Apne Aap Women World Wide (India) Trust,[39] International Human Rights & Anti-Corruption Society,[40] Movement for the Protection of African Child (MOPOTAC),[41] Pacific Disability Forum (PDF),[42] and the Scalabrini International Migration Network, Inc[43]).

 

Overall, confrontations and prolonged discussions seemed less frequent than at previous sessions, indicating that Committee members were settling a greater number of matters bilaterally. Recent attempts by some members to focus on the rules of Resolution 1996/31 and less on past practice also contributed to the less acrimonius atmosphere. The Chair noted that this willingness to reach out and settle difficult issues had contributed to an improved environment. While it has its advantages, this type of approach can also contribute to a more confusing and less transparent atmosphere for NGOs.

 

---

[1] Consultative status provides NGOs with access to a range of fora at the UN, including the Human Rights Council, ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies, UN conferences, and special events organized by the President of the General Assembly.

[2] ECOSOC (54 States) meets annually in July, alternatively in Geneva or New York.  

[3] Approval rates for new applications have fluctuated significantly in the last five years: 56% at the 2012 regular session, 50% at the 2011 resumed session, 36% at the 2011 regular session, 18% at the 2010 resumed session, 34% at the 2010 regular session, 33% at the 2009 resumed session, 56% at the 2009 regular session, 80% at the 2008 resumed session, and 62% at the 2008 regular session.

[4] Deferred applications are those that have been reviewed by the Committee at previous sessions but on which the Committee has not come to an agreement.

[5] Members of the NGO Committee for the period 2011-2014 are: Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, China, Cuba, India, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, Turkey, United States of America, and Venezuela.

[6] Despite the small size of the Committee (19 members) relative to the number UN Member States (193), the membership of the Committee is remarkably constant. A seat on the Committee ensures that a State can play a key role in deciding which NGOs are granted consultative status. Russia/former USSR has held a seat on the Committee since its inception in 1946. Cuba has been on the Committee from 1975 until now with the exception of 1983-1989. China was on the Committee from 1946-1960, 1995-2003 and 2006-present. Of the Committee members that are friendlier to civil society, the US has been on the Committee since its inception, with the exception of 1991-1994. The UK was on the Committee from 1946-1979, 1995-2001 and 2007-2010.

[7] Currently, the oldest application before the Committee is that of the Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum, which applied for consultative status in 2002.

[8] IDSN is an NGO based in Denmark aims to contribute to the elimination of caste-based discrimination worldwide. Since its application for consultative status in 2007, IDSN has received 56 questions.

[9] AUA Americas Chapter is located in the US. It aims to increase public awareness and understanding of the Assyrian culture and people, to promote human rights and indigenous rights, and to provide charitable services to persons of Assyrian descent. It has received 8 questions since it applied in 2010.

[10] SAR is an international network of universities and colleges that promotes academic freedom and defends the human rights of scholars and their communities worldwide. SAR has received 50 questions since it applied for status in 2007.

[11] WITNESS is a US-based NGO that uses the power of video and storytelling to open the eyes of the world to human rights abuses. WITNESS has received 56 questions since its application in 2008.

[12] IFLY is a Belgium-based umbrella organization for liberal and student youth organizations oriented towards the promotion of active citizenship, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Since its application in 2006, the IFLY has received 36 questions.

[13] CFDA is a France-based NGO whose principal aim is to locate victims of forced disappearances and to shed light on all victims of forced disappearances in Algeria. CFDA has received 69 questions since its application for status in 2008.

[14] IHRDC is a US-based organization that documents the human rights situation in Iran, and promotes accountability, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Iran. IHRDC applied for status in 2010 and has since been asked 33 questions. IHRDC has also participated in at least two question and answer sessions with the Committee in person.

[15] ARHR is a Ghanaian NGO that promotes rights-based advocacy to sexual and reproductive health through advocacy and inclusive policy making. It applied for status in 2010 and has received 6 questions since.

