(1) NGOs losing the moral high ground - too militant, too strident, too sanctimonious (2) NGOs Face Increasing Hostility, losing the moral high ground (3) Save the Children lobbies for Asylum Seekers (4) Médecins Sans Frontières lobbies for Asylum Seekers (5) Amnesty International lobbies for Asylum Seekers (1) NGOs losing the moral high ground - too militant, too strident, too sanctimonious by Peter Myers, June 30, 2015 I have donated to some of these NGOs, and made the mistake of supplying a postal address and email address. Within a few months, I was bombarded with letters, emails, even phone calls, asking for more. That made me angry; I wanted my donation going 100% to people in need, not to pay for further fundraising. Such NGOs are now placing numerous advertisements on TV, featuring photos of children in dire circumstances. But how are these TV ads paid for? Surely with money the donors intended for the children. In other words, the donations are recycled into marketing programs, and the wages of those employed to operate them. These NGOs are also wading into political waters, campaiging for Open Borders to Asylum Seekers. Australia, like other countries, accepts a certain number of refugees each year, who have applied through the official channels - via the front door. But these NGOs are lobbying for people to be able to come by the back door too - by just turning up. The question is: who decides? We the people of Australia? Or would-be migrants and their People Smuglers? The flood of illegal immigrants into Europe and the US is meeting increasing resistance. NGOs are lobbying to overcome that opposition, and they are our using OUR money - our donations to help children - to pay for it. Let's stop funding their subversive activities; let George Soros foot their bill. "One World or None" means a borderless world, without countries, without National Sovereignty - a communist World State. (2) NGOs Face Increasing Hostility, losing the moral high ground http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/under-fire-ngos-face-increasing-hostility/ Under Fire: NGOs Face Increasing Hostility Long accustomed to occupying the moral high ground, NGOs are coming in for increasing criticism. By Luke Hunt June 26, 2015 In recent decades the ubiquitous NGO has taken up the banner for charities and worthy causes. From the environment and human rights to health, education and animal welfare, nongovernment organizations have championed the dispossessed, winning legions of fans. But in recent years pockets of NGO Land – as some call it – have lost their shine. Too militant, too strident, and too sanctimonious are among common complaints leveled at NGOs – whether in Australia or in Southeast Asia and beyond — amid allegations of blatant lying and a victory at any cost mentality. It was a point noted by academic and veteran correspondent Karl Wilson, from the Asian Centre for Journalism in The Philippines, who spent time working with a prominent human rights group. He said they were not shy on self-promotion or in molding headline grabbing causes with fundraising potential. “A toothless bloke fishing in Indonesia whose livelihood is threatened by global warming is not as attractive as a bikini clad chick on the Great Barrier Reef, snorkeling,” he said. “Working with them showed me how the other side works and how agendas are pushed and pushed hard.” Arbiters of Bad Behavior Greenpeace, which has annual revenue of around $350 million, has come under sustained attack for the highly questionable methods it has employed. In Australia, it was caught using photographs from a devastated reef in The Philippines as part of its campaign to have the Great Barrier Reef listed as endangered by UNESCO at next week’s annual meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Bonn. Later, the environmental campaigners were accused of running a massive disinformation campaign in regards to the reef, driven by its broader agenda to have coal mining banned. This includes misleading advertising on the London underground and on YouTube, one featuring a mother and child claims: “Half the Reef is already gone.’’ This is nonsense. Interestingly, few people were prepared to speak publicly about Greenpeace. Some would only comment on condition of anonymity, a journalistic protocol normally reserved for whistleblowers who live in fear of dictators and despotic governments and certainly not eco-friendly activists. “We like Greenpeace, they make us look sane,” one seasoned environmentalist said. Another long-term observer said that Greenpeace was unethical in publishing photographs taken from somewhere else and using misleading numbers, adding that it was a questionable decision to combine the future of the Great Barrier Reef with the entire coal industry. “No government, globally, could find a single solution for that issue,” he said, adding Greenpeace must tackle India if it is serious about orchestrating a ban on coal exports, but this was unlikely. “The Indians would immediately counter such an approach by flagging their right to development.” Last year the Indian government singled out Greenpeace as a “threat to national economic security.” Almost two decades ago, this journalist was on assignment with Greenpeace environmentalists and scientists working with endangered pink dolphins in the Pearl River Delta, straddled by Hong Kong and Macau. Back then they claimed the dolphin population was devastated and were adamant they faced extinction within five years. Nothing could be done. Today there are about 2,000 pink dolphins living in the estuaries. On Australian radio, Greenpeace has also drawn fierce criticism after admitting it employed a range of tactics that “absolutely” includes breaking the law when necessary, earning unlikely comparisons with the nation’s bikie gangs who