By Mark Sommer and - -
BERKELEY, Sep 1 2003 (IPS)

The Bush administration and its unelected advisers at the American Enterprise Institute have launched a concerted attack on international NGOs for actions they say are subverting national sovereignty, weakening corporate power, and thwarting US freedom of action in global affairs, writes Mark Sommer directs the US-based Mainstream Media Project and hosts an award-winning syndicated radio programme, \’\’A World of Possibilities\’\’. For a regime whose own legitimacy stands starkly in question after what many Americans view as a stolen election and whose hidden sources of power in government agencies and corporate boardrooms are all unelected and inaccessible to the broader public, the charge that NGOs represent \’\’the growing power of an unelected few\’\’ is supremely ironic. Indeed, Sommer writes in this analysis for IPS, the unaccountability and unchecked power of state and corporate elites are precisely what have spawned the antiglobalisation movements of recent years. Yet having challenged the legitimacy of the Bush administration and its corporate sponsors, NGOs do indeed need to address the challenge of establishing their own legitimacy as representatives of a broader public.

The Bush administration and its unelected advisers at the American Enterprise Institute have launched a new front in the faltering war on terror: a concerted attack on international nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) for actions they say are subverting national sovereignty, weakening corporate power, and thwarting US freedom of action in global affairs.

This public effort to discredit NGOs takes the form of a new project, NGO Watch, and an associated website (www.ngowatch.org), which seek to expose the funding, operations, and agendas of international NGOs. Critics express particular concern about growing cooperation between some corporations and citizens’ groups as major firms like MacDonald’s and Starbucks, under threat of boycotts, negotiate with them to adopt greener policies.

They are equally suspicious of US foreign aid funnelled through NGO groups like Oxfam and CARE, whose relief work they endorse but whose general thrust they see as inimical to US interests. USAID, the foreign aid arm of the US government, is increasingly turning from NGOs to the private sector to fulfil its service contracts.

Coming as it does from Beltway thinktanks with unrivalled access to the Oval Office, this orchestrated assault on NGO influence is being viewed with serious concern by the targeted organisations. While NGOs have proliferated worldwide over the past few decades, the majority are underfunded, half-volunteer affairs with limited coordination between organisations and little sense of how to project their messages to a wider world.

Word that the world’s most powerful elite is feeling threatened by disparate legions of global activists can be interpreted as an unwitting testament to a power and influence these movements don’t even yet recognise in themselves.

But for a regime whose own legitimacy stands starkly in question after what many Americans view as a stolen election and whose hidden sources of power in government agencies and corporate boardrooms are all unelected and inaccessible to the broader public, the charge that NGOs represent ”the growing power of an unelected few” is supremely ironic. Indeed, the unaccountability and unchecked power of state and corporate elites are precisely what have spawned the antiglobalisation movements of recent years.

Yet having challenged the legitimacy of the Bush administration and its corporate sponsors, NGOs do indeed need to address the challenge of establishing their own legitimacy as representatives of a broader public. NGOs have generally appointed themselves to these positions of citizen leadership. Motivated by a commitment to a cause, they feel a personal calling to work on its behalf. It’s an admirable impulse, but it’s hard to claim that in so doing they represent the whole society or all living creatures, as they often do, since neither asked them to do so.

Withdrawing one’s allegiance to authority one considers illegitimate is an effective strategy for de-legitimising power, and in some ways the public’s most potent source of leverage over those in power. But it is only half a strategy. Forging common cause with others to enact the changes we seek completes the circle, affirming our capacity to govern ourselves.

Even the best governments cannot govern alone. The greatest gift citizen movements have brought to the democratic process has been their capacity to lead from outside and below by taking personal responsibility for enacting changes in the world that the state and private sector are both incapable of or unwilling to make. They have earned considerable legitimacy on the basis of their commitment to values that a broader public can embrace.

Indeed, according to surveys commissioned by the corporate sector, NGOs enjoy a higher level of credibility today than either governments or corporations. But they will only withstand concerted efforts to discredit their legitimacy if they respond to these assaults with a strategy that answers some aspects of their critique while holding firm on first principles.

What the Bush administration and its allies may find most threatening about NGO influence is that their activities are no longer confined to protest but have begun to take the form of negotiation and limited cooperation with corporations and governments they seek to nudge towards more sustainable policies. The more polarised factions on both sides of this divide fear dilution of their unity in what they see as complicity with the enemy. There is always that danger, but it may also be the only constructive outcome of what could otherwise become a fruitless war of attrition.

Even as critics of NGOs question their legitimacy, the decisions by major corporations and global institutions to negotiate with them are a clear acknowledgment that NGOs are now viewed as powerful and legitimate political players. Constructive engagement with eyes wide open may be the most effective means for NGOs to disarm their opponents and achieve outcomes that benefit both the cooperating corporations and governments and the larger society they claim to serve. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: