Global Aid: A Double Edged Weapon

Subhash,

You make a very legitimate point that many NGO’s have lost sight of why they were created and have instead become another type of bureaucracy, primarily motivated by a desire for self-perpetuation.

I am glad that India refused the Tsunami aid. The fact is the old adage “beggars can’t be choosers” always holds. The gain in prestige (at least in U.S.) was well worth any cost in terms of additional resources.

I am curious regarding how you would assess the role of Amnesty International (perhaps over the past decade or so).

Notes:
[India’s polite rejection of official aid for post-tsunami relief was again met with outrage by many on the outside,]
I find this ‘outrage’ bit surprising. At least in U.S., when a country tries to help itself that fact is appreciated and looked favorably upon.

[Sida was created in the 1960s to export the ideals of the Swedish welfare state and to serve as a subtle instrument of foreign policy.]
And how conveniently they forget to make a mention of the Swedish tax-brackets!

subhash:

funny you should mention Sida. we were just discussing it in one of my classes the other day. you are right, they do have ``munificent purse strings`` and from what i understand can also wield quite a bit of leverage when they want to.

i think the problem you`re referring to with some NGOs also emerges from the fact that they have become so decentralized. there really doesn`t seem to be a comprehensive policy of good governance. i`m not even sure if that`s possible. there seem to be as many NGOs as there are issues in the World.

subhash:

interesting, precise and short!

wish you had highlighted the differences between the indigenous (100% local) and the foreign based NGOs

like elsewhere in pakistan we have both kinds...some doing admirable work...others just provide a sinecure and perhaps information back to their sponsors...

rgds

t