NGO Monitor Analysis Special Release, January 8 2004
Head of EU Delegation Responds to NGO Monitor Investigation
ngo-monitor.org/editions/EUSpecialedition/version1.htm
The following is an exchange of letters between NGO Monitor and Ambassador
Giancarlo Chevallard, Head of the EU Commission Delegation to the State of
Israel and Jean Breteche, European Commission Representative for the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.
+++++
Dear NGO Monitor,
We would like to respond to allegations made in the article published by the
NGO Monitor website 'EU funds for NGOs misused' (Vol 2, No.1, dated 11.9.03)
This article contains information which is both incorrect and misleading.
The article purports to provide evidence that EU funding to NGOs working in
Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been used, "to pursue a narrow
anti-Israel ideological agenda designed to deligitimize Israel". This is
simply not true and no evidence of this sort can be found in the article.
It is obvious that the authors lack even a basic knowledge of the objectives
of our financial support, of the various budget lines employed by the EU in
the region and of the strict conditions and criteria involved. If they had
contacted our offices, we would have been happy to provide this information.
The claim that the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights
(EIDHR) works through the European Commission Technical Assistance Office
(ECTAO) to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is incorrect. The EIDHR, which is a
worldwide EU programme to support Human Rights and Democracy in partner
countries, is managed through European Commission Headquarters in Brussels.
Project proposals are presented following a call for proposal issued in
Brussels and based in medium-term priorities defined by the European
Commission's 'Communication on EU's Role in promoting Human Rights and
Democratisation in Third Countries' and a multi-annual programming document
See
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/doc/index.htm The
projects are then selected by a Brussels-based committee and European
Commission Delegations simply provide advice and monitor implementation once
a project has been approved. This is the procedure used for all countries
and regions, including Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The article also claims that EIDHR enjoys very close links with the Chairman
of the PA, Yasser Arafat. This allegation is nonsensical. A key requirement
of the EIDHR is to function independently of any state authority and rather
to work directly with civil society organisations or international
organisations. There are therefore no links whatsoever between the EIDHR and
Mr Arafat or any other official of the Palestinian Authority.
Support from EIDHR projects should be distinguished from development
cooperation instruments such as the MEDA programme (the financial instrument
of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership) which indeed works in partnership
with national and local authorities, including the Palestinian Authority of
West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The extract from the ECTAO website quoted in the article to support the
allegation that the Palestinian Authority interferes with the EIDHR funded
project, does not refer to EIDHR but to the MEDA development programme
activities and is therefore extremely misleading. As mentioned, it is the
policy of the European Commission that development cooperation actions
should be programmed and designed in partnership with recipient authorities
as they need to be consistent with the general development policy in the
country or region in question. This approach applies worldwide, as it does
to the Palestinian Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The article highlights EIDHR funding of a project submitted by the Israeli
NGO I'LAM, which is defined as a political tool that presents a distorted
picture of Israeli press. Nothing is mentioned in the article on the content
of the project which is to develop local Arab-Israeli media and enhance the
quality and coverage of Human Rights issues in particular in relation to the
Arab Palestinian minority in Israel. The targets of the project are both
Arab and Jewish Israeli media professionals. The project was selected
following a transparent selection process and meets EIDHR priorities for
Israel (to enhance coverage of Human Rights issues in the media). The
European Commission believes that a lively, critical and pluralistic civil
society is essential for a healthy democracy. This clearly does not
necessarily mean that the European Commission endorses or subscribes to all
views expressed by partner NGOs throughout the world, including those in
Israel.
Regarding projects funded by the European Community Humanitarian Office
(ECHO), we cannot accept your accusation that the EC finances political
organizations: ECHO strictly conforms to the most important benchmark for
the delivering of humanitarian aid, namely to provide aid to those in
distress, irrespective of their race, religion and political beliefs. We
strongly believe that only offering a decent life can undermine the spread
of violence and hatred. In addition to this, your statement that ECHO
provides financing for 'several hundred million euro' is incorrect. ECHO's
financing for Palestinians since 2000 amounts to 105 million euro, including
funding to UN agencies, European NGOs and the International Committee of the
Red Cross.
