talk: The impact of the civil war in South Sudan

I would love to be there but I'm very conviced its another PR exercise. I've just been to Sudan and other parts of Africa. This is the reality, there is no doubt that much good has been accomplished through the intervention of reputable charitable organizations in Africa and elsewhere. Even the United States has benefited from organisations such as the Red Cross and others in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. However, both in Africa and the UK there are long lists of phony, corrupt organisations, tales of embezzlement and millions of lost donations that never reach the intended recipients, this is cause for much concern. Little has been done to address the problem, although there has been much hand-wringing over the issue.

A visit to southern sudan reveals villagers living with no infrastructure who must walk miles to market, while shiny new NGO Land Rovers and SUVs tear down the highways, forcing the local population to jump for their lives. Local restaurants are crammed with boorish groups of foreign workers who loudly order their meals and beer while the local staff rushes to accommodate them. As villagers return from market to homes with no electricity, foreign workers retire to gated compounds and enjoy television.

Graft and corruption has no borders, but the UK, at least, has many watch-dog groups that bring allegations of fraud to the attention of the media and other oversight agencies. The same cannot always be said for Africa, and there seems to be little or no accountability in place. The role of charitable giving on the world stage has been increasing to the extent that NGOs and non-profit organisations operating on the African continent have become major economic players. The influence they wield can be utilised for the common good of the African people and their severely endangered ecosystems. However, abuse has become rampant in some quarters, sometimes funded by British aid programs. Some of these African aid programs operate as non-profit organisations based in England and rely heavily upon tax incentives and public donations. There is an increasing wariness in UK, especially after abuses were revealed in the aftermath of the Indonesian tsunami disaster, that monies donated for foreign relief might instead be going into the pockets of the administrators of these charitable funds.

By definition, the presence of Western foundations on African soil as NGOs must represent an extension of their own governments policies. They may appear to operate publicly, but there can be hidden agendas, some dangerous and some benign. Often conditions are attached to the money and sometimes bribes are paid in order to ensure that the NGO operates safely and with impunity in politically unstable regions. It is often the donor organisation which will benefit more that the third world society which is, on paper, the recipient of the benefits. The lack of local funds to support local needs in Sudan, Uganda, Greatlakes and other areas of Africa opens a giant loophole through which indigenous societies can be compromised through the introduction of Western value systems and beliefs. Cottage industries have evolved which provide tool kits for grant writing and policy implementation in third world countries. The foreign office has created special services which educate UK NGOs in the process of income tax preparation and audit compliances. I call them briefcase operators.

The intended recipients of charitable funds are the only persons who can assess whether or not altruistic goals have been met. How much of the money has actually improved the lives of the poorest of the poor? Are NGO's becoming the new colonialists in Africa? According to World Bank figures, 12 per cent of foreign aid to developing countries already was being channeled through NGOs in 1994, and as of 1996, the total amount was $7 billion worldwide. Today, NGOs in Africa manage nearly $3.5 billion in external aid.

A study of 37 nations found total non-profit NGO operating expenditures in 2002 of $1.6 trillion. If the non-profits were a country, they would have the fifth largest economy in the world, Nicholas Stockton, a former executive director and 20-year veteran of Oxfam, said ''There's a market for good works, and its big business." Good works may be big business, but is this necessarily good for the people these organisations pledge to serve?

Who, in the end is watching out for the populace, Is this another ENRON scandal in the making?
It's increasingly clear that like governments or corporations, NGOs have vested political interests, as well as financial motives. They need to attract aid to stay alive. But unlike governments, they aren't elected. There is no safety net of checks and balances in place. They are not traded on the market exchanges and have no incentive to produce quarterly reports which reflect their solvency. Indeed, there is no need for solvency at all, other than the ability to issue paychecks to the CEO's of these organizations.

The UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) issued a paper in 1997 which listed the responsibilities of NGO's to the communities which they serve. Chief among these responsibilities was the duty of the NGO to foster autonomy. In other words, it is the duty of the NGO to put itself out of business, but this is clearly not happening.
Remember LIve8 campaign to fight global AIDS and extreme poverty. The campaign that grew out of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Bono's heads. However a closer look at the 39 organisations which have signed up reads like a "who's who" of big business NGO's. Guess what? Bonno has been awarded a presitigeous prize for it!