CEIRPP meeting – Summary record

COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS

OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 115th MEETING

Held at Headquarters, New York,

on Thursday, 21 March 1985, at 11 a.m.

Chairman:  Mr. SARRE (Senegal)

CONTENTS

Adoption of the agenda

Report of the Seminar for NGOs on the Question of Palestine, Geneva, 4-5 March 1985

Asian Seminar, Beijing, 22-26 April 1985

Asian Symposium for NGOs, New Delhi, 1-3 May 1985

Latin American Seminar, Georgetown, 17-21 June 1985

North American Seminar/Symposium, New York, 8-12 July 1985

African Symposium for NGOs, Dakar, August 1985

Other matters

 This record is subject to correction.

 Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this document to the Chief, Official Records Editing Section, Department of Conference Services, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza.

 Any corrections to the record of this meeting and of other meetings will be issued in a corrigendum.

The meeting was called to order at 11.40 a.m.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. The agenda was adopted.

REPORT OF THE SEMINAR FOR NGOs ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE, GENEVA, 4-5 MARCH 1985

2. The CHAIRMAN said that the draft report prepared by the participants in the Seminar had been distributed to the members of the Committee in English and French only. The final version of the report would be submitted by the Interim Co-ordinating Committee of Non-Governmental Organizations as soon as possible. He therefore suggested that the report should be considered at a later date and that the Working Group should in the meantime be invited to consider the recommendations made by the NGOs.

3. It was so decided.

ASIAN SEMINAR, BEIJING, 22-26 APRIL 1985

4. The CHAIRMAN drew attention to Working Paper 6/Rev.2, which contained a list of panelists already approved by the Committee and invited by the Secretariat and a list of additional nominations for panelists to be selected by the Committee.

5. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that, of those already invited to participate in the Seminar, Mr. Cook (Australia) and Mrs. Clark (New Zealand) would not be able to attend. Mr. McIntosh (Australia) and Mr. MacIntyre (New Zealand), whose names appeared in the list of additional nominations, had both indicated that they would, however, be available. He hoped that the Committee would approve the substitutions.

6. He welcomed the nomination of Mr. Al-Khatib by the Syrian Arab Republic, included in the list of panelists yet to be selected by the Committee. The Committee might invite him to participate in Panel 1 or Panel 3, or to participate without specifying a panel.

7. No invitation had yet been sent to a penalist from Japan. It would be advisable to address the invitation to Mr. Itoh, who was an eminently qualified person to participate in the Seminar, with the suggestion that if he was himself unable to attend he should select one of the others on the list.

8. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that the representative of the PLO had expressed approval of the panelist proposed by the Syrian Arab Republic and had made certain proposals of his own. He wondered whether all members and observers could make proposals for amending Working Paper 6/Rev.1, and what working method the Committee would adopt for its consideration.

9. The CHAIRMAN said that the additional nominations for panelists to be selected by the Committee were clearly open to consideration by the Committee and subject to its approval. It would, however, be difficult to accept the addition of new names to the list because of the limited amount of time at the Committee's disposal and

because of the financial constraints involved. It had previously been agreed that a panelist from Japan was to be invited to the Beijing Seminar.

10. Mr. SIMENI (Nigeria) said that his delegation was favourably disposed towards the proposals made by the observer for the PLO. There was no alternative but to accept the substitutions proposed if the participants were to be informed in time for them to make the necessary arrangements.

11. Mr. DEEN (Malaysia) said that he would like to inform the Committee that the panelist from Malaysia had, in fact, confirmed that he would participate in the Asian Seminar.

12. The CHAIRMAN said that, if he heard no objection, he would take it that the Committee agreed to the proposal of the observer for the PLO that Mr. McIntosh (Australia) and Mr. MacIntyre (New Zealand) should participate in the Seminar in the place of Mr. Cook (Australia) and Mrs. Clark (New Zealand).

13. It was so decided.

14. The CHAIRMAN said that the observer for the PLO had suggested that the invitation to a Japanese panelist should be addressed to Mr. Itoh and that, if he was not himself available, he might choose a suitable replacement. The three other names appearing in the list might be conveyed to Mr. Itoh and, if none of the three persons was available, he might suggest another panelist.

15. The panelist nominated by the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, who had the support of the observer for the PLO, might participate in Panel 1.

