In October 2001 The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom accused Jehovah’s Witnesses of hypocrisy for being registered with the United Nations’ (UN) Department of Public Information (DPI) as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). The newspaper claimed that all NGOs must support the United Nations, therefore Jehovah’s Witnesses were guilty of hypocrisy because of teaching the United Nations is the prophesied “disgusting thing” of Revelation.

The Watchtower Society, the legal corporation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, immediately withdrew the DPI NGO membership. They explained that the requirements for being a DPI NGO had changed since they first signed up in 1992, and they then thanked The Guardian for bringing the matter to their attention. —See the Letter from the Chairmans Committee

More to it?

However, since that time many former disgruntled Jehovah’s Witnesses and other opposers have claimed that the NGO requirements never changed. Conspiracy theorists claim the Watchtower Society knew they were supporting the United Nations and kept it a “secret”. They even go so far as accusing the Watchtower Society of having deliberately distributed pro-UN propaganda in issues of the Awake! as “part of the deal” with the UN.

One conspiracy theorist has gone a step further, declaring the Watchtower Society has turned “apostate” and committed “spiritual adultery”, and is now part of a global conspiracy to promote a totalitarian world government under the UN. They claim that the letters of explanation from the Bethel are full of “lies” and “cover-ups”.

An investigation

What really happened? Are these accusations based in fact? Does the paper-trail of evidence support these claims? Do the records held at the UN corroborate the Watchtower Society’s story? Furthermore, are the ones making these allegations trustworthy?

This work will demonstrate, using evidence directly from the United Nations records and the Watchtower Society’s publications, why we believe such accusations are without merit. We will endeavor to show that the “evidence” presented by conspiracy theorists is often highly selective, grossly misleading, and often has mistakes. Furthermore, we will also inform you about those who make these claims yet know full well that their arguments have serious flaws, and how they have openly tried to censor and cover-up this information.

If you have previously read the claims of such men, we implore you to set aside all prejudice and any other emotions, to fairly and dispassionately consider the other side of the argument without any preconceived ideas, and be happy to change your views if necessary. A judge in a court of law would not make a decision before considering the arguments of the defense, and neither should you. A truly humble person would do so.

This article will go over many different chapters with a lot of points. Each chapter will be in Large Bold Font and it will be underlined so you will be able to find each chapter. Here are the lists of chapters.

• 1: Know your NGOs! (Discussing the two different NGOs)
• 2: Sign Somewhere (Was a signature Required?)
• 3: The Changing World of NGOs (The change since watchtower became apart of it)
• 4: Following it to the Letter (Response letter after it became public)
• 5: UN’s Letter in Response (to the withdraw of the society)
• 6: Principal Support (Did the society support the UN?)
• 7: Promoting UN Propaganda (Did the watchtower society make literature promoting/speaking highly about the UN to stay as NGO?)
• 8: Self-Condemnation (Did the Society ridicule others for the same actions?)
• 9: A Non Guilty Verdict (Conclusions)

Chapter 1: Know Your NGOs!

When you hear that the Watchtower Society was a United Nations NGO, you may not be aware that there is actually more than one kind of NGO. This fact is important, and is often deliberately obscured by those who try to condemn and criticize the Society.

In the United Nations system, there are NGOs who are associated with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and there are also NGOs associated with the Department of Public Information (DPI). The Watchtower Society was of the latter kind — associated with the DPI.

However, many websites and at least one book deliberately misleads their readers by quoting rules and stipulations to ECOSOC NGOs, and then pretending that those resolutions and rules apply to DPI NGOs, of which the Watchtower Society was one. This tactic is grossly dishonest and many of those who make this claim know full well they are misleading their readers. Let us now examine the true differences between the NGO types, which apostates and other opposers often try to keep hidden.

What’s the difference?

The difference between the two types is quite stark. The online political magazine Insight has this to say on the matter:

“For an NGO to be recognized by the United Nations, however, there are requirements, and even two statuses for which an NGO might apply. The DPI status is under the authority of the U.N. Department of Public Information (UNDPI), which controls U.N. archives and research facilities…

“The other status for which the NGOs may apply is ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council) status. The U.N. Website says that to obtain ECOSOC standing an NGO must prove that its work is directly relevant to U.N. goals. With ECOSOC standing an NGO may enter into a formal consultative relationship with access to officials of U.N. member states and must provide useful or special information to the U.N. Economic and Social Council…”

Notice how DPI NGOs are under a department which controls “archives and research facilities”, yet on the other hand ECOSOC NGOs have a “formal consultative relationship” with the United Nations, and it’s work must be “directly relevant” to the UN’s goals. In other words, the ECOSOC NGO consults with the UN on it’s policies and helps it achieve it’s political aims and direct it’s policy-making.

This is exactly what apostates are accusing the Watchtower Society of doing. Yet, this is not a description of the type of NGO the Watchtower Society was, but it is a description of the other type of NGO — that associated with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

The Watchtower Society was a totally different type of NGO associated with a different UN department — the Department of Public Information (DPI). Accusers deny this, and claim the differences are “irrelevant facts”, when we can clearly see that is not how the UN feels about the matter. Let us now examine the original Resolutions of the United Nations to show the difference between ECOSOC and DPI NGOs.

Resolution 1296 of ECOSOC

The idea of creating NGOs associated with ECOSOC was actually first written into the United Nations charter, where it says:

“The Economic and Social Council [ECOSOC] may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organizations and, where appropriate, with national organizations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.” —Article 71 of the United Nations Charter

Later, ECOSOC adopted a resolution concerning NGOs, which says, in part:

“The Economic and Social Council [ECOSOC],
Having regard to Article 71 of the Charter of the United Nations, Recognizing that arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations provide an important means of furthering the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Considering that consultations between the Council and its subsidiary organs and the non-governmental organizations should be developed to the fullest practicable extent, Approves the following arrangements, which supersede those set out in its resolution 288 B (X) of 27 February 1950:” —ECOSOC Resolution 1296 (XLIV) Arrangements for Consultation with Non-Governmental Organizations; 23 May 1968

This same resolution goes on to state that an ECOSOC NGO “…shall undertake to support the work of the UN.”

Yet, those infamous words often quoted by apostates as “proof” that the Watchtower Society agreed to support the United Nations were actually words penned by ECOSOC in one of their resolutions — talking about their NGOs — not those of the DPI which is a separate UN department.

These words of resolution 1296 never applied to the Watchtower Society as they were never an ECOSOC NGO. However, the ECOSOC also made another resolution, 1297. What does that say?

Resolution 1297: “…bear in mind the letter and spirit…”

In their next resolution, 1297, the ECOSOC gave the Department of Public Information, the DPI, it’s power to associate it’s own NGOs. The resolution says, in part:

“[ECOSOC] [r]ecommends that the Secretary-General bear in mind the letter and spirit of Council resolution 1296 (XLIV) governing consultative status, in associating international and national non-governmental organizations with the Office of Public Information [DPI];”

This is often quoted as proof that, although the Watchtower Society was not under the previous resolution (1296) which says the NGO must “support the work of the UN”, this next resolution did apply to the Watchtower Society — and this resolution says it must “bear in mind the letter and spirit of Council resolution 1296”.

Yet, is that really what it says? No. The resolution is giving an instruction to the “Secretary-General” — not to the NGOs themselves. It does not say that “the NGO must bear in mind the letter and spirit of Council resolution 1296”. No — it is an instruction to the Secretary-General, and to no-one else.

This fact is reflected in the original forms which the Watchtower Society completed in 1991 to become a DPI NGO. If you carefully examine the forms, you will notice that it nowhere says that the Watchtower Society should “bear in mind the letter and spirit of Council resolution 1296”. Why? Because as said, the instruction was to “the Secretary-General” — just as it says in the resolution — and not to the NGOs at all. —See the original 1991 application forms

If, in fact, it had been a requirement, you would imagine that it would have been on the forms somewhere. Perhaps the forms would have said something like, “You agree to bear in mind ECOSOC resolution 1296” or perhaps even say, “We hereby agree to support the UN and it’s charter”, followed by a dotted-line for a signature, legally confirming that the NGO agreed to those terms. Yet, that is not what we find anywhere. Nowhere does it say anything about supporting “the work of the UN” on any of the forms, nor does it mention the ECOSOC resolution. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be a single part of those forms which says anything which may compromise our Christian beliefs.

So we can see that the Watchtower Society never agreed to be subject to Resolution 1296 of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) where it says NGOs must support the UN. That resolution only applied to ECOSOC NGOs — of which the Watchtower Society has never been. The next resolution was an instruction to the Secretary-General, and to no-one else, and neither was it reflected in the forms that the Watchtower Society completed.

This brings us on to another important subject — the forms themselves. What did those forms say? Do their contents corroborate with what the Watchtower Society claimed happened?

Chapter 2: Sign Somewhere?

In the previous chapter, we showed how the Watchtower Society, as a UN Department of Public Information (DPI) Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), was not under the authority of the ECOSOC resolution which said NGOs should “support” the UN. The fact that the Watchtower Society was not under that resolution is reflected in the forms it completed in 1991.

No where on those forms is there anything which would compromise the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If there was something there then we could read it on those forms ourselves — as some critics would expect — but instead there is simply nothing there. —See the original 1991 forms

You will also notice that there doesn’t even seem to be a place to put a signature. This corroborates what the Watchtower Society itself said in it’s letter to The Guardian newspaper, where the spokesman for the London Bethel explained, “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form.”

However, some critics claim that the Society is being deliberately misleading. They claim that NGOs had to renew their status with the DPI each year and re-apply. They usually show a copy of a 2005 “Accreditation Form” for yearly status renewal — complete with a place for a signature and date at the bottom. That form states that the NGO “must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. Therefore, they make the accusation that the Watchtower Society not only had to sign a new application every year, but were also well aware that they were supporting the United Nations because it was on the form. However, is this argument valid?

Yearly renewal?

No, the argument is not valid. In fact, the critics are being deliberately misleading and are hoping you won’t notice. If we actually take the time to read through the 2005 “Accreditation Form”, yes the very document they present as “proof” that the Society renewed it’s application each year, what do we find? We find that is says this:

“In 2002 we instituted the review process for NGOs associated with DPI.”