[16] YCSRR is an international organization based in Canada that Youth Coalition is an international organization of young people committed to promoting adolescent and youth sexual and reproductive rights at the national, regional and international levels. It applied for status in 2010 and has received 16 questions since.

[17] ALMA is an Australian NGO that helps lesbian doctors, lesbian medical students and their partners. ALMA applied for status in 2007 and has since faced 52 questions from the Committee.

[18]  HOSI-Wien is an Austrian NGO that advocates for the human rights of gays and lesbians. Its application dates back to 2007. It has since faced 23 questions.

[19] The US-based International Wages Due Lesbians and Australian-based Coalition of Activist Lesbians have had consultative status since 1998 and 1999, respectively. Since then, with one exception (COC-Netherlands, which was recommended by the Committee by a vote of 7-6), ECOSOC has granted SOGI groups consultative status only after first overturning negative recommendations from the Committee. ECOSOC has approved the following organizations: Danish National Association for Gay and Lesbians, the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe), and the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (2006); the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Québec and the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (2007); Brazilian Federation of LGBT Groups (Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros (2009); International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (2010); and the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) (2011).

[20] A no-action motion is a procedure that prevents member States at the UN from continuing a debate. It allows countries to avoid taking a position on politically sensitive issues. It has been used increasingly in the Committee in recent years.

[21] Human Rights Watch is a US-based NGO dedicated to defending and protecting human rights around the world. It has now received 16 questions regarding that report.

[22] Freedom House is a US-based NGO that Freedom House supports democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights around the world. It had received 19 questions regarding that report.

[23] The Sudan-based IARA had first had its consultative status withdrawn in 2006. It reapplied for status in 2011.

[24] In response to a question asked at the February session of the Committee, in which the US asked the IARA to explain its relationship to Al-Qaeda and Hamas, the IARA denied any relationship past or present. In 2004, the US placed the organization on Department of the United States Treasury list of terrorist organizations because of its links with Al Qaida and terrorist financing activities. The US wished to close the application permanently as it does not believe the Committee should treat the application as if there is a ‘statute of limitations’ on activities linked to terrorism.

[25] The following states voted in favour of the no-action motion: China, Cuba, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Venezuela. The following states voted against: Belgium, Bulgaria, Israel, Peru, and United States. India and Kyrgyzstan abstained. Mozambique, Turkey and Burundi were absent.

[26] Interfaith International works on human rights situations around the world where religion or ethnicity plays a major role, including the Sindh, Baluchistan and Gilgit regions in Pakistan. Click here for a summary of the ECOSOC meeting at which Interfaith International was suspended.

[27] The Committee has not developed any interpretive guidelines or a set of practical instructions on how to implement Resolution 1996/31. Rather it considers complaints on a case-by-case basis. NGOs have long criticised the weak procedural safeguards the resolution affords them if they are the subjects of a complaint by a member state, which are essentially limited to a right of reply within a limited time period.

[28] One of the allegations was that Interfaith International organized and participated in side events at the Human Rights Council. Interfaith International explained that they did not organize but rather were invited to participate in the events. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, also clarified in correspondence with the Committee about the case that NGOs without consultative status may co-sponsor and participate in side events at the Human Rights Council.

[29] http://bit.ly/8XCVoz Regarding ECOSOC’s overturning of a Committee decision not to grant status to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, China said the Committee is an authoritative body and the Council had by-passed it, which established an unfavourable precedent, as it harmed the Committee’s credibility and challenged the relationship between NGOs and the UN.  China expressed great concern about the practice. Venezuela also said its vote against IGLHRC in ECOSOC was for reasons of procedure, not because it had substantive objections to that organization’s work. Venezuela said the examination of applications for consultative status was the responsibility of the NGO Committee.

[30] WGNRR is a Philippines-based NGO that informs, links, engages and strengthens organisations and individuals worldwide in order to effectively promote and improve the reproductive and sexual health and rights (RSHR) for all women and girls. It applied for status in 2009 and received 32 questions.

