NGOs

In 2024 Armenians and their country, Armenia, face existential annihilation, if neighbouring Azerbaijan fulfils its ambition to turn Armenia into "West Azerbaijan," and their Prime Minister (pictured right) continues to betray them. US-NATO countries have supplied arms, not to assist the Armenian army with defending the country, but to help the police suppress popular revolt. [1] Update 9 July: This is a battle against the evil within the Pashinyan government - Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan

May 28, 2019 U.S. Government Seeks NGO Help For Removing Iran From Syria. The U.S.Department of State is offering a grant of $75,000,000 to non-government-organizations to help it to further meddle in Syria. The grant SFOP0005916 - Supporting Local Governance and Civil Society in Syria will go to "Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education".

The task description is quite interesting as the NGOs which will eventually get the grant will have to commit to counter one of Syria's military allies:

The purpose of this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is to advance the following U.S. Government policy objectives in Syria:

Ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS and counter violent extremism, including other extremist groups in Syria;
Achieve a political solution to the Syrian conflict under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254; and,
End the presence of Iranian forces and proxies in Syria.

The Department of State's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Office of Assistance Coordination (NEA/AC) aims to advance these policy objectives by supporting the following assistance objectives:

Strengthen responsive and credible governance and civil society entities to capably serve and represent communities liberated from ISIS.
Advance a political solution to the Syrian conflict under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254; and,
Counter extremism and disinformation perpetuated by Iranian forces, designated terrorist organizations, and other malign actors through support for local governance actors and civil society organizations.

The operational field for the grant is not only the Syrian northeast which U.S. troops currently occupy, but also the al-Qaeda infested Idleb governorate as well as all government controlled areas.
The related Funding Opportunity Description (available through the above link) does not explain what an NGO could do to advance the highlighted U.S. government goals.
Work on the three year project is supposed to start on January 1 2020. It must be applied for by August 2 2019.

Haiti, battered by natural disasters, is reeling from a scandal around the revelations of abuse by international aid workers. How will it affect the humanitarian efforts of NGOs and the UN in the country? We ask Ezili Danto, Haitian human rights lawyer.

Follow @SophieCo_RT

Sophie Shevardnadze: Ezili Danto, Haitian human rights lawyer, welcome. It’s really great to have you on our programme. Lots to talk about. The latest scandal in Haiti is over Oxfam employees engaging in sexual exploitation in the country. The Haitian government has suspended the work of the UK charity. Oxfam has apologised, started an investigation and fired those responsible - what more could they do right now? 

Ezili Danto: Well, I think, Oxfam is just sort of a symptom of the problem because Haiti is under occupation. And these NGOs are there masturbating on this pain that has been imposed upon us because of imperialism. What else could they do? They could actually leave Haiti.

This article reproduces a leaflet written by Jim Quirk, who was my father. The leaflet advertised a 'Nature Show' at the lower Melbourne Town Hall in 1966. The Field Naturalists Club of Victoria and the Society for Growing Australian Plants sponsored the Nature Show to help the plight and status of the wombat in Australia. I wonder if the same results could be achieved today. Have we advanced at all? Reading of the particularly dire conditions for wombats in South Australia, it would seem not. And, think of the kangaroos who suffer so badly still at the wrong end of rifles and who are caught up so messily and tragically in urban development. The discursive nature of the account below may be a reflection of a time when conservation was a battle but our lives were not as stressed and rushed as they are today. We were more able to organise politically for causes in NGOs which were not then commercialised.

The Wombat

This animal, as all naturalists and most people in general know, is a marsupial, indigenous to Australia , including some Bass Strait islands. It is confined to Eastern and Southern Australia, including the great Australian Bight area. Fossil remains have been have been found in Western Australia, s,o apparently it inhabited that part of the continent.

Wombats are divided into five main species, although some naturalists concede only four distinct types. The most significant differences in the various species are size, fur and nose covering. The species best known to Victoria has a bare nose.,while others in Eastern Australia have hairy noses. Some have coarse hair; this applies to the Naked -nosed Wombat, while the southern , while the Southern Hairy-Nosed and Flinders Island species have soft silky fur. Size and weight for adults varies from about 2’ 6’ and fifty pounds, to 3’ 6” and eighty pounds or more. These figures apply to the small Flinders Island variety and the species familiar to Victorians respectively.

Wombats are, of course essentially nocturnal animals and as they burrow in the ground sometimes to the extent of 15 feet, are not frequently seen. They are herbivorous, feeding mainly on grass, the roots of a variety of vegetation and some fungi, almost entirely confining this activity to the hours of darkness.

