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)