Committee for Conflict Transformation Support |
CCTS
|
The Ethics of Post War Intervention - dilemmas of conflict transformation practice: Discussion NotesIs our independence compromised?A recurrent theme in the discussions was the dilemma NGOs face when they accept government funding. To what extent are they acting as a 'moral fig leaf' - legitimising government policy - when they accept government money and engage themselves in the processes of 'peacebuilding' and 'democratisation' once the bombs have stopped falling? Will their involvement become associated with 'picking up the pieces' for government, making it easier for government to keep acting in the same way? Will their work necessarily be limited to a government-imposed agenda? When such a large proportion of international NGO work is paid for with government money (85% according to one participant), it is a dilemma that few organisations can avoid. Participants discussed their unease about engaging in government-funded post-conflict work when they had strong feelings about that government's part in the conflict. The recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq present particular difficulties here. As individuals, many peace practitioners struggle to balance the long-term good of what they do with their short-term reservations about being (or being seen to be) part of a pacification and control programme. For one person, loyalty to long-term colleagues in a post-conflict area made it relatively easy to decide to continue working in a place where otherwise involvement might have presented a substantial moral difficulty. Another supported this approach, stressing the importance of long-term loyalty when so much international intervention is of a short-term nature. One participant had found that it was possible to act ethically even in the most difficult of circumstances. Another felt that if NGOs 'kept their hands clean' by refusing Western government funding they would only be able work at the margins and the situation might worsen. Who suffers if you decide not to get involved? The dilemma is particularly acute post-conflict, where there is in general no local government commitment to reconstructing civil society, and no local money to pay for it. In these circumstances, if anything is to be done, it has to be internationally funded, in spite of the difficulties that might present. Another person pointed out that it is only by engaging critically with funders and governments that we can hope to achieve anything. The work of international NGOs is less likely to be perceived as government-led and imposed if it relates strongly to locally expressed needs and is done in collaboration with local groups. It remains true, however, that governments are unlikely to fund action that contradicts their political or economic aspirations, even when that action promotes peace. For example, one participant reported a recent interest in nonviolent action by Palestinian Fatah members that was not followed up because no external funding could be found. And even the presence of international NGOs in post-conflict areas can be used in ways that might compromise their values. Someone recalled an ongoing case where the UK authorities were resisting the application of a traumatised asylum seeker who had fled from a war zone, arguing that, because they had helped to create a trauma treatment programme in the country concerned, the applicant could be sent back and treated there. There was general agreement about the importance of acknowledging the source of funding and of accounting fully, both to the communities in which NGOs are working and to the funders, for how it is being spent. Such openness serves not only to improve NGOs' accountability, it also keeps them honest - removing the temptation to fudge issues of principle in order to avoid the risk of losing money for a good cause. Several participants observed that organisations which accept large amounts of government money seemingly indiscriminately were seen abroad as less accountable and their work was perceived as less valid. Nevertheless, there were several anecdotes of organisations 'using the margins of tolerance' (as one person put it) to take government money and use it for projects that were not strictly what the government intended. For example, two nuns in the Southern states of the USA ran consciousness-raising sessions for female migrant workers from Latin America, but dressed the sessions up as cookery classes, even to the extent of buying cakes for the women to take home.
|