[WSIS CS-Plenary] a view on the denial of accreditation of Rapporteurs Sans Frontieres

[Rik Panganiban]

Dear Friends,

Speaking in my personal capacity, I would like to express a view on the 
denial of accreditation to the WSIS of the media-rights group 
Rapporteurs Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders).  For those who 
do not know, during the high-level segment of the last session of the 
Commission on Human Rights, held in March 2003, RSF disrupted one of 
the meetings by throwing flyers into the assembly hall, denouncing the 
election as chair of the CHR a representative of the government of 
Libya. This was a planned act of civil disobedience, which resulted in 
their expulsion from the hall of those RSF representatives, and 
subsequently the suspension of their accreditation to ECOSOC for one 
year.

My understanding is that if an organization with ECOSOC consultative 
status has their accreditation suspended or revoked, they are not 
allowed to participate in other UN-sponsored fora.  Thus, on a 
legalistic level, the WSIS secretariat was within their rights to not 
allow this organization's representatives to be accredited to 
participate in the WSIS.

Civil society organizations should know some of the immediate results 
of RSF's actions.  While many human rights groups at the Commission on 
Human Rights were certainly in sympathy and agreement with the message 
RSF was communicating, several disagreed vociferously with their 
methods.  One direct effect of the RSF action was that every NGO was 
subject to extreme searches for the rest of the CHR, and prevented from 
carrying into meeting rooms of more than a handful of documents for 
fear that each group would stage another similar demonstration.

This was the first year that the Commission on Human Rights has ever 
held a high-level segment.  One important goal of the high-level 
segment was to bring more political weight and financial support for 
the work of the CHR, which in recent years has suffered from severe 
budget cuts effecting the basic functioning of the meeting, including 
meeting times, translations, meeting rooms, etc.  By disrupting the 
high-level segment, it will certainly be taken into consideration when 
the Commission decides whether to hold it again in subsequent years.

I am not opposed to civil disobedience, which has its place when other 
means of protest and negotiation have been exhausted.  But civil 
society organizations need to be clear about where they stand on 
whether or not we choose to respect the rules of participation.   RSF 
chose to do their action, I believe in full understanding of the 
immediate and longer-term effect of that action. However I think we 
need to be clear that NGOs in general have the responsibility to 
participate in a constructive and fair manner, in the same way that we 
expect governments to respect the rules of procedure.  If an NGO 
chooses to not follow those rules of procedure, there are consequences.

As we fight for our rights to participate effectively in the WSIS 
process, we need to be clear that we do not intend to simply shout at 
government representatives, to shower them with flyers, but that we 
want to engage constructively and respectfully in the negotiations.


Rik Panganiban
(in my personal capacity)