NGO Access at the United Nations
CENSORSHIP! & DISCRIMINATION at the UN.
UN Shuts Down the Videotaping for the NGOs!
Approved by the new Head of DPI:
- (Approved by Mr. Kensaku Hogen,
Under-Secretary General, Department of Public Information) July 1999A strange thing is happening at the United Nations. Censorship!!
Seems a small group of countries, namely the U.S.A., England and Cuba are beginning to look for ways to restrict and more tightly control the NGOs at the United Nations (even bill them for services.) This is strange because the NGOs have a “positive track record” of contributing to the efforts of the United Nations over the life of the UN (some 52 years). The USA Mission likes copies of the video tapes, even the First Lady of the USA! And, most other Ambassadors. Also this is a time when all (most all) countries are calling for more “openness” and “access” for NGOs at the UN to help “partner” to solve the rising global problems being created by the “new world economic order.”
All this at a time when the Secretary-General Kofi Annan is calling for a “Millennium Peoples Assembly” in 2000, and more participation of Civil Society and NGOs in the work of the United Nations. Admittedly, he has soft peddled his "openness" and closeness to the General Assembly Meeting time frame.
It is interesting to note that only under the new Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Ms. Gillian Sorensen, Kensaku Hogen team, have we seen a sudden clamp down and restrictions put on the NGOs. All while they sing the praises of the NGOs contribution to the United Nations.
There is, for sure, some very selfish and shortsighted managers now in the United Nations after a successful budget cutting for years and the loss of key experienced executives. Ah! the praises of "Downsizing!"
This could be just the U.S.A.’s fascination with financial managers who run most of America’s businesses now, and believe that the ONLY thing to do is “cut the costs” and of course that’s the people. On the other hand, prior to the wall coming down in Russia 1989; the USA loved the NGOs and would sic them on the “bad guys”, “evil empires” etc. Maybe because there are no “bad guys” just partners, (forgetting the bombing of Iraq [the "rouge states"]), the U.S.A. and others feel the NGOs may focus their attention on the Super Power and their money. That might be useful if they are intending to look for some real solutions to sustainable development and the solving of the worlds problems; And, that is just what the NGOs have been doing for the past 52 years. And we might note: That many NGOs have been solving world problems, without any help and by themselves all along.
We have posted the day-to-day activities currently going on at the UN for other NGOs to be aware of the extent of the severity of these actions against NGOs. The outcome effects all NGOs, first inside the UN but also throughout the world, since the world’s NGOs get much of their insights from the NGOs activities at the UN in New York City, Geneva and Vienna.
PS: If you are an NGO, we would like to hear from you as to your thoughts on this current crisis at the UN. Send your comments to the Administrator of NGOs Network.
Check this out!
While the NGOs are away (on summer vacation 1999);
the selfish mice (or maybe the RATS) will play!
Also, see the BLOCKERS.
We would like to inform the United Nations NGO Community about a current problem which will impact them all, and request your feedback and support.
One day in the summer of July 1999 Mr. Larry Gell was called into Mr. Richard Jolly's office and told quote, "The UN should recognize your significant contribution to the UN over the past six years, and give you special recognition for your unselfish contribution of video tapping and recording the history of the United Nations, building a huge videotape Library for the Department of Public Information, and giving hundreds of tapes FREE to many people within the UN system." The next day, he was called over to Paul Hoeffel's office (DPI) and given his walking papers. Placed on the "Black List." Nobody knows what it is or where the "Black List" exists , but they said Larry Gell is the only one on the List...DISCRIMINATION!
During the week of July 1, 1999 Mr. John Langmore (apparently being coerced/encouraged by his significant other Ms. Ingeborg Kaul) has written a letter to the Head of DPI Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Kensaku Hogen (and claiming he copied Dr. Larry T. Gell but, to date (5 September 1999) there has been no letter received by Dr. Gell, neither a copy from DPI nor a copy claimed sent by Langmore). Langmore asked Mr. Hogen to "not renew or (withdrawal) Dr. Gell's UN pass." What is behind this is Ingeborg Kaul's six year obsession to try to prohibit the videotaping at the United Nations. It is obvious that Kaul and Langmore are not supportive of the NGOS and DO NOT WANT TO SHARE United Nations information with the NGOs or anybody outside or inside the UN. She (Kaul) is in the business of taking United Nations meeting information (speakers) and editing their content, writing an introductory chapter, and publishing books for sale and profit. A real clever way to look intelligent without any real world experience.
