[Imc-finance] FORD DISCUSSION BACKGROUND (Part 1 - read first)
Michael Eisenmenger
eisenmen at tao.ca
Mon Sep 16 19:31:04 2002
(my apologies for the length here - I know it's bad form but I couldn't find
a way to be brief)
I haven't been involved in this discussion in any way, but am
sympathetic to both sides. I respect the distrust of those in the IMC
network whose countries have been on the receiving end of
ill-intentioned NGO's for decades. But I also understand the well
intentioned desires of those working in the US to raise funds for
implementation within the global network where funds are hard to find.
People should also know that organizations in the US receiving funds
from major foundations are accustomed to a hands off process. You
apply for funds, you say you will do X, Y and Z, then a year or two later
you write a report on the success/failure you had in achieving the
original goals. There is very seldom any meddling or inquiry on the part
of the foundation - no requests for information or contacts, etc. The rule
of thumb here is often: "It's not where the money comes from, it's what
you do with it that matters". And if radical organizations don't take the
funds when offered, those moneys will likely go to less enlightened and
possible harmful liberal organizations working on related projects.
Yes foundations often have truly evil heirs, nobody is questioning that.
But in many cases the foundations themselves are run progressive
(sometimes radical, and yes, maybe naive) grant officers. This has
sometimes been the case with Soros which has funded some quite
radical projects that quite simply would not have been funded otherwise.
Soros' Open Society project funded nearly every community radio station
in South Africa - stations that quite possibly would not exist otherwise.
When I was there four years ago I questioned the regional AMARC
representative about this and she told me that the funding was very
much hands off - and that often the radio stations themselves went
Open Society with specific requests for assistance that were nearly
always fulfilled without question. I know the debate around Soros has
been vigorous, yet given the many radical projects that have come out of
it, I have difficulty in not seeing both sides of the debate
However Foundations do often have political motivations for getting
involved. I've often wondered about the Benton Foundation who stepped
in and virtually stole the debate over US communications policy in the
early 90's from a vibrant coalition of community groups and public
interest lobbyists called the Telecommunications Roundtable. The end
result was that this liberal foundation (with strong political ties to Gore
and Clinton) gained the control of the public interest debate and agenda
setting on a crucial piece of legislation in the early stages of formation
(the end result - we all got screwed by the 96 Communications Act).
There were rumors (and I stress that this has not been documented)
that other foundations friendly to Gore were giving grants with the
stipulation that the organizations not engage in organizing grassroots
constituencies around communication issues - so as not to create
interference with the Gore agenda.
So what does any of this have to do with the Ford Foundation and the
task at hand? Well, I know that Ford recently funded a small exploratory
national gathering here in the US of people involved in community
media. They seem to have an interest in helping to reopen the debate
on communications policies and issues here in the US - but whether
that is a well intentioned motivation or a political motivation - I can't say.
An acquaintance of mine organized this meeting and though we haven't
discussed it at any depth, I speculate that their intentions were benign,
otherwise she would not have been involved. Nonetheless, the
allegations in the James Petras article should be cause for exercising
extreme caution about revealing any detailed information to any
foundation not otherwise available.
And what does any of this would have to do with the IMC - which is
global and often beyond issues of local law? The only related policy
goal on the international horizon is WSIS (I suspect still off the radar of
Ford). This is something which I hope global IMC's will take an interest
in. I also hope IMC's in the US get heavily involved too since it was the
US (and the US media) that sabotaged a similar UNESCO attempt for
democratizing an international agreement on communications policy
back in the 80's.
So what to do? Well, I think if global IMC's agree to the goals set out in
the grant proposal (regional/international meetings) and belive these
goals would benefit the network as a whole - then I would say: take the
money and run (and write a report that uses a nonspecific
counter-strategy - such as not listing names). I don't believe the IMC can
be corrupted by a single foundation, the network is too anarchistic,
decentralized and committed to open process and communication to be
co-opted (I suspect the IMC is every foundation's nightmare simply
because of the non-hierarchical structure).
The strength of the IMC has been it's ability to expand and thrive with
virtually no funding - something that has kept the honesty and integrity of
the organization intact and beyond reproach. I think the discussion
around this current issue is representative of the desire to maintain that
trust and openness in response to what seemed like a rushed
unilateral decision. But keep in mind that even if good intentions
generated a proposal (for a deadline) that resulted in funding being
offered - the acceptance of any funds would still have to be debated and
agreed upon by everyone - or else rejected.
