Sadly, in view of this "explanation," it seems that not only is the Watchtower guilty of spiritual prostitution, but they have now exposed themselves to public shame as outright liars!
For one thing, the Watchtower claims that the DPI registration papers "contain no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs."
Is that really true though?
We do not have the registration application before us to examine, but the UN's own website explains that applicants have to demonstrate their commitment and ability to work with the UN and they had to submit at least six examples of how they are propagandizing in behalf of the UN before their application can even be considered. Was the Watchtower aware of this application process? Yes, apparently they were. There is no reason to believe that the UN made an exception in their case and accepted their application without their meeting the established requirements for NGOs.
It is evident that the Watchtower started pandering to the UN long before they actually submitted an application in 1991. Check the bound volumes. That's apparently why the Watchtower and Awake magazines had UN propaganda back in the 80's; before they actually applied to become an NGO.
In the document the reader provided, the WT quoted from the UN saying: "association of NGOs with the (UN) Department of Public Information does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status."
Okay, that is all well and good. No one is saying that NGOs are incorporated into the United Nation's system. In fact, the very definition of a non-governmental organization is that they are not part of the United Nations but they merely agree to cooperate with it. That's what the Watchtower did.
Interestingly, the document from which that quote is taken can be found on the UN's website by following this link. Scroll down to the subheading that reads: "What is the procedure for NGOs to become associated with DPI?" Notice: The footnote on that section is what the Watchtower was quoting. But, above that, immediately under the subheading, is the actual criterion for NGO applicants.
Here is what it says: "An NGO that meets the established criteria should send an official letter from its headquarters to the Chief of the NGO Section, Department of Public Information, expressing interest in association with DPI. The letter should state the reasons why the organization seeks such association and should briefly describe its information programmes. This letter should be accompanied by at least six samples of recent information materials produced by the applying organization. Letters of reference from UN Departments, UN Programmes and Specialized Agencies, and/or UN Information Centres and Services (UNICs and UNISs) will greatly enhance consideration of the application."
The Watchtower claims that it had no idea what being an NGO involved. Yet, they quote from a document, the context of which plainly spells out the criteria for prospective NGO applicants!
According to the criteria, as previously mentioned, the Watchtower would have had to submit six samples of how they were actively disseminating UN propaganda to the reading public. Not only that, but the Watchtower would have to describe to the UN why they wanted to be associated as an NGO. Obviously, the 'we want a library card' would not look very good on the application form. The UN wants to know what the applicant has to offer them; not what the applicant wants from them.
The Watchtower intimates that when they originally enrolled as an NGO there were no such requirements, but that only afterwards, without their knowledge, the NGO requirements were changed.
After receiving this email question last week, I personally emailed the UN's DPI (Department of Public Information) and asked them about this matter.
They promptly responded with an email form letter, apparently because so many of Jehovah's Witnesses have been inquiring about this matter in recent months. They discreetly decline to comment specifically on the Watchtower's case, obviously for legal reasons, but, essentially they confirmed that the Watchtower willingly, knowingly, met the UN's requirements for NGO's.
There is no getting around the fact that in order to have been accepted by the UN as a NGO, the Watchtower would have had to demonstrate its commitment to the principles outlined by the UN from the very beginning.
According to Jehovah's criteria, for his dedicated servants to do such a thing amounts to spiritual prostitution!
NGOs are apparently required to re-register annually and to regularly submit the most recent examples of how they are cooperating with the UN through the means agreed upon. Being a United Nations NGO is an ongoing relationship and is not simply a matter of filling out a one-time application—as the Watchtower's letter suggests. And, as was shown in the essays on the topic, the Watchtower apparently continued to submit samples of its work to the United Nations, as was required, to prove it was living up to its obligation as an NGO.
(The UN's human rights' website lists an Awake article from 1998, as a sampling of a supportive organization. For an online sample from December 2000, of the sort of article the Watchtower might submit, click here.)
The Watchtower claims that the application they had on file had no objectionable language but a later edition of the NGO application contained "some language that we cannot subscribe to. And, "when we realized this, we immediately withdrew our registration. We are grateful that this matter was brought to our attention."
But, even if later applications did actually contain different language, why should that matter if the Watchtower did not have to re-register or re-qualify to meet the criteria? That in itself proves the Watchtower had to register annually and submit its most recent work to demonstrate how it was disseminating information about the UN.
In the latest press release from the UN's DPI, it lists newly approved NGOs as well as the NGOs that no longer met the criteria and which were subsequently disassociated from the DPI. That clearly indicates that NGO membership was conditional and subject to annual review and was not simply a matter of signing up one time. NGOs are expected to continually demonstrate their commitment to cooperating with the DPI and they are scrutinized as to whether they are meeting the qualifications. If not, they are disqualified. Let it be noted that the Watchtower was not disqualified by the DPI.
