KevinTheOmnivore
Jun 20th, 2003, 03:33 PM Bush to NGOs: Watch Your Mouths
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0620-06.htm
Published on Friday, June 20, 2003 by the Globe and Mail (Canada)
The best NGOs are loyal to their causes, not to countries, and they aren't afraid to blow the whistle on their own governments. Think of Médecins sans frontières standing up to the White House and the European Union over AIDS drug patents, or Human Rights Watch's campaign against the death penalty in the United States. Mr. Natsios himself embraced this independence in his previous job as vice-president of World Vision. During the North Korean famine, he didn't hesitate to blast his own government for withholding food aid, calling the Clinton administration's response "too slow" and its claim that politics was not a factor "total nonsense."
© 2003 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc.
Send a private message to KevinTheOmnivore
Find all posts by KevinTheOmnivore
Jeanette X
Queen of the Beasts
Location: in my burrow
So who are the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies? Whats their agenda?
This is an opposing view I found. I think it's bullshit, but feel free to comment.
http://www.americandaily.com/item/1001
NGOs - The New World Order
By Peter and Helen Evans on 06/20/03
When the dictator, Josef Stalin, first appeared at the brand-new United Nations accompanied by representatives of Soviet "labor unions," other delegates cried foul, asking, "How can there be labor unions in a government-run society?" Stalin explained, "Ah, but these are Non-Governmental Organizations," and the term "NGO" first came into the world's vocabulary.
Nowadays, most of us are likely to think of NGOs as large-scale charitable organizations who work all over the world providing medical care in disaster situations, food to famine sufferers or advocacy for political prisoners. One of the main reasons we even recognize the names of the well-known groups is that they often canvass door to door for donations to support their good works.
However, there is a growing number of less well-known NGOs who don't want to help the hungry feed themselves, rather, their aim is to "eradicate hunger." They don't want to help the poor become wealthy, rather, their goal is to "eliminate poverty." Do these distinctions sound picky? Well, they're not. Helping people means getting down to cases with the real people who are asking for help, finding out what they really need and helping them in ways that enable them to actually provide it for themselves. The much more abstract aims of "eliminating" hunger or poverty typically involve utopian plans that are to be imposed upon people "for their own good."
Consider the "elimination of poverty." This abstract notion breeds another: the "re-distribution of wealth." We see this in the United States when our own Congress takes more and more wealth (in the form of taxes) from those who create it and "re-distributes" it, in the form of entitlements, to those who don't create, or earn, it. This is bad enough when a democratic nation, essentially, "does it to itself" through government policy. The citizens have the option of changing policies through democratic means. But what happens when non-governmental organizations try the same thing?
Consider a recent, international case: the "Kyoto Protocol To The United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change." If you think it's about controlling climate change, read it again. If it were implemented, its real function would be the "re-distribution of wealth" from the industrialized, developed nations to the less-industrialized, less-developed nations who, under Kyoto, will basically be paid not to develop. The important thing to notice though, is the composition of the United Nations. Although seats in the U.N. General Assembly are ostensibly held by 185 "sovereign nations" from around the world, they are outnumbered more than two-to-one by about 500 seat-holding NGO's who can submit papers, call for votes, exercise influence by lobbying 'real' members, etc. The only thing they can't do is vote. An additional 3,000 NGOs hold, not seats, but "consultant" status at the U.N.
Who the heck are all those NGOs and what are they doing at the UN? Well, they are self-appointed groups vying for government-sized budgets and global power, claiming a pseudo-governmental legitimacy while side-stepping the accountability that is the essential requirement of legitimate government. In short, these burgeoning elements of the global New-Left are "hijacking democracy."
This is the title of an analytical synthesis of studies conducted over the last decade by Marguerite Peeters, subtitled "the power shift to the un-elected. "http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14879,filter./pub_detail.asp" Ms Peeters gave a brief overview of the trends indicated by her research at a recent conference at the American Enterprise Institute. She also told those assembled of a tentative meeting scheduled this fall for representatives of major NGO's, the European Union and the Democratic Party of the U.S. Do you know why Bill Clinton has hinted that he'd like to be Secretary-General of the UN? He would be the leader of the largest socialist organization in the world, while his wife... well, you know where her sights are aimed. We should "be afraid; be very afraid" of where this trend is taking us, but only if the fear mobilizes us to change its direction.
We should begin by learning more about the pervasive influence NGO's already have and would like to have on our lives. The American Enterprise Institute "http://www.aei.org" and the Federalist Society "http://www.fed-soc.org/" have collaborated on a new website, NGO Watch "http://www.ngowatch.org" Check it out. It's time for us to use our own influence.
"Recent years have seen an unprecedented growth in the power and influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). While it is true that
many NGOs remain true to grassroots authenticity conjured up in images of protest and sacrifice, it is also true that non-governmental organizations are now serious business. NGO officials and their activities are widely cited in the media and relied upon in congressional testimony; corporations regularly consult with NGOs prior to major investments. Many groups have strayed beyond their original mandates and assumed quasi-governmental roles. Increasingly, non-governmental organizations are not just accredited observers at international organizations, they are full-fledged decision-makers." ~ NGO Watch.org
Send a private message to Jeanette X
Find all posts by Jeanette X
I found this on CommonDreams...
"CommonDreams says jump, Kevin says 'How High'?"
Jun 21st, 2003, 07:17 PM
I see your stuff has diminished in quality since Max bitch slapped you around on two boards.
Common Dreams generally re-publishes items that have already been released. They serve much like a NewsMax or a Drudge Report.
Any opinions on the actual subject matter, Vince? Too complex for you?? It's ok, you can head back over to Newsfilter board and pretend to be a philosope, ok?
ranxer
Location: U$
i really cant see anything but bush wrecking everything he touches.. kinda like a reverse midas .
The best NGOs are loyal to their causes, not to countries, and they aren't afraid to blow the whistle on their own governments.
oh no! not for bushy! that's the WORST NGO's on his list.
i don't understand how bush can justify making overt political statements with a NON-Governmental organization.. but then again i can't think in bush-simpletonese very easily. gah.. bush makes me sick.
yall seen bush's resume? http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003...ume23may03.htm
just add destroying any credibility NGO's might have had to the list.
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Send a private message to ranxer
Visit ranxer's homepage!
Find all posts by ranxer
The_Rorschach
Location: WestPac
"Who the heck are all those NGOs and what are they doing at the UN? Well, they are self-appointed groups vying for government-sized budgets and global power, claiming a pseudo-governmental legitimacy while side-stepping the accountability that is the essential requirement of legitimate government. In short, these burgeoning elements of the global New-Left are "hijacking democracy."
Does this mean we shall be doing away with lobbyists as well now? They are much the same, really, only the scale of influence is different. I thought the NGO's have been fairly obviously and clumsy in their political machinations, and that everyone was well aware of them. By the tone of this article, it would seem this unfortunate author simply rolled over one morning and discovered them. It may be enough for him to grow hysterical over their presence, but they don't impress me much.
Send a private message to The_Rorschach
Visit The_Rorschach's homepage!
Find all posts by The_Rorschach
Shach, you beat make to the punch. The NGO watch argues against not only the existance of all lobbying and all PACS, but argues against it's own existance as well.
This is deeply cynical, and should be seen as an insult by voters. It is hysterical screed and unfortunately just the sort of shit that snowballs.