Speakers at a June 11 AEI conference considered the accelerating growth of advocacy-oriented nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in liberal democracies and discussed the potential of those organizations to undermine democratic sovereignty. On the same day, AEI and the Federalist Society launched a new website, NGOWatch.org.

"We have enormous admiration for the voluntary work that [NGOs] do in a whole variety of areas," said Danielle Pletka, AEI's vice president for foreign and defense policy studies. "Nobody here today is interested in knocking down the principle that underlies the work of nongovernmental organizations. [However,] NGOs now have a great deal more power on the world stage-some to the good, some to the bad. It raises the question: Who are they, and what do they do?"

By definition, NGOs should be independent from government, noted David Riggs of the Capital Research Center. However, today 3,000 NGOs, including the National Organization of Women and Greenpeace International, have consultative status with various UN bodies. NGOs are promoting new international arrangements "that are indifferent to the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards our liberties and guarantees our national sovereignty," Riggs said. For example, the General Federation of Iraqi Women, a Ba'ath Party organization, received NGO consultative status in 1999. America opposed the offer of this status by the UN Economic and Social Council (UNESCO), but lost by a vote of fifteen to one.

Mike Nahan of the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, which cosponsored this conference, spoke about capacity-building projects, in which developed countries give money to grassroots NGOs to build democratic and civil societies.

Nahan warned that often these projects do not work in concert with other, market-led development efforts. Capacity-building was meant to contribute to Washington's approach to development, which stresses trade, privatization, and private investment, "but if you read the literature, NGOs do not see it this way. Capacity-building is an alternative to the Washington consensus," he said. NGOs see the market "as chronically failing the poor in developing countries . . . and [they believe] that the economic development that has been pursued in the West for decades is bad for the environment."

Undermining Sovereignty

Roger Bate of International Policy Network acknowledged that some nongovernmental organizations and aid agencies do alleviate problems experienced by developing countries by providing much-needed local services. However, Bate noted, some NGOs have been undermining democratic processes and, at the very least, advocating policies that exacerbate poverty and disease. "NGOs definitely provide benefits in the short run," said Bate. "But I would argue in the long run their influence is nearly always malign, either through their own political acts directly or via aid agencies."

Bate cited recent use of the chemical DDT in South Africa as an instance of "eco-imperialism," where NGO influence caused significant harm. Under pressure from environmental organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996 and switched to an alternative pesticide, but then started using DDT again in 2000 after malaria rates began to climb. "Fortunately for South Africans, their government can fund DDT spraying from their own treasury," Bate said. "[But most African countries rely] very heavily on aid. The Swedish international donor agency claims it can't fund the use of DDT in poor countries because it's illegal in Sweden. If 3 percent of Swedish babies were dying every year, that opinion would change rapidly in Sweden and in Europe."

The argument that West Africans should not use technologies unacceptable to the West is simply "dressing up a callous disregard for human life in a politically correct, egalitarian camouflage," Bate continued.

Bate also cautioned against the increasing suppression of democracy in developing countries: "The medium- and definitely long-term impact of imposing a particular vision of where we need to be going is harmful. [On issues such as] malaria control, genetically modified food, or long-term AIDS policy, I think the effect of these NGOs is particularly damaging."

Kenneth Anderson of the American University Law School drew comparisons between current concerns about terrorism and NGOs: "It seems to me that in the context of the war on terror, [the message must be sent] that the nation-state is back and the democratic sovereign is back not only as a sort of locus of power, but as the ideal to which ordinary people" aspire. Nahan added: "[NGOs are] destroying much of civil society, undermining governments and good governance, and this is holding back developing countries from enjoying the same quality of life that we do. It's backfired."

NGOWatch.org compiles objective data about NGOs and provides analysis of relevant issues, treaties, and international organizations in which NGOs are active.