If anyone suggests that the Watchtower only registered with DPI and was not associated with it, don't buy it. It was their representatives who approached DPI and not the other way around. And they very well knew what they were getting into. They were associates and when the news story broke in the Guardian, they shortly thereafter disassociated themselves. It was no mere registration.
Check out the following 1992 press release:
"The Department of Public Information (DPI) accepted, on 28 January, 37 non-governmental organiztions (NGOs) seeking ASSOCIATION with it..."
"The NGOs officially recognized by DPI COOPERATE with the United Nations to help BUILD PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT for United Nations PROGRAMMES AND GOALS..."
"To BE GRANTED ASSOCIATION WITH DPI, NGOs must have national or international standing, SUPPORT THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, have a broadly based membership and possess the resources necessary for effective OUTREACH."
http://www.randytv.com/secret/feb92dpia.jpg
http://www.randytv.com/secret/feb92dpib.jpg
The Watchtower applied to associate with DPI in 1991 and was accepted in 1992. It is apparent that a two-day annual orientation had to be attended by Lloyd Barry and Ciro Aulcinio, the Watchtower representatives through the years of association. And we are to suppose that none of this was brought to their attention in orientation, when at least twice it was mentioned in the press? Moreover, DPI sent monthly bulletins to keep them abreast. And yet we are asked to believe that no one at the Watchtower knew.
According to the 1997 DPI brochure, one of the criteria for assocation with DPI is SHARING THE IDEALS of the U.N. Charter. But when they first applied for association, according to those press releases they "must...support the CHARTER of the U.N." So at least for 5 years they should have known that the Charter delineates the goals, principles, ideals, purposes and work of the U.N. They just didn't find out about it in 2001 as they claim.
But what is more amazing is the claim that EVEN if they had known all this, the Watchtower did nothing wrong because the Watchtower agrees with the goals of the U.N.: peace, unity and brotherhood. Well, there's nothing wrong with peace, unity and brotherhood, but for about 60 years the Watchtower has told us that peace, unity, and brotherhood will not come through the efforts of the U.N. but God's kingdom. So, was it necessary for Watchtower Society to partnership with DPI and write favorable articles on the U.N. in Awake magazine just because it believes in peace, unity and brotherhood? Am I the only one who sees incongruity here?
In the U.N. Charter, Chapter 1, Article 1: The Purposes of the United Nations are: 1. TO MAINTAIN international PEACE and security, and to that END: to take effective COLLECTIVE MEASURES for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and the SUPPRESSION of acts of aggression or other breaches of peace, and to bring about by peaceful means..." The U.N. can as a last resort ask member nations to use its soldiers in areas where it is felt warranted. So, while the Watchtower says that it can support the ideals of the U.N., it is obvious that it cannot support the means to achieve it. Yet, that's all in the Charter too. Somebody must have overlooked that part.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm
Oh, and the part about the U.N. being a superior authority of Rom. 13. That's a bunch of b.s. as well. The U.N. itself states that "The U.N. does not have the capacity to impose peace by force. It is NOT a WORLD GOVERNMENT. It has no standing army, no military assets. It is not an international police force. The effectiveness of the U.N. DEPENDS on the POLITICAL WILL of its MEMBER STATES, which DECIDE If, WHEN and HOW the U.N. TAKES ACTION to end conflicts."
The U.N. is not a government of any kind. Doesn't even act like a government. It doesn't have powers to make and enforce laws, something all the member-nations (governments) of the U.N. do within their borders. Those same member-nations (governments) have never been willing to give the U.N. such authority. It would impinge on the sovereignty of member nations and they are not willing to surrender it, except in limited ways.
The U.N. is not a sovereign state or nation in New York (like Vatican City is in Rome). It is not a king or ruler. No one is a citizen of the U.N. It is merely an organization that is a forum for discussion and cooperation between sovereign governments. It coordinates activities between nations on a global scale. It doesn't act of its own accord and independently of its member nations. It has no soldiers nor powers of its own, only those granted to it by its members.
