Aid organizations being bullied by Bush administration

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

sulawesigirl4

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
7,415
Location
Virginia
NGOs Feel the Squeeze from Bush Administration

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 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.

rest of article at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030624/pl_nm/iraq_usa_ngos_dc_2

exerpt from http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,982977,00.html in the Guardian

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 marginalises and criminalises more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. The US 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, is wielding the sticks.

This trend is rather disturbing to me. Especially since I am considering a career in this field, possibly with an NGO after I serve in the Peace Corps. It seems to me that by their very definition, non-governmental organizations should be quite separate from any government, US or otherwise. It seriously erodes their credibility as outsiders and as watchdogs. One can only hope that they'll decide to resist the pressure to become little more than mouthpieces for the government.
 
This bothers me too. They are supposed to be *non-governmental* organizations. Why should they have to sign up with anyone's government? This is politics at its worst.:censored: :censored: :censored:
 
Last edited:
"Those who aren't with us are against us."

Or so I have heard...

Melon
 
both links are not working.....any chance a reposting them before I post my very unpopular opinion.
 
Dreadsox:

I would strongly advise against posting a dissenting opinion (although I agree with the sentiment that these organizations should be free of any undue political pressure).

~U2Alabama
 
U2Bama said:
Dreadsox:

I would strongly advise against posting a dissenting opinion (although I agree with the sentiment that these organizations should be free of any undue political pressure).

But if you are going to write a dissenting opinion, make sure it is melodramatic and overly hysterical. :sexywink:

Melon
 
I would definitely use the words "offensive" and "insensitive." However, right now, I am heading down to McDonald's for an ice cream cone.

~U2Alabama
 
melon said:


But if you are going to write a dissenting opinion, make sure it is melodramatic and overly hysterical. :sexywink:

Melon

Umm...I just finished reading the articles...and fortunately....for all here....my wife is, well, distracting me at the moment and the kids...are asleep....

Bye!!!! I will respond later.....

melodramatic post to come.
 
I think Bush and the administration are simply charming!

How's that for dissent?
 
bama - you know that all opinions are welcome, i'd like to see what you have to say

anitram said:
I think Bush and the administration are simply charming!

How's that for dissent?



don't make me have to close this thread :mad:
















:sexywink:
 
Right,..and yesterday blaimt dear Mr Bush Europe for the hunger in Africa because Europe refuse to buy the genetic manipulated products from Amerika,...


Bush is not a president but a salesman,...
 
I'm dismayed by this too. NGOs should absolutely be independent from government, for many reasons. One of those reasons is if they are seen as being affiliated with a particular government this can affect their work in certain countries as people may be suspicious of an agency which is seen as doing the US government's work.

I hope NGOs will choose to resist the pressure the US government is putting on them, but sadly I think there could be some serious repercussions for those who choose not to be made into a mouthpiece of the government. I would hate to see the work of important NGOs damaged because they dare to disagree with the Bush government. This whole thing is a disgrace: NGOs exist to help people, not to act as apologists for dodgy foreign policy choices.

And as for all the "dissenting opinion" posts, can't we have at least on thread that doesn't involve groups of posters screaming that they face persecution for stating their opinion? We're all adults here: let's try to have a civil debate and agree to disagree where necessary.

*Fizz.
 
thanks lilly, i finally noticed the thread on quoting. lol

I would welcome intelligent discussion be it dissenting or otherwise. As long as it's not full of empty rhetoric. We're adults here, right? ;)

p.s. thanks for fixing my tags melon. :D
 
Last edited:
And if we continue to the next paragraph, which sulawesigirl cut out(not intentionally):

A USAID official said on Tuesday that the Iraqi agreements were a separate issue

Hmmmm...COuld it be because it is still a combat area. Ever think that soldiers' lives might be at stake and maybe, just maybe the administration was concerned about the fact that information might get into the press that could potentially put people's lives at risk? Just a refresher....the agreement in Iraq was for the NGO to get clearance to speak with the press. It ONLY applies to Iraq according to the article.


the article continues:

but confirmed an NGO report that USAID administrator Andrew Natsios believes nongovernmental organizations should publicize the U.S. government financial contribution to their activities.

And why shouldn't they make people aware of where the money is coming from? I will go out on a limb here and bet that we give more to some of these organizations than anyone. I am taking a guess here but if we are not the top givers, we are definitely amongst the top five. Yet we get the SHITE kicked out of us in the world. We have people who think we do NOTHING. We have people thinking in poor ccountries that Bin Laden is a bigger contributer to their survival than the US.

How many times have I seen in here that the best way for the US to fight terrorism is to do more to help other people. I am sorry, but, when the administration decides that it is time to make people aware that the US IS doing more.....I am shocked to see such outrage.

