The Committee members include countries infamous for NGO harassment and intimidation such as China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, and Venezuela.
On May 29, 2014, the Committee wrapped up its 2014 regular session at UN Headquarters in New York. During this session the Committee again postponed applications of a Muslim feminist NGO and an organization that represents individual prisoners of conscience.
The Committee postponed the consideration of Women Living under Muslim Laws based in the UK after both China and Morocco asked trumped up "additional questions." The Chinese UN delegate wanted to know "how the organization worked with a Hong Kong partner." Morocco's UN delegate objected to the NGO "answering questions to specific countries, not to the Committee as a whole" and inquired about "details of the organization's activities and case studies in Europe and North America."
Further, China blocked decision on Freedom Now from the United States, because the Chinese delegate wasn't clear on the "theoretical definition of prisoners of conscience."
In addition, the UN NGO Committee rejected outright the application from the Youth Coalition for Sexual and Reproductive Rights from Canada, an organization that advocates the rights of LGBT individuals. The Coalition is "an international organization of young people committed to promoting adolescent and youth sexual and reproductive rights" including "identifying issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity." The organization was denied status after China, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal and Sudan voted against its application.
During the May session Committee members from some of the world's worst human rights abusing countries postponed numerous other applications by making frivolous objections. Their highly successful game is to delay the involvement of human rights organizations in the work of the UN, where there is a chance that such organizations might criticize these states. They also just seem to enjoy harassing Western NGOs for its own sake. For example:
- Active Help Organization based in Pakistan was asked by Pakistan's UN delegate "not to use abbreviated terms in its application";
- Nigerian Diaspora Youths Movement for Peace and Development International Organization from Nigeria was asked by the Chinese delegate for "more information on its membership in China";
- Stichting War Child, from the Netherlands was postponed because Sudan's representative asked for "information in writing about the organization's activities in Sudan, whether it had offices registered with the Khartoum authorities, and its refugee-related activities in the Arab region";
- The Equal Rights Trust based in the UK was asked by Russia's representative "if its purpose was to promote coloured revolutions in post-Soviet States";
- The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, from the UK, was requested by China to "delete an erroneous reference to Tibet on its website";
- United Hatzalah from Israel was derailed by Nicaragua who was deliberately proceeding in circles. It "sought clarification on one of the two questions sent to the organization on 28 January 2014" and also asked "who the organization's local partners were in Panama and Brazil." The NGO had already answered the question asked - again;
- Avocats Sans Frontières from Belgium was asked by Cuba's delegate to provide "information on its contribution to the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council";
- Iran Human Rights Documentation Center based in the U.S., was blocked by Cuba's delegate who objected to how the Center "obtained information on Iran's human rights situation since it did not operate inside that country";
- The Jewish Renaissance Foundation from the U.S., was requested by Cuba to provide "information on its activities in her country and its relationship with the Jewish community there".
At a January 27, 2014 meeting the US delegate questioned the organization regarding its classification as a terrorist organization by US government. The representative of Sudan - a member of the UN NGO Committee - stepped in to defend the IARA on the grounds that "there was no evidence that this organization supported terrorist activities" and asked that the application "move forward". The representative of Pakistan also objected to the questions posed by the United States. Then on May 22, 2014 the United States representative asked the organization "if it had plans to send a letter to the United States Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control with evidence that it was not or no longer involved in terrorism activities and request its removal from the United States list of organizations involved in terrorism." Western states on the NGO Committee are apparently reluctant to bring the organization's request for UN-NGO status to a head by calling for a vote, since they may well lose given the Committee's composition. In the meantime, members of the Committee itself are running interference for the NGO. At the January session, Pakistan complained that "the questions posed by the United States were of a bilateral nature and did not have a place in the Committee's discussion."
In other words, for many if not most members of the UN NGO- accrediting committee, terrorist front organizations as UN-accredited NGOs is not a UN problem.