RESTRICTED
Those to whom we have spoken very informally in the Office of Legal Affairs and the NGO Secretariat have all expressed some alarm that granting observer status to the IPU could open the flood gates for other Category I NGOs to seek the same status. It was only with difficulty that the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies was persuaded not to apply for observer status last year following the successful application by the ICRC. Other Category I observers might well follow suit: you will wish to look carefully at the list and decide whether or not this would be in our interests. At the least this would offer the prospect of non-Governmental bodies intervening more directly (and not necessarily helpfully) in the deliberations of Governments. At the worst, we could be giving a higher profile and a more active role to particular organisations than we would regard as desirable.
7.
Finally, of course, we need to consider whether an IPU application for observer status at the UN would be successful. Even given the fact that 110 national parliaments are represented, I do not think that a vote in favour would be a foregone conclusion. Many Governments which support the participation of their national parliament in the IPU for a variety of political reasons might well have misgivings about giving the IPU collective representation on such an exceptional basis at the United Nations. To the extent that our strategy is seen as one of "raising the profile of democracy at the UN" (para 3 of your letter) the misgivings are likely to be all the greater. I would not be at all surprised to see the non-aligned coming out against any change in the IPU's status.
8. These are the pros and cons as we see them. A decision on the attitude to be taken to the idea can only be adopted in London, where such factors as our policy towards the IPU can be properly weighed up.
But
RESTRICTED