AdelaideHayashi837

Their arrival portends rising local costs and a culture shock. Most of them reside in lavish flats, or five star hotels, travel SUV's, activity 3000 laptops and PDA's. They make a two figure multiple of-the local average income. They're busybodies, preachers, critics, do-gooders, and professional altruists. Often self-appointed, they answer to no constituency. Although unelected and unaware of local realities, they confront the democratically plumped for and those that voted them in to office. A number of them are enmeshed in crime and crime. They are the non-governmental businesses, or NGO's. Some NGO's - like Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Amnesty - genuinely contribute to improving survival, to the mitigation of hunger, the furtherance of human and civil rights, or the lowering of disease. The others - frequently in the guise of think tanks and lobby groups - are sometimes ideologically partial, or religiously-committed and, often, at the service of particular interests. NGO's - like the International Crisis Group - have openly interfered for the resistance in the past parliamentary elections in Macedonia. Other NGO's did so in Belarus and Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Israel, Nigeria and Thailand, Slovakia and Hungary - and also in Western, rich, countries like the USA, Canada, Germany, and Belgium. The encroachment o-n state sovereignty of international law - enshrined in various treaties and conventions - allows NGO's to have involved with formerly purely domestic matters like problem, civil rights, the arrangement of the press, the penal and civil codes, environmental guidelines, or the allocation of economic resources and of natural endowments, such as land and water. No field of government action has become exempt from the glare of NGO's. They serve as self-appointed witnesses, judges, jury and executioner rolled in-to one. Regardless of their persuasion or modus operandi, all NGO's are top heavy with entrenched, well-remunerated, extravagantly-perked bureaucracies. Opacity is typical of NGO's. Amnesty's rules reduce its officers from publicly discussing the inner workings of the business - recommendations, discussions, ideas - until they have become legally chosen in to its Mandate. In case people want to learn further about superbahis giris, we know about heaps of resources people could pursue. Thus, dissenting views rarely get an open hearing. Contrary to their theories, the capital of NGO's is usually obscure and their sponsors not known. The bulk of the income of most non-governmental organizations, also the greatest ones, comes from - usually dangerous - capabilities. Many NGO's serve as formal contractors for governments. NGO's serve for as long arms of their sponsoring states - gathering intelligence, burnishing their image, and promoting their interests. There is a revolving door between the staff of NGO's and government bureaucracies around the world. The British Foreign Office finances a bunch of NGO's - like the very 'in-dependent' World wide Witness - in troubled spots, such as for example Angola. Several host governments accuse NGO's of - inadvertently or intentionally - serving as hotbeds of espionage. Hardly any NGO's uncover some of these income from public contributions and contributions. The bigger NGO's spend one-tenth of the budget o-n PR and solicitation of charity. In a desperate bid to attract international attention, therefore many of them lied about their projects in the Rwanda crisis in 1994, recounts 'The Economist', that the Red Cross felt compelled to set up a ten point essential NGO code of ethics. A rule of conduct was used in 1995. However the phenomenon recurred in Kosovo. All NGO's claim to be not for pro-fit - however, many of them get considerable equity portfolios and abuse their position to improve the market share of companies they own. Conflicts of interest and illegal behavior abound. Cafedirect is really a British company focused on 'fair-trade' coffee. Oxfam, an NGO, embarked, 3 years ago, on a campaign directed at Cafedirect's competitors, accusing them of exploiting growers by paying them a little fraction of the retail price of the coffee they provide. Yet, Oxfam owns 25 percent of Cafedirect. Big NGO's resemble multinational corporations in construction and operation. They are hierarchical, maintain significant press, government lobbying, and PR divisions, head-hunt, invest proceeds in professionally-managed portfolios, compete in government tenders, and own a variety of unrelated companies. The Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development owns the license for second mobile phone operator in Afghanistan - among other firms. In this respect, NGO's are far more like cults than like social organizations. Several NGO's increase economic causes - anti-globalization, the banning of daughter or son labor, the relaxing of intellectual property rights, or good payment for agricultural products and services. A number of these causes are both worthy and sound. Alas, many NGO's absence economic knowledge and inflict damage o-n the alleged recipients of their beneficence. NGO's are at times altered by - or collude with - professional organizations and political parties. It's telling that the denizens of many developing countries think the West and its NGO's of promoting an agenda of trade protectionism. I found out about PureVolume™ We're Listening To You by browsing webpages. Rigid - and expensive - labor and environmental provisions in international treaties may well be a ploy to fend off imports based on low priced labor and the competition they inflict on well-ensconced domestic companies and