Very simply, we do not owe these agencies money. I am personally disgusted that money people earned is being taken away from us and sent elsewhere, but that is another issue altogether (NEA & PBS). If they do not wish to publicise where the money came from do not take it. Nowhere does it say we HAVE to give them the money.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to re-emphasize that saying I "cut out" portions is misleading. I simply grabbed the first few paragraphs and posted a link as I was under the impression that was the correct procedure these days.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to point out that I fixed it at the same time you were offended I was rereading it. ...LOL
 
well I have to run to work and try to avoid getting soaked by our lovely weather system. will try to gather some thoughts to reply. just for the record tho, I disagree. ;)
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
well I have to run to work and try to avoid getting soaked by our lovely weather system. will try to gather some thoughts to reply. just for the record tho, I disagree. ;)

:eeklaugh:
 
There are a number of levels on which I disagree with the pressure the US gov't is exerting but let's just start with a basic one. First of all, just because an entity provides part of the funding for another, it doesn't necessarily follow that they now have the right to control that entity. For example, in the recent move to allow faith-based organizations to receive government money for charity work, these organizations are not expected to tell every homeless person they help that "your treatment is courtesy of the US government". If your church decides to receive some money from government sources in order to run charity programs that help society, how would you feel if the US government suddenly decided that they could now dictate what church policy was going to be, how it could represent itself publicly or even IF it could do so? You would most likely be outraged. I think the two situations are extremely comparable.

There are some activities that are best served by organizations that are not affiliated with a specific government. I believe that one common refrain among conservatives is that private organizations are more efficient than the government. (whether or not I agree with this would be another discussion) Why then would they oppose these independent organizations having autonomy over their actions?

Money is always going to be a concern and perhaps NGOs would be better off completely avoiding any of it that comes from the US government in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest. However, I would be surprised if any of them are solely funded by US money. More likely it is only one of many sources of funds. Should they then be required to have a sticker on every package of food they distribute saying something to the effect of "brought to you by USA 20%, John Doe 25%, Private Charity X 25%, and Anonymous Donations 30%" ? I doubt it.

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.
 
Dreadsox said:
Very simply, we do not owe these agencies money. I am personally disgusted that money people earned is being taken away from us and sent elsewhere, but that is another issue altogether (NEA & PBS). If they do not wish to publicise where the money came from do not take it. Nowhere does it say we HAVE to give them the money.

No, the US doesn't owe aid agencies money. That said, the US is one of the richest countries in the world and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that perhaps they could do something to help those who are less fortunate. Let's not forget the millions of people living without clean water, the millions who will never receive any formal education and the millions who don't have access to even the most basic healthcare. No, the US doesn't have to help them but I would think out of compassion and simple human decency, they would wish to.

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. Life shouldn't be about just doing what you HAVE to do to help others, it should be about having compassion for people who are suffering and doing as much or as little as you're able to do to help them. The US is in a position to do more than most considering both its wealth and its position of power in the world. It's sad that some people would feel resentful of US tax dollars being spent to help people who are dying from starvation.

(And no, Dread, not everything in this post was directed at you. I just used your quote as a starting point.)
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
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.

Again, I point to the fact that on this board after 9/11 it was said that the US is not doing ENOUGH to help people in the world. Charity DOES NOT have to be through an NGO. If they do not wish to acknowledge where the money is coming from, they do not have to accept the money. I look at it this way. If we are already giving a significant amount of money to help the impoverished and they do not know we are helping...but they know Osama helped build a road, Osama is winning.

To imply that because the governement is seeking some acknowledgement that we no longer care about human rights is not fair. TO ask for recognition in parts of the world that feel we are doing nothing is important because the impression is we are doing nothing. If the NGO's cannot do this, to help us, when we have been more than generous for many years, then maybe it is time we distribute our own aid.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:

No, the US doesn't owe aid agencies money. That said, the US is one of the richest countries in the world and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that perhaps they could do something to help those who are less fortunate. Let's not forget the millions of people living without clean water, the millions who will never receive any formal education and the millions who don't have access to even the most basic healthcare. No, the US doesn't have to help them but I would think out of compassion and simple human decency, they would wish to.

I do not think you are getting what I am saying. I NEVER said do not help people. IF the terrorism as Bono and others here have said is better able to recruit from places that are suffering, it is NOT unreasonable to fight the HATE by asking for a little help in some recognition, since we are the GREAT SATAN in these countries.
 
Last edited:
sulawesigirl4 said:
I don't think you even read my post. :huh:


I almost said the same to you but I thought I would give the benefit of the doubt.


Feelings mutual.
 
Well, perhaps we could boil it down to this. My problem is less with the US government demanding credit (although I think if they aren't the sole contributor than it is less than transparent) and more with demanding control. I find that absolutely appalling.
 
Back
Top Bottom