The website I downloaded this PDF from is http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/default.html
or you can just look at it at the website WITHOUT the page numbers I referenced. I know this is very old hat for most folks here but new to me. Most of the information I got was from here and the UN website. I know it's long but I want to be through on this to not miss anything. If I made some mistakes PLEASE point this out to me. Here it is..........
“The resolution establishes THREE categories of consultative status for NGOs. General consultative status is for large international NGOs whose are of work covers most issues on the ECOSOC agenda. Special consultative status is for NGOs that have special competence in a few fields of the ECOSOC activity. The third category, which is inclusion on the roster, is for NGOs whose competence enables them to make occasional and useful contributions to the work of the UN and that are available for consultation upon request. NGOs on the roster may also include organizations in consultative status with a specialized agency or other UN body. The resolution also formulated guidelines for written statements, oral statements and attendance during meetings.”
All NGO’s have to support the same UN criteria! Here’s the charter criteria in which ALL NGO’s must comply to…..http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
“In 1993, Member States decided that the resolution 1296 needed to be reviewed in order to update and accommodate changes since 1968” . This of course changed in 1996.
2. Pg. 6 says “…They explained that the requirements for being a DPI NGO had changedsince they first signed up in 1992.…Pg. 12 says“The forms the Watchtower Society signed did not say anything to compromise Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs, nor did it mention ECOSOC's Resolutions.”Pg. 20 says“The form the Society signed each year was obviously not a renewal application.”
However on page 15 it says“The NGO completes the application form. This did not require a signature back in 1991 when the Watchtower Society became associated, nor did it mention anything about “supporting the UN charter”, etc.(the scans sections has a copy of this form)……That is why no signature was needed on the old 1991 application form, nor on the old accreditation forms.And on Pg . 21.…“At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form”….Looks like to me their story is not straight.
…“These words of resolution 1296 never applied to the Watchtower Society as they were never an ECOSOC NGO. However, the ECOSOC also made another resolution, 1297. What does that say?The WBTS claims to be under the 1297 Resolution and not the 1296. How is that on the UN website I can’t find the 1297 Resolution other than it saying “to bear in mind the 1296”…meaning follow that one too? What’s the full 1297 Resolution then? Keep in mind that ECOSOC updated BOTH in 1996 with the 1996/31 Resolution.
4. On page 14 it says there’s no legal agreement that the NGO’s have to promote the UN and write articles WRONG….well I have a 1994 UN DPI handbook and ‘92 UN press release that says otherwise.
“they didn’t have to have a signature on the accreditation form“.WRONG……how many legal documents/agreements/applications do you know of that don’t require a signature? Also how could there be two names of the WBTS members (and contact info) in the DPI handbook-was this just word of mouth knowledge, or did the UN have signatures (of these two men) and documents to reference who to contact? Does one actually believe that a signature was not required to have a special “ground pass”…which “grant a main and an alternate NGO representative access to all "open" meetings of UN bodies; to DPI photo, film and audio libraries; to the Dag Hammarskjold Library; and, as observers, to the meetings of some 22 NGO committees organized by the Conference of NGOs.”?A signature was requested of either the Chief Administrator or the Executive Officer of the organization. I had to sign my signature just to get a library card at my local library. You mean to tell me that to get into a FEDERAL library (via a library card) and UN meetings, you wouldn’t need a signature on the application form to have this privilege? I smell some dishonesty here.
6. Pg. 16 has a terrible analogy. To inter into a legal agreement with any association there’s a mutual agreement and criteria. Yes the criteria has to be there first to be granted association, but a legal binding (signature) is the ongoing process for the signee to uphold. You can look at any contract and see this. Infringement in many cases as we know can lead to litigation at worst and/or a termination or fine at best.
7. Pg. 17 says “Clearly, complete agreement with the UN was never a requirement of DPI NGOs, and is not today…..Never does an NGO have to agree to only say good things about the UN, or publish articles praising the UN, or other such nonsense.” WRONG……any UN DPI handbook (no matter what year) will prove contrary, not to mention the UN public press that’s printed every year. I have the 1992 UN public press statement as well.
8. Pg. 19 says “However, some critics claim that the Society is being deliberately misleading. They claim that NGOs had to renew their status with the DPI each year and re-apply. They usually show a copy of a 2005 “Accreditation Form” for yearly status renewal — complete with a place for a signature and date at the bottom.”Well, I have a 1999 accreditation from for 2000 showing the same thing (of course this is during the WBTS association as well). The form’s purpose is to update the UN of current information of their NGO’s, ie to confirm current reps and authorize new ones of the organization.
9. On page 19 it says “In 2002 we instituted the review process for NGOs associated with DPI.” WRONG…..it was the 1996/31 resolution that came about in 1996. The review was from 1993 and concluded in 1996. It was the 1296/7 resolution from 1968 that was updated to the 1996/31.
