NGOs and Imperialism
by Yves Engler


Any individual working for an aid organization is required to pass this exam and a B+ or higher must be achieved to attain "left wing" status.

Please write 500 words answering each of three of the following questions.

1) Do people really feel better when their elected government is destroyed by democracy promotion rather than subversion?

2) Should it be called "aid" or "aiding and abetting" when you give a country weapons of mass destruction?

3) Why is it called a non-governmental organization (NGO) when it gets most of its funding from governments?

4) Why do progressive people, who think privatized medical and social welfare services are a right wing plot in their own wealthy countries, donate money to organizations that replace government-run services in poor countries?

5) Are some major Western non-governmental organizations really just an arm of imperialism?

Bonus marks will be awarded if you answer all five.

Facing the reality that most development NGOs are heavily reliant on Western government "aid," which is usually directed towards countries of geopolitical importance to the captains of capitalism, may be unpleasant for some "progressives," but it is true nonetheless.

A major principle of Canadian foreign aid, for example, has been that where the USA wields the big stick, Canada carries a police baton and offers a carrot. The major recipient of Canadian aid in 1999/2000 was the former Yugoslavia; Iraq and Afghanistan were top two recipients in 2003/2004; today Afghanistan and Haiti are Nos. 1 and 2. The intervention-equals-aid principle also exists for other western countries.

Post-coup Haiti has been a bonanza for Canadian (mostly Quebec-based) NGOs.

They have received tens of millions of dollars from the Canadian government.

Montreal-based Alternatives, usually on the left of the NGO world, is but one example. With no operations in Haiti before 2004, the post-coup influx of Canadian "aid" dollars was too good an opportunity to pass up. The Haiti file was given to an Alternatives employee who was having difficulty raising money for his Africa dossier. Canadian imperialism showed a definite preference for media work in Haiti over Ghana and Alternatives was rewarded when it obliged. ( Alternatives also made its way to Afghanistan)

According to the Canadian International Development Agency's (CIDA) website, Alternatives has received $2.1 million for Haiti work over the past couple of years. Coincidentally, Alternatives has parroted the neoconservative narrative about Haiti. Their guest speaker on Haiti at the recent Quebec Social Forum was Chavanne Jean-Baptiste, an advisor for right-wing business candidate, Charles Henry-Baker's failed presidential campaign. (It has been alleged that Baptiste's organization provided support to the ex-military who lead the armed assault against the elected government in February 2004.) Alternatives other main Haitian invitee was Rene Colbert, editor of AlterPresse, who told this author in a private conversation there was no coup in February 2004 since Jean Bertrand Aristide was never elected.

Many of the other Canadian NGOs that benefited from the coup called for Aristide's overthrow. The Concertation Pour Haiti (CPH), an informal group of half a dozen NGOs, branded Aristide a "tyrant," his government a "dictatorship," and a "regime of terror" and in mid-February 2004 called for Aristide's removal. This demand was made at the same time CIA-trained thugs swept across the country to oust Aristide.

Quebec (and Haitian) NGO's hysterical opposition to Aristide was certainly influenced by the politics of their government donors. An understanding that intervention would lead to increased aid also likely influenced it. The 1994 US invasion, which restored Aristide to office, created a boom for development NGOs in Haiti (making it the world leader in NGOs per square kilometer, according to some). Yet, securing financing became more difficult as international funding was curtailed along with foreign troops (and US police trainers) in the late 1990s and with the "intransigent" Aristide's 2000 election. Not until Aristide was gone, and a post-coup government installed by the USA, France and Canada, did the aid spigot once gain turn back on for Canadian and Haitian NGOs.

Haiti was not unique. In another part of the world, many NGOs supported "humanitarian intervention." In her book, Fools' Crusade, Diana Johnstone decries NGO support for Western imperialism in the former Yugoslavia. She points out: "When, as in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Kosovo, military intervention leads to an international protectorate, Western NGOs are granted a prominent role in local administration and receive a large share of public and private donations." (Fools Crusade, Page 13)

Of course imperialism is not only about military intervention. In Promoting

Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony, William I. Robinson argues that "democracy promotion" is an important aspect of modern imperialism. It's a change in US foreign policy from "earlier strategies to contain social and political mobilization through a focus on control of the state and governmental apparatus" to a process in which "the United States and local elites thoroughly penetrate civil society, and from therein, assure control over popular mobilization and mass movements…"

The colored revolutions in Eastern Europe are high-profile recent examples of "democracy promotion" at the service of western aims. In Haiti, as well, a variety of NGOs were funded to promote the US and Canadian version of democracy. Politics Without Sovereignty explains: "From 1998, USAID and DFID [the UK's Department For International Development], among others, began to systematically subcontract to international NGOs including CARE, ActionAid, Save the Children, Oxfam, and Concern International to 'build civil society capacity.'"

