Article to read: http://www.tadias.com/2009/01/07/ethiopian-parliament-approves-law-criminalizing-many-ngo-activities/
Presentation by: Iran and Andra
Tags: Class Topics
Article to read: http://www.tadias.com/2009/01/07/ethiopian-parliament-approves-law-criminalizing-many-ngo-activities/
Presentation by: Iran and Andra
Tags: Class Topics
October 6, 2009 at 11:33 pm |
Here are the concluding statements from class (I hope they make sense!):
Andra – the issue needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; the idea of something like the CSO law is important, and all countries (developed, developing, whatever!) need something like the CSO law. The people also need to decide on what devlopment projects are valuable for their own state. The idea of international standards for development projects also needs to be implemented.
Iran – CSO law shows how dependency can come in other forms, the law is good; the Agency is necessary because country needs the control in its own borders; but we don’t know much information about the CSO law and we don’t know how this will play out; the 10% cut-off is too low; foreign funding is problematic.
Kyla – really confused – more confused than before; rights are valuable, even if they might be ‘our’ values; the CSO law was a good ex to look at the issue at hand, also good was the Native ex
Tanja – brings us to the question of what can we control? Accountability is important.
Anna – more research on Ethiopia, projects that are doing valuable work are good, if gov’t is ‘good’ then its sovereignty should be protected
Will – govt, NGOs, individuals we need to get more educated on Ethiopia before a decision
Lucinda – determine the agency and follow a different criteria
Angela – NGOs and the different parts of the rights aren’t directly infringing on sovereignty. Debt and aid is an infringement of sovereignty.
Stephanie Ngo – if I were rep an NGO, what can you do about the issues that I’m dealing with? How can you fund this? Do you need international support?
Midori – sovereignty as a term has issues. When a country calls on its sovereignty, it’s important and shouldn’t be tampered with.
Samantha – more confused; the bill is problematic,
Eric – the concept is good, but the details of the law are bad. If the gov’t did it, then there wouldn’t be anything wrong with the proclamation. Foreign Funding isn’t bad, but let’s ban the ones that aren’t having a positive impact
Alice – foreign funding does influence the gov’t in the home country
Stephanie Parent – confused about the motivations of the bill, an issue of preserving the power than to benefit the people of Ethiopia and their democratic powers.
October 8, 2009 at 3:28 am |
Hey guys!
Just to clarify on my last point:
I was trying to look at the issue from the government’s perspective. What I was trying to say was that if a government is responsible and has policies (with regards to equality, women’s rights, child protection, economic growth, etc, etc.) that are positive for the country and it sees some of the NGOs that are heavily financed by foreign countries to be a threat to the country’s sovereignty, then I think the government should be permitted to regulate NGOs. (sorry, run-on!). This is especially important for the areas that are listed in the policy because they are very political and could potentially be influenced by NGOs.
So, I do see the issue from the government’s point of view. I just don’t agree/support the way how they target specific areas (such as human rights, democracy, rights for children and the disabled, etc.).
=S
October 11, 2009 at 7:05 am |
My thoughts on this law:
Firstly, studying this law made me realize the complexity of dependency. The first thing that came to my mind when I heard dependency was the World Bank, IMF, the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), debts, and privatization. Now I see it more clearly that dependency can occur in a variety of ways. I think the case of Ethiopia is an excellent example of the different forms of dependency.
Secondly, I support the law. Ethiopia’s dependency on foreign aid is not questionable. A quote from Time Magazine reads: “Ethiopian farmers can’t compete with free food, so they stop trying. Over time, there’s a loss of key skills, and a country that doesn’t have to feed itself becomes a country that can’t (Perry 2008).” As you see, the dependency is ruining the country’s agriculture which is where most of Ethiopia’s income comes from. For how much longer can we rely on aid? Isn’t it finally time for African countries to stand up on their own feet? Aid isn’t working so well anymore. NGOs have been working in Ethiopia for decades but the famine keeps on returning. It’s time for other solutions to come into effect. Therefore, it is important for any country, esp. those that heavily depend on aid, such as Ethiopia to have control over the performance of organizations operating within their borders. Many countries have similar laws. I support the establishment of an Agency that will oversee CSOs’ operations.
