General Assembly Session 58 meeting 44

The President

On 15 September 2003, a note by the secretariat was circulated as document A/57/CRP.5 in English only, containing basic information on regional and intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and business sector entities applying for accreditation to the high-level dialogue.

Mr. Andrabi (Pakistan)

The list of non-governmental organizations that have applied for accreditation to the high-level dialogue on financing for development was included in document A/57/CRP.5 of 9 September 2003. Among them was a non-governmental organization called International Human Rights Observers, Pakistan, which has not been included in the list contained in document A/58/L.6 which is before the General Assembly for consideration. My delegation would like to inquire about the reasons for the non-inclusion of this non-governmental organization in the list before the General Assembly.

The President

In response to the inquiry by the representative of Pakistan, may I state that document A/58/L.6 contains a list of non-governmental organizations which the President has submitted for accreditation to the High-Level Dialogue on Financing for Development.

Pursuant to paragraph 15 (b) of General Assembly resolution 57/250 of 20 December 2002, interested non-governmental organizations and business sector entities that are not in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council or were not accredited to the International Conference on Financing for Development shall apply to the General Assembly for accreditation following the accreditation procedure established during the International Conference on Financing for Development.

As mentioned in a footnote to that resolution, the accreditation procedure for the International Conference on Financing for Development is set out in General Assembly resolutions 55/245 B and 54/279, which Member States will recall was a no-objection procedure.

As this High-Level Dialogue has neither a bureau nor a preparatory committee, the President of the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session was obliged to provide the necessary information to the General Assembly directly, which he did in his letter of 7 May and 27 August 2003. In the relevant part, the President's letter indicated that, in the absence of any objection by 8 September 2003, he intended to submit the list to the General Assembly for approval. No Member State disputed the procedure set forth in President Kavan's letter. The President of the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session received a timely objection from one Member State in accordance with General Assembly resolution 57/250. The name of that organization has been removed from the list.

Mr. Andrabi (Pakistan)

I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for your explanation. My delegation would like to know the name of the delegation and the grounds given for the objection.

The President

The delegation of India objected, and the grounds for the objection are similar to those contained in the document which I circulated to the Assembly. I do not have a copy with me, but I would be quite happy to make this a document of this House.

In any event, I have been advised that I am not, in fact, required to divulge that information. But I think that, in the interests of transparency, I have communicated to the delegation of Pakistan all the information precedent to the President's arriving at that conclusion.

Mr. Andrabi (Pakistan)

Mr. President, my delegation appreciates the transparency with which you have conducted the business of the Assembly. We take note of the fact that the delegation of India has blocked the inclusion of this non-governmental organization (NGO) for having held a demonstration against India's illegal and brutal suppression of the right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The non-governmental organization, according to news reports, had demanded that the United Nations play an effective role in the resolution of the issue of Kashmir and for peace in South Asia.

We are disappointed, but not surprised, since it is the longstanding policy of India to stifle those voices that question its gross violations of human rights in Kashmir and elsewhere. As a matter of policy, India bars any international human rights organization from visiting Indian-occupied Kashmir or Gujarat, where last year the State machinery helped the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in carrying out the massacre of thousands of Muslims.

Let me be clear: Kashmir is not a part of India. It has never been. Security Council resolution 47 (1948) and 80 (1950) state categorically that the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people, expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

The United Nations and the international community recognize it as a disputed territory. The United Nations has a direct responsibility to help the Kashmiri people realize their right to self-determination.

According to operative paragraph 15 (b) of General Assembly resolution 57/250, the procedure adopted for accreditation of non-governmental organizations at the Monterrey Conference was to be replicated for the participation of non-governmental organizations in the High-Level Dialogue. The procedure for the Monterrey Conference, contained in paragraph 16 of the report of the Preparatory Committee (A/AC.257/6) of 23 March 2003, was adopted by the General Assembly, while resolution 54/279 mandated that, first, the application should be submitted to a committee composed of the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee; secondly, that the Bureau, and not a Member State, would decide, on a no-objection basis, regarding the accreditation of those non-governmental organizations; and thirdly, that the Bureau would inform only the Preparatory Committee.

That procedure did not give a Member State the right of veto. That right was limited to the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee, while the general membership, that is, the Preparatory Committee, was only to be informed.

In allowing India a veto to block the Pakistani NGO, a very dangerous precedent has been created. This can be used by any Member State in future to block the participation of any NGO in the activities of the United Nations.

My delegation attaches great importance to the International Conference on Financing for Development and its follow-up process. We do not want to undermine the high-level dialogue and will therefore not challenge the exclusion of that NGO from the list.

The President

I should like to make it clear, again in the interests of transparency, that this is a matter with respect to which the President ensured that he consulted his legal advisers, in the absence of both a preparatory committee and a bureau, and so the decision which was taken on the basis of the objection that was made was taken with the best legal advice available to me as President.

I wanted to make that point, because, as we talk about change and as we talk about doing things in a more transparent manner, I did not think that I should just rule this matter off without explaining to the General Assembly the procedure that was adopted. The comments made by the representative of Pakistan have been duly noted.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft decision A/58/L.6, entitled "Accreditation of non-governmental organizations to the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Development".

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to adopt draft decision A/58/L.6?

The President

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 104.