[Mb-civic] WAR ON TERRORISM Charity Ends at Homeland Security

[Michael Butler]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-newberg3oct03.story

WAR ON TERRORISM

Charity Ends at Homeland Security

The U.S. shouldn't be forcing relief groups to check enemies lists before
they feed starving families.
 By Paula R. Newberg
 Paula R. Newberg is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.

 October 3, 2004

 WASHINGTON ‹ President Bush often proclaims that the best defense against
terrorism is building democracy abroad and advancing the "rights of
mankind." But his administration's implementation of the Patriot Act is
making it increasingly difficult for American relief and human rights
organizations to realize this goal.

 The Patriot Act and subsequent executive orders aim to stem the flow of
funds to terrorist organizations. The government's "voluntary" rules ask
organizations that receive federal money to prove they do not associate with
terrorists. Large humanitarian providers and small nongovernmental
organizations alike are checking their overseas colleagues and funding
recipients against ever-changing lists provided by the U.S. Treasury, the
United Nations, the European Union and, in some instances, the FBI and
Interpol.

 This policy turns the humanitarian principle on its head. Relief groups
have not been in the business of checking political affiliations before they
fed starving families. If they have agreed on little else, conservatives and
liberals have concurred that it is the responsibility of those with
resources to help those without them.

 No longer. Humanitarianism has become a logistical nightmare, and private
organizations are being transformed into police for public policy. Terrorist
financing is already hard to track accurately, and checking the background
of every "Joe Smith" or "Mohammad Khan" is inefficient and potentially
ineffective. Entrusting humanitarian decisions to competing government
intelligence agencies jeopardizes the autonomy that democracy and rights
groups bring to their work. Turning small aid organizations into bank
regulators imposes an inappropriate burden on nonprofits whose jobs lie
elsewhere.

 It's a task that can be done: Lists are being consolidated, compliance
services can be bought, and the government is gradually making its rules
user-friendly. But good business for security firms sets bad precedent for
assistance providers. Current guidelines may be voluntary, but they leave
grant makers and grant receivers liable to legal action if they don't comply
‹ or make mistakes.

 The fundamental problem lies where principle meets practicality. The
complicated work of promoting democracy and protecting rights long has been
accomplished by dealing with people who have been labeled insurgents,
terrorists or enemies of their states. Where would we be if no one had
talked with Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Eduardo Mondlane, Jawaharlal
Nehru, half the Cabinet of Afghanistan and, for that matter, the interim
government of Iraq? What will be Asia's fate if no one confers with Sri
Lanka's Tamil Tigers or Kashmir's mujahedin?

 To build bridges between states and civil society, the U.S. has
historically worked with, and occasionally funded, nongovernmental
organizations, or NGOs, that promote the rule of law overseas. These are
groups that hold everyone's feet to the civil rights fire: They help
refugees secure their rights in central Africa, foster democracy in the
Balkans and teach Afghans and Iraqis to speak truth to power. Certainly, no
one knows the value of prudence in the face of danger more than those who
work where violence often rules.

 Current anti-terrorist laws compromise the independent judgment and
effectiveness of NGOs by turning them into instruments of state policy. This
contradicts their mandates and threatens dynamic cooperation between public
and private sectors. Because some nongovernmental organizations will be
unable to accept these strictures, the thrust of U.S. foreign policy can be
undercut as well. 

 Not only government regulators but also special interest groups have pushed
major private foundations to define terrorism broadly, to cancel grants to
recipients who appear on government lists and to hold private grantees to an
unusually high standard. Congress, which oversees foundations, is
contemplating more hearings on the subject.

 The existence of these lists violates the principles of transparency and
accountability that Americans promote around the world. Those named should
have the right to know they are on the list, to face their accusers and to
prove their innocence. But voluntary guidelines favor secrecy over fairness.

 When fear trumps reason, policy crumbles and principle dies. Writing in the
period between World War II and the depths of the Cold War, Hannah Arendt
cautioned that "although tyranny, because it needs no consent, may
successfully rule over foreign peoples, it can stay in power only if it
destroys first of all the national institutions of its own people."


If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




 Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times