In addition, I believe that political work needs to be done by Ethiopians and supported by mostly Ethiopian funding. For instance, I oppose to the fact that 99% of the funding for Ethiopian Women Lawyers’ Association (EWLA) comes from abroad. When such large sums of funding comes from abroad it is quite easy for foreign agendas to be advocated in the country. Large foreign funding for political and human rights organizations are problematic. Therefore, in this sense, I support the point of view of Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister when he says that this law aims to promote democracy in the country.
All of this being said, I criticize the law as well. In my opinion, 10% is too strict. How are organizations supposed to generate internal funding when famine and poverty do not leave the country alone? I know that as part of this law the government will provide support to organizations to generate internal sustainable funding, but what are those solutions? And how effective will they be? Is there even enough funding in the country?
I also question some of the motivations of the government behind establishing this law. How are the human rights organizations going to continue their operations now? Isn’t this law a way to shut down their work and to silence criticism of the government? Mr. Zenawi, isn’t this law a threat to your country’s democracy then?
Lastly, let’s keep in mind that we don’t know enough about this law. We don’t know how it is going to play out and we don’t know how the Agency will act. Perhaps it’s good to wait and see. But then again, at what cost?
October 13, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
I guess the other responses haven’t show up on the website either, but here is my two sense after taking a week to think about it….
One of the real issues that I see within all of us this- is really the conflict between our (by our, I mean Western/North America) “universalism” of human rights- our belief that regardless of where you live in the world you have right to the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (Preamble to UN Declaration of Human Rights) and the principle of national sovereignty.
I think, that at the time of the document (1948), the UNDHR was an international response to the atrocities of Hitler during World War II. That, by creating the document, it was an resolution on behalf on an international community united in victory against the Nazi’s. Now, the world, interests, and politics are so fragmented that it seems impossible to have a similar response without a truly global catastrophe- which Ethopia’s decision really isn’t.
October 13, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
This clarifies some of my confusion at the end of last class…
Issues related to sovereignty and aid are complex – on one hand, aid builds dependency and operates within a framework of complex (and often unequal) power relations; on the other, it is a vital source of income and funding for many humanitarian projects. The Ethiopian case is particularly problematic, as the issues behind the CSO Laws go beyond sovereignty and autonomy. While limiting foreign aid could be seen as an effective means of controlling foreign actors within a country’s borders, the degree to which the Ethiopian Government is seeking to restrict outside funding is extreme. Furthermore, the particular areas that are being limited – particularly those of gender equality and human rights – are further indicators that there may more at stake for the Ethiopian Government than a desire for increased sovereignty within a democratic sphere. I would argue that Ethiopia is not a true democracy. It may fit definitions of a shallow democracy – for example, elections do take place, though they may not be fair, free, or open – however, limited opposition and a low level of participation in civil society indicate that it is not truly democratic. Ethiopia lives up to the electoral fallacy of democracy, and as such I find the CSO laws to reflect the Government’s desire to have increased control over the country by weakening the system of cheques and balances, both externally from international actors, and internally from civil society organizations. This case proves that with regards to issues of sovereignty, there is often more at play than may first meet the eye.
October 18, 2009 at 3:02 am |
I meant to post this forever ago … in fact i was about to click “submit comment” and then UBC internet crashed. It was lovely. Anyways:
I think that the sovereignty vs foreign aid is the most difficult development debate. For me it boils down to two central issues that somehow need to be reconciled: 1) There is undeniable human suffering in this world that is intentionally caused by corrupt and evil governments (Hitler, Stalin, Charles Taylor in Liberia, Mobutu in the Zaire (now the DR Congo), Saddam Hussein in Iraq – the list goes on). If we acknowledge fundamental human rights then we acknowledge fundamental human values – the pain and loss of dignity caused by these psychopaths naturally elicits outrage and a demand to stop their activities. On a more toned down scale, there are people who have less say than we (westerns) have in how their government uses their resources, promotes their rights and spends their money. This is not fair.
2) Who are we to decide what is a ‘good’ or ‘just’ government? Especially if we are relying on secondary and third sources to form this opinion. Furthermore, how are we to decide what action is appropriate to address a perceived problem?
For me it starts by acknowledging your own capabilities. Do we understand a situation well enough (note this will never be fully or even adequately) to help – will our aid do more harm then good? Are there other resources to use? Can we push through reforms within our own boarders first (corporate social accountability, untying aid), before going abroad?
I think its about first acknowledging that just because you want to do good you don’t necessarily know how to do good nor are you owed acceptance or thanks because of this. Make the cornerstone of any attempts to address flagrant human rights abuses and hopefully you will affect change or at least do no harm.
October 20, 2009 at 4:21 am |
I think my comment was a bit misconstrued. This is what I meant:
Sovereignty should never be so far from our reach that we consider it ‘un-tamperable’. As a human construct, as something that we imagined and brought to life by believing in it, sovereignty should not be the excuse used by countries to do as they please. Should the international community be silenced from daring to speak of human rights by the big hush word ‘sovereignty’? Does it make sense that something so artificial has so much power over people’s lives?
It seems to me that sovereignty is used by countries as the ultimate cop-out from responsibility and scrutiny. In the name of sovereignty countries can
There is also, at least to me, a hierarchy in sovereignty, wherein the sovereignty of the most powerful and influential countries is almost impenetrable, and the sovereignty of less influential and poorer countries is more permeable.
All of this points to the negative side of sovereignty. Countries, borders, and sovereignty are useful but they also separate people and create false boundaries between them. This makes people forget that the only difference between them and everyone else is an imaginary line drawn by men hundreds of years ago. This makes people forget the humanity within every person, ignoring the commonalities and emphasizing the difference. It makes people forget the obligations they have to help others and forges an excuse to not interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign states (because if they do then someone else might interfere with theirs).
I can understand why the Ethiopian government would want to enforce it’s sovereignty and take more control over the foreign aid within its borders. NGOs must also take responsibility for their actions and must be held accountable. However, I think the manner in which the Ethiopian government singled out certain organizations and left others untouched is a mark of its
failure to produce fair, general laws, and thus a reflection of the quality of its democracy.
The point is that we should interfere in each others’ affai
October 20, 2009 at 4:27 am |
Um, for some reason my comment submitted before I finished it. There are at least two incomplete sentences. I’ll finish the last one.
The point is that we should interfere in each others’ affairs sometimes because we have an obligation and responsibility towards other people’s welfare no matter where they live.
November 23, 2009 at 9:05 am |
It’s been a while since this discussion but after re-reading the article and the comments I’d like to take a stand here and say that I wholeheartedly disagree with this bill. I recognize the importance of sovereignty, but there are several reasons why this particular bill is not justifiable. The exceedingly high ratio of domestic to foreign funding combined with the government singling out broad categories of NGOs rather than specific organizations clearly demonstrates that ulterior motives are at play here.
If the issue is to stop any foreign donors from imposing their agenda, a better way to approach this would be to require NGOs to obtain their funding from a variety of sources, so no one person or group dominates (although there are definitely loopholes that would need to be addressed here). Or the government could do a case-by-case study of the NGOs to determine whether their impact is in accordance with Ethiopian values or whatever.
I want to address Iran’s argument here. Just so anyone reading this doesn’t have to scroll back up I’ll copy-paste the main points here:
“Ethiopia’s dependency on foreign aid is not questionable. A quote from Time Magazine reads: “Ethiopian farmers can’t compete with free food, so they stop trying. Over time, there’s a loss of key skills, and a country that doesn’t have to feed itself becomes a country that can’t.” …Therefore, it is important for any country, esp. those that heavily depend on aid, such as Ethiopia to have control over the performance of organizations operating within their borders.” (scroll up for the full thing, I don’t want to distort it by leaving stuff out)
While I recognize that Ethiopia’s dependency on foreign aid has terrible consequences, this kind of food aid does not really apply to the organizations being targeted with this bill. The categories mentioned in the article were ethnic, gender & religious equality, human rights, democracy, conflict resolution, rights of children and the disabled, and the promotion of the efficiency of the justice and law enforcement services. Food aid and thus food dependency are not being banned, only organizations that promote a healthy civil society – and create opportunities for dissent if the government is doing a crappy job.
