"NGOs ... are an arm of the U.S. government," says USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios.
Read and comment on this story from Reuters that the Bush administration is wielding its financial clout to make charitable relief organizations that receive U.S. government money serve the interests of U.S. foreign policy. USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios caused a stir last month when he told a closed meeting of NGO leaders that aid agencies in the field should identify themselves as recipients of U.S. funding to show a stronger link to American foreign policy. "If this does not happen more often, Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners," said the NGO consortium InterAction. "NGOs ... are an arm of the U.S. government," it quoted him as saying.
This is a subject of more than passing interest to the Returned Volunteer community since so many RPCVs go to work for NGOs or for USAID after their Peace Corps service. Read the story at:
* This link was active on the date it was posted. PCOL is not responsible for broken links which may have changed.
NGOs Feel the Squeeze from Bush Administration
Tue Jun 24, 3:52 PM ET
By Jonathan Wright
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is wielding its financial clout to make charitable relief organizations that receive U.S. government money serve the interests of U.S. foreign policy, the organizations say.
In parallel, the U.S. Agency for International Development this month imposed new conditions on publicity activities when it negotiated a $70 million community action program in Iraq (news - web sites) with five of the organizations, they say.
Three of the five organizations have reached agreements that require them to seek clearance from USAID before they have dealings with the media, they add.
A USAID official said on Tuesday that the Iraqi agreements were a separate issue but confirmed an NGO report that USAID administrator Andrew Natsios believes nongovernmental organizations should publicize the U.S. government financial contribution to their activities.
"This is an issue that we feel very strongly about," Jeffrey Grieco, a senior USAID official, told Reuters.
Natsios caused a stir last month when he told a closed meeting of NGO leaders that aid agencies in the field should identify themselves as recipients of U.S. funding to show a stronger link to American foreign policy.
"If this does not happen more often, Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners," said the NGO consortium InterAction. "NGOs ... are an arm of the U.S. government," it quoted him as saying.
USAID has not disputed the account and Grieco said Natsios was thinking of making his point of view public.
Grieco said Natsios had made several complaints about the conduct of NGOs. "He made some specific points that we have a problem with. Andrew will decide how to communicate the key message that came out of that meeting," Grieco said.
To add to the sense of a concerted campaign against uncooperative NGOs, the American Enterprise (news - web sites) Institute held a seminar earlier this month attacking the organizations for attitudes deemed hostile to big business.
The institute is one of the Washington think tanks most closely associated with the Bush administration.
'PESKY NGOs'
One paper at the seminar accused NGOs of obstructing prosperity and good health in Africa, another of promoting "anti-capitalist" themes through their criticism of some corporate activities.
The NGO community is divided over how to react, with some seeing a concerted effort against them and others not.
The NGOs invited to take part in the Iraqi program have had their own internal debates over whether to accept the restriction on their media activities, which NGO officials said was unprecedented in USAID agreements.
Mercy Corps and Save the Children/United States have managed to renegotiate the language of the troublesome clause but had not yet decided on Tuesday whether to sign, Mercy Corps and USAID spokespeople said.
"We have had a lot of discussion. But we do remain independent and if our guidelines are violated we reserve the right to suspend our project," said Margaret Larson, Mercy Corps's vice president for communications.
But spokesmen for two other organizations -- ACDI/VOCA and International Relief and Development (IRD) -- said they decided they could live with the restrictions on their independence.
Bush Administration wants to buy the complicity of aid workers
Read and comment on this op-ed piece by Naomi Klein that appeared in the Globe and Mail that says the administration buys the silence and complicity of mainstream humanitarian and religious groups by offering lucrative reconstruction contracts and marginalizes and criminalizes more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. On May 21 in Washington, Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, gave a speech blasting U.S. NGOs for failing to play a role many of them didn't realize they had been assigned: doing public relations for the U.S. government. Read the op-ed at:
* This link was active on the date it was posted. PCOL is not responsible for broken links which may have changed.
Bush to NGOs: Watch your mouths
By NAOMI KLEIN Friday, June 20, 2003 - Page A15
The Bush administration has found its next target for pre-emptive war, but it's not Iran, Syria or North Korea -- not yet, anyway.
Before launching any new foreign adventures, the Bush gang has some homeland housekeeping to take care of: It is going to sweep up those pesky non-governmental organizations that are helping to turn world opinion against U.S. bombs and brands.
The war on NGOs is being fought on two clear fronts. One buys the silence and complicity of mainstream humanitarian and religious groups by offering lucrative reconstruction contracts. The other marginalizes and criminalizes more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is in charge of handing out the carrots, while the American Enterprise Institute, the most powerful think tank in Washington, D.C., is wielding the sticks.
On May 21 in Washington, Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, gave a speech blasting U.S. NGOs for failing to play a role many of them didn't realize they had been assigned: doing public relations for the U.S. government. According to InterAction, the network of 160 relief and development NGOs that hosted the conference, Mr. Natsios was "irritated" that starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children didn't realize that their food and vaccines were coming to them courtesy of George W. Bush. From now on, NGOs had to do a better job of linking their humanitarian assistance to U.S. foreign policy and making it clear that they are "an arm of the U.S. government." If they didn't, InterAction reported, "Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners."
For aid workers, there are even more strings attached to U.S. dollars. USAID told several NGOs that have been awarded humanitarian contracts that they cannot speak to the media -- all requests from reporters must go through Washington. Mary McClymont, CEO of InterAction, calls the demands "unprecedented," and says, "It looks like the NGOs aren't independent and can't speak for themselves about what they see and think."
Many humanitarian leaders are shocked to hear their work described as "an arm" of government; most see themselves as independent (that would be the "non-governmental" part of the name).
The best NGOs are loyal to their causes, not to countries, and they aren't afraid to blow the whistle on their own governments. Think of Médecins sans frontières standing up to the White House and the European Union over AIDS drug patents, or Human Rights Watch's campaign against the death penalty in the United States. Mr. Natsios himself embraced this independence in his previous job as vice-president of World Vision. During the North Korean famine, he didn't hesitate to blast his own government for withholding food aid, calling the Clinton administration's response "too slow" and its claim that politics was not a factor "total nonsense."
Don't expect candour like that from the aid groups Mr. Natsios now oversees in Iraq. These days, NGOs are supposed to do nothing more than quietly pass out care packages with a big "brought to you by the U.S.A." logo attached -- in public-private partnerships with Bechtel and Halliburton, of course.
That is the message of NGO Watch, an initiative of the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, which takes aim at the growing political influence of the non-profit sector. The stated purpose of the Web site, launched on June 11, is to "bring clarity and accountability to the burgeoning world of NGOs."
In fact, it is a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against Bush administration policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House.
This bizarre initiative takes as its premise the idea that there is something sinister about "unelected" groups of citizens getting together to try to influence their government. "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies," the site claims.
Coming from the AEI, this is not without irony. As Raj Patel, policy analyst at the California-based NGO Food First, points out, "The American Enterprise Institute is an NGO itself and it is supported by the most powerful corporations on the planet. They are accountable only to their board, which includes Motorola, American Express and ExxonMobil." As for influence, few peddle it quite like the AEI, the looniest ideas of which have a way of becoming Bush administration policy. And no wonder. Richard Perle, member and former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, is an AEI fellow, along with Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president; the Bush administration is crowded with former AEI fellows.
As President Bush said at an AEI dinner in February, "At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds." In other words, the AEI is more than a think tank; it's Mr. Bush's outsourced brain.
Taken together with Mr. Natsios's statements, this attack on the non-profit sector marks the emergence of a new Bush doctrine: NGOs should be nothing more than the good-hearted charity wing of the military, silently mopping up after wars and famines. Their job is not to ask how these tragedies could have been averted, or to advocate for policy solutions. And it is certainly not to join anti-war and fair-trade movements pushing for real political change.
The control freaks in the White House have really outdone themselves this time. First they tried to silence governments critical of their foreign policies by buying them off with aid packages and trade deals. (Last month U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said that the United States would only enter into new trade agreements with countries that offered "co-operation or better on foreign policy and security issues.") Next, they made sure the press didn't ask hard question during the war by trading journalistic access for editorial control.
Now they are attempting to turn relief workers in Iraq and Afghanistan into publicists for Mr. Bush's Brand U.S.A., to embed them in the Pentagon, like Fox News reporters.
The U.S. government is usually described as "unilateralist," but I don't think that's quite accurate. The Bush administration may be willing to go it alone, but what it really wants is legions of self-censoring followers, from foreign governments to national journalists and international NGOs.
This is not a lone wolf we are dealing with, it's a sheep-herder. The question is: Which of the NGOs will play the sheep?
Naomi Klein is the author of No
Logo and Fences and Windows. Click on a link below for more stories on PCOL
Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.
This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; NGOs; USAID
