KAMALIKA PIERIS
The local NGOs active in Sri Lanka politics are
implanted organizations, not home grown. They are financed by western countries
and managed by paid local agents. The term ‘civil society’ was used to bring
these NGOs into political life of Sri Lanka.
In 2012,
there were approximately 1300 NGOs in Sri Lanka. The
local NGOs are funded by foreign organizations. One NGO admitted that if
the foreign funding dried up all activities would stop. Most NGOs are small
with less than 10 full time staff. Most NGOs are located in posh offices in
urban areas, do not have a membership base, and are run by a self appoint core
management team with permanent tenure and absolute control while drawing
lucrative salaries, and enjoying perks,
observed Kamal Wickremesinghe. The
NGOs have interlocking directorates and the heads of important NGOs are
invited to the ‘diplomatic cocktail circuit’.
NGOs can be
registered in Sri Lanka as a company, society, charity or trust. There are
10 routes to choose from. They
can register under Act no 31
of 1980 as a voluntary service organizations, Companies Act 17 of 1982, Societies
Act of 1972, Agrarian development Act no 46 of 2000, Protection of the rights
of elders Act no 9 of 2000, Rural development Act, Consumer affairs authority Act,
Trust Ordinance or get itself directly established by its own Act of
Parliament. The Parliament Select committee of 2008
did not approve to this. It recommended that all NGOs should be registered
under one authority.
There are hundreds of NGOs in Sri Lanka .Here is a description of
one NGO. The Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies (CHA) (est. 1997) is an
association of agencies working in, and supporting work in, Sri Lanka for peace
building and humanitarian work. A network of humanitarian agencies and has
developed a fully-fledged secretariat with its own specific capabilities.
it is an excellent tool to
disseminate information, bring weight in discussions related to the conflict
situation of the country and lobbying through a large membership, maintaining
links bottom-up and across tires, providing convenient access to information on
needs of specific conflict-affected communities, government policies regarding
pertinent issues, and international agencies working in the country.CHA
believes in respecting diversity and the promotion and achievement of
fundamental rights and freedom, which provides equal opportunities for
development for all Sri Lankans. Areas of operation: Vavuniya, Trincomalee,
Puttalam, Matara, Mannar, Kalutara Jaffna, Hambantota, Galle, Badulla and
Ampara.
The Select Committee of Parliament
investigating NGOs found that a large number of NGOs violated state policy,
contravened laws, and engaged in activities that directly threatened Sri
Lanka defence and sovereignty. Unlike other countries, there is no
mechanism in Sri Lanka to regulate and monitor them. The existing laws are unable to control their anti-Sri Lanka
activities either. Government should start to control these
NGOs, prevent them disseminating misinformation and keep a close
eye on their propaganda campaigns, critics said.
However, there is no mechanism to regulate
NGOs in Sri Lanka. We have no way of tracking such funding, no way of checking
on the project for which it is given, or that they pay tax and supply accounts,
said Rajiva Wijesinha. There are no curbs on the foreign contribution or
foreign donors. In most countries NGOs activities are monitored but not here in
Sri Lanka, said Chandraprema.
These
organizations are dangerous and should be kept under surveillance. The government must look into the extent of
NGO penetration. The government should
flush out these NGOs said a Daily News
editorial in 2010.
There is a deep rooted mistrust of NGOs in Sri
Lanka. These NGOs are up to no good, they are promoting foreign agendas
and engaging in various anti national activities quite openly, said critics.
They have been set up to destabilize and divide the country. Critics observed
that the NGOs appearing against Sri Lanka in the Human Rights Council, Geneva,
as ‘voluntary’ organizations, were NGOs that had been funded by the very
same western governments that had sponsored the action against Sri
Lanka. These NGOs are ‘are funded by countries that are against us. Then
they use the findings of these NGOs to support their position’, critics
exclaimed.
The main focus of
these ‘political’ NGOs is the Tamil separatist cause. There was an unusual concentration of NGOs in
the north and east. 50% of the NGOs were est. in Colombo, the North central
province had 8%, central province 5%, southern province 3% north and east had
20%, said Chandraprema.
The NGOs sided with the LTTE in the Eelam war
and supported the Ceasefire agreement of 2002. NGOs in the north-east assisted
the LTTE. They gained access to sensitive areas on the pretext of providing
humanitarian aid to these areas. One NGO allowed LTTE to use their heavy
equipment for building barricades. The Kilinochchi project manager
of ZOA had joined the LTTE. Heads of NGOs travelled abroad
repeatedly to lobby against the government. They said Sri Lanka was a failed
state, the government could not win the Eelam war, and it should go for a
‘political solution’. In 2004 National Bhikku Front marched from Pettah to
President’s house to hand over a petition demanding an immediate ban on
pro-LTTE anti –Buddhist NGOs.
For more than 11 years, from 1994
onwards, these NGOs had the ear of the highest in the land and were highly
visible in all media, private and state owned. They spouted Eelam mythology as
fact, stuffed tons of devolution down the public throat and worked tirelessly
to give a terrorist organization parity of status with a democratically elected
government, said Malinda Seneviratne.
