Aid organizations being bullied by Bush administration

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The government isn't only asking for recognition for its donations: it is asking that it is allowed to dictate the policy of organisations to which it donates. We're talking about NON governmental organisations - their policies should not be dictated by any government, no matter which country that government represents. Why is it so hard to imagine a government offering money simply for the sake of HELPING people, rather than for the sake of gaining some kind of benefit in return?

 

[Dreadsox]

I will take back what I said about the Iraq situation here. I think it has much, much more to do with setting up a free market economy. From this article here:

USAID director Andrew Natsios told a hearing earlier this month that creating a market economy is one of the key goals of the US-led reconstruction effort

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/25/1056449284816.html

And the end of the original article that sparked this discussion:

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.

This to me, and the fact that some of the NGO's renegotiated the language and others are not fazed by this situation according to the article would lead me to believe that there are specific NGO's that are troublesome and not all of them.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

And the most disturbing statement to me was the one that chided NGOs for not realizing that they are "an arm of the U.S. government."

Whether or not that paper can back up its claims that NGOs are obstructing health and prosperity in Africa has not been shown. It's equally likely that they don't go along with the pro-corporate, "free trade" ideology that is practically religion in the current US govt. I would hope that they would have the right to disagree if they saw fit. There is enough evidence that corporations trample on the rights of 3rd world countries and citizens to make me suspicious of the silencing of dissenting voices. But that's probably a topic for a whole new thread. lol.

 

[Dreadsox]

And the most disturbing statement to me was the one that chided NGOs for not realizing that they are "an arm of the U.S. government."

I have serious doubts about if this statement is accurate. AS you are questioning the ability of the paper to back up its claims below.

Whether or not that paper can back up its claims that NGOs are obstructing health and prosperity in Africa has not been shown. It's equally likely that they don't go along with the pro-corporate, "free trade" ideology that is practically religion in the current US govt. I would hope that they would have the right to disagree if they saw fit.

Sure they have a right to disagree. And the US Government has the right to disagree and give its money to an NGO that will work with it. AS the article says, some of the NGO's are not worried about it, others negotiated language that was more to their liking. This to me along with the fact that Iraq is the number one issue on USAID's list right now, lead me to believe they are trying to make sure they have organizations that are working with them, not against them as they attempt to get the Iraqi economy going.

 

[80sU2isBest]

If you saw a person who had been involved in an accident, you wouldn't HAVE to call for an ambulance but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do so.

I don't really have anything to add to this post. But I just thought I'd nitpick a little.

Here in my great state of Texas, you are in fact legally mandated to stop and render aid if you are the first person upon an accident, which involves at the very least, calling an ambulance.

Just thought I'd drop in and clear that up. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion; I just can't resist arguing with Fizzy!

 

[Dreadsox]

Why is it so hard to imagine a government offering money simply for the sake of HELPING people, rather than for the sake of gaining some kind of benefit in return?

I can think of 3,000 reasons why and sum it up in 9/11. I am not asking for anything from the people who are benfitting from the $$$. I am saying that on this board in the past year, people have been saying that the US does not do enough, and that this leads to TERRORISM. In 2000 USAID spent over 50 Billion in AID.

That did not prevent 9/11 or any of the other terrorist attacks from happeneing. But one of the major arguments has been more AID. I think more AID is wrong. I think making people aware that we are involved in helping and making sure that NGO's are working with us rather than against us is important.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Strongarming is not the answer tho. This administration has a terrible track record when it comes to working WITH people rather than dictating to them.

It looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[kobayashi]

sula's talking crazy talk

and like that
hes
gone.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I think that's a reprint of the story in the Guardian which I linked to earlier.

 

[verte76]

I understand that the government wants to have a free-market economy in Iraq, which it didn't exactly have under the Stalinist Baath regime. I also understand about wanting to stop terrorism. So do I. I don't understand why the NGO's can't function in Iraq the same way they did in Afghanistan. Needless to say they're trying to stop terrorism in Afghanistan. If I remember correctly, food packets were dropped in Afghanistan by the military. In fact, I read about one family whose house got "rained on" by food packets. At first the family was freaked because they thought they were getting bombed. Then they started to find the food packets, which had a message on them that they were from the U.S. They were very happy and fed their kids! The NGO's worked independently of this. I don't want to rehash any UN arguments here except to say that the reconstruction would work better if it were international rather than strictly U.S./Britain. There was a report that Spanish troops were coming in. This might be a really positive thing. The more countries the better. Just my purple tuppence's worth.