My last (obvious) comment is to never accept any funding that results in
the creation of an infrastructure that is not otherwise sustainable. This is
the ultimate trap of foundation funding and many well intentioned
projects have found themselves dependent on continued funding in
order to survive - and more than a few have dissolved when the funding
sources decided to pull the plug.
take care,
Michael
----------------------------------
At 5:50 PM -0700 9/13/02, Sheri Herndon wrote:
* apologies for cross posting *
hi,
if you are interested in this discussion and the issues that
sebastian's recent email addresses, please read this. this is what i
wrote before talking more in depth with micah about the concerns and
specifics of those concerns from imc argentina.
another email with more specific questions for this list will follow.
thanks for taking the time to read this. we think it is critical.
we are all trying to figure out how to address these questions in a
good way. so read this for background.
in solidarity
sheri
Delivered-To: sheri@speakeasy.org
Delivered-To: sheri@indymedia.org
X-Sender: sheri@mail.speakeasy.org
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:58:40 -0700
To: Sabastian Hacher <sebastian@indymedia.org>,
sascha@ucimc.org,
encuentros@indymedia.org, gaba <gabelula@adinet.com.uy>,
Dri <drivbh@terra.com.br>
From: Sheri Herndon <sheri@indymedia.org>
Subject: (was URGENT) Ford Foundation Funds - additional comments
Cc: Shane Korytko <shane@indymedia.org>,
editorialarg@lists.indymedia.org, cmi-argentina@lists.indymedia.org,
blicero@indymedia.org, gekked@blackflag.org, lisa@akpress.org,
bossa@hehe.com, gradozero@inventati.org
hi everyone,
i am in the middle of conference organizing (www.reclaimthemedia.org)
and don't have the time to accurately summarize the conversation that
has been going on about this topic. so i'm going to include all the
critical emails.
i appreciate all the issues that have been raised and the question of
taking money from foundations isn't something i think any of us take
too lightly. and the basic criteria for those of us raising money
for local imcs, projects or the network has been from the beginning
that we *only* take funds without any strings attached.
this is a huge issue and there will be differences in tactics and
strategies with regard to raising money. i also think it is
important to say that it isn't just about the ford foundation. all
foundation money is 'tainted' in one way or another because this is
how corporations deal with their guilt or funnel their excess cash.
not all foundations have as bad of a history as the ford foundation,
however.
some background information:
several of us have been pursuing funding for a global conference
because many people feel it is important. a list was set up for that
called encuentros. through tamara ford (unrelated to the ford
foundation), i was introduced to becky from the ford foundation. she
is very active in womens issues and when i started the imc-womens
list, she joined at tamara's urging. so we started talking. she had
just started working with the media policy and technology section at
the ford foundation. in may she came to seattle for the cpsr
conference and met with 8 of us from indymedia - jonathan lawson,
susan gleason, evan, shane, dan merkle, chris burnett, myself and
someone else i can't remember. we were all quite impressed with her
and how she appeared to be very supportive of our decentralized
structure, our values, and our commitment to local autonomy. to most
of us, she "got it". ask any of those people for their opinion of
that meeting.
we had initially been discussing possible funding for a global
conference but after meeting with her in may, it was clear that that
was too much for us to handle on many levels. she suggested after
listening to all of us share our stories of indymedia, that she get
us travel funds so that we could have more face to face meetings,
since that seemed to be a critical issue facing our ongoing
organizing and network development.
this fund would be essentially given to the urbana imc. they would
be responsible for disbursing it to local imcs who then agree to
host/organize a regional gathering. from that point, those locals
could decide how to give the money to people for travel support.
this is not a fund being given to the indymedia network, but rather
to a local imc to help us have coordinated regional gatherings
(regional might also include continental where it seemed appropriate).
i want to make sure that people understand and sebastian, i want to
be clear, that this fund is not for a global meeting. it is a fund
to support regional meetings.
james petras who wrote the article sebastian refers to below is in
town this weekend to visit his daughter and my friend anthippy; i
told sebastian that i would be meeting with him to discuss this more.
and now i will share the entire thread on this topic since all of it
seems relevant:
dri or gaba, could you possibly translate this thread?
love
sheri
BEGIN THREAD
1. sebastian posted a link to james petras article and i responded:
http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/ford010102.htm
it basically raises concerns and establishes some valid documentation
(or so it seems) linking the ford foundation to cia activities. what
is especially of concern is that this could be more recent history.
so a question that quickly comes to mind and that has been out there
for some time is:
** do we take money from anyone (foundation, ngo, government agency,
individual) that has been tainted and use it for good? or do we
refuse to take money from sources where we disagree with how they
"earned" the money or their organization's current activities?