16. If he heard no objection, he would take it that the Committee agreed with those arrangements and that it wished to adopt Working Paper 6/Rev.2, as amended in the light of the proposals made.

17. It was so decided.

18. The CHAIRMAN said that lengthy consultations had taken place on the composition of the Committee's delegation to the Asian Seminar. It had been decided, subject to the Committee's approval, that the delegation would consist of the Chairman, the Rapporteur, a representative of the PLO and a representative of Malaysia.

19. The delegations of the German Democratic Republic, India, Romania, Pakistan, Tunisia and Yugoslavia had also expressed interest in attending the Seminar. It was proposed that representatives of India and Romania should attend the Asian Symposium for NGOs to be held at New Delhi. Because of the financial constraints, representatives of the German Democratic Republic, Pakistan, Tunisia and Yugoslavia could attend the Asian Seminar as members of the delegations of other United Nations committees, such as the Council for Namibia, the Special Committee on decolonization and the Special Committee against Apartheid. Thus, all those delegations that had expressed interest in participating in the Asian Seminar would be able to do so.

20. Mr. TARASYUK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that his delegation would like to reaffirm its position that the composition of delegations from the Committee to participate in the various activities that it organized should, to the extent possible, take account of the principle of equitable geographical

representation.

21. Mr. FAREED (Pakistan) said he had understood that the Committee's delegation was to consist of five members, while the Chairman had mentioned only four.

22. The CHAIRMAN said that the criteria that had guided the choice of members of the delegation had included the principle of equitable geographical representation. It had also been decided that ambassadors should have priority over more junior members of missions. For those and other reasons the officers of the Committee had supported the candidature of Malaysia.

23. There were indeed five places on the delegation. It had been agreed, taking account of equitable geographical representation, to include the representative of the German Democratic Republic. Pakistan, Tunisia and Yugoslavia were also members of other United Nations committees that had always participated in the Committee's activities. It had therefore been proposed that they could attend the Asian Seminar on behalf of those committees and that their costs should be charged against the budgets of those committees. Since India and Romania had been selected to participate in the Asian Symposium for NGOs at New Delhi, it had been hoped that they would not press for inclusion in the delegation to be sent to Beijing.

24. Mr. FAREED (Pakistan) said that Pakistan, Tunisia and Yugoslavia seemed to have been left out of the Beijing Seminar, and he asked the Chairman whether he would make recommendations to the committees to which Pakistan, Tunisia and Yugoslavia belonged to consider nominating those three member countries as participants in the Asian Seminar at Beijing.

25. Mr. KAABACHI (Tunisia) asked the Chairman whether he had contacted the committees of which Pakistan, Yugoslavia and his delegation were members.

26. The CHAIRMAN said that he intended to send letters to those committees explaining the situation and asking them to consider the Committee's request that Pakistan, Tunisia and Yugoslavia be represented at the Seminar.

27. Mr. BUSCH (German Democratic Republic) asked whether the Chairman was going to propose his delegation as a candidate for representation at the Seminar.

28. The CHAIRMAN said that he would consult with the delegation of the German Democratic Republic after the meeting.

29. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) asked whether the Committee could be apprised of the locale and manner of organization of the Beijing Seminar.

30. Mr. YOGASUNDRAM (Chief, Division for Palestinian Rights) said that the Seminar would be held 20 kilometres from the centre of Beijing at a location selected by the Chinese authorities.

31. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) asked whether the Seminar would be open to the public, to universities and to the press.

32. The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee would give the Seminar as much publicity as possible.

33. Mr. DEEN (Malaysia) asked whether States Members of the United Nations and NGOs had been invited to the Seminar.

34. The CHAIRMAN said that it was the usual practice of the Committee to extend invitations to all States Members of the United Nations, and that those States were free to send, at their own expense, representatives to the Committee's seminars. However, in the past, NGOs had not participated.

35. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that he had just that day received a reply from Chairman Arafat, who had indicated that he would send his personal envoy to represent him at the Beijing Seminar.

