Interview with New7Wonders Foundation – OhmyNews
Below is the full text of a translation of an interview that was published in the Korean language news website, www.ohmynews.com. TNMV is merely republishing the story here, due to the informative nature of the interview. The comments are added by third party contributors.Interviewer: Koo, Young-sik, a reporter of OhmyNews
Interviewee: the New7Wonders Foundation
Commentators: @netroller, @AF1219, and @ pythagoras0 on Twitter
N7W; Only a website?
N7W: Yes, it does. As it says on our website, our headquarters are at the Heidi Weber Museum in Zurich. However, please note that we are a 21st century organisation, not with people anchored at their desks in some bureaucratic office, but instead with everyone out in the field, active, productive.
2) OhmyNews: Could you please clarify the relationship between N7W and the New Open World Corporation (henceforth NOWC)?
N7W: NOWC is the commercial and licensing company of the New 7 Wonders Foundation. It exists to ensure that:
i. the New7Wonders campaigns can be delivered to the world without any public subsidy involving public money
ii. extraordinary multi billion $ economic value can be created for the participant locations
iii. and when the costs are covered a surplus should be generated by the end of the two global voting campaigns.
Comments: This means that the N7W does not want any public subsidy (money that has many strings attached in terms of responsibility and transparency); instead, they want a seemingly separate commercial sibling company, which perhaps is much easier to work with or control. As for the N7W’s claims on economic effects, please see comments on other questions below.
3) OhmyNews: If the N7W gains profits through the NOWC and uses them for the benefit of the foundation, don’t you think that it contradicts your claim that the N7W is a non-profit organization?
N7W: No. The New7Wonders Foundation is a non-profit organisation. As stated above, NOWC has to operate commercially to make this all possible.
Comments: Just a repetition of their own views without paying due attention to the queries the interviewer raises.
4) OhmyNews: One can see a number of Google ads on the website of your foundation. Could you explain how a non-profit organization can allow commercial ads on its website? If your foundation makes profits by doing so, doesn’t it mean that your foundation is breaking the principle of a non-profit organization?
N7W: See the above answer, which addresses your question.
Comments: once again, they are just dodging a thorny question.
5) OhmyNews: Could you please provide details of how much profit you made through the New7Wonders of the World campaign in 2007 and how it was used? In most countries, non-profit organizations are supposed to disclose their financial records every fiscal year and I expect that your foundation too, as a non-profit organization, has been doing so.
N7W: The New 7 Wonders Foundation is based in Zurich and the disclosure of records is governed by the laws of Switzerland, which are among the most respected in the world. We plan to announce more information on the surplus donated by NOWC to the N7W Foundation in 2012, as we have publicly stated.
Comments: I have little idea how much the laws of Switzerland are respected and by whom, but I have heard this so many times that it is tattooed in my mind: they are super good at keeping things in secret, including all the stinky money from corrupt officials and businessmen around the world. So for me, it is so weird to hear a non-profit organization say with so much pride that it is protected by the laws of Switzerland. Besides, in response to whether they have ever disclosed their financial records, and if so, whether they can present them to OhmyNews, they just tries to get around the query with a meaningless answer such as “We plan to announce more information [in the future].” Perhaps, I‟d better stop expecting to see the N7W‟s financial records disclosed since it won’t happen until the frog has a moustache grown.
6) OhmyNews: Your foundation has pledged to dedicate 50% of the surplus net revenues to protect and preserve world heritages. Have you ever used your revenues exactly to that purpose? Do you have any other examples than financing the 3D virtual model of the Bamyan Buddha’s in Afghanistan in 2002?
N7W: No. Our pledge is clearly outlined on our website. The Foundation’s mission relates to the creation and preservation of Global Memory. Actually for the record we made the Bamyan Buddha’s investment even before the New7Wonders campaigns became huge global movements, as testament to our good faith and mission.
