Directors of the Global Development Group Board
Unit 6, 734 Underwood Road
Rochedale, QLD 4123
28th Feb 2014
Dear David James Pearson, Geoffrey Winston Armstrong
Ofelia (fe) Luscombe, Alan Benson, David Robertson
This is the last time that I will invite representatives of the Global Development Group to meet and talk with Chanti and Chhork – still in Phnom Penh with me.
If, by the end of the day, (Friday 28th Feb) they have not done so, if by the end of the day I have not received comprehensive answers to my many questions of the past two weeks, I will be writing to Bill Clinton alerting the Club de Madrid to the serious problems inherent in the lack of appropriate assessment and monitoring processes within the Global Development Group. I will write also to the Institute for Economic and Peace Board alerting the directors to the same problem.
If the GDG board is satisfied that Citipointe’s removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008 was both legal and appropriate, if the GDG board believes that Citipointe’s retaining custody of the girls this past five years contrary to the express wishes of their parents, has been legal and appropriate you must, of course, stand by Citipointe. If, on the other hand, you do not believe that Citipointe has acted legally or appropriately this past five and a half years (not $1 in aid to the family, for instance) you should recommend to the church that it release the girls today back into the care of their family and bring this tragic farce to an end.
Whilst the media has, to date, not paid too much attention to this matter, this will change when I am arrested. Questions will be asked and many of these will wind up in GDG’s lap: “How is it that GDG is providing funding to at least three NGOs in Cambodia that use deception to acquire children from impoverished Cambodian parents and then proceed to breach the human rights of both the children and their parents?”
I have provided you with three examples so far but GDG has evinced no curiosity to find out more – either by talking with Chanti and Chhork or by asking me to reveal the identity of the other two NGOs whose names I have redacted in the documents I have sent to you. It seems as if the GDG board would prefer burying its head in the sand to confronting a rather ugly truth. GDG’s assessment and monitoring processes appear not merely to be inefficient but deliberately designed to protect NGOs and not the poor people these NGOs are in the field to help lift out of poverty and become self-sufficient.
I look forward to hearing back from the Global Development Group by the end of the day.
best wishes
No comments:
Post a Comment