That’s right — the renewal process where the NGO must reapply and sign a form each year was not started until the year after the Watchtower Society resigned as an NGO! This very fact is stated in the document apostates use a “proof” that the Society “renewed their application each year”! Evidently, the apostates just hope you will believe what they say and won’t notice what’s written in the text of the document. Amazing.

This fact is further confirmed by a United Nations Press Release in December of 2001, which says, in part:

“During the year the DPI has instituted a review process for the first time, in order to better measure the effectiveness of its liaison activities with associated NGOs.”

So the evidence shows that the Watchtower Society did not have to renew it’s NGO status at any time during it’s membership, nor did any other NGO associated with the DPI. Only between the end of 2001 to the beginning of 2002 did the process begin, months after the Society resigned as an NGO. That is when the Accreditation Form was changed to say NGOs must support he UN and when the form became a renewal application.

However, prior to that date the Society (and other NGOs) certainly did have to sign the previous version of the Accreditation Form every year. What did the previous version of the form say? Who signed it?

Yearly representatives and areas of interest

Each year, the DPI required its NGOs to sign the Accreditation Form to state who its representatives would be — to allow them to gain access to the DPI’s extensive facilities at the United Nations in New York.

Here we have a copy of the Accreditation Form as it appeared prior to 2002 — before the renewal process began and before the form was changed to become a renewal application. See the form for yourself at this location. As you can see, this earlier version of the form says nothing about supporting the United Nations. The form is merely there to allow representatives of the NGO to access the DPI’s facilities. The form itself clearly states:

“This form should be used to confirm your currently accredited representative and/or to authorize newly appointed representatives.”

The form the Society signed each year was obviously not a renewal application. To deny this and continue to insist that they did renew their status each year, would be senseless. Interestingly, also appearing on this earlier form is the following question:

“Please indicate your organization’s main area(s) of interest (e.g. development, disarmament, religion, environment, human rights, conflict resolution, women, etc.)”

Some apostates have found lists of UN NGOs where the Watchtower Society is listed, complete with items such as “human rights”, and “women” listed as the Society’s areas of interest. They have noticed how these areas of interest have changed in the records from year-to-year. Therefore, they have argued that it “proves” the Society must have annually renewed their NGO membership because the “areas of interest” kept changing. Yet, as we can clearly see from the form, that question did not appear on a yearly renewal form at all — but on the form to get the representatives their access passes.

It is clear, then, that the Watchtower Society did not reapply for it’s NGO status each year, and that the Accreditation Form (prior to 2001/2002) which the Society did sign annually, was simply to state who it’s representatives would be along with their areas of interest for accessing the DPI’s facilities.

It is also clear that the Watchtower Society was being truthful when it said “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form”, and that the forms signed by the Society really did not conflict with Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs. We can see the evidence for ourselves.

Chapter 3: The Changing World of NGOs

The United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) produces a special brochure for it’s Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). This brochure acts as an introduction to new NGOs and stipulates the requirements of being an NGO.

To mislead their readers, many critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses quote from the currentversion of the DPI’s NGO brochure and falsely claim that those requirements are what the Watchtower Society originally signed up to in 1991. The requirements given by the brochure for the DPI’s NGOs include the requirement that the NGO should support the UN. Critics quote this brochure as the “proof” that the Society secretly knew they were supporting the United Nations. They claim that this requirement was in place since before 1991, and has remained unchanged ever since. Is this claim true?

No. The critics are lying. They simply hope that you won’t think too much about it, and that you won’t delve a little deeper and discover the evidence that the NGO world has changed considerably since 1991. We do not have the brochure from 1991, but we do have a copy of the 1994 brochure, which is considerably different from the current version which the apostates quote.

A new relationship

In fact, the 1994 brochure even testifies to the very fact the requirements and expectations of the DPI’s NGOs were changing. Page six of the 1994 document says this:

“A new relationship between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature. NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities.”

Indeed, the above statement proved accurate. For if we compare the current (2005) brochure to the 1994 brochure, we see major changes. For example, the 2005 brochure says the following:

“What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”

Apostates often use the above quote, and repeat it endlessly as “proof” of the Watchtower Society’s support of the UN. Yet this appears in the 2005 brochure, do we know if it appears in the older brochures? We already stated that we have a copy of the 1994 brochure, so does that phrase appear there? No, not at all. On the contrary, in the 1994 brochure we find that the above statement has replaced the following original statement:

“Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”

Notice the difference. In 2005, NGOs must support the principles of the UN Charter. In 1994, the NGOs must simply share the same ideals. Just what are those ideals?

“to maintain international peace and security; to suppress acts of aggression that threaten world peace; to encourage friendly relations among nations; to protect the fundamental freedoms of all peoples without discrimination based on race, sex, language, or religion; and to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, and cultural problems.”

Does the Watchtower Society and Jehovah’s Witnesses share those same ideals? They most certainly do — and have done so for years before the UN formed! It is understandable why NGOs should share these same ideals, for the UN would not want to assist or help any organization which promotes contrary ideas. For example, the resolution which gave the DPI power to associate NGOs elaborates on this desire:

“…the Secretary-General [should] ensure that the Office of Public Information [DPI], while reviewing the status of present organizations or considering new applications, excludes all those organizations whose aims or practices tend or contribute to the propagation of nazi ideology and racial and/or religious discrimination;”

We now have a better idea of why the 1994 requirements for being an NGO should stipulate that any associated organization should share the same ideals as the UN charter. They must share the same ideals of religious and racial tolerance and should not in any way promote contrary, racist or discriminatory ideas.

Support the UN by featuring UN information

Some have pointed to page 7 of the 1994 brochure where it states that the NGO must show that they “can prove, during the initial two years of association with DPI, that they support the United Nations by featuring UN information in their publications and outreach activity.”

However, take note that it does not say support the UN by supporting the principles and charter of the UN. Nor does it say to support the UN by supporting all their endeavors. The support spoken of is by writing articles about the UN. In other words, the word ‘support’ as defined in Websters Dictionary in this case means “to provide corroborating evidence or information”. —Read more about the word support in the chapter Principle Support

The 53rd General Assembly

Clearly, the requirements in 1994 were different than in 2005. There is further confirmation that the NGO world was changing. In 1998, the 53rd General Assembly of the United Nations reflected this changing situation, and declared it was entering a “new era” in it’s relationship with NGOs:

“80. In the aftermath of the global conferences and with the emergence of a new international environment characterized by unrestricted flows of information, the United Nations has entered a new era in its relations with NGOs and other civil society actors. The Economic and Social Council recognized this changed relationship when it adopted resolution 1996/31. Many agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system have followed suit. The Secretariat, for its part, has tried to adapt to this new situation in creative and innovative ways and will pursue its efforts in this field. The United Nations is committed to seek the participation and contribution of NGOs in its work. New approaches, attitudes, methods and responses are required throughout the United Nations system if we are to meet this challenge effectively”

We now have two confirmed lines of evidence showing the United Nations relationships with NGOs (both ECOSOC and DPI) changed over the 1990’s.

Changing very fast

In June 1999 the Global Policy Forum, a ECOSOC NGO organization which monitors policy making at the United Nations, published a report which stated:

“The [DPI & ECOSOC] NGO world is changing very fast, in terms of activities and needs, and UN offices that relate to NGOs must be change-oriented and flexible. The offices should consider a streamlined, web-based application system.”

If the requirements and expectations of NGOs have not changed since 1991, as apostates claim, we wonder why the Global Policy Forum would make such a statement. Clearly it is because the critics are wrong, and that the NGO world really has changed “very fast” and the evidence proves it.

Proposing a booklet

In 1999 the Secretary-General published a report in which he stressed the need for a brochure to be sent to all NGOs:

“It was also proposed that each NGO should receive an orientation/welcome booklet and/or session upon obtaining formal status with the UN. The information should include specifics about the NGO liaison offices in the UN system, including names, contacts, locations. The booklet should reinforce mutual rights and responsibilities, as well as practical guidelines for the functioning of NGOs within physical structures and protocols of the UN, including how to follow debates and so forth.” — Section 24

We wonder why in 1999 the Secretary General should have “proposed” that each NGO should receive a welcome booklet or brochure including “specifics” about the UN system and “practical guidelines” and “protocols” for NGOs, if the NGOs were already receiving such a booklet prior to this.

Perhaps receipt of this booklet was sporadic, perhaps it was not sent every year. Perhaps the Watchtower Society didn’t even receive one when their status was granted in 1992. What is certain, however, is that they certainly did not receive the 2005 brochure which opposers constantly quote from — the Society couldn’t have possibly received that version 13 years earlier, for we know it’s contents have changed. When opposers quote from the 2005 version as proof that the Watchtower Society supported the UN — they are simply wrong. Whatever was said in the 1991 brochure which the Society received — if they received one at all — it certainly did not say that. Further, when it is claimed the NGO requirements did not change, this is also clearly wrong for the UN has said they changed.

So far in this work we have shown how many claims of apostates have proved false. They do not distinguish between ECOSOC and DPI NGOs, misapplying ECOSOC’s requirement to that of the DPI’s NGOs. They have wrongly claimed the Society had to renew its application each year, when we can see from their own “proof” that they did not. They have also lied and stated that the 1991 NGO requirements remained unchanged when we can clearly see they did not. We are not stupid, we can see they have changed — as can the DPI department itself, the 53rd General Assembly, the Global Policy Forum, and the Secretary-General have all acknowledged on several occasions. If there was no change, we wonder why the forms are now so different and why all these people would say such things.

Now we have established these facts, we can move on to consider exactly how the Watchtower Society explained it’s NGO relationship. Were the Society’s letters of explanations truthful? Or are they full of lies and cover-ups, as many critics claim?

Chapter 4: Following it to the Letter

When The Guardian first published it’s article about the NGO situation, the London Bethel wrote a letter to the Editor correcting the article and clarifying the situation.

Critics, however, claim that Bethel’s letters of explanation are a “cover-up”, and that Bethel have shown themselves to be “outright liars”. Are these accusations valid? Does the evidence corroborate what Bethel stated, or does the evidence show them to be “liars” as some would have us believe? —See the three letters from Bethel here, here, and here.

