Since more than a decade I work as a volunteer for the humanitarian organization Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF). Since I started reading SOTT, this Forum and several books recommended, I felt a growing worry that something was very wrong with MSF. While reading ‘ponerology’ I had increasing moments where I felt that what was written applied directly to the way some people in MSF work, think, act. I suddenly understood several aspects of the organization that up till then I could not explain. The question I had to ask was: were the principles and manifests of the organization (in which I believed so strongly) replaced by empty rethoric and nothing but a smokescreen where psychopaths could hide behind? Or was it worse, and was the whole idea behind humanitarian aid wrong from the beginning?
Anart: Re: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a primative model fit for psychopaths? ‘Ultimately, if a psychological theory is developed by someone who is pathological, how could the theory be anything but? It might hit a true note here or there, especially when heard through the filter of critical correction, but, ultimately it will always be tainted by the pathological world view. (Freud would be another example...)’
from From the MSF USA website
“Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a private international association. The association is made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers and is also open to all other professions which might help in achieving its aims. All of its members agree to honor the following principles:
Médecins Sans Frontières provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict. They do so irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions.
Médecins Sans Frontières observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions.
Members undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and to maintain complete independence from all political, economic, or religious powers.
As volunteers, members understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out and make no claim for themselves or their assigns for any form of compensation other than that which the association might be able to afford them.
This still sounds ok to me: volunteers that go help people in distress and this in an independent, impartial and neutral way. Am I wrong to think that this is STO? But the fact MSF ‘claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions’ is worrisome. Is this a case where ‘It might hit a true note here or there, especially when heard through the filter of critical correction, but, ultimately it will always be tainted by the pathological world view’? Is the ‘Claim’ where the problem arises?
As readers might know one of the founding fathers of MSF is Bernard Kouchner, now France’s Foreign Minister.
from Tenten, Quoting Philip Hamond article , in: Is THIS the most dangerous man in Europe?
On his return to France, Kouchner established the Committee Against Genocide in Biafra, out of which emerged a new sort of relief agency, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). Founded in 1971, MSF would be everything the Red Cross was not: no longer would humanitarian action be held back by respect for national sovereignty; no more would aid workers be constrained to silence in the face of atrocity. The story of Biafra, as Kouchner tells it, is an epic in which he plays the lead role. The truth is different.
What makes Kouchner dangerous is his promotion of le droit d’ingérence, the ‘right to intervene’. This idea – that it is legitimate to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states – became popular with Western governments in the 1990s. At the turn of the decade, Kouchner successfully used his office as minister for humanitarian action under President François Mitterrand to promote the doctrine, pushing for it to be codified in successive United Nations resolutions and for it to be enacted by the Western military in Iraqi Kurdistan and Somalia. By the end of the 1990s NATO was fully committed to the idea, adopting it as justification for the 1999 Kosovo bombing, and it has been wheeled out since to make ‘humanitarian’ arguments in favour of war-on-terror interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. No doubt Kouchner will seek to use his new position to pursue it further.
It is true that Kouchner’s invasive humanitarianism claims to be internationalist, but the parallel is misleading. In place of solidarity among equals, Kouchner’s approach offers only pity for the suffering of victims. And what is envisaged for these child-like victims is not freedom and self-determination but the suffocating ‘protection’ of the ‘international community’.
Kouchner left MSF in 1979 to continue to create another humanitarian organization MDM (medecins du monde). The reason he left is because of fundamental differences on how to proceed with the organization, osit. Was this the key moment in MSFs history where hey took action in time to avoid ponorization? After all, looking at the career of mr Kouchner, this was probably the person that could have ponerized the whole organization. And MSF is still trying very hard to distance itself from mr Kouchner.
from Mr premise in : Is THIS the most dangerous man in Europe?
‘What drives me nuts about explanations of Kouchner like the one quoted above is that they ignore the obvious: he's a Zionist.’
So did MSF succeed in getting rid of the bad apple in time? If they got rid of the Zionists in time, they should/could/can be outspoken about Zionisme, and the horrible effects is has on ‘victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict.’ Equally they should ‘claim full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions’, eg the Gaza Strip last winter.
From the MSF USA website:
MSF expressed strong criticism of the Israeli army’s assault on Gaza and of the international community for standing by while the incursion continued for 22 days. “How far can the Israeli army go before the international community mobilizes to stop it?” asked Cécile Barbou during a press conference on January 16. “It’s hell here. Even people carrying white flags are being shot at. It’s high time for the international community to organize, position itself, make decisions, and take the measures required to stop this conflict. This passive stance is unbearable, intolerable! This has got to stop. We are outraged.”
