October 31st, 2007 by NGO Monitor Staff | Category: Ford Foundation

(A response to Scott Sherman’s “Fixing the Ford Foundation,” October 21, 2007, LA Times)

NGO Monitor and others exposed the Ford Foundation’s funding of NGOs that hijacked the 2001 Durban Conference to promote anti-Israel demonization under the guise of human rights.  This started a much-needed public debate, and led the President of Ford, Susan Berresford, to issue guidelines to prevent a repetition of the Durban disaster. In January 2004, Ford committed not to fund organizations that “promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.”

In response, opponents of accountability and guidelines to prevent abuse have counter-attacked. Scott Sherman’s oped in The LA Times (”Fixing the Ford Foundation,” October 21, 2007) is an attempt to stoke this debate. (I can’t think of any other reason why he would suddenly re-package his May 2006 article- “Target Ford“- for publication; although he attempts to justify a feeble “hook” that Ford will have a new president, in January 2008).

Sherman laments “Berresford’s post-9/11 capitulation to outside critics,” and calls for “renewal” at Ford.  He frames his criticism around free speech, and repeats his implied charge (which Berresford strongly denies) that change was “imposed” on Ford.  But the evidence indicates that Sherman is chasing a train that has already left the station.  The core issue at stake here is not free speech, but NGO accountability and transparency in NGO funding.  And the limited record seems to show that Ford has become slowly more responsible and responsive in its funding decisions, particularly after the 2003 congressional hearings focused on its support for extremist NGOs such as the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights (LAW).

Care must be taken not to overstate the level of progress.  The problems of transparency remain unresolved, especially in relation to the issue of multi-year or third-party funding, which would allow Ford to maintain support for many NGOs without them appearing on their annual list of grantees.  Much is still unknown as Ford acknowledges NGO Monitor and journalist requests for more information, but provides none - in violation of the very norms that Ford and similar organizations that support the NGO network preach to others.    

Yet there is some evidence of changing funding patterns for NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict; which shows that NGO Monitor reports are having the desired impact, and explains why Sherman is trying to use free speech to redirect the train.

Following its January 2004, commitment, Ford ceased funding LAW and Habitat International Coalition (HIC), but in 2005 continued to support a number of other NGOs which exploit human rights rhetoric to delegitimize Israel, while undermining efforts towards a peaceful end to the conflict These included Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Miftah, Al-Haq, Al-Mezan, SHAML and EMHRN. (See NGO Monitor Report here).

The 2006 list of grantees saw a further reduction in new Ford support for the most virulent and politicized NGOs that focus primarily on demonization of Israel.  Many of the high profile anti-Israel 2005 recipients were not funded, and unrestricted donations from 2005 (to the Geneva based International Commission of Jurists for example) were directed away from the Middle East in 2006.  This evidence might indicate that Ford is exploring new avenues in the region (with limited success- see NGO Monitor report, which documents Ford 2006 grants to a number of NGOs that run productive programs but also exploit human rights to demonize Israel). 

To Scott Sherman’s apparent chagrin, in 2007, Ford’s grantee list suggests a continued trend away from the funding of “Durban Strategy” NGOs.  Combined with its canceling of a February 2006 conference with speakers dedicated to promoting academic boycotts of Israel -  and Ford’s hosting of an “NGO Accountability Debate” in April, 2007 - there is growing evidence that Ford officials are acting, albeit only partially, to implement their 2004 commitment.  What began as an imposition from above (Sherman describes the “dismay” of Ford staff at Beresford’s leadership), may have gradually penetrated the organization.

One glaring exception to this trend is Ford’s partnership with the New Israeli Fund (NIF).  Established in 2003 and to be renewed at the end of 2007, Ford provides NIF with a $20m “peace and social justice fund.”  This was apparently intended to send a post-Durban message that Ford wants to avoid alienating the Jewish community, and is interested in building and not only delegitimizing Israeli society.  But NIF’s controversial funding for ostensible “civil rights” groups such as Mossawa and Adalah that campaign to end Israel’s status as a Jewish state, contradicts Ford’s guidelines.

In his oped, Sherman quotes Dwight Macdonald that “Large foundations are timid beasts.”  This is nonsense. NGOs like Ford, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty, with multimillion dollar budgets, are more powerful than many governments, and are free of public scrutiny or accountability.  And they make plenty of mistakes, with major costs, as seen in their role in the erosion of the moral foundations of universal human rights. Indeed, the evidence of the last 4 years suggests that Ford is not timid, just slow. With continued public scrutiny (especially with Durban II on the horizon in 2009), direct Ford funding for the radical NGOs and indirect support via the NIF can also be redirected to worthy organizations and causes.

Sarah Mandel