Why become an NGO?

Let’s examine what Bethel is claiming in the letters. First, concerning the reason for becoming a DPI NGO, in two of the letters from Bethel claims it was:

“…for the sole purpose of getting access to the extensive library of the United Nations. This enabled a writer who received an identification card, to enter their library for research purposes and to obtain information that has been used in writing articles in our journals about the United Nations.”

“Our purpose … was to have access to research material available on health, ecological, and social problems at the United Nations library facilities.”

Some claim the above statements are lies. They claim that absolutely anyone could have accessed the libraries and that there was absolutely no need to gain NGO status. Bethel acknowledged that their explanation is not believed by the critics. They said:

“Although critics may claim that access to the libraries could have been obtained without the need to register as an NGO, that is not what our research personnel were told at the time. They found it necessary to present an authorized pass to gain access to those specific areas, which were off limits to the public.”

The critics often quote statements from the United Nations that the main library, the Dag Hammarskjold Library and it’s depository libraries, were accessible to absolutely anyone prior to September 2001. You can read e-mails from the UN itself saying this exact thing.

However, if that is completely true we wonder why the 1994 NGO brochure stated that:

“For NGOs associated with DPI, the United Nations provides: … use of the Dag Hammarskjold Library.”

If absolutely anyone could use the entire facilities, we wonder why the brochure advertises use of that library as a perk of being a DPI NGO. Of course, if we look carefully we can see that the Watchtower Society did not say they merely wanted access to the “main library”. Bethel said that it was “necessary to present an authorized pass to gain access to those specific areas”. Yes, Bethel never claimed it needed a pass to access the Library itself, but to “specific areas” of that library and specific “library facilities”. A quick investigation reveals that there is far, far, more to the United Nations libraries than simply a main library full of books — and far, far, more than simply the Dag Hammarskjold building.

The library facilities of the United Nations, under the Department of Public Information, includes the following:

• books
• film and audio libraries
• photo libraries
• access to meetings
• language courses
• briefings

• seminars
• conferences
• film screenings
• commemorations
• concerts
• the DPI NGO Resource Center

To access the full range of these facilities you need a DPI NGO pass. Prior to September 2001 you may have been able to simply walk into the Dag Hammarskjold Library as the opposers correctly say — but it is entirely misleading to say all the “library facilities” were available to anyone, because they were clearly not. An NGO pass was required to access everything — otherwise why would the 1994 brochure advertise full access to that library as an NGO privilege? There is only one logical reason: because around 1991 the DPI was making further facilities available at the library, but only to those with an NGO pass.

Did NGO status really become necessary?

Knowing about the full range of facilities offered by the DPI helps explain Bethel’s other claim in it’s letters:

“We had been using the library for many-years prior to 1991, but in that year it became necessary to register as an NGO to have continued access.”

“In any case, we had been using the library facilities at the UN for many years prior to 1991. In that year, our researcher was advised by UN personnel that it would be necessary to register as and NGO to have continued access to the various libraries we were using.”

The Watchtower Society’s researcher was apparently told he could no longer access certain areas or facilities without an NGO pass. Why? Perhaps the facilities were new, and reserved only for DPI NGOs. Perhaps existing facilities were now being reserved only for the use of DPI NGO representatives. Perhaps the brother wished to access certain documents which were off-limit to the general public. Or perhaps certain exhibitions or events were taking place that were DPI NGO-invitation only. These possibilities are hinted at in one of Bethel’s letters, where it states that a DPI NGO pass was necessary to access “specific areas”, presumably areas which were previously accessible. Whatever happened, the Watchtower Society researcher was told they needed an NGO pass to continue with the same level of access they previously enjoyed.

There is, of course, one other possibility: that the employee who advised of the need for an NGO pass was simply mistaken. How many of us can say we have not experienced some kind of incompetence or received some wrong advice from a government employee? If we are honest, we know that government agencies are often notorious for giving contradictory advice. In the UK’s large welfare state, it is a running joke that you can call a government helpline and receive a different answer to the same question if you call twice.

The Global Policy Forum’s report, which we quoted earlier, had this to say about the competence of both the DPI and ECOSOC NGO staff:

“The DPI office gets good marks for timely processing of pass requests and for overall courtesy and helpfulness. But its management of documents in the NGO Resource Center tends to be chaotic. Serious problems exist in both offices.”

“Many NGOs complain that some of the notoriously bureaucratic and unresponsive behavior of the ECOSOC office in the past still persists. The office employs cumbersome and time-consuming procedures for issuing passes, it too often it loses accreditation letters, and its staff can be discourteous.”

“NGOs also find the application procedures for new accreditation in both offices tend to be bureaucratic and paper-bound. Staff have lost or mislaid accreditation folders and have been inflexible in applying rules for evaluation.”

We do not quote the above to try and “lay the blame” on the UN for the situation, but just to show that it is quite reasonable to consider whether a UN employee could have given incorrect advice to a visitor. Also, think how the above report is from 1999. Can you imagine how much more confusing the NGO situation must have been in the early 1990’s — when the NGO world was still finding its feet? If they can lose papers and forms, then it is neither surprising nor unreasonable to wonder whether the brother was simply given wrong advice from the UN employee.

For whatever reason, the Watchtower Society researcher was informed that to continue his currently level of access, he needed to be a representative of a DPI NGO. Perhaps he tried to access “specific areas” which were now off-limits, or perhaps he was misinformed. We do not know. However, this part of Bethel’s story is both plausible and believable. We can see that many facilities were only available to NGOs and therefore Bethel’s explanation is entirely reasonable. Thus we have no basis to claim Bethel is lying whatsoever.

No signature?

The implications of the critic’s claims is that the Watchtower Society was — in some way — heavily involved with the UN. Some even claim that there were secret back-room deals and negotiations, that the UN and the Society were working together in a conspiracy-like manner. However, all of this is just fantasy. In Bethel’s letter they try to emphasize how such ideas are nonsense, and that the so-called “secret links with the Untied Nations” really amounted to an application form that didn’t even require a signature. In the letter they correctly state:

“At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form.”

We know this statement to be true, because we have copies of 1991 DPI NGO sign-up forms, and we notice a distinct lack of a place to put a signature (see the 1991 initial application form here). Bethel was not lying whatsoever, but showing how the “secret back-room deals” conspiracy theorists obviously do not know what they are talking about. These so called “secret back-room deals” amounted to completing a form to gain DPI passes which didn’t even require a signature on this first application. It’s incredible to think this, but we know it’s true because we have the evidence.

On the other hand, consider the application that ECOSOC NGOs must complete (for consultative status). Their application, which the Watchtower Society never applied for, includes an agreement to outright support the United Nations – with a signature required. If all NGOs, even those with the DPI, signed such an application and agreement, it should be easily found ? and yet no such thing exists for DPI NGOs.

The first page says:

Application for Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council

The last page says:

I/we declare that I/we have answered the questions contained in this form to the best of my/our knowledge.

I/we declare, that if granted consultative status, my/our organization will act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and ECOSOC resolution 1996/31.

The undersigned signature/es is/are duly authorized to sign this declaration.

[signature]

This is the form for organizations wishing to become ECOSOC NGOs, but no form with similar requirements existed for DPI NGOs when the Watchtower Society was involved. This application can be found on the UN website at http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/ (then click on “Forms and documents” and then “Application in English”).

There’s more to it than a “library card”!

Some have uncovered records of Watchtower representatives attending a conference on the holocaust for NGOs. They quote this as “proof” that Bethel was “lying” and that there was really more to their NGO membership that merely a “library card”. On the contrary, such a conference is exactly the kind of facility requiring DPI NGO status. Conferences on subjects such as the holocaust are part of the “extensive library facilities” on offer by the DPI to representatives of it’s NGOs. The idea that the Society signed up just for a “library card” is actually a phrase invented by apostates on the Internet, the Society did not coin the expression as it is misleading and inaccurate — which was probably the reason apostates invented it in the first place.

No statements that conflict?

The last comment by Bethel concerning the forms is:

“Registration papers filed with the United Nations that we have on file contain no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs.”

Again, after examining the initial application form (found here), and the subsequent forms to confirm the annual representatives (found here), we can see this is a factual statement. As we have already covered previously, there are “no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs” anywhere. There is nothing about supporting the UN, the UN charter, nor any mention of any ECOSOC resolution.

“Moreover, NGOs are informed by the United Nations that “association of NGOs with the DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.”

This is indeed a truthful quote. Perhaps this statement has been said many times by the UN, the DPI, and its representatives when discussing the NGO relationship. The DPI NGO status was, after all, there to give interested organizations easy access to information, library resources, documents, and events on the UN. The idea that organizations with this association would be given “privileges, immunities, or special status” or be “incorporated into the United Nations”, or were in a “political partnership” is ridiculous. How really comical it is when critics on the Internet argue that the Watchtower Society’s DPI NGO status granted exactly those things! How bizarre are the accusations that DPI NGO status meant the Society became “part of the United Nations” or even “a United Nations member”! We know that DPI NGO status was nothing like that whatsoever, and any person who claims otherwise couldn’t be more wrong.

Requirements Changed

Let’s continue on to the next claim of Bethel’s letters:

“Years later, unbe-known to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the United Nations published “Criteria for Association,” stipulating that affiliated NGO’s are required to support the goals of the United Nations.”

We now know this statement is true. In an earlier chapter, we saw how the 1994 NGO brochure was changed. Also we saw how many have acknowledged the changing relationship between the UN and it’s NGOs. Clearly the ‘Criteria for Association’ for NGOs took on a different meaning, thus the NGO brochure was revised, the Accreditation Form changed to become a renewal form, and the review process was initiated for the first time in 2001/2002. The requirements and expectations of DPI NGOs did change, just as Bethel said. We can see this for ourselves.

Therefore we can continue to appreciate how Bethel was telling the truth when it said it has no UN documents on file which “conflict with our Christian beliefs”. The paper trail shows that the Society could not have had any such conflicting documents, because they did not exist during those years.

“Still, the Criteria for Association of NGOs-at least in their latest version-contain language that we cannot subscribe to.”

