NGOs: the West’s soft instrument for hegemonic policies

By Tahir Mahmoud

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become an important political tool in the hands of the West. Like the word “aid”, the NGOs (they also use the alias non-profit organizations) are used to penetrate and undermine other societies, especially in the Muslim world. Looked at superficially, the concept of NGOs may appear practical and beneficial, but the manner in which they are used by the US and the West in general is not only a distortion of their original aim but borders on the scandalous.

The role of US-backed NGOs was best summarized by Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy who stated in a 1991 Washington Post article: “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” In order to be able to identify which NGOs are used as political instruments there is need to examine their links with state institutions, their operational modes and the sources of their funding.

It was US President John F. Kennedy (1961–63) who pioneered the politicization of NGOs when he US established the Peace Corps in 1961. Even though the Peace Corps is a government organization, its concept and model were later used to establish several other NGOs backed by the US government. The so-called Peace Corps sends American “volunteers” to promote “the understanding of Americans abroad.” The Peace Corps was the answer to the Soviet Union’s grass roots activism in Latin America and Africa. In 1981 anti-communist training was provided to Peace Corps volunteers and the US government hired Dean Coston Associates, a consulting firm, to train volunteers to undermine communist efforts by presenting communism in a negative light. However, since the Peace Corps is known as a governmental organization it does not always succeed in portraying its agenda or policies as unbiased. It seems that this weakness in the Peace Corps was first realized by US President Ronald Reagan who helped establish another NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), in 1983, in order to promote “democracy.” NED is directly financed by the US Congress and has played an important role in advancing US interests in different parts of the world to the detriment of local populations. In the mid-1980s, the NED openly backed Manuel Noriega in Panama and the anti-Castro groups in order to advance US hegemony in Central America. Today through so called grants, the NED finances several anti-Islamic groups that work to sabotage the Islamic system of governance in Iran.

Since the 1980s, the US has adopted a more sophisticated approach to advancing its agenda through NGOs. One contemporary example of “NGO” work is the involvement of the Open Society Institute (OSI) in the so-called “Rose Revolution” in Georgia which brought to power a staunchly pro-US government. Instead of being directly involved, the US government remained in the background by using individuals such as George Soros, the billionaire financier, who funds the OSI. Organizations such as the OSI are given political and economic space to operate independently as long as their work does not impede US global designs at the strategic level. This provides the US a way to implement certain policies without taking official responsibility and therefore cannot be held directly liable politically, socially, economically and in some cases even legally.

The operational mode of US-backed NGOs is quite simple. They finance so-called projects and programs in many impoverished countries where the ruling system does little to improve the life of its citizens. Such brutal and corrupt regimes are sustained in power by the US itself; examples of Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Pakistan readily come to mind. In such cases it becomes easy for foreign NGOs to attract the local population to cooperate with it because the alternative is often unemployment and starvation. By providing even minimum services which the local government should have but does not provide, US-backed NGOs project themselves as benefactors of people. This garners support for them among local populations.

Western NGOs skilfully exploit the unpopularity of corrupt regimes in order to further the foreign policy objectives of their own governments. Since foreign NGOs have the money to implement vital projects, many local NGOs which are sincere in improving the conditions in their own countries become vulnerable to manipulation by receiving grants from outsiders. Lack of funding forces local NGOs in the developing world to surrender their integrity and lose their identity as truly non-governmental bodies since they become the extended arm of foreign governments.

Apart from NGOs that focus on social services, there are several so-called think-tanks and foundations that play an important role in policy formulation and implementation. The US has the world’s largest number of think-tanks which not only serve as policy formulation institutions, but also as a staffing center for the US government to recruit experts from various fields. Think-tanks and foundations became incorporated into the “non-governmental” scheme of the US government in the early 1900s. While foundations deal mainly with financing individuals and organizations, think-tanks are supposed to provide a non-biased second opinion. However, even though think-tanks claim to provide alternative perspectives they often promote policies that benefit their financiers. RAND Corporation, one of the leading US think-tanks, established in 1945 right after the Second World War by the commander of the US Air Force, General Henry H. Arnold, offers a good example. In 2008, RAND spent $230.07 million on research. Many RAND studies directly or indirectly advocated large military spending and in particular spending on the air force. The US Air Force contributed $42 million to RAND in the same year.