10. Pg. 20 says "During the year (2001) the DPI has instituted a review process for the first time, in order to better measure the effectiveness of its liaison activities with associated NGOs.”WRONG…….once again according to the UN website it clearly say 1996. Read number 9. The review “started” in 1993. This PDF rebuttal lists no references to this “fact”. I will…….. http://www.un.org/ga/president/55/speech/civilsociety1.htm#general
11. Pg. 24 says “If the requirements and expectations of NGOs have not changed since 1991, as apostates claim, we wonder why the Global Policy Forum would make such a statement. Clearly it is because the critics are wrong, and that the NGO world really has changed “very fast” and the evidence proves it“….quoting this UN statement…..“The [DPI & ECOSOC] NGO world is changing very fast, in terms of activities and needs, and UN offices that relate to NGOs must be change-oriented and flexible. The offices should consider a streamlined, web-based application system.”Well the March 18th 2002 UN letter from Lyutha Al-Mughairy says that the NGO criteria for association hadn’t changed since 1992.
12. Pg. 25 says “So far in this work we have shown how many claims of apostates have proved false.“They do not distinguish between ECOSOC and DPI NGOs as far as the UN support criteria. ALL MUST SUPPORT THE UN CHARTER and it‘s programs!!!
13. Pg. 28 says "Some have uncovered records of Watchtower representatives attending a conference on the holocaust for NGOs….Conferences on subjects such as the holocaust are part of the “extensive library facilities” on offer by the DPI to representatives of it’s NGOs."Interesting here in these statements is that the WBTS doesn’t deny going to such conferences. In so many words they admitted that their association with the DPI/UN allowed them more clearance than just in the library, but also UN conferences. It says this on the DPI handbook also. One may ask, if they ONLY signed up to use the UN library, why were they at UN conferences also?
14. Pg. 34 It still says in this 2004 letter (I have it) ALL NGOs have the same criteria (even in 1992) , to support the UN Charter-goals and programs including publishing articles about the UN. On the UN website, it has a published list of what NGO is writing of what aspect of the UN. YES they were keeping notes/score for NGOs and their CONTINUED status. THE WBTS claims by using this 04 letter that the rules had changed by then, but they were the same in 92.
Also on page 34 it says “Of course, now the UN is suddenly being very clear about their requirements — over ten years too late. Therefore it begs the question, why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did not include such requirements? We wonder if the DPI is trying to cover-up their own ineptness for not putting such a statement on the original form when it, perhaps, should have been.”There is a DPI handbook sent out to potential NGO signees every year with full details and criteria for association. To put all of these same stipulations on the application is both redundant and unnecessary. Surely the WBTS doesn’t want us to believe that the “guidelines” for their UN association were only verbal and not written down somewhere. Also to reiterate is that most of the companies I’ve ever worked for had the company’s full rules and regulations in a lengthy handbook. I have also been required to attend an orientation to be fully informed on what I was getting into. The UN has the same such policy.
15. Pg. 63 says “In an earlier chapter we discussed how apostates try to hide the difference between ECOSOC NGOs (which consult the UN on its policies) and DPI NGOs (who have access to UN research materials)— with one prominent apostate ignorantly claiming the difference is “irrelevant”. In this case, the same old tactic is used.”The ECOSOC consultative status was “made available” with the 1996/31 resolution in 1996. Four years after the WBTS had already signed up as a NGO.
16. Pg. 72 says “The brochure is only sent to new NGOs. The 2005 version says the NGO must support the UN. The Society ended its association in 2001. The 1994 version only says to share the same ideals as the UN charter (e.g. freedom of religion). The Society joined in 1991/2 and that version may not have even existed.”WRONG, nothing changed
17. Pg. 72 says “The DPI association is not dictated by press releases. The application form and subsequent accreditation forms made no such statements. UN resolution 13 stipulates the requirements for DPI associated NGOs, and also makes no mention these things. The press officer was mistaken.”……by saying “ A 1992 UN press release says DPI associated NGOs must support the UN, it’s goals, and it’s charter.“WRONG…….the Paul Hoeffel letter says the same thing as does the UN website and all brochures. If this officer was mistaken on the first press letter dated Feb. 14th 1992, then why was another press letter that was written on Aug. 7 1992, say the same thing? Shouldn’t this “mistake/typo” have been corrected? This reasoning makes a person choose on who is right, the WBTS or the UN press officer.
“The UN says the renewal process did not start until 2001/2002, which is after the Society ended the association.”WRONG, I have a 1999 Accreditation form for 2000. If the UN said it’s renewal forms started being used in 2001 as the WBTS claims, I would like to see where on the UN site they found this. Even on the NGO 1991 registration form it says the DPI needs an ANNUAL report on its (NGO) activities related to the United Nations issues.