This “latest version” that Bethel is talking about here was the current version in 2001, which it does not seem Bethel ever signed. This version, and subsequent versions (particularly 2005), are the ones constantly quoted by critics, falsely claiming that the Society somehow magically signed it 10 years before it was written.

“After learning of the situation, our membership as NGO was withdrawn and the ID card of the writer was returned. We are grateful that this matter was brought to our attention.”

This statement is certainly true. We know that in the years after the Society first applied for DPI NGO status and received DPI access passes, that the situation and requirements changed. When the Society learned of the changes in 2001, the passes were returned. The evidence we have considered seems to show that the Society did everything properly, despite what opposers say regarding the matter. They even thanked The Guardian for bringing the recent change to their attention — despite it being obvious that the article was riddled with errors and was nothing more than an effort to misrepresent and ridicule Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In Conclusion

It seems clear from what we have thus far considered, that the letters from Bethel were perfectly in accord with the facts. They are hardly “lies” or “cover-ups”, as some grossly misinformed persons and the odd conspiracy theorist may believe. To claim that DPI NGO status to access DPI libraries and related research facilities can be part of some “back-room agreement” and “conspiracy” is just comical.

• We know the original application on file did not need a signature. This confirms that DPI NGO status, at least in 1991, was a formality, and not some sort of special status or privilege, nor was it any sort of incorporation into the United Nations system — as the UN itself has said.
• We know the registration papers did not contain any statements that conflict with the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses because we can read such forms today.
• We know that DPI NGO status was necessary to gain access to all the facilities, documents, publications, and events provided by the DPI.
• We know that the relationship between the UN and it’s DPI NGOs changed, as did the application, the forms, and the brochures which also changed to reflect that fact.
• We know that in the very same year the UN documents were revised, that the Watchtower Society withdrew their status, and even thanked those bringing it to their attention.

There are no lies in the letters. There is no secret “cover-up”. The truth is that certain men are deliberately misrepresenting the facts, and some Jehovah’s Witnesses have been caught up in the lies and the deceitful presentations by opposers and apostates.

Here is what we believe probably happened back in 1991. It is in agreement with all the evidence we have thus far presented:

Brother Aulicino from Bethel in New York went to the UN Headquarters on many occasions, and was permitted to use the library facilities. However, on this occasion in 1991 he was told by a UN employee that he could not use a certain facility without a DPI NGO pass. Perhaps the employee was mistaken, or maybe the brother was trying to access an area containing something now only for DPI NGO representatives. He therefore requested an application for a DPI NGO pass.

The application was completed and submitted with no signature. A few months later in 1992, the DPI NGO status was granted. The Society proceeded to use that status for the next 10 years to assist in research for Awake! articles, using the high quality — and highly authoritative — UN facilities. Later, in 2001, when apostates contacted The Guardian and it came forth with the story that the DPI NGO status was now inappropriate, the Society realized that they could not remain a NGO member if that was the criteria. They withdrew immediately. Inquiries were made, and letters were written answering the inquiries. The letters are not “lies”. They speak the truth and are in accord with all the evidence we can find.

Chapter 5: UN’s Letter in Response

After the Guardian story broke, the United Nations DPI was inundated with many requests for information on the matter, especially from former Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hence, Paul Hoeffel, the chief of the DPI’s NGO section wrote an open letter on the matter to anyone who is interested in the subject.

Many persons refer to this letter as further “proof” that the Society’s NGO relationship was inappropriate, and that the Society lied about the situation. Is this true? What does the letter say, and just why is it important? Let us examine this letter closely and find out for ourselves.

It begins with:

“4 March 2004

To Whom It May Concern,

Recently the NGO Section has been receiving numerous inquiries regarding the association of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York with the Department of Public Information (DPI). This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992. By accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities.”

This seems like pretty damning evidence. However, we must remember that these statements were made in 2004 and after the fact. As we saw earlier, in no place on any of the forms signed by the Society was anything said about “support and respect of the principles” of the UN charter. Those statements simply are not there on the original forms. Some may deny it, but the facts speak for themselves.

Of course, now the UN is suddenly being very clear about their requirements — over ten years too late. Therefore it begs the question, why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did not include such requirements? We wonder if the DPI is trying to cover-up their own ineptness for not putting such a statement on the original form when it, perhaps, should have been.

To illustrate, imagine you join a video-rental store, such as Blockbusters. The membership form you completed when you join is simple and straightforward, entitling you to access any of the videos you wish. Strangely, it doesn’t even require a signature. Then, 10 years later, the video store turns around and says, “Oh, by the way, although it wasn’t on your membership form, and you haven’t signed anything to this effect, you have agreed to rent pornographic videos on a regular basis.” Say what? No, that cannot be. No one can turn around and say “you agreed to this, you agreed to that” a decade later — especially since you never signed any form stating such things. Yet this is the exact scenario with the Watchtower Society found itself in with the DPI and their changing requirements.

The chief of the DPI is being misleading — either by intentionally trying to cover his department’s failings or from simply making an honest mistake. He is quoting the then-current 2004 requirements for a DPI NGO. Notice how he fails to say those were the requirements back in the early 1990’s. Why does he not make it clear that the original applications said nothing about supporting the UN charter, as we can see for ourselves today? Who really is being untrustworthy and trying to “hide the facts”? Is it the Watchtower Society, whose explanation agrees with the 1991 evidence? Or is it not the DPI, who has wrongly insinuated that the criteria to support the UN as a DPI NGO was on the original application — when we know for a fact that it was not?

“redissemination of information”

Mr Hoeffel’s letter continues:

“In October 2001, the Main Representative of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York to the United Nations, Giro Aulicino, requested termination of its association with DPI. Following this request, the DPI made a decision to disassociate the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York as of 9 October 2001.

Please be informed that it is the policy of the Department of Public Information of the United Nations to keep correspondence between the United Nations and NGOs associated with DPI confidential. However, please see below the paragraph included in all letters sent to NGOs approved for association in 1992:

“The principal purpose of association of non-governmental organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is the redissemination of information in order to increase public understanding of the principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies. Consequently, it is important that you should keep us informed about your organization’s information programme as it relates to the United Nations, including sending us issues of your relevant publications.””

Notice how he now quotes from 1992 requirements. He quotes the part that the “principle purpose of … [DPI NGOs] is the re-dissemination of information in order to increase public understanding … of the United Nations”. The Watchtower Society was already interested in doing exactly that — and had been doing so for decades, ever since the UN was formed.

During World War II the League of Nations had, for all intents and purposes, ceased to function in any practical or meaningful way. However, The Watchtower magazine reckoned on the re-emergence of the League of Nations in a new form, after interpreting the contents of the prophecies in Revelation. Yes — the Watchtower Society was interested in educating the public on the United Nations and how it will play a part in Bible prophecy — even before it was formed! Ultimately the Society has been interested in educating the public on how the UN, along with all other governments, will be replaced by God’s Kingdom under the rule of Christ. Yet the UN and it’s activities are still not very well-known by the General Public. Hence, the Society is very interested in educating the public about the “principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies.” Hence, we know the Society would be happy to continue to do something it was already doing.

As for the rest of this part of the letter, it is more interesting when we look at what it does not say — or what it should say if the critics were correct — rather than what it actually does say. What do we mean?

Mr Hoeffel is happy to quote that particular fact from the 1992 form, so why does he not quote from it more often? Why does he not quote from a part which says the DPI NGO application required support of the UN and it’s charter? This would have been definitive proof that the Watchtower Society knew what they were doing. Yet he cannot make such a quote from the 1992 requirements because no such statement exists. Instead, he quotes from the 2004 requirements, then selectively quotes from the 1992 requirements afterwards. This gives the wrong impression that the current criteria was in place in 1992 — when we know it was not. Incidentally, we also notice that Mr Hoeffel got the name of Bethel’s representative wrong.

The wrong brochure, the wrong requirements

Returning to the letter, we read:

“We are enclosing a brochure on the “The United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations”, which will give you some information regarding the NGO relationship.”

Why does Mr Hoeffel not enclose a copy of the 1992 brochure, clearly showing that there was criteria to support the UN and it’s charter in that year? Why did he not take the opportunity to confirm the point? Perhaps it is because the 1992 brochure said nothing of the sort. We know the 1994 brochure does not say such a thing, and therefore have no basis for thinking it was in the 1992 brochure either, if one was even sent.

Finally, Mr Hoeffel outlines the criteria for organizations who wish to become DPI NGOs:

“In addition, the criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI include the following:

* that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter;
* operate solely on a not-for-profit basis;
* have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven ability to reach large or specialized audiences, such as educators, media representatives, policy makers and the business community;
* have the commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; and enlisting the cooperation of the media.

We expect that you will share this information with your concerned colleagues, as we are unable to address the scores of duplicate requests regarding the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society that are being directed to our offices. Thank you for your interest in the work of the United Nations.

Sincerely,

Paul Hoeffel
Chief
NGO Section
Department of Public Information”

Much of the criteria listed above is, again, not found in the initial application, nor the annual forms for representative passes. In other words, not in anything we are aware that the Watchtower Society was sent or signed during it’s DPI NGO tenure. So here we have another misleading statement from the DPI.

Notice the statement that the NGO must “share the ideals of the UN Charter”. We discussed this briefly in a previous chapter, however it might now be appropriate to again ask, ‘In what way can true Christians share the ideals of the UN charter, and if the Society did agree to support the UN, would that compromise our beliefs?’

Chapter 6: Principle Support

In the current version of the DPI NGO brochure, it asks the question “What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN”, however in a previous chapter we saw how in earlier versions as late as 1994, the brochure said, “Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter”.

So the requirement clearly changed from happening to share the same ideals as the charter, to active support of the principles of the charter. Therefore, we know the Society never agreed to the words “support … the principles of the Charter of the UN”. However, they may have been aware of the the requirement to “share the ideals” of that Charter. Does this requirement — if the Society ever agreed to it, of course — compromise our Christian beliefs?

Part of the UN?

Jehovah’s Witnesses have certainly never been a part of the United Nations, despite what many grossly misinformed people may claim. Even when the Watchtower Society was a DPI NGO, the UN itself clearly stated to all such organizations that the “association of NGOs with the DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.” The very idea that access to the DPI’s resources — although many and varied — was some sort of “political partnership” or “political alliance” as many of our critics claim, is not based in reality.