These NGOs show a callous disregard for the general
welfare of the country. Centre for Policy Alternatives declared, incorrectly,
that Sri Lanka did not qualify for an extension of the European Union Generalized
Scheme of Preferences” (GSP) concession as it had not fully incorporated
the ICCPR provisions into their local legislation.
The reasons offered would not stand up
to scrutiny in a court of law, they were in the realms of
conjecture and hypothetical. Also, they were not issues that should be
considered where vital trade concessions are concerned.CPA has not cared about the consequences of the withdrawal
of GSP+ on the country’s economy.
The GSP concession allowed developing countries to pay less or no duties on
their exports to the EU.
When the Eelam
war ended, the NGOs turned on the armed forces, alleging human rights
violations. They wanted a war crimes probe at UN level. This was clearly
a fallback position planned well ahead in the west. NGO
representatives from Sri Lanka re-started lobbying against Sri
Lanka in the UN. NGO
representatives from Sri Lanka
re-started lobbying against Sri
Lanka in the UN. They also complained about militarization of civilian areas,
Sinhalisation of Tamil road names in north and east and destruction of Hindu shrines and replacing
them with Buddha statues.
Three months after the Eelam war ended, the”
Sri Lanka campaign for Peace and Justice” was created, which targeted the government on humanitarian and HR fronts. This Campaign declared its affiliation
with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, and
Reporters sans frontiers. They wanted
the UN to hold Sri Lanka accountable
for war crimes. This was of course, a fall back position, planned well before
hand.
Then, in 2010,
and after that in 2015, NGOs were
entrusted with regime change. In 2012 a panel of university teachers
warned the public that NGOs were working to destabilize the
government, as was done in Egypt. They named Transparency International, a
university trade union and 12 NGOs (Daily News 30.11.12 p 1). In the same year,
NGOs had funded trade union leaders and farmers to organize protests against
the government. NGOs also worked on changing public
attitudes. They have been thanked for influencing the Presidential
election of 2015 and securing a win for President Sirisena. NGOs are now
working to create public support for ‘devolution’ and ‘federalism’ at local
level.
The
International Centre for Ethnic studies went further. It was suggested in 2000,
that the international community had a right to protect” citizens of any
country from crimes against humanity. This was termed
Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).
Critics
said that R2P was concocted to justify foreign intervention in domestic affairs
of countries. R2p
is just another pretext to justify neo colonial intervention in the domestic
affairs of developing nations, they said.
There was an attempt to make the International
centre for Ethnic studies, ICES into a regional
centre for R2P. Global
R2P Centre” was advertising ICES Colombo as a regional office in 2008. This was speedily squashed by the government. The visa of ICES
director Rama Mani was revoked and she was asked to leave the country immediately.
‘Protect Sri Lanka’‘ stated at the time, that 6 international organization s operating in Colombo are compiling reports of
alleged human rights violations in a sinister move to justifying R2P They cited
Human Rights Watch, International Panel of Jurists, Amnesty International,
IIGEP, UN Human rights commission, and International Crisis Group. These organizations
are on a mission to destabilize the country when it was on the verge of
defeating the LTTE.
What
interested people most in the NGOs was its finances. How much was coming in to
these NGOs and what was happening to the money. International donors and the UN agencies were
not channeling their aid through local NGOs, such as Sewa Lanka, which have been operating in Sri
Lanka for several
decades. Instead they were giving their money to INGOs and foreign funded local NGOs. UK confirmed that their funds all went to NGOs
such as CPA, FCE and
FLICT.
These NGOs receive massive funds. One NGO got
Rs 272 million, another got Rs 174 million and a third got Rs 171 million
between 2001 and 2004 from Norway alone. For the Presidential election of 2010,
an NGO got around 51 million. It was alleged that NED, was funding
several Sri Lanka NGOs too. Before 1977 funds for NGOs were channeled through
the Foreign Ministry and the government had a very good control over all NGOs.
But after 1977 this changed. Today there is no scrutiny of the funds received
by these NGOs.
Centre for Policy alternatives, Transparency
International Sri Lanka, and National Peace Council received Rs. 71.99 million
from 8 US NGOs between 2008-2010. These three NGOs also receive funds to the tune of 618 million
Euros from 26 foreign
sources and an undisclosed number of unidentified sources. The list of
identified sources includes embassies of Canada, Sweden,
Netherland, Norway, European Commission, as well as Berghof, Goldman Sachs and
Ford Foundation.
Main financial beneficiary of Norway
aid 1997-2009 is a group of Colombo
based NGOs and their Norwegian partners, said the media.
Germany, Japan, US UK and Scandinavian countries also provided sizeable financial support
to local NGOs over the years. NORAD
allocated NO Kroner 100 million for Sri Lanka. Among the recipients of this
money was Centre for Policy alternatives, and National Peace Council .
Lists of
these funding organizations running to over twenty names per NGO are given
repeatedly by journalists writing on the subject. For a list of the
foreign funders of the Centre for Policy Alternatives see Sunday Island 9.8.09
p 9 and for the
donors of International Crisis Group see Sunday Island 2.1.11. p 1. In addition, Shamindra Ferdinando gives the long list of agencies which funded ICG in 2010-2011 in Island 20.6.2011 p 4.
