[WSIS CS-Plenary] accreditation of Human Rights in China

[Meryem Marzouki]

Dear Bertrand and all,

Of course, we will, specially since HRIC is a member of the HR caucus, 
and that we have closely followed this issue from the beginning. This 
is not the first time HRIC is denied accreditation at WSIS, but this 
time we have made 'progress' in that the issue was at least discussed 
in plenary.
But Milton and Tracey are right: this is not only a HR caucus issue, 
this concerns all civil society at WSIS. What happened to HRIC could 
happen to any of us, as soon as a governement delegation is willing to 
object. This has a name, and is called the reign of the arbitrary.
HRIC has basically been asked to do the impossible: bring the proof 
that they haven't received funding from government that haven't 
actually funded them. HRIC has however done that, by providing a letter 
of their financial auditor confirming that HRIC does not have direct 
government funding ! But what the Chinese government actually wanted is 
the list of anonymous INDIVIDUAL donors, which HRIC refuses to disclose 
to protect these people from intimidation or any other risk. As HRIC 
argued many times, governements cannot be anonymous donors, in any case.
Again, this could happen to any of us. This is the reason why we should 
all stand with HRIC. Not to mention the fact that, to my knowledge, the 
ES has not even made public the list of CS organizations which they 
haven't recommended for accreditation, not even mentionning that also 
reasons for non recommendations should be disclosed. This process then 
lacks the minimum of transparency.

HRIC representatives will have the opportunity to express themselves 
more in details during the HR caucus panel that will be held on 
Thursday Sept. 22 afternoon, 16:00-18:00 in Room XXII. HRIC is a member 
of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, an accredited 
NGO and a member of the HR caucus.

I hope that the whole CS at WSIS will support a common statement, and 
that this issue of HRIC denial of accreditation will be raised at the 
CS press conference.

Best,
Meryem

Le lundi, 19 sep 2005, à 16:56 Europe/Paris, Bertrand de La Chapelle a 
écrit :

> I cannot imagine that the Human Rights Caucus isn't already 
> considering preparing such a statement right away ?
>  
> Bertrand 
>
>  
> On 9/19/05, Tracey Naughton <tracey at traceynaughton.com> wrote:
>
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire 
> list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for 
> specific people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic 
> translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
>
> Milton et all,
>
> I was thinking the same thing last night. I prepared the
> accreditation request for the Media Institute of Southern Africa,
> when I worked there. While the submission was thoughtfully and
> carefully prepared I have no doubt at all that hours more work could
> have gone into it to ensure that all details of the organisation and
> its sources of income were included. This was not a matter of non-
> disclosure, but an approach of adequate disclosure to present the
> nature of work and main income sources of the organisation. The
> submission passed through without any further interrogation, let
> alone to the extent that Human Rights in China's submission is being
> examined.
>
> Clearly the Human Rights in China application has been singled out
> for particular and microscopic attention for political reasons.
>
> I think it would be appropriate to formulate a statement noting that
> the level of interrogation of this 'file' is not in proportion to
> that afforded to other 'files'.
>
> Tracey Naughton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>