Amnesty International has started another round of money grubbing from its leftist mailing lists via this round of attacks on American occupation policy in Iraq.
Yet at the same time "name brand NGOs" and other "transnational progressives" are thwacking at the USA for not intervening in Liberia. Parapundit comments on it here with a link to this Daily Telegraph article here (which requires an unpaid registration).
Like Amnesty International's on-going campaign against Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, both these actions against American policy have nothing to do with real human rights. It is a political money game funded by leftist politicians in the E.U., Canada and Australia with international NGOs being the cut outs for anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism world wide.
I ran across a several of articles from the AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW and from the LONDON TELEGRAPH that lay out the rules and players in the game.
I found the AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW article posted on the 'Independent Media Review Analysis' web site. IMRA is a pro-Israeli web site, but the article it sites is both telling and damning:
The term “non-governmental organization” (NGO) usually evokes images of altruism and compassion, particularly among the anti-globalization crowd that believes that states, and the politicians who run them, are flawed and their actions need to be tempered. NGOs are supposed to speak up for the weak and drowntrodden, and to promote the rights of individual and minorities. In this spirit, tens of thousands of NGOs have sprung up, concentrating on environmental issues, human rights, humanitarian relief, and campaigns against dangerous weapons such as landmines and small arms. These groups are well funded, and use their generous budgets to promote themselves and their causes. The largest and richest NGOs, such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam have become well-known brand names, and the major figures in these groups are more powerful than many government officials. At the same time, in many cases, these organizations have themselves added to injustice and duplicity, particularly in the Middle East. Like the United Nations and its affiliate, UNRWA, prominent NGOs have become captured by the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel lobby. These organizations played a major role in last year’s infamous Durban conference last year that was supposed to fight racism but ended up contributing to hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism. Similarly, the myths of the “Jenin massacre” were propelled by NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Physicians for Human Rights (the list is much longer) and their biased and unverified reports were picked up and repeated by the media. To make matters worse, much of the funding for these “non-governmental” organizations actually comes from governments. Large allocations from income generated by government taxes is provided to NGOs, supposedly for “humanitarian” projects, allowing politicians and officials to promote their private agendas through the back door. The practice is widespread in Europe, Australia and Canada as a means of increasing visibility and impact in the UN and international organizations, while also advancing the careers of the politicians involved. The European Union spends as much as fifteen percent of its total budget in support for NGOs, and prominent organizations have budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of these groups operate with an even more appalling lack of transparency and accountability than the governments that they criticize for precisely these failings. The tens of millions of dollars spent on projects funneled through NGOs and labeled simply and ambiguously as “humanitarian aid projects” or “peace support” do not receive the scrutiny of direct spending by government ministries. The results are rarely subject to external evaluation, and the annual allocations keep flowing, regardless of whether there is any impact. In the Middle East, huge amounts of international humanitarian aid to the Palestinian refugees has failed to provide any change in the situation, and most of the money has disappeared.It can well and truely be said that Amnesty International and most other "Name brand" international NGOs are a part of the E.U.'s unofficial foreign ministry. The interesting thing is that the actual disbursement of NGO aid is run just like the E.U.'s bureaucracy in Belgium as this LONDON TELEGRAPH article makes clear:
"Spot the Consultant is a favourite game of mine when I am working in Africa. It's easy to play, mildly entertaining, and passes an idle evening alone in a downtown bar in an end-of-the-line, ramshackle city. Here are a few clues: consultants, who are largely white and drawn from the EU and America, always go round in twos and threes. You'll find them at posh restaurants in Third World capitals, where the cost of the a la carte menu is the equivalent of a month's wages for the locals. You'll see them hunched over their table devouring lavish meals while complaining about the way the wine is kept; you'll know them for sure by listening to their conversation, constructed around a relentless series of rants: about the people they work with, the organisation that has dispatched them to this grim place, the inadequacies of their per diem, the shortcomings of the hotel, and the indignity of having to fly economy."and
"I have been a consultant in most parts of Africa and worked out what it is that consultants actually do. To put it crudely, they come as part of the aid package. They are cogs in the great billion-dollar aid machine and their remit is to ensure that aid is spent wisely and that developing world governments do not rip off the money that comes their way."and
"So, 15 months later, millions of dollars are still leaking out of Zambia, the delivery of text books is haphazard, the Monitor is just about limping along and, I suspect, no one in the FCO, the Department for International Development or any other relevant agency has even bothered to read the report. This is one isolated case floating on a Sargasso Sea of consultancies that in itself is dependent upon an ocean of Western dollars. But the truth is that aid in the developing world is handled by thousands of micro-consultancies - like mine - which exist for one reason alone. They are there to maintain the Great Aid Lie, an expensive exercise in sophistry. Aid is doled out not for the sake of those it is aimed at, but for the sake of aid itself. So long as we rich nations are seen to be doing something, never mind what, it is OK. After all, look who benefited from my experience: the WFD, the World Bank, officials in the Ministry of Education, text book publishers and printers outside Zambia and me, of course. I got a per diem, and the opportunity to complain about the quality of wine in Lusaka's best eateries."So the next time you read an Amnesty International, Oxfam, or Human Rights Watch press release on the web that looks like it came from the French foreign ministry. Have no fear. It did.