November 23, 2009 at 9:14 am |
Also, I agree with Angela’s point from class that NGOs don’t infringe upon state sovereignty to the same extent that foreign aid (i.e. food aid from governments) and debt do. I would have liked to have seen some discussion on the role of the IMF and World Bank (structural adjustment reforms, economic hitmen, etc) in creating dependence and infringing on state sovereignty. Kind of a whole new topic though…
November 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
Eric, I’m going to respectfully disagree. I think that NGOs, and advocacy groups for that matter, do have a real impact on sovereignty, but they have an acknowledged moral high ground that enables them to escape criticism. I’d like to offer two examples from some of my favourite blogs:
The first one, from Bill Easterly’s Aid Watch Blog, http://aidwatchers.com/2009/06/should-starving-people-be-tourist-attractions/ talks about how the ‘marketing one of Jeff Sachs’ Millennium Villages (MVs) as a vacation destination and quoted from the brochure “Please do not give anything to the villagers — no sweets.”’ Clearly the ethical implications are huge – can you say strengthening the dichotomy and power relationships between citizens of the north/south?
Second, I draw your attention to a wronging rights blog http://wrongingrights.blogspot.com/2009/02/hats-and-hard-questions.html . This addresses the recent backlash to the Save Darfur coalition, alleging, amongst other things, that the coalitions goals are unrealistic and could possibly provoke retaliatory government violence against civilians.
I think that the potential negative impacts that NGOs’ (advocacy groups and charities) efforts have on the ground is unrecognized. Just because you want to do good, you are not necessarily equipped with the tools to do good. I think that society needs to recognize this and demand a more critical and effective charity and advocacy movement.
December 1, 2009 at 8:27 am |
I think that the action Ethiopia has taken to regulate the forms of foreign aid that are entering its country and affecting its people are symbolically powerful. For once a country from the global South are actively responding to the interventions of global North countries under the guise of “aid” or “charity”. Just as Iran stated, the dependency that these projects have created are undeniable. More than that, development projects often operate under the justification of raising standards of living for people in poverty, but initiatives such as SAP’s merely fulfill global North agendas, which in that case was to open up foreign markets and increase international trade opportunities for American capitalists.
I state that the bill is merely powerful in theory because I think the practical outlines of its policies do not seem to be geared towards foreign aid regulation so much as preventing international critique of its policies regarding human rights issues. It is interesting to note that while Iran used the example of food aid as a cause for dependency, the bill does not address issues of economic or material aid- issues that would presumably cause the greatest issue of dependency.
December 1, 2009 at 8:58 am |
While I agree that not all NGOs do good, I would argue that (most) NGOs exist in Ethiopia because there is a need. Ethiopia’s legal system could not provide equal and just services to women, and thus EWLA found its mandate – these two sides can co-exist – as long as no one has anything to hide, of course.
While organizations like EWLA may technically infringe on sovereignty, they may be necessary as long as this sovereignty observed by the government is not shared equally with its people.
I think that the concept of this legislation is headed in the right direction – countries should have some control over who/what operates within their borders – but the implementation is wrong. Instead of tackling issues like foreign influences in the education system, conditional loans, or the effects of the food aid it receives, it has chosen to address advocacy on human rights issues, and this to me is highly suspicious. Ethiopia is a signatory of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (as are many who violate them), so to me the argument that foreign influence is affecting their value system is not entirely plausible. When you factor in Ethiopia’s authoritarian political record, this case still does not seem genuine: while it is about sovereignty in the true respects of the word, I don’t feel it’s about an honest interest for sovereignty from foreign influences in its development. Each year, Ethiopia eagerly accepts more concessional loans, and direct aid from China
December 1, 2009 at 9:23 am |
Just adding to what Tanja mentioned before regarding having good intentions: I think that good intentions are never enough. Certainly, having good intentions is needed and is a good start, but in no way it ensures that the developer will do good and cause no harm. At times it is incredibly difficult to prevent harm, and therefore and awareness of your potential in causing harm is important. An example that comes to mind is the distribution of food/medical aid in conflict zones. This happens often. Food/medical supplies are stolen by rebel groups. The rebels either use the stuff for themselves or sell/trade it. It benefits them. So as an NGO distributing the food/medical care, do you continue giving food aid with the knowledge that your work contributes to the violence and suffering of the civilians, b/c you are still helping some people? Or do you pull out thinking that you are causing harm and your contribution to the violence is unethical? Tough case, I think. But I guess this also goes back to how much harm is enough harm?
