NGO's Get All Whiny

In the Guardian today, writer Abigail Fielding-Smith complains that, as she puts it, the "so-called" war on terror is threatening business as usual for progressive-minded NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations, usually focused on delivering aid in one form or another to developing nations).

In her article, she complains that US planes that were used to drop cluster bombs were also used to deliver aid--and somehow this blurs military and humanitarian efforts. Of course, she doesn't address precisely why this might be a bad thing, nor does she address the fact that humanitarian aid and reconstruction are an extension of the military plan. They are, in fact, military operations carried out for humanitarian reasons--there is no blurring, they are one in the same.

That isn't to say that all military acts are humanitarian, nor are all humanitarian acts military. In the rebuilding of a nation, especially when the stakes are as high as this, the humanitarian efforts become as important as the ongoing patrols. When a soldier helps in the construction of a school or hospital, does it make it somehow less worthy than when a supposedly neutral party does the same?

She then complains that NGO's become targets for resistance in those nations even when refusing money from coalition nations. The danger of working in nations recently at war is precisely that--and workers and administrators should understand that. War is ugly, nasty business--and the aftermath is often surprisingly brutal. Working under those conditions is a choice that those organizations and individuals make willingly. That isn't to say that I don't respect their efforts, but that complaint is a little bit hollow.

When she gets to the meat of her protestations, though, I have to wonder how much of her issue derives from a feeling of simple marginalization.

Distinctions are further blurred in Iraq by the unprecedented use of for-profit organisations in the reconstruction operation.

The choices are beginning to look stark for NGOs providing humanitarian relief in "war on terror" conflicts - either act as sub-contractors for the superpower or pull out.

The fact of the matter is, none of the NGOs is prepared to handle the kinds of jobs that Haliburton has. None of them has the capability or the connections to complete those aspects of reconstruction. It's not that the NGOs are being marginalized, but that they aren't equipped to even be in the conversation.

My biggest problem with her writing, though, is that it is largely a political one. Where she begins by saying that NGOs operate in neutrality, her opposition to the war on terror is obvious. She doesn't even bother to acknowledge the gains made for the common people in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

NGOs exist, regardless of what Miss Fielding-Smith believes, simply to bind the wounds already inflicted. They do not serve to stop those wounds from occurring, nor to head off further attacks. What the coalition governments have done is take a much stronger role that goes far beyond simply the treating of injuries.

By removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, the coalition has opened up new opportunities for the citizens of the nation. No longer do women have to fear education, no longer do men have to abide by religious strictures that they find unreasonable. With a new constitution, Afghanis may learn to have a voice in their own, stable government and reap the rewards of their own freedom. NGOs have helped to feed and provide health care for Afghanis well before the coalition showed up, but the true situation of those citizens never changed.

Certainly, there is a place for humanitarian organizations to help provide relief to those areas of the world that need it most. Miss Fielding-Smith's protestations, though, ring empty. Where she claims to be talking about helping those people, she's really talking about preserving the place of the NGOs regardless of their level of effectiveness.

You might think she would be happy to see the slow improvements in the Middle East (improvements that her organizations were incapable of bringing about). Instead, she's dreadfully worried that the place of NGOs will be taken by organizations that are far more effective in spreading liberalism and democracy.

And if you don't believe that there's a hint of political dissent in these supposedly neutral arguments, you might need to look a little bit closer.

Read the rest of the article.

Posted by zombyboy at January 9, 2004 10:22 AM | TrackBack