On Transnational Radical Party

104. at its 736th and 73rd meeting, on 15 and 18 May, the Committee had before it a letter from the delegation of the Russian Federation, informing the Chairman of the NGO Committee, that Transnational Radical Party (TRP), a non-governmental organization with general consultative status with the Council, had accredited a representative of the Chechen separatists and terrorists, who was given the floor at the 56th session of the Commission on Human Rights and identified himself as a "representative of the President of Chechenya in Europe and to the United Nations", at the 56th session of the Commission on Human Rights. In a letter to the Chairman of the NGO Committee, the delegation of the Russian Federation stated that this individual was propagating, on behalf of the TRP, ideas that were completely incompatible with the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. By offering its banner to those who were responsible for widespread taking of hostages, slave labor and slave trade, burglaries,

torture and summary executions, the TRP seriously violated its consultative relations with the ECOSOC, as stipulated in paragraph 57 a) of ECOSOC res. 1996/31. The letter stated that the study of other activities of TRP showed that the recent incident in Geneva was not the sole violation by the organization of the regulations governing the relationship between the United Nations and NGOs. In its quadrennial report of 9 May 2000, TRP mentioned that, since its affiliation with the Council, it had followed issues related to international drug trafficking. The letter stressed that TRP promoted the legalization of drugs by launching civil disobedience campaigns, distributing drugs, and denouncing anti-drug legislation.

105. The Russian delegation requested that, in line with ECOSOC res. 1996/31, TRP had abused its consultative status and requested that the Committee take action to withdraw its consultative status with ECOSOC from the organization. The organization was requested by the Committee to provide a written response to the complaint circulated by the Russian Federation at the next meeting of the Committee in June 2000.

106. At its 759th meeting, on 21 June 2000, the Committee had before it the response submitted by TRP on the complaint against it. In its response, TRP recognized to have accredited Mr. Idigov, from Chechnya who spoke about gross and systematic human rights violations, the right to self-determination, and the need to end conflict through negotiations. He also called for respect for the peace agreement reached between the government of the Russian Federation and representatives of the Chechen government in 1997. Mr. Idigov also recalled that President Mashkadov, his government and parliament of the Republic were legitimately elected under international supervision of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). To TRP's knowledge, Mr. Idigov was neither a terrorist nor had he ever participated in such activities. TRP recognized that violations of human rights had been perpetrated on both sides in the conflict in Chechnya; however Mr. Idigov has consistently called for peace and an end to vio

lence. This is the reason why he was sent to Geneva. TRP was dedicated to the Gandhian principle of non-violence and it would be unthinkable for the organization to knowingly accredit a terrorist.

107. The letter submitted by TRP stressed that there was no evidence of any proceeds coming to it from the illicit drug trade and it had never supported the free circulation of psychoactive and psychotropic substances. In fact, it had always supported the need to prevent the diffusion of these substances and to remedy the illegal liberalization of the drug market and the civil, political and social consequences of the deficiencies in current prohibitionist legislation. In addition, TRP underlined that the organization's drug-related activities at the United Nations had always been in conformity with the rules and regulations guiding its consultative status.

108. At its 759th, 760th and 763rd meetings, the Committee heard several delegations on this issue. The representative of Russia noted that TRP, in violation of basic principles contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as other relevant international instruments, waged a campaign against prevention of paedophilia and child pornography on "Internet". In addition, the representative of Russia stressed that in reality TRP was not a non-governmental organization, but a political organization. One Committee member pointed out that TRP has admitted to its misconduct and had apologized for it. His government did not share the drug policy proposed by the organization, but other European States did. Advocating the legalization of drugs was not a violation of resolution 1996/31. The member asked whether the organization advocated illegal trafficking of drugs and expressed the opinion that the Committee should be provided with evidence of this as well as evidence that the organization was dealing

with paedophilia and child pornography.

109. A number of delegations felt the organization's response was satisfactory. Some others believed that an apology was not sufficient, particularly if the organization was guilty of committing such acts as those mentioned by the delegation of the Russian Federation.

