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

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi Rik and all,

As I told you already, and as I said in the CS plenary this morning, I 
completely agree with you on this, and I'm sure all members of the 
human rights caucus share with me this very simple and clear position: 
when one organization enters a system, it should respect its rules, and 
it is clear for all of us that RSF hasn't respected the rules.

But the statement proposed by the media and the human rights caucuses 
is not saying that RSF should be allowed to participate into WSIS as an 
organization with ECOSOC status. it only says, about the administrative 
decision made by the executive director of the secretariat of *this* 
summit, that: "The procedural reason given should not override the 
principle at the core of the Summit : an Information and Communication 
Society should have as its basis the respect for human rights and 
fundamental freedoms, notably freedom of expression and freedom of the 
press."

As explained by Alain Clerc in the CS plenary, when ECOSOC consultative 
status of RSF has been suspended, it was too late for RSF to request 
WSIS accreditation. This means that RSF could have been accredited, if 
it was not this delay. Thus, the decision remains in the hand of the 
secretariat. And, whether one likes or not RSF methods and practices, 
this is now a matter of principle, and of symbol.

A summit on the information society that allows the participation of 
governments that systematically censors medias but that doesn't allow 
the participation of one of the leading international groups defending 
those rights makes no sense.

Meryem


Le jeudi, 18 sep 2003, à 12:21 Europe/Paris, Rik Panganiban a écrit :

> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>