Bush to NGOs: Watch Your Mouths

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

The fascists in Bush’s regime have found another target - NGOs who’s WMDs (works of mass development) are not to uncle sam’s liking. Are these creeps for real? Does the American public KNOW what’s going on? Does the American public CARE?

"The Bush administration has found its next target for pre-emptive war, but it’s not Iran, Syria or North Korea – not yet, anyway.
…
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 marginalizes and criminalizes more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. The U.S. 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, D.C., is wielding the sticks.
…
On May 21 in Washington, Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, gave a speech blasting U.S. NGOs for failing to play a role many of them didn’t realize they had been assigned: doing public relations for the U.S. government. According to InterAction, the network of 160 relief and development NGOs that hosted the conference, Mr. Natsios was “irritated” that starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children didn’t realize that their food and vaccines were coming to them courtesy of George W. Bush. From now on, NGOs had to do a better job of linking their humanitarian assistance to U.S. foreign policy and making it clear that they are “an arm of the U.S. government.” If they didn’t, InterAction reported, “Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners.”

For aid workers, there are even more strings attached to U.S. dollars. USAID told several NGOs that have been awarded humanitarian contracts that they cannot speak to the media – all requests from reporters must go through Washington. Mary McClymont, CEO of InterAction, calls the demands “unprecedented,” and says, “It looks like the NGOs aren’t independent and can’t speak for themselves about what they see and think.”

Many humanitarian leaders are shocked to hear their work described as “an arm” of government; most see themselves as independent (that would be the “non-governmental” part of the name).
…
These days, NGOs are supposed to do nothing more than quietly pass out care packages with a big “brought to you by the U.S.A.” logo attached – in public-private partnerships with Bechtel and Halliburton, of course.

That is the message of NGO Watch, an initiative of the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, which takes aim at the growing political influence of the non-profit sector. The stated purpose of the Web site, launched on June 11, is to “bring clarity and accountability to the burgeoning world of NGOs.”

In fact, it is a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against Bush administration policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House.

This bizarre initiative takes as its premise the idea that there is something sinister about “unelected” groups of citizens getting together to try to influence their government. “The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies,” the site claims.

Coming from the AEI, this is not without irony. As Raj Patel, policy analyst at the California-based NGO Food First, points out, “The American Enterprise Institute is an NGO itself and it is supported by the most powerful corporations on the planet. They are accountable only to their board, which includes Motorola, American Express and ExxonMobil.” As for influence, few peddle it quite like the AEI, the looniest ideas of which have a way of becoming Bush administration policy. And no wonder. Richard Perle, member and former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, is an AEI fellow, along with Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president; the Bush administration is crowded with former AEI fellows.

As President Bush said at an AEI dinner in February, “At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds.” In other words, the AEI is more than a think tank; it’s Mr. Bush’s outsourced brain.
…
The control freaks in the White House have really outdone themselves this time. First they tried to silence governments critical of their foreign policies by buying them off with aid packages and trade deals. (Last month U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said that the United States would only enter into new trade agreements with countries that offered “co-operation or better on foreign policy and security issues.”) Next, they made sure the press didn’t ask hard question during the war by trading journalistic access for editorial control.
…"

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0620-06.htm

2

Yes, another highly credible source.

3

Interesting article, AkA. Thanks for posting.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Kareem: *
**Yes, another highly credible source.
[/QUOTE]
*

The article is originally sourced from one of Canada's largest national newspapers, the Toronto-based Globe and Mail.

4

Just for the record, this is not an "article", it is an "editorial" written by a columnist. As you can see by her bio, she is an "anti-corporation" activist, and thus her views probably come form the far left.

"Montreal-born Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and author of the best-selling book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. The New York Times called No Logo "a movement bible," and the Guardian short-listed it for their First Book Award. Naomi's articles have appeared in numerous publications including The Nation, The New Statesman, Newsweek International, The New York Times, The Village Voice, Ms., The Baffler and Saturday Night.

For the past five years, Klein has travelled throughout North America, Asia, and Europe, tracking the rise of anti-corporate activism. She is a frequent media commentator and has guest-lectured at Harvard, Yale and New York University."

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Just for the record, this is not an "article", it is an "editorial" written by a columnist. As you can see by her bio, she is an "anti-corporation" activist, and thus her views probably come form the far left.

"Montreal-born Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and author of the best-selling book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. The New York Times called No Logo "a movement bible," and the Guardian short-listed it for their First Book Award. Naomi's articles have appeared in numerous publications including The Nation, The New Statesman, Newsweek International, The New York Times, The Village Voice, Ms., The Baffler and Saturday Night.

For the past five years, Klein has travelled throughout North America, Asia, and Europe, tracking the rise of anti-corporate activism. She is a frequent media commentator and has guest-lectured at Harvard, Yale and New York University."
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for clarifying that...

6

This editorial actually provides a pretty good example of the skewed thinking that is out there among the leftist anti-American contingent.

They are more than happy to accept the food, medicine, clothes, and other aid provided by the US (which provides more humanitarian aid and assistance than any nation on earth). In fact, they ALWAYS want to critisize the US for not providing more. BUT, god forbid the recipient should learn that the US is the benefactor. God forbid the fashionably leftist, anti-American who acts as the middleman might actually have to tell the recipient that the US is the one providing all the food, medicine, and relief supplies they are getting. That might even undermine the anti-American rhetoric they spew to the population that so gratefully accepts the relief supplies from the NGO.

Frankly, from my perspective, if the US government is not already doing so, it ought to require every aid organization that receives and dispenses humanitarian aid donated by the US to tell the recipient that the aid was provided by the US. If they refuse to do so, maybe they ought to look to some other country to give them the supplies for redistribution. It wouldn't take long for the local populace to figure out they can get 20 pounds of rice, bread, water, beans and maybe even a chicken from NGOs distributing US aid versus a tin of Sardines from the anti-American NGOs relying upon aid provided by Russia and China.