Pg. 73 denies this statement…Paul Hoeffel at the UN’s DPI said that NGOs must support the UN and disseminate information about it” By saying “….That particular part was him quoting current (then 2004) requirements, not the 1991/2 requirements the Society has on file.”WRONG, I have that official letter DOWNLOADED from the UN website and it says...
“4 March 2004
To Whom It May Concern,
Recently the NGO Section has been receiving numerous inquiries regarding the association of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York with the Department of Public Information (DPI). This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992. By accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities.
In October 2001, the Main Representative of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York to the United Nations, Giro Aulicino, requested termination of its association with DPI. Following this request, the DPI made a decision to disassociate the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York as of 9 October 2001.
Please be informed that it is the policy of the Department of Public Information of the United Nations to keep correspondence between the United Nations and NGOs associated with DPI confidential. However, please see below the paragraph included in all letters sent to NGOs approved for association in 1992:
“The principal purpose of association of non-governmental organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is the redissemination of information in order to increase public understanding of the principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies. Consequently, it is important that you should keep us informed about your organization's information programme as it relates to the United Nations, including sending us issues of your relevant publications. We are enclosing a brochure on the “The United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations”, which will give you some information regarding the NGO relationship.”
In addition, the criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI include the following:
• that the NGO share the principles of the UN Charter;
• operate solely on a not-for-profit basis;
• have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven ability to reach large or specialized audiences, such as educators, media representatives, policy makers and the business community;
• have the commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; and enlisting the cooperation of the media.
We expect that you will share this information with your concerned colleagues, as we are unable to address the scores of duplicate requests regarding the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society that are being directed to our offices. Thank you for your interest in the work of the United Nations.”
Department of Public Information
mentions the timeline of everything but fails to mention the criteria/resolution on how the NGO’s and the UN collaborate. Once again nothing changed from 1968 to 1996. At least that’s what the UN website says. The WBTS might have something else but I prefer to go to the source directly. Also on the timeline it says that in 1994 on a UN DPI brochure…..” a new relationship between the UN and the NGO’s is now “BEING” created”.True, BUT by saying BEING created, they fail to mention that it WAS CREATED in 1996. The REVIEW took place between 1993-96. This is more of a half truth making you believe the policy already changed in 1994 when in fact it hadn’t yet. The UN has nothing to gain on the details of their association with the Watchtower by lying, but the WBTS sure does!!!
My rebuttal to the Watchtower NGO A4 PDF Nov 07
The website I downloaded this PDF from is http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/default.html
The fun of watching the Watch Tower Society is the "scavenger hunt" game it becomes. It seems to me it will never end. Just when I think we're done, somebody flips over another rock and off we go.
True very true.......THE FUN NEVER ENDS!!! I'm well studied on Watchtower dogma/doctrines/writings but this UN issue is what I really want to know inside out. You know how the dubs love to "fish" or preach the "good news", well when they get a "shark" on the line aka ME, all of a sudden fishing is no longer fun and it's hard to "cut the line". The UN scandal is just the bite they need. Yes pun intended. Blessings.........
Just a point on the signature portion...... it must be said that IF the 1991 scanned form is genuine then there is NO place for a signature.
That said... it may be only a "fact-fiinder" form.... there may be other forms (more than likely) which would require a signature(s) making it binding on both parties. I agree with you. I simply cannot comprehend a venture as this, between large organisations as these two are, not having a formal sheet with signaturies of both parties.
I have often filled out an application request for some service or other but, when the service is finally offered I was required to sign an agreement.
I smell a rat......
I will say this whole issue is the one that really did it for me...... hypocrits!
You should come on over to Topix and post this over there. Thanks.
Kenneson, I would love to. Is there a way I can do color coding etc, so my rebuttal can be read easier? Thanks for reading this long post of mine. Blessings....
Kenneson, I tried to post this on that forum you showed me this is too long. The max over there is 4000 letters. I will just post this link over there. Blessings......
Who is right the WBTS or the so called Apostates.The WBTS say they registered with UN-DPI as an NGO to use the library to support the UN about human rights,freedom of worship,etc.Than when the Guardian reported in 2001 (10 years after the WBTS joined the UN) the WBTS disassociated from the UN.WHY WHY after 10 years of support for humans rights and freedom of worship.Do not human rights, freedom of worship, etc matter anymore.Should not the WBTS be more concern about human rights and freedom of worship more so now that they say we are closer to the end of this system.
PS:There was a letter from a Jones to wbts and a reply from the wbts.They told Jones he was wrong in his assessment of the UN-DPI/NGO and the wbts.
Signature, no signature, what the hell does it matter?
The WT has said all along that any kind of affiliation with the "scarlet colored wild beast" will result in death at armageddon or disfellowshipping from the group of JW's.
The WT grossly neglected their own words. The WT is not only a whore, but in going to bed with the "beast" they committed the gross "sin" of bestiality.
Do I hear a flush? It's the WT going down the toilet.