The 10^th Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific Forum on National Human Rights Institutions (APF) concluded in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia on 26 August 2005, reached such a low point in NGO-NHRI relations that all members of the NGO Pre-Forum Consultation felt compelled to register their dissatisfaction by walking out en masse during the concluding session. 

Tempers were frayed from the outset. Following the presentation of the deliberations of the NGO Pre-Forum Consultation, NGO representatives, who had travelled thousands of miles at their own expense on the understanding that they could contribute to the strengthening of the work of national institutions, were instead sidelined at the whim of chairpersons who presided without any clue of the rules of procedure. If time permitted, NGOs were told, then perhaps they might get to say a few words. “Do you have to speak?” queried the Chair of one session. “Can’t you just circulate the written statement?” 

After all that groundwork… 

As is customary, the NGOs convened a Pre-Forum Consultation to provide collective input into the work of the APF in the spirit of constructive engagement. Members of up to 20 NGOs from Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, as well as members of various international NGOs, discussed issues on the APF’s agenda, and drafted oral statements on torture, internally displaced persons, the rights of disabled persons, migrant workers, human rights defenders and human rights education. Many of the recommendations were distilled into an opening statement, presented before the APF the following day. 

On the same day, the APF held its first day closed-door meeting. At the 8^th annual meeting of the APF in Kathmandu, it had been decided that a member of the NGO Pre-Forum Consultation would be invited to observe these proceedings. A polite message had been sent to the secretariat of the APF preceding the Mongolia meeting to reconfirm this, but no response was received. Then came the inexplicable statement that the secretariat thought an NGO representative was actually present at the closed-door meeting. The facts came out much later – that the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) was uncomfortable with the idea of an NGO presence at the closed meeting because it felt that certain information which had previously been discussed during a closed session had been used by Human Rights Features in an article to discredit them. The APF secretariat appeared to have accepted this without demur, whereas this accusation is entirely groundless. 

It can only be assumed that the article in question was one relating to a proposed study on torture by the Advisory Council of Jurists – the APF’s legal advisory body. The Indian NHRC had requested that any reference by the ACJ on the question of torture that derives from the Convention Against Torture not be applied to the NHRC. (see http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF124.htm). Why the Indian NHRC thought this piece of information was private is perplexing. This information was posted in the public domain as part of a summary of the meeting for the drafting of the ACJ’s terms of reference on torture, which took place in Seoul, South Korea, in 2004. It was picked up and highlighted by NGOs who wanted to draw attention to the disgraceful position taken by the Indian NHRC on the ACJ reference. 

The APF secretariat, for its part, chose to ignore the request of NGOs that the APF’s invitation to observe the closed session be honoured. 

Here come the hand-outs 

On the first morning the NGOs presented their opening statement, which was moderately well received but, as has been the case in previous years, there was no response and no means to indicate whether such recommendations would be followed up in any manner. The thematic discussions then ensued. It should be noted here that NGOs are not entitled to contribute to the general debate but may only give a presentation at the end of each thematic discussion. 

The first issue before the APF was that of human rights education. This constituted presentations by the national human rights institutions (NHRIs) of Fiji and Mongolia on the efforts to bring human rights into school curricula in their respective countries, and the New Zealand NHRI’s views on the role of the media. Whilst commendable, the very general nature of these presentations showed no sensitivity to the varying problems that different NHRIs face. This was a point that NGOs would like to have raised, had they been given the opportunity. Instead they were granted two minutes at the conclusion of the session, even though the agenda provided for ten. The NGOs nevertheless took the floor to propose certain substantive measures, which, as before received no feedback and elicited no noticeable interest from among the participants. 

The subject of internally displaced persons (IDPs) followed, in which various NHRIs detailed their efforts to protect the rights of IDPs. Nowhere was there a dialogue on how one NHRI may learn from another on dealing with this important issue. As time ticked away, the Chair allowed NHRIs to speak without any constraints whilst ignoring the time set aside for NGOs. The secretariat, rather than insisting that the Chair impose time limits and respect the participation of NGOs, actually asked the NGOs if they might forsake their presentation as time was running out.  The NGOs refused, and gave a truncated presentation to make a point about the alleged lack of time, hoping the Chair, and other Chairs after him would get the message. This did not happen. If other Commissioners – many having been former members of the NGO community themselves prior to taking seats on their respective NHRIs – noted the consistent sidelining of NGOs, they chose to remain quiet. 

The following morning the Advisory Council of Jurists presented its interim report on the subject of torture. Whilst NHRIs were able to ask questions on the content and means of implementation, NGOs were not invited to contribute. Thus, a valuable opportunity to strengthen the ACJ’s recommendations was lost. Clearly, the secretariat had not adequately impressed upon the Chairs that NGO inputs were vital and needed to be respected. The NGOs thus decided that they would forsake its statement on torture and distribute hard copies instead, in the hope that the time saved would be granted to NGOs to make a concluding statement. The secretariat agreed and assured the NGOs that they could present such a statement during the concluding session. 

Consequently, the NGO coalition drafted and agreed upon a brief concluding statement. However, as Chair of the final session, Justice A.S. Anand, Chairperson of the Indian NHRC, had apparently determined in advance that there would be no time for an NGO statement. Whether this was born out of malevolence or ignorance, the secretariat refused to correct him, and allowed his censoring to stand, despite their earlier assurances. The clampdown appeared definitive, and a public walkout followed.      

What was left unsaid 

For the record, the aborted Pre-Forum Consultation closing statement had expressed the hope “that the honourable members of the APF will be able to reflect on our suggestions” for improving the APFs role and methods of operation. These included: a fixed speaking time for NGOs on every agenda item, rather than the present ad hoc arrangement, and a recognition of such in the conclusions of the meeting; the creation of a time slot to question NHRIs and to discuss country specific problems and possible solutions; a formal response to contributions, whether through feedback or dialogue; a reiteration of the request for observer status at the closed-door meeting; and a recognition of the present status of the Nepal Human Rights Commission, which does not comply with the Paris Principles. 

The next step 

Both the Asia Pacific Human Rights Network (APHRN) and Forum Asia, the two major networks of national NGOs in the region, have decided to submit a note to their members in order to determine whether their continued participation in the APF is merited, or whether their resources could be better utilised elsewhere. Unless clear and formalised amendments to the working of the APF are forthcoming, future substantive NGO participation does not appear likely. This would have obvious repercussions for the legitimacy of the APF. 

The NGO community regrets this necessary review. To quote from the concluding statement that the NGOs had hoped to deliver – and which Forum members had “no time” to hear – the NGOs’ constructive engagement with the APF derived “from our strong conviction that the APF is the only regional platform of its kind, and that it has the capacity to uphold the high standards that it originally set for itself.” Most of those who had wished to see the APF project succeed would like to believe that this is still possible. Whether the APF feels up to restoring this trust remains to be seen.

 Human Rights Features