Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue
Home’ is in receipt of funding from the Global Development Group (GDG) – an Australian
Non Government Organization. GDG is a member of the Australian Council for
International Development (ACFID).
The Australian Council for
International Development begins its description of itself, online, with the
following:
"ACFID unites Australia’s non-government aid and
international development organisations to strengthen their collective impact
against poverty.
Our Vision
A world where gross inequality within societies
and between nations is reversed and extreme poverty is eradicated.
A world where human development is ecologically
and socially sustainable for the benefit of current and future generations. A world
where government lead their societies in striving to protect and realise all
people’s human rights.
This vision will be achieved through the
collective efforts of civil society, governments, business and all peoples who
are concerned for the future of our collective humanity.
Our roles and purpose
We advocate with our members for Australia to be a
leading force in international human development and human rights. We are the
primary vehicle for collaboration and collective action by NGOs in Australia. We
foster good practice and capture this in sector standards and
self-regulation. We foster peer support, learning and networking amongst NGOs,
and all interested in human development and human rights."
Given
the seriousness of the allegations I have made against Citipointe church, I
felt it appropriate to write the following to the President of ACFID – Dr Meredith
Burgmann. Before reading it, you might like to view the following video, shot
by myself a few weeks ago. It will give you a pretty good idea of just how the government
of Cambodia protects the human rights of its citizens – in this instance the constitutionally
guaranteed right of free assembly and free speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GupiG7lJdI
TO DR BURGMANN, President, Australian Council for International Development (ACFID)
Dear Dr Burgmann
I am writing in relation to an
Australian NGO in Cambodia by the name of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’. The NGO,
administered by Brisbane-based Citipointe church, is in receipt of funding from
the Global Development Group - a member of ACFID. From what I read on the ACFID
website, both GDG and the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ are bound by the ACFID Code of
Conduct.
As my attached letter of 8th
Feb to the Directors of GDG makes clear, (along with my letter to the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, dated 10th Feb) it is my contention (and I have
ample evidence to support it) that the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is not only in serious
breach of ACFID’s Code of Conduct but that the church-run NGO is engaged in
human rights abuses of a kind that would, if perpetrated in Australia, see its
staff in court facing serious kidnapping-related criminal charges.
To be specific: In mid 2008
Citipointe church illegally removed the two eldest daughters of materially poor
Cambodian parents from their family. For five years the parents, Chanti and
Chhork, have been asking the church to return their daughters – Rosa and Chita.
Citipointe refuses to do so or to provide any evidence at all to anyone that
its actions in removing the girls and holding them is in accordance with
Cambodian law. My attempts, on behalf of Chanti and Chhork, to have their
daughters returned to them this past five years are to be found, in some
detail, on the following blog:
http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com/
I have no reason to believe that the
GDG is aware that Citipointe has illegally removed and detained the two
daughters of a materially poor Cambodian family. Indeed, I see no way that the
GDG could be aware – unless the church were to make known to a GDG project
assessor/monitor the circumstances surrounding the removal of these two
children. Since an NGO breaking
Cambodian law and abrogating the human rights of poor Cambodians is not likely
to admit to the fact, how can GDG or ACFID be sure which NGOs are abiding by
the Code of Practice and which are not?
If Citipointe has made no mention of the serious allegations
that have been made against the church over a period of five years, backed up
by lots of evidence, might there be a problem with the ACFID concept of
self-regulation that needs to be addressed? If Citipointe church can break Cambodian law
and breach the fundamental human rights of materially poor Cambodians with
impunity, how many other GDG/ACFID projects worldwide are being compromised in
the same way? The problem here is not just aid money wasted or aid money being
used to abrogate the human rights of recipients of such aid in third world
countries but the imprimatur of approval that GDG and ACFID provide fraudulent
NGOs. They can state, in public, “Our activities have been monitored and assessed
by the GDG in accordance with the ACFID code of conduct and we passed with
flying colours.” Unless they have done their homework well and discovered that
there is no independent assessment or monitoring process, the recipient of this
message (a journalist, say) might be inclined to ask no more questions, to look
no further and to arrive at the conclusion that the complaints of Chanti and
Chhork (in this instance) have no merit.
