ACFID Code of Conduct
Committee
Australian Council for
International Development
12 Napier Close, Deakin
ACT 2600
8th May 2014
Dear Dr Sue-Anne
Wallace
Greg
Brown
John
Gilmore
Bandula
Gonsalkorale
Harwood
Lockton
Dr
Petrus Usmanij
Fadlullah
Wilmot
Dr
Simon Smith
Michelle
Pearce
Julie
Mundy
This morning I received a phone
call from Chanti, asking me why no-one from ACFID had contacted her. She was very
distressed when I told her that ACFID had completed its investigation. She
could not understand why her own complaint of 22nd April has been
ignored; why no-one from ACFID wanted to talk with herself and Chhork. It was
difficult for me to explain to her (Chanti’s English is rudimentary and my
Khmer bad) that the ACFID Code of Conduct committee had no interest in her
complaint; that it was interested only in exonerating the Global Development
Group (GDG) and Citipointe of any wrong-doing.
Given that you have collectively
decided to ignore Chanti and Chhork’s complaint and refuse to request of GDG evidence
that Citipointe had a legal right to remove and detain Rosa and Chita, this
letter will clearly have no impact on the decision your committee arrived at
before instigating its ‘Inquiry’. It is important, however, to avoid misunderstandings
further down the track, that some facts and pertinent questions be placed on
record.
Lest there be any confusion about
the role that the Global Development Group plays in the administration of the
‘SHE Rescue Home’ the following from Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ website is
quite clear:
“Global Development Group takes
responsibility of the project according to AusAID rules providing a governance
role and assisting in the areas of planning, monitoring, evaluating and
auditing to ensure the projects are carried out to AusAID requirements.”
How well does the Global
Development Group administer ‘AusAID rules’?
One AusAID requirement is that
NGOs obey the laws of the host countries in which they are working. In this
instance, evidence of the legality of Citipointe’s removal and detention of
Rosa and Chita, the question that should be central to your committee’s ‘Inquiry’,
could be demonstrated in two ways:
(1) Producing the 2008 Memorandum
of Understanding that Citipointe entered into with the Cambodian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs which, both Geoff Armstrong and Citipointe claim, gave the
church the legal right to remove Rosa and Chita.
(2) Producing the legal document,
drawn up by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court relating to the custody of Rosa and
Chita being transferred from Chanti and Chhork (who had ‘relinquished’ their
rights as parents) to Citipointe church. Both Citipointe and the Global
Development Group refuse to produce these documents. That they cannot produce (2) is not surprising
since it does not exist!
I draw the ACFID Code of Conduct
Committee’s attention to Article 253 of the Cambodian Criminal Code – to be
found, in full at:
If Article 253 were implemented,
if the rule of law existed in Cambodia, Pastor Leigh Ramsey and Geoff Armstrong
would be liable for up to ten years in jail for the ‘Illegal Arrest, Detention
or Confinement’ of Rosa and Chita.
The 2009 MOU entered into by
Citipointe church and the Cambodian Ministry of Social Affairs is not relevant
to the question of the legality of Rosa and Chita’s removal but is relevant to
their continued detention in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ after Nov 2009 in
contravention of the express wishes of their parents. Both Citipointe and GDG
likewise refuse to produce the 2009 MOU and have, for 5 years, refused to
provide Chanti and Chhork with a copy of it. This, in itself, is a breach of several
sections of the ACFID Code of Conduct. I will draw your attention to just one:
B.1.1 Accountability to primary stakeholders
Signatory organisations will ensure that their
purpose and processes are shaped by stakeholders and that their work is open to
review and comment by partners and participants alike. In all instances those
directly affected by aid and development activities are considered the primary
stakeholders and their views afforded the highest priority.
Chanti
and Chhork are ‘primary stakeholders’ and yet have been denied, by Citipointe
church and the Global Development Group, copies of MOUs or any other documents
relating to Citipointe’s continued detention of their daughters. Chanti and
Chhork’s views, their needs, their rights have been consistently ignored for
close to six years now. The true agenda of Citipointe and GDG is revealed in
the refusal on the part of both NGOs to provide $1 in financial assistance to
Chanti’s family since July 2008; in the refusal on the part of both NGOs to
assist the family in becoming self-sufficient.
Your
committee likewise refuses to insist that Citipointe and GDG produce documents
relating to the legality of Citipointe’s actions. The reason for this will be
clear to anyone who connects the dots: Members of the Code of Conduct committee
know full well that the 2008 MOU did not give Citipointe the rights of removal
it exercised; that there was no court proceeding in which custody of Rosa and
Chita was transferred from Chanti and Chhork to Citipointe church; that not
only has Citipointe broken Cambodian law, the church has done so with the full
knowledge of Geoff Armstrong and the board members of the Global Development
Group.