Regarding the 'People to People' programme, (now called the 'EU Partnership
for Peace Programme') we would like to stress that its objective is not to
support one or the other political camp but to encourage dialogue and
cooperation among civil society across the divide. Recent calls for
proposals under this programme have attracted large numbers of applications
from a wide spectrum of NGOs. While some of the NGOs which have applied for
support might be critical of one or other aspect of government policy, this
is by no means a criterion for acceptance of this or that project.
The article alleges that UNRWA schools teach hatred and encourage
incitement. UNRWA has already refuted such claims on numerous occasions in
the past. The European Commission is the second most important donor to
UNRWA, after the United States. Surely you cannot imagine that the United
States, the European Union and all other major donors for that matter would
support a UN Agency if it was responsible for inciting hatred and violence
through its support for Palestinian education?
The primary objective of the EU is to seek a peaceful resolution to the
conflict in line with the Roadmap, based on two states living in peace and
harmony within recognised international borders. It is therefore
inconceivable that we would conduct activities which could be used to
promote hatred and violence or put innocent lives in danger. This goes
against the very principles upon which the whole European Union is based.
The conclusions reached in your article are based on information which is
either inaccurate and tendentious, or even worse - on information which has
been distorted. We therefore reject outright these claims.
Ambassador Giancarlo CHEVALLARD Head of the EU Commission Delegation to the
State of Israel
Jean BRETECHE European Commission Representative for the West Bank and Gaza
Strip
+++++
Dear Ambassador Chevallard and Mr Breteche,
We would like to thank you for your detailed response to our article, "EU
Funds for NGOs Misused."
First, a clarification of the aims and objectives of the NGO Monitor project
is in order. We exist to promote greater transparency on behalf of the
general public and donor organizations within the 'human rights' NGO
community. An integral part of our mission is to draw the attention of
funding organizations, such as the EU, to the widespread phenomenon of the
manipulation of the label 'human rights' in pursuit of anti-Israel political
and ideological agendas.
In response to similar research by NGO Monitor and other organizations, the
Ford Foundation President Susan Berresford has already acknowledged the
gravity of this trend and promised to halt funding groups that fund
political campaigns against Israel
http://www.fordfound.org/newsroom/docs/svb_letter.pdf . Another major
funding body has also withdrawn funds to HRW for its politicized activities
and Oxfam Belgium withdrew an offensive poster and issued a public apology.
Your reply to the analysis produced by NGO Monitor focused primarily on EU
guidelines and funding criteria, and this is precisely the problem. EU funds
are allocated to organizations whose mission statements fit EU funding
criteria but whose activities on the ground do not. It is this contradiction
we believe needs addressing. Although there are extensive criteria for
allocating funding, you do not address EU mechanisms that exist for
monitoring and demanding accountability for organizations whose activities
are very obviously contradicting their very own mission statement, and your
criteria. As in the case of other funding organisations, such as the Ford
Foundation and the US government have recognised these abuses and instituted
monitoring and criteria to assess the activities of these NGOs, we expect
the EU to do the same.
On this basis, we featured the European Initiative for Democracy and Human
Rights (EIDHR)'s funding of 'Ilam. Although its mission statement promises
independent, unbiased and democratic standards to empower the Palestinian
residents of Israel, we provided evidence in the article to the contrary. We
systematically point out that 'Ilam uses highly biased and politicized
language to insinuate that Israel's media reflects draconian censorship
imposed by the government. In sharp contrast to the claims that you made in
reply, our analysis includes an extensive seven-line quote from the mission
statement to illustrate the discrepancy between its claim to be unpartisan
and 'Ilam obvious agenda.
'Ilam is entitled to its view and to criticise Israel, but it is far from
unbiased in its presentation of material. Nowhere does it mention the large
elements of the Israeli press who freely criticize the government, nor the
fact that the Arab press is free to operate within Israel. Whatever one's
political views, the comments on 'Ilam's website concerning the Israeli
press are extremely misleading. NGO Monitor has uncovered similar evidence
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v2n03/v2n03-cont.htm regarding EIDHR
funding of Adalah in previous years.