Her superior of the past six years (Administrator, Mr. James Gustave Speth) understood her problems and kept her from pushing her way around. The past head of DPI and the 38th floor was also helpful in the past. Now there is a new boss (Administrator, Mr. Mark Malloch Brown) with no understanding of Ingeborg Kaul's past pushiness. Also the ex-head of DPI (Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Samir Sanbar) never allowed anybody to stop the videotaping. The new head of DPI (Mr. Kensaku Hogen) who had no UN experience prior to coming to the UN, and has no understanding of the fact that this originated out of DPI and the Secretary-Generals Office, or an understanding of the importance of the contribution to the history of the UN, or the value to the NGOs, Ambassadors, and other heads of UN Departments who have been thankful for copies of their meetings over the past six years at no cost to them or the UN.
After six years of videotaping and hundreds of FREE tapes given to every head of every department of the UN (From Kofi on down (including Inga Kaul & Langmore)) and many hundreds of other UN personnel, NGOs, Ambassadors and even Heads of State and their key Ministers... at a cost of thousands of dollars...this is the THANKS! Disgraceful and Disgusting!!
There are false accusations that Dr. Gell has taped meetings which were not approved. That is totally false. He has NEVER taped in a room without approval. How do you think he has been able to video tape for six years including "Closed Meetings" He must have been trusted by the people who count.
The UN has not even the courtesy or decency to provide Mr. Gell with facts as to who is complaining and what the allegations are.
Are these people jealous or just so small...where did these little people come from?
When Mr. Hogen was told that,"Mr. Richard Jolly asked Dr. Gell to have Mr. Kensaku Hogen write Dr. Gell a letter which would stop these two people (and any others) from causing problems"...Mr. Hogen replied, "Who is Richard Jolly? (one of the most important people at the UN)". Then proceeded to allow Mr. Langmore to pursue the process of barring Dr. Gell. This would NEVER have been allowed to happen under the past DPI Under-Secretary-General Mr. Samir Sanbar and Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali or Rosario Green (SG's NGO Coordinator).
Another significant change at the UN is the current Secretary-General and his Assistants. During SG Boutros Boutros-Ghali, there was an ongoing dialogue and support about videotaping, and no one was allowed to interfere. Under SG Kofi Annan, there is no dialogue or contact with him or his office, all letters and attempts to contact SG Kofi Annan are intercepted and passed on to Ms. Gillian Sorensen's office, and there is no response from her office after that. Ms. Sorensen is supposed to represent the NGOs in the Secretary-Generals Office, yet her background is Government and especially Business.
With all these recent changes at the United Nations and lack of understanding by new management, the time is ripe for Ingeborg Kaul to try again to prohibit the videotaping. And she is trying just that!
Specific behavior like this makes it easy to understand Senator Jesse Helms position on the UN and it's current management team.
Whatever happened to openness, sharing of information, freedom of information...We the people?
What people? Who are these people? And Who do they represent?
- 7/14/99
updated - 9/5/99
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:16:01 EST
Subject: [ngo-access] Summary of 12/11/98 Meeting with Committee on NGOs
On Wednesday, 11 December, from 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m., the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs convened an informal session with the Conference of NGOs and other NGO representatives in preparation for its resumed session of 14 - 18 December.
Present were NGO representatives, member states either on or soon to be on the Committee (including Algeria, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, India, the Philippines, Tunisia, and the United States), and representatives of the UN NGO Section/DESA. Tunisia's, delegate Wahid Ben Amor, chaired the meeting.
The meeting was convened to discuss two inter-related issues: (1) proposed guidelines for the accreditation of NGOs to all relevant meetings of the Council and its subsidiary bodies (as summarized in the Annex to the Cuban Non-paper, draft of 17 September 1998); (2) the proposal to formulate a code of conduct for NGOs working in connection with ECOSOC.* Discussion on these items tended to intermingle the two, with delegates pointing to the greatly increased number of NGOs now holding accreditation with ECOSOC, and speaking of the need to think about new ways to strengthen UN - NGO relations in light of logistical, financial, and procedural constraints.
