Informal translation

Mr Chairman,

I have the honour  of addressing you on behalf of the European Union.  The countries of Central and Eastern Europe associated with the European Union (list) endorse this statement. 

Mr Chairman, 

ECOSOC has resumed its meeting today to conduct a final examination of  the complaint lodged last June by the Russian Federation against the Transnational Radical Party (TRP), the non -governmental organisation in general consultative status with ECOSOC.

ECOSOC members must decide on a draft decision taken by the Committee on NGOs contained in Part I of report E/2000/88.  This report recommends that ECOSOC suspend the consultative status of the TRP for a period of three years.

The Committee on NGOs made this recommendation after lengthy deliberations held in May and June during the Committee’s regular session, then in July and September when the session resumed.

Without going into these complex, difficult debates in detail where views were often diametrically opposed ,  two significant points must be made:

–            At the close of the June session, the Committee on NGOs reached consensus on a decision to recommend that ECOSOC suspend the status of the TRP for three years.

–            At the close of the September session and in the light of new factors brought to the Committee's attention by the TRP, several delegations, including Germany, Chile, United States, France and Romania asked the Committee to reconsider its June decision.  One delegation, the Russian Federation, then objected ,under Article 57 of ECOSO Rules of Procedure, to any vote being taken on this point.

As ECOSOC members will see when they read the report before them today (E/2000/88 (PART II)/ADD 2), the Committee was divided on this point: 5 delegations were in favour of a review, 2 abstained, 12 were opposed.

After this vote, several delegations made clear that they were no longer bound by the decision taken in June.  This was the case of France and Germany in particular.  

Mr Chairman,

Apart from the matter before us today, the European Union would draw attention to a number of rules and principles which  in its view must apply to the examination of a request for sanctions against NGOs accredited to ECOSOC:

–            First of all, the need then to give NGOs which are the subject of a complaint the opportunity to defend themselves before the Committee on NGOs, in accordance with the procedures in force.  It is impossible to overemphasise the importance of Article 56 of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 which states that any NGO which is the subject of a recommendation for suspension or withdrawal of status "shall have an opportunity to present its response for appropriate consideration by the Committee as expeditiously as possible".

–            Then, the need for the Committee on NGOs to complete this adversary procedure.  In practical terms this means that the Committee on NGOs must refrain from submitting its draft decisions to ECOSOC before completing the whole procedure.  The European Union wonders about the procedure followed in the TRP case.  It is strange to say the least that the matter was referred to ECOSOC in July when the Committee on NGOs had not completed its deliberations.  The Committee on NGOs did not meet until 27 September 2000 to examine the final TRP report , in accordance with its decision of 25 July 2000.

              – Finally, observance of multilingualism when examining matters submitted to United Nations bodies.  The European Union welcomes in this connection the agreement reached, at its request, on the postponement of the examination of the draft decisions submitted to ECOSOC on 28 July 2000.

 Mr Chairman,

What is the TRP actually accused of?  Of having, at the last meeting of the Commission on Human Rights, authorised Mr IDIGOV, member of the Chechen Parliament, to speak as the "Chechen President's representative in Europe".

Some Committee members complained about Mr Idigov's mistake and rightly so.  Mr Idigov, at Russia’s request, immediately acknowledged that there had been a mistake.  The Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights immediately gave the floor again to Mr Idigov who was then able to continue his statement on behalf of the TRP.  Public apologies were made.  The TRP for its part repeated its apologies on numerous occasions, before the Committee on NGOs and again quite recently in its last report.

The European Union  therefore finds the sanction requested by the Russian Federation out of all proportion to the actual criticisms levelled at the TRP.

There has been no obvious abuse by the TRP of its consultative status, nor has the latter engaged, in the terms of Resolution 1996/31, and I quote "in a pattern of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations".

Finally, Mr Chairman, regarding the actual content of Mr Idigov's statement, as far as the European Union is concerned, two main points should be emphasised: Mr Idigov's description of the worrying humanitarian situation in Chechnya and the final appeal for peace and the search for a negotiated political solution.

Mr Chairman,

For all of these reasons, the European Union opposes the draft decision of the Committee on NGOs recommending a three‑year suspension of the TRP.