The DPI has never made any associated NGO organization “part of the UN” or gained that organization any kind of special treatment. This may be the case with ECOSOC NGOs, but certainly not with DPI NGO’s in the 1990’s!

DPI NGO status to gain prominence?

Some have speculated that the Watchtower Society’s “real motive” was to gain prominence in the eyes of the UN and other governments, particularly where governments were persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, there is absolutely no evidence that having DPI passes to access their library resources, exhibitions and events, could ever have such a benefit. To speculate that a government, such as that of France, would stop persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses because the Bethel staff in New York have access to books, audio and film libraries, and can attend UN education workshops in buildings in New York, is a bizarre concept with absolutely no evidence or precedent to back it up.

This is especially so when we consider the great number of high court judgments the Witnesses have won. If the Watchtower Society wanted to gain legal status and recognition, they would do it via the courts as they have successfully done for decades. Who would seriously expect a government to think again about persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses, because their staff in New York were granted passes by the UN Department of Public Information to help write Awake! articles? Considering France again, exactly what legal baring would the Society’s NGO status have on the dispute with interpretations of French tax laws?

The claim that the DPI NGO status was to gain political influence over various governments is nothing more than ridiculous speculation — a speculation usually entertained by those who are not in a position to know any of the facts.

The word “support”

Although the evidence indicated that the Watchtower Society never signed or completed one document that said they would support the United Nations, for a moment let’s do as many critics do, and pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist. Let’s pretend we have evidence that the Society did indeed sign a document where they agreed to support the UN and the principles of the UN’s charter. What implications would such an agreement have? Would it compromise our Christian beliefs?

The word “support”, in English, is a general term, and we are not at all helped in defining exactly what it means to the UN. In their documents they do not stipulate exact specifications of what it means to support the UN and the principles of their charter — neither in a practical nor philosophical sense.

According to Websters, when the word “support” is used as a verb, can mean to “uphold or defend as valid; to furnish corroborating evidence for; to act in a secondary or subordinate role to.” Using these definitions, what are the implications of supporting the UN and it’s charter?

Definition of support

When the Watchtower Society began educating the public on the United Nations and it’s place in Bible prophecy from 1945 onwards, it could be said that our support was to “furnish corroborating evidence for” to the UN whether we intended to or not — at least in the sense of educating the public in what the UN is, what it is there for, and what it does. The UN wants the public to know about its existence and relevance in the world. That is why even organizations which criticize the UN’s failings can remain DPI NGOs — as did the Watchtower Society. Since the DPI is there to disseminate information it is reasonable to believe that the definition “to furnish corroborating evidence for” would be the applicable definition for the word ‘support’ in this case.

However it is also true that by being “in subjection” to the governments as Romans 13 tells us to do, we are supporting them in that we are acting in a “secondary or subordinate role.” It says:

“Everybody must submit to the ruling authorities for none exists without God’s permission and it is he who puts them in their place. So anyone who opposes the authority is setting himself against God’s arrangement, and those who do so will only bring punishment upon themselves. … So pay to all what is due, the property tax to the tax collector, customs to the customs officer, and respect and honour to all whose positions call for it.” —Romans 13:1-2, 7; 21st Century New Testament, Insight Press, Bristol, UK

Lets say that the definition to “uphold or defend as valid” is what is meant by the word ‘support.’ By paying our taxes and being in subjection to God’s arrangement, true Christians support and encourage the rule of law and the authority of all human governments, for by doing any different we would be setting ourselves “against God’s arrangement”. We uphold and defend as valid the application of the constitution of the country we live in when it does not conflict with Bible principles. For example, this would particularly apply to the right to choose and practice one’s own faith. This includes the Bill of Rights if you live in the United States, the European Convention on Human Rights if you live within the European Union, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights within every UN member state.

Furthermore, we use the court system of many countries to advance true worship; Many brothers and sisters sign documents which state they will protect the constitution or laws of the land they reside in. Yes, we support and encourage the rule of law and the authority of the governments put in place by God, for “none” exists without God’s permission and “it is he” who put them in their place — yes, including the United Nations.

The charter’s principles

While it may be acceptable to support a government in the sense of encouraging it’s God-placed authority through co-operation and so forth, what about supporting the principles of the United Nations charter? Those principles and goals expressed in the charter are:

“to maintain international peace and security; to suppress acts of aggression that threaten world peace; to encourage friendly relations among nations; to protect the fundamental freedoms of all peoples without discrimination based on race, sex, language, or religion; and to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, and cultural problems.”

Do we or do we not support and give “approval” to these principles? If you do not support those principles, what kind of person would you be? Indeed, if Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion did not support and approve of those principles above, what kind of horrible religion would we be members of?

Is it appropriate to support the UN upholding the religious freedom and the human rights of our brothers, provided that we do not become incorporated in that organization? Absolutely. Can’t we promote and support the same ideals without promoting it as the Kingdom of God on earth? Most certainly. Can’t we use the court system and other avenues of the both UN and it’s member states to gain religious freedom for our brothers? Of course we can.

“in accordance with its own aims”

Even the 1996 resolution by the ECOSOC concerning an ECOSOC NGO’s support of the UN makes the following statement about that type of NGO (remember, the Society was not an ECOSOC NGO):

“3. The organization shall undertake to support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities, in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and scope of its competence and activities.”

Note that even an ECOSOC NGO, which is in a consultative relationship with the UN, isn’t even obligated to support all the work of the UN. It says its support must be “in accordance with its own aims and purposes”. This means that the particular ECOSOC NGO would not support all the aims of the UN, but only those “aims and purposes” in the “scope of its competence and activities.”

In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, those ‘aims and purposes’ would be in the field of religious freedom and human rights. That is the “scope of its competence and activities.” There is certainly nothing wrong with supporting that type of work and using whatever avenues are available for assistance. Further, if this qualified definition of “support” applied to the consultative-status ECOSOC NGO’s, how much more qualified the definition of “support” must be to the DPI NGOs which enjoy no such status.

Of course, one of the main interests of the UN is human rights. If the UN wants to come to the aid of brothers being persecuted for their religious beliefs, should we not support that? The UN has not yet attacked God’s people and proved itself to be an enemy of God. Did not Paul appeal to Rome when he was being persecuted? Yes — did he not use the legal system of a government which later proved to be the foretold “disgusting thing”, to advance true worship?

A Christian view of the United Nations

The Watchtower of October 1st, 1995 provides a clear description of how we should view the United Nations:

“In Bible prophecy, human governments are often symbolized by wild beasts. (Daniel 7:6, 12, 23; 8:20-22) Hence, for many decades the Watchtower magazine has identified the wild beasts of Revelation chapters 13 and 17 with today’s worldly governments. This includes the United Nations, which is depicted in Revelation chapter 17 as a scarlet-colored beast with seven heads and ten horns.

“However, this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials. The Bible clearly states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves.”—Romans 13:1, 2.

“Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are maintaining strict political neutrality, do not interfere with human governments. They never foment revolution or participate in acts of civil disobedience. Rather, they recognize that some form of government is necessary to maintain law and order in human society.—Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world. They acknowledge that the United Nations continues to exist by God’s permission. In harmony with the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses render due respect to all governments and obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God.—Acts 5:29.”

In 1st Corinthians 7:31, the apostle Paul said that “those making use of the world [should be] as those not using it to the full…”In view of these scriptures, after reasoning on the matter, and in view of the definitions connected to the word ‘support’, would it really be wrong to say that you agree to ‘support’ the UN and the principles of it’s charter — especially so in the field in which the Society specializes in, that of human rights and religious freedom? Yet our brothers in Bethel, upon realizing the new wording of the UN’s criteria for association as a DPI NGO, and even though it may not be unscriptural to remain a DPI NGO, chose to withdraw membership rather than risk stumbling others. Is that not commendable and loving on their part?

However, when the Society was a DPI NGO, did the Society deliberately put forth extra effort to maintain their DPI NGO status? Did they deliberately write articles “praising” the UN and it’s accomplishments, as critics claim?

Chapter 7: Promoting UN Propaganda?

As part of the alleged “secret deals” with the United Nations, the conspiracy theorists say, the Watchtower Society “agreed” to write “propaganda” for the UN. They claim a series of articles published in the Awake! during the 1990’s were simply written to fulfill their NGO requirement — their “end of the bargain”. Is this a reasonable assessment of the evidence, or is it shallow circumstantial evidence for a crazy conspiracy theory?

We earlier showed how DPI NGO status is very different to ECOSOC NGO status, and that being a DPI NGO is hardly a “secret back-room deal” to create a “political alliance” as some conspiracy theorists claim. They ignore the inconvenient fact that a mere DPI NGO does not have political influence over the UN, nor does it gain any kind of status.

Yet, one of the requirements of any organization wishing to be a DPI NGO and have access to the DPI’s vast resources, is that the organization makes full use of them. They must be at least using the facilities for a purpose in harmony with the DPI itself — to educate the public on the role and activities of the UN. To prove the organization is doing so, they must send copies of the organization’s journal to the DPI as proof.

There is nothing wrong with this — it proves the Society was indeed making use of the resources, and not abusing them by promoting values contrary to that of the UN charter, such as Nazism, racism, or any such ideas. It is a sensible precaution on behalf of the DPI and completely appropriate.

The conspiracy theorists, however, see the Awake! articles published in the 1990’s as part of the great conspiracy to promote the UN as a world government. One even goes so far as claiming that the Governing Body has apostatized — possibly through infiltration from One-world conspirators (influence of the Masons and the Illuminati has not been ruled out) — and now secretly worship the beast of the UN. One claims the Society have stealthily changed the Awake! to “become a UN publication” and it now only “occasionally makes off-handed reference to Jehovah’s kingdom.” He also claims the Awake! made just as many references to the UN as God’s Kingdom in it’s pages during the time of the DPI NGO status. Of course, any regular reader of the Awake! will laugh at these accusations, but is there any truth to them?

A “UN publication”?