NGOs take a very lofty position, talking of
rights, wrongs, truth, justice, governance but they themselves were not very
straight when it came to money, possibly because those working in the NGOs were
not rich. Accepted standards of auditing and accounting were not followed and
there was little transparency in their finances, said investigators. NGOs said
their accountability was only to their financiers abroad. Local critics
said they would also like to know. However, information on how NGO monies
are spent was not readily available and one journalist concluded ‘This NGO
business is one colossal scam. Another said ‘We need a class of respectable
people who live off their own private businesses or earnings while playing a
role in society as community figures.’
When the war ended, it was shown that though
the NGOs were supposed to have spent billions helping the war affected d
population; there was not even a toilet that had been built of the civilian
population. The NGOs were there simply to provide cover to the LTTE in building
camouflaged bunkers. ‘Save the
children, Sri Lanka’ had given financial aid amounting to Rs 50 million to TRO
for 12 projects. Only one Pre School has been constructed and the TRO had
stated that the remaining money could not be returned.
NGOs are now called to be accountable for the
monies received and provide the public with audited accounts of the millions
they have supposedly spent on the enlistment, development and other meritorious
actions they are claiming to use the money for. It is no secret that those who
run these NGOs allocate to themselves the millions necessary to support their
expensive life style, said critics.
The Select Committee of Parliament for
investigation of the operations of NGOs,
2008 said that most NGOs lacked transparency, funds were being used for
purpose other than those declared. The Committee also found that accepted
standards of auditing and accounting were not followed and there was little
transparency in their finances. Before 1977 funds for NGOs were channeled
through the Foreign Ministry and the government had a very good control over
all NGOs. But after 1977 this changed. Today there is no scrutiny of the funds
received by these NGOs.
Parliamentary select committee on NGOs found
that the head of the Foundation for Coexistence was drawing an annual salary of
1.1 million rupees from a budget of approx 60 million rupees. The
officer had been
questioned by the committee for nearly
41/2 hours and had said that the NGO was financed by Norway, Berghof
foundation, ZOA and other foreign bodies and its budget was financed from
foreign sources.
This
Foundation had formulated a
project to settle land disputes in the eastern province and it had conducted a survey
of Tamil and Muslims of the province but had not looked at Sinhala land
ownership. This Foundation has on its
board, Bradman Weerakoon, Kumar Rupasinghe, Desmond Fernando Jayadeva Uyangoda among
others. It was active in Batticaloa
, Ampara, Puttalam and Mannar
districts.
Transparency international was given a huge
sum of money, alleged to be around 8 million, to do a study of the police
service. The study contained nothing of use and could not have cost much.
It was full of trite nonsense of little use to anybody. So where did the money
go? This sort of thing runs through virtually every project that I have
examined, said one journalist. (Sunday Island 7.3.2010 p 11) In another
case, it was observed that if the money given for monitoring elections has been
correctly spent, by this time, there should be an entire army of committed
volunteers all over the country which could be mobilized each time an election
is announced.
2.5 million was taken by the Centre for Policy
alternatives also for a study of the police. The total budge was over 8
million, but the study itself could only have cost about 50,000. the rates paid to research organizations for filling in questionnaire is
well known and with the traveling expense and give the limited number of
policeman surveyed, in a few locations like Colombo Kandy and Kurunegala, the
survey could not have cost even one hundredth of that.. This plague of foreign funding has created
mouthpiece for foreign governments and organizations. We need a class of
respectable people who live off their own private businesses or earning while
playing a role in society as community figures, declared the media.
There was also a
large scale fraud in the Free Media Movement. Millions of rupees had been
misused. Some of the money had gone unaudited.
And FMM had failed to submit accounts for several years to its
membership. But these are the people
who talk of good governance, truth and transparency, exclaimed one critic.
Siri Hettige winds up the subject. The present
phase of civil society action is almost perpetual and does not give a respite
to activist engaged in continuing agitation against multiple stake holders. It
is often the same people who engage in mass civil society complaisant on many
fronts on an almost continuing basis to pursue causes that they are committed
to.
Many
who began as young adult today find themselves as senior citizens but still
have not seen their dreams realized, they a have also in the last several
decades lived very stressful lives[no
they got money, the stress was in continuing to get it] the question is how far are the younger
generation taking over. They are more
concerned with getting a secure job, and h ten on their personal lives. Such
issues as climate, governance, human rights, are of no major concern to them.
The work is largely urban middle class activists. There is now the danger of
social fatigue setting in compelling civil society activists to withdraw from
social network in the public domain making it harder for effective civil
society action to be sustained in the long run unless more and more youthful
members join. (Concluded)
![දළදා මාලිගාවට ප්රහාරයක් එල්ල වේ යයි සැකයි.. දලදා පෙරහැරේ යමක් සිදුවිය හැකියි..- මල්වතු අනුනාහිමි කියති.. [Video]](https://lankacnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/4447878.jpg)