thrive on their self-anointed outlaw status. But Greenpeace is not the only NGO in trouble. Far from it. Even the hallowed Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is under attack. One politician wants Australia’s head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, to withdraw her royal seal after the RSPCA extended its reach from caring for domesticated animals like cats and dogs to the horse racing industry and live cattle exports. “It’s like the live meat trade,” Wilson said in regards to unrealistic NGO demands. “The government can’t monitor everyone outside of Australia. And the industry agrees there are some who don’t kill animals humanely, although I still can’t quite get my head around a humane way of killing something. But it is a legitimate business and it employs people.” This behavior could cost NGOs dearly. The Abbott government is mulling the removal of the tax deductible status on gifts and donations enjoyed by environmental groups. “We’ve got 100 to 150 groups that seem to have their purpose at stopping industrial development, not just mining, some of those developments include tourism developments or agricultural developments but engaging in what I would view as a political debate, not the environmental debate,” Queensland Liberal National Party senator Matthew Canavan told local radio. Further afield Greenpeace has a long history of pushing the limits. In Peru it was forced to apologize and faced criminal charges for a publicity stunt that went wrong and damaged the world famous Nazca Lines. In the Philippines, a former Greenpeace director upset his old employer by denouncing a campaign depicting genetically modified foods as morally unacceptable. He believed the technology was safe and could help alleviate hunger in the developing world. Similar accusations have been leveled against ActionAid in Africa. “It’s becoming more and more a fear mongering organization, basing its campaigns in populist exaggerations and blatant lies, and disregarding science, pure and simple, either it be in the coral reef or genetically modified foods,” another Greenpeace critic added. In countries like China – where attitudes to the environment and human rights are like a red rag to an NGO bull – and in Cambodia – where more than 4,000 NGOs sprouted in the aftermath of war – groups like New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Greenpeace, are incensed by new NGO laws which they say will curtail their activities. Those laws have also been opposed by the many NGOs that do good work in-country and want the drafts amended and clarified in regards to potential offenses which they say are open to interpretation and abuse. But the desire to legislate received a fillip from wayward rights groups, in particular Somaly Mam, who earned worldwide headlines after allegations she fabricated sex trafficking reports that had won her anti-trafficking NGO the support of Hollywood celebrities and the money and fame that comes with them. “It is inevitable that some of those organizations will be well managed and effective, and others less so,” said Craig Etcheson, Visiting Scholar at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in the United States. But at a cultural level the relationship between government and NGO goes much deeper and beyond the legalities. NGOs, particularly foreign-based groups, are often perceived as arrogant and patronizing while masquerading as saints to avoid criticism. In Thailand, the national police chief Pol Gen Somyot Poompunmuang perhaps best summed-up that antagonism in Southeast Asia when he complained about opposition from civil society groups on the most recent proposals to legalize casinos. “NGOs are not my father!” – he declared. Politicization of the Moral High Ground Etcheson said the humanitarian situation in countries like Cambodia had changed as they no longer suffered the same vulnerabilities as 30 years ago, when incapable governments desperately needed NGOs to deliver basic services to their people. “Many international NGO’s now focus on politically sensitive issues such as human rights, rule of law and corruption, carrying out investigations and issuing reports that the government often finds troublesome,” he said. “And, of course, there will also be the occasional organization which turns out to be fraudulent or otherwise engaged in outright illegal activity. Those rare bad actors tarnish the image of all the rest who are honestly attempting to do good works.” This has lead to an erosion of legitimacy among some NGOs, which have grown accustomed to the moral high ground, and increased tensions with governments who want to diminish the standing NGOs enjoy in the community. Importantly mainstream audiences – who want something done about global warming, endangered species saved, and food security ensured – are being left behind. Adam Cathro, a former journalist and currently the Media Relations Manager for Plan International Australia, echoed Etcheson’s sentiments and said NGOs were becoming more outspoken but there was room for improvement. “NGOs were always looking to do things better,” he said. “I think that’s a good thing, because the point of that advocacy is to influence governments and societies to change in ways that benefit the people we’re trying to support in the long-term. “But advocacy comes in lots of different shapes and forms and not everyone is going to agree with every position adopted by every NGO,” he added. “I would say that if an NGO feels it has no need to improve, then it probably needs to improve more than most.” Luke Hunt can be followed on Twitter @lukeanthonyhunt (3) Save the Children lobbies for Asylum Seekers http://scasites.org.au/noborders/save-the-childrens-position-on-recommendations-from-the-expert-panel/ Save the Children’s position on children being