November 15, 2004: Headlines: NGO's: Development: Aid: The Scotsman: The disease, which tends to afflict countries described as "troubled", is NGO-ism and Dr Bashar Dost is sick of it. "I have yet to see an NGO (non-governmental organisation) that has spent 80 per cent of its money for the benefit of the Afghan people and 20 per cent for its own benefit," he says. According to the minister, it is all the other way round.

Peace Corps Online: Peace Corps News: Library: Peace Corps: NGO's : NGO's: November 15, 2004: Headlines: NGO's: Development: Aid: The Scotsman: The disease, which tends to afflict countries described as "troubled", is NGO-ism and Dr Bashar Dost is sick of it. "I have yet to see an NGO (non-governmental organisation) that has spent 80 per cent of its money for the benefit of the Afghan people and 20 per cent for its own benefit," he says. According to the minister, it is all the other way round.

By Admin1 (admin) (pool-151-196-36-89.balt.east.verizon.net - 151.196.36.89) on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 2:19 pm: Edit Post

The disease, which tends to afflict countries described as "troubled", is NGO-ism and Dr Bashar Dost is sick of it. "I have yet to see an NGO (non-governmental organisation) that has spent 80 per cent of its money for the benefit of the Afghan people and 20 per cent for its own benefit," he says. According to the minister, it is all the other way round.

The disease, which tends to afflict countries described as troubled, is NGO-ism and Dr Bashar Dost is sick of it. I have yet to see an NGO (non-governmental organisation) that has spent 80 per cent of its money for the benefit of the Afghan people and 20 per cent for its own benefit, he says. According to the minister, it is all the other way round.

The disease, which tends to afflict countries described as "troubled", is NGO-ism and Dr Bashar Dost is sick of it. "I have yet to see an NGO (non-governmental organisation) that has spent 80 per cent of its money for the benefit of the Afghan people and 20 per cent for its own benefit," he says. According to the minister, it is all the other way round.

How secrecy and greed are failing the world

KATIE GRANT

THERE is a new disease abroad and it has just been correctly identified by Dr Ramazan Bashar Dost, currently President Karzai of Afghanistanís minister for planning. The disease, which tends to afflict countries described as "troubled", is NGO-ism and Dr Bashar Dost is sick of it. "I have yet to see an NGO (non-governmental organisation) that has spent 80 per cent of its money for the benefit of the Afghan people and 20 per cent for its own benefit," he says. According to the minister, it is all the other way round. NGO staff drive about Afghanistan in white Land Cruisers costing $40,000 while local people walk. They negotiate privileged contracts with the government at the expense of domestic companies. All claim to be working for the greater good but all are completely unaccountable.

Yet NGOs and their ever more bizarre acronyms spread inexorably. Now we not only have plain NGOs, but GONGOs (governmental non-governmental organisations), the more familiar QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous NGOs), then INGOs (international NGOs), GRINGOs (NGOs with symbiotic relationships with governments), PANGOs (party-affiliated NGOs), DONGOs (donor-organised NGOs) and finally BINGOs (business NGOs). While some of them undoubtedly do excellent work, Médecins Sans Frontières, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, for example, they are all also fighting for funding from both government and non-government sources, funding that, in many cases, it becomes increasingly difficult to trace to projects on the ground. "International NGOs get big amounts of money from their own nations just by showing them sensitive pictures and videos of Afghan people," Dr Bashar Dost complains, "but they [the NGOs] spend all the money on themselves, and we are unable to find out how much money they originally received in charitable funds."

One thing, however, is clear: the money NGOs receive is huge. Between 1990 and 1994, the proportion of relief aid channelled through their offices rose from 47 per cent to 67 per cent and has increased exponentially since then. According to the Red Cross, NGOs now disburse more money than the World Bank. In Afghanistan alone, a third of the $4.5 billion pledged by international donors for reconstruction has been allocated to NGOs, the same amount given to the Afghan government itself.

Where does all the money go? Nobody quite knows and those NGOs which spend every penny scrupulously should be very alarmed that the proliferation of DONGOs and GRINGOs etc, all claiming a slice of the charity/aid pie are giving the whole idea of foreign financed reconstruction, both physical and social, a bad name.

In the past, most of us tended to think of NGOs as being beneficial creatures, staffed by dedicated men and women looking a bit like Bob Geldof, bravely battling to bring order out of chaos, sanitation out of sewage and roads out of rubble. As soon as wars were over, there they were, mopping up. When they were killed, as many have been, we tended to feel a sense of outrage.

However, after the trouble caused by some NGOs at successive G8 summits people began to be a little more wary. Was money given in good faith actually being used to fund violent political protest? And then came increasing questions about NGO activities in the field. In 2000, Singaporeís finance and trade minister, described NGOs as "forces for destruction". Earlier this year, the writer Paul Theroux said he would never give them money and even Geldofís Band Aid activities have not escaped scrutiny as it becomes clearer what happens when, as Daniel Wolf in the Spectator put it, you have "action in place of careful thought" and "gestures instead of engagement with complex realities". Some people hate such criticism of organisations supposedly dedicated to the poor and the vulnerable, saying that negative assessments just give us an excuse to close our minds and our purses. But when you learn that some of the staff and fundraisers for NGOs receive salaries in line with senior executives in private sector companies, you cannot help but be a little shocked.

Despite the recent wave of unease, NGOs, like the equally suspect UN, are still regarded as the good guys. This is understandable. With so much evil and corruption in the world, we need to feel that there is an equal and powerful force for good, one into which we can invest not just our money, but our prayers and goodwill as well. We know better than to trust governments, so civic organisations determined to ease beyond slippery ministerial promises and really "make a difference", organisations created by people passionate enough to get out there and get their hands dirty, are reckoned to be on the side of the angels. And even if you did wonder what the 17,000 NGO representatives who turned up at the parallel forum to the government- sponsored 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and the 35,000 who made it to the Fourth Beijing Conference on Women actually achieved for the money spent on flights, hotels and dinners, we have been happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

YET we need to be more rigorous. In many countries, whilst some NGOs are essential, it is clear that they are not actually the answer to a nationís troubles. Sure, they bring funds and even press interest, but they also bring other, less useful things: a determination to propagate liberal western values, for example, together with a kind of neo-colonialist approach to projects - we know what is best, so do as we say or we and our money will leave - and a narrow focus that breeds resentment because the NGO cannot, and does not want to, see the broader picture in case that upsets its "mission statement" and puts its funding at risk. Moreover, once ensconced, NGOs, all competing with each other, never seem to leave. In north-west Somalia, the 40 NGOs operating in 1992 had grown to well over 500 by 2000. If the measure of NGO success is to get a country back on its feet, they donít seem to be doing a very good job.

Notwithstanding all this, I am not arguing that we do not need NGOs. What I do maintain, however, is that we need to find some way of measuring their usefulness. It is no longer acceptable just to assume benefit because the intentions are good and the arguments of those like Professor Rob Gray at the Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research at Glasgow University and the anti-globalisation activist Naomi Klein, who object to any pressure for NGO accountability on the grounds that it could create a blacklist, sound a little hollow. Even though, at present, the information on ngowatch.org does not go nearly far enough, there is nothing sinister about revealing the incomes and filed returns of "organisations exempt from income tax", which is the status NGOs enjoy. Indeed, we certainly should know how organisations which are the recipients of billions of pounds of tax-payers money are allocating the funds. Those of us - and it is all of us - who keep them afloat, are not stupid. We know that some missions are bound, in some senses, to fail, but that such missions might well be necessary all the same. It is not such missions that will deter us from giving to NGOs, itís the secrecy and unaccountability which go with them. In Afghanistan, Dr Bashar Dost is about to make a stand against NGOs by introducing a law to clarify their responsibilities. Perhaps itís time we did something similar.






When this story was posted in November 2004, this was on the front page of PCOL:

The Birth of the Peace Corps The Birth of the Peace Corps
UMBC's Shriver Center and the Maryland Returned Volunteers hosted Scott Stossel, biographer of Sargent Shriver, who spoke on the Birth of the Peace Corps. This is the second annual Peace Corps History series - last year's speaker was Peace Corps Director Jack Vaughn.
Vote "Yes" on NPCA's bylaw changes Vote "Yes" on NPCA's bylaw changes
Take our new poll. NPCA members begin voting this week on bylaw changes to streamline NPCA's Board of Directors. NPCA Chair Ken Hill, the President's Forum and other RPCVs endorse the changes. Mail in your ballot or vote online (after Dec 1), then see on how RPCVs are voting.
Charges possible in 1976 PCV slaying Charges possible in 1976 PCV slaying
Congressman Norm Dicks has asked the U.S. attorney in Seattle to consider pursuing charges against Dennis Priven, the man accused of killing Peace Corps Volunteer Deborah Gardner on the South Pacific island of Tonga 28 years ago. Background on this story here and here.
Your vote makes a difference Your vote makes a difference
Make a difference on November 2 - Vote. Then take our RPCV exit poll. See how RPCV's are voting and take a look at the RPCV voter demographic. Finally leave a message on why you voted for John Kerry or for George Bush. Previous poll results here.
Kerry reaches out to Returned Volunteers Kerry reaches out to Returned Volunteers
The Kerry campaign wants the RPCV vote. Read our interview with Dave Magnani, Massachusetts State Senator and Founder of "RPCVs for Kerry," and his answers to our questions about Kerry's plan to triple the size of the Peace Corps, should the next PC Director be an RPCV, and Safety and Security issues. Then read the "RPCVs for Kerry" statement of support and statements by Dr. Robert Pastor, Ambassador Parker Borg, and Paul Oostburg Sanz made at the "RPCVs for Kerry" Press Conference.

RPCV Carl Pope says the key to winning this election is not swaying undecided voters, but persuading those already willing to vote for your candidate to actually go to the polls.

Take our poll and tell us what you are doing to support your candidate.

Finally read our wrap-up of the eight RPCVs in Senate and House races around the country and where the candidates are in their races.
Director Gaddi Vasquez:  The PCOL Interview Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview
PCOL sits down for an extended interview with Peace Corps Director Gaddi Vasquez. Read the entire interview from start to finish and we promise you will learn something about the Peace Corps you didn't know before.

Plus the debate continues over Safety and Security.

Read the stories and leave your comments.






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.

Story Source: The Scotsman

This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; NGO's; Development; Aid

PCOL14905
02

.


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: