Following the suspension of the plenary session, civil society delegates met in the Didon Theatre to try to solve the impasse that had been reached over the human rights caucus statement. Saida Agrebi of Tunisia said the statement should say that all participating countries respect human rights rather than singling out Tunisia, and emphasized the need for an African to represent the caucus during the plenary. Other Tunisians concurred, with many of them dominating the first half of the discussion.
Ambassador Karklins, president of the Prepcom, then arrived and asked the group to resolve its differences. “We will give 15 minutes speaking time for NGOs. We cannot intervene in the decisionmaking process of NGOs, and we can give you time to sort out your internal questions, and I would ask Renate [Bloem] as your coordinator to give me a list of speakers at 12:40pm. The list should contain name, organization they represent, and speakers for their part should follow closely the rules of procedure… So therefore I will be very attentively following your intervention… and if I see that rules of procedure aren’t [followed] … I will intervene.”
Several speakers then noted that there is “extreme mistrust” between certain elements within the civil society family in terms of their position regarding the Tunisian government and human rights, and that it may be necessary to present both views, given them each time during the plenary speaking slot. Others suggested that the divide that exists within civil society should be acknowledged in the plenary for the sake of openness.
Rikke Frank Joergensen, co-chair of the human rights caucus, defended the process to date. “We followed the procedure that we’ve followed from the first phase of the summit,” she noted. She said that issues were discussed in yesterday’s civil society plenary, then people were invited to stay afterwards to help draft language. “The drafting group then decided on four speakers… including two African speakers, one on economic development and a woman from Tunisia on human rights.” Regarding the statement, she said it is consistent with statements the caucus had released in the past, and there is precedent to note any human rights issues in the host country, as had been the case in Geneva when there were problems with certain groups being allowed to speak and protest.
In the end, it appeared to be decided that there would be one speaker, a woman from Africa, who would leave out the language singling out Tunisia. There was no actual vote; while one was attempted, the Tunisian delegation overwhelmed the room with shouting and clapping. Additionally, the attempt at a vote was conducted without consistent translation into English, which meant many delegates were unable to participate or follow the proceedings.
As delegates left the room, a number of shouting matches broke out. The representative from the Tunisian Human Rights League called the apparent decision “a scandal,” with others shouting their opinion back and forth.
But the question still remains open; when civil society representatives spoke during the late morning plenary, just before lunch, the human rights caucus did not present their remarks, because it was clear that no democratic consensus had been reached on the issue. They will continue the debate later today, and hopefully strike some kind of agreement so they may present first thing tomorrow morning during the plenary session.