The so-called NGOs that are financed by the US government are an important part of US policy to advance its hegemonic goals. It is likely that during the presidency of Barack Obama the NGO sector may be used even more frequently as a tool of US foreign policy. In 2009 Obama openly proclaimed that Americans cannot only rely on their military and need a “civilian national security which is as well trained and funded.” Since NGOs often play a positive role in a society’s development, serious thought must be given to how best to protect NGOs from government manipulation. The best way to do this would be by making the NGOs less dependent on direct governmental funding. One way would be to establish an independent international fund for supplementary NGO funding.

US aid to Egypt ends up in US contractors' pockets

Critics question billions in aid routed back to US contractors
By Farah Stockman
Globe Staff / February 3, 2011


WASHINGTON — United States taxpayers have funneled more than $60 billion of aid into Egypt since President Hosni Mubarak came to power in 1981, but more than half of the money has been spent supplying weapons to the country’s military, an arrangement that critics say has benefited American military contractors more than ordinary Egyptians.

About $34 billion of the aid to Egypt has come in the form of grants that Congress requires Egypt to spend on American military hardware, according to statistics from the Congressional Research Service. Those contracts include helicopter engines built by GE Aviation in Lynn and transmitters for Egypt’s Navy built by Raytheon in Tewksbury.

“Egypt has a real need for foreign aid, but not the kind of foreign aid they are getting,’’ said Geoffrey Wawro, history professor and director of the Military History Center at the University of North Texas. “They need more butter than guns. They need development aid, but development aid does not serve as a stimulus plan for American factories.’’

Military aid to Egypt became a cornerstone of US foreign policy in 1979, when Egypt signed a landmark peace deal with Israel that bought some measure of stability in the tumultuous region.

But in recent years the large amount of aid earmarked for the military, and the relatively low sums supporting civilian aid, have attracted scathing criticism from Egyptians, some of whom argue that US aid has gone to entrench a military dictator at the expense of the fledgling democracy activists.

Now that protesters have taken to the streets in Egypt against Mubarak’s regime, questions are being raised about whether the massive aid package — and the emphasis on military support — should continue under whatever government comes next in Cairo.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Democrat who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is among those who have called on Congress to focus more on providing support to ordinary Egyptians civilians, and require more accountability for the military aid.

“Congress and the Obama administration need to consider providing civilian assistance that would generate jobs and improve social conditions in Egypt, as well as guarantee that American military assistance is accomplishing its goals,’’ he wrote in an op-ed in Tuesday’s New York Times.

The Egyptian military, which has close ties to the Pentagon, appears to remain a popular institution in Egypt and there is no evidence that tanks have fired on protesters. But during the early turmoil, protesters were the target of tear gas canisters that read “made in the USA,’’ fueling debate about the aid.

Edward Djerejian, a former senior State Department official whose specialty was the Middle East, said the special military relationship with Egypt should continue, as long as a new government abides by democratic process and respects its international obligations, including the peace treaty with Israel.

“We don’t know what the composition of the next government will be, so it’s difficult to make any decision on US aid until we see it,’’ Djerejian said. “I think it is critically important that our aid to the Egyptian military continue, because the military, as we have seen, is really the pillar of law and order and stability in Egypt.’’

Shifting away from the massive military aid package to Egypt would be an uphill battle on Capitol Hill, because billions of dollars for the US defense industry, and American jobs, are at stake.

“When you think about the aid, a large portion of it is very self-serving. It gets funneled right back to the United States,’’ said Bill Allison, editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit organization geared toward government accountability.

Last year, Egypt was the fifth-largest recipient of US aid, getting $1.6 billion. That was not the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when Egypt’s fiery leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, leaned toward the Soviet Union instead of the United States. He nationalized the strategically located Suez Canal and went to war with Israel, a US ally.

But in 1979 Egyptian president Anwar Sadat changed course and signed a peace accord brokered by President Jimmy Carter, whose administration wrote letters to both countries promising strategic military assistance.

Congress soon authorized major aid packages to both countries, using an informal formula — not enshrined in the peace treaty — that gave Egypt $2 for every $3 that Israel received. Israel quickly became the largest recipient of US aid, and Egypt the second-largest — rankings that were only recently overtaken by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and last year, the disaster in Haiti.