The
ACFID Code of Conduct committee is determined to protect Geoff Armstrong and
GDG at all costs. If this means ignoring evidence (by not asking for the MOUs)
so be it. If this implicates your committee in serious human rights abuses and
the breaking of Cambodian law, so be it. GDG must be protected at all costs!
In
his Feb letter, Chief Executive of GDG, Geoff Armstrong, wrote the following to
me:
“We have
thoroughly investigated your concerns and we can’t see any area where SHE
Rescue Home has not adhered to their requirement of the ACFID Code of Conduct.
Therefore a Code complaint cannot be made.”
Let
me draw your attention to a few of the parts of the ACFID Code of Conduct that
Citipointe has not adhered to.
“B.1.5 Non-development activity
Funds and other resources
designated for the purpose of aid and development will
be used only for those
purposes and will not be used to promote a particular religious adherence or to
support a political party...”
The girls in the ‘SHE Rescue
Home’ have no choice but to attend a Christian church in Phnom Penh. The girls
are likewise refused permission to take part in any Buddhist ceremonies or
festivals with their families. If your committee were conducting a genuine
Inquiry and not merely going through the motions, it would ask of Geoff
Armstrong:
“Did
GDG, at any time in the past six years, in the process of monitoring and
evaluating the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ ask the girls resident in it if (a) they were
forced to go to a Christian church in Phnom Penh and (b) if they were denied
the opportunity to join their families in Buddhist ceremonies, celebrations and
festivals?”
The ACFID Code of Conduct is clear
in what it proscribes in relation to human rights:
B.3.1
Human rights in aid and development
Obligation:
1 Signatory organisations will ensure that they
provide a commitment to internationally
recognised human rights principles
within their organisation.
2 Signatory organisations will ensure that their
aid and development activities are consistent with respecting and protecting
internationally recognised human rights including civil and political,
economic, social and cultural rights.
Another
question for Geoff Armstrong that could be asked (should be asked) if ACFID was
conducting a serious Inquiry:
“As a result of the Global Development Group’s monitoring
of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ are you satisfied that the church is not in breach of
its human rights obligations to Rosa and Chita (along with other girls resident
in SHE) and to the parents of these girls?”
Following are a few of the Articles of the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child:
Article
9
Children
should not be separated from their parents unless it is for their own good. For
example, if a parent is mistreating or neglecting a child. Children whose
parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents,
unless this might harm the child.
Article
20
Children
who cannot be looked after by their own family must be looked after properly by
people who respect their religion, culture and language.
Article
25 Children who are looked after by their local authority rather than their
parents should have their situation reviewed regularly.
Article
35
Governments
should make sure that children are not abducted or sold.
The reality is, in accordance
with Cambodian law, that Rosa and Chita were ‘abducted’ by Citipointe church
with the full knowledge and blessing of the Global Development Group. This
potentially defamatory accusation could be countered, with ease, by Citipointe
and GDG producing copies of the MOUs and the court documents transferring
custody of Rosa and Chita from their parents to the church. In its refusal to
ask Citipointe and GDG to prove the legality of the removal, your committee is
now morally complicit in the illegal removal of the girls from their family.
The ACFID Code of Conduct Committee has failed in its duty of care to Rosa, Chita,
Chanti and Chhork and to all the girls in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ and their
parents. And you will continue to fail in your duty of care for as long as you
accept that Citipointe and GDG are under no obligation to produce the MOUs.
Leaving aside Cambodian law,
AusAID rules and regulations, the UN Convention on the rights of the child, the
actions of Citipointe church, with the blessing of the Global Development Group
(and now with the blessing of the ACFID Code of Conduct committee) has caused
immense distress to Chanti and Chhork this past close to six years. See my
recent letter to Pastor Leigh Ramsey:
Imagine how you would feel if, in
a time of financial crisis, you accepted short-term assistance from a Buddhist
organization and, when the crisis had passed, this Buddhist organization
refused to return your children and sent you photos of them dressed in orange –
clearly having been forced to become Buddhists.
I trust all recipients of this
letter can appreciate, if you have children of your own, the heartbreak
experienced by Chanti and Chhork as a result of their daughters’ removal. That
you should protect Citipointe and GDG, regardless of the human rights of
Chanti, Chhork, Rosa and Chita is disgraceful. You should all hang your heads
in shame.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
cc The Hon Julie Bishop, Minister for
Foreign Affairs
Ms Alison Burrow, Australia’s
Ambassador to Cambodia
Pastors Leigh Ramsey and Brian
Mulheran
Geoff Armstrong and the Global
Development Group board
Various media outlets
No comments:
Post a Comment