According to a recent Vancouver Sun article, nearly a fifth of the Canadian International Development Agency's budget, some $600 million, is now spent on initiatives directed towards "promoting democracy." Last October CIDA established an Office of Democratic Governance. Of course, the US is the largest democracy promotion donor with the National Endowment for Democracy at the forefront. Its Democracy Projects Database coordinates 6,000 projects worldwide.

The economic and social sides of imperialism also benefit NGOs. The neo-liberalism pushed by the IMF, World Bank, USAID, CIDA etc. breeds NGOs.

As structurally adjusted states withdraw social services, NGOs flood in.

Take Ghana, for instance. Since the late 1980s, a series of structural adjustment programs have diminished the state's role in the economy. The donors that push neoliberalism argue that while reforms may bring with them social ills, their aid and NGOs will help to resolve these side effects. Back in the late 1980s the former president of CIDA, Margaret Catley-Carlson, explained to the Ghanaians: "We know that if you take on this [IMF] program of reform it will cost you. Your food prices are going to shoot up, and in the urban areas that is going to be very destabilizing. So we will put in some food aid [likely administered by NGOs] and help you out over this very difficult period."

The process of withdrawing the state has resulted in ever-growing dependence. With a hint of pride, Jeanine Cudmore, an employee of the CIDA-funded Social Enterprise Development Foundation, recently told the Montreal Gazette that in northern Ghana "the government relies on NGOs."



When the U.S. returned Aristide to office in 1994, it was on condition that he implement an economic agenda focused on further downsizing the state. International creditors argued that the flipside of this government downsizing would be increased aid, particularly to private sector NGOs. This "aid" money was to be channeled towards projects such as schools and hospitals run by private (usually non-profit) NGOs.

A CIDA report released in 2005 stated that by 2004, "non-governmental actors [for-profit and not-for-profit] provided almost 80 percent of [ Haiti's] basic services." While an NGO-run school may be better than no school at all, a cluster of privately run schools is not an ideal development model.

Canada 's development agency has admitted as much. According to CIDA, "Supporting non-governmental actors contributed to the creation of parallel systems of service delivery. … In Haiti's case, these actors [NGOs] were used as a way to circumvent the frustration of working with the government … this contributed to the establishment of parallel systems of service delivery, eroding legitimacy, capacity and will of the state to deliver key services."

NGOs are significant beneficiaries of modern imperialism: They soften the edges of neoliberalism, while democracy promotion and military interventions alike bring a windfall of contracts.

Perhaps the question to be asked is: Are development NGOs compatible with real democracy?

In Canada and many other countries, most people, including all of those who are on the left, oppose private health clinics, seeing them as a threat to our universal, government-run systems of medical care. People everywhere see public schools as an important part of democracy. Citizens in all First World countries demand social services provided by their governments.

Yet the "development" model favored in the Third World for the past two decades involves destroying government services and handing them over to NGOs that willingly participate in this undermining of democracy

If you see anything progressive about that, you'll get a failing grade in the test above.

Post edited by: admin, at: 2007/09/08 00:18

Ustad sahib,

I have already read this brief but interesting article. Although not a deep analysis, the article gives some convincing examples of Funded-NGO's role in controlling the politics of problem ridden countries. Haiti's is an interesting example.

In Pakistan, the role of policy/advocacy NGOs need reassessment. This, one suggests only for those positivists who claim conscience and, with conviction, or with neutrality, prefer to defend NGO's role in politics.

The question is, why should anyone, especially the West spend a penny without well calculated returns? Some advocacy experts argue, 'donors grant money for their interest, you are free to spend it in your own (peoples') interest', too innocent!

Dr.Ahsan Wagha

In the continuation of the on-going debate on the role of NGOs and politics, I would like to share an excerpt from the article of Arundhati Roy entitled " Public Power in the Age of Empire". Arundhati Roy is the most celeberated Indian fiction writer and winner of the Booker Award. She is also famous because of her support to Narmada Bachao Andolan which is the resistance movement of Indian tribes against Narmada Dam. She donated all of her award money to Narmada Bachao Andolan. She has also been delivering opening lectures on the occasion of World Social Forum. However, she declined to attend World Social Forum held in Karachi last year. She said she was fed up with such huge gathering without little contribution to people's resistance.

