Latest news with #INGOs
Scoop
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Gaza: Israel Threatens To Ban Major Aid Organizations As Starvation Deepens
Over 100 organisations call for an end to Israel's weaponization of aid Despite claims by Israeli authorities that there is no limit on humanitarian aid entering Gaza, most major international NGOs have been unable to deliver a single truck of lifesaving supplies since 2 March. Instead of clearing the growing backlog of goods, Israeli authorities have rejected requests from dozens of NGOs to bring in lifesaving goods, citing that these organizations are "not authorized to deliver aid." In July alone, over 60 requests were denied under this justification. This obstruction has left millions of dollars' worth of food, medicine, water, and shelter items stranded in warehouses across Jordan and Egypt, while Palestinians are being starved. "Anera has over $7 million worth of lifesaving supplies ready to enter Gaza - including744 tons of rice, enough for six million meals, blocked in Ashdod just kilometres away," said Sean Carroll, President and CEO of Anera. Many of the NGOs now told they are not "authorized" to deliver aid have worked in Gaza for decades, are trusted by communities and experienced in delivering aid safely. Their exclusion has left hospitals without basic supplies, children, people with disabilities, and older people dying from hunger and preventable illnesses, and aid workers themselves going to work hungry. The obstruction is tied to new INGO registration rules introduced in March. Under these new rules, registration can be denied on the basis of vague and politicized criteria, such as alleged "delegitimization" of the state of Israel. INGOs warned the process was designed to control independent organizations, silence advocacy, and censor humanitarian reporting. This new bureaucratic obstruction is inconsistent with established international law as it entrenches Israel's control and annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory. Unless INGOs submit to the full registration requirements, including the mandatory submission of details of private donors, complete Palestinian staff lists and other sensitive information about personnel for so-called "security" vetting to Israeli authorities, many could be forced to halt operations in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and remove all international staff within 60 days. Some organizations have even been issued a seven-day ultimatum to provide Palestinian staff lists. NGOs have made clear that sharing such data is unlawful (including under relevant data protection laws), unsafe, and incompatible with humanitarian principles. In the deadliest context for aid workers worldwide, where 98 percent of those humanitarians killed were Palestinian, NGOs have no guarantees that handing over such information would not put staff at further risk, or be used to advance the government of Israel's stated military and political aims. Today, INGOs' fears have proven true: the registration system is now being used to further block aid and deny food and medicine in the midst of the worst-case scenario of famine. "Since the full siege was imposed on 2 March, CARE has not been able to deliver any of our $1.5 million worth of pre-positioned supplies into Gaza," said Jolien Veldwijk, Country Director of CARE. "This includes critical shipments of food parcels, medical supplies, hygiene kits, dignity kits, and maternal and infant care items. Our mandate is to save lives, but due to the registration restrictions civilians are being left without the food, medicine, and protection they urgently need." "Oxfam has over $2.5 million worth of goods that have been rejected from entering Gaza by Israel, especially WASH and hygiene items as well as food," said Bushra Khalidi, Oxfam Policy Lead. "This registration process signals to INGOs that their ability to operate may come at the cost of their independence and ability to speak out." These restrictions are part of a broader strategy that includes the so-called "GHF" scheme - a militarized distribution mechanism promoted as a humanitarian solution. In reality, it is a deadly tool of control, with at least 859 Palestinians killed around "GHF" sites since it began operating. "The militarized food distribution scheme has weaponized starvation and curated suffering. Distributions at GHF sites have resulted in extreme levels of violence and killings, primarily of young Palestinian men, but also of women and children, who have gone to the sites in the hope of receiving food," according to Aitor Zabalgogeazkoa, MSF emergency coordinator in Gaza. Both the "GHF" scheme and the INGO registration process aim to block impartial aid, exclude Palestinian actors, and replace trusted humanitarian organizations with mechanisms that serve political and military objectives. They come as the government of Israel escalates its military offensive and deepens its occupation in Gaza, making clear these measures are part of a broader strategy to entrench control and erase Palestinian presence. "At this point, everyone knows what the correct, humane answer is, and it's not a floating pier, airdrops or the "GHF." The answer, to save lives, save humanity and save yourselves from complicity in engineered mass starvation, is to open all the borders, at all hours, to the thousands of trucks, millions of meals and medical supplies, ready and waiting nearby," said Sean Carroll of Anera. We call on all states and donors to: Press Israel to end the weaponization of aid, including through bureaucratic obstruction, such as the INGO registration procedures. Insist that INGOs are not forced to share sensitive personal information, in violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or compromise staff safety or independence as a condition for delivering aid. Demand the immediate and unconditional opening of all land crossings and conditions for the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian aid.