These native animals are not prolific breeders, bearing only one young a year, about July. Tiny when born , the young remains with the parent for about 6 months. Wombats are credited with being the most intelligent of marsupials and the Flinders Island variety is regarded as being the most attractive of the species. It is on record that wombats have become most docile with friendly people and much liked as pets.

The wombat as with most animals and birds has suffered greatly with the advent of the white man to this country - very little is known of the hairy-nosed variety of South Queensland, and those inhabiting Southern New South Wales have been killed out over a large part of their range. By 1887, every wombat on King Island had been killed. This brings me to the “political" side of this animal, as affecting it in the State of Victoria.

Victorians have certainly been no exception to the incompatibility of native fauna and human settlement. The wombat early incurred the displeasure of settlers, when they erected fences to stop the movement of the introduced rabbit. These fences naturally came across the path of the wombat as it moved about to feed at night. Being a very strong animal and naturally adopted to burrowing and pushing obstacles aside, the wombat had no difficulty in getting through the fences . So the irony is that the introduced rabbit has indirectly been the death of probably hundreds of thousands of wombats: no rabbits, - no wire-netting fences - no holes made by wombats - and probably no entry to the Vermin List on which this otherwise harmless animal was placed by the State Government in 1906, at the behest of farming interests.

Of course human settlement would still have affected this creature as it has all forms of wild life, but possibly not as drastically, as in addition to being the only only native animal declared vermin in 1906, a bounty on its destruction was added in 1925. The operation of the Act was for municipalities to administer the bounty, but subsidised to the extent of 2/6 a “scalp” by the State Government. The subsidy was increased to 7/6 in 1949 with the local councils adding 2/6 which meant a reward of 10/- ($1.00) for each wombat killed by farmers and hunters. Municipalities concerned were mainly in northern Victoria, where the animals are most numerous.

The exact number of wombats killed in Victoria since Federation is not known, but in the past 6 years, bonuses have been paid in respect in respect to over 50,000. I consider the number slaughtered since the introduction of the bonus in 1925 must be at least 500,000, although exact figures are not available, as amounts paid in bonuses before 1960 also included dingoes, foxes etc. Many more before this though would have been slaughtered - as mentioned earlier, the animal was classified as vermin in 1906. No one knows the present Victorian wombat population - estimates vary between 2,000,000 and 500,000 - it could be much less than the latter.They are now practically confined to the “wilderness' area of Eastern Victoria being largely eliminated by settlement etc.

The Fauna protection Council was formed in 1959 to counter a widespread racket, prevalent then in the export of Australian birds. It obtained the affiliation of most of the natural history and animal welfare organisations in the State at the time. It was successful in its representations to the Federal Government not to further permit the export of native birds.

Many unsatisfactory aspects of the treatment of native fauna were subsequently discussed by the Council, prominent amongst them, the sad situation of the native wombat. As we considered its vices exaggerated, its treatment by authority unenlightened and not in accord with civilised society, it was decided in 1961 to try to persuade the then Minister for Lands to remove it from the vermin list and logically place it under the control of the Fisheries and Wildlife Department, like other native species. Despite considerable efforts, we were unable to get the Minister to alter the decision made 55 years earlier.

In 1964, with a new Lands Minister in office, the council decided to again put in a plea for the wombat, and as a result had a deputation to the Minister in October of that year. With the aid of many other people and organisations, despite considerable opposition from political representatives of farming interests, some headway was made the Government giving consideration to the removal of the bonus system of control. It was then realised that this was the best we could hope for at this stage; after all, old customs die hard, they’d been shooting and trapping wombats for probably 100 years. It was accordingly decided to concentrate on this, which culminated in the Government passing a bill, after vigorous debate and opposition from a political segment, in April of this year to discontinue the payment of the $1.00 wombat bonus for a trial period of three years.

The morality of the bonus rankled strongly and the Council now feel that this is a most significant decision, although not all that was sought. Considerable destruction of the animal by fumigation and other methods will still be carried out by Lands department employees, if Gippsland farmers have their way, as this native animal is still classified as VERMIN. The Council will not be satisfied until the wombat is removed form the list of Vermin and placed under the control of the Fisheries and Wildlife Department. On the other hand, full note must be taken that the bounty has been removed for only a “trial' period of three years, and little mercy or sentimentality was shown in the parliamentary debates on the subject. In the three years we have, we will have to persuade the Government to sponsor some satisfactory research on the animal, so that more will be known about its numbers, natural increase and life cycle.