References to the United Nations have increased somewhat in the pages of the Awake! over the years. That much is certainly true — especially in news items and articles on subjects such as the environment, human rights, and religious freedom. If we count the number of references to words such as “United Nations” or “UN”, we can plot the number on a chart, as in this chart. We have also plotted the number of references to “new system”, “Christ’s Kingdom”, “new world”, etc., on the same chart for comparison.
Click here for full-size version

We can see that mentions of the “United Nations” (or simply the “UN”) did intermittently increase from around 1980, while the number of references to the new system have actually remained pretty much the same, usually being more numerous than mentions of the UN. This certainly isn’t a magazine which only “occasionally makes off-handed reference to Jehovah’s kingdom”! We know this is a ridiculous statement that flies in the face of the solid evidence presented above. The Awake!mentioned the new system of things hundreds of times over the 1990’s — roughly as often as it did in the 1980’s!
Click here for full-size version

Furthermore, the only thing this chart proves is that the United Nations — and it’s agencies, of which there are numerous — are mentioned in the Awake! somewhat more often in the 1990’s than during the 1970’s and early 80’s. It doesn’t tell us much else. For example, how many of those references to the UN are negative? Probably quite a few. How many references are utterly trivial references to a UN agency — such as would be found in a news item? Probably quite a lot. More to the point, how many of those references to the UN or a UN agency are promoting the UN as mankind’s only hope for peace? We know the answer to this last question, as shown on this chart to the right.

Yes, even though the Awake! has increased it’s references to the UN, it has never once portrayed the UN as a viable world government, and certainly never as God’s Kingdom on earth. The Awake! is hardly a “UN publication”! However, why has the Awake! increased it’s references to the UN — positive, negative, or otherwise? What could be behind that increase? Has it also increased references to any other organization, government, or agency?

America, America, America

“I’m not reading that American rubbish” said my father when I tried to show him an Awake! article I thought he may find interesting. Like many people of the older generation in Britain, anything American is looked down upon. Indeed, anti-American sentiment has long been a problem for the preaching work in Europe and in other parts of the world, where we are often referred to as an “American sect” — the emphasis being on the American part more than the sect part.

As of 2006, approximately 85% of Jehovah’s Witnesses are non-Americans. Yet it was not always that way. At one time most Witnesses were from the States, and there is where most of our literature was written and printed. This meant the Watchtower — and particularly, the Awake! — often concentrated on American events, news items, and what American institutions (religious or otherwise) announced or advised. This often irritated both publishers and members of the public who read our publications outside of the USA — as it did my father. However, in the 1970’s this began to change.

The fall of America

Over a few years, the Awake! gained a far more international feel. Articles about American Institutions (whether scientific, religious, or political) seemed to be becoming less frequent, with mentions of non-American people, non-American organizations, and countries other than America becoming more frequent. International organizations which work across borders, rather than simply American ones, became quoted as sources more frequently. Rather than reporting what some American board of health has decided, the World Health Organization would be citied instead. Rather than the American Bill of Rights being discussed and how it relates to religious freedom, the International Declaration of Human Rights is considered instead. Rather than some American environmental group being quoted, international organizations like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund, or the United Nations Environmental Programme would be consulted in their place.
Click here for full-size version

This strong trend in the Awake magazine to refocus itself away from the USA can be shown in our chart to the right. As you can see the written mentions of “America”, “American”, “United States”, “USA”, “New York”, and other terms relating to the superpower dropped significantly, while references to the United Nations increased by a small amount.

You will also notice that despite the increase in mentions of the United Nations, references to that government has not even come close to the phenomenal number of references to the United States of America prior to the change. However, the small increase in mentions of the UN obviously did not replace all those references to the USA. So what did replace them? Our next chart, below, provides us with the answer.
Click here for full-size version

From this we can see that while the references to the USA decreased, references to Britain, Japan, France, other European countries, and international organizations, increased to compensate — replacing the USA. This change, along with the small increase in references to the UN, fully accounts for the drop in references to America.

This evidence demonstrates that, rather than being part of some crackpot conspiracy of a “secret political partnership” to support a world government, the increased mentions of the United Nations in Watchtower Society literature from the 1970’s onward, was due to their researchers using more international sources for the Awake! articles. Rather than use American institutions, news sources, and correspondents, the magazine moved away to international sources, including international Government agencies. After all, the Society did say the only reason for becoming a DPI NGO was to have continued access to the DPI’s vast international research materials, did they not?

As we discussed earlier, the current level of references to the United Nations is no where near the previous levels of references to American institutions and American Government agencies. Would our conspiracy theorists have us believe, therefore, that the Awake!was once publishing that information in a secret deal to curry favor with the United States Government? Or was it not, rather, a symptom of having mainly American writers and an American readership? Of course it was. Likewise, the trend towards more international and non-American references reflects the new nationality of the writers and the greatly expanded international readership.

Readers from 230 countries and territories want to read about international organizations, issues, and government decisions that effect them, they do not want to read what what is of importance to Americans all the time (I’m sure American readers also appreciate the new international feel). That is why the Awake! now quotes from more international sources than ever before (including the UN), and uses correspondents from many different countries.

The most international magazine on earth

The Awake! is now arguably the most International magazine on earth. The average issue is written by authors in several different countries, published on six continents, and translated into a staggering 81 languages for distribution in over 230 countries and territories. For this magazine to have maintained its previous high concentration on American issues and citations would be wholly inappropriate. Much more fittingly it now quotes International organizations, such as the United Nations various cross-border organizations on health, the environment, children, poverty, etc., in its pages. As it’s own description states, the magazine “always stays politically neutral and does not exalt one race above another.”

Propaganda pieces?

Despite the obvious change in the Awake!, the conspiracy theorists still insist that the increase in UN references in the Awake was “really” due to “a secret back-room deal” to promote a “totalitarian world government”. They even say the Society is guilty of getting the brothers involved in the alleged “apostasy” by getting them to distribute the UN “propaganda” in the field. Is there any truth in this extraordinary accusation?

Let us examine these so-called “propaganda” pieces in detail, and see whether these allegations have any merit.

The “heavenly Government is invisible but real”

According to one accuser, the “most blatant propagandizing in support of the United Nations” was the November 22nd 1998 cover article of the Awake!, talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was appropriately published on the 50th anniversary of the declaration’s signing. The conspiracy theorist says this was written to “publicize the event” on behalf of the UN. Is this accurate? Consider the last few paragraphs of the article. Do they promote the UN as a viable world government?

“Just as the Bible shows that the Creator is the source of the faculties that underlie human rights, it also informs us that he is the source of a world government that ensures them. This heavenly government is invisible but real. In fact, millions of people, perhaps unwittingly, pray for this world government when saying in what is commonly called the Lord’s Prayer: “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” (Matthew 6:10) The God-appointed Head of that Kingdom government is the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.—Isaiah 9:6.

This world government will succeed in creating a truly global and lasting human rights culture by, among other things, eliminating war forever. The Bible prophesies: “He [the Creator] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire.”—Psalm 46:9

How soon will this happen on a global scale? The Bible study program provided by Jehovah’s Witnesses includes a satisfying answer to this question. We encourage you to get acquainted with this program. If you care about human rights, you will not be disappointed.”

The article leaves the reader to consider how the “Prince of Peace” Jesus Christ — not the UN — will create a “truly global and lasting human rights culture”. This is an appropriate end, for in the previous paragraphs the article shows how the UN has failed to accomplish it’s Human Rights goals. First of all, this supposed “propaganda” for the UN says:

“For millions of people around the world, human rights violations are impossible to ignore. Their daily plight is still marred by discrimination, poverty, starvation, persecution, rape, child abuse, slavery, and violent death. For these victims the promising conditions spelled out in the towering stack of human rights treaties are a thousand miles away from the world they know. In fact, for most of mankind, even the basic rights listed in the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remain an unfulfilled promise.”

We wonder what kind of “propaganda” in a “UN publication” calls the UN’s Human Rights declaration “an unfulfilled promise” for “most of mankind”. After this, it goes on to list several areas where the UN has failed and Human Rights continue to be violated world-wide. These areas are listed under subheadings entitled, ‘Equality for All?’, ‘Children Without Childhoods’, ‘Choosing and Changing One’s Religion’, ‘Sore Back but Empty Purse’, ‘Medical Care for All’. Each subheading headlines how the UN has failed to accomplish their goals in each of these areas. Of course, conspiracy theorists do not tell you about that part of the article.

While the article definitely informs us about the UN, it certainly does not support or promote it as a viable world government. The only thing it seems to be promoting is Jehovah’s Witnesses’ free Bible study program. Oh, but yes, it certainly does point to a world government as the solution to Human Rights violations — but that government is God’s Kingdom, not the United Nations in New York. As the Watchtower Society have quoted many times in relation to the efforts of human governments:

“It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” —Jeremiah 10:23

“mankind will be united in pure worship”

A few months after the above article was published, the Awake! had an article entitled Religious Intolerance Today. The conspiracy theorists say its publication was “transparently pandering to the United Nations to protect the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses”. Is this a reasonable assumption, or inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion one has already made?

First, the article considers how religious intolerance is a problem in the modern world. It quotes from five UN sources, one newspaper, three books, and a university professor. The next part of the article considers the history of persecution of Christians starting in the 1st century. It quotes one history book, one encyclopedia, one book on religious freedom, one court judge, four other magazines, five newspapers, a parliamentary deputy, one professor, and one doctor, five historical figures who defended religious freedom, and finally from one UN source. The next article in the series quotes from three UN sources, two newspapers, a book on democracy, and the Bible five times. The final article quotes one newspaper, three UN sources, and the Bible twice.

How does the article end? Does it say the UN will solve the problems of religious tolerance? Does it appeal to the UN to step in and defend Jehovah’s Witnesses? No, but it does end in this fashion:

“The Bible promises that soon mankind will be united in pure worship of the one true God. This unity will result in a true worldwide fraternity, or brotherhood, where respect for others will prevail. Humans will no longer be plagued by ignorance, as God’s Kingdom will teach people Jehovah’s ways, thus satisfying their intellectual, emotional, and spiritual needs. (Isaiah 11:9; 30:21; 54:13) Real equality and liberty will cover the earth. (2 Corinthians 3:17) By acquiring an accurate understanding of God’s purposes for mankind, you can counter ignorance and intolerance.”