Comments: So, what they mean is that they have done nothing except creating a 3D virtual model of the Bamyan Buddha‟s and repeating “the creation/preservation of Global Memory” over and over again. Am I right? What a feat! How about after the 2007 New7Wonders of the World campaign? What? Nothing? But they keep saying that they have collaborated with the UN Office for Partnerships, don‟t they? What did they do with the UN Office for Partnerships? Nothing?
7) OhmyNews: Farouk Hosni, Egyptian Minister of Culture, claimed in 2007 that your foundation is a commercial organization run by a person who owns a travel agency in Switzerland. What is your response to his remark?
N7W: Following the 25 January Revolution in Egypt, Farouk Hosny is no longer the Minister of Culture, given his close association with Mubarak. He was not and is not a credible source, and of course anyone can see we are clearly not a travel agency but are in fact the world’s first and largest global voting platform. Perhaps it is this commitment to democracy that displeased the former Egyptian minister.
Comments: Ok, Mubarak is a bad guy and his associates are also to be punished. But is the N7W truly qualified to say that? Are they really concerned to support democratic forces? If they did not and still do not trust Egyptian officials from the Mubarak era, how can they put so much trust in officials of Jordan where, still under the pre-modern political system, people took to the streets for democratic reforms in the wake of the Egyptian revolution a few months ago? I am saying this because the N7W loves to present Jordan as an exemplary case for their theory of economic impacts ensuing from their campaign (see Q&A 13 and 16). For your information, they also seem to be thrilled to see Prof. Kotler repeating what they have said about Jordan in Marketing, An Introduction, a book the professor co-authored. But, Jordan is a country where the King, any criticism of whom is banned by the law, still has the most executive power, the prime minister appointed by the King and one party called Islamic Action Front still exert an uncontested control over the national political sphere, and people have developed a strong thirst for political and economic reforms including a popular vote for the premier as was clearly evidenced in democratization protests a few months ago (just google “2011 Jordanian protests” on Wikipedia). Given the undemocratic political condition of Jordan, how can the N7W simply say that Jordanian officials are trustworthy, while Egyptian officials are not? It seems that, for the N7W, only those that give sweet words to them are good and reliable friends.
8 ) OhmyNews: Unlike the claim on your website that your foundation is currently in partnership with the UN Office of Partnerships (henceforth UNOP), the UNOP announced that they have no currently active engagement (whether partnership or MOU) with your foundation. What do you think of the official statement from the UNOP?
N7W: The UN Office of Partnerships is currently in transition. We have successfully cooperated with the office in the past and look forward to doing so again in the future. The UNOP have made a clear statement confirming this.
Comments: Simply put, there is no currently active relationship between the N7W and the UNOP. Thus, it is definitely a lie to say, as they do on their website, that they are “currently in partnership with the UNOP.”
9) OhmyNews: Your foundation insists that you were in partnership with the UNOP. Could you clarify what kind of partnership it was? Could you please present any specific examples of the collaboration you had with the UNOP?
N7W: The partnership explores opportunities to empower the people of the world and we are looking at such initiatives as making the New7Wonders Global Voting Platform available to promote the UN Millennium Goals (which we have done on our website already many times).
Comments: Once again? Come on. Can’t they say anything else than “look forward” or “explore opportunities”? Do I have to repeat the question? Ok. Please, listen good this time. WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE UNOP IN THE PAST?
10) OhmyNews: A number of citizens in South Korea suspect that your campaign targets above all non-Western countries with large populations and good telecommunication environments. They also claim that the format of international competition evokes patriotic fervour in those countries and the use of the phone call as the major method to win the game channels the patriotic passion to a fierce voting competition among countries (or you may call it an international voting war), which as generating a great deal of telecommunication fees, eventually leads to an increase of your share in the commercial partnership with telecommunication companies. What is your answer to such reactions?
N7W: The majority of citizens in South Korea are enthusiastic supporters of New7Wonders, as we saw during our recent and very successful visit to Jeju Island. The revenues generated from telephone voting are of course an important part of our financing, which once again makes it possible for us to (a) run the campaign without any public subsidies and (b) create extraordinary economic benefits for the participant locations.