for me the issue is more about taking money without any strings
attached. so we can do what we will with the money. perhaps we can
even redeem the evil that the foundation or organization or agency
has done. just possibly. to me a central criteria from the
beginning of my involvement with indymedia and with raising money
has
been no strings attached. no foundation or person tells us what we
can or cannot do with our money.
let's just say, in a worse case scenario, that everyone that james
petras writes in his article is true about the ford foundation, the
present foundation, not one that existed in the 50's. and let's say
that we take money from them to use as we will to fund regional
gatherings to help us have more face to face conversations and
strategy discussions, are we helping the ford foundation? or are we
perhaps helping undo some of the wrong that they have wreaked on the
planet?
my very personal belief in all this is that (1) we only take money
without any strings (2) we do not rely on any foundation so we can
always say no thank you we don't need you at any time (3) we do not
encourage any reliance on any funder (foundation or individual) and
(4) we use money we are given to continue the vision of indymedia.
i know that there are others who think we should never take money
from a foundation (regardless of whether they are good or not
according to some kind of ethical standards).
i think having criteria for how we take money from anywhere is
important. i think we have done this in the past for the most part.
and we have certainly always used the money in the way that was for
the good of the network.
money is a challenging thing, i think we all recognize it. we have
to deal with it. i'm not convinced that the best way is to say nope
we will have nothing to do with the ford foundation money. i would
rather see us take money from the worst people on the planet and do
something good with it. this to me is powerful in and of itself.
because whether we accept money from the ford foundation or not, our
work is about changing the world to be different than the world they
would like. and perhaps a great irony is that they will fund us to
help undermine their way of doing things.
2. tamara ford's comments (she was active back two years ago with
the encuentros project and nab in sf; a number of people in indymedia
know and respect her):
As for Ford, I skimmed the link that you sent later, and believe me, I
understand your dilemma. It's not an easy one to answer because we're
dealing with the difficulties of process, as well as those of
providing north/south solidarity. I think the article raises valid points,
not just about Ford specifically, but around foundations in general...
remember when the Bay Guardian ran that whole series during the
Media and
Democracy Congress? Look for it online at sfbg.com, searching for
"Foundation"
It's all rotten... the whole pie. The whole area studies field (I worked in
Latin American studies at UT) has always had ties with the CIA, IMF, UN,
etc. And, as some have claimed, Universities themselves are violent
institutions.
What I can say is that that article makes no detailed claims for Ford in
recent years and that the cultural/educational/media division head is an
African American woman who seems very concerned with supporting
anti-globalization activists. So, even though the institution is problematic
at the root levels, the people I know of there are trying to do progressive
work... and I think they brought in Becky because they saw her being
concerned about those on the margins... not the academic/elite.
The argentine reaction is understandable and not new to us at all... the
problem is that we don't have much "clean" money we can draw from
and
we want to help build capacity, while being short of resources
ourselves.
It was very difficult for me working on this last grant and I think it's
always an uphill battle. But I think that you're getting travel funds is an
example of the opposite of right-wing alliances and an opening of a
space
for activists to make and write their own history. While some may be
rightfully leery of "opening themselves up". The public-ation of ideas and
interactions has always been a goal of the indymedia movement.
I suppose an option is to offer Ford travel funds and try to provide other
support or options for those who want to refuse specific funds. Have you
asked them if they know of foundations that they would approve of?
Global Fund for Women, (San Fran -based) might be a source... but
again
their initiatives are limited.
You might look at the website and see what groups are funded
currently/recently by Ford.
I know Globalvision (Danny Schecter), and FAIR are among them.
They also founded and carried UT-LANIC http://lanic.utexas.edu
for six years... it's the largest index of public/academic info from Latin
America on the web.
3. thatcher's comments:
Spanish below--Espa–ol abajo.
All money is dirty. The only thing we can do is to try to get money for
Indymedia that is at least one step removed from the dirty part. The Ford
money is one step away.
The support of US propaganda by Ford is not unique to Ford--most US
universities, profesors, journalists, media organizations,
Non-governmental organizations, local governments, corporations, and
foundations have participated in supporting US propaganda and
dictaorships.