their political stooges. Just take child labor - as distinct from the widely condemnable phenomena of child prostitution, child soldiering, or child slavery. Son or daughter labor, in many abandoned locations, is all that divides the family from all-pervasive, life threatening, poverty. As national income grows, son or daughter labor declines. After the outcry provoked, in 1995, by NGO's against football balls attached by children in Pakistan, equally Nike and Reebok shifted their courses and sacked numerous women and 7000 children. The common family income - anyway meager - fell by 20 . This event elicited the following wry discourse from economists Drusilla Brown, Alan Deardorif, and Robert Stern 'While Baden Sports may really credibly claim that their soccer balls are not sewn by children, the move of the production facility truly did nothing for their former child workers and their families.' This is not even close to being a distinctive situation. Threatened with legal reprisals and 'reputation dangers' (being named-and-shamed by over-zealous NGO's) - multinationals participate in pre-emptive sacking. Over 50,000 young ones in Bangladesh were release in 1993 by German clothing factories in anticipation of the American never-legislated Child Labor Deterrence Act. Former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, observed 'Stopping child labor without doing anything else could leave children worse off. If they are training necessarily, because so many are, stopping them can force them in-to prostitution or other employment with greater personal problems. The most important thing is they take college and get the knowledge to help them leave poverty.' NGO-fostered nonsense however, 700-watt of most children work inside their family system, in agriculture. Less than 1 percent are used in mining and another 2 percent in construction. Again contrary to NGO-proffered panaceas, education is not an answer. Thousands graduate each year in developing nations - 100,000 in Morocco alone. But un-employment reaches multiple third of the workforce in areas such as Macedonia. Children at work might be harshly treated by their managers but at least they're kept off the far more threatening streets. Some children even end up getting a skill and are taken employable. 'The Economist' sums up the shortsightedness, inaptitude, ignorance, and self-centeredness of NGO's neatly 'Suppose that in-the remorseless seek out pro-fit, multinationals spend sweatshop earnings to their employees in developing countries. Regulation forcing them to pay higher wages is demanded... The NGOs, the multinationals and enlightened rich-country governments propose tough policies on third-world factory wages, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that don't comply. Customers in the West pay more - but willingly, because they know it's in a good cause. The NGOs announce still another victory. The firms, having shafted their third-world competition and protected their domestic markets, depend their bigger earnings (higher wage costs notwithstanding). And the third-world workers displaced from locally-owned plants explain to their young ones why the West's new deal for the victims of capitalism requires them to deny.' NGO's in places like Sudan, Somalia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Albania, and Zimbabwe are becoming the most well-liked location for Western aid - both humanitarian and financial - devel-opment money, and disaster aid. In line with the Red Cross, more income goes through NGO's than through the World Bank. Their iron grip on food, medicine, and funds made them an alternate government - sometimes as venal and graft-stricken because the one they change. Local businessmen, politicians, academics, and even writers form NGO's to put to the avalanche of Western largesse. Along the way, they award themselves and their family members with earnings, rewards, and favored usage of Western goods and loans. NGO's have developed into vast networks of patronage in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Superbahis contains more about the meaning behind this activity. NGO's chase disasters with a relish. More than 200 of these opened store in the aftermath of the Kosovo refugee crisis in 1999-2000. Still another 50 replaced them during the civil unrest in Macedonia annually later. Floods, elections, earthquakes, wars - represent the cornucopia that supply the NGO's. NGO's are supporters of Western values - women's lib, human rights, civil rights, the protection of minorities, independence, equality. Maybe not everyone sees this liberal selection tasty. The appearance of NGO's often provokes social polarization and social clashes. Traditionalists in Bangladesh, nationalists in Macedonia, spiritual zealots in Israel, security forces every where, and almost all politicians find NGO's frustrating and bothersome. The British government ploughs well over 30 million annually in-to 'Proshika', a Bangladeshi NGO. I-t started being a women's education ensemble and ended up as a restive and ambitious women power political lobby group with budgets to rival many ministries in this impoverished, Moslem and patriarchal state. Other NGO's - fuelled by 300 million of annual international infusion - evolved from humble origins to become infamous coalitions of full-time activists. NGO's such as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) and the Association for Social Advancement mushroomed at the same time as their times have been fully implemented and their goals realized. It now owns and operates 30,000 schools. That mission creep isn't unique to devel-oping countries. Businesses have a tendency to self-perpetuate aside from their proclaimed constitution, as Parkinson discovered. Remember NATO? Human rights companies, like Amnesty, are now wanting to incorporate in their ever-expanding remit 'economic and social rights' - such as the rights to food, housing, good wages, potable water, sanitation, and health provision. How insolvent countries are likely to provide such munificence is easily over-looked. 