Comments: lol…What do they know about the Korean people? Do they think that Korean people are all stupid as they wish? They are dead wrong! Besides, “the revenues generated from telephone voting” means “making money,” doesn’t it? Without any public money coming in, they have to do money-making activities to run their business. My words for them: “Do you know what people with common sense call what you are doing? They call it, a commercial act.”
11) OhmyNews: When using the online voting which is free, one can only vote once. With phone, however, one person can cast as many votes as possible. Isn’t the rule too arbitrary? Is there any specific reason behind your insist on such an arbitrary policy? Doesn’t it strategically encourage people to use the phone instead of the Internet? Wouldn’t it be better for people to use the Internet voting system rather than make lots of expensive international calls? Wouldn’t it be more suited to your goal of attracting more participation and more attention from the world? If the policy is not designed to increase your revenues to be collected from telecommunication fees, do you have any intention to lift the limitation on the free Internet voting so that more people can participate in your campaign without financial worries?
N7W: We offer free voting by the internet and there are no limitations for anyone to vote once from anywhere in the world for their chosen New7Wonders of Nature. Again we provide the global online voting platform to the world without any public subsidies. At the same time many people want to express their enthusiasm for one or more particular Finalists, and they are able to do so via telephone voting, including more than once. As with everything in life and in society, the dual method of voting allows for both the rational vote (online) and the emotional vote (telephone). In this time of breathtaking technological development, mobile communication is changing our world. With Internet-enable smartphones, people can vote online for the New7Wonders of Nature, but some will choose to make a phone call instead.
Comments: The N7W is right when they say that the free internet voting allows anyone to vote from anywhere in the world. Then why don’t they liberate the good system from the-one-vote- only rule? That would allow more people to participate in your campaign without the burden of phone fees. The phone call has to do with emotion? But, people around the world can get more excited about the online voting when it allows them to express their enthusiasms for their candidate locations unlimited times. In other words, if the N7W lifts the one-vote-for-one-candidate rule off the online voting, it can be as emotional as or even more emotional than the telephone voting. That is because it will generate more enthusiasm from more people, even from those who can‟t afford phone fees. Then, why do they still insist on such an arbitrary rule of “unlimited phone votes and one online vote”? It aims to be fair to those countries where the online network is not yet available for many people? Then, how many of people in those underdeveloped countries (those that do not yet have an advanced Internet network) can use expensive international calls to participate the voting?
12) OhmyNews: According to an article published on June 16, 2007 in The Pioneer, an Indian newspaper, the revenue generated through your campaign in 2007 (such as international voting calls) was split 60:40 with the NOWC: 60 for telecommunication companies and 40 for the NOWC. Could you please verify whether the report is true?
N7W: We have literally hundreds if not thousands of articles written about us every month, and of course a few of these will be sometimes incorrect or based on guesses and false information. We have no idea what the basis of this one article is, as all our commercial agreements (including with telecom companies) are and will always remain confidential. Generally in most countries of the world the largest share of revenues is taken by both the telephone companies and often the government through taxation, and our share is often the smallest. However, and once again, we do not comment about private commercial contracts, which is standard for all companies.
Comments: They tend to become convinced when they talk about financial records. No wonder because those records are all locked in the vault and remain “confidential.” Popping up in my mind now are the words, “Monopoly on Information.” What an odd policy for a non-profit organization! They are a non-profit organization, but they can’t or won’t make their financial records open to the public because “commercial agreements” are not supposed to be disclosed in any circumstances. What? A non-profit organization always makes, in their own words, “private commercial contracts”? They may retort, as always, that those commercial contracts are done by their sibling company, New Open World Corporation. Wow, they are so good at changing words. When talking about the issue of financial record disclosure, they say that commercial contracts are confidential under the laws of Switzerland. When the commercial nature of their organization is on the table, they claim that they are a non-profit organization. Ok, we are not interested in any company, whether it is one in a MOU with them or their sibling company. What we would like to know is their financial records, that is, financial records of a non-profit organization. Please, don‟t shift the focus sneakily back and forth between commercial contract and non-profit organization.