Government statements took several main directions. A number of governments took the Non-paper as a positive point of departure, and expressed favor for increased regulation of NGO attendance and behavior at UN meetings. Delegates stressed that the goal was not to punish NGOs, but rather to ensure orderly participation in UN activities at all UN sites. A core recommendation was to limit the number of representatives per NGO who might participate in each meeting or conference (though not limiting the absolute number of NGOs themselves). A dissenting view held that it is too early to make a determination on the Non-paper, given the parallel process of consultation with NGOs and members states that the Secretariat is likely to undertake in connection with the report of the Secretary-General "Arrangements and practices for the interaction of non-governmental organizations in all activities of the United Nations system" (July 1998: A/53/150).
With respect to the proposed Code of Conduct, several governments asserted in its defense that it was conceived as a way for all sides to become more comfortable with one another, and to allay member state fears of possible NGO excess. In this view, special review procedures should be in place to deal with complaints against individual NGO representatives, not to censure the full body of NGOs for the transgressions of a few. Other governments disagreed, stating that it should be possible to deal with isolated cases of abuses by establishing NGO-Committee meetings on a more consistent basis, and by asking the Secretariat to circulate the greatest amount of information possible for NGOs regarding rules, processes, etc. so that they know how to proceed.
In their interventions, NGOs welcomed the opportunity for dialogue that the Committee on NGOs had provided, and encouraged that such meetings be held in the future on a consistent basis, as was done in the past, and as called for under 1996/31. One NGO recommendation was that the Committee plan these consultations in such a way that NGOs based in developing countries have the time and opportunity to contribute their views.
NGOs made several main points. First, NGOs were unified in calling for the principle of self-regulation among NGOs, pointing to the overwhelmingly positive experience of NGO interaction with the United Nations, and in rejecting the appropriateness of blanket responses to isolated abuses undertaken by individual NGO representatives. With respect to the proposed Code of Conduct, NGOs stressed that, instead of devising a new mechanism for NGO oversight, resolutions already on the books concerning the access of consultative status NGOs to UN meetings should be looked to and fully implemented in light of member state concerns. Resolutions such as 1996/31 clearly codify NGO rights of access to meetings, member state delegates, and documents. NGOs argued strongly that there is no need for additional decisions, but rather for a flexible and free-flowing process of consultation and interpretation among NGOs, member states, and the Secretariat to ensure that the existing rules are applied in the most appropriate fashion possible given evolving conditions.
On the proposed Non-paper, NGOs raised a number of concerns. First was the notion that the number of representatives per NGO accredited to UN meetings or conferences could usefully be limited. NGOs commented that organizations ask that a number of their representatives be accredited precisely because it is difficult for any one representative to have the time or financial resources to attend lengthy meetings or conferences. Due to this tendency toward rotation, the number of accredited representatives of an NGO by no means represents the number of representatives actually in a meeting at a given time. The Chair of a given committee and representatives of NGOs and of the Secretariat should, on a case-by-case basis and depending on the number of seats available and required, find solutions in those rare instances where space problems might crop up.
A related comment was that large international NGOs frequently represent nationally-based affiliates, which themselves wish to participate in international meetings. Especially where these organizations come from the South, maximum flexibility should be applied. Access to international meetings and conferences builds more responsible global citizenship and appreciation for the goals of the United Nations.
The consultation concluded with the delegate from Cuba agreeing that a clearer notion of NGO self-regulation would be preferable to establishing new rules, and asserting that he is willing to take all the time necessary to work through these issues to everyone's satisfaction. He suggested that in the May meeting of the Committee some clearer determination could perhaps be made. CONGO representatives agreed that additional consultations will be helpful on these issues, and will convene meetings for NGOs in the coming months to which member states and Secretariat representatives will be welcome.
Date: 22 Dec 1998 22:11:38 -0000
Subject: [ngo-access] General Assembly adopts resolution on arrangements for Millennium Assembly
On 17 December 1998 the General Assembly adopted the resolution reproduced below. Particular note should be taken of operative paragraph 4 which foresees a role for NGOs to be consulted as preparations move forward.