[31] Women Deliver, Inc is a US-based NGO that works globally to generate political commitment and financial investment in fulfilling Millennium Development Goal 5 (MDG5)—to reduce maternal mortality and achieve universal access to reproductive health. It applied for status in 2011 and received 5 questions.

[32] The AICC is based in India and exists to proactively protect and serve the interests of the Christian community, minorities, and the oppressed castes. It applied for status in 2008 and received 35 questions.

[33] The PWESCR is an international human rights organization based in India that promotes women’s human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR). It applied for status in 2009 and received 6 questions.

[34] This NGO is based in India and aims to popularize the aims and purpose of the United Nations and its system and to promote its program and activities amongst the mass of society within India. It applied for status in 2008 and received 11 questions.

[35] ISLP is a US-based NGO that enlists the resources of highly skilled and experienced attorneys and law firms from around the world to advance the rule of law, human rights and equitable economic development. It applied for status in 2009 and received 11 questions.

[36] Human Rights Now (HRN) is an international human rights NGO based in Tokyo, established by lawyers, former UN officials, scholars, and other human rights activists to achieve, protect and promote the human rights of people worldwide, with a special focus on Asian countries. It applied for status in 2009 and received 13 questions.

[37] HRACA is based in Egypt and works to promote and protect human rights through calling for citizens' empowerment without discrimination and implementing sustainable development programs under institutional and moral bases and values. It applied in 2010 and received 10 questions.

[38] UPR Info is a Swiss-based NGO that aims at promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Review. It applied in 2010 and received 10 questions.

[39] Apne Aap is an NGO based in India that empowers trafficked and at-risk women and children to organize against the demand for purchased sex and the injustice in their own lives, and assert their right to dignified lives and livelihoods. It applied for status in 2010 and received 1 question.

[40] IHRAS is an NGO based in Nigeria that focuses on the promotion of human rights, democracy, a multi-dimensional approach to security, the fight against corruption and development globally. It applied for status in 2010 and received 3 questions.

[41] MOPOTAC is an NGO based in Nigeria that promotes, protects and defends the legal rights and liberty of children and young persons. It applied for status in 2011 and received 4 questions.

[42] PDF is based in Fiji and works to eliminate poverty for people with disabilities in the region. It applied for status in 2011 and received 3 questions.

[43] Scalabrini is an international network based in the US and Switzerland with more than 270 organizations involved in various services helping people on the move around the world. It applied in 2011 and received 3 questions.

read more

Recommendation of Non-Governmental Organization for Status with Economic and Social Council Refuted as Committee Winds Down Resumed Session

Viet Nam Observer Objects to NGO with ‘Dark Aims, Ill Will and Illegal Acts’,

Following Consensus Decision by Committee; In All, 128 Groups Referred to Council

The non-governmental organization Kmer Kampuchea-Krom Federation is utterly unqualified to be granted consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations heard today as it began the process of winding down its 2012 resumed session.

Begun on 21 May, the session recommended a total of 128 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for consultative status with the Council, Kmer Kampuchea-Krom among them.  “With its dark aims, ill will and illegal acts, it would not contribute to the work of the Council but would bring serious damage to the reputation of the Committee and ECOSOC and disruption to their work,” said the representative of Viet Nam who addressed the Committee as an observer concerning its 22 May decision to recommend special consultative status for the organization.

He accused the organization of having carried out many politically motivated acts such as slandering, inciting and undermining the national unity of Viet Nam.  He said those actions violated Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31, which provides that an NGO granted consultative status must not engage in unsubstantiated or politically motivated acts against States Members of the United Nations incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

Describing the Kmer Kampuchea-Krom Federation as a “foreign-based” organization that did not represent the ethnic Kmer people in Viet Nam but instead advocated and promoted secession in the territory of Viet Nam, the representative urged the members of the Committee to take appropriate action to prevent it from getting the status it sought with the Council.