The Watchtower wishes to give us the impression that their membership as an NGO was restricted to merely accessing the UN archives and that they did not willingly function in any capacity as an NGO typically might.
That is a brazen lie!
For example, here is a link to an organization called Vilnius International Forum, which hosted an event in October of the year 2000 exclusively for international governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) interested in holocaust issues; specifically—retrieving Nazi loot.
Following the link above, the Watchtower is listed on the program as a participating international NGO, as well as three of Jehovah's Witnesses are named as officials representing the Watchtower. James Pellechia is listed as an associate editor of the Watchtower and a member of the headquarters' public relations department. He was one of the forum's featured speakers on the October 5th program and his brief seven-minute presentation before the forum can be downloaded. (It is listed towards the bottom of the linked to page in the 9:30 time slot.)
In his talk, Brother Pellechia thanks the forum in behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses for specifically inviting the Watchtower to participate in the program. He discreetly makes no reference to the Watchtower's NGO status, but since the Watchtower actually participated in the presentation with other recognized NGOs, it is apparent that the Watchtower was fully aware that its own NGO status involved much more than simply doing research at one of the UN's library facilities.
Granted, there is nothing particularly sinister about Jehovah's Witnesses speaking about Holocaust issues. After all, many thousands of Bible Students were victims of the Nazi Holocaust; so there is nothing objectionable to our voice being heard on that matter or even in our demanding legal restitution. But, the point is that that the Watchtower was represented in the forum as an NGO. That is a problem in view of the Watchtower's insistence that they did not know what was involved in being an NGO.
So, this is another lie, because the Vilnius Forum took place a full year before the Guardian exposed the Watchtower's NGO relationship. Watchtower officials must have known, full-well, that Jehovah's Witnesses were recognized by other organizations as a functioning NGO when they received an invitation to participate in the Vilnius Forum. Yet, they lyingly say that they "immediately withdrew" when it was brought to their attention in October 2001.
Another thing that causes us to doubt the Watchtower's "library card" story is that it does not even appear to be true that an organization had to be registered as an NGO in order to gain access to UN documents and libraries—at least not before September 11th, 2001.
According to the head librarian's office at the UN's Dag Hammarskjöld library facility, temporary passes were originally granted to qualified scholars and researchers without NGO status before 9-11. However, as a result of increased security in the aftermath of September 11th, the UN has disallowed all but UN officials from accessing the building. NGO representatives are the exception.
Of course, the Watchtower was an NGO long before 9-11 and in fact disassociated itself one month after 9-11, in October, 2001.
At face value, then, what the Watchtower is saying is true; namely, that access to UN library facilities at the United Nations' headquarters is presently restricted to UN personnel, government officials, diplomats and NGOs. However, that was not the case when the Watchtower originally applied for membership as an NGO in 1991. A careful unraveling of the facts leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Watchtower is being devious.
Besides, the Watchtower is neglecting to point out the obvious. And, what is that? According to the DPI, the only reason NGOs would be assisted by the Department of Public Information to gain access to information in the first place is so that NGOs could be more effective in fulfilling their role to disseminate that information to the reading public.
Again, there is simply no getting around the fact that NGOs had to agree to cooperate with the DPI in propagandizing in behalf of the United Nations.
The second paragraph under “what is an NGO?” states: “DPI helps those NGOs gain access to and disseminate information about the range of issues in which the United Nations is involved, to enable the public to understand better the aims and objectives of the world Organization.”
On the same UN website it also explains the criteria for NGO membership, under the sub-heading “How does DPI assist NGOs?” It says DPI “Provides ground passes 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 Hammarskjöld Library…”
So, in the wake of increased security, having NGO status definitely allows representatives of that particular organization access to certain meetings and facilities at the UN's headquarters as well as the Dag Hammarskjöld Library. However, even with those increased security measures in place, it is still not necessary for an organization to become an NGO to gain access to the UN's many so-called depository libraries.
But, what are depository libraries? They are officially designated off-site libraries with UN related material. There are over 400 of them around the world. Who can access depository library information? According to the UN Depository Library website, under the first subheading “What is the Purpose of the Depository Library System?” It says: “The general public can consult the material free of charge at any depository library.”
The UN Depository Library locator lists Columbia University, (Scroll down to New York) in New York City, as one of the depository libraries. The Watchtower in Brooklyn could have easily accessed UN research materials at Columbia without having to go the UN headquarters.
Especially, given the rather shallow and superficial way the Watchtower and Awake have reported on the United Nation's activities, they could have easily done all the necessary research without becoming associated with the UN as an NGO.
For a fact, the UN is an enormous bureaucracy with a staggering amount of documents. But, they seem to have gone to great lengths to make that information available to the general public. In fact, the UN even states on its Information Center website: “The United Nations cannot reach its purposes if the peoples of the world are not fully informed of its aims and activities.”
