This was cut and pasted, because I don't think the post will last long over at WOL.
How would you answer this newbie?
Torontonian
N E W B I E
posted 10-09-2001 10:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you have heard about the issue with the UN's Dept of Public Information and the NGO status. If you have not, i wont bother going into detail. in fact, dont even bother reading on. but since the news seems to be making the rounds on the net and a few news agencies, you may have come across the info or will shortly. i would just like to offer my thoughts on it. since there is no response from the society yet, this is simply my speculative conclusions based on my own research. i hope that this is an appropriate sort of post to make. i think it would be helpful to share useful points.
Clearly an organization can be legally registered with a governmental office without necessarilly supporting that government. After all, the idea of opposing political parties are incorported right into the governmental structures of most democratic systems that i am aware of. So the mere fact of being associated or registered in and of itself is not an issue.
The question then becomes the nature of the mutual agreement in the association. Much is made of the words on the UN DPI-NGO site outlining the requirements for associative status:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the ideals of the UN Charter
Have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UN charter states that the UN has the following four aims:
* to maintain international peace and security
* to develop friendly relations among nations
* to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights
* to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations
In principle, you no doubt agree with each of these 4 goals. The society does as well, particularly the third, though obviously disagreeing with methods and ultimate solutions. They are well within their right to oppose methods and ultimate goals while stating that they agree with the principles. That is not being two-faced or deceptive at all. Many organizations which are full-fledged members of the UN clearly disagree with the UN's methods many times (most notable the USA) while agree with the principles. And the associative status with the DPI is far from full-fledged membership. It is not membership at all.
Later on the DPI-NGO site contains the following text, to which much attention has also been directed:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the founding days of the United Nations in San Francisco, NGOs have made valuable contributions to the international community by drawing attention to issues, suggesting ideas and programmes, disseminating information and mobilizing public opinion in support of the UN and its Specialized Agencies. Association with DPI constitutes a commitment to that effect. Associated NGOs are expected to devote a portion of their information programmes to promoting knowledge of the United Nations' principles and activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the portion regarding 'mobilizing public opinion in support of the UN' is simply a statement of what many NGOs have done, not a requirement. When describing the required level support of an associated NGO in the next sentence, it again uses the term 'UN principles' which we would all agree, im sure, that the Society is active in supporting and promoting knowledge of. This does not constitute a compromise of Christian neutrality at all.
It appears that of the benefits received by an NGO that seeks associative status with the DPI, the only one that the society has any need for is access to the NGO Resource Centre, including libraries, video archives and press releases. Indeed, recent publications make many reference to UN studies and statistics and include many photos from the UN archives. No secret is made of this fact. It seems to me then, a fair analogy would be to obtaining a library card from a government-run library. You get access to the library. You likely agree to certain rules of conduct to do so. Perhaps you agree not to use the library information for purposes that are counter to the ideals of the government, like publishing literature that fosters hate or sedition. This in no way constitutes support of the government that operates the library, does it?
This seems a non-issue to me. Am i missing something? i would appreciate further comments, perhaps from people more familiar with the facts.
T.O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------