As we all know, NGO organizations in every country represent a mediating force between the general public and their government. The most important function they perform is to convey the needs, wants, concerns and critical views of their people to government, offering suggestions to correct shortcomings or improve existing conditions.
A central attribute of an NGO is its independence from government. This characteristic, when combined with popular appeal, is the guarantee of its authenticity and effectiveness. Independence does not mean that NGOs cannot receive assistance from their own or other governments, but rather acceptance of such assistance should not influence their autonomy and non-partisanship. Independence does not mean that NGOs can disregard the existing judicial norms and consider themselves beyond the law, but rather it is to engage in legitimate work and be free to interact with all interested individuals, civic groups and each other without fear of government intimidation. When NGOs pursue their goals in a peaceful manner, governments have no right to interfere with their activities.
Some governments are suspicious of NGOs, do not tolerate their advocacy or educational projects and deny them the opportunity to organize. In a number of countries security forces arrogate to themselves the right to approve the qualifications of NGO organizers and administrators. I can illustrate this point by describing my own experience. Some years ago I joined a number of human rights advocates in Iran to establish the Human Rights Defense Center. In the past three years we have tried to register this organization with Iran’s official organs, but they have repeatedly denied our request. During this period, the Center has become a member of the International Federation for Human Rights and was the recipient of the 2003 Human Rights Award from the French National Commission of Human Rights and I was personally awarded the Nobel Price for Peace. Yet, the Islamic Republic of Iran, without offering any reason and in violation of its own laws, has refused to grant recognition to the Human Rights Defense Center.
In societies where governments obstruct the work of human rights NGOs, international support for NGO organizers and sustained pressure on the state to respect their independence is a significant step towards democratic progress. The United Nations is in the best position to do this. In fact, we should begin to evaluate the laws of a country and the conduct of its officials in relationship to their impact on national NGOS and treat any intrusive regulation or limitation on their activities as a violation of human rights.
Another method undemocratic governments use to undermine the credibility and effectiveness of NGOs is to use the name for groups of their own creation. Members of such government controlled NGOs are then sent to international gatherings to issue false reports and raise irrelevant questions in order to distract public attention from the dismal human right record of those in power. Such groups, which are in fact government NGOs known as GONGOs, actually present the agenda of the autocratic state while pretending to be non-partisan and by doing so, prevent the true voice of the people to reach the international community.
The idea of the United Nations is based on the cooperation of governments and the framers of the Charter assumed that governments represent their people. But we know that this is not always the case. The existence of this contradiction or falsehood in the world organization is a major reason for its failure to live up to its original promise.
Mr President,
I would like now to make some comments on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. As we all know, too often those who serve on the Commission are themselves violators of human rights. Some have not signed or ratified United Nations Conventions Against Torture and Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I wish to add my voice to those who question the appropriateness of allowing such governments to evaluate the human rights records of others and strongly support the Secretary General reform proposal in this regard. I would also suggest that international Human Rights organizations such as Amnesty International, International Federation for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch become voting members of the new body that will replace the Human Rights Commission. For these international NGOs can act without the fear of government that dissidents in undemocratic states have to contend with. It is becoming increasingly evident that enduring peace and protection of human rights require international oversight on the governments that use their power to prevent opposition groups’ participation in the affairs of their societies.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen :
I fully understand the difficulties facing the reform of the United Nations. I am aware that a number of powerful governments do not want to see the decision-making mechanism of the UN to become more democratic. I am aware that to some observers my suggestions sound like idealistic dreams, but the challenges we have to meet require us to express our ideals while acting in a pragmatic manner. We all know that significant human accomplishments often begin with a dream.
In the hope of better days,
thank you for listening