I'm guessing I'm not the first to notice this but since I can't recall anyone else saying it I'd like to point out that NGO stands for Non-Governmental Organization. NGOs seek to change the policies of governments. They also use forms of blackmail to get money from governments. Well, by this brief definition Al Qaeda is an NGO.
The point of my last post is to suggest that we should occasionally says lines like "Al Qaeda and other NGOs want the US to withdraw from Iraq" or "Al Qaeda and other NGOs hold the United States responsible for poverty in the less developed countries" and other lines of that sort. There is fun to be had here. Try out some lines. I'm sure you all can come up with some good ones to stick in posts about a large assortment of topics.
No, al-Qaeda is one step up the food chain. It is a granting agency. Recall that the literal translation of "the base" actually means "the database."
The NGOs are the local cells who bring in plans for funding and then execute attacks. Like other NGOs they will support, defend, and threaten on behalf of the granting agency on which their funding depends. This keeps the funding going, which in turn provides them with most of their capacity to threaten.
As usual, the role of the granting agency is to offer money, monitor effectiveness, and send in consultants as needed. Trent's Africa example is a good one, and that's what guys like Zarqawi are too.
Finally, it's worth pointing out 2 things:
[1] That by Randall's definition, any organized political group is an NGO. which makes the term less than meaningful.
[2] There is a quantum difference between non-government actors who use of violence to accomplish one's aims and those that don't. I've written about NGOs like Amnesty before, and however distateful they may be they don't deserve comparison with al-Qaeda until and unless they themselves become involved in violent acts (as ISM and Red Crescent are in Israel, for instance), or openly advocate the use of violence (American Muslim Council).
I'll also say this. This article is a good illustration of the NGO money game... but it in no way proves or even offers much evidence toward the thesis in its title: that Amnesty is a friend of tyranny and enemy of the USA.
As someone who has written on that very subject before, there are certainly points to be made and evidence to be offered in favour of that argument. It's just that almost none of that was used here.
"The NGO Money Game" would be a FAR better title for this post. "Amnesty International -- Ally of Tyranny, Enemy of the USA" is misleading in a way that goes beyond even the "Bush lied!" headlines.
Trent, there's a for-real issue in the seeming inability of AI and other 'humanitarian' NGO's to differentiate between unpleasant prison conditions and torture, rape, and mass murder.
But if you keep dividign the world into 'for us, by my standards' and ' against us', it's going to get damn lonely in your corner of the world.
It takes courage and diplomacy. Recall the runup to Marathon?? Leonidas used his courage to buy time for diplomacy, not instead of it.
A.L.
I know that this point is going to go way over your heads, but this actually didn't prove anything.
It said a) that governments contribute a lot of resources to NGOs. No big shock there. How else are most NGOs going to get their funding? Private donations?
b) Some guy tells a story of Western consultants living the high life in a Third World country.
Here's what it doesn't say, for those who weren't paying any attention:
a) that the EU or other countries have led these NGOs to do nefarious things
b) where these consultants come from
c) how much this high on the hog lifestyle actually costs. I've been to foreign countries, and even in second world countries, a student can live in pretty posh conditions. Do you expect them to take up residence in a shack? And why does one account automatically make every single NGO a completely wasteful entity, full of people who only want to live the best in life (which is what the article implies).
