I sent a letter today to a "heavy" in Bethel regarding the UN issue. Sorry for the formatting, but I'm dumping a Word file... Here's a section regarding the UN:
The UN, Steven Bates, the Guardian Newspaper, and Watchtower of New York, Inc.
Dan, I'm sure you are aware of some recent accusations by Steven Bates, a writer for the Guardian Newspaper (a British-based newspaper). He wrote 3 expose articles this past October and November, accusing the Society of lying hypocrisy, due to its having been an "associate" Non-Governmental Organization (an NGO) for 10 years with the UN's Department of Information (the DPI), while at the same time, teaching that it is the "scarlet colored wild beast" of Revelation!
As a quick review, from a recent UN brochure entitled NGOs AND THE UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION: SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
How do NGOs and DPI cooperate?
The Department of Public Information and NGOs cooperate regularly. NGOs associated with DPI disseminate information about the UN to their membership, thereby building knowledge of and support for the Organization at the grassroots level. This dissemination includes:
Publicizing UN activities around the world on such issues as peace and security, economic and social development, human rights, humanitarian affairs and international law;
Promoting UN observances and international years established by the General Assembly to focus world attention on important issues facing humanity.
Organizations eligible for association with DPI are those which:
Share the ideals of the UN Charter,
Operate solely on a not-for-profit basis,
Have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and 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.
Obviously, the basic problem here is that as an NGO, Watchtower had agreed to "share the ideals of the UN Charter" and run programs of public information on behalf of the UN. Like the supportive role that "cheer leaders" have to a football team, NGO's associated with the UN's DPI, are expected to root for their “team,” the UN! However, when the UN's DPI found out about the Society's apparent duplicity in this regard (i.e., from phone calls from Steven Bates, et al), it was in the process of "disassociating" it, when Watchtower preemptively requested withdrawal.
Subsequently, I understand that a letter of explanation was sent to Branch Committees regarding this matter and that the original reason for seeking "associate" status with the UN's DPI was downplayed as a way to get a "library card." But when it was recently determined that it was much more, Watchtower withdrew its membership. From what I've been told, the same letter was read to the Bethel Family very recently, no doubt to disquiet any fears that would naturally arise from rumors that would surface.
In retrospect, Dan, something smells a bit fishy here! When the original application seeking “associate” status was filed in '92 on behalf of Watchtower of New York, Inc., UN resolutions 1296 and 1297 were active since being initiated in 1968. These resolutions clearly stipulate what "associate" status means and include the summary list mentioned above. Quoting further from the previously mentioned UN brochure:
In 1968, the Economic and Social Council, by Resolution 1297 (XLIV) of 27 May, called on DPI to associate NGOs, bearing in mind the letter and spirit of its Resolution 1296 (XLIV) of 23 May 1968, which stated that an NGO "...shall undertake to support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities, in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and scope of its competence and activities."
Consequently, can you please explain to me how it was possible for the brothers in the Writing Department, who had supposedly been doing exhaustive research about the UN for decades, while attempting to get a “library card” by requesting "associate" status as an NGO from the UN’s DPI, were somehow completely fooled into agreeing to promote the charter of the UN, and making a commitment to be its publicity agency? What in the world were they researching prior to making that request? Do you mean to tell me they never read the UN’s 1968 resolutions of 1296 and 1297? Just what did they think “associate” NGO’s did? I’m afraid this “library card” excuse just doesn’t ring true!
There’s another problem. The DPI requires NGO’s to supply publishing samples to demonstrate compliance with one of its requirements of being the UN’s publicity agents, its “cheerleaders." When the Society made its initial request seeking “associate” status in 1992, it would have had to supply 2 years of samples (now the DPI requires 3 years of samples), attaching them to the DPI application (there were/are other requirements too, like supplying a financial audit from an accredited accounting firm, but these are side issues that need not be explored here). Furthermore, to maintain “associate” status and for DPI to determine compliance, a yearly renewal application with attached publishing examples is expected to be provided. So then, some logical questions follow.
Do you know what samples were supplied over the last 10 years? Were the bizarre changes in the tenor and tone of Awake articles, almost “love affair" about the UN, beginning in the early 1990's, due to some hidden agenda to comply with DPI requirements? Furthermore, joining the WMCA in order to use the swimming pool is considered a very serious act, to be dealt with by a Judicial Committee! How is this UN affiliation any different? Or rather, isn't this much worse? (Compare Rev. 17:1-16)
In any case, wouldn't it be proper to have a letter with an honest explanation, possibly an apology, sent to all the congregations regarding this matter? If it was of such serious concern to have an explanation read to the Bethel Family, why not the rest of us?