By the end of the last century, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) made concerted efforts to ensure that their causes made an impact on international relations. It caught the attention of the United Nations that was trying to retain its role in the post-Cold War era. The United Nations found the rising trend of NGOs a good vehicle.
The late Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general at the time, proposed revisiting the definition of ‘sovereignty’ adopting the call of some NGOs to legitimise pre-emptive intervention for humanitarian — or similar — reasons. Such interventions in the new century proved disastrous, as nation-states failed aggravating human sufferings.
Yet, efforts to politicise noble causes for pragmatic ends didn’t stop. Even revelations about the destabilising role of some NGOs in conflict areas were not enough to halt the trend. In fact, international politics tilted more towards fringe groups rather than ordinary people.
An NGO may see a government as its adversary if its work has political ramifications, but in the process, if the NGO enables groups against the government of a country it would be a destabilising act, and not in national interest. Examples are countless, from the war in former Yugoslavia — especially in Bosnia — a quarter century ago to the current situation in Libya.
In a conventional war between two regular armies, operations are according to the ‘rules of engagement’. But if it’s between factions and militant groups, it will be nearly impossible to observe traditional ways of fighting and mistakes — sometimes catastrophic ones — can happen. Libya is a stark example of such chaotic situations where factions, tribes, terrorist groups and the likes are fighting each other.
One of the most notorious manifestations of politicising human rights can be witnessed in Yemen. Even the UN and some well-established NGOs are involved. When the Iran-backed militia, Al Houthis, rebelled against the government and took up arms to impose control on the country, regional allies stepped in to help restore legitimacy.
A Saudi-led coalition supporting the legitimate government exhausted political and diplomatic means to bring factions to a negotiated colony before sending troops to help the government. As the coalition uses regular army procedures to fight terrorist groups and Al Houthi rebels, mistakes are bound to happen.
Unlike political parties, NGOs and aid agencies should focus on alleviating the suffering of ordinary people. Engaging one faction, under the pretext of it being the ‘underdog’, is not only a clear bias, but it also hurts the noble cause of ‘helping the needy’.
Straightforward conclusion: When you politicise human rights, the first victim will be human rights. NGOs like ‘Doctors without Borders’, that channelled logistical support (opposing parties said it were weapons) to groups in African countries fighting against the state or in a civil war, suffered a loss of credibility.
Another example of politicising human rights is the case of Qatar stripping thousands from the Al Ghufran tribe of citizenship. Despite the plight of Qatari citizens, NGOs have been vocal about the Bidoons in Kuwait while turning a blind eye to Qatar. In fact, Kuwaiti authorities never expelled the Bidoons or deprived them of their rights except for some ‘sovereign’ ones.
These Qatari citizens are now calling for restoration of their legitimate rights. But the world — hypocritically — looks at it from a political perspective, citing Qatar’s isolation and ignoring its support of terrorist groups and interference in the internal affairs of its Gulf neighbours. So the misery of thousands of people is overlooked and their basic human rights are violated.
There are numerous examples of NGOs, including aid agencies and even some UN agencies, politicising their activities. Governments may use noble causes to advance political interests, and that’s understandable. But when UN agencies and NGOs indulge in such practices, it’s a bitter pill to swallow.
Dr Ahmad Mustafa is an Abu Dhabi-based journalist.