Here are a few other failings of this article:
a) Automatically assumes that there was no Jenin massacre
b) blames the NGOs for the disappearance of funds in Palestine, when much of this has been because of government corruption/and/or lack of ability for the NGOs to make a difference
c) automatically assumes that the humanitarian projects that the EU or other countries (hey, the US supports them too) support are somehow invalid or nefarious
d) refuses to acknowledge any kind of actual evidence besides the one statistic of the EU budget. Instead, it builds its 'arguments' on mere assumptions.
Yes, there are problems with NGOs, most notably the lack of transparency. But most NGO workers, and I've known a few, are dedicated individuals who work very hard to ensure that the people around them have a better life. Most NGOs are starved for cash. And ridiculously, they are ridiculed for their efforts.
Ya know zhermit, I'm sure it tough coming down from the Emerald Tower to visit all of us. And I'm sure it's not something you do often, so let me make suggestion that might make your visits more productive.
Opening your argument by insulting the sudience's intelligence (or morality, or parentage etc. etc.) is usually (sorry, multisyllable word there) a one-way ticket to Palookaville.
It look like you actually have some decent points to make, and I thought Trent's arguments were thin (as I noted earlier).
But somehow I can't motivate myself to put down the Blatz and pay a lot of attention to what you say.
I'll cool down and try again later.
A.L.
Actually, A.L., I'd say Zhermit has some good points... other than his spew on Jenin. Clue, zhermit: the Palestinians themselves have backed off on that lie.
As I noted earlier, there are good points made in the article. But based on the headline no, it didn't prove much. Which is why it needs a different and more appropriate headline.
I liked Amnesty's anti-Dug War Campaign. It looked like a fair estimation of the situation in America to me.
I thought it was nice that they showed support for human rights in the first world as well as the third.
I also think Human Rights Watch got the situation in Iraq re: Saddam correct.
Sometimes they get things right.
Sometimes they get things wrong for bogus political reasons, and they certainly are not above criticism, but Amnesty International is usually correct.
Enemy of the USA? Puh-leeze, Trent.
Joe, A.L.,
It took Amnesty International three years, and an organized threat to their American fund raising, for them to even acknowledge the reality of Palestinian suicide bombings. And even today the number of A.I. press releases criticizing Israel human rights violations outnumber those criticizing the Palestinian suicide bombers by two orders of magnitude.
Israel is by no means perfect, but Israelis aren't the one teaching children in kindergarten the glories of blowing oneself up to kill other people's children like the Palestinians are. A human rights violation that A.I. has remained silent on, BTW.
In addition, neither of you are thinking through the implications of the NGO/E.U. revolving door nor the institutional imperatives of the NGO fund-raising model. The Anti-Semites and Anti-Americans in the E.U. go to work in the name brand human rights organizations when they are out of power and then go back again when their political factions get back in power in Europe.
People wise, name brand human rights NGOs are nothing but extentions of the "Axis of Weasel." They are Tranzies. Like all Tranzies they are against both national sovereignty and the ordered liberty that it provides in functioning democracies like the USA.
As for the name brand NGO's fund-raising model, face it, it ensures that they all practice both anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism for money.
That means they are all functionally against freedom. That makes them the allies of tyranny everywhere.
Compare how much time and effort Amnesty International expends on Iraq or Israel with their efforts in the Congo.
Where are more people dying and more people suffering horror? Where Americans or American money, and Amnesty International, are not (AKA the Congo). This is no accident. It is a fundraising strategy that opposed America doing good in the world and that cooperates with evil.
That neither you Joe, nor you A.L., want to go there doesn't mean A.I. or other international NGOs should be given a pass. America accomplishing its goals in the War on Terrorism will destroy the reason most international NGOs exist. Without international disorder the international NGO parasites, and their Tranzie masters, will be out of business. America is in the order imposition business for the duration.
International NGOs, like the continental European Tranzies are not our friends, are not our allies, and have vital interests opposed to our own vital interests.
There is a one word name that fits that bill.
The word is ENEMY.
International NGOs like Amnesty International are going to be America's enemy for the duration...so too bad for them.
Oh, don't be silly. I've taken very direct shots at Amnesty in the past for being exactly what your headline describes. It's not that I don't want to go there, it's that your article doesn't... at least, not with convincing evidence of same.