13) OhmyNews: From the beginning, the method of your campaign has been subject to the criticism that it is neither democratic nor scientific. The reaction seems quite understandable to consider that the winner of the game will obviously be a country with larger population and better telecommunication conditions than others, regardless of the true values its candidate has. If you still insist that your campaign is democratic and scientific, what makes you think so?
N7W: One of the many definitions of “democratic” is “subject to popular election” and the New7Wonders voting platform makes our campaigns democratic in that accepted sense. We have never claimed that our campaigns were “scientific”, however. The larger population and better telecoms (economies) is a false theory however, and you can see this by some of the winners last time: Petra from Jordan (one of the smallest countries in the world) and Machu Picchu from Peru (one of the poorest countries in the world).
Comments: Don’t they know that the principle of popular vote in democracy is one vote per one person? In their voting game, one person can cast as many votes as possible. That’s why a small country can win their game. It is not that a small country can win such a game because the game is democratic. Besides, how can they say that Peru is one of the poorest countries in the world? Don’t they do some simple fact-checking before they say anything? According to Wikipedia, Peru is the 42nd largest economy of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Peru).
14) OhmyNews: The final 28 candidates of the New 7 Wonders of Nature campaign were announced in 2009 (July 21). According to an article published in February, 2009 in Quest Bulgaria, Bulgaria’s Belogradchik Rocks had already received more than 3.5 million votes. That is, at the point where the selection of the finalists was underway, Bulgaria was far ahead of South Korea where the campaign was stirring up little attention from the public. Surprisingly, however, when the list of the final 28 candidates was finally made public in summer 2009, Belogradchik Rocks did not appear on it; instead, South Korea’s Jeju did. How could it happen? Who made the decision and what were the criteria behind the decision to nullify all the votes cast before?
N7W: As with the other article you mentioned before, we have no idea where the information for this article originated. Only New7Wonders knows the exact votes per participant, and this information is never publicly disclosed, in line with our published policy. So it must have again been a random guess. Concerning the selection of the 28 Finalists, please study the criteria for selection applied by the New7Wonders of Nature Panel of Experts, also published on our website.
Comments: lol…What a surprise? Couldn’t they really recognize the name Quest Bulgaria? What they define as a random guess is from the same article of Quest Bulgaria they utilized as a proof of their campaign’s “enormous” economy-boosting impact. When they use it, it is a reliable source; when others use it, it is just a crap. What a childish trick!
15) OhmyNews: I examined proofs you posted on your website to testify positive economic/tourism effects your campaign claims to have generated. I realized, however, that they do not seem quite credible; some of their referential sources (e.g., newspapers and newsletters) do not seem to exist on the web and some of your quotes turned out not identical with their original sources. Can you explain why?
N7W: As regards the first point, not all newspapers and newsletters are available on the web, and many do not post all their content on the web. In the case of the quotes not being identical with their original sources, the discrepancy can be accounted for by that fact that translations do not always correspond 100 percent. The underlying facts quoted are always correct however.
Comments: But haven’t they kept saying that the Internet is so important for their goal to promote democracy around the world and Global Memory? For them, the online space is so important, but for many other companies or organizations, it is not so important. Is that their point? What kind of newspapers and newsletters would not like to get connected with their readers through the Internet today? If a newspaper is not on the web today, how much authoritative and reliable can it be? Besides, they shouldn’t have brought up the idea of “lost in translation.” The majority of original referential sources concerned here don’t need translation, because they are written in English.
16) OhmyNews: In many cases, the tourism data from the countries that had their heritages elected a New Wonder of the World make it difficult to trust your claims on tourism boosting effects of the New 7 Wonders campaign. For instance, according to the data I received from a tourism research institute, the number of foreign tourists in Brazil went up only by 0.2% in 2007 and by 0.5% in 2008. Then, quite surprisingly, it dropped by 4.9% in 2009. Why do you think Brazil couldn’t see any significant increase of international tourists after Christ the Redeemer was elected a New Wonder of the World in 2007?