 

[Dreadsox]

I think that's a reprint of the story in the Guardian which I linked to earlier.

Please note my comments are based on the Yahoo story not the Guardian Story. Ms. Klein is writing an editorial, not an article, and has a world view just left of Lenin in my opinion.

 

[Dreadsox]

Why is it so hard to imagine a government offering money simply for the sake of HELPING people, rather than for the sake of gaining some kind of benefit in return?

I am sorry, but what are we asking for from the people we are trying to help? Nothing.

What I see is that they are asking that the organizations are working to help promote capitalism and that they in some way start making it known to the people we are helping where exactly the help is coming from.

I do not see the US asking for anything in return from the people receiving the help. AS I said, I am all in favor of helping. I almost wish the US would distribute it themselves rather than through an NGO.

 

[Dreadsox]

In 2000 USAID spent over 50 Billion in AID.

$56.2 Billion in AID by USAID
$44.5 Billion in AID from Private Giving(Churches, Philanthropy, Business)

100.7 Billion Dollars in AID from the Citizens of the United States.

Yep, we are not charitable at all as a people at all.

You're right, we will agree to disagree.


http://www.usaid.gov/fani/cover.htm

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Dread, if you are trying to paint me into a corner as stating the US isn't giving any money, then you're mischaracterizing me. If you'd be so kind as to review the thread, the whole point has to do with the US government trying to make NGOs into an arm of the government, not with how many dollars the US has given in the last year. And if the government can't handle dissent and cannot conceive of why NGOs shy away from being puppets of contributors, then perhaps they should be more intentional about direct aid.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dread, if you are trying to paint me into a corner as stating the US isn't giving any money, then you're mischaracterizing me.

And you would be mischaracterizing me with your statement as well.

PM me sometime and we can discuss if you like.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I give up.

 

[Dreadsox]

And if the government can't handle dissent and cannot conceive of why NGOs shy away from being puppets of contributors, then perhaps they should be more intentional about direct aid.

The Governement is taking steps to make certain that the NGO's are working with us not against us. I am all for not giving to NGO's and distributing it ourselves. I think I have said that. Why should a government give money to an organization that is promoting something opposite its foreign policy goals . That would be quite counter productive. Your own original article points out that many NGO's are not batting an eye at this, and some are working with the administration to reach a common language that they agree on.


As to the continued comments alleging that I am not reading(I must be intellectually challenged) or that I need to reread, somewhere in the thread it was questioned why the we in the US feel our tax money is wasted when we help others. That never was my point, and I feel it is interesting to look at exactly how much money the US actually does give.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Okay.

This thread was never about how much/how little the US gives in international aid. That's a whole other topic and I'm sure it'd be an interesting discussion. This thread was about the fact that the US government wishes to dictate to NGOs how they should operate. Dread, you're the one trying to make this about whether the US gives enough in international aid. Clearly you think it does, personally I don't think the US (or the majority of other Western countries) give enough but that's another debate.

All I said regarding the US feeling its money is wasted on international aid is that I believe money should be given out of kindness, out of compassion, out of concern for fellow human beings. I don't believe aid should just be seen as a way of justifying foreign policy decisions or of encouraging people to support the actions of Western governments.

And as for the post about it being a legal requirement in Texas to call an ambulance if you witness an accident, all that makes me think is that it's a little sad that people would have to be told to summon help if they see someone in distress. But again, that's not what this thread is about.

 

[Dreadsox]

Okay.

Dread, you're the one trying to make this about whether the US gives enough in international aid. Clearly you think it does, personally I don't think the US (or the majority of other Western countries) give enough but that's another debate.

Um...no But nice of you to try and put it on me . It was a response to you. It was typed in response to your comments where you "used" my words to start it off. I think it is pretty disappointing that you would paint a picture of the citizens of the US in that post in the manner you did. The US does give and give and give. The private and charitable contributions put the US as of 2000 were at 45 Billion for the year 2000. Your characterization of this Nation was out of line. If I am not mistaken, our private and charitable contributions were greater than most of the countries that contributed AID in the year 2000.

Okay.
All I said regarding the US feeling its money is wasted on international aid is that I believe money should be given out of kindness, out of compassion, out of concern for fellow human beings. I don't believe aid should just be seen as a way of justifying foreign policy decisions or of encouraging people to support the actions of Western governments.

And nothing in my post said anything about that. Many here have characterized the US pre-9/11 as not having done enough. 100 Billion for one year. The year prior to 9/11. So now we want credit from NGO's that are taking our money, and we are wrong for this?

Now the money collected as TAX money from me should be used in foreign policy. It should be given to NGO's that are working with us and not against us. Asking for some credit from groups that want our $$$ that is a crime. The Peace Corps was a foreign policy tool, that Kennedy wanted started to fight Communism. Let's be real. There were politics in that as well. Absolutely 100% the money collected should be a foreign policy tool, and absolutely, if this is part of the plan to make my country more secure, so be it.

That said, the 45 Billion in from charities, foundations, and private organizations. Money that people contributed willingly out of their pockets should be used to help without any pre-conceived notions. I am not opposed to this, and am proud of the fact that I contribute to this group.


Again, we are asking the distributors, not the people we are helping for credit. The US most definitely should not be giving money to NGO's that are not in line with our Foreign Policy.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

This isn't about how much the US gives in aid. It's about whether it's okay for the government of the United States to dicate to non-governmental organisations how they should try to help people.

Absolutely 100% the money collected should be a foreign policy tool, and absolutely, if this is part of the plan to make my country more secure, so be it.

I don't think aid should be used as a tool of foreign policy, I think it should be about helping people living in the most abject poverty imaginable. If you don't see it that way, fine. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Dreadsox]

Do we have to give NGOs money? No. Should we? If we truly care to back up our claim that we are all about human rights, then yes I think so. It's called charity and last time I checked charity doesn't come with a bill of sale, nor does it give you a stock in the company with a controlling interest.

On this we agree. Except it is not charity. Charity is when I choose to give my money to an organization to do what they will with it. Hopefully to give/use th emoney in a way that helps someone out.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that our money is to be collected and distributed to other nations in need. This said, it becomes part of the foreign policy tool of the President. I am willing to bet that this is the point that was made at the meeting with the NGO's. Why would we give the money to NGO's that according to your article:

[Q]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. [/Q]

The wealth of information at USAID clearly stating that they are about capitalism and the spreading of it, why would they want to give these NGO's money.

Also the article ends with this:

[Q]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. [/Q]

It makes me think this is more about Iraq than restrictions on the world. The article is not too clear on this.

 

[80sU2isBest]

And as for the post about it being a legal requirement in Texas to call an ambulance if you witness an accident, all that makes me think is that it's a little sad that people would have to be told to summon help if they see someone in distress. But again, that's not what this thread is about.

Believe me, I know. But unfortunately it does seem that people aren't as willing to get involved and help these days. I guess that's just a sign of the changing times...it is very sad, though.

 

[Dreadsox]

I don't think aid should be used as a tool of foreign policy, I think it should be about helping people living in the most abject poverty imaginable. If you don't see it that way, fine. Let's agree to disagree.

No we do see it that way. I just do not see it beneficially to give it to NGO's that are operating opposite the stated Foreign Policy objectives of my Government.

Painting my position as not wanting to help people in abject poverty is wrong.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I guess it might depend then on what those foreign policy objectives are. If they contribute to the detriment of human rights, then I would hope that NGOs would be opposed to them.

 

[Dreadsox]

Whether or not that paper can back up its claims that NGOs are obstructing health and prosperity in Africa has not been shown.

Well, here is a paper on the topic. I am not certain if it is THE paper on the topic.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20030624_bate.pdf

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Well, here is a paper on the topic. I am not certain if it is THE paper on the topic.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20030624_bate.pdf

Yeah, I have read a lot of papers with this position when I was researching my senior paper on the World Bank and IMF. It's coming from a specific ideological viewpoint and making claims within the first few pages that are opinions and not fact. ("wealth means good health" as a header being the first example that jumped out at me) I would take this paper about as seriously as you read the opinion piece in the Guardian which I posted.

 

[Dreadsox]

I would take this paper about as seriously as you read the opinion piece in the Guardian which I posted.

Touche

 

[sulawesigirl4]

ok, i'm off to meet up with a returned Peace Corps volunteer from Mali. You people have fun. It's been an interesting discussion. Thanks

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Have a fun evening sula. Thanks for starting this discussion, it's been interesting.