Even adding the stuff in your comment, it's a very thin aregument. A.I. are tranzies who accept government funds and run the same kind of NGO fund-raising games you've detailed in the past for the NRA? Well, duh. A.I. as biased? Your comment adds evidence your article didn't have. The NGO funding machine provides a revolving door and sinecure that the Left depends on for its organizational structure, and which mirrors the kind of quasi-corrupt corporate interest revolving door we see elsewhere with government agencies? Your article plus your comment makes a strong case. Many NGOs more interested in money than real results? Your article makes a plausible case.
If you'd just stick to that, you might actually, you know, persuade some people. As the business saying goes: underpromise, overdeliver. As the writers' maxim goes: show, don't tell.
Even if you've made the connections in your head, you'll need to take readers through it step by step because they haven't seen what you've seen and may not share the same premises (vid: "Bush Lied!" headlines, which are very similar in their process, approach, and hence overstatement). During that patient process you can always come back and build on earlier works later, or bring forward more direct evidence. But your tendency to overstatement and generalization without backup hurts your credibility and is beginning to do so for the blog.
OK, Armed Liberal, I'll apologize for the dig, as I wrote that at about 2 am my time, but it was motivated by the ridiculous claim that al Qaeda was an NGO. Equating Amnesty or any such organization with a terrorist group is about the worst bit of illogic I've seen in a while.
Either way, I still haven't been shown any connection between anti-Americanism and Amnesty, Trent (I won't get into Israel/Palestine because I'm sick of arguing it). Is wanting to protect human rights anti-American? I think that while they may play on some anti-Americanism for fundraising, I really don't think that's the whole story. Think about it this way: an NGO needs donations to survive, and in order to retain donations, it has to maintain a high profile. What's more high profile than Iraq? So they send a team there to investigate, and release its findings. I won't comment on the validity of them, except to say that Amnesty hasn't been the only one reporting abuses. That doesn't mean they're accurate though.
Meanwhile, Amnesty's other projects can benefit from the donations gleaned from such a high profile campaign. If you look at the Amnesty page, you'll see that their campaigns include Russian violence against women, Liberia, Guatemala, Myanmar's problems..Sudan, Somalia, Burundi...in fact, the attacks on American interests are about Iraq, Guantanemo, and the death penalty. Hardly a case for anti-Americanism, or for the sworn enemy status Trent ascribes to them.
NGO's too obey Trent's "suit theory" as he described it concerning the National Rifle Association's "cop-killer" bullet fuss. I.e., the first rule of NGO's is to perpetuate their own existence, which means fund-raising comes first. Normal political rules then kick in that NGO's thereafter favor the interests of the contributors who keep them in existence in preference over whatever their original mission had been.
So look at NGO's in terms of who they get their money from. Which leads to a most interesting result if the following quote from the first article is accurate - "The European Union spends as much as fifteen percent of its total budget in support for NGOs, and prominent organizations have budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars":
The NGO's aren't our enemy. The European Union is our enemy.
Tom,
One of the first rules of bureaucracy is "People are policy."
If NGOs are filled with people who make the fund raisers ideologically happy. Then what is the policy difference between the fund raisers and the NGOs?
zhermit, must be tough to argue the Israel/Palestine question when the opponents keep hitting you with facts, eh? No wonder you are tired.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33562
Joe, You take all the fun out of sarcasm.
However, since you mentioned it: If Al Qaeda is a grant-giving agency to terrorist organizations then Al Qaeda is best thought of as equivalent to the European Union.
TO
CHIEF OF AMNESY INTERNATIONAL
SUB:APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP
SIR, I M A LOCAL JOURNALIST AND BELONG TO PAKISTAN .
I LIKE V MUCH U R ORG,
AND I WISH TO JOIN UR ORG AS MEMBER ,THEN U WILL SEE I WILL PERFORM V BEST ROLE FOR UR ORG,
OK THANX
ARIF JAN
MOHALLAH SADAT COLONY CANAL ROAD BIJLI GHAR MARDAN N.W.F.P PAKISTAN
Dear sir,
I am writing this comments to you just to tell you that i am in a need of a job.I will perform my talent according to your guide lines.I am from India.Please reply to me soon so that i can contact you regarding this matter.I am very much interested to work with people.Thank you very much.