As anyone involved in the delivery of
foreign aid knows, Cambodia is awash with fraudulent NGOs. Given the lack of
any rule of law, the prevalence of corruption (Cambodia is rated one of the
most corrupt countries in the world) pretty well anyone can set up an NGO here
and raise money to ‘rescue’ someone – children and ‘victims of human
trafficking’ being the favourite. (No NGOs are interested in rescuing old men
and women who must beg and search through rubbish to survive!)
There is no Cambodian government body
that is engaged in serious and effective monitoring and effectiveness of NGOs.
And there is no body within the NGO community in Cambodia in a position to
check an NGO’s bona fides, assess or monitor the work it does. Or the work it purports to do? In the case of
Citipointe, what the church actually does bears little relationship to what it
says it does. The end result is that both GDG and ACFID are, unknowingly I am
sure, complicit in the church’s human rights abuses.
With hundreds of millions of foreign
aid dollars up for grabs it is unsurprising that fraudulent NGOs set up shop
here (I am in Cambodia) and tell GDG and, by extension, ACFID, what they want to hear – knowing full
well that they will never be independently assessed or monitored. If there is
no-one within either GDG or ACFID to ask the right questions or insist on
viewing documents pertaining to the legality of the NGOs’ activities, there is
a huge incentive for fraudulent NGOs to do pretty much what they please – with
little chance that their illegal or fraudulent activities will be exposed. This is the case with Citipointe church –
whose ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has been in receipt of GDG funds for five years without
ever once having to demonstrate that the church has a legal right to be holding
Rosa and Chita in its care and contrary to the express wishes of their parents.
If you doubt the veracity of this
statement, ask Citipointe today to forward to you whatever agreements and
contracts the church has entered into with Chanti and Chhork or with whatever Cambodian
government department Citipointe claims has provided the church with a legal
right to hold the girls. This is a task that could be achieved by Citipointe with
the composition of a brief email with a few attachments. Much less than half an
hours work. Citipointe will not comply with ACFID’S wishes in this, or with
GDG’s. Nor will it supply such evidence of the legality of its removal of Rosa
and Chita to Cambodia’s leading human rights NGO, LICADHO, or to the girls’ parents
Chanti and Chhork. Or to myself as a legally appointed advocate for Chanti and
Chhork.
Let me give you a concrete example of
how ACFID can, unwittingly, be involved in the illegal removal of children from
their families. All research suggests that 75% of the children in Cambodian
‘orphanages’ are not orphans. 75% of the children in Cambodian ‘orphanages’ have
at least one parent alive. Even if they have no mum and dad the remaining 25%
will have uncles, aunts and grandparents (an extended family and community) who
could, but for their extreme poverty, take care of them.
If 75% of the children in
‘orphanages’ in Cambodia are not orphans, it stands to reason that around 75%
of the orphanages in this country should close down. Despite many calls for
this to happen, it has not, and it will not. The orphanage business is a
profitable one and poorly paid Cambodian government officials can readily be
encouraged to turn a blind eye to the many scams that occur within the ‘orphanage’
business.
Are either or both GDG and ACFID
providing funding to sham ‘orphanages’ in Cambodia? How would you know if you
were? Or, to put it another way, how easy would it be for those who run such
‘orphanages’ to deceive both GDG and ACFID given the lack of independent
monitoring and assessment of the NGOs’ activities? I can identify two
Australian NGO recipients of tax-deductible funding that have received the
ACFID seal of approval and that are in the business of ‘rescuing’ children and
providing no assistance at all to the families or communities from which the
children came – in a dynamic almost identical to the one that led to Citipointe
taking control of the lives of Rosa and Chita.
I will not identify them here but
would be happy to pass on the information I have to anyone within the GDG or
ACFID who might be interested.
Lest I have created the opposite
impression, I admire the work done by GDG and ACFID. However, I am simultaneously aware that there are many
fraudulent, ineffective and incompetent NGOs working in the field. It concerns
me that, as a result or poor or non-existent assessment and monitoring
processes, both GDG and ACFID may be funneling Australian tax-payer dollars
into the coffers of NGOs who do not adhere to the ACFID code of conduct, who
break the laws of their host country with impunity and which practice human
rights abuses of the kind that I allege Citipointe church is engaged in.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment