For anyone who's interested, here is what I wrote:
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483
10/15/01
Dear Brothers,
I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses associated with the XXXXXX, PA congregation.
On October 3, 2001 I found some information that was deeply disturbing to me personally and spiritually.
On the website of The United Nations (www.un.org) the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) was and is still (as of the writing of this letter) listed as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) affiliated with the Department of Public Information (DPI). At first glance it seemed as though this association of the WTBTS with the UN could be reasonable and logical.
However, some of the criteria to be met by an organization in order to achieve NGO status are the following:
"… encourage political participation at the community level "
"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."
These are the statements that were so troubling to me. I called the UN to verify that all the information was correct, including the fact that the WTBTS was indeed an NGO.
I would greatly appreciate your clarification of four points:
1) What was the purpose of the WTBTS association with the UN as an NGO?
2) Why were the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide not informed of this relationship?
3) In October 2001, why was did the WTBTS seek termination of this almost 10 year old relationship with the UN? (see enclosed copy of faxed letter dated 10/11/01 from Paul Hoeffel, Chief – NGO/DPI Section, United Nations)
4) Why did the DPI make a decision to disassociate the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York as of 9 October 2001?
I thank you in advance for helping me to reconcile this apparent contradiction of belief vs. practice.
I know your answers will be helpful in overturning the recent charges of hypocrisy that have arisen in the press recently over this matter. (see enclosed article from The Guardian 10/15/01)
Sincerely,
Brother Confused