PHA-Exchange> some considerations about NGOs in refugee camps

[claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn]

It's almost three month I'm working in this camp on te Thai border and  I 
wanted to share some of my views.

The NGOs working in the camps are working for the people but never with them. 
They are not active neither in identifying their health problems, nor in the 
elaboration of the responses to their health problems. They are considered 
beneficaries, never active participants. And I am convinced that this is -
maybe partly only- a structural problem of NGO related to accountability 
(article of Arundhati Roy in "le monde diplomatique" of october 2004): NGO are 
only accountable to their donors, not to the people they are working for. NGOs 
are private health care providers, and thus allow the withdrawal of the state 
in the health sector (consequence of the neoliberal policies which affect 
cruelly -among others- the public health system).
Here, it seems that NGOs have completely forgot to address the political and 
social issues of the refugees: they just don't advocate for it, pretending 
that it is the price to pay to be allowed to stay. I sometimes fear some NGO 
decision makers have just no interest that the refugees go back: they are 
making their living with this situation...

The situation is such that children and students come from Burma to study in 
the camps, villagers of the area often prefer to come to the camp hospital 
(free of charge, quite good quality of care, possibility of referral to thai 
hospital if needed). Powerful conservatives forces are often spreading their 
messages through religion (increasing the polarisation between religious 
groups). 
So I am asking myself: how is it possible, in this situation, to make human 
rights fullfilled (food, education, health...) without weekening the social 
forces that could lead to real changes? Are so called "humanitarian" NGO not 
anything but the best friends of neoliberal policies? Indeed, they limit their 
social and political impact, they represent a privatization of the former 
bilateral cooperation, they can hide easily the solely defense of corporate or 
religious interests, they are structurally not obliged to advocate for the 
people the are working for, their private funds rely on pity and charity 
marketing messages, their public fundings depend on the political interests of 
the donors ...

(received by Claudio)


------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Netnam-HCMC ISP: http://www.hcmc.netnam.vn/