The article on the website is though accompanied with a ‘editors note’:
To our Supporters: It has been brought to our attention that a number of our supporters were upset by the article, "Gaza: A Devastating Disregard for Civilians," on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict published in the spring 2009 edition of the Alert newsletter. At Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), we pride ourselves on transparency and accountability to our donors and to an open and constructive dialogue with those who believe in supporting the principles of providing assistance to victims of violence and disease regardless of political, religious, or economic affiliations. Upon further reflection, we recognize the legitimacy of the concerns expressed that the Alert article was too one-sided in its presentation of the Gaza conflict. The article, as it was written, did not sufficiently contextualize the Israeli incursion into Gaza as a response to the longstanding and indiscriminate rocket attacks being launched by Hamas from the Strip into Israel. In no way was the omission of the broader context intended to diminish the suffering caused by these attacks on Israel. Human suffering is deplorable in all its magnitudes. As MSF, we pride ourselves on a constant reflection of our medical humanitarian action and speaking out. This is a daily engagement playing out in our headquarters and among our field teams around the world. As our supporters, you are a vital part of this reflection. Just as MSF is an association composed of medical and non-medical field staff from across the globe, bound by independent, impartial, and neutral medical action, we are a movement supported by millions of individuals like you. We thank you for the vitality of your engagement in our collective endeavors, and in difficult economic times need your continued support more than ever. Please continue to challenge us, in all aspects of our work, in the days ahead.
Looks indeed that ‘supporters’ brought something to the attention. Who are these supporters? The public that believes in the message and donates money so that MSF can be independent? Or was it the advisory board of MSF USA? Its members are?
Richard Rockefeller, MD, Chairman of the Board . Meena Ahamed, Robert Arnow, Don Berwick, MD, PPH, Institute for Healthcare Improvement , Elizabeth Beshel, Goldman Sachs , Robert Bookman, Creative Artists Agency , Kathleen Chalfant , Marek Fludzinski, PhD, Thales Fund Management, LLC, Daniel Goldring, Charles A. HirschlerGary A Isaac, Esq.Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP , Susan Liautaud , Laurie MacDonald Parkes MacDonald Productions, Garrick Utley, Neil D.Levin Graduate School, SUNY , Marsha Garces Williams Blue Wolf Productions, Robert van Zwieten Asian Development Bank
As my internet connection here somewhere in Africa is very slow and unreliable I did only a few searches. But these should allow to get an idea of who could have been these objecting supporters.
From Wikipedia:
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), (Philanthropy for an Interdependent World), is an international philanthropic organization created and run by members of the Rockefeller family. It was set up in New York City in 1940 as the primary philanthropic vehicle of the five famous Rockefeller brothers: John D. Rockefeller 3rd, Nelson, Laurance, Winthrop and David, and is distinct from the Rockefeller Foundation, which is more independent from family control. Its headquarters are located on the 37th Floor, at 437 Madison Ave, New York, which is also the location of the family's major non-profit philanthropic organization, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, as well as the family's fourth-generation philanthropic institution, the Rockefeller Family Fund. The current president of the Fund is Stephen B. Heintz and its chairman is Richard Rockefeller, the fifth child of David Rockefeller.
From website: Israeli Arab Funding , Robert Arnow Letter to the Editor, October 20, 2006.
I was deeply disturbed by the front-page article, "Center-Right Groups Outraged at Post-War Money to Arabs" (Oct. 13) since I strongly support United Jewish Communities’ emergency assistance going to all Israelis affected by the recent war.
My personal and philanthropic involvement with Israel is long and deep. Like most Jews, I am proud that the State of Israel has been unambiguously committed since its founding to "full and equal rights" for its Arabs citizens, as stated in its Declaration of Independence, which is one reason why most Americans, both Christians and Jews, strongly support Israel. As Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first president, put it in his autobiography, "I am certain that the world will judge the Jewish State by what it will do with the Arabs, just as the Jewish people at large will be judged by what we do or fail to do in this State where we have been given such a wonderful opportunity…"
The opposition to equitable aid ignores the fact that Katyusha rockets didn’t discriminate between Arabs and Jews; Hezbollah’s war was against all Israelis. As UJC President Howard Reiger was quoted as stating in the article, "about one-third to one-half of those killed [by Hezbollah rockets] were Israeli Arabs." In addition, many Druze and Bedouin citizens of Israel have helped defend Jews and the Jewish state by having served in the Israeli Defense Force, sometimes sacrificing their lives.
Unfortunately, for nearly 60 years, Israel’s Arab sector has been seriously neglected and under-funded, which has contributed to growing alienation from Israeli society among many Arab citizens.
For that reason, as The Jewish Week reported last spring, a group of mainstream Jewish organizations, led by the UJC and Joint Distribution Committee, has formed an interagency task force to examine ways to improve the lives of Israel’s Arab citizens, who receive a far smaller proportion of governmental aid than their Jewish neighbors. The Arab sector’s needs are legion: during the recent war, for example, many Arab villages in Israel’s north did not have bomb shelters, while almost all Jewish cities and towns did.
To help Arabs as well as Jews in Israel’s north is not only the fair, moral thing to do; it is also clearly in Israel’s national self-interest. As Moshe Arens, defense minister in three center-right governments, has stated, "It is high time for the government to address the problems of Israel’s Arab minority. This neglect can only lead to disaster if it is not stopped in time."
