The Afghan government is threatening to expel all NGOs (non-governmental organizations) from the country. The NGOs are accused of failing to get aid programs moving, and spending aid money to further their own ends. The NGOs in Afghanistan control over a billion dollars in foreign aid each year, and the government is simply joining many Afghans in complaining about the NGOs being more concerned about their own safety and comfort, than in making the lives of Afghans better. 

Its not as simple as that.

NGOs are, for the most part, charitable organizations that take money from individuals, organizations and governments, and use it for charitable work in foreign countries. The Red Cross is one of the oldest, and best known NGO (dating back to the 19th century). Actually, the Catholic church could be considered one of the first major NGOs, as it organized large scale charity efforts over a thousand years ago. But in the late 20th century, the number of NGOs grew explosively. Now there are thousands of them, providing work for hundreds of thousands of people. The NGO elite are well educated people from Western countries that solicit donations, or go off to disaster areas and apply money, equipment and supplies to alleviate some natural or man-made disaster. Governments have been so impressed by the efficiency of NGOs that they have contracted them to perform foreign aid and disaster relief work that was once done by government employees.

Problems, however, have developed. The Western employees of NGOs, while not highly paid, and infused with a certain degree of idealism, do bring to disaster areas a bunch of outsiders who have a higher standard of living and different ideas. Several decades ago, all these outsiders brought with them was food and medical care. The people on the receiving end were pretty desperate, and grateful for the help. But NGOs have branched out into development and social programs. This has caused unexpected problems with the local leadership. Development programs disrupt the existing economic, and political, relations. The local leaders are often not happy with this, as the NGOs are not always willing to work closely with the existing power structure. While the local worthies may be exploitative, and even corrupt, they are local, and they do know more about popular attitudes and ideals than the foreigners. NGOs with social programs (education, especially educating women, new lifestyle choices and more power for people who dont usually have much) often run into conflict with the local leadership. Naturally, the local politicians and traditional leaders have resisted, or even fought back. Thus the Afghan government officials recently asking that all NGOs in the country be shut down. That includes Afghan NGOs, who are doing some of the same work as the foreign ones. The government officials were responding to complaints from numerous old school Afghan tribal and religious leaders who were unhappy with all these foreigners, or urban Afghans with funny ideas, upsetting the ancient ways in the countryside.

NGOs are not military organizations, but they can fight back. They do this mainly through the media, because they also use favorable media coverage to propel their fund raising efforts. NGOs will also ask, or demand, that the UN or other foreign governments send in peacekeeping troops in to protect the NGOs from hostile locals. This had disastrous effects in Somalia during the early 1990s. Some NGOs remained, or came back, to Somalia after the peacekeepers left. These NGOs learned how to cope on their own. They hired local muscle for protection, as well as cutting deals with the local warlords. Same situation developed a few years later in eastern Congo. NGOs have learned to raise mini-armies when they want to. But in areas where there are peacekeepers, and the NGOs believe they are not being well served, the NGOs will often simply depart, amid a flurry of press releases, to show their displeasure at the security arrangements, or the political goals of the peacekeepers.

But then came Afghanistan and Iraq, two places where many local leaders thought it served their interests best if there were no NGOs at all (except maybe some Islamic ones.) Throughout the world, NGOs are finding that the world has changed. NGOs will never be the same after whats happened during the last decade. There are few parts of the world that dont know about NGOs, who runs them and what these organizations do. NGOs are no longer seen as just charitable foreigners come to help. The local leadership often sees the NGOs as a potential threat. While the material aid the NGOs bring is appreciated, the different ideas are not. So NGOs have become more adept at dealing with local power brokers. But that turns them more into diplomats. NGO stands for Non-Governmental Organization. NGOs that get too heavily into diplomacy are no longer regarded as NG. This has always been a problem, but now its getting worse as NGOs have become a worldwide presence. 

Peacekeepers have also learned that they have to deal with NGOs. That means the NGOs cannot always be depended on to do what the peacekeepers want. NGOs have long struggled with local government officials, but now peacekeepers frequently get added to the mix. Some nations give their peacekeepers formal training on how to deal with NGOs, and some intelligence agencies keep an eye on NGO developments as well. 

NGOs have formal legal recognition in many countries, and internationally they, as a group, have some standing. NGOs have become a player in international affairs, even though individual NGOs have their own, independent, outlook on world affairs. But as a group, they are a power to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, there is no leader of all the NGOs you can negotiate with. Each one has to be dealt with separately. Since NGOs also come from many different countries (although most have staff that speak English), peacekeepers can also run into languages and cultural customs problems. NGOs have turned out to be another good idea that, well, got complicated in unexpected ways.