NGO Monitor argues it is inappropriate and unethical for the EU to provide
taxpayer's funding for an organization that ostensibly promotes democracy
without bias, but in fact is a political tool in the wider the campaign for
the de-legitimisation of Israel. The general public also has a right to know
that public taxpayer's funds are being allocated to NGOs with political
dimensions, and the EU's absence of a transparency adds to the problem.
A second point we would like to address is the issue of Yasser Arafat and
the connection between EIDHR and European Commission Technical Assistance
Office (ECTAO) to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In your letter, you rejected
the evidence linking EIDHR and Arafat are "nonsensical", asserting while
MEDA is an official framework where such links exists, "There are therefore
no links whatsoever between the EIDHR and Mr Arafat or any other official of
the Palestinian Authority." Furthermore, you assert "The extract from the
ECTAO website quoted in the article to support the allegation that the
Palestinian Authority interferes with the EIDHR funded project, does not
refer to EIDHR but to the MEDA development programme".
In contrast, the evidence we received from a member of the ECTAO staff that
ECTAO provides consulting and advice for EIDHR funding allocations, thus
showing the permeable political boundaries. Because we cannot prove this
point, we will amend the ambiguity on our website. Your claim is also
entirely inconsistent with the ECTAO website
http://www.delwbg.cec.eu.int/en/about_us/jeanb.htm which has a large picture
of Jean Breteche, shaking hands with Yasser Arafat after the numerous
allegations of corruption and embezzlement that the European Parliament has
raised against him.
In addition, according to information provided by member of the ECTAO staff,
this organization provides consulting and advice for European Initiative for
Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) funding allocations, which indicates a
close link to Yasser Arafat. However, because we cannot prove this point, we
will amend the text on our website. The original text read:
"There are three major channels by which EU aid is directed to human rights
and democracy programs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
1. Aid distributed directly to NGOs
Twenty per cent of EU project funding is channelled to NGOs from the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). In the PA
territories, EIDHR works through the European Commission Technical
Assistance Office to the West Bank & Gaza Strip and enjoys very close links
with Yasser Arafat, whose influence is strongly felt."
The amended text reads:
"This article looks at three routes by which EU aid is directed to human
rights and democracy programs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
1. Aid distributed to NGOs by the EIDHR
Twenty per cent of EU project funding is channelled to NGOs from the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). It should be
noted that there are also other EU bodies operating in the PA territories,
such as the European Commission Technical Assistance Office to the West Bank
& Gaza Strip and enjoys very close links with Yasser Arafat, whose influence
is strongly felt."
On another issue, you write,
"Surely you cannot imagine that the United States, the European Union and
all other major donors for that matter would support a UN Agency if it was
responsible for inciting hatred and violence through its support for
Palestinian education?"
Unfortunately, we feel this is precisely what is happening. Instead of
relying on circumstantial evidence or instantly dismissing these issues out
of hand, the EU should investigate independent reports, such as produced by
the Boston Globe on UNWRA, showing how the UN agency responsible for
Palestinian refugees ignores the use of its camps for bomb factories and
terrorism and allows its schools and other facilities to be used for
anti-Israel incitement,
Finally, on the subject of ECHO funding, we would be interested to hear more
of your opinion on the article we linked to our article,
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/corruption.htm on the subject of the
irregularities recorded in the use of EU funds to the Palestine Authority.
The EU states that NGOs are a vital conduit of its public funds and we are
therefore interested in what accountability mechanisms are in place to
prevent NGOs being involved in the corruption process. In your response, to
simply failed to respond this clear evidence presented in the NGO Monitor of
the abuse of ECHO funding to further anti-Israeli political objectives.
To conclude, the NGO Monitor investigation is not designed to accuse the EU
and is certainly not opposed to providing humanitarian funding to the
Palestinian people. Our objective is to expose the pervasive trend, as shown
in numerous editions of NGO Monitor, of the manipulation of 'human rights'
agendas throughout the NGO community in the campaign to de-legitimize
Israel.
We call on the EU to take the bold steps adopted by the Ford Foundation and
to launch a thorough investigation to ensure that taxpayer's money is not
channelled to ideological causes. We also urge the EU to take a major role
in preparing an implementing a code of conduct for NGOs to prevent such
moral and ethical abuses in the name of human rights.
We look forward to hearing your responses,
Gerald M. Steinberg and Simon Lassman NGO Monitor
| 