7

Or, simply put,

Don't bite the hand that feeds (or pays) you.

8

Naomi Klein, as OG has already pointed out, is a renowned leftie/communist/Chomskyite - however one wants to label and categorize her. Her book, “No Logo”, became an international bestseller, for which she became the youngest recipient of the National Business Book Award last year (source). Anyone who knows her background and political/social perspectives, realizes that she comes from a particular background - as does any other individual whose articles have sometimes been quoted in this Forum. How is her possessing stark biases ANY different than the stark biases possessed by such influential (and revered-on-Gupshup) pundits as Thomas Friedman ? We all have biases - i am certain none of us would deny this fact. It is absolutely accurate that Klein comes from a decidedly left background - as other columnists/editorial writers whose articles have been posted up in this Forum, come from a decidedly right-of-centre perspective. We all have biases, whether we are ‘rightwing’ or ‘leftwing’.

i am sure, as mature adults, each of us is responsible enough to sift through the biases and arrive at our own independent conclusions.

9

You cannot compare Friedman with this twit. Compare her to Michael moore if you are going to make a comparison.

10

Nadia:
No one claimed that Ms. Klein’s viewpoint was not deserving of posting and discussion. OhioGuy pointed out that it is not to be confused with factual reporting and that it does not rise to the level of news “article.” It is pure unadulterated editorial opinionating. Such pure, unadulterated editorial opinionating should be read and understood within the context of the background and political persuasion of the editorialist.

As I pointed out, I think it classically demonstrates the skewed thought process of those sharing Ms. Klein’s background and political persuasion. The part I like best is where she says Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, “was "irritated" that starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children didn't realize that their food and vaccines were coming to them courtesy of George W. Bush.”

I’m personally sick and tired of hearing the bull cr*p about how selfish the US is and how little the US gives in humanitarian aid around the world. The irony is that it is people like Ms. Klein and the leftist anti-American NGOs who spread this type of dung to the very people they are distributing US relief supplies to. If it weren’t for the US contribution in aid, in most instances these folks wouldn’t even be out in the field distributing anything to the needy.

Mr. Natsios and every American has every right to be “irritated” that the starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children and their families don’t know that the food and vaccines that they are getting come from American humanitarianism. Ms. Klein and many NGOs would probably rather the indigenous population believe it is coming from the Taliban or some warlord in Afghanistan or from Saddam loyalists in Iraq because they oppose the US. To use our food and medicine that we give as humanitarian relief as a weapon or tool against US interests is vile and disgusting.

You can be darn sure that Ms. Klein and many NGOs believe and freely distribute their poppycock that the starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children are starving and sick “courtesy of George W. Bush.” In fairness, they ought to also say that they are now getting well and fat courtesy of same.

11

I don't understand why NGO's are upset about the U.S. wanting to claim credit for the Aid it gives, am I missing something?

12

MyVoice,

I agree, there is a big cognitive dissonance here. What I see/hear and what I know to be true are really two different things. The "management" at the NGO's are swinging far to the left, are hyper-critical of the US, and are not shy at all about vocal criticism of the US in the press. Screams of dire impending disasters, always laid at the feet of the US, with a hand held out firmly are just a little disgusting. The worst are the UN based programs. More than a third of all funding for UN based programs comes from the US and the UK, but the shrill criticism coming from those quarters would lead you to beleive that the US was not contributing a dime, or infact stealing them blind. Recently the NGO's have been both critical of "security" issues, as well as critical of the US military for fulfilling humanitarian missions. Well, excuse me, but when things are still unsettled, who better than the military to perform the humanitarian missions that those who can guarantee security? The NGO's somehow feel that they have patent on compassion, and that everyone else must be completely inept.

So kudo's to the USAID director for standing up to the holier-than-thou NGO's who want MyVoices' tax money, but want to ignore where it came from, or slap his face for not giving enough, and on their terms....

So answer this. In light of the enormous giving that is done by the US, why should the US NOT speak up when they are publicly criticised?

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
I don't understand why NGO's are upset about the U.S. wanting to claim credit for the Aid it gives, am I missing something?
[/QUOTE]

UTD: The answer is actually in Ms. Klein's editorial:
** "In fact, it is a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against Bush administration policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House. **

A good many NGOs are anti-Bush, anti-white house and anti-American. They want to speak out and support their anti- agenda. But the only way the can get their captive audience to listen to their anti-agenda is to distribute US donated food and medicine to the sick and hungry. How effective do you suppose they will be in getting their anti-American agenda across to people who they must acknowledge are getting food and medicine because of American humanitarianism?

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
So kudo's to the USAID director for standing up to the holier-than-thou NGO's who want MyVoices' tax money, but want to ignore where it came from, or slap his face for not giving enough, and on their terms....
[/QUOTE]

OhioGuy:
You know I would truly not mind slumming it a little by drinking my manhattans with Jim Beam rather than Jack Daniels so that some Iraqi kid could eat a bowl of rice tonight...provided that the kid knew the bowl of rice was courtesy of myvoice and that I voluntarily sacrificed something in my life to make his better.

But I find it real hard to sacrifice something and turn the other cheek when the idiot who gives that kid his bowl of rice acts like the food was his gift to the kid and tells him how evil and selfish I am.

Even if I went all the way down to Ten High instead of Jim Beam, the NGO would still carry on his anti-myvoice rhetoric. In fact, until and unless I give up everything so that I eat and drink no better than the poorest in the world, the NGO guy will criticize me. Their idea of generosity and humanitarianism is to reduce everyone to the least common denominator.