ASIAN SYMPOSIUM FOR NGOs, NEW DELHI, 1-3 MAY 1985

36. The CHAIRMAN said that the agenda of the Asian Symposium for NGOs, to be held at New Delhi from 1 to 3 May 1985 would be the same as that of the Beijing Seminar, with an additional item relating to co-operation between NGOs and the United Nations, and the role of the United Nations. It had also been decided that the list of panelists should include a number of experts who had attended the Beijing Seminar and that the last item should be taken up by a representative of the Committee and a representative of the Interim Co-ordinating Committee of NGOs.

37. Mr. YOGASUNDRAM (Chief, Division for Palestinian Rights) said that some nominations for panelists had already been received. Syria had nominated Dr. Husam Al-Khatib and the PLO had nominated Mr. Shafiq Al-Hout. At an earlier meeting, the Committee had invited the Interim Co-ordinating Committee of NGOs to nominate a panelist, and, at its meeting at Geneva in March, that Committee had selected Mr. Donald Betz. The Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Mr. Mohammed Farid Zarif of Afghanistan, had agreed to be a panelist. So far, the Committee had decided on four panelists and had yet to select another three if there were to be two panelists for each panel (with the exception of Panel 2 – dealing with the PLO – which would have one panelist). Nominations were needed for one panelist for Panel 1 and two for Panel 3.

38. In connection with the Asian Symposium, the Division had tried very hard to increase its list of NGOs in Asia by asking the parent bodies of some of those organizations for lists of the NGOs affiliated with them in the Asian region. The Division was still receiving replies from those parent bodies. Since time was short, he asked whether the Committee could invite NGOs as observers to the Asian Symposium; those NGOs would not necessarily participate in the Symposium with the other NGOs expressly invited by the Committee. He suggested that the Committee consider inviting those NGOs which were in the Asian region as represented by the countries of the Asian Group.

39. Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that the Committee had already laid down the guidelines for inviting NGOs and that the first condition was that they should subscribe a priori to the aims, work, recommendations of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. For the purpose of participation in the Asian Symposium, the Committee should consider as Asian those countries which belonged to the Asian Group. In that way, the Committee would not have to create its own conditions and prerequisites. With regard to the Symposium and its panelists, he suggested that a panelist from East Asia should be nominated in order to cover a wider spectrum of opinion. He also asked whether NGOs from Cyprus or Turkey had been invited.

40. Mr. PHEDONOS-VADET (Cyprus) said that Turkey participated in the Asian Group but for election purposes it was in the Western European Group. In the view of his delegation, Turkey should be considered as part of the Western European Group in the Committee.

41. Miss KUNADI (India) asked the secretariat of the Committee how many acceptances to the New Delhi Symposium had been received so far and what was the number expected, since that information would facilitate preparations at New Delhi.

42. The CHAIRMAN said that, at the end of the meeting, the secretariat of the Committee would provide the representative of India with a list of NGOs which had agreed to participate in the Symposium.

43. Mr. HAMMAD (Observer for the United Arab Emirates) said that the regional groups of the United Nations were in a peculiar situation, since some States in a certain region were members of different regional groups, depending on the matters with which those groups dealt. In the view of his delegation, the Committee should adopt the geographical concept as the criterion for recognizing membership in a regional group.

44. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that his delegation was concerned about the Committee's reliance on the geographical criterion with respect to membership in the Asian Group since the Asian region included a racist regime. If the geographical concept was followed, the Committee might one day be compelled to invite organizations or an entity demanding to be present to disrupt the work of the Group. He would accept the geographical concept provided that invitations were addressed only to the members of the Asian Group as it was constituted in New York.

45. The CHAIRMAN suggested that, in the interests of impartiality, the classification used by the United Nations for regional economic commissions might be adopted.

46. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) pointed out that the same problem would arise with that approach. There was a certain ECWA member country that sometimes preferred to be considered a part of Africa and sometimes a part of Asia, depending on which suited its interests best.

47. Mr. TARASYUK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) suggested that the question of participation should be referred to the Working Group for a solution.

48. Mr. KAABACHI (Tunisia) questioned whether the Committee had the right to redefine the concept of regional groups. He agreed with the proposal of the observer for the PLO that the definition of regional groups used by the United Nations in New York should be applied.

49. The CHAIRMAN suggested that, in inviting NGOs, to the New Delhi symposium, it might be more realistic, to take account, firstly, of the regional groups as defined by the United Nations in New York and then of the regional economic commissions.

50. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that such an approach would not solve the problem with regard to Egypt. Egypt must decide once and for all where it belonged geographically.

51. Mr. FAREED (Pakistan) observed that, if the Committee followed the Chairman's suggestion, members of ECWA, ESCAP and the Asian Group as defined in New York would be invited to participate in the Symposium. Since Egypt was a member of ECA and the African Group, it appeared that it would be automatically excluded.

52. Mr. SHEHATA (Observer for Egypt) pointed out that, as an Afro-Asian country, Egypt enjoyed an unique historical and geographical position. Indeed, it was Egypt that had hosted the first Afro-Asian solidarity meeting. As a member of both ECWA and ECA, Egypt had the right to participate not only in African but also in Asian economic activities. Its right to participate in Asian activities in general had been recognized long ago, and, if that right was called into question now, the lists of participants for both the New Delhi Symposium and the Beijing Seminar would have to be revised since they included the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization, the Arab Lawyers Federation and the United Nations Association of Egypt, all of which were based in Egypt. The Egyptian Government had, moreover, been invited to the Beijing Seminar. The overriding criterion for participation by non-governmental organizations must be support for the Palestinian cause.

53. The CHAIRMAN said that, while he sympathized with the concerns expressed by the observers for the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Syrian Arab Republic, he believed that non-governmental organizations which supported the Committee's ideals should be invited to participate in the Symposium in order to ensure that as many such organizations as possible participated actively in its work. If he heard no objection, he would take it that the Committee decided to follow that approach.

54. It was so decided.

55. The CHAIRMAN announced that the Committee delegation to the New Delhi Symposium would consist of the Committee's Chairman and Rapporteur and the representatives of India, Romania and the PLO. If he heard no objection, he would take it that the Committee decided to send such a delegation.

56. It was so decided.

LATIN AMERICAN SEMINAR, GEORGETOWN, 17-21 JUNE 1985

57. The CHAIRMAN reminded those present that it was time to form the names of possible panelists for the Latin American Seminar. The Committee delegation to the seminar would consist of the Committee's Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the representatives of Cuba, Guyana (as host country), Hungary and the PLO. If he heard no objection, he would take it that the Committee decided to send such a delegation.

58. It was so decided.

NORTH AMERICAN SEMINAR/SYMPOSIUM, NEW YORK, 8-12 JULY 1985

59. The CHAIRMAN recalled that, at an earlier meeting, it had been suggested that, of the five days allocated to the North American Seminar/Symposium, the first two days should be devoted to the Seminar, which would also be open to NGOs, and the remaining three days to the meeting of the NGOs themselves. If the Committee decided to adopt that suggestion, the Division for Palestinian Rights could inform NGOs accordingly. The Working Group would meet subsequently to discuss the details of the two meetings.

60. It was so decided.

AFRICAN SYMPOSIUM FOR NGOs, DAKAR, AUGUST 1985

61. The CHAIRMAN announced that the Government of Senegal had proposed that the Symposium be held from 5 to 7 August. If he heard no objection, he would take it that the Committee decided to agree to those dates.

62. It was so decided.

OTHER MATTERS

63. The CHAIRMAN drew the Committee's attention to a report issued by the Department of Public Information (DPI) detailing activities organized by United Nations Information Centres on 29 November 1984 to mark the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

64. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that the DPI report did not reflect adequately the activities organized by the international community to observe the International Day of Solidarity and confined itself to activities held in places where there were Information Centres. The Information Centre at Beirut, for instance, also covered Syria and the Gulf States yet the latter were not mentioned. The report thus minimized the importance of the observation of the International Day. The Committee must draw the attention of the Under-Secretary-General for Public Information to that omission.

65. Mr. EL-SAID (Department of Public Information) explained that the document in question was an internal DPI document and intended only as a very brief summary of the reports received thus far from Information Centres. The accompanying letter made that clear. The original reports received from Information Centres were available in DPI for consultation.

66. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) suggested that the Committee should give DPI more time to obtain reports from all United Nations Information Centres, especially on the press coverage and ceremonies organized for the International Day – in the Arab countries in particular – and request it to submit a final report when all such information became available.

67. The CHAIRMAN took note of the suggestion made by the observer for the Syrian Arab Republic.

The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m.