On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Disclosure, sure, and accountability to a popular base rather than
> program officers, yes. But credentialing by government, after proof
> of acting responsibly, sounds like a disaster. Just the kind of
> "licensing" scheme that gets U.S. human rights officers all exercised.
The point was not credentialling for their right to exist but for their right to formal participation in global political bodies. The point was that some get to participate now, but the credentialling is informal. It is not unreasonable to require that NGOs prove that they represent popular forces rather than specific moneyed interests before they get a formal voice in ushc affairs. I think their is an understandable distrust by some third world nations that corporate and foundation-funded NGOs are assuming the right to speak on bhalf of their citizens. While I politically challenge the legitimacy of many of those third world governments (as well as first world governments) to speak for their citizenns, that legitimacy can only be challenged by NGOs proving their mass base and popular support.
The elite may have different and no doubt nefarious purposes in the proposal, but the result could be less to empower the mainstream NGOs than to compromise them. It is a great frustration to many conservatives that union democracy lawsuits usually lead not to more moderate unions but to more militant ones.
-- Nathan Newman