Familiar international non-governmental organizations (INGOs, for short) include Amnesty International, known for its collection on data about human rights violations, and the International Red Cross, which offers aid to foreign countries after natural disasters. While these organizations’ goals differ organization to organization, the basis is that they find international human rights violations, sometimes punish those who violate human rights, and offer aid to other countries in need supposedly free of governmental influence. Through finding human rights, INGOs break through closed doors and release information regarding what kinds of violations are occurring and how often. This results in other states and their leaders understanding just
…show more content…
Despite being non-governmental entities, these INGOs are made of members with desired policy outcomes. As a result, organizations may favor certain states over others, even if they are violating human rights. Furthermore, INGOs such as the Amnesty International have political considerations to make. For example, the organization must consider whether or not to make allegations of torture private or public depending on how it might affect its membership. As a result, despite being non-governmental entities, INGOs still take in political considerations that may make them partisan or favoring one state and/or policy over …show more content…
For example, within Malawi, INGOs pay their Malawian staff very highly. While this might not seem bad initially, this can steer well-qualified individuals from taking government and local jobs and hinder both the economy and policy changes (Barber & Bowie 2008). Similarly, INGOs are meant to remain independent in order to help all areas of a country, irrespective of which group or faction is running said area. However, according to Stephen Carr, many INGOs—particularly in Malawi—have sold themselves to donors, resulting in an inability to act in certain fractions. Rather than operating in poor states to help individuals and save lives, certain INGOs are merely operating to serve their donors. This is a major criticism and flaw, as it defies the very basis of what INGOs are meant to
Despite being non-governmental entities, these INGOs are made of members with desired policy outcomes. As a result, organizations may favor certain states over others, even if they are violating human rights. Furthermore, INGOs such as the Amnesty International have political considerations to make. For example, the organization must consider whether or not to make allegations of torture private or public depending on how it might affect its membership. As a result, despite being non-governmental entities, INGOs still take in political considerations that may make them partisan or favoring one state and/or policy over …show more content…
For example, within Malawi, INGOs pay their Malawian staff very highly. While this might not seem bad initially, this can steer well-qualified individuals from taking government and local jobs and hinder both the economy and policy changes (Barber & Bowie 2008). Similarly, INGOs are meant to remain independent in order to help all areas of a country, irrespective of which group or faction is running said area. However, according to Stephen Carr, many INGOs—particularly in Malawi—have sold themselves to donors, resulting in an inability to act in certain fractions. Rather than operating in poor states to help individuals and save lives, certain INGOs are merely operating to serve their donors. This is a major criticism and flaw, as it defies the very basis of what INGOs are meant to