The following is a guest post by Professor James Ron of
Carleton University. I
should say
that I’m not fully persuaded by Ron’s suggestion that foreign funders
of NGOs
in Israel and elsewhere should spend less money in order to encourage a
more
robust and indigenously-funded civil society, although I agree that
helping such organizations develop more robust funding strategies makes
eminently good sense. As long as the settlement enterprise continues, and
especially as long as tax-exempt monies of various sorts keep flowing into the
settlement enterprise-then foreign governments, foundations, and individuals
have a legitimate interest in supporting various civil society groups in
Israel (and elsewhere) — including human rights groups and other law-abiding organizations that
seek to document or oppose these policies. One could make similar arguments about other countries whose
behavior is contrary to accepted human rights principles. That said, Ron’s argument does
raise some interesting issues and I thought FP
readers might find it intriguing and useful.
Guest Post by James
Ron
In the 1990s, American experts heralded the global spread of
liberal civil society, arguing that political power had fundamentally shifted
in favor of an organized citizenry. States were no longer in charge, and NGOs
such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace, coupled with thousands of smaller
NGOs worldwide, were spreading liberal ideas such as democracy, human rights,
and environmentalism.
Boosted by scholarly evidence and policymaker enthusiasm,
Western donors began pouring money into NGOs across Latin America, Africa,
Asia, and the Middle East.
At first, the results seemed promising. Small NGOS popped up
everywhere, and in many places, developed a powerful voice. Transparency,
progressive advocacy, and human rights seemed destined to carry the day.
That tide has now turned, and the wave of Western-funded,
liberal NGOs has produced a backlash from conservatives everywhere, from Canada
to Russia. Increasingly, legislators, backlash activists and government officials
are attacking NGOs where it hurts most: their foreign-funded wallets.
[[BREAK]]
The problem, it turns out, is that most NGOs draw a very slender
geographic base for their funding: Europe and North America. Locally generated
NGO revenue in the developing world, by contrast, is miniscule.
The problem is not developing-world poverty; there are
plenty of charitable donors in countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt,
and Russia, and virtually every society has some form of charitable
accumulation. In much of the non-Western world, however, most such funds go to
traditional charitable activities, such as local religious institutions or orphanages.
Liberal, human rights-oriented advocacy groups have limited capacity to tap
into these monies, and thus spend most of their fund-raising efforts learning
how best to apply to the European Union, U.S. AID, Ford Foundation, and other
major Western donors.
External funding for NGOs has thus been both a boon and a
liability. On the one hand, foreign funding has given local NGOs the
wherewithal to grow and make a difference, propelling them to the centre of many
local debates. Those same funds, however, present a tempting target to
conservatives in times of crisis.
As a result, liberal NGOs in non-Western lands are exposed,
vulnerable, and potentially broke.
The latest chapter in this global struggle is now unfolding
in Israel, until now viewed by many as a major NGO hub.
In recent weeks, conservative parliamentarians have begun
pushing a new anti-NGO law through the Knesset, Israel’s legislature. Goaded by
Western condemnation of Israel’s Gaza war, the lawmakers are accusing Israeli
NGOs of serving foreign masters.
The Jewish-Israeli nationalists are explicitly targeting
well known Jewish groups such as B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in
Israel, and the New Israel Fund, all led by respected, mainstream,
liberal-Zionist figures.
The campaign was initially spearheaded by conservative
student groups such as Im Tirtzu (If
You Want, a fragment of a famous Zionist slogan), coupled with support from the
backlash group "NGO Monitor." The campaign has turned ugly, with liberal figures
such as Naomi Chazan — an historian and former legislator — depicted as a
horned animal on public billboards.
The last time something like this happened, an Israeli prime
minister — war hero and liberal politician Yitzhak Rabin — was gunned down by a
right wing gunman.
To be sure, the Israeli campaign is surprising only because
the country has, until now, been tolerant of internal dissent, even when
directed at the military, Israel’s most revered institution.
Although Israel’s democracy has always been challenged by
its relations with Palestinians, officials have, until now, tacitly recognized
local NGOs’ right to receive Western funds and speak out.
The rules of the game are now changing, and the gloves are
coming off. If successful, the new law will force Israeli NGOs to pay taxes on
foreign donations, effectively driving them out of business. Israeli NGO
workers, moreover, will also have to begin all statements by acknowledging that
they are funded by "foreign political entities."
Without swift protests by the Obama administration and its
European allies, Israel may soon go the way of Russia, Egypt, and Ethiopia,
where recent campaigns against foreign funded NGOs have undermined civil
society.
The long term solution, however, is quite different. In the
years to come, Western donors will have to spend their money more sparingly and
wisely when it comes to civil society. Foreign funding has created a prominent
but vulnerable network of NGOS with little internal credibility in the
non-Western world, and few local resources.
To build a locally sustainable and legitimate NGO sector,
Western donors will have to provide smaller grants, and will have to condition
their funds, whenever possible, on matching local monies. They will also have
to spend money on boosting NGOs’ capacity to raise funds locally, connect with
local stakeholders, and adjust their message accordingly.
If donors don’t smarten up, they’ll do little more than make
things worse.
Happily, there are excellent examples of self-sufficient,
non-Western NGOs out there. In Bangladesh, for example, BRAC, an NGO
powerhouse, has become one of the world’s largest and most self-sufficient
civil society organizations, combining income-generating activities with advocacy
work for rights, gender equity, and democracy.
Christian Churches in Africa are another example. Until
Western funds stopped flowing after independence, many local churches were
poorly staffed and struggling. Once foreign funding ended, however, many began
to thrive, learning how best to compete in the local marketplace of resources,
converts, and spirituality.
A two-track strategy is thus necessary. In the short term,
Western governments should stand up to conservative lawmakers in Israel and
elsewhere, arguing that restrictive laws on foreign funds should be rescinded.
In the long term, Western donors should temper their generosity
by spending less money more wisely. Otherwise, non-Western NGOs will never
learn how to unlock the charitable potential embedded in all societies.
If donors and NGOs don’t break their unhealthy co-dependence,
civil society outside of the West will never be sustainable.
James Ron is an Associate Professor at the Norman Paterson
School for International Affairs, Canada’s oldest graduate program for
international public policy. He is an Israeli, Canadian and American citizen. He
is currently studying global rights-based NGOs with Canadian and National
Science Foundation funding. For more details, visit www.carleton.ca/~jron