by Charlemagne, The Economist, London, October 2004
Does any of this sound familiar from the NGOs that comment and try to influence ‘ethnic’ affairs in Sri Lanka? — Editor
How independent are the civil-society organisations beloved by the European Commission?
THE European Commission knows it has an image problem. To try to fix things, it is creating the new post of commissioner in charge of communications. Margot Wallstrom, previously responsible for the environment, promises that one of her first actions in office will be to hold “brainstorming sessions” with “civil society”. Talking to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that purport to represent civil society is a proxy for the commission’s talking to ordinary Europeans. But there is something odd about this dialogue. Many of the NGOs that Brussels likes to consult are directly financed by the commission itself.
Take the “dialogue with civil society” that took place during the Convention on the Future of Europe, which last year produced a new draft constitution for the European Union. Sensitive to the charge that it was dominated by Europe’s political elite, the convention set up civil-society contact groups, allowing NGOs to air their views. Giuliano Amato, one of the convention’s vice-presidents, stressed the importance of “the support of civil society in legitimising the final outcome of the convention’s work”.
Happily, civil society seemed supportive of the idea of expanding EU power. The working group on citizens and institutions called for “the government of the Union to be in the hands of the commission, which alone was capable of representing the common interests of its citizens.” Five NGOs on this working group were invited to deliver this message directly to the convention. But all five–the Young European Federalists, the Federalist Voice, the Active Citizenship Network, the European Network Against Racism and the Polish NGO Office in Brussels–are financed, directly or through EU-funded members, by the commission itself. It is hardly surprising that they are eager for their paymasters to become the government of the Union.
The amounts of money involved are large. The Young European Federalists, which styles itself an autonomous youth organisation campaigning for “the creation of a European federation”, has received euro466,000 ($560,000) from the commission since 2000, accounting for at least 50% of its funding. And this is just one of hundreds of NGOs funded by the commission. Romano Prodi, the commission’s outgoing president, boasted in a discussion paper in 2000 that “over euro1,000m a year is allocated to NGO projects directly by the commission”. Most of this money goes to organisations that are not directly political: over euro400m was allocated to humanitarian aid for example. But Mr Prodi also reckoned that euro50m went to educational NGOs and euro70m to social NGOs.
Some of the organisations financed by the EU directly promote political messages congenial to the commission. Indeed, some are assisted precisely so as to influence the political debate in Europe at critical moments. Just as Poland was completing its negotiations to join the EU, and preparing for a referendum on whether to join, the commission devoted millions of euros to pro-European initiatives in Poland. The commission influences the climate of debate more generally, by subsidising many of the think-tanks studying the EU, and by promoting the introduction of European integration studies in universities across Europe. Its Jean Monnet project has enabled European universities to set up over 2,000 teaching projects since 1990, as well as funding over 400 Jean Monnet chairs.
NGOs dealing with social issues are also big recipients of EU cash. Scores of such organisations, campaigning on issues ranging from conservation to corporate social responsibility, have been set up in Brussels. The commission finances many of them partly because they are convenient interlocutors for the various policymaking directorates. Suppose the environment or social-affairs directorates are thinking of issuing new directives and want to be seen to take account of the views of European citizens. What could be easier than picking up the phone and arranging a meeting with the local (commission-funded) NGO?
When is an NGO a GO?
Simon Wilson, director of the Platform of European Social NGOs, points out that the commission is hardly unusual in supporting NGOs. Most western governments and many international organisations do the same thing. The World Bank, for example, has made a huge effort to step up its contacts with NGOs. Mr Wilson argues that it is in governments’ interest to foster such links, since they can then tap into a wide range of expertise and experience. His own organisation received euro369, 383 from the commission in 2003-04, some 90% of its budget. But Mr Wilson denies that this compromises its independence. “On some occasions we broadly support the commission’s line”, he says, “but on many others we oppose it.” He cites two examples: the Social Platform’s campaign for new anti-discrimination legislation, and its effort to insert a clause in the draft EU constitution, making consultation with civil society a legal obligation.
This last (successful) campaign was, perhaps, a tad self-interested. But campaigning on their own behalf is a big occupation of these groups. Look at the websites of EU-funded NGOs and it becomes clear that one of their favoured activities is to lobby for even more EU money. Thus the European Network against Racism (80-90% commission-funded) complains truculently that “the present budget line for anti-racist activities is…insufficient. The network…needs to put pressure on the European institutions with a view to increase this amount.”
The spectacle of organisations that receive EU money using their money to campaign for more EU money is only one example of this looking-glass world. It is a world in which so-called NGOs are actually dependent on government for cash; and one in which the European Commission, itself directly financed by Europe’s national governments, finances “autonomous” organisations that campaign for more power and money to be handed to the commission itself.