Mass migration to Europe, with all its devastating consequences, shined once more the spotlight on the behavior of the so-called humanitarian NGOs. We’ve all heard of them, at the very least— you hear them call out to you, from the TV, hear them ask you to help them fight hunger, cure illnesses, save those children! We’ve all seen them plaster closeups of tear-stricken faces right above a phone number and IBAN. Likely as not, you’ve wondered where all the money goes. Are they trustworthy? Do they truly want to help?
A fair doubt. Even the most famous, most trusted NGOs like Oxfam showed they aren’t immune from money laundering and misconduct, and that some, like MOAS, exploit what unclear laws are there that allow too many of them to keep their donors’ name off the book. Sometimes they even seem to run from transparency guidelines, when directives slowly mend to fill the information gap. MOAS might be an example. Their choice to abandon the rescue efforts happened right after the Italian government asked for accountability.
In the Mediterranean, loose transparency guidelines guaranteed a lack of direct scrutiny on the NGO ships for a long time — yet the huge financial volume that flows from their alleged rescue operations still raises questions, questions about their role in human trafficking, about where all that money goes.
Aside from the most rumoured ties, like Save the Children and George Soros, and funding issues, we can see other NGOs make odd, though not illegal, financial choices— for example, the account of Emergency Italy’s founder, Gino Strada, in an interview, of MOAS’ choice to ask for bigger and bigger maintenance sums from Emergency Italy, to allow them on the Phoenix, only to chase them away, zero notice, as soon as Red Cross offered a much more substantial 400.000 a month.
It doesn’t stop there. We know they aren’t afraid to lie to further their agenda. We know they don’t submit to the maritime laws – bringing illegals to Europe no matter how close to Libya they were found, and we’ve seen them openly challenge sovereign States to try and block their actions.
Of course, mass migration isn’t the only area NGOs are involved in. NGOs have long lobbied for their interests and promoted their own solutions in many different areas— sustainability and environment, human rights promotion, poverty relief, family planning, and have been conducting their efforts, all across the globe. NGOs have been allowed to influence policy, to promote their values— and we’ve seen this in Europe too. They are an integral part of the guilt machine, and their reliance on donor funds make them the Trojan horse for financial and institutional interests.
Another piece of this puzzle is the NGOs tight relationship with the EU – that in 2015 alone provided them with 1.2 billion in funding, the majority going to 20 NGOs only. We can already see, no doubt, how the choice of who would get that amount could easily be a biased decision, guided by the European Union policy.
Private donors aren’t the only problem we need to pay attention to.