The US Government can and does impede the work of human rights
organizations and human rights reporting. So in order to make any
achievments at all, these organizations sometimes work with the CIA on
propaganda (for instance) in exchange for the right to fund a human
rights
organization without interference. There are two points: 1) the support
from groups like Ford of US policy is not always voluntary; and 2)
sometimes organizations must make compromises in order to achieve
greater
good. The point is not to justify what Ford did, but rather to understand
organizations like Ford are complex organizations, not necessarilly all
good, and not necessarilly all evil. The conlcusion: these organizatoins
need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Ford also supports organizations that fight the very things you say Ford
supports. Ford supports FAIR and Phyisicans for Human Rights, two
organizations that regularly do more political damage to the US
governemnt
than all the political damage mentioned in the essay about CIA
propaganda
publications put together.
The grant proposal for Indymedia comes with no strings attached. Once
this money becomes Indymedia's, the money becomes "clean." We can
never
change what Ford did in the past, but we can use this money now
regardless
of Ford.
Wealthy donors who simply gove money to Indymedia, but do not have a
dirty
name like Ford, are actually more likely to want to manipulate
Indymedia,
and more likely to have strings attached. Thus, of all the donor sources
for Indymedia, Ford is one of the best because of the lack of strings and
the open public process for obtaining the money. If we depend on
money
from IMC partipants, then Indymedia becomes elitist and controlled by
the
richer and more ambigious members of the movement--that money is
not under
public scrutiny the way the Ford money is.
We do not have a very democratic decision making process now. This
grant
should make a big difference in our ability to make decision collectively
and democraticly. To decide against this money now not only vetos an
important move toward democratizing the network, but it does it in an
undemocratic way. If this money is still a problem, then once the
decision making process is in place, we can collectively and
democractially decide to not use money like this in the future.
What is our top priority? Is it creating democratic decision making or is
it making a political point to Ford? Which option saves more lives? Is it
an effective Indymedia that could change government policy and provide
voice to the voiceless, or is it a politcal point that no one will
remember in 4 months?
If the CIA truly had control over the Ford foundation now, Indymedia
would
not get any money.
Thatcher
-----------------------------------
Todo el dinero es sucio. La œnica cosa que podemos hacer es intentar
conseguir el dinero para Indymedia que sea por lo menos un paso de
progresi—n quitado de la parte sucia. El dinero de Ford es un paso de
progresi—n lejos.
La ayuda de la propaganda de los E.e.u.u. de Ford no es œnica a Ford --
la
mayor’a de las universidades de los E.e.u.u., de los profesors, de los
periodistas, de las organizaciones de los media, de las organizaciones
no
gubernamentales, de los gobiernos locales, de las corporaciones, y de
las
fundaciones han participado en utilizar propaganda y dictaorships de
los
E.e.u.u.. El gobierno de los E.e.u.u. puede e impide el trabajo de las
organizaciones de los derechos humanos y de se–alar de los
derechos
humanos.
**time-out** tan para hacer cualquier achievments en todo, este
organizaci—n a veces trabajar con Cia en propaganda (por ejemplo) en
intercambio para derecha para financiar uno humano derecho
organizaci—n
sin interferencia. Hay dos puntas: 1) la ayuda de grupos como Ford de
la
pol’tica de los E.e.u.u. no es siempre voluntaria; y 2) las organizaciones
deben hacer a veces compromisos para alcanzar mayor bueno. La
punta no es
alinear quŽ Ford hizo, pero entender algo organizaciones como Ford es
organizaciones complejas, no necessarilly todo buenas, y no
necessarilly
todo el mal. El conlcusion: estos organizatoins necesitan ser tratados
de
caso por caso. Ford tambiŽn utiliza las organizaciones que luchan las
mismas cosas que usted dice las ayudas de Ford. **time-out** Ford
utilizar
FERIA y Phyisicans para humano derecho, dos organizaci—n que
regular hacer
m‡s pol’tico da–o E.e.u.u. governemnt que todo pol’tico da–o
mencionar en
ensayo sobre Cia propaganda publicaci—n poner junto. La oferta de la
concesi—n para Indymedia viene sin las cadenas asociadas. Una vez
que este
dinero se convierta en Indymedia, el dinero se convierte " limpia."
Podemos nunca cambiar quŽ Ford hizo en el pasado, pero podemos
ahora
utilizar este dinero sin importar Ford. Donantes que simplemente el
dinero
del gove a Indymedia, pero no tiene un nombre sucio como Ford, es
realmente m‡s probable desear manipular Indymedia, y m‡s probable
ricos
hacer cadenas asociar. As’, de todas las fuentes dispensadoras de
aceite
para Indymedia, Ford es uno del mejor debido a la carencia de
cadenas y
del proceso pœblico abierto para obtener el dinero. **time-out** si
nosotros depender en dinero a partir IMC partipants, despuŽs
Indymedia
convertir elitista y controlar por rico y m‡s ambigious miembro
movimiento
-- ese dinero ser no bajo pœblico escrutinio manera Ford dinero ser.