The Guardian
05-08-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Israel's assault on humanitarian norms
We are Israeli historians teaching in Jerusalem who have been writing publicly about the war since early 2024. The processes that Jonathan Whittall describes, the result of a siege and an unprecedented assault on international humanitarian organisations, have been known to anyone willing to listen, in Israel and in the west, for a very long time (I saw many atrocities as a senior aid official in Gaza. Now Israeli authorities are trying to silence us, 3 August). Israel's siege, which has fluctuated in its totality since 7 October, limited the amounts of food, medication and essential supplies allowed into the Gaza Strip, culminating in a complete siege from March to May 2025. Israel's assault on international organisations started with a campaign against Unrwa, the UN agency dedicated to the care for Palestinian refugees, and developed into a set of regulations aimed at intimidating international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and obstructing their ability to work in the occupied Palestinian territories. The effect has been the replacement of reputable humanitarian organisations by an Israeli-funded private enterprise (the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation), with no experience in humanitarian aid or commitment to human wellbeing. The result is the reported starvation to death of more than 100 Palestinians and the shooting of Palestinians who sought aid, killing and injuring many thousands. Human life in the Gaza Strip has become exceedingly cheap. For us, as Israeli citizens who believe in the sanctity of all human life, the current moment represents our own failure, alongside the failure of international law, the international community and most media outlets. During Whittall's term in office as head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), it has been an unrelenting source of information regarding the systematic assault on human life in the occupied territories. We applaud Whittall for speaking out. OCHA and other INGOs need the backing of governments and the international community to restore a human-oriented humanitarian system and save those who can still be saved. Dr Lee MordechaiHistory department, Hebrew University of JerusalemProf Liat KozmaDepartment of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
News18
17-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
(Neo)Orientalism As Strategic Narrative: How Global Indices Attempt To Thwart A Rising Bharat
Last Updated: Indices constructed by the Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit and the V-Dem project have all downgraded the democratic status of the civilisation-nation in recent years Why do international reports suddenly propagate that democracy in Bharat (India) is in decline? Is it a coincidence that this chorus has grown louder when the civilisation-nation rises in global stature and attempts to execute difficult but independent policies in the departments of external affairs and military? Beneath the numerical charts and rankings on freedom and development, a pattern has emerged—one that eerily resembles the colonial playbook used in the 19th century. We may now be witnessing a contemporary form of 'orientalism", weaponised via global indices. The concept was canonised in postcolonial studies by Edward Said and continues to exert intellectual influence. Analysed historically, colonial powers not only invaded but also narrated. Said notes that the military expedition that France undertook to Egypt in 1798 consisted of a cache of knowledge producers. Artists and scholars produced the Description de l'Égypte—a massive, decades-long documentation of the land of pyramids, which could be easily circulated. It portrayed Egypt and the East as anarchic and backward, which was in need of enlightenment. No less a tactician than a great general, Napoleon knew that such a strategic narrative about Egypt would justify his invasion to the public in France and international audiences. The same logic guided the British Raj to depict Bharat as backward, superstitious, timeless, and varna-bound. It legitimised imperial occupation as a 'civilising mission". David Spurr and Nicholas Dirks have studied discursive aggression of this variety in relevant depth. The tools of strategic narrative have now changed, but the instincts remain the same. Quasi-state actors like international NGOs (INGOs), involved in track-2 diplomacy, now deploy rankings and reports to manufacture persuasions that can decide the global image of a nation. And increasingly, Bharat seems to be in their crosshairs. Indices constructed by the Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project have all downgraded the democratic status of the civilisation-nation in recent years. V-Dem, for instance, now labels Bharat as an 'electoral autocracy". The largest democracy lags behind Nigeria, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Gabon, and more. The irony is remarkable. The dramatic classifications do not rest on robust criteria. They are methodologically flawed as they are based on subjective surveys filled out by a small pool of anonymous experts. Their ideological biases are unknown and unchecked. The metrics, too, are inconsistent. Salvatore Babones has repeatedly exposed how these indices are riddled with ideological blind spots. He argues that far from being impartial observers, the INGOs act more like self-appointed arbiters of global virtue, engaging in moral overreach under the guise of democracy advocacy. By selectively citing controversies and amplifying elite dissent, these organisations construct a narrative of democratic backsliding that is out of sync with electoral realities and constitutional norms in Bharat. The maintenance of linguistic diversity and the decriminalisation of homosexuality are certainly not highlights of an