Leave U.S. financial aid for NGOs alone

Leave U.S. financial aid for NGOs alone

Concerns have been raised that U.S. aid for non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) might have been used to disrupt stability in
Indonesia. Kastorius Sinaga, a social sciences lecturer at the
University of Indonesia, discusses the issue.

Question: Is it possible for NGOs to use foreign aid to
finance their antigovernment activities?

Sinaga: No. Even though some U.S. aid for Indonesian NGOs is
allocated for democratization programs, it cannot be used to
finance political parties, demonstrations, campaigns for getting
House of Representatives seats or other political activities
because there is a gentlemen's agreement that says such aid is to
be used only for nonpartisan and nonprofit-generating activities.

Q: How much U.S. aid is allocated for democratization programs?

S: The cumulative U.S. aid for Indonesian NGOs from 1995 to 1997
was US$17 million. Out of that, 40 percent went for health and
population programs, 40 percent for environmental concerns and
the rest for civil society programs.

Q: What about the allegation that part of the U.S. aid was used
to finance activities to topple President Soeharto?

S: There is no evidence to support the allegation. Soeharto was
"toppled" by Indonesian people, including students, due to his
own failure to uphold democracy in the country, not by NGOs.

Q: What activities can be categorized as democratization
programs?

S: The dissemination of thoughts to introduce concepts of
democracy in modern countries through seminars and discussions,
capacity building on the monitoring of human rights violations
through training, knowledge transfer from big to small
organizations and the publication of books.

Q: Do donors dictate the activities of the NGOs?

S: No. NGOs usually propose their programs and donors evaluate
whether or not they are suitable for funding. The objectives and
targets of the programs are determined by the NGOs.

Q: Do donors monitor the implementation of programs?

S: Yes. NGOs are required to make progress reports to their
donors. They are also held accountable for the use of the funds,
and their financial reports are audited by public accountants.

Q: Some legislators have written to U.S. President Bill Clinton
and Congress demanding they ensure that aid for Indonesia is not
used to interfere in this country's domestic affairs...

S: They do not know the aid flow mechanism. U.S. aid is not
controlled by the State Department but by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) under the supervision of
President Clinton. If the NGOs accepted aid from the U.S.
political sphere, the aid would automatically carry political
interests and that would be political intervention.

The contents of their letters were too insinuative and
scapegoating -- a tradition used by Indonesian authorities to
divert attention from their own shortcomings.

Such letters are too emotional and could affect relations
between Indonesia and the United States, because they triggered
demonstrations marked by the burning of U.S. flags.

The letters, apparently alleging that the United States had
used the aid as a neocolonialist tool to divide the Indonesian
nation, could also worsen Indonesia's image in the international
community and be counter-productive.

Q: Is it justifiable to accuse NGOs of being agents carrying out
the missions of foreign parties?

S: I don't see such an indication. I can't imagine how
intellectuals working for NGOs can be controlled by other people
in other countries. An environmental NGO, Walhi, is a good
example. Walhi accepts part of its funds from the United States
but it has been provoking PT Freeport Indonesia, a U.S. company
operating a copper mine in Irian Jaya.

It is actually the government which has been carrying out the
missions of foreign agencies. The government, for example, has
accepted aid from the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank for economic liberalization.

Q: What are the characteristics of foreign aid for NGOs?

S: In the 1970s, during the Cold War, Western countries were
channeling aid so that the recipient developing countries would
not face poverty which could drive them toward communism.

In the 1980s, when they learned that part of the aid had been
corrupted by government officials in recipient countries, donors
started channeling portions of their aid to NGOs which were
regarded as closer to the target groups and highly committed to
helping the needy.

Because the globalization of industrial activities has caused
new problems related to the environment, land, civil and human
rights as well as clean governance, more aid is allocated for
structural adjustment aimed at improving the quality of life,
both politically and environmentally.

In developing countries with repressive and authoritarian
governments, aid for NGOs is mainly aimed at civil society
development, which includes the improvement of democracy or fair-
power relations between society and the government. (riz)