Exchange of Correspondence with the World Bank PNGO Project
Sarah Mandel
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Tel Hai 13
Jerusalem, Israel
25th December 2005
Dear Mr. Kasabreh,
Thank you very much indeed for your detailed response to NGO Monitor’s draft report on the World Bank. Some of your comments were helpful in clarifying factual information and I hope you will permit me to respond to some of your other remarks.
Firstly, you argue that “JCSER, PCHR, Al Mezan and Al Haq are members of the portal and these NGOs are human rights organizations that publish reports (NOT funded from the World Bank) and according to the editorial policy there is nothing to prevent them from publishing such reports.” However, the Portal itself is funded by the World Bank and as such, the Bank is responsible for ensuring that this framework is not abused for incitement or promoting conflict. The World Bank may not be able to stop these NGOs publishing these reports elsewhere, but it can be held responsible for them appearing on the Portal (such as the PCHR press release), especially when they contravene the Portal editorial policy. The policy states that “users must be able to trust that the selection of resources, issues, … on the site is unbiased, and is based solely on fact, careful analysis and the perceived needs of the PMO and Masader audiences.” Our report clearly shows the extreme imbalance and bias present in publications by NGOs such as PCHR and Al Mezan, whilst the political agenda of Al Haq is well documented on the NGO Monitor website. By allowing them to participate in the portal, the World Bank adds to their credibility and facilitates their activities (through access to the services offered by the Portal). As a promoter of peace in the region, the World Bank has a moral responsibility to ensure that its projects do not contribute to incitement and demonization that fuels the conflict.
Please note that these organizations are well established and recognized by many donors as credible and in fact they receive funding from different donors including the EU. For example, Al Haq received funds from the International Commission of jurists and about half a dozen of European countries. You might consider them as extremist, but many donors and international institutions disagree with your definition and we are not obligated to follow your definition of who should be excluded from the portal membership.
Secondly, you dispute our use of the term “incitement” when you comment that “reference to Israeli Occupation and attack on Palestinian civilians does not constitute incitement.” In response to this I would draw your attention to the detailed explanation of incitement included in the latest draft of NGO Monitor’s report. The issue is not limited to the expression of a political preference, but rather NGO use of hate speech and demonization, systematic removal of the context of legitimate self-defence against terror, and the accompanying justification of violence.
Again this is the definition of the NGO monitor and we are not obligated to follow that.
In this context, I would like to ask you if any NGOs have been refused membership of the Portal? If so, on what grounds? The example of the Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic rights is a relevant one – this NGO is a member of the Portal and although presenting itself as a human rights organisation, is involved in extremist political campaigning and incitement. It uses apartheid rhetoric and accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing. The introductory graphics on its webpage read: “Jerusalem…you may be grey on whether or not this is APARTHEID….If you’re PALESTINIAN, its more BLACK and WHITE.” This reflects a theme running through JCSER publications, such as the August 2001 Report, “Occupied East Jerusalem, a new Soweto? Do Israeli policies and practices in Jerusalem contain elements of ‘the crime of Apartheid’?” Furthermore, a press release from 15th January 2005 contained the following: “This measure combined with the Apartheid wall that the Israeli occupation authorities building [sic] around occupied East Jerusalem is a part of illegally annexing the Palestinian city and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from it.” Such statements do not promote Human Rights, rather they contribute to the incitement and a political campaign that fuels the conflict. In your previous correspondence you claim that: “The World Bank cannot forbid NGOs from being members of an instrument that is established as a service to the NGO community.” However it seems that you have an editorial policy to do just that. And the JCSER, through its bias and politically extremist activity surely meets the criteria for exclusion.
As you highlighted in your previous letter, JCSER does not list its funding sources in the portal directory, and this information is also absent from its website. Are you aware of how it is funded? How much research does the portal editorial team do on a NGO before it is admitted as a member? You say that you want to further promote the transparency of the Portal, but we note that many of its NGO members themselves do not practice transparency.
We are currently engaged in an effort to encourage NGOs to post their annual budgets on the Portal. However, as you know this will take a lot of effort and time, but we hope to achieve this objective in the near future.
Thirdly, I would like to take issue with your claim that “Al-Mezan…[is] not [a] grant recipient of PNGO II funds.” As you describe, “Al-Mezan won a contract as part of a consortium of NGOs to develop the NGO Portal – a contract financed through the Project’s funds”. This means not only that Al Mezan received money from the World Bank to work on the portal, but that it was chosen to do so in competitive circumstances. In contrast to your claim that “by providing funding for specific project activities, the Bank cannot be made responsible for all activities that NGO may engage in,” money is fungible and the World Bank should indeed consider itself responsible for promoting a NGO through its funding of a specific project.
The World Bank Procurement procedures require us to open the competition to all qualified potential suppliers except for those that are banned from competition (you can refer to the World Bank website for a list of debarred suppliers) and Al Mezan is not one of them.
Finally, you pointed out a number of factual errors in the initial draft. This draft was based on information provided on the World Bank project websites, and you will see changes in the revised draft. To avoid inaccuracies in the future resulting from direct quotations from the Welfare Consortium’s website (for example of Al Mezan’s role in the NGO portal) or the PNGO website (details of the contributing government funders to PNGO), the World Bank has the responsibility to ensure that the respective websites accurately portray the projects they describe.
Thank you again for your earlier comments. One of NGO Monitor’s central objectives is to promote accountability, and a dialogue with officials is an essential part of that process. I would be happy to receive any further response you may have to this letter and the attached report.
Yours Sincerely,
Sarah Mandel
Associate Editor
NGO Monitor
This reflects a theme running through JCSER publications, such as the August 2001 Report, “Occupied East Jerusalem, a new Soweto? Do Israeli policies and practices in Jerusalem contain elements of ‘the crime of Apartheid’?” Furthermore, a press release from 15th January 2005 contained the following: “This measure combined with the Apartheid wall that the Israeli occupation authorities building [sic] around occupied East Jerusalem is a part of illegally annexing the Palestinian city and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from it.” Such statements do not promote Human Rights, rather they contribute to the incitement and a political campaign that fuels the conflict. In your previous correspondence you claim that: “The World Bank cannot forbid NGOs from being members of an instrument that is established as a service to the NGO community.” However it seems that you have an editorial policy to do just that. And the JCSER, through its bias and politically extremist activity surely meets the criteria for exclusion.
