April 2003
NGOs have currently been discussing the ‘moral implications' of accepting (or not accepting) funding from the British Government with regards to emergency/development/post conflict reconstruction of Iraq. Hugo Slim considers the implications and asks, is this the most relevant question to address?Tactical Questions of Perception
Can the nature of an agency's funding affect the image of that agency and therefore its ability to operate effectively (ie. through loss of credibility and the consent and co-operation of Iraqi authorities and people)?
In Iraq - not necessarily, for two reasons. Firstly, in the eyes of many, there may be other aspects of an agency's identity that are much more detrimental to its image than where its money comes from, eg simply being a "western" agency might be enough to prejudice some people's perceptions. Secondly, even in war, many people can maintain quite nuanced perspectives. In a terrible hypothetical case, an Iraqi woman whose soldier son has been killed by British bombs, whose local hospital is without electricity because of US attack and whose eight year old daughter is seriously ill may be able to realise that there are more values at play than pure hatred in this war and that a British humanitarian agency with British government money may be sincere in its efforts to help re-start medical services. And, even if she cannot recognise this simultaneous diversity of values, she may well be practical enough to take the benefits of British money and a British agency. Indeed, she might also think that it is morally right that the British should pay for what they have helped to destroy. I think she would be correct to hold all three views. To the people who matter, clearly presenting and acting on the humanitarian values they hold may be much more important for British NGOs than announcing that they are "clean" of any belligerent money.
In the UK - refusing to take UK and US government money is likely to be met with bemusement. No matter what their views on the war, the great majority of people in the UK and the US are agreed on the critical importance of civilian protection. It may seem contradictory to be part of a society that pays for both bombs and bread but this moral paradox of humanising war is the strange essence of humanitarianism as it grapples to set limits to human violence.
Strategic Issues of Humanitarian Integrity
Other key questions raised involve an agency's own strategic integrity. Is a humanitarian agency necessarily being co-opted into US and UK war aims in this conflict if it accepts their money? Are humanitarian agencies gradually accepting a co-opted role in all US and UK policy in the wider war on terrorism? Are humanitarian agencies becoming more complicit in, and so facilitating, a new military-humanitarian double act that enables those pursuing the war on terror to become increasingly aggressive because their aggression is under-written with a guaranteed and sub-contracted humanitarian follow-through? The acid test for NGOs here is their humanitarian integrity. Being donor-led is nothing new to NGOs. They face this problem all the time in humanitarian and development funding. Neither is taking money from belligerents a new problem. Throughout the Cold War, humanitarian NGOs took money from western powers that were involved in many of the vicious proxy wars in Africa and Central America. Similarly, humanitarian agencies have always drawn on the resources of poorer belligerent governments in places like Ethiopia, Sudan, Mozambique and Angola, working closely through their government ministries and relying on the protection of their security forces. What seems to be making British and US NGO people wobble is that some of the most explicitly belligerent governments are now our own. The test here for humanitarian agencies is the same as it has always been: to be sure of their commitment to humanitarian principles and to be wary of unprincipled temptations.
This principled commitment requires continual situational judgements on the implications of particular funding rather than an infallible dogma on all funding. Would the demands that come with US and UK money "tie" NGOs in some way that would compromise humanitarian principles? Would it make NGOs do things that go against the humanitarian grain in a given war, to prefer some people over others or to stop working with particular groups? Globally, would it mean that NGOs were prioritising American and UK wars over other civil wars, famines and AIDS emergencies that are killing and impoverishing far greater numbers? These are the particular ethical questions that must be examined rather than a general moral question of whether NGOs should take the money at all.
A question of International Law
In addition, there are some very powerful moral reasons why NGOs should positively take belligerent money in all wars. These reasons stem from the fact that all belligerents have very serious responsibilities under international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law to protect civilians in war - to prevent damage, to rescue people from damage and to repair the damage of war. Humanitarian agencies spend enormous energy routinely urging governments and non-state military forces to respect such laws and to fund and realise their obligations accordingly. It seems morally inconsistent to refuse to take money for these ends when it is offered by belligerents.
George Bernard Shaw, once observed that "all money is dirty money". While illegal funds can be dirtier than others, the point is well taken. Humanitarian agencies need to focus on what they do with government money rather than divert attention onto the cleanliness or not of such money.
Hugo Slim is Reader in International Humanitarianism at Oxford Brookes University, a Trustee of Oxfam GB, an International Adviser to the British Red Cross and a Patron of Merlin.
More Information on NGOs
More Information on NGOs and Funding
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