'The Economist' reviewed a few of the more egregious instances of NGO imperialism. Human Rights Watch lately provided this tortured argument in favor of expanding the role of human rights NGO's 'The simplest way to avoid starvation to-day is to secure the to free expression - in order that misguided government policies could be taken to public attention and corrected before food shortages become acute.' I-t blatantly ignored the truth that regard for human and political rights doesn't fend off natural disasters and disease. The two nations with the greatest incidence of AIDS are Africa's only two true democracies - Botswana and South Africa. The Centre for Economic and Social Rights, an American ensemble, 'challenges economic injustice as a breach of international human rights law.' Oxfam promises to support the 'rights to a sustainable living, and the rights and capacities to participate in organizations and make beneficial changes to people's lives.' In an unhealthy attempt at emulation, the WHO published an inanely called file - 'A Human Rights Approach to Tuberculosis.' NGO's are getting to be not only all-pervasive but more aggressive. In their capacity as 'investor activists', they interrupt shareholders meetings and work to definitely tarnish corporate and personal reputations. Friends of our Planet worked tough four years ago to instigate a customer boycott against Exxon Mobil - for maybe not buying renewable energy resources and for ignoring global warming. No-one - including other investors - recognized their requirements. But it went down well with the press, with several celebrities, and with contributors. As 'think tanks', NGO's situation partisan and partial reports. The International Crisis Group published a significant attack on the then incumbent government of Macedonia, times before an election, relegating the widespread corruption of its predecessors - whom it seemed to be tacitly supporting - to several footnotes. O-n at least two occasions - in its reports regarding Bosnia and Zimbabwe - ICG has recommended confrontation, the imposition of sanctions, and if everything else fails, using power,. Although most vocal and visible, it is not even close to being the sole NGO that advocates 'just' conflicts. The ICG is a library of former heads of state and has-been politicians and is famous (and notorious) for its prescriptive - some say meddlesome - philosophy and tactics. 'The Economist' said sardonically 'To state (that ICG) is 'handling world crises' is always to risk underestimating its ambitions, if overestimating its results.' NGO's have orchestrated the violent showdown during the trade talks in Seattle in 1999 and its repeat performances throughout the world. The World Bank was so threatened by the riotous invasion of its premises within the NGO-choreographed 'Fifty Years will Do' plan of 1994, that it now uses dozens of NGO activists and allow NGO's establish lots of its plans. NGO activists have joined the armed - however mainly peaceful - rebels of the Chiapas region in Mexico. Norwegian NGO's sent people to forcibly board whaling vessels. In the USA, doctors have been murdered by anti-abortion activists. In Britain, animal rights zealots have both assassinated experimental scientists and wrecked property. Birth control NGO's perform mass sterilizations in poor countries, funded by prosperous state governments in a bid to stem immigration. NGO's obtain slaves in Sudan hence encouraging the practice of slave hunting throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Other NGO's earnestly collaborate with 'rebel' armies - an euphemism for terrorists. NGO's lack a synoptic view and their work often undermines efforts by international organizations such as the UNHCR and by authorities. Poorly-paid local officials have to contend with crumbling finances since the resources are diverted to rich retirees doing the same job for a multiple of the fee and with endless hubris. This is simply not conducive to happy co-existence between indigenous governments and foreign do-gooders. Often NGO's be seemingly an ingenious trick to resolve Western unemployment at the trouble of down-trodden locals. This can be a misperception driven by jealousy and avarice. However it remains powerful enough to foster cynicism and worse. NGO's are o-n the verge of provoking a ruinous backlash against them in their places of destination. That might be a waste. Some of them are doing indispensable work. Only if these were an early more sensitive and somewhat less ostentatious. But then they would maybe not be NGO's, would they? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interview granted to Revista Terra, Brazil, September 2005 Q. NGOs are developing quickly in Bra-zil because of the politicians and governmental organizations experience after decades of corruption, elitism etc. The teenagers feel they can do something concrete as activists in a NGOs performing. Is not a positive thing? What kind of hazards someone ought to be aware before hiring himself as an advocate of a NGO? A. One must plainly distinguish between NGOs in the sated, rich, developed West - and (the much more numerous) NGOs in the developing and less-developed countries. European NGOs will be the heirs to the Victorian tradition of 'White Man's Burden.' They are missionary and charity-orientated. They are made to spread both aid (food, medicines, contraceptives, etc.) and Western values. They closely collaborate with institutions and Western governments against institutions and local governments. They are strong, abundant, and care less about the welfare of the local population than about 'general' axioms of ethical conduct. Their counter-parts in less developed and in devel-oping countries serve as substitutes to unsuccessful or dysfunctional state institutions and services. They are rarely concerned with the furthering of any schedule and more preoccupied with the well-being of their constituents, the folks. Q. Why do you think many NGO activists are narcissists and not altruists? What are the symptoms you establish on them? A. In both types of organizations - Western NGOs and NGOs elsewhere - there is a great deal of corruption and waste, double-dealing, self-interested marketing, and, sometimes inevitably, collusion with unsavory aspects of society. Both agencies entice as venues of upward social mobility and self-enrichment narcissistic opportunists who regards NGOs. Many NGOs serve as sinecures, 'effort sinks', or 'work agencies' - they offer work to individuals who, otherwise, are unemployable. Some NGOs are involved in political networks of patronage, nepotism, and cronyism. Narcissists are interested in power, money, and glamour. NGOs offer all three. The officials of many NGOs pull excessive earnings (in comparison with the average wage where in fact the NGO operates) and enjoy a panoply of work-related rewards. Some NGOs use lots of political influence and hold power on the lives of an incredible number of aid recipients. NGOs and their employees are, therefore, frequently in the limelight and many NGO activists have become frequent visitors and minor superstars in talk shows and such. Even critics of NGOs are often interviewed by the media (laughing). Eventually, a minority of NGO officials and employees are merely corrupt. They collude with venal officials to enrich them-selves. For instance during the Kosovo crisis in 1999, NGO personnel offered in the open market food, blankets, and medical supplies intended for the refugees. Q. How do one choose between good and bad NGOs? A. There are a few simple tests 1. What part of the NGO's budget is spent on salaries and perks for your NGO's officers and employees? The less the greater. 2. Which area of the budget is spent on furthering the aims of the NGO and on implementing its promulgated plans? The more the better. 3. What percentage of the NGOs resources is allocated to advertising and public relations? The less the better. 4. What area of the budget is contributed by governments, directly or indirectly? The less the better. 5. What do the supposed recipients of the NGO's activities think of the NGO? When the NGO is resented, feared, and hated by the local denizens, then some thing is wrong 6. Exactly how many of the NGO's agents are in the field, catering to the requirements of the NGO's ostensible constituents? The more the greater. 7. Does the NGO own or run commercial enterprises? If it does, it's a corrupt and compromised NGO involved in conflicts of interest. Q. The way you explain, many NGO happen to be politically significant and better than many authorities. What sort of dangers this elicits? Do you think they are a pest that want control? What kind of control would that be? A. The voluntary sector is now a cancerous phenomenon. NGOs interfere in domestic politics and just take sides in election campaigns. They affect local economies to the detriment of the impoverished populace. They demand alien spiritual or Western values. In case you require to dig up more about süperbahis tavla, there are heaps of online resources you might pursue. They justify military interventions. They preserve industrial interests which take on local manufacturers. They provoke unrest in several a location. And it is a partial list. The difficulty is that, in the place of many authorities in the world, NGOs are authoritarian. They are not selected institutions. They can't be voted down. The folks have no power over them. Many NGOs are tellingly and ominously secretive about their activities and finances. Light disinfects. The clear answer is to drive NGOs to become both accountable and democratic. All nations and international organizations (like the UN) must pass laws and sign international conventions to regulate the formation and operation of NGOs. NGOs should be forced to democratize. Elections should be introduced on every level. All NGOs must hold 'annual stakeholder meetings' and include in these events representatives of the target populations of the NGOs. NGO funds should be made completely clear and publicly accessible. New accounting standards should be developed and introduced to cope with the existing pecuniary detailed and opacity double-speak of NGOs. Q. It appears that many values maintained by NGO are usually modern and Western. What type of problems this creates in more conventional and culturally different countries? A. Big issues. The belief that the West has the monopoly on moral values is undisguised ethnic chauvinism. This arrogance is the 21st century equivalent of the colonialism and racism of-the 19th and 20th century. Local communities around the world resent this imposition and haughty presumption bitterly. As you said, NGOs are proponents of modern Western values - democracy, women's lib, human rights, civil rights, the defense of minorities, independence, equality. Perhaps not everyone sees this liberal selection tasty. The introduction of NGOs usually provokes social polarization and cultural situations..