A/53/L.73
Distr.: Limited
16 December 1998
Original: English
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 52/12 B of 19 December 1997 and decision 52/477 of 6 May 1998,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on renewing the United Nations: a programme for reform (A/51/950), and the note by the Secretary-General on a Millennium Assembly, the United Nations system (Special Commission) and a Millennium Forum (A/52/850),
Convinced that the year 2000 constitutes a unique and symbolically compelling moment to articulate and affirm an animating vision for the United Nations in the new era,
Also convinced that a Millennium Assembly would provide an opportunity to strengthen the role of the United Nations in meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century,
1. Decides to designate the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly "The Millennium Assembly of the United Nations";
2. Also decides to convene, as an integral part of the Millennium Assembly of the United Nations, a Millennium Summit of the United Nations for a limited number of days on dates to be decided by the General Assembly at its resumed fifty-third session;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States, members of the specialized agencies and observers and to propose, after a process of intergovernmental consultation, a number of forward-looking and widely relevant topics that could help focus the Millennium Summit within the context of an overall theme, for consideration by the General Assembly at its resumed fifty-third session;
4. Also requests the Secretary-General to consult with non-governmental organizations, as appropriate, before the submission of his proposals;
5. Decides to continue its consideration of the item entitled "United Nations reform: measures and proposals" and agrees that a decision on the intergovernmental preparatory process, in particular its format and terms of reference, ensuring the full and effective participation of all Member States, members of the specialized agencies and observers in preparing for the Millennium Assembly, should be taken at the earliest opportunity by the General Assembly at its resumed fifty-third session;
6. Also decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fourth session a subitem entitled "The Millennium Assembly of the United Nations" under the item entitled "United Nations reform: measures and proposals".
Date: 22 Dec 1998 22:02:24 -0000
Subject: [ngo-access] Re: General Assembly adopts resolution t
Below is the text as adopted on 17 December, 1998:
A/53/L.68
Distr.: Limited
8 December 1998
Original: English
The General Assembly, having considered the report of the Secretary-General on arrangements and practices for the interaction of non-governmental organizations in all activities of the United Nations system (A/53/170), and recalling the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular its Article 71, General Assembly decision 52/453 of 18 December 1997 and Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 and decision 1996/297, both of 25 July 1996, as well as the interpretative statement read by the President of the Council upon the adoption of the latter decision, decides to request the Secretary-General:
(a) To seek the views of Member States, members of the specialized agencies, observers and intergovernmental organizations, as well as the views of non-governmental organizations from all regions, on his report (A/53/170);
(b) To submit a further report to the General Assembly, at its fifty-fourth session, in accordance with Assembly decision 52/453, taking into account the submissions received; and also decides to continue its consideration of this question at its fifty-fourth session under the item entitled "Strengthening of the United Nations system".
Date: 21 Dec 1998 22:27:06 -0000
Subject: [ngo-access] Re: US Initiative in Fifth Committee
There is some additional news on this subject.
During the week of 14 December the U.S. delegation took an initiative in the Fifth Committee to have the following text adopted as a substitute for their earlier proposal with regard to Patterns of Conferences - NGO Costs:
"Requests the Secretary-General to report to the regular session of the 54th General Assembly on the costs of conference services provided to NGOs for Calendar Year 1998, and for the first 8 months of 1999, and to identify relevant mandates."
This text was then DEFEATED in the Fifth Committee.
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:32:58 EST
Subject: [ngo-access] US Initiative in Fifth Committee
This morning I was able to confirm with the US Mission that it has officially withdrawn its initiative in the Fifth Committee to add language to the resolution on "Pattern of Conferences", which would have required that Conference Services be reimbursed for services to NGOs. This language would have resulted in NGOs being charged for all documents, use of rooms, translations of NGO documents, and any other "costs" of NGOs at the UN. To repeat, this language, which apparently was opposed by some US UN officials, has now been withdrawn.
For 1999, the US Mission now plans simply to request a report from the Secretary General on the costs associated with NGO interaction with the United Nations.
Thanks to Bill Pace for his quick heads-up on this issue, which will bear close monitoring in the coming sessions.
Regards,
Matthew DeGroot
PS: If you are an NGO, we would like to hear from you as to your thoughts on this current crisis at the UN. Send your comments to the Administrator of the NGOs Network.
We welcome your suggestions of other areas or activities that you feel would be important to ngos.net and for NGOs worldwide. We will list them here...so send us your suggestions. Thank you!
at the bottom of each page.
Back to top of Page