detained in Nauru and Manus Island Are you saying it’s ok for children to be detained on Nauru or Manus Island? No, our belief is that it’s never OK for children to be detained anywhere – even less so when the children in question have been fleeing for their lives, and have already undergone terrifying experiences in their journey to seek safety. What these children need is care and protection, so that they can begin to recover from the horrifying ordeal of their journey. If not then what happens to kids who arrive with their families, where do they stay, under what conditions, and who looks after them? We believe that children shouldn’t be locked up, and that wherever possible they should be kept together with their families. This means that when child asylum seekers arrive by boat with their families, there should be alternatives to closed detention for these children and their families – and Australia should be in a position to provide these alternatives. One example is releasing children and their families into the community while their asylum claims are being processed. This is already taking place in areas like Darwin, Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide, and is a recognised option implemented by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship with the support of the Red Cross in ensuring access to services and care, in particular for unaccompanied minors. Are you advocating families be split up? Absolutely not – Save the Children does not support this by any means. For a child who has been through everything that these children have, it is unthinkable that they should, having made it all the way over here with their families, then be separated from them by Australia’s policies. To do so – or to in any way allow this to happen – would amount to appalling treatment of children and their families by the Australian government. What’s your position on unaccompanied minors – should they be sent to Nauru or elsewhere while their claims are processed, and if not how should they be treated? Save the Children does not believe that any child should be locked up, regardless of whether they entered into Australian waters with their families or on their own. Instead we advocate for a solution that helps children recover from the extreme ordeals they have been through, by providing the care and support they need in an environment where they feel safe and welcome. One example of such an environment is in the community, where children would be cared for by community members that have undergone rigorous screening to ensure the children’s safety, and have sponsored these children’s entry into community care while their claims are being processed. If unaccompanied minors and other children are not sent to Nauru like other asylum seekers, wouldn’t this encourage parents to put their kids on dangerous, leaky boats, putting children at direct risk? There is no evidence that this is the case, and we do not believe that offshore processing would work as an effective deterrent for families who already have been through unimaginable hardship. Save the Children works in many of the “source”, “transit” and “destination” countries, and has spoken to children and their families from Pakistan to the Congo – parents in these situations are like parents anywhere in the world – they will do whatever they can to keep their children safe, and help provide for a better future. The bottom line is, we advocate for Australian community alternatives to offshore processing because we don’t believe children should be locked up. Because the Bill has now passed, we are committed to working with all actors in this sector to ensure that – while we work towards a more humane and sustainable solution – the children affected by this debate are provided the care and protection they need, and that they have access to basic services like education and healthcare, to ensure their wellbeing while their claims are being processed. (4) Médecins Sans Frontières lobbies for Asylum Seekers http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/special-report/migrants-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-vulnerable-people-europes-doorstep Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Vulnerable People at Europe's Doorstep MSF runs emergency medical programs for asylum seekers and migrants on the border shores of a number of countries, calls for minimum standards in their reception, and denounces their systematic detention. Restrictive entry policies have not stopped asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants from knocking at European doors in search of refuge, protection or better living conditions. However, these policies have forced people to take more risks to reach Europe with negative consequences for their physical and mental health. The fact that Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), an international humanitarian medical organization, needs to be present at the entry points to Europe is a telling indication of the lack of adequate medical assistance currently available for these vulnerable populations. Since 2000, MSF has provided emergency medical aid, medical screenings, and mental health care to migrants who reach European shores by boat. Over the past years, MSF medical teams have noted that more and more of these migrants need medical assistance. Many arrive in a desperate state, suffering from shock, hypothermia, and skin burns as a result of the harsh conditions endured during long journeys at sea. Others might not even survive the journey. MSF teams in Southern Europe meet people on a daily basis who have fled conflict, widespread violations of human rights, or harsh socio-economic conditions. They travel, live and work in precarious conditions, with limited or no access to health care. They are often