CIDA limits liability towards aid workers
August 14, 2008 · By Charles Anthony
The Canadian International Development Agency is on the right track on one thing:
CIDA has strengthened that language, adding a sentence that explicitly protects Canada against “claims or demands.” Some aid groups believe the government wants to improve its chances of suing NGOs to recover the cost of lawsuits and kidnapping ransoms.
—SNIP—
“As a humanitarian organization, our view is that if the government is sponsoring and encouraging an NGO to respond to a crisis, wherever it may be, that the government and the NGO jointly share responsibility,” said Stephen Cornish, policy adviser for Care Canada.
I realize that my perspective may seem cold and heartless given the timing of recent news but sorry, no can do. Aid workers who want to take the risk of working in dangerous places should negotiate the terms of their protection into their salaries and before they take the job — not after they get into trouble. The Canadian tax-payer should not be held at ransom and treated like a default rescue operation.
I have a lot of beefs with CIDA and the whole foreign aid industry. The statement: “CIDA, which oversees Canada’s development assistance to Afghanistan, issues grants to NGOs and other organizations that distribute aid on the ground.” makes my blood boil. Either it is poor journalism or the by-product of cultured deceit. How can an organization claim to be non-governmental when it gets grants and protection from the government? The next time I hear the term “NGO” as a label, I am going to politely ask them if I am paying them.
Lots of organizations get grants from the government and aren’t part of the government. Culture industry, farms, high-tech, … the list goes on. Is your beef the fact that they get grants AND protection, or is it an either-or thing?
The government gives money to these NGOs to do work that the government doesn’t do itself, usually because they don’t have the right people or experience to do it. The government can’t do everything – it makes good sense in my mind to help other organizations when it is in the interests of the government.
An organization hired by a government is just an extension of government. The term “non-governmental organization” becomes trivial at best and misrepresentative at worst.
I have no problem with true and honest non-governmental organizations so long as they are not getting my money by force. In fact, that is what I would like to see replace all aspects of government. A pseudo-NGO that accepts grants from government is just an agent of government. I really do not know what is going on overseas and neither do you. We just have to trust the government and their agents. Well, I do not like that arrangement.
The misrepresentation bothers me a lot because some of these organizations seek donations and support while using the “We are non-governmental organizations.” sales pitch. I would certainly give to international rescue committees but now, I do not know which ones to trust.
My beef is ultimately that the tax-payer is forced to pay for things — through both the grants AND the protection — without the choice to opt out. Well, now it seems that CIDA is at least moving partially towards my preference of opting out of some of their expenses.
“An organization hired by a government is just an extension of government.”
Doesn’t that make it government all the way down?
Mr. C,
You are essentially correct. Everybody’s level of complicity in government actions is a question of degree along the continuum from top down.
Charities, ‘NGO’ or otherwise should not even be given tax breaks – not only does it blur the line between private and public, it forces taxpayers to support organizations they fundamentally disagree with.