I also wanted to add the following quote. Whenever I hear people talking about good intentions I remember this one:
“If I knew someone was coming over with the expressed intention of doing good, I would flee.”
-Henry David Thoreau
It’s one of my favourite quotes.
December 1, 2009 at 9:27 am |
While I agree that not all NGOs do good, I would argue that (most) NGOs exist in Ethiopia because there is a need. Ethiopia’s legal system could not provide equal and just services to women, and thus EWLA found its mandate – these two sides can co-exist – as long as no one has anything to hide, of course.
While organizations like EWLA may technically infringe on sovereignty, they may be necessary as long as this sovereignty observed by the government is not shared equally with its people.
I think that the concept of this legislation is headed in the right direction – countries should have some control over who/what operates within their borders – but the implementation is wrong. Instead of tackling issues like foreign influences in the education system, conditional loans, or the effects of the food aid it receives, it has chosen to address advocacy on human rights issues, and this to me is highly suspicious. Ethiopia is a signatory of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (as are many who violate them), so to me the argument that foreign influence is affecting their value system is not entirely plausible. When you factor in Ethiopia’s authoritarian political record, this case still does not seem genuine: while it is about sovereignty in the true respects of the word, I don’t feel it’s about an honest interest for sovereignty from foreign influences in its development. Each year, Ethiopia eagerly accepts more concessional loans, and direct aid from China.
December 2, 2009 at 8:35 am |
With regards to NGOs and sovereignty, I have to agree with Tanja. I think any foreign body (whether it is NGOs, foreign aid, etc. etc.) would have some effect on sovereignty.
Another article to look at:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/4/5/6/p74560_index.html
All in all, I’m very confused and on the fence with regards to foreign aid. There are many detrimental and beneficial effects. And I think in the long term, foreign aid is not sustainable and we should focus our attention to more trade orientated policies and changes that will aid the development of developing countries.
December 4, 2009 at 5:51 am |
I enjoyed Sam’s comment about how Ethiopia’s stance with this CSO law is “symbolic.” Ethiopia’s position is symbolic, and the fact is that this law was approved in the House. (Were the votes bought?) Ethiopia is saying that they might not want the same social values that we want as a ‘western’ nation. There are significant implications to this statement as Ethiopia has signed on to the AU and the UN, both of which have international standards for human rights, thus noting that it stands with the point of view of the AU and the UN. Do we have a problem with this bill because it doesn’t stand with the international rights that it adheres to with its membership in the UN? Or do we have issues with this bill that it does not stand with standards that we, ‘westerners,’ believe as most noteworthy?
As I try to put aside my cultural lens, I would say that I dislike this bill because it does not adhere to international human rights standards to which Ethiopia agrees by staying with the UN and the UA. The fact is that the world is ruled by ‘westerners’ and we make the rules. What should our actions entail when views change?
Let us look at genital mutilation as an example – it’s controversial enough. In our society, we view female genital mutilation as wrong, whilst we think nothing of male genital mutilation. In some cultures, female genital mutilation is viewed as a passage into adulthood and it is performed by the women in those communities. Some women argue that some types of genital mutilation increases female arousal during intercourse and it’s something that they want to do. By international standards, it’s still not alright.
So, taking this into account of the CSO law. Genital mutilation is tied to women’s rights and it boils down to whether women want to do it or not. So if organizations are working on women’s rights in Ethiopia, the CSO law would curtail those that are international by their standards as these international organizations (IOs) are pushing their own perspectives on these Ethiopian women. Who’s right in this situation? Can ‘westerners’ still argue that it violates the international human rights, which Ethiopia agreed to by signing on to the UN?