marginalized and face huge uncertainty about their future when they finally arrive in Europe. MSF workers identify passengers in need of medical assistance while they disembark from a boat from Libya. To respond to the health needs of asylum seekers and migrants, MSF runs emergency medical programs on the border shores of a number of countries, including Malta, Italy, and Greece. At the same time, MSF calls for minimum standards in the reception of migrants and asylum seekers, as set out in European legislation and international law, and denounces the systematic detention of asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children, and the seriously ill. People coming from countries at war or with widespread human rights violations should be considered as potential asylum seekers and access to asylum procedures must be provided upon their arrival. Asylum seekers and migrants are running away from war, violence, hunger, and extreme hardship. Often, they have faced major difficulties on their way to Europe, and in Europe they are likely to be further excluded from society. As a medical humanitarian organization, MSF is helping these people at Europe’s doorstep and advocating for their humane treatment. MSF Projects in the Mediterranean Malta Despite increased policies to contain arrivals and stricter border controls at the European Union’s southern frontier, the number of migrants landing in Malta increased in 2008, with more than 2,700 new arrivals. In the first two months of 2009, 758 migrants landed on the island. Undocumented migrants and asylum seekers set off to Malta on boats leaving the coast of Libya, on journeys that can take up to seven days. Nearly 60 percent originate from countries affected by conflict or widespread violations of human rights—almost half of all newly arrived migrants come from Somalia. Although most of them will eventually be granted refugee status or humanitarian protection by Maltese authorities, they are sent to detention centers for up to 18 months. In the centers they face overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, and poor general living conditions—an environment that has damaging effects on their physical and mental health. In August 2008, MSF started providing health care and psychological support to undocumented migrants and asylum seekers in Malta. Its activities included medical assessment of new arrivals soon after their transfer to the detention centers, and follow- up medical consultations; psychological support; medical triage and health and hygiene promotion. MSF also identifies and refers vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children and sick people to the Maltese authorities in order to obtain their release from detention. Between August 2008 and February 2009, MSF provided 3,192 consultations to migrants and asylum seekers in Malta. Among the newly arrived, medical complaints were often a result of the harsh conditions of the journey, as most had spent days on a boat with limited food and water, unable to move, exposed to sun and rain. Musculoskeletal, dermatological, urinary, and gastrointestinal health problems were common. MSF also provided healthcare in detention centers in Malta, but it soon became clear that the impact of this healthcare was limited by the living conditions in the centers. About 17 percent of the health conditions diagnosed by MSF medical staff were respiratory problems linked to exposure to cold and lack of treatment for infections. Skin infections reflected overcrowding and poor hygiene in the centers. After repeatedly drawing the attention of the Maltese authorities to the appalling living conditions in camps for detained migrants, MSF decided to suspend its activities inside detention centers and publicly denounced the living conditions and associated risks to which migrants and asylum seekers were exposed. In its report "Not Criminals," MSF uncovers the unacceptable conditions of detention and their impact on the physical and mental health of the migrants and asylum seekers in Malta. MSF continues working in open centers for migrants. Once asylum seekers have their applications successfully processed and are granted refugee status, they are transferred to open centers, where they have freedom of movement. There, MSF facilitates migrants’ access to public health services, provides mental healthcare and carries out health promotion activities. Italy Since 2002, Italy has experienced a growing influx of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers. Excluded and exploited, they bear the brunt of increasingly strict measures to deter migration. MSF provides healthcare to the migrant population, including seasonal migrant workers, and lobbies for better access to healthcare services and improved living conditions for this excluded population. Napoli (Naples), the capital of Campania region and the third largest city in Italy, is marked by high levels of criminality and poverty. The city attracts large numbers of migrants, with an estimated 25,000 living in unacceptable conditions. In order to improve their access to healthcare, MSF has set up clinics integrated into the country’s national health services with a view to handing them over to authorities in the future. The assistance is provided in a manner that ensures their identities remain anonymous. In 2008, MSF carried out nearly 5,000 consultations in the clinics. (5) Amnesty International lobbies for Asylum Seekers http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/ Refugees' Human Rights Millions of people around the world have no choice but to flee their homeland to escape war, genocide, torture and persecution. Amnesty works to uphold the rights of people seeking asylum across the world. -- Peter Myers Australia website: http://mailstar.net/index.html |
Archives >