Published by: World Tibet Network News Saturday, February 17, 1996

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Delegations are being asked whether they can accept the organizations recommended for accreditation as listed in Addendums 3 and 4, and the organizations not recommended for accreditation, as listed also in Addendum 4.

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. is concerned that the U.S.-based Tibetan Rights Campaign organization, which was initially listed as a recommended organization in Addendum 3, was subsequently moved to the negative list. At one point we were informed that the organization was being turned down on the grounds that it was not accredited for the Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women. While that is true, it is our belief, and one that was later confirmed by the Secretariat, that this in no way should imply automatic exclusion from the Habitat meeting. We were later given to understand that the organization was rejected on the grounds that its primary objective is not clearly relevant or seemed to be outside the substantive scope of the Conference.

Concerning relevance, the Tibetan Rights Campaign is in fact an active member of the U.S. Network for Habitat II. Among other things, this network provides a mechanism for member NGO's to provide input on the Global Plan of Action. Tibetan Rights Campaign is also a member of the Seattle Host Committee for the Seattle Town Meeting which serves as the local focal point for Habitat preparations. They are, in other words, actively involved in the U.S. local efforts to prepare for the Conference. Given the considerable efforts which this organization has already expended on behalf of preparations for Habitat, I find it hard to believe that the charge can be made that this organization is not, in a very substantive way, interested and involved in the work of the Conference.

We do not understand - and have not been presented with an(y) compelling reasons - on what grounds that organization was in the first instance considered to have presented sufficient evidence of its relevance, and yet was subsequently re-evaluated and found wanting. For that reason, we do not support its inclusion on the negative list.