ngo-business

I have been accused of relying on sources which are funded by the CIA - in particular, the reports by the Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and United States Institute for Peace (among about another 30 funding organisations). So the following was my justification for reading their reports, and even believing some parts of them. The particular article in question was How the Georgian War Began.

“It's one thing to keep an eye on the human rights situation in North Korea, China, or Uzbekistan. But monitoring human rights in Britain or Germany would be laughable.”

Ludmilla Alexeyeva, doyenne of the Russian human rights movement

Amnesty International has a principle known as WOOC, which stands for Work On Own Country. The principle says (roughly) that members of Amnesty International are not permitted, as members, to do campaigning work on cases in their own country². The lobbying and campaigning that members do has to be directed (primarily) at governments other than one's own. Thus, if you are a member of the UK Section of Amnesty, you are likely to be fighting for the rights of individuals living in Sudan, in Burma, in France or Bulgaria, rather than for victims of the British government located in the UK.

If the point of 'international aid' is empowerment, in other words the transfer of some of the power (resources?) from those who have too much, to those who have none at all, then what a pathetic job most (international) ngo-businesses are doing. They build themselves up, every year winning more and more projects, more and more funding which they pile into 'reserves', core funding, new employees, more airfares, or increased salaries for managers directing the projects from a London base. For those same salaries, and for the cost of maintaining that London base they could have given employment, work experience, trust, and the possibility to direct their own affairs to goodness knows how many people for whom that funding was originally intended.

I earn £41 (about €59) a day for coaxing along 30 underprivileged and often damaged 7-year old children. I can earn £241 a day (€350) if I continue to work as a ‘consultant’ internationally, teaching groups of 15 to 20 young Georgians what the text books written in the west tell us about human rights and advocacy, playing games with them and lapping up the Georgian culture.

Of course €350 is not a particularly well paid consultant, as any consultant will tell you. Many charge up to €1,000 for teaching those whose rights are being violated that their rights are being violated. Some will charge even more. If you are a lawyer talking about human rights, I dread to think how many euros you can manage to squeeze out of the international coffers. Ask Cherie Blair.

'Even admitting that human rights are both highly desirable and far more respected in 'our' countries than elsewhere, three fundamental conceptual problems remain. The first is the problem of transition. How can a society pass from a feudal or colonial situation, in which the very idea of human rights is not formulated, to a situation comparable to what we know in our societies today? And do we have something to teach the rest of the world in this matter? The second problem stems from the inclusion in the U.N.'s 1948 Declaration of two types of rights: individual and political rights on the one hand, and economic and social rights on the other. To what extent are these rights compatible with each other, and if they are not, are there priorities between them?

Just for the sake of balance...

"A potential U.S.-led military action against Iraq would likely have profound humanitarian consequences for the Iraqi civilian population. Consistent with our established policy, Human Rights Watch takes no position on the legality or appropriateness of such a war. Yet we have concerns with regard to the manner in which it may be conducted."

Extraordinary. We take no position on a war that no international lawyer, with the exception of those hired by the occupying powers, regards as legal under international law. We are a renowned human rights organisation, but we have an established policy which is not to take a position on an unprovoked war of aggression by the world's greatest military power. Except to say that we have concerns with regard to the manner in which it may be conducted.

So, Human Rights Watch: can you conceive of a 'manner' in which the world's greatest military power might conduct this war of aggression peacefully? Can you conceive of an unprovoked war of aggression by the world's greatest military power which manages to avoid profound humanitarian consequences for the civilian population?

If so, you should tell the world. If not, why do you shy away from telling the world?