Ahora
no tenemos un proceso de toma de decisi—n muy democr‡tico. Esta
concesi—n
debe diferenciar grande en nuestra capacidad de tomar la decisi—n
colectivamente y democraticly. Ahora decidir contra vetos de este dinero
no solamente a un movimiento importante hacia democratizing la red,
pero
Žl lo hace de una manera undemocratic. **time-out** si este dinero ser
aœn
uno problema, entonces una vez que decisi—n toma proceso ser en
lugar,
nosotros poder colectivo y democractially decidir para no utilizar dinero
como Žste en futuro. Cu‡l es nuestra prioridad superior? Est‡ creando
la
toma de decisi—n democr‡tica o est‡ haciendo una punta pol’tica a
Ford?
QuŽ opci—n salva m‡s vidas? **time-out** ser Žl uno eficaz Indymedia
que
poder cambiar gobierno pol’tica y proporcionar voz voiceless, o ser Žl
uno
politcal punta que nadie recordar en 4 mes? Si la Cia ahora tuviera
verdad
control sobre la fundaci—n de Ford, Indymedia no conseguir’a ningœn
dinero. Thatcher
4. sebastian's comments regarding my meeting with petras:
Please, ask him about the Madres de Plaza de Mayo Ford Foundations
concerns, that's the most important thing in argentina. I think he is
noticed about the case here, because he singed his article (almost
the spanish version) "dedicated to Madres de Plaza de Mayo".
Yesterday we stramed an interview live with Osvaldo Bayer, one of the
most important radical historian and writer in argentina (the Madres
de Plaza de Mayo cafe is called "Osvaldo Bayer") and he told us that
for they to get money from the FF is "an insult to the memory of our
missing comadres".
i hope Petras know why it's a common thing to say it here.
5. sascha's email in response to sebastian's earlier comments:
i wanted to raise a couple issues that i hope will clarify the discussiona
application process while helping us move forward. i think that public
discussion and dissemination of the history of the ford foundation are
extremely important. i think that anyone who would receive travel grant
funding should have access to the information we are looking over
about
CIA connections; and i think that it is imperative that each IMC decide
for themselves whether to accept or reject funds from this grant.
equally important is that we realize that this grant will be overseen by
the encuentros working group (or whatever group is set up to do this)
under the auspices of the UCIMC. we have a deadline of september 15,
2002
and a responsibility to get the grant in by that date. i say this not to
diminish the concerns people have raised, but rather to make explicit
that
discussion about this grant will need to happen in parallel with efforts
to apply for it.
in the end, i expect that some IMCs may refuse funding, while others will
accept funding. what is important is that those who refuse funding be
respected for their decision, and that those that accept funding not be
disrespected for their decision. most importantly, it is imperative that
ford attaches no strings to their funding decision, and from my
understanding of things, this is our arrangement with them thus far.
6. pablo's comments to petras article:
I read James Petras' article and it seem highly especulative
regarding the more recent past. It seems more strange to me since in
Brazil, Ford Foundation financed many leftist intellectuals who were
fired from public universities in the 70s for being "subversives". I
have a couple of friends who lived for years out of Ford Foundations'
scholarships. I don't thinkf FF is wonderful, but I see no evidence
its worse than any other foundation... and it doesnt have strings
attached -- does it?
7. sheri's response:
there are no strings attached.
we get the money.
we write up an annual report.
we do with it what we will with transparency for all of us, with
input from all imcs how to set up regional meetings and how to
coordinate things. those of us who are writing the grant have
written into it (as you will have read in the past proposals) that it
would be a more coordinated series of regional gatherings rather than
isolated gatherings between different collections of imcs. in this
way we can discuss similar/same topics, europe can hear from south
america and continue the discussion in their own region....while
focussing on critical network issues. that is why i personally am
writing this grant. to help us build more of a "network
consciousness". we of course will have local autonomy. we do with
the money what we will.
i will be talking to james petras tomorrow or saturday while he is
ironically in town visiting his daughter and my friend. so we will
continue that discussion.
END THREAD
_______________________________________________
Imc-finance mailing list
Imc-finance@lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo
Summary Page:
http://kropotkin.indymedia.org/moin/moin.cgi/FinanceWorkingGroupSum
mary
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Eisenmenger
Paper Tiger Television 212 420 9045
339 Lafayette Street, New York, NY www.papertiger.org