In recent years there has been a vast array of information that has become accessible through the Internet. For example, here is a link to UN-I-QUE (United Nations Info Request). That page is linked to the United Nations Documentation Info Guide, the United Nations Depository Library, as well as United Nations Information Centers around the globe. There is also a plethora of United Nations Publications available for purchase. There is the UNBISnet that is available to the general public. There is a UN Documents on Demand website that ships requested documents for a fee. There is what are called Small and Field libraries that are available online. There is the Dag Hammarskjöld Library website.
No doubt there are some restricted and classified documents that are only available to governmental officials and such, and not even NGO's can access them, but in investigating all the UN information websites, this researcher has not found anything to suggest that access to UN information and libraries was ever restricted exclusively to NGOs.
Furthermore, as stated previously, there does not appear to be any information concerning the UN that the Watchtower and Awake have reported on that is not easily obtainable by ordinary researchers.
It would seem that the Watchtower's entire official explanation of their NGO membership is a total work of fiction. Perhaps the Watchtower might like to comment on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that they had to become an NGO to gain access to the UN libraries.
Besides all of that, since the Watchtower obviously has a thorough understanding of all the various UN agencies and their myriad programs to save the world, how could they not know what was involved in becoming an NGO? It is an incredible claim for such expert researchers of the UN to make!
Without doubt, though, the most damning evidence is not the fact that the Watchtower was registered as an NGO, rather, it is that the Watchtower has been so conscientious in reporting on the UN's activities in the pages of the Awake and Watchtower journals—as was laid out on the "Prostitute" essay.
The opening sentence in the Watchtower letter (quoted above) says: "Our purpose for registering with the Department of Public Information as an NGO in 1991 was to have access to research material available on health, ecological, and social problems at the UN library facilities."
The question we ought to ask, is, why?
Why would the Watchtower want access to research materials on the UN's programs in the first place?
Why the obsession with researching and reporting on the UN? For example, why are as many occurrences of "United Nations" in the Awake as there are of the term "God's kingdom"?
Why does the Watchtower feel it is so important to educate Jehovah's Witnesses about the UN to that extent?
If the UN is a "disgusting thing" in God's sight, why do Jehovah's Witnesses need to be so well informed about all of its programs and agencies?
Perhaps the Watchtower would like to answer a few of these questions?
The scripture says "love believes all things." So, we really want to believe the Watchtower is telling us the truth in this matter. We don't want to be overly suspicious or accusatory—especially of our leading brothers.
But, unfortunately, the facts show that the Watchtower has violated our trust. They have lied to us straight out and they are counting on the meek and trusting nature of Jehovah's Witnesses not to question them further. The Public Relations department at Bethel would have us believe that 'opposers' are making up wild stories about the Watchtower and smearing them with falsehoods. Oh! If only that were true!
Of course, while our many enemies might exploit the Watchtower's hypocrisy, the truth of the matter is that the Watchtower itself has allowed "certain men" to steer the entire organization into hypocrisy and outright apostasy.
What is truly outrageous is that if, on becoming aware of the situation, any of Jehovah's Witnesses happen to speak out in the congregation about the Watchtower's underhandedness in the NGO matter, run the risk of being labeled an apostate, and possibly even having judicial action taken against them for merely suggesting that the Watchtower is guilty of anything improper!
Yet, it is obvious by the Society's explanation that Bethel has no inclination or intention of coming clean and telling us the truth. The responsible brothers in Brooklyn who know full well the depth of the Watchtower's NGO involvement are willing to arrogantly sit back and allow Jehovah's Witnesses to even be disfellowshipped because of their own two-faced, lying hypocrisy.
How fitting is Ezekiel's prophetic description of some of our Bethel princes: "Her princes in the midst of her are like wolves tearing prey in shedding blood, in destroying souls for the purpose of making unjust gain. And her prophets have plastered for them with whitewash, visioning an unreality and divining for them a lie…" The organization has truly sunken into a deplorable, spiritually sick condition.
The Watchtower acts as though it is above accountability. But, realistically, they should not be overly concerned with small voices like e-watchman calling them liars in this matter.
However, Jehovah's Witnesses are not the primary party that is offended by the Watchtower's duplicity and dishonesty. Instead, our Bethel leadership ought to soberly reflect on the implications of Isaiah 57:11. That is Jehovah's pre-recorded judicial decision scheduled to be directed to the leaders of his people during their judgment. Presciently, Jehovah asks:
"Whom did you become frightened at and begin to fear, so that you took up lying? But I was not the one that you remembered. You took nothing to your heart. Was I not keeping silent and hiding matters? So you were in no fear even of me."
Jehovah's Witnesses may wish to believe that the Watchtower's involvement with the UN was innocent, and that's fine; but do you honestly think Jehovah is going to fall for the 'library card' routine when the time comes from him to break his long silence and hold an accounting for the blasphemy of those who boast of being 'a clean people for his name'?
Copyright © 2004, by Robert King
All Rights Reserved.
