Just Because an NGO Says It, Doesn't Make It True

International organizations have agendas, and they’re not all virtuous.

I’ve spent most of my adult life volunteering for various non-profits during my time off. I started when I was 19 as a teacher for kids in an impoverished area in Guatemala. I’ve returned to Guatemala at least a dozen times since, and the time I’ve spent there has had a major impact on my life. I am still an avid fundraising volunteer for a small education NGO based in Guatemala City. That being said, I’ve been around long enough to see the problems, namely that these organizations will often use their virtuous-sounding missions to mask mismanagement. Often, NGOs will use their platforms to spread misinformation to a global audience.

I’ll stick with Guatemala as a case study for now because that’s the area I know best. Guatemala, a relatively small country of around 17 million people, has over 1400 active NGOs. They provide all kinds of services, from education to healthcare to infrastructure-building. You name it, there is probably an NGO for it there. The one small neighborhood in Guatemala City that I worked in has over a dozen. Most of them operate on tiny budgets that need to stretch thin to cover the needs of their participants. Others are far more flush with more robust fundraising mechanisms, and can afford things like private transportation for volunteers. Most do good work, but there’s an uncomfortable looming question that no one can really answer: with the billions of dollars flowing into the country through the NGOs, why hasn’t the problem of severe poverty been solved?

One of the problems with areas oversaturated with NGOs is that the organizations often work parallel to each other as opposed to together. This means that there can be a duplication of efforts and a waste of resources as a result. There are a few reasons for this: directors have numbers they need to hit and donors to please, the goals of each organization may not align (i.e. one is religious while another isn’t), or there is just a lack of communication. I am thinking, for example, of a situation during COVID when NGOs in a particular Guatemala City neighborhood gave out food bags to families in lockdown. Multiple NGOs in the vicinity were providing that same service, so the residents knew that they could go to all of them at once and receive multiple food bags in one swoop. The aid workers of each organization, who were working literally right next to each other, weren’t really distributing resources equitably because they didn’t bother to communicate with each other about who each one was serving.

My concern at the moment is how the public currently receives international NGOs, many purporting to be humanitarian or human rights organizations, as reliable sources of news. This is where I transition to the Israel-Hamas War, the most reported-on global news story of the last year.

When it comes to anti-Israel bias, Amnesty International is one of the worst offenders. CAMERA has an entire dissertation-length analysis of Amnesty International’s lies about Israel over the years. I often hear commentators or self-described “journalists” cite made-up statistics from this organization and others like it during interviews. They use the statements from organizations like Amnesty as “proof” of a narrative that casts Palestinians and Israelis within an easy binary: the sympathetic Arab victims of the U.S.-funded “Zionist entity.” Anyone with a basic grasp of the relevant history knows that this comparison is wrong and even dangerous.

The willing consumers of the sophistry produced by NGOs like Amnesty are relying on a logical fallacy known as “appeal to authority.” For people who lack real knowledge of the conflict, the things these organizations are saying are hard to argue with. I mean, who doesn’t want civilians to be protected? Who doesn’t want an end to this horrible war? If a group staffed by noble humanitarians says there’s a famine, how could it not be true?

I’m not saying that there is no place for NGOs in disaster areas or in war zones. Indeed, they play a critical role in bringing resources that local governments can’t or won’t provide. The question, of course, is how those resources get distributed, and who is really benefitting. With all of the screaming about humanitarian aid going into Gaza, it must be said: distributing humanitarian aid to the people who really need it is fucking hard work. It’s one thing to bring a truck full of aid in, it’s another to hand it out. I saw how difficult that task was (and how problematic it often becomes) in the small neighborhood I worked in with a couple hundred families. I cannot even imagine how it gets done in a clusterfuck like Gaza with 2 million people.

Another issue with international organizations is their use of local staff. Some NGOs employ local workers, while others have strictly foreign administrators and volunteers. It really depends on the structure and capacity of the organization. In general, employing local staff is considered virtuous, the rationale being that local employees understand the needs of the people they are serving best. Having locals on payroll also contributes to the overall economy of the area. But the attacks of October 7th grimly tested this theory because, as was revealed a couple of months after the attacks, many of the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated the attacks were UNRWA employees. In other words, they used UNRWA infrastructure to plan and carry out the massacres. What is the industry term for that? “Terroristic mismanagement”?

Kidnapping women: the new job requirement for a school counselor?

As far as I know, no one from the international NGO community has demanded sanctions on UNRWA for its role in the atrocities of October 7th—the crimes that started the current war. But I suppose we should be thankful for the small things: the UN did “complete their investigation” after which 9 UNWRA employees were fired for their involvement. I mean, I can be fired for showing up to work late. That’s the most punitive action that they took against their employees who damaged the UNRWA brand by actively slaughtering innocents?

NGOs are like any political entity; you must consider their words as critically as you would any politician’s. If their volunteers or workers are on the ground providing services, their observations have value, and I don’t discount them. But if they haven’t lived in the area for an extended period or do not speak the local languages, they do not know the entire reality of what’s going on. This rule holds true for anywhere.

Pro tip: I would not recommend donating to any NGO where you do not personally know the individuals handling the money. A lot of the time, NGOs use their stated mission and brand recognition as a front for financial mismanagement. Don’t let them take your money so that their CEO can fly first class to Europe on the company dime. If you are donating to any organization with a stated mission to help communities abroad, I highly recommend that you pay a visit to those areas, if you can. That is the best way to see with your own eyes how your money is being spent.

If you fancy a visit to Guatemala, I have a great project for you to open your wallet for!