As it considered new applications and reclassifications, the Committee granted special consultative status to the following organizations:

-- Concern Worldwide, a United States-based humanitarian organization dedicated to reducing suffering and eliminating extreme poverty in the world’s poorest countries;

-- BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights, a Nigeria-based organization that promotes, protects and defends women’s human rights in Nigeria, raises awareness of women’s human rights abuses and supports and strengthens women’s and other human rights-focused organizations and activities;

-- Comité francais pour l’Afrique du Sud, an NGO in France that supports cooperation between France and the South Africa in economic, scientific, cultural and legal matters;

-- The New Israel Fund’s Empowerment and Training Center for Social Change Organizations (SHATIL), an Israel-based NGO that promotes democracy, tolerance and social justice;

-- December 18 vzw, a Belgium-based organization that promotes a rights-based approach to labour migration and works for universal ratification and effective implementation of the United Nations Migrant Workers Convention;

-- United Religions Initiative, a United States-based NGO that promotes enduring daily interfaith cooperation to end religiously motivated violence, and create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the earth and all living beings;

-- Dignity International, a Netherlands-based foundation that supports human rights and dignity, and promotes partnerships worldwide to bring about social change;

-- Institute for Sustainable Development and Research, a non-profit organization in India working for sustainable development by facilitating local initiatives on socio-economic, environmental, educational and cultural advancement;

-- Egyptian Centre for Women’s Rights, an Egypt-based NGO that works to improve the political and legal status of women and to confront all forms of gender-related discrimination, enhance women’s participation in political life and develop women’s legal and political awareness;

-- Mision Mujer AC, an NGO in Mexico founded by young professional women, which promotes personal, family, economic and social well-being of adolescents from low socio-economic communities;

-- Fundación Diagrama – Intervención Psicosocial, a Spain-based NGO that promotes the development of centres, programmes and research to prevent, treat and integrate socially excluded and at-risk young people;

-- The Aldet Centre – Saint Lucia, which promotes the promotion of human rights, democracy, development and strategic studies for indigenous peoples;

-- The Abraham Fund Initiatives, an NGO based in the United States and Israel that works to advance coexistence, equality and cooperation among Israeli Jewish and Palestinian-Arab citizens;

-- China Great Wall Society, a China-based NGO that works to preserve the ancient Wall for later generations and to promote its exploration and protection;

-- UNIFEM Australia Incorporated, the National Committee for the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in Australia that raises public awareness on gender and development, increases Government support and raises funds for specific UNIFEM projects.

The Committee granted roster status to International Council of Forest and Paper Associations, a Canada-based NGO that serves as a forum for global dialogue, coordination and cooperation among forest and paper associations, and represents the global forest and paper industry in international organizations.

The Committee decided to return later in the session to the applications of the Hudson Institute; Iranian Society of Engineering Design and Assembly; TRIAL; Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales; Maryam Ghasemi Educational Charity Institute; Drug Policy Alliance, Inc.; Mahabodhi International Meditation Centre; Associacao Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgeneros; Agape International Spiritual Centre of Truth; and PeaceJam Foundation.

During an interactive dialogue with NGOs, Venezuela’s representative asked the Red Venezolana de Organizaciones para el Desarollo Social to elaborate on its programmes in rural areas to support web design and information and communications technology development.  Cuba’s representative requested the information in writing.  In response, a representative of the NGO said it designed web pages for organizations in both rural and urban areas to enable communities to promote and disseminate information of their objectives and programmes in hopes of receiving Government funding for poverty alleviation and other programmes to improve standards of living.  She referred delegates to her organization’s website.

