« back to Rob Crilly - African Safari home

 

Shoddy Deals for Darfur

| 6

So you may remember that a few weeks ago I wondered what had prompted three NGOs - smeared, criminalised, intimidated  - expelled from Darfur to consider returning. With no guarantees that the same thing wouldn't happen all over again once they had poured millions of dollars more into the region, they decided to return with different names and different logos as part of a shoddy deal hammered out accepted by Barack Obama's special envoy, Scott Gration.

Aid workers who were familiar with Darfur told me how upset they were. And it seemed the decision to return was driven by headquarters who needed the cash associated with Darfur projects to fund jobs in the US and UK. Inevitably though I was accused of not understanding the "humanitarian imperative".

Well, as I learn more and more about the decision taken by Care in particular, then no, I clearly don't understand the "humanitarian imperative", not if that means doing a favour for your buddy and trying to avoid an investigation into how millions of dollars have gone missing.

It turns out that Scott Gration is some sort of old chum of Helene Gayle, chief executive of Care USA, and was on the blower to her for a favour to help his deal get off the ground.

At the same time, USAID has done some sort of audit of Care projects it has funded only to find that millions of dollars cannot be accounted for. USAID is one of Care's biggest donors and was able to then dictate that the charity returned to Darfur, or else...

Not sure any of that translates as the "humanitarian imperative" but then I've never really understood the charity world. 

6 Comments

user-pic
Andrea Bohnstedt | July 13, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply

Aid is a business, for both government donor organisations or NGOs. No crisis - no money, no jobs. No poverty - no money, no jobs. That fundamental dynamic is always at play.

user-pic
Sterling | July 13, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply

Aid, development, NPOs and NGOs are just so incestuous. But I have a question: What would you expect or want them to do with the money if they didn't return to Darfur?

user-pic
Diane Bennett | July 13, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply

Nothing bothers me more than that millions of dollars are unaccounted for. There may be a 'humanitarian imperative,' but what about our taxpayer dollars that support the effort? There should be accountability for where those funds go, regardless of virtue of the projects.

user-pic
Rob Crilly | July 14, 2009 6:47 AM | Reply

This is the one topic I get more grief on than anything else. Now getting hassle by people from certain unnamed NGOs that I'm being too soft on Oxfam, which is quietly transferring projects from Oxfam GB (expelled) to Oxfam US (not expelled). Anyone care to let me know whether this is true? Anyway, I do know that Oxfam HQ is desperately keen to return

user-pic
Darfur NGO worker | July 16, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply

Yes Rob, Oxfam America is returning and have already started the process of taking over their UK counterpart's operations albeit discreetly as they are still not officially registered, which process will probably not be finalized before early next year thanks to Sudanese bureaucracy.

Of interest is the the securiy apparatus of the GoS also firmly believes that the security situation has improved tremendously (even in light of the recent spate of kidnappings) and that any reports to the contrary are lies perpetrated by the INGOs to maintain financing of their operations...

user-pic
Rob Crilly | July 16, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply

There's no doubt that Khartoum is responsible, in one way or another, for the conditions that have led to the three kidnappings in the past four months. The bandits or militias responsible will have felt foreign aid workers are legitimate targets given the way the government has smeared or expelled the INGOs.

What do you think?