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