110. The representative of TRP responded to the questions posed by the Committee. He reaffirmed that Mr. Idigov, the representative accredited by the organization, never sided with any separatist group. He had been one of the leaders of the negotiating team, along with the Russian Government, that have reached the peace accord in 1997. The Chechen Platform never supported secession or independence for any provinc in any part of the world. Regarding the organization's focus on drugs, the representative confirmed the position of his organization mentioned in the letter addressed to the Committee. He stated that TRP's policies were aimed at reform of drug laws as well as the fight in international crime and reform. By criticizing anti-drug laws, TRP might have given the wrong impression. On the paedophilia issue, TRP's representative said that that his organization had co-organized a conference on paedophilia with the European Parliament in 1998 with victims, witnesses and journalists among the participants. TR

P had organized another conference on that issue on the Internet. The organization emphasized that they do not support paedophilia.

111. A number of delegations questioned the website of the organization. One delegation said that the site gave direct links to clandestine organization that threatened the sovereignty of his country and wandered if it was the policy of NGOs to conduct such activities. Another representative found an article on the site that "threatened to bring down the regime of Communist China". In addition the article mentioned that the search for freedom in that country meant that the Communist Party must me overthrown. He wondered whether the organization was involved with any organization that sought to topple a member state. Other delegations questioned whether TRP had legislative capacities. A third Committee member referred to a number of "resolutions" and references on the website of the organization regarding secessionist insurgencies in India. He asked the representative of the organization to clarify its attitude in relation to this. The representative of the organization responded that he was not aware of such

references on the website. The same Committee member stated that such references/resolutions were not based on facts and reflected the organization's lack of respect for the principles of the Charter.

112. The representative of the organization responded that no member of the organization had ever run for public office. Individuals who joined the organization never used its platform to run for public offices. Member of the Italian Parliament did belong to the organization, however, accreditation and official status was decided on a case-by-case basis by the Board of Directors. If individuals chose to violate the organization's policy of non-violence, it usually distanced itself from them. On the website issue, he stressed that the organization did not support secessionism or overthrowing of a government through violence in any specific region of the world.

113. At its 763rd meeting, on 23 June one of the Committee members stated that he understood that there was a very strong desire within the Committee to take a decision on the withdrawal of consultative status by consensus. However, if consensus was not possible in the case in question, he suggested that the Committee should vote for a three-year suspension of the organization's consultative status.

114. The representative of the Russian Federation said that it requested the withdrawal of status of the organization, as the NGO had violated the principles regulating its relationship with the United Nations, however, it will join the consensus and support suspension for three years of the consultative status o the organization. The action would send a clear message that all NGOs should comply with the principles of resolution 1996/31 and with the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

115. The Committee recommended the suspension of the consultative status of the organization for three years.

116. The representative of France said that ECOSOC res. 1996/31, which regulated the relationship between non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Council and the United Nations, was explicit and that the measure of suspension was a severe one our of proportion to the misdemeanor.

117. The representative of Germany made the following statement:

"First of all, Germany would like to fully subscribe to what the French delegation just has said. Mr. Chairman, you will have noted that may delegation joined the consensus about the suspension of the consultative status of TRP. Generally, I would like to express that we joined the consensus with reservations. We do not think that the case of TRP has been exhaustively discussed in this Committee. Especially, we had no opportunity to verify any information on the new allegations which were put forward only yesterday.

My delegation wants also to state that TRP offered its apologies concerning the misbehavior of one of their delegates, both in writing and orally. Furthermore, my delegation wants to share our view with the other delegates that the representative of the NGO answered very well and convincingly to the questions in this Committee. Under this circumstances, the punishment of suspending the consultative status for 3 years seems very harsh to us.

We do share most delegations' views, however, that this Committee should act by consensus decisions. We do acknowledge the flexibility of some delegations in this issue. It is in light and after consultations with all parties concerned that we joined consensus. We do it hesitantly though."

118. The representative of the United States made the following statement:

"My delegation wishes to state that we dissociate ourselves from consensus on this matter. We believe that the penalty of three years is too harsh. The organization apologized in writing for errors in Mr. Idigov's statement and a representative has come before us and apologized once again. The representative of the Transnational Radical Party has also acknowledged errors in other information discussed before the Committee, and ha taken corrective actions to resolve those errors.

Regarding the portion of the complaint that alleges that the TRP is involved in drug trafficking, we believe that the organization does not engage in what one may describe as a profit motivated criminal enterprise. Their activities, though unusual, are best described as publicity stunts."

119. An observer delegation noted that it did not appear that the complaints against TRP constituted a violation of the ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. The purpose of having NGOs in consultative status was to afford them an opportunity to make statements, however critical of Member States they might be.

120. Another observer delegation questioned whether there had been a pattern of abuses by the organization in violation of the principles of the Charter.