[progchat_action] British Charity silenced on Iraq

How British charity was silenced on Iraq

Kevin Maguire

Friday November 28, 2003

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1095116,00.html

One of Britain's most high-profile charities was ordered to end
criticism of military action in Iraq by its powerful US wing to
avoid jeopardising financial support from Washington and corporate
donors, a Guardian investigation has discovered.

Internal emails reveal how Save the Children UK came under enormous
pressure after it accused coalition forces of breaching the Geneva
convention by blocking humanitarian aid.

Senior figures at Save the Children US, based in Westport, Connecticut,
demanded the withdrawal of the criticism and an effective veto on
any future statements blaming the invasion for the plight of Iraqi
civilians suffering malnourishment and shortages of medical supplies.

Uncovered documents expose tensions within an alliance that describes
itself as "the world's largest independent global organisation for
children" but which is heavily reliant on governments and big
business for cash.

Save the Children UK, which had an income of #122m in 2002-03,
boasts the Queen as patron and Princess Anne as president, plus a
phalanx of the great and the good lending their titles and time.

The row over Iraq erupted in April when the London statement said
coalition forces had gone back on an earlier agreement to allow a
relief plane, packed with emergency food and medical supplies for
40,000 people, to land in northern Iraq.

Rob MacGillivray, the UK wing's emergency programme manager, released
a statement which stated that the "lack of cooperation from the
coalition forces is a breach of the Geneva conventions and its
protocols, but more importantly the time now being wasted is costing
children their lives".

Within hours of the statement appearing, the US wing was demanding
its withdrawal. Emails sent to staff in Britain by Dianne Sherman,
associate vice-president for public affairs and communications in
Connecticut, headed "Save/UK criticises US military", expressed
dismay and censured the UK operation.

Ms Sherman said the Americans were "really astonished at today's
release, which went out without our prior knowledge, that attacks
the US military".

Her email went on: "This is undermining all the great work we've
done, much of it in collaboration with you. We'll have to see the
consequences of how this plays out - including affecting our future
funding from the government."

A number of less controversial "joint messages" were proposed by
Ms Sherman, none of which criticised any aspect of the invasion or
occupation. She instead wanted the UK and US groups to point out
that humanitarian organisations were still not permitted access to
most of Iraq, that delays harmed children and, on a positive note,
that relief work was under way in Umm Qasr, Masul and northern Iraq.

"Safe, secure conditions must be created immediately to allow
humanitarians to bring in essential supplies and expertise to the
people of Iraq," was her alternative version.

Accounts published by Save the Children US highlight its vulnerability
to political pressure from a Republican White House with "government
grants and contracts" generating some 60%, nearly #71m, of its #119m
operating support and revenue. The proportion is also high in the
UK, where #60.1m - 49% - of the organisation's income is "grants
and gifts in kind from institutional donors", including the government.

Ms Sherman copied her broadside to US executives including Ann van
Dusen, the executive vice-president, Rudy von Bernuth, vice-president
and managing director of its children in emergencies section, and
Andrea Williamson-Hughes, corporate secretary.

When she discovered the London statement had been posted on the UK
organisation's website, Ms Sherman also demanded the deletion of
US press officer Nicole Amoroso's name as a contact, adding in a
second email: "I would also strongly suggest that the press release
be removed until we have agreed upon language of the release."

A well-placed source in the UK operation said "all hell let loose"
over the US intervention, with telephone calls "flying across the
Atlantic" and a series of high-level meetings called to discuss the
crisis.

The removal of the US press officer's name was agreed to placate
Connecticut but the source confirmed the Americans were also assured
they would be sent all future UK statements on Iraq before they
were issued.

According to the source, the UK wing toned down later statements
to avoid offending the US side of the operation. A statement issued
in London on April 25, for example, was cleared in advance with the
US, the source said.

Headed "The war is not over for the children of Iraq", it made no
mention let alone criticism of coalition forces. The looting of
some hospitals was highlighted but not the widespread criticism at
the time that troops were standing by and doing nothing.

Save the Children US concentrates on fundraising and is said by
London insiders to be anxious to curb campaigning by the UK arm.

Ms Sherman was unavailable for comment until next week, her office
said.

But in a statement to the Guardian, Save the Children UK said it
had not retracted the release at the heart of the row but had removed
the name of Ms Amoroso, saying it had been an error not to consult
her.

Subsequent statements, it added, reflected the fact that the situation
"had moved on" as medical supplies had landed in Jordan to be moved
to Baghdad. "We do not agree news releases issued in Save the
Children UK's name with Save the Children US or any other member
of the International Save the Children Alliance," the London statement
said. "Wherever possible we do share Save the Children UK news
releases before they are issued with other alliance members working
in the same area. If any changes are suggested by other alliance
members to Save the Children releases, they are made or not at our
discretion."

The tensions over potential donor influence are not limited to the
Iraq crisis. Other internal emails and documents disclose how Save
the Children UK was nervous about the reaction of a major donor
company, Serco, which makes huge profits from outsourcing, when the
charity prepared to criticise the impact of privatisation on children.

A number of staff were aghast in the summer of 2002 when a chapter
critical of private finance initiatives, written for a report
published ahead of the Johannesburg sustainable development summit,
was deleted by senior figures in the charity just before it was
printed.

There is nothing in the documents to suggest that Serco exerted any
pressure, but according to the emails, the charity's staff were
anxious not to upset it.

One email copied widely in the organisation admitted "underlying
tensions"

existed between the corporate fundraising unit and campaigners
arguing that PFIs in basic services did not benefit children.

Another warned that criticism of PFIs by the charity was "naturally
making some of our corporate sponsors edgy", and the director
general, Mike Aaronson, wanted a full briefing ahead of a meeting
with a big private donor.

As the internal debate raged, fundraiser Helen Barnes warned she
was in a "tricky position" with Serco, which ran hospitals, prisons
and schools for the government. Although about to cease being a
corporate member, the firm, she said, "is still keen to support us"
as she argued against portraying it as a company operating solely
for profit.

"Serco takes its social responsibilities very seriously and invests
in the communities in which it operates," Ms Barnes said.

Serco, which is heavily involved in the defence sector, raised a
total of #626,500 for the charity, as well as naming its yacht Save
the Children in the BT Global Challenge race three years ago.

The charity's statement yesterday said: "At no point [in] the
relationship did Serco attempt to influence Save the Children UK
policy on any issue."

It continued: "We were able to edit most of the report to meet the
required standard but one chapter required further work before it
could be approved for publication. Because time was short we decided
to drop this chapter to allow the rest of the report to be published
in time for the conference."