Venezuela’s representative inquired about the relationship between the NGO and USAID.  Who sat on the NGO’s executive board?  What was its statute?  He requested that information in writing.  She responded by saying that USAID had allocated funds for peacebuilding seminars in Venezuela at a time when it had been necessary to reconcile differences between various groups.  The NGO had no other ties to USAID.  A seminar sponsored by the Carter Foundation had been attended by representatives of the Venezuelan Government and the Jesuits.  The NGO had set up a network of social organizations seeking to achieve peace and poverty eradication.  It did not take a position in favour or against that of the Venezuelan Government.  Her NGO’s website had a directory of all affiliated social development organizations.  She said she would gladly provide delegates with a copy of the NGO’s charter. 

China’s representative asked the Agape International Spiritual Centre of Truth about its relationship with the Dalai Lama and for a response in writing.  A representative of that NGO said it had no links to the Dalai Lama.  The United States representative lauded the organization’s work in HIV/AIDS treatment and micro-financing.  The NGO representative said her organization had an extensive background in humanitarian assistance, including disaster relief worldwide, and it was involved in social development, human rights and Africa-related projects, and provided education, supported orphanages and provided training for communities suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Ukraine’s representative asked the Committee to postpone action on the application of the Foundation for Research and Support of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea, since it had yet to receive material on the organization.  The Russian Federation’s representatives asked the NGO to clarify the source of its funding.  In response, the NGO representative said that, last year, it had received $2,100 for a photo exhibit project for indigenous peoples.  However, it had no regular budget and was funded by voluntary contributions.  It had received donations from the International Council of Europe and the International Organization for Indigenous Rights, but none of that funding was used for operations or administration.  Rather, it fully funded its own projects.  Nor was it affiliated with any other organizations, even though Ukrainian law permitted it to do so.  The Russian Federation’s representative asked the organization to present the Committee, preferably during its current session, with a 2006 financial statement.

The Committee took note of the quadrennial reports submitted by NGOs in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council as follows:

-- Association for Aid and Relief ( Japan);

-- Caribbean Association for Feminist Research and Action Health on the Net Foundation;

-- Interregional Union of Life Help for Mentally Handicapped Persons “Sail Hope”;

-- JMJ Children’s Fund of Canada;

-- Center for Psychology and Social Change;

-- Grail;

-- Imam Sadr Foundation;

-- International Association or Ports and Harbours;

-- International Young Catholic Students;

-- African Services Committee;

-- Institute for Energy and Environmental Research;

-- International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies;

-- International League for Human Rights;

-- New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council;

-- Agencia Latinoamericana de Información;

-- Baha’i International Community;

-- International Council on Jewish Social and Welfare Services;

-- International First Aid Society;

-- International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions;

-- International AIDS Vaccine Initiative;

-- Italian Association for Women in Development;

-- National Association for Resource Improvement;

-- Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, and the Presbyterian Church ( USA);

-- International Chamber of Commerce;

-- International Federation of Women Lawyers;

-- Korea International Volunteer Organization;

-- National Rehabilitation and Development Centre;

-- Association of Presbyterian Women of Aotearoa New Zealand;

-- Eagle Forum;

-- Foundation for Democracy in Africa;

-- Global Alliance for Women’s Health;

-- Human Resource Development Foundation;

-- Greenpeace International;

-- International Council of Voluntary Agencies ( ICA);

-- International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA);

-- International Women’s Democracy Centre -- IWDC;

-- Real Women of Canada;

-- Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women;

-- Delta Sigma Theta Sorority;

-- Marmara Group Strategic and Social Research Foundation;

-- Sisters of Mercy of the Americas;

-- World Federation of Trade Unions in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations;

-- American Society of Safety Engineers;

-- Interfaith International;

-- LEAD International;

-- Mercy Corps;

-- 8^th Day Center for Justice;

-- Counterpart International;

-- Education International;

-- Féderation Européenne des femmes actives au foyer;

-- Grassroots Organizations Operating Together in Sisterhood, International;

-  National Federation of Women for Democracy;

-- Women against Rape.

The Committee decided to keep pending the quadrennial reports of Centrist Democratic International and the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.

The Committee took note of only one of the NGOs -- International Confederation of Free Trade Unions -- listed in the compilation of quadrennial reports submitted by NGOs in general and special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, deferred from previous sessions held in 1999 through 2007.

The Committee decided to keep pending the rest of the NGOs listed:  Centrist Democratic International; Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos; National Council of Women in Thailand; International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples; and the International Press Institute.

The Committee also resumed consideration of a complaint, in which the representative of China requested the withdrawal of consultative status from Liberal International -- an NGO granted general observer status in 1995 –- on the grounds that it had severely abused that status on 4 March by assisting a ranking official from China’s Province of Taiwan to gain access to a meeting of the Human Rights Council and advocate Taiwan’s membership in the World Health Organization (WHO).

China’s representative said the NGO’s abuse of its status was very clear and had been noted in various informational reports provided by the United Nations Secretariat.  The NGO had clearly violated provisions of article 57 of resolution 1996/31.  He urged Committee members to carefully study Liberal International’s response and make a decision on the case as soon as possible.

Cuba’s representative said Liberal International’s response showed that it clearly supported the statement made at the Human Rights Council meeting, and that the statement had also criticized Cuba.  Condemning a Member State that way was a political act that ran contrary to resolution 1996/31.  The Vice-President of Liberal International was associated with past terrorist activities against the Cuban Government.  He had planted bombs, escaped and been recaptured by Cuban authorities.  Supporting the statement of China’s representative, Cuba’s representative called on the Committee to take action on the NGO promptly.

Pakistan’s representative said the answers provided by Liberal International were unsatisfactory.

The United States representative said the NGO had carried out significant work for 25 years.  He stressed that there was a fine line that should not be trampled on about dismissing a group for “politically motivated statements”.  A Special Rapporteur who expressed his or her opinion could not be dismissed for being politically motivated.  He said he understood the sensitive nature of the sovereignty issue concerning Taiwan and China.  Even-handedness was important.

Cuba’s representative said the NGO had, in fact, responded to questions already and the Committee should stick to standard procedures.  It behoved the Committee to make a decision swiftly, he said, stressing that condemning or criticizing United Nations Member States in an international arena, as the NGO had done, was clearly a politically motivated act.

China’s representative said no one could doubt that Liberal International had bought irrelevant political issues into the Human Right Council meeting when it had helped high-level Taiwanese officials gain access to the Council’s chamber.  All members of the Committee had supported the rejection of Taiwanese membership in WHO.  Moreover, Liberal International had engaged in a series of criminal terrorist activities in Cuba, seriously violating paragraph 57 of resolution 1996/31.  He asked Committee members to contact their capitals and seek further instructions on the matter as soon as possible, and called on the Committee to make a decision before the end of the session.

The United States representative said the Committee had yet to receive a complaint on Liberal International’s alleged terrorist ties, and that it would need to study the matter.  Was the NGO on the United Nations Security Council list of terrorists?  What was the name of the person in question?  That information would be important for all 19 members of the Committee to make a decision.  Not all Committee members agreed.  The United States had supported Taiwan as an observer state in WHO.  It did not fall within the Committee’s expertise to decide on Taiwan’s status in WHO.

Sudan’s representative said Liberal International had acted in violation of the United Nations Charter.  The Committee should go forward with a decision.

Cuba’s representative said that, during Monday’s debate on the matter, Cuba had clearly explained to the Committee that the Liberal International Vice-President, Posada Carriles, was of Cuban origin and had been prosecuted for terrorist activities in the past.  Mr. Carriles had been denounced by a Security Council committee.  That was not new information.

China’s representative said that, indeed, Committee members should have time to consult their capitals on the matter, but they should not delay making a decision.

The United Kingdom’s representative said that, while it was studying allegations carefully, the Committee should focus its discussion on China’s allegations, unless Cuba intended to make a formal complaint, as well.

The Committee decided to return to the complaint made by China on Friday.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Thursday, 17 May, to continue its consideration of new and deferred applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification, as well as begin consideration of its agenda item on the review of the Committee’s methods of work.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~