authoritarian polity. INGOs run on funds generated by a liberal order of global politics in which the USA is still the hegemon. Besides being devoted to liberal economics, such an international state of affairs—led by the US and other NATO nations—is equally invested in the spread of its version of 'liberal democracy". In 2006, a state document of the US on strategic culture observed, '… Americans have seen themselves as exceptional. This exceptionalism has influenced the way the United States deals with others … The impulse to transform the international system in the service of liberal democratic ideals forms a strand that runs throughout American history. The Clinton administration's national security strategy of engagement and enlargement and the George W Bush administration's commitment to spreading democracy … have more in common with one another than either administration's supporters would admit." To put it differently, the spread of neo-liberal democracy along with neo-liberal economics is a state-driven enterprise in which the powerful conglomerate, composed of the US and other NATO nations, is the spearhead. Academics and activists who are assimilated in the well-heeled system of INGOs via fellowships, funding, salaries, and internships are not anti-establishment, therefore. They are the establishment that does not speak truth to power. They parrot the truth that power has asked them to. These circumstances expose neo-orientalism as the strategic narrative deployed by the North-West against much of the East, including Bharat. Just as knowledge workers during the British Raj had claimed expertise over the civilisation-nation without really understanding it, INGOs today project assumptions and ideologies that are rooted in liberal orthodoxies. When complex developments in an ancient polity like Bharat are routinely measured in terms of templates that are ideologically laced and hegemonically driven, the result is disinformation. The power of strategic narratives of this sort must not be underestimated. Indices are widely cited in academic research, international media, policymaking, and tourism. They influence diplomatic postures, investor confidence, and the moral standing of a country in global forums. When a rising power like Bharat is consistently painted as illiberal, it is not just ideological nitpicking—it is a form of reputational containment. As the civilisation-nation asserts its rightful place on the world stage, it must offer its own story. Of course, this is not to suggest that Bharat is beyond critique. No democracy is perfect. But critique must be consistent and fair. This piece is not a rejection of scrutiny but a call for intellectual honesty. It is a reminder that colonial attitudes can resurface in new forms—as data, as indices, and as expert opinions. It was tragic the first time; this time it is farcical. Dr Arunoday Majumder is Assistant Professor in Rishihood University and MA student of IR, Security, and Strategy at OP Jindal Global University. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 25, 2025, 17:20 IST News opinion Opinion | (Neo)Orientalism As Strategic Narrative: How Global Indices Attempt To Thwart A Rising Bharat Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Bangkok Post
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Impact of US foreign aid cut in Asia to be minimal
The freeze and subsequent reduction of US foreign aid for democracy promotion in Asia, following the Executive Order signed on Jan 20, had a broadly limited impact. At first, the funding freeze sparked major concerns about the future of civil society and democratic development in the region. But a closer look reveals that the real issue is not the absence of US aid, but rather the uncomfortable reality that much of that aid may not have been effective in the first place. After all, the state of democracy and human rights in Asia has remained poor and, in many places, has continued to decline despite years of international funding. For instance, according to a 2024 report by The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance -- a Stockholm-based intergovernmental organization that supports democracy worldwide -- 51% of countries in the Asia-Pacific region from 2018-2023, experienced a decline in their democratic systems, while only 26% saw improvements. In 2023, US democracy promotion made up just 3.2% of total US foreign aid, or around US$2 billion (65 billion baht), according to recent data collected by Pew Research Center. The vast majority of the aid is directed towards foreign governments to support their national peace processes, or health, education, and humanitarian programmes. Even within that small democracy slice, most funding does not reach local actors. Instead, it flows first to US-based (and then other Western) international NGOs (INGOs) and large foreign intermediaries. According to the report by the Stimson Center released in 2023, these groups absorbed around 90% of the direct budget, with only a fraction trickling down to local civil society organisations (CSOs). The result is a top-heavy model, in terms of budget, mandate, agenda, and selection of beneficiaries that often sidelines the very communities the aid is meant to empower. Many past democracy initiatives, while well-funded, were symbolic at best -- driven more by optics than outcomes. Large-scale democracy convenings, for instance, often bring together the same groups and personalities for repetitive networking and the exchange of familiar narratives, rather than fostering genuinely new strategies or alliances. The suspension of these activities thus has not dramatically shifted realities on the ground because their presence did not either. So, what does this tell us about the current state of democracy and human rights in Asia? In the short term, yes, there has been a noticeable decline in externally funded democracy activities. But has this led to a further