December 4, 2009 at 6:31 am |
I apologize to the three people who have already read my paper, but I wanted to try and discuss the ethics behind how we can react (as Westerners) to Ethiopia’s Bill if we discuss ethical reasoning as the ability to think “intellectually”
a) Definition 1: We can accept “intellectualism” as based on an “understanding of the logical reasoning structure, language, facts, and perspective.”(Paul and Elder, 2005, Analytic Table of Contents). Under this definition there can be grounds for an argument that Ethiopia’s new civil society law is unethical, because it is a product of unintelligent thinking based on a lack of an understanding of fact, perspective, and language of basic human rights and freedoms. -> Essentially what many of you are arguing
b) Definition 2: This definition suggests that an individual’s action can be deemed intellectually ethical as long as it is self-understood and can be self-rationalized by the actor. Given this definition of “intellectual” and applying it to an example from class, we would see Western governments being left with little justification to ethically oppose acts of sovereignty such as Ethiopia’s recent civil society law. This is because the Socrates definition would force us to rationalize the action as an act of “sovereign” understanding, rather than an “unintelligent” act.
Furthermore I’d like to leave you with another question.. Andra, you discussed how Ethiopia is signed on to the UN, and that one of our problems may be that the new law violates their commitment to international human rights.
With that being said, post 9-11, the US has admittingly broken many international conventions in order for it to fight its War on Terror. Why do we become so critical when Ethiopia enacts a bill, but when the US government increased their ability to invade individual privacy very few of us disagreed. Sometimes, I feel we assume too quickly that Ethiopia = corrupt government = act of oppression when these acts occur to us at home, and we somehow self-justify it.
December 4, 2009 at 9:47 pm |
Hmmm. So there are a lot of different ideas regarding this bill that have been expressed thus far, and the class seems pretty evenly divided. I think that you can justify both sides of the argument fairly well, and Will and Tanja provided some intelligent examples to demonstrate how NGOs are not necessarily the holy grail of foreign aid that they claim to be. That being said, and I recognize that I inherently possess that Western bias we are all so conscious of, I don’t think that this bill has been passed out of concern for the people of Ethiopia in the attempt to improve their lives. At all. I’m not saying that I believe NGOs are always acting completely selflessly, but there are a lot of really important organizations that will be prevented from doing good work in the country as a result of this bill. If the government really wanted to enact legislation that would benefit the people the most, they would not have included the 10% stipulation. It is highly unlikely that most NGOs will be able to raise 90% of their funding from inside the country, nor will they be able to replace the services provided by the international organizations that are unable to survive. The fact that a member of the opposition party was “arrested and jailed for life” does not really bode well for the Ethiopian government’s ability to protect the rights and freedoms of its own citizens. In my opinion, this bill is a means of eliminating international ‘watchdog’ agencies who may expose human rights violations or attempt to empower the masses to challenge the actions of the government. I find it difficult to believe in the legitimacy of a government whereby, “the ruling party and its affiliates won more than 99 percent of all constituencies, and the vast majority of seats were uncontested” (http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79222).
December 4, 2009 at 10:58 pm |
The paper and debate in class on the “Proclamation for the Registration and Regulation of Charities and Society in Ethiopia” was incredibly thought-provoking and controversial. Although I can comprehend the reason why a country like Ethiopia would prefer to have sovereignty over being influenced by the Western world, I think the figure that up to a maximum of 10% of an organization’s funding can come from foreign aid is unrealistic and suspicious. This becomes especially suspicious when this new law specifically prevents groups from promoting human right and democracy, ethnic gender and reiligious equality, democracy, and conflict resolution. Although this is deemed an “internal issue” by Zenani’s party rather than a foreign-based issue, it makes an outsider question what are the government’s intentions? Looking at the state of Ethiopia, a struggling developing country where women, who can help bring this country out of poverty, are not given a voice or an opportunity to be leaders in their society, one should question Zenani on what he is doing to help these women. Historically, women in this country may have not been given the opportunity to right to have a voice in society, but in the dawn of this new era where investing in women and integrating women into the global market is predominant, it is incredibly important that these women in Ethiopia are given the same opportunity (given that these women would like this as well). Therefore, the bigger question becomes – who watches when the government violates human rights?