Several representatives took the floor to explain that they had not had full information at the time they had made the decision to recommend the organization and promised to support the request by Viet Nam when the matter came before the Council.  Among them, the representative of the Russian Federation, who said that any NGO that submitted a request to the Committee should “absolutely” meet the requirements of the relevant resolutions.  If its activities did not fit or were not in line with the United Nations Charter, then it should not be granted status.  Cuba’s delegate similarly pledged support for the request when the matter came up in the Council, while Venezuela’s speaker said the Committee should receive the necessary information from Member States when considering applications.

On the other hand, however, the representative of the United States said that, while she had listened carefully to the information presented by the representative of Viet Nam, she did not believe that it was appropriate for the Council to overturn a consensus decision that had been made by the Committee.  Her country had looked very closely at the information presented by the organization in its application and that was why it had joined the decision to recommend it.

Also today, the Committee recommended the removal of 22 organizations from consideration for failing, after three reminders, to respond to questions from the Committee, after their applications had been deferred.

The Committee also approved proposed dates for its 2013 session.  The regular session would take place from 21 to 30 January and then on 8 February, while the resumed session would be convened from 20 to 30 May and on 7 June.

Of the 128 organizations for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council during its current resumed 2012 session, 126 were recommended for special consultative status and two for roster status.  The recommended applicants included 70 new ones and 58 that were deferred from previous sessions of the Committee.

Their areas of interest cut across regions and included such fields as health care, HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, space exploration, indigenous issues, agricultural development, humanitarian affairs, conflict prevention, religious affairs, sports, model United Nations and sustainable livelihood.

In addition:  rural women’s empowerment, post-conflict Somalia, private-sector promotion in developing countries, support for peace and tolerance education among youth, participation in civic life in the context of Jewish values and American pluralism, poverty reduction among the elderly in Nigeria, and poverty eradication among people with disabilities in the Pacific region.

Also throughout the session, the Committee reviewed scores of quadrennial reports from NGOs, recommended several reclassifications, and took note of name change requests, as well as requests for the withdrawal or reinstatement of consultative status.  In other actions, it voted to block the proposed closure of an application for consultative status of an organization alleged to have terrorist ties, giving the NGO a chance to respond to those concerns.

The Committee will meet again on 8 June to adopt its report.

Background

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations met today to continue its consideration of new applications for consultative status and new requests for reclassification and to also take up other matters related to the review of the work of the Committee as it continued its resumed 2012 session.

Removal of Organizations from Committee Consideration

The Committee first took up the question of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) whose applications had been deferred but which had not responded to questions from the Committee despite three reminders.  It recommended that all 22 organizations be removed from the list under consideration by the Committee.

The representative of Pakistan and China made procedural statements.

Special Consultative Status

The Committee then heard a statement by the representative of Viet Nam who spoke as an observer concerning the Committee’s decision on 22 May to recommend special consultative status for the organization Kmer Kampuchea-Krom Federation.

The representative told the Committee that non-governmental organizations had become important actors in people’s lives, both at the national and international levels and that the nearly 1,000 foreign NGOs working in his country contributed to mutual understanding and to its socio-economic development.  Viet Nam, however, wanted to officially register its protest over the application for consultative status by the Kmer Kampuchea-Krom Federation.  Its stated aim of seeking freedom and justice for the Khmer people in Viet Nam constituted a grave offence to a sacred national value of the Vietnamese people.  The Vietnamese nation was a family of 54 ethnic groups, including Kmers, living together for generations in one whole territory in unity and mutual assistance in the cause of national construction and defence.  Without national unity, the Vietnamese people would not have been able to overcome the many daunting trials in the country’s history.  The Constitution prohibited all acts of ethnic discrimination and the State implemented a policy of inclusive development.