deterioration in freedoms and rights? Not necessarily. These freedoms were already in decline, even with US support and ongoing support from other governments. Amid the unfavorable trend, the financial aid suspension has triggered a crisis for organisations dependent on US aid, nevertheless. First and foremost, as far as US foreign aid is concerned, especially for democracy promotion, presently, there is a cautious wait-and-see approach all around, with many actors -- including INGOs and CSOs -- holding back until there is greater clarity on the direction of US foreign policy and budget commitments. Against this backdrop, several immediate consequences can be observed. For instance, INGOs heavily reliant on US funding initially paused their activities and contracts with local CSO partners, before furloughing or laying off staff, scaling back operations, and closing local offices. Many are now seeking alternative funding sources while also waiting to see whether and how US foreign aid might be reinstated. At the local level, US funding-reliant CSOs' activities and services have been slashed. In some cases, staff have been laid off, and operations have either been closed or passed. Even though local CSOs are pivoting towards alternative sources of funding, the ripple effects have been, and will continue to be, painful. On the other hand, INGOs and local CSOs that were never overly reliant on US aid have fared better. INGOs with European and other sources of non-US funding have been able to continue their work uninterrupted, consolidating their position, strengthening local networks, and deepening community engagement. Yet, there are also longer-term consequences to consider. With the aid cut, the future of democracy and human rights in Asia will be shaped less by foreign assistance and more by local legitimacy and grassroots support. As foreign‑funded programmes come under increasing scrutiny -- especially under newly enforced "foreign interference" laws -- the argument for locally driven activism becomes not just preferable, but absolutely essential as conventional donor models are structurally flawed: aid routinely reaches only a narrow set of intermediaries, leaving genuine grassroots movements excluded. An alternative is to build a network of community-led groups, equipping them with governance and financial management skills, and enabling them to implement their projects, bypassing large foreign intermediaries. Such models can empower local organisations through direct funding and capacity building, yielding more sustainable and context-sensitive democratic change. Ultimately, the fate of democracy in Asia will not be decided in Washington, DC. It will be shaped in Bangkok, Dhaka, Jakarta, and beyond -- by the strength, resilience, and ingenuity of local and regional actors. If donors are serious about democracy, they need to pivot towards direct, flexible, locally anchored funding models that bolster community‑led efforts instead of replacing them. In this new scenario, foreign aid can play a supporting role, but only if it reinforces rather than replaces local and regional leadership. This principle underscores the need for a new kind of donor engagement -- one that prioritises equitable partnerships, respects local agency, and aligns with the priorities identified by affected communities. Funding strategies must move away from top-down, prescriptive models and towards a more collaborative, flexible framework that enables local CSOs to lead, innovate, and sustain change on their terms. So, has US aid made a difference? The short answer is yes. However, its most lasting impact may not lie in the programmes it funded, but in the wake-up call it delivered -- a reminder that democracy cannot be outsourced. It must be built from within.
Business Recorder
05-06-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Rs415 billion in losses raise alarms over tobacco enforcement
While regulators tighten the noose around Pakistan's formal tobacco sector, the real threat is expanding in plain sight. Illicit cigarette brands—untaxed, unregulated, and widely available—have captured more than half the market. They pay nothing, follow no rules, and yet continue to grow. The law is chasing what is visible, not what is dangerous. The formal industry, despite contributing nearly Rs270 billion in taxes each year, now controls only 46 percent of the market. The remaining share belongs to illegal operators selling cigarettes at a fraction of legal prices. This thriving black market is causing an annual loss of over Rs415 billion revenue that could have supported healthcare, education, or debt relief. Instead, it is being lost to unchecked trade networks and lack of enforcement. Much of the blame lies with those who claimed to champion public health. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Vital Strategies ran campaigns targeting the regulated industry while staying silent on the illicit trade that now dominates the market. Last year, the government shut down both INGOs for operating without registration, funding local entities without approvals, and engaging in policy circles unlawfully. Their work, once seen as advocacy, is now under scrutiny for policy interference and regulatory evasion. 'This is not about tobacco anymore,' said Fawad Khan, spokesperson for Mustehkam Pakistan. 'It is about survival. When lawbreakers take over the market and face no consequences, the whole system starts to collapse. We are rewarding the illegal and punishing the legal—and everyone in the country is paying for it.' At the same time, the IMF continues to push Pakistan to broaden its tax base and reduce leakages. But fiscal targets cannot be met if entire sectors remain outside the net. Experts argue that unless enforcement expands to include illegal trade, even the most disciplined revenue policies will fall short. The issue is no longer about raising taxes—it is about applying them fairly.