If interested, you can access the full artilce from the below link:

target="_blank">http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2121/stories/20041022008300400.htm

Best,
Mushtaq Gaadi


A second hazard facing mass movements is the NGO-isation of resistance. It will be easy to twist what I'm about to say into an indictment of all NGOs. That would be a falsehood. In the murky waters of fake NGOs set up to siphon off grant money or as tax dodges (in States like Bihar, they are given as dowry), of course there are NGOs doing valuable work. But it's important to turn our attention away from the positive work being done by some individual NGOs, and consider the NGO phenomenon in a broader political context.
In India, for instance, the funded NGO boom began in the late 1980s and 1990s. It coincided with the opening of India's markets to neoliberalism. At the time, the Indian state, in keeping with the requirements of structural adjustment, was withdrawing funding from rural development, agriculture, energy, transport, and public health. As the state abdicated its traditional role, NGOs moved in to work in these very areas. The difference, of course, is that the funds available to them are a minuscule fraction of the actual cut in public spending. Most large well-funded NGOs are financed and patronised by aid and development agencies, which are in turn funded by Western governments, the World Bank, the U.N., and some multinational corporations. Though they may not be the very same agencies, they are certainly part of the same loose, political formation that oversees the neoliberal project and demands the slash in government spending in the first place.
Why should these agencies fund NGOs? Could it be just old-fashioned missionary zeal? Guilt? It's a little more than that.
NGOs give the impression that they are filling the vacuum created by a retreating state. And they are, but in a materially inconsequential way. Their real contribution is that they defuse political anger and dole out as aid or benevolence what people ought to have by right. They alter the public psyche. They turn people into dependent victims and blunt the edges of political resistance. NGOs form a sort of buffer between the sarkar and public. Between Empire and its subjects. They have become the arbitrators, the interpreters, the facilitators of the discourse. They play out the role of the "reasonable man" in an unfair, unreasonable war.
In the long run, NGOs are accountable to their funders, not to the people they work among. They're what botanists would call an indicator species. It's almost as though the greater the devastation caused by neoliberalism, the greater the outbreak of NGOs. Nothing illustrates this more poignantly than the phenomenon of the U.S. preparing to invade a country and simultaneously readying NGOs to go in and clean up the devastation.
In order to make sure their funding is not jeopardised and that the governments of the countries they work in will allow them to function, NGOs have to present their work - whether it's in a country devastated by war, poverty or an epidemic of disease - within a shallow framework more or less shorn of a political or historical context. At any rate, an inconvenient historical or political context. It's not for nothing that the "NGO perspective" is becoming increasingly respected.
Apolitical (and therefore, actually, extremely political) distress reports from poor countries and war zones eventually make the (dark) people of those (dark) countries seem like pathological victims. Another malnourished Indian, another starving Ethiopian, another Afghan refugee camp, another maimed Sudanese... in need of the white man's help. They unwittingly reinforce racist stereotypes and re-affirm the achievements, the comforts, and the compassion (the tough love) of Western civilisation, minus the guilt of the history of genocide, colonialism, and slavery. They're the secular missionaries of the modern world.
Eventually - on a smaller scale, but more insidiously - the capital available to NGOs plays the same role in alternative politics as the speculative capital that flows in and out of the economies of poor countries. It begins to dictate the agenda.
It turns confrontation into negotiation. It depoliticises resistance. It interferes with local people's movements that have traditionally been self-reliant. NGOs have funds that can employ local people who might otherwise be activists in resistance movements, but now can feel they are doing some immediate, creative good (and earning a living while they're at it). Charity offers instant gratification to the giver, as well as the receiver, but its side effects can be dangerous. Real political resistance offers no such short cuts.
The NGO-isation of politics threatens to turn resistance into a well-mannered, reasonable, salaried, 9-to-5 job. With a few perks thrown in.
Real resistance has real consequences. And no salary.

Hi all

NGO's in the third world is a means to buy off
opposition to imperialism, however, a similar
phenomenon exists in the developed world where
militancy among the minority communities is bought out
through funding ethnic organisations, a concept fully
developed by Michael Heseltine following the Toxteth
riots in Liverpool during Margaret Thatcher's
administration.

Thanks

Naeem

--- farooq tariq <farooqtariq@hotmail.com> wrote:

THANKS 4 SHARING...