By Kevin Maguire
GuardianNovember 29, 2003
New Anglo-American row revealed at Save the Children The US partner of the charity Save the Children UK objected to it issuing a statement demanding an immediate lifting of an Israeli blockade of Gaza, according to correspondence seen by the Guardian. Save the Children US said it was "a mistake" for the international charity's British wing to publish a condemnation of the ban on access to the occupied Palestinian territory imposed in May, without first securing its partner's approval. Disclosure of the Gaza row between the two organisations follows yesterday's revelation that Save the Children UK had been ordered by its US office in April to stop criticising military action in Iraq. The American wing was worried about jeopardising financial support from Washington and other big donors. Save the Children US complained on May 25 that the statement at the centre of the Gaza row had been made public in London two days earlier without a green light from the American wing's head office in Westport, Connecticut. The statement was sent in advance by a London press officer to Connecticut, but Dianne Sherman, Westport's associate vice-president for public affairs and communications, complained that she had not seen it.
"I was sick on Friday. You SHOULD NOT [her capitals] have sent this out. We DID not sign on to this. You should have contacted someone else in Save the Children/US. There are 2,600 other people here. This was a mistake," said Ms Sherman in an email. When Save the Children UK was asked earlier this week if Ms Sherman had objected to the Gaza release, it said in a statement on Thursday: "We have no record of any email from Dianne Sherman about this release or recollection of any phone calls." But when a spokeswoman was told yesterday that the Guardian had unearthed an email from Ms Sherman protesting at the publication of the release, she said: "At this point of time, we are not going to deal with any more inquiries on this story."
The fresh evidence of pressure exerted on the British charity by its American partner - which is dependent on US government grants and contracts for 60% of its income - raises further questions about the relationship between the pair. The UK charity says it does not agree news releases with other members of the International Save the Children Alliance but, "wherever possible", shows them in advance to those working in the same area, making changes at its own discretion. Save the Children US is the lead organisation over the UK in the occupied territories. Both are part of the Association of International Development Agencies, a body critical of the Gaza blockade. The statement in May said a humanitarian convoy would seek to enter Gaza. It is unclear whether the US wing objected to the main thrust of the statement, nuances in the criticism or was merely upset at being upstaged by London. Ms Sherman's office said she was unavailable for comment until next week. But Ken Caldwell, Save the Children UK's director of international operations, confirmed yesterday that there had been a spat between the US and UK wings after London accused the coalition military forces of breaching the Geneva conventions by blocking an aid flight to Erbil in northern Iraq. "Our American counterparts were concerned about the potential implications in the highly charged environment of Iraq at the time, and understandably, from time to time, different members of an alliance have different views about the different tactics to achieve our goals," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme. Alan Simpson, the Labour MP for Nottingham South who worked in the voluntary sector before entering parliament, expressed concern that the British charity was under so much pressure from its US partner. He criticised Save the Children US's closeness to the White House, and said: "This is a new American imperium - you not only invade countries but also charities."
More Information on NGOs
More Information on Funding for NGOs
More Information on Credibility and Legitimacy of NGOs
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