What has happened to the wombat over the years is an example of the ruthlessness and brutality of our dominant species towards other forms of life with which we share this world. What has been achieved in the last few months is an example of what an enlightened, determined public can achieve. It is an example that in the long run it is not the overwhelming mass of people or a few academics who are going to save wild life and habitat, but a persistent and informed section of the public, the more numerous the better, who are prepared to give their time and energy to persuade our legislators that it is good policy to adopt intelligent wildlife conservation measures - for it is the politicians who are eventually going to make these decisions, be they good or ill.

J.H Quirk

(August 1966)

People are becoming more aware of the contradictions in the dominant (official) rhetoric about Syria and foreign intervention on behalf of the rebels. People hope to find out the truth from women and ordinary people, because they know they cannot really trust the mainstream media or, unfortunately, various NGOs and political organisations. Inside, find a link to an interview with Agnes Mariam about about how Syrian women feel about Islamic fundamentalism, and about the very doubtful role of the UN, NGOs and Al Jazeera in this expanding conflict.

Mother Agnes Mariam in Oct 2012

I would also like to draw your attention again to the Skype interview recorded with Mother Agnes in early January 2014. http://socratesandsyria.com/mother-agnes-mariam/ The link is to a page which contains other videos on the same subject.

We should aim to be pro-peace, pro- the interests of the people of Syria as a whole, pro- the survival of secular Syria and at the same time scrupulous in our chase for the truth, but not a slanted 'truth' which inevitably would lead to ongoing war and the ultimate destruction of the Syrian army and secular society.

In regards to being pro-regime or pro-Assad, they are accusations used to intimidate and stifle dissenting voices. The current government of Syria and its current president are not Syria and not the people, though they represent them in a political capacity at this time.

If their staying in power for some time aids the general public and the society as a whole, then may they stay in power.

It is the future of the Syrian state and the 23 million Syrians that we must be concerned about, the future of generations.

Unfortunately, with the stigmatising of the Syrian government and president all positive efforts made on their part to support the people and society are ignored outside Syria.

Apparently the government has recently introduced laws which will give more opportunity for people who work on the land to have a fairer stake in that land, so the rich absentee land owners will have to give a significant percentage of their land to poorer, working families. Regrettably, the media in Gulf states or western countries won't bother to report on such laws, both because they represent Bashar al-Assad in a positive light and because the democratic local repartition of land runs counter to their globalism values, which are for power and assets in a few international corporate and dynastic hands.

However, in regards to peace activism, it is still amazing how much good work the 'ordinary person' - people like you and me - is able to achieve. I'm referring to people with no other agenda except a search for the truth and a fervent desire for peace and harmony, so children in Palestine, Syria and the region can be sent off to school with joy and dreams in their hearts, rather than grief and fear.

In May 2013, an international peace delegation visited a camp in Lebanon with refugees from Yarmouk, one lady very discreetly told Marinella and me to work hard to get the truth because it was the truth that could save them.
This is an oft-heard remark but it is a powerful one when the continued prosecution of a war is dependent on dissembling and fabrications.

Women will persistently seek the truth in these times perhaps more often than men, given the chance. Unfortunately women's voices are less sought than men's, so the pro-war message gets magnified. Mother Agnes Mariam is a leader among women and her persistence and her bravery in speaking out against war and terror have given her an audience. May we be open to her message and not discredit it because of ignorance and because of a reliance on less informed, but familiar, faces.

Max Planck's adage should therefore be amended to read that "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it --- and by being adequately funded and promoted by people who incarnate Dale Carnegie's formula for success."

Influencing Influential People

Let me share my cynicism about the role of funding and politics in assigning value to new ideas.

I wished I had $. I am quite financially stressed, and after phoning a travel agent, and Kelowna Tourist bureau twice over the last 3 days, I informed my ally in mischief, Madeline Weld, that I probably can't make it to that Kelowna CSEE conference.

After 6 years of full-out activism I have come to a jaded conclusion about the value of conferences. As JK Galbraith said of them, they take place to simulate action. They are more like revival meetings in that their real purpose is to allow the devout to meet folks of their own kind and be assured that they are not alone--and with their morale thus boosted, return home with a false sense of momentum and confidence. Nevertheless, I have also noticed that attending conferences is mandatory for those who want their papers and books published and well reviewed. Successful authors must physically meet with their peers, look into their eyes, shake their hands, tell them jokes, exchange small talk, and form a 'relationship' with them over the buffet table or dinner afterward. Once they have done that, then anything they subsequently write will be elevated to a stature that is not merited by its contents.