In the early years, the aid was distributed evenly between assistance to Egypt’s military and civilian economic support for its people. Most of the military support came in the form of a loan. But in 1985, as the United States beefed up its support to Israel, the military assistance to Egypt also increased, and became a grant that the Egyptians had to spend on US defense contractors.

The Egyptians bought tanks from Sterling Heights, Mich., which are viewed today on television amid the throngs of protesters; high-speed boats from Gulfport, Miss., Hellfire missiles from Orlando, Fla.; and Black Hawk helicopters from Stratford, Conn.

In Massachusetts, the deal with Egypt helps keep 3,200 people employed in Lynn at GE Aviation, one of three companies to win a $820 million contract to make helicopters for Egypt. Spokesman Richard Gorham declined to say whether the company is worried that military aid to Egypt will be cut.

Waltham-based Raytheon has also reaped huge benefits from the military aid to Egypt. It is one of 18 companies involved in a $3.2 billion deal to make 24 F-16 aircraft.

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, in Tewksbury, has a separate $77 million contract to make transmitters for Egypt’s Navy. Jon Kasle, a spokesman for Raytheon, said he did not have a comment about how the turmoil in Egypt might impact the company.

Allison, of the Sunlight Foundation, said attempts to curb military aid to the Egyptians, or condition it on democratic reforms, have been met with opposition from powerful lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

“You have foreign agents for Egypt lobbying for it, and the US defense contractors lobbying for it, and in some cases they are the same people,’’ Allison said.

The strong interest of US companies could help explain why US military assistance to Egypt has remained at $1.3 billion a year, while its civilian economic assistance has steadily shrunk, from $815 million a decade ago to $250 million requested for 2011. The decline began in 1998, when Israel arranged for a reduction in economic support and an increase military aid. As Israeli’s economic aid shrunk, so too did Egypt’s, at a rate of $40 million per year every year, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.

Lancet accuses aid groups of 'jostling' for publicity in Haiti

Haiti earthquake

Aid organisations, governments and the United Nations have been accused of failing Haiti by competing for publicity instead of getting on with the job of disaster relief.


By Bruno Waterfield
The Telegraph 22 Jan 2010

The Lancet medical journal accused the different groups of putting self-interest, a scramble for camera opportunities and rivalry before getting post-earthquake disaster relief properly organised.

"International organisations, national governments and non-governmental organisations are rightly mobilising, but also jostling for position, each claiming that they are doing the best for earthquake survivors," the journal said in an editorial.

"Some agencies even claim that they are 'spearheading' the relief effort. In fact, as we only too clearly see, the situation in Haiti is chaotic, devastating, and anything but co-ordinated."

The respected journal, which has been publishing since 1823, did not name any individual offenders but called for more scrutiny of an of the aid sector.

"Large aid agencies can be obsessed with raising money through their own appeal efforts," said the journal. "Media coverage as an end in itself is too often an aim of their activities. Marketing and branding have too high a profile."

But Brendan Gormley, the chief executive of the Disasters Emergency Committee, hit back saying there had been co-operation.

"Rather than "jostling" for position, 13 major UK aid agencies have come together under our banner," he said. "The media are essential to our efforts and our analysis shows that televised appeals have driven fund-raising for the Haiti Earthquake Appeal."

Elisabeth Byrs, a spokesman for the UN Organisation for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, also rejected the criticism.

"I think no one failed on this and the UN, the humanitarian community in general, and the Haitian people did their best to save as many lives as possible," she said.

The Lancet criticism came as the UN switched its focus from search and rescue operations to humanitarian aid for homeless refugees.

Yesterday "exhausted" aid workers started to leave the country ten days after the earthquake hit. Search teams increasingly began pulling bodies rather than survivors from the wreckage of Haiti's cities and towns.

Aid workers will now step up moves to rehouse 500,000 homeless Haitians living rough in and around the destroyed capital of Port-au-Prince to prevent a looming refugee crisis or a second disaster caused by disease and hunger.

Tens of thousands of Haitians have gathered at the capital's harbour, which partially reopened on Friday, hoping to flee the earthquake's aftermath and continuing aftershocks by sea.

US Coast Guard officials said that, while there were currently no signs of a mass migration, a refugee crisis was to be expected, with Haiti's northern coast a likely point of departure.

"Everything points to it, but it's not happening now," said Lieutenant Commander Mike Pierno of the US Coast Guard.