UJC has adopted a principled position, which I applaud. It should not allow others to undermine it by serving as a conduit for those who would discriminate against Israel’s minority of Arab citizens by making contributions marked "Jews only."
The writer, honorary chairman of The Jewish Week board of directors, is a former campaign chairman of UJA-Federation of New York and chairman emeritus of the board of governors of Ben Gurion University of the Negev.
Robert H. Arnow
New York, N.Y.
Victoaria B Bjorklund: Victoria Bjorklund is a Partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP where she heads the Firm’s Exempt Organizations Group. She advises public charities, private foundations, boards, and donors.
In 2001, Ms. Bjorklund was appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to serve as one of six exempt-organization members on the IRS’s Tax Exempt/Government Entities Advisory Committee and served as Chair for 2004-2005. In June 2005, she received the IRS Tax Exempt Division Commissioner’s Award for “ground-breaking service” to the Advisory Committee.
Ms. Bjorklund was named a David Rockefeller Fellow for 1997-1998 as a rising civic leader in New York City. From 1989 through 2001, she served as a director, secretary and still serves as pro bono legal counsel for Doctors Without Borders, the emergency medical relief organization that was awarded the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize. She is also a director of and pro bono counsel for the Robin Hood Foundation. She chaired the ABA Tax Section Committee on Exempt Organizations from 2001 through 2003 and now serves as Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on International Philanthropy. Ms. Bjorklund was honored in May 2002 as ABA Tax Section “Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year” in recognition of her 9/11 work. She also accepted the “Pro Bono Firm of the Year” award from the NYS Bar Association in recognition of the Firm’s 9/11 work. The Nonprofit Coordinating Committee of New York City and Lawyers Alliance of New York, Inc. honored Ms. Bjorklund for her outstanding volunteer service in responding to the legal needs arising from September 11. In 2003, she received the Commissioner’s Award, the highest honor the Commissioner of Internal Revenue can bestow, for her “timely, creative and nimble response to 9/11’s unprecedented legal challenges.” In 2005, she received the Assistant Commissioner’s Award for her contributions to the IRS Advisory Committee. In 2006, Ms. Bjorklund was appointed to the Board of Trustees, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.
Ms. Bjorklund speaks and writes frequently on exempt-organization subjects. Every year since 1989 she has spoken at the ALI-ABA Charitable Giving Program on “Choosing Among Private Foundations, Supporting Organizations, and Donor-Advised Funds,” a topic she also addresses at the annual Georgetown Conference. She is the co-author with Jim Fishman and Dan Kurtz of New York Nonprofit Law and Practice (LexisNexis, 2d Ed. 2007).
She earned her J.D. at Columbia University School of Law, a Ph.D. in Medieval Studies from Yale University, and a B.A. magna cum laude from Princeton University, where she graduated in three years and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Ms. Bjorklund is a former member of the Firm’s Pro Bono Committee and in 2006, she was appointed co-chair of the Diversity Committee.
New York Times: October 1, 2006 Libby Dale Paskin and Daniel Jacob Goldring were married last evening at the Angel Orensanz Foundation in New York. Rabbi Helene Ferris officiated. The bride and bridegroom met as freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, from which they both graduated cum laude.
Mrs. Goldring, 30, received a diploma last year from Christie’s Modern and Contemporary Art program in London, and was an intern this year at Alison Jacques Gallery in London. She is a daughter of Rhoda and Joel Paskin of Philadelphia. Her father is a certified public accountant and an owner of Ehrlich & Paskin, an accounting firm in Huntington Valley, Pa. Her mother is a substitute art teacher for the Philadelphia School District.
Mr. Goldring, also 30, is a partner in Perry Capital, a New York-based hedge fund, for which he runs the London office. He is the son of Katherine and Harlan Goldring of New York. His mother, who is retired, was the director of marketing and membership for the New York Academy of Sciences. His father, also retired, was an actuary with New York Life Insurance Company.
It Seems thus that MSF has not gotten rid of the Zionist influences and that even when then can be outspoken and claim access to many conflicts (like Darfur), for certain zones they are not allowed to do so. An organization with at the end of line such personalities, can it be other then ponerized? I don’t think so. And it looks like the idea was skewed from the start.
This leaves me in a dilemma. As I write I still work for MSF and I can see a lot of decent human beings working for them being drained from energy ‘for the good cause’. I can see those people struggling with the same things I struggled with before I read SOTT and Ponerology. After the shock, and this one is still not over, realizing I was fooled for so many years, the next question comes up: do I leave this organization or do I stay and help these people that I can see struggling and nose diving? Maybe it is a exaggerated comparison but sometimes I feel like I am working for a fascist organization. And this feeling only gets worse when I realize how far the ponerization has affected myself. How do you operate sanely within an organization that is ponerized? Any advice welcome.