The Kmer Kampuchea-Krom Federation, he said, was a foreign-based organization, which did not represent the ethnic Kmer people in Viet Nam, but advocated and promoted secession in the territory of Viet Nam, as revealed in the NGO’s official website.  Statements made by its leaders inciting the establishment of an independent country and a government for the ethnic Kmer people in Viet Nam advanced Kmer Kampuchea-Krom Federation’s dark politically motivated objectives.  That was a serious violation of the spirit, purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, including the principle of respecting the territorial integrity and political independence of States.  That was also a serious violation of paragraphs 2 and 57 of Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31.

Additionally, he said, the organization had carried out many politically motivated acts such as slandering, inciting and undermining the national unity of Viet Nam.  Those acts violated paragraph 57(a) of resolution 1996/31, which provided that to have a consultative status with the Council, a non-governmental organization must not engage in unsubstantiated or politically motivated acts against Member States of the United Nations incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.  The NGO was utterly unqualified for consultative status with the Council.  With its dark aims, ill will and illegal acts, it would not contribute to that body’s work, but would bring serious damage to its reputation and to that of the Committee, and disruption to their work.  He, therefore, urged Committee members to take appropriate action to prevent the organization from getting consultative status with the Council.

The representative of Pakistan regretted that the Committee members had not been aware of the facts presented before taking decision on the application.  He had taken due note of the statement and of the specific allegations of secessionist activities of the organization in Viet Nam.  That information would be sent to his capital, and Viet Nam’s request would receive due and careful consideration, which would enable Pakistan to take appropriate action in the Economic and Social Council.

The representative of Cuba said that she had also taken note of the statement.  The Committee had not had all the necessary information at the time a decision was taken.  Cuba supported the request by Viet Nam to present the matter to the Economic and Social Council and would act appropriately on the matter in that forum.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that any organization that submitted a request to the Committee should absolutely meet the requirements of the relevant resolutions.  If its activities did not fit or were not in line with the United Nations Charter, then that organization should not have the status it requested.  His country would be acting on that basis when the Council acted on the application.

The representative of India welcomed the new information presented by the Vietnamese delegation and said that his country would support Viet Nam’s position on the matter in the Council, where, he believed, the appropriate decision would be taken.

The representative of Venezuela said that she had taken note of the information provided by Viet Nam and stressed that the Committee should be able to receive information from Member States to help it reach decisions on applications.  Viet Nam could count on Venezuela’s support when the Council took action.

The representative Nicaragua similarly welcomed the information and agreed it would be important when the Council took a decision.

The representative of the United States said she had looked very closely at the information presented by the organization in its application and that was why the delegation had joined the consensual decision to recommend granting it status.  Her delegation had also carefully listened to the information presented by the representative of Viet Nam.  The United States did not believe that it was appropriate for the Council to overturn the consensus decision made by the Committee.

The representative Turkey said that he had taken due account of the objection by Viet Nam and that that objection would be communicated to his capital.  Turkey was sure that the Council would take the new facts into account when making its decision.

Tentative Summary

Chairman MARIA PAVLOVA TZOTZORKOVA ( Bulgaria) informed the Committee that tentative results of the session showed that 128 organizations were recommended to be granted status by the Economic and Social Council, including 126 for special consultative status and two for roster status.  The status of 75 organizations had been withdrawn and those of 208 others had been suspended for non-submission of quadrennial reports.

The Committee then turned its attention to its provisional agenda and documentation for the 2013 session.  Ms. Tzotzorkova informed the members that the proposed dates for the 2013 regular session were from 21 to 30 January and on 8 February, while those for the resumed session were from 20 to 30 May and on 7 June.

The Committee approved the proposed dates for the 2013 session.

Next, Committee Rapporteur, YONI ISH-HURWITZ ( Israel) introduced the Committee’s report, explaining that it was still in “skeleton form”, but that the substantive details would be entered in time for the Committee’s 8 June meeting.  Committee members would be notified about informal consultations, which were set to take place early next week, to finalize that report.

The representative of Turkey said his country was only concerned with certain issues, which were known and which he wanted underlined.

Committee Chairman TZOTZORKOVA ( Bulgaria) then suspended the resumed session and adjourned the meeting. Originally posted at un.org

read more