For example, I would wager a fair sum that if I were to submit a set of articles to one group---the control group---with my name on it, and a second set of identical articles to a second group with let's say, William Rees' name on it, the latter group would instantly proclaim my articles a masterpiece, while the former would likely ignore or dismiss it. Several examples could be summoned to validate this belief, but two will suffice. Author Doris Lessing found that once she reached celebrity, her manuscripts were greeted with enthusiasm and her not-so-brilliant books were assured of wide purchase. So as an experiment, she wrote a story under a pseudonym. It was largely ignored. Coincidence? I think not.

Another case---Chris Clugston. He has been saying essentially the same thing for five years, but for the first four of those years the people in my network more or less refused to acknowledge his facts and insights, preferring instead to stick with limited eco-footprinting analysis. Call it 'brand loyalty'. ("GPS? No thanks, I will stick with my compass"). Once his work finally percolated up to the organizational top dogs in the network, and once they endorsed it after reading William Catton's endorsement---they suddenly felt able to give him the seal of approval--though they remain true to their fixation on energy and climate change. Call that peer pressure and group-think (as documented by Solomon Asch's research). Chris's problem was that for those first four years he didn't attend any conferences. People heard of him but they had never met him. But things changed after that.

Of course, if his work was utter nonsense, it is unlikely it would have reached that pinnacle. But that is not my point. My point is that a great many people with important and revolutionary concepts that are well articulated remain unknown simply because they lacked the means or the connections to meet the "right" people or the good sense not to offend their egos. Not the smart people, but the influential people. The principal rule is "Thou shalt not trespass revered icons". You must spend a good two paragraphs grovelling before their achievements, thanking them for their past contributions, and genuflecting in their direction, but you must never ever challenge their obsolete shibboleths. (Now repeat after me, "We must educate and empower women", "couples must be free to choose their family size", "we must return to a sustainable population level of 2 billion", "we must stop growing") There is no new knowledge, only revealed truth. The truth according to Ehrlich, Brown, Bartlett, Rees and Wackernagel.

Our movement is much like a monarchy. You do not displace those in the pantheon or their staid commentaries, you can only out-live them. They will be celebrated by the guardians of orthodoxy in the organization's hierarchy until they pass. Challenge them and you and your ideas will be banished to the margins. You must play the game and waste precious time earning brownie points with mediocre minds who achieve job security by spouting the party line for organizations dedicated to not solving the problems that sustain donations. They are our priesthood.

In other words, there is a class of people in our movement I call "schmoozers", who make a lifestyle of resting their comfortable arses in DC or jet-setting around the continent (or the world) attending conferences, and come to form a sub-culture of insiders who use their political power within the movement to act as arbiters and filters of incoming ideas. Good luck to you if you have something novel or important to say but haven't run their social gauntlet or been personally vetted by them. And how do you get vetted? By going to conferences and glad-handing them. If you lack the financial means to go to conferences, your ideas are essentially quarantined. It's a good thing that somebody gave Einstein the dough to travel or we would still be clinging to Newtonian physics--the EFA of the scientific establishment until the 1920s.

I have a suspicion that many of the ascendant ideas in science---or any field---owe as much of their success to politics and funding as to anything else. That surely can't be regarded as an earth-shattering revelation, but it think it has never been more true than it is now. Max Planck's adage should therefore be amended to read that "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it --- and by being adequately funded and promoted by people who incarnate Dale Carnegie's formula for success."

Money rules, and the ideas of paupers languish. If you sense some bitterness in this observation, your sense is correct.

Tim

PS Something about American culture puzzles me. In American professional sports, for example, if a team consistently posts a losing record, you can expect that the coach or manager will be fired. Good intentions, strong efforts, and bad luck are inadequate excuses. Only results count. It's a tough business. Yet there are people running organizations like Numbers USA, Fair, or the World Watch Institute who have remained in the saddle drawing handsome salaries for DECADES while the population of the United States and the world has grown leaps and bounds unchecked. Shouldn't their careers and their organizations carry an expiry date? Shouldn't they be held accountable for futility? Either their message is wrong or their ability to convey that message is faulty. It would be bad enough if failure was their only sin. But it is worse than that. They have all actively attempted to push alternative ideas and approaches off the stage in order to maintain their monopoly of the cause, managing the problem rather than addressing its root cause in order to milk a limited donor basee. They are living validation of Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy.