According to this letter, the DPI in fact did have reporting requirements for it's NGO's. This has a different meaning than NGO's just providing samples to the DPI to see if they meet criteria for association, then afterwards the DPI expecting nothing else. To see a scan from a UN directory that explains the ongoing reporting requirements read below...
Yes, the UN is keeping a close eye on it's associated NGO's to make sure they are actively supporting/promoting them and their achievements. A screenshot from their website below...
Even though the DPI ultimately decides which NGO's meet their criteria for association and which ones don't, this is still a mutual agreement between two parties. There's more to it than an NGO just having the right criteria and then walking right into UN facilities that require a security clearance ground pass, as "3W' would have us to believe. He comes off as confident in such a stance but his wording doesn't confirm it. He says Evidently, the DPI must have determined that Jehovah’s Witnesses did meet the criteria because of our support for human rights and freedom of religion. So, we could not have “agreed to meet the UN’s criteria” because it doesn’t work that way. It seems, in fact, that an NGO does not have to “agree” to do anything, because the DPI itself examines the NGO and decides whether they meet the criteria or not. With him using code words for "I'm guessing" such as "evidently" and "it seems", this choice of wording doesn't give me much assurance in his research. To guess that it seems that an NGO does not have to agree to do anything, this is not giving me any confidence at all actually.
"3W" says that Some conspiracy theorists say that the Watchtower Society’s “real motive” was to gain prominence in the eyes of the UN and other governments, particularly where there is persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, is it not a ridiculous idea that having DPI passes to access the UN’s research materials could have such a benefit? So, if it's "conspiracy theorists" that think this, then we can add the Portuguese Bethel to the list. They were the first Watchtower branch on public record to explain why the WBTS joined the DPI. This explanation was contradicted by the London Bethel just two days later and to the official story as told now by Bethel NYC. Below is the link to this explanation in the Portuguese newspaper the Público, written on Saturday, October 20, 2001.
Excerpts from the article:
«"The registry as NGO was made only to be able to give humanitarian help and defend the human rights in several countries of the world", said to [the newspaper] Público Pedro Candeias, spokesman of the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses [AJW] in Portugal. In Portugal, however, the disaffiliation from the registry is not yet officially known by the AJW, which represents nearly 50,000 believers.»
«This [JW] official says the religious group to which he belongs has had "an important role" in the help to populations of countries like Angola, Bosnia, Georgia, Rwanda and other African or Latin-American [countries]. "To reach those countries was complicated and, for that reason, it was necessary to registry" the WTBTS in the United Nations. But that registry, he says, does not compromise the Jehovah's Witnesses with "any political involvement" with the UNO.»
«"It is not a political maneuver", says the AJW spokesman, "because without the support of the UNO it would not be possible to distribute humanitarian help". And as the registry "does not violate the statutory precepts" of the JW, the criticisms to the registry in the DPI "do not have any basis", says Pedro Candeias.»
Compare this statement to the one that came out from the London Bethel just two days later. Below...
To conclude this chapter lets view the conflicting statements of why the WBTS joined the DPI:
***Humanitarian Aid***
(Portuguese Bethel)
The registry as NGO was made only to be able to give humanitarian help and defend the human rights in several countries of the world.
Vs
***Library Access***
(London Bethel)
...for the sole purpose of getting access to the extensive library of the United Nations.
you stated that the un is keeping a close eye on its ngo's to make sure they are actively supporting/ promoting... I must disagree here.
ReplyDeleteI went to the watchtower library cd rom and did a search for "united nations", and while it is true that around 1991/92 there seems to be a slight change in the way the U.N. is spoken of, if you read the entire article, you'll see that they are still basically condemning them.
...so if the U.N. was checking into anything, they would have seen even in the articles that must have been submitted to the DPI that the
ReplyDeleteWTBTS was not putting the U.N. in a good light.
the reason i used the word 'must' here is because the requirement was to submit articles from within six months of their application date.
i still haven't personally decided whether this association with the U.N. is a serious issue or not. but i am honestly pursuing truth. thanks for your work in putting this sight together. i have found it useful and i have also found 3w's site useful. truth is quite an illusive thing im beginning to realize.
I disagree hardhick.
ReplyDeleteBy requiring the WT to periodically submit examples of what work it was doing on the UN's behalf, as agreed, the UN WAS keeping a close eye on it's NGO's to make sure they were promoting and supporting it. That is exactly what it was doing.
The UN is a big organization with many (thousands?) NGO's and can hardly wade through every line written by the Watchtower and every other NGO to check every possible reference to the UN. Therefore, if the Watchtower is trying to serve "two masters" and speak out of both corners of it's mouth - which it was - saying one thing about the UN in articles designed to meet the UNs requirements and to be submitted to them and then condemning them in other articles, the UN can hardly be expected to catch them out in such unexpected duplicity (it took the Guardian to do that).
Having the NGO's regularly submit examples certainly qualifies as "keeping a close eye" - just not close enough when dealing with a slippery character like the Society.
Contd. And your assumption that the articles submitted to the UN "must" have been critical of them is quite wrong. You should really read them before making that assumption.
ReplyDeleteThese articles were not critical and were definitely positive towards the UN - if mildly - and were certainly pitched so as to at least appear to be praising the UN (to those at the UN who will have glanced through it) while not being glowing enough to rouse too great a suspicion among the brothers, although many noted a marked change in tone. I certainly did. The Society was subtly playing both sides here, and trying not to alert either to the deception. Actually, I think they did a masterful job. But then they have been masters of subtle deception for a long time.
I just read the 9/8 & 11/22 articles. I saw them as pretty neutral, which is all we are required to be. We are not required to be critical or supportive, but neutral.
ReplyDeleteThe articles being neutral is in harmony of what was plainly stated by the letter referenced here that it was done "tactfully." Many of the apostles especially Paul "tactfully" spoke before Kings and Governors in order to present his defense. Daniel himself too spoke respectfully even on the very night that Belshezzar drank from God's instruments and was about to be killed by the Medes! Actually, they went further, they praised them! For an example consider Paul's defense before Agrippa. If that wasn't praise, I don't know what is.
Regarding the articles, if you read them, you notice they don't really have much of anything to say of their own about the UN. The articles are mostly composed of quotes and facts and dates, THATS IT. It isn't until the last article (of 11/22) that the brothers start to show that what the UN is trying to do is already being done by Jehovah's Witnesses, for example changing people's minds, learning war no more and uniting. Also it states that the Human Rights are of divine origin, attributing this to not being "born" as the UN stated but rather to their Creator's image as the brothers stated. Further they also point out that the true World Government that will solve all problems lies in Heaven and as Christ as the leader. If this doesn't state that the UN ISN'T the solution, I don't know what does.
If anything the 9/8 article the very last paragraph could be used by apostates (which they have) to make a very weak argument, because it is. While the writers did not say flat out, "THE UN IS A WILD BEAST AND GOD WILL DESTROY IT, BECAUSE IT HAS A WHORE RIDING IT" it simply and tactfully again laid out truths Jehovah's Witnesses believe. That is why it encouraged the reader to ask a JW about it. It will be given power, it will do astonishing things. However the majority of the article should not be forgotten, it pointed out many of the failings of not only the UN but of its charter members! Why aren't these discussed too? It even flat out said: "So the only peace that the UN can achieve is control of violence." But even after that light of hope, it still said it was powerless in controlling what individual nations would do, therefore proving unreliable.
I really gave this reading the benefit of the doubt, but I think many of you are reading too much into things unfortunately.
Lastly regarding requirements and what not. It is as stated by "JJ" that to become an NGO through the DPI it was the DPI that determined if they met the "requirements." At the same time, the letter showed here is merely stating that they had to submit articles as part of their "reporting" requirements. Here from the presented evidence, points to the fact that both statements are true. Yes the DPI would first decide, and second yes they submitted articles that showed they were still informing the public about the UN. Obviously the theme of such information isn't that strict, the brothers certainly didn't paint the UN in a "positive" light as some say. Simply did the minimum and kept it in a balanced view point. Something you men are not doing.