[WSIS CS-Plenary] HRIC denial of accreditation - Open Statement from the Human Rights Caucus

[Meryem Marzouki]

Dear all,

Please find below an open statement on HRIC denial of accreditation and
the general process of accreditation. This statement will be proposed by
the human rights caucus for adoption by the CS plenary this morning.
Best regards,
Meryem Marzouki
=======

Open Statement from the Human Rights Caucus
HRIC blocked from WSIS accreditation –
Call for procedural safeguards to avoid the reign of the arbitrary

September 22, 2005

Civil society organizations active in the WSIS process strongly condemn
the continuous blocking of Human Rights in China (HRIC) accreditation to
the WSIS process.

At the WSIS PrepCom-3 opening Plenary, the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) was able to block a vote on HRIC’s accreditation with a procedural
maneuver that revealed both the politicized nature of the process and
the adverse impact on the WSIS principles of building a
“people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented Information
Society.”

The WSIS Executive Secretariats list of recommended entities for
accreditation to the WSIS was introduced and approved by the PrepCom
without any discussion.  After questions and concerns raised by the U.S.
and E.U. delegations regarding why HRIC was not on the list of
recommended organizations, the Executive Secretariat responded that
although HRIC had been fully transparent in the application process, its
file was incomplete because it had not disclosed anonymous donors.  HRIC
had complied with all requests for supplemental information, including
providing an independent auditor’s letter confirming that no direct
governmental contributions were received. Yet, HRIC refused to disclose
the name of some of their individual donors, to protect them from
possible intimidation as well as other risks.

The PRC’s motion to raise a procedural objection to any discussion
concerning organizations not on the recommended list came after the U.S.
motion to accredit HRIC, and was followed by over an hour of debate
among country delegations.  Despite the PRC’s claims to be simply
raising a procedural issue in the interest of facilitating a move onto
“substantive” issues, it attacked HRIC by claiming it is “against
so-called NGOs with dubious governmental links” and described HRIC as a
“New York-based organization that has done nothing to promote human
rights in China.”

WSIS Executive Secretariat’s decision not to recommend HRIC for
accreditation, and China’s ability to block a vote on HRIC’s
accreditation in plenary raise serious and principal issues with regard
to civil society participation in the WSIS process.

Despite a 16 year record of participation in international processes
including UN treaty bodies, and the WTO, HRIC’s accreditation process
was subject to a far higher degree of scrutiny than other NGOs, and
sends an unfortunate signal of nontransparent and discriminatory
practice by the Executive Secretariat in handling applications for
accreditation from civil society, when they face government objection.
Also, the blocking of any substantive discussion of HRIC’s accreditation
sends a clear message that a single country holds the influence to
control which voices will be recognized on key policy issues affecting
the future of a democratic, open, and inclusive information society.

This reign of the arbitrary is unacceptable and calls for a revision of
existing mechanisms for accreditation, in order to ensure full and fair
participation of all civil society organizations in the WSIS process and
more generally in any UN Summit.
We therefore call for procedural safeguards to ensure that NGOs cannot be
excluded merely for political reasons:
- The list of all applications for accreditation should be made public;
- Any State objection to an application should be precisely motivated and
send also to the concerned applicant;
- The Summit Secretariat should make public the list of entities non
recommended for accreditation, accompanied by grounds for rejection;
Only such natural safeguards procedure could ensure transparency and
equal treatment.