Commentary

China Watch

Forum Digests

Columnists

Letters

Cold War mentality dies hard

By Xu Ying (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-06-20 07:43

The Western scholars attach great importance to non-governmental organizations (NGO)'s independence.

Lester M. Salamon, a US scholar on non-profit organizations, describes NGOs as "private" and "self-governing".

However, some organizations with the above characteristics can hardly be considered independent.

Not able to support themselves financially, these organizations rely on others' money, and even play the roles of loudspeakers for some big powers.

For instance, most of the NGOs that are active in developing countries set up headquarters in the Western developed countries and allocate money there.

According to a study, more than two-thirds of NGOs are based in the developed countries, especially in Western and Northern Europe.

In the international community, these NGOs based in developed countries exert great influence because of their large scales and abundant cash.

Seeking big says on various kinds of problems, they air views on how to develop, how to educate, how to democratize, even on how to require and own rights.

But just as French scholar Thierry Pech says: "How can the organizations with gravity in the corners of London, Paris, Vienna, Stockholm convince others that they represent the global people's rights?"

It is not rare to see that the organizations born in Western culture try to impose the Western values as a precondition for aid.

What's more, the assumption that NGOs rely on private charity donations is not true either.

A study by a research institute at Johns Hopkins University finds out that on average private donations only make up 10 percent of NGOs' incomes, while services and commercial management make up 49 percent, and governments contribute 41 percent.

In Germany, NGOs' proportions of government financial support could be as much as 68 percent, while in France 60 percent.

These NGOs can only be regarded as internationally oriented national organizations (IONO).

As there are always anti-China voices in their domestic political arena, IONO are also inclined to target China.

Hence it's hard to expect the IONO to really speak for their people, not to mention the people in other countries.

The international journalists' organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is a case in point.

Set up in France in 1979, the RSF claims "to safeguard journalists' rights without any political bias".

However, according to a Guardian report on May 19, 2005, "Jeff Julliard of RSF confirmed that it had received a grant of $40,000 from the conservative National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The NED's website states that it receives annual funding from 'the US Congress through the state department'."

RSF has also received money from the Center for a Free Cuba.

"RSF believed that this was a legitimate tactic to put pressure on the authorities While RSF was very critical of Cuba, it had published more reports about abuses in China," the Guardian reported.

Therefore we could see why RSF played the role of a "hero" to support Tibetan secessionists.

If RSF did so because of the erosion of its independence, the other two organizations that support Tibet's independence - the US NED and the German Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF) - are still in the Cold War mindset.

As an important diplomatic tool during the Cold War, the NED, set up in 1983, was closely related with US State Department and Central Intelligence Agency.

Still indulging in its past prejudices, NED insisted on pressurizing some other countries.

In his report for US Congress this year, US specialist in Asian Affairs Thomas Lum wrote that the US foreign assistance to China primarily supported "democracy-related programs" and "Tibetan communities", which had grown from $10 million in 2002 to an estimated $23 million in 2007.

From NED's website, we can see that in 2006 it gave $40,000 to "Gu-Chu-Sum Movement of Tibet", $53,000 to "International Tibet Support Network", $30,000 for "Tibetan Women's Association", $15,000 to "Longsho Youth Movement of Tibet", $35,000 to "Voice of Tibet".

The FNF just did the same thing as NED did, reflecting the Western conservative forces' invisible hands behind the Tibetan secessionists. Therefore how can the Tibetan secessionists boast they seek benefits for Tibetan people?

China has maintained cooperation with some mature international NGOs such as International Red Cross and International Olympic Committee, but is not yet good at dealing with the growing number of IONO such as NED and FNF.

Out of the irrational fear about China's development, these IONO and the Western conservative forces behind them didn't grudge abandoning their way of Cold War thinking. They keep trying to contain China by supporting the secessionists.

However, they forget that no Chinese will bear any part to be split from China's territory. And the Chinese government, like any other government, will not turn a blind eye to secession plots.

The author is a lecturer at the School of International Studies in Renmin University of China the article first appeared in the Forum of World Economics & Politics

(China Daily 06/20/2008 page9)