In the past, Jehovah’s Witnesses have put forth much effort to get governments to change their minds. They have fought in the courts, even to the highest courts in the land. They have initiated letter-writing campaigns to get brothers released from prison. They have published articles deliberately criticizing certain governments policies, such as with Malawi and Singapore. They have launched special campaigns with specially printed leaflets, as occurred in France with the leaflet People of France — You are Being Deceived! Countless other initiatives have taken place all over the earth to establish religious freedom for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The series of articles we considered above were extremely well-balanced and well-written, showing the problem of religious intolerance today and how “in numerous countries where intolerance and discrimination are hard realities, countless millions of people today do not enjoy religious freedom.” If we want to appeal to the UN to help protect our rights, we would do so directly, not by writing an article and hope it will please them in such a way that they would protect us. When the accuser says these articles were specially written for “transparently pandering to the United Nations to protect the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses”, we think that is an unfounded presumption. We are perfectly capable of defending our own rights, and the UN is already dedicated to protecting the rights of all religious minorities anyway. The most reasonable deduction is that Society was making good use of the UN’s extensive library facilities to write high-quality Awake! articles such as this, just as they claimed.

“a heavenly government… the definitive solution”

Regarding the November 8th 1999 Awake!, the accuser says, “Most people probably do not even know that there is such an agency as the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs; but the Watchtower Society has seen to it that its readership is made aware—if only superficially—of even obscure UN agencies.”

Does the Awake! inform it’s readers of “obscure UN agencies” for the purpose of “promoting it’s global agenda” as the accuser says elsewhere? Or does the Awake! quote from that agency because it is international, authoritative, and reliable? Here are the final paragraphs of that same Awake! Magazine. Read and decide for yourself whether it promotes God’s Kingdom or the UN’s “global agenda”:

“If the war on drugs is to be won, there must be a global solution because the problem is already a global one. In this regard the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs notes: “While drug abuse, drug trafficking and the criminality connected to the drug problem were in most countries perceived as one of the main threats to security, the public was less aware of the fact that illicit drugs were a global problem that could no longer be solved by national efforts alone.”

But will the governments of the world band together to eradicate this global scourge? The results so far have not been encouraging. The Bible, however, points to a heavenly government that will transcend national boundaries as the definitive solution. The Bible assures us that God’s Kingdom, ruled by Jesus Christ, will last “forever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15) Hence, under God’s Kingdom, divine education will ensure that the demand for drugs will disappear. (Isaiah 54:13) And the social and emotional problems that now provide fertile soil for drug abuse will be gone forever.—Psalm 55:22; 72:12; Micah 4:4.

Are You in Need of Help?

Even now, hope in God’s Kingdom in the hands of Christ is motivating people to say no to drugs. If you would like more information, please contact Jehovah’s Witnesses in your area.”

Needless to say, we could go on and on. If you wish to see more so-called examples of the “UN propaganda” please see the Appendix entry entitled More on the Awake! Articles.

The question now needs to be asked: Do these articles promote the UN or God’s Kingdom as the hope for mankind? They all, without exception, are showing how God’s Kingdom will succeed in remedying the problems of mankind where the UN and all human governments have failed. They hold a respectful attitude towards the UN and all governments while recognizing their sincerity and desire to improve the world. They tactfully declare the message of God’s Kingdom so as not to turn people off when reading it.

Another pertinent question to ask is whether the writer of the above accusations actually read the entire articles or if he simply has an agenda is to misrepresent the facts. Should we really expect that every article about the UN should conclude with how the UN is the wild beast and will be ultimately destroyed by God’s Kingdom? That is absurd. Yet to be sure there were certainly a few articles during the decade of the 1990’s that did just that. —See the 12/8/90 and 7/8/96 Awake!; also the 5/1/93 and 10/1/95 Watchtower

Pre-1991 articles

What about Watchtower and Awake! articles written before and after the Society was a DPI NGO? Has there been any articles which, if had been published during the 1991 to 2001 status, would now be declared as “UN propaganda” by Internet conspiracy theorists? Certainly!

One article which would have definitely been considered “propaganda” printed as “part of the deal” with the UN, is in the February 22nd 1979 Awake!. When examining this article are we to assume that that the Watchtower Society had a 12-year plot to become a DPI NGO with the UN and thus began writing “UN propaganda”?

Here are a few quotes from that article. While reading it, just imagine what kind of accusations a conspiracy theorist would make.

“Commendable Goals

The goals of the United Nations organization are commendable. “The purposes of the United Nations are,” so reads its charter, “to maintain international peace and security.”

Article 55 of the charter says: “With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: a) higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development; b) solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and c) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

Fine goals, but to what extent have they been reached? To what extent can they be reached? An article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 1965 called attention to certain facts that still apply today 14 years later: “A balance of twenty years of UN history and a long list of conciliation and mediation measures shows that the United Nations have been successful in cases where the ‘super powers’ have not been directly involved.”

The article called attention to the fine work done by organs of the United Nations in other fields, such as by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and by a host of others.

There are U.N. agencies, for example, dealing with the peaceful uses of outer space, of atomic energy and of the seabed. Questions of the environment, industrial development and economic development also come up for consideration. There is a United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control. Much has been done in the way of disaster relief. One of the most remarkable achievements was caring for the needs of millions of Bangladeshi refugees after the war with Pakistan.

A Committee on Crime Prevention and Control has also done fine work. The first major intergovernmental conference ever devoted solely to women was sponsored by this organization in Mexico City in 1975.”

Here is another example, a December 8th 1974 Awake! article entitled What the Poor Nations Are Saying:

“In the spring of 1974, the “underdeveloped” countries sponsored a special session of the United Nations General Assembly. This three-week session was devoted to their problems, especially the use of their raw materials by the richer countries.”

“United Nations Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim answers:

“The single most devastating indictment of our current world civilization is the continued existence of stark, pervasive poverty among two-thirds of the world population.”

“It permeates every phase of life in developing countries: in the malnutrition of children, in the outbreaks of diseases, in widespread unemployment, in low literacy rates, in overcrowded cities.”

Ah, now it is becoming clearer. The Watchtower Society had a 17-year plot to disseminate information for the UN in order to become a DPI NGO! That is almost comical. Needless to say there are others, and of course all the articles close with, as the accusers will say, the ‘token’ references to God’s Kingdom and that it will accomplish what man-made governments have failed to accomplish.

Post-2001 articles

Do the Watchtower Society publications show a change since withdrawing membership as a DPI NGO? Would the articles written continue to be viewed as ‘UN propaganda’ if the Society was still a DPI NGO today? Lets examine some of these articles in the Awake!magazine since 2001.

The March 22nd 2005 Awake! cover-article Mountains Vital for Life On Earth is one recent example. Here is a quote from it:

“The United Nations Environmental Programme sponsored the International Year of Mountains 2002. To emphasize mankind’s dependence on the mountains, organizers coined the phrase “We Are All Mountain People.” They aimed to increase awareness of the problems facing the world’s mountainsand seek solutions to protect them. This concern is a valid one…”

Other references are made to what the UN has done and, as always, the article closes with what God’s Kingdom will accomplish. Can you not just here the accusations, “Most people did not even know that 2002 was the International Year of mountains. But here again the Watchtower has seen to it that its readership is made aware of even obscure International Years.” Is this not precisely what would be said?

Another example is January 8th 2005 Awake! article Can Planet Earth Be Saved? Here is a quote from it:

“True, world leaders have made commendable efforts to curb pollution, deforestation, and other environmental problems. Starting with the UN Conference on Human Environment in 1972, and followed by other conferences at regular intervals, up to 163 nations have met to endorse action plans.”

Imagine if this had been written in the 1990’s, we would no doubt hear the same tired old accusations of conspiracy and deception from accusers, “It’s more one-world propaganda for the UN! They are praising the 1972 conference and the so-called commendable efforts of the UN!”

Also consider the February 22nd 2003 Awake! article Malnutrition “The Silent Emergency”. As you can just imagine from the title, there are many references made to the UN. Here is one that would definitely be given as “proof” if written during the time the Society had DPI NGO status:

“…in 1996 the World Food Summit of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) set the goal of reducing the number of the world’s undernourished by half—some 400 million people—by the year 2015. Commendably, some progress has been made.”

Listen! Can you here the accusatory statements about the blatant way the Watchtower promotes the goals of the UN and informs us of the UN’s proposed solutions as part of their global agenda?

Let’s take one final example, although we could go on and on. Consider the February 22nd 2005 Awake! article The Role of Mothers as Educators. Here the Writing Department has the gall to put a picture of the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and quote what he said about women in the center of page 5! Can’t you just hear the accusations? “What purpose could this possibly serve but to promote the UN and their agenda?”

Yet the fact is that all of these articles were written after 2001 when the Watchtower Society withdrew its DPI NGO status. Perhaps someone needs to tell them that they can stop their “blatant propagandizing for the UN” since they no longer need to disseminate such information as part of the “back room deal”. That is certainly a ridiculous statement, but it well demonstrates how absurd the previous accusations are about the Watchtower Society’s deliberately publishing “UN propaganda” and the Awake! allegedly becoming a “UN publication” to fulfill the UN’s requirements.

Each article featuring the UN has always closed with how God’s Kingdom, not the UN, will solve all the problems of mankind. Besides, articles of these exact same sentiments were published both before and after the DPI NGO years anyway.

The conclusion, all things having been heard

In conclusion, have we as Jehovah’s Witnesses disseminated information about the UN? Of course we have. We did this long before we were a DPI NGO — even before the UN was formed — and we continue to do so to this day. Did we give our publications to the UN as proof of our concurrence with DPI requirements? Yes, and why not? Such a provision was a sensible precaution of behalf of the UN’s DPI to ensure their facilities were not being misused by undesirable organizations who “contribute to the propagation of nazi ideology and racial and/or religious discrimination”. These are the words of the UN’s own resolution on the matter, not ours.