N7W: Firstly it should be noted that we are not an academic institution dedicated to the study of tourism. All we can do is repeat what we see reported by other expert institutions and the media around the world. We specifically refer you to the study published by Pearson of London (publisher of the Financial Times) and co-authored by the world’s leading marketing expert Professor Kotler, that attributes a gain in tourism and economic benefits of over US$5 billion for the participants in our first campaign. Please also see the recently reported study from South Africa in April this year that estimates the economic benefit of being successful in the New7Wonders of Nature as being US$1 billion for each winning location in the first five years alone.
Comments: We didn’t say that they should be like an academic institution. But isn’t it common sense that in order to convince the public of a claim, one is supposed to provide at least one or two research results from independent and authoritative research groups? Haven’t we seen even politicians always try to say “according to this independent study”? As for Prof. Kotler’s book, please note that the majority of references in the N7W fragment are from the N7W. In particular, the references for the N7W’s campaign’s economic effects are 100% from the N7W’s website. In other words, Prof. Kotler did not do any independent research of his own. Although he says something like “UNESCO claimed that the N7W is neither democratic nor scientific,” when it comes to economic effects, he does not provide any third-party perspective or evaluation on the N7W’s claims on economic impacts. In other words, the only source he has is the N7W’s words. It seems, therefore, that he just repeats what the N7W said, or he just introduces what the N7W said, without giving any of his own judgments. To sum up, this is how the exchange between the N7W and Prof. Kotler went. A says “a.” B says that A says “a.” Then, A claims that B says “a.” Finally A concludes that since B says “a,” “a” is true. Please, don’t be fooled by such a simple trick.
17) OhmyNews: Currently, a Naval Base is under construction in a small village called Gangjeong in Jeju. The UNESCO designated the village as a “Biosphere Reserve” after discovering a number of animals and plants that are found nowhere else on earth and/or in danger of extinction. The Government of Jeju Province, however, seems to have no other thought than bringing in a Naval Base as soon as possible despite all the profound concerns and warnings about devastating effects it will have on the biosphere conservation area. Isn’t it opposed to the mission of your foundation? If so, what would you say to the Jeju government which wants Jeju to become a New 7 Wonder of Nature, but at the same time rushes to destroy the biosphere reserve rather than protect and preserve it?
N7W: As the world’s population grows and as people demand a higher standard of living, balancing economic growth with the preservation of our natural heritage is a critical task and a delicate matter. Governments today are fully aware of the need for sustainable development, but how this is best achieved is a matter for democratically elected officials and informed citizens; it is not something that New7Wonders can decide.
Comments: What else could they possibly say than “not my business”! What an easy answer! If they had any concern to preserve world heritages, they could issue to the Jeju N7W Committee a warning like “If a fatal destruction happens to Jeju, it can lose its candidacy for the New7Wonders of Nature campaign,” if not an intervention into the decision of the Jeju and the Korean government. But they simply and too easily say, “Don’t drag me into the entangled business of yours.”
N7W: By taking part in the selection of the New7Wonders of Nature, people all over the world are becoming conscious of the invaluable legacy that has been passed on to us over the millennia. In this way, our role in raising awareness of the fragility of the planet’s beauty has an educational effect across all sectors of society, from children in the classroom to bureaucrats in their centres of administration. Instead of lecturing people as to their duties, we hope that by providing the means for global participation in the current campaign, millions upon millions will send a message to the world that incorporates our slogan: “If we want to save anything, we first need to truly appreciate it.”
Comments: They said a second ago that preserving a natural heritage is not their business. Now they say that they are educating people about the fragility of the planet’s beauty. Which one is the real problem here, the short-term memory deficit or habitual hypocrisy? What do they mean by “save” and “appreciate,” if, as witnessing some heritages in danger of permanent destruction, they don’t do any actual and effective action of saving them? From what they have said thus far, they are only interested in saving memories and votes (and thus telephone fees), not in saving something real and important. Their fancy and empty rhetorics feel repulsive!!!
The original translation is available here.
Nguồn: http://www.tnmv.net/2011/05/interview-with-new7wonders-foundation-ohmynews/#.TsOSOWXcy9v