Furthermore, all the articles point to God’s Kingdom! Does writing honest articles about the UN, showing how God’s Kingdom will succeed where the UN has failed, make us a political partner with the UN? Does it mean we are guilty of printing “propaganda” to promote their “global agenda”? We believe the reasonable answer is firm ‘no’ and that the conspiracy theorists are reading into the evidence what they wish to see.

However, there are other statements in the magazines which opposers have highlighted. They say these statements show our Society has “condemned itself” in becoming a DPI NGO and that our Society has violated its own standards. What are these statements? Do the opposers actually have a fair point this time, or are these arguments also misleading?

Chapter 8 Self Condemnation?

In addition to pretending the Watchtower Society signed documents they never signed, agreed to criteria they never agreed to, pretending there is no difference between ECOSOC and DPI NGOs, and pretending the Awake! disseminated one-world propaganda, the accusers also say the Society has “condemned itself” in the matter. How so?

“It’s fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A…”

The most popular argument is that the Watchtower Society has shown itself to be a hypocrite due to it’s policy on membership of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA). The January 1st 1979 issue of The Watchtower explains:

“In joining the YMCA as a member a person accepts or endorses the general objectives and principles of the organization. He is not simply paying for something he receives, such as when buying things being sold to the public at a store. (Compare 1 Corinthians 8:10; 10:25.) Nor is his membership merely an entry pass, as when a person buys a theater ticket. Membership means that one has become an integral part of this organization founded with definite religious objectives, including the promotion of interfaith. Hence, for one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to become a member of such a so-called “Christian” association would amount to apostasy. Some individuals have on occasion not become members but have paid a onetime admission fee, viewing this as simply paying for a commercial service available. Even in this regard it is wise to consider whether this course will adversely affect the consciences of others. —1 Cor. 8:11-13.”

The argument goes something like this: if the Society can say, on the one hand, that membership of the YMCA means you become “an integral part” of that organization which amounts “to apostasy”, then surely the Society’s NGO status meant they became “an integral part” of the UN and therefore have committed apostasy by their own standards.

Is this a fair point? Not really, no. First of all, when you become a member of the YMCA — an interfaith “Christian” group — you are recognized as being “integral” to that organization, a little like when you get baptized and become part of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Is this the case with DPI NGOs? No, for on the contrary DPI NGOs are specifically told by the UN itself that:

“association of NGOs with the DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system”

So comparing the two situations is like comparing apples to oranges. NGOs do not become “an integral part” of the UN — no, not even if they wanted to be, and those are the UN’s words — not ours.

Furthermore, the YMCA is a false religious organization — the UN is not. While the Bible tells us to be in subjection to worldly governments by obeying the law, paying our taxes, registering in certain programs, and using governments to “legally establish” the preaching work, the Bible puts us under no such obligations to any of the false religions in this world. Revelation 18:4 tells us to “get out from among” false religion, while Romans 13:1 says to “be in subjection” to the government. Using government programs and facilities for our benefit cannot be compared to using similar things from false religions.

The Society has not committed apostasy by it’s own standards — it is simply opposers glossing over the differences between governmental and religious organizations, and sweeping under the carpet what the UN itself has said when it becomes inconvenient.

Catholic NGOs condemned by the Watchtower

Another popular argument uses the June 1st 1991 issue of The Watchtower to show how the Society has supposedly condemned itself. It states:

“A recent book gives an idea when it states: “No less than twenty-four Catholic organizations are represented at the UN. Several of the world’s religious leaders have visited the international organization. Most memorable were the visits of His Holiness Pope Paul VI during the General Assembly in 1965 and of Pope John Paul II in 1979. Many religions have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations. The most important examples are those of the Catholic, the Unitarian-Universalist, the Baptist and the Bahai faiths.”

The context of this quote shows that these twenty-four Catholic organizations were represented at the UN by being NGOs. The accusers then say the Society was being a hypocrite for condemning the Catholics for being UN NGO’s, while in the very same year also applying to become an NGO itself. Yet, is this accurate? Of course not.

In an earlier chapter we discussed how apostates try to hide the difference between ECOSOC NGOs (which consult the UN on its policies) and DPI NGOs (who have access to UN research materials) — with one prominent apostate ignorantly claiming the difference is “irrelevant”. In this case, the same old tactic is used.

The UN’s own records available to anyone online show that the Catholic Church has many organizations registered as ECOSOC NGOs with consultative status. These NGOs have the power to influence decision and policy-making at the United Nations. The Watchtower Society has never been an ECOSOC NGO, so the argument that the Society has condemned itself by condemning the Catholic NGOs is based on nothing more than a deliberate twisting of the facts.

Chapter 9: A Not-Guilty Verdict

In this brief work we have shown you how the Watchtower Society’s DPI NGO status has been blown out of proportion by opposers — and how those same opposers wish to silence us. We have seen how the Society’s version of events corroborates with all of the evidence we have been able to find — even the “evidence” presented by apostates.

It really saddens us when we think of those former brothers and sisters who listened to such apostates and were misled to the point of either disassociating themselves or being put out of the congregation. The Bible clearly advises us to “avoid” apostate teachers, instructing us to “keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.” Why? Because “men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own bellies; and by smooth talk and complimentary speech they seduce the hearts of guileless ones”. (Romans 16:17-18) The Apostle warned, “your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone.” (1 Peter 5:8) It is very sad to see those who have been devoured by the apostate’s NGO conspiracy theory.

Here is a letter written by the German Bethel to a brother in in that country regarding the NGO matter:

Dear Brother —,

What makes us always a bit sad is the fact that some of our brothers seem to have a stronger confidence in the media and reports launched by our opposers than to statements made by the Organization by means of which they have learned the truth. Of course we expect to be reproached, slandered and that any tiny occasion is used to put us in a bad light. We expect that and we are even happy about it because we endure this for Jehovah and his son (Matthew 5:11; 1 Peter 4:14). But we are hurt, when some of our brothers uncritically accept those presentations, getting set against Jehovah’s organization or even letting themselves become a mouthpiece. Surely, no one of us wants to belong to those mentioned in Matthew 24:49 and 3 John 10. Of course, Satan would be happy if he urged us that far.

Our opposers always spread the idea that we do some secret operations while keeping the publishers ignorant. These accusations are likely as old as Christianity itself – with the difference that today modern media are used. That does not mean that we condemn these media in general which can be seen by the fact that the Headquarters and some branches run their own Websites. But warnings are not without reason, because through the Internet you can easily get in touch with the thoughts of apostates, which the Bible clearly warns against (2 John 8-11).

Especially in intellectual circles of society it is viewed as “chique” to doubt everything on principle and to insinuate bad motives everywhere. How bad would it be if that destructive-critical spirit was transferred to God’s people. Paul said, love “believes all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7). That does not mean credulity but a positive confidence in Jehovah, his word and his organization. Of course, Jehovah’s organization is not perfect. It was not in the first century and it was not at the time of the judges and kings of Israel.

Nevertheless, those putting their confidence in the leading of the men appointed by God were blessed.

One example for this is Absalom’s rebellion. He reproached God’s anointed king David when he told those who came with a legal case to the king: “See, your matters are good and straight; but there is no one from the king giving you a hearing.” (2 Samuel 15:3).

Maybe he even gave examples of persons who seemed to have been treated unjustly. But Jehovah did not bless those believing Absalom but those sticking to David who was appointed by God and who had obviously Jehovah’s blessings. Surely, we want to follow Ittai’s example who firmly stood by Jehovah’s anointed (2 Samuel 15:21).

We hope that these statements are helpful to you. In the confidence that Jehovah is giving us all the power to endure we are sending Christian greetings,

Your brothers

We fully concur with this letter. Since there is no real proof of deceitfulness or lying on behalf of the Bethel, and the evidence supports their version of events, should we not, if we call ourselves Christians, give our brothers the benefit of the doubt and not impute or imply bad motives? If you wish to judge them in a condemnatory way that is your right, but be aware that you are insisting your brothers are lying — no matter what explanation they offer and even though, when examining the facts, it becomes clear that they are not lying after all.

If you have read the claims of apostates and believed what they said, we would like to say this to you: At one time, we too were persuaded by the apostates. Some of us believed that the Society had “committed spiritual adultery” by becoming an NGO. However, when we saw the evidence for ourselves we realized that it was us — in fact — who were in the wrong, not the brothers.

If you have been disfellowshipped or have disassociated yourself over the NGO matter, we implore you to consider our evidence honestly and to humbly accept that your views on the matter may be wrong, and return to the Christian congregation. Be courageous and offer an apology for accusing the brothers of spiritual adultery and of lying. Tell them that you now realize there is not enough evidence to boldly (and unlovingly) call our brothers liars. Describe the evidence proving the apostates wrong — perhaps print out this essay to show them — and they will be able to see and understand how you were misled, just as some of us were. There is no dishonor in admitting we were wrong. Write a letter stating these things and that you want to come back home to Jehovah’s worldwide congregation. You will be glad that you did!

How to seek reinstatement

Write a letter to your body of elders stating you wish to return to the congregation. Ask to meet with the elders to discuss the matter. Although it will take several months (or longer depending on your situation) to be reinstated, it is well worth the effort.

The truth about ‘the truth about the truth’

Those who have left the congregations over this matter and wish to remain outside, often call it “The truth about The Truth”. Yet we can say without a doubt, that the truth about, “The truth about the Truth”, is this:

We are not guilty of printing “propaganda” for the UN. We are not guilty of agreeing to “support the UN”, nor did we become “part of the UN” or a “UN member”. We signed nothing that conflicts with our Christian beliefs. At the time, our DPI NGO status was entirely appropriate until the requirements changed and we withdrew. Jehovah’s Witnesses as an organization are not guilty of spiritual adultery, nor of lying and scheming to hide it. Those who promote the conspiracy theory are dishonest, use selective evidence, hide the facts they don’t want you to know, and the most enthusiastic accuser around today thinks he’s a modern-day prophet Ezekiel.

Our organization is like no other religious organization on earth today. Just as the first century congregation was not perfect, neither is our organization, yet it is the organization that has been blessed by Jehovah. It is the one that Jehovah has used to teach us the basic truths of the Bible, and it is the one who is bringing the truth about Jehovah, his Son, and the Kingdom to millions of people around the globe today.