International funding between political instrumentalisation and humanitarian purpose

The issue of conditional and unconditional international funding is an old one, arising with the beginning of relations of commercial and cultural exchange among the peoples of the earth. The events of 11 September had the greatest effect in tightening oversight and monitoring of funding from the North to the states and peoples of the South in particular, as the donor states began applying a policy of “deploying grants and loans” with the aim of preventing their reaching those they consider their enemies, and of influencing the collective mind of the recipient peoples. It can be said that there is no funding from one party to another without conditions. Some of these conditions serve the better use of the funding, while some aim to influence and change the recipient's culture and its position on particular issues and concepts.

Sources of funding:-

The relationship between funding sources and receiving outlets is not linear, as it appears at first glance, but interlocking and overlapping. Governments — the largest funders — usually fund all receiving outlets: government, civil organisations, the private sector, and individuals. Civil organisations do not usually fund governments; the wealthy private sector and the transcontinental corporations can fund not only civil organisations, the private sector, and individuals but governments too, with the aim of achieving their own interests.

Conditions of funding:-

Certainly there is no funding without conditions — whoever holds the money holds the decision; it may be the funder's right to impose its conditions! But it is a mistake to place all conditions in one basket. Some conditions aim to ensure the project's sound implementation, strengthen the standards of transparency and accountability, and guarantee the service reaches the intended beneficiary; others aim to adjust and change society's values to match the funder's culture — which is not necessarily harmful or contrary to the recipient society's values. The conditions any funder may impose can be grouped as follows:

1. Administrative and methodological stipulations:-

These consist in imposing a particular template for writing the project proposal, a hiring methodology, the use of particular forms. They are not conditions in the political sense touching the recipient's sovereignty; rather they aim to create a common language between funder and recipient that unifies the manner and system of work. International institutions usually give these administrative aspects necessary attention.

2. Technical stipulations:-

Meaning those conditions the funder requires to be present in the good or service delivered to the final beneficiary. These are usually scientific conditions — as when the funder stipulates that kindergartens have suitable floor space according to specifications, or specifies the colours used in the paint as more suitable for children's learning environments; banning the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, or packaging the product in a specified way, etc.

3. Other stipulations:-

These are all the other conditions falling outside the two previous groups — those around which calm or sharp debate can turn. These conditions can initially be interpreted as non-objective, seen as touching the receiving party's sovereignty and independence. Among them, by way of example not enumeration — and we may differ over divining their purpose:

– Designating and specifying the funded programme's beneficiaries in number and kind on criteria that may appear to some non-objective — and may truly be so — such as colour, gender, age, ethnicity, geography, and political affiliation.

– Specifying fields and areas of work to the exclusion of others: where the funding body declares it funds certain projects and activities and not others — such as barring the funding of activities and projects in Areas C of the West Bank governorates, or barring infrastructure projects in the refugee camps.

– Stipulating cooperation with international institutions working in the same field and of the donor's nationality, stipulating partnership with Israeli institutions, or stipulating recourse to experts from the funding states — which drains a large share of the granted budgets.

– The donor's disregard of national development priorities and imposition of projects and activities that may appear to some less important than other needs — such as projects promoting the concepts of democracy and good governance and supporting women.

Important observations requiring further discussion:-

– All funders — individuals, governments, institutions, and companies — have their own conditions. Some declare them, as in the document of the United States Agency for International Development; others do not declare them — Arab and Islamic funding in particular, which imposes its own agenda regarding the persons receiving the funding. If European and American funding has a clear methodology we may not agree with, Arab and Islamic funding relies more on the standing of the receiving persons or institutions and its relationship with them!! Even local funding, whether from individuals or bodies, usually carries its own conditions — as when an awards ceremony for secondary-school students is funded by a monopolistic, corrupt local company stipulating that the ceremony be organised under its patronage and supervision, with the aim of legitimising its money and buying society's approval.

– Conditional funding directed to governments in their capacity as the governing party usually entails political understandings exceeding in their gravity the funding directed to civil institutions!!

– One cause of the disagreement over international funding is the receiving parties' failure to set priorities. How can the segments of a single society agree that fighting poverty comes before strengthening democracy? And what is to be done if part of this society believes that encouraging theatre should command the funder's attention? — and then, which theatre do we mean: the liberal, the nationalist, the Arab, or the Islamic, etc.? And how do we reconcile a funded programme that stipulates mixing of the sexes with another funded programme that stipulates their separation?

– Arab and Islamic funding is mostly confined to funding relief assistance, the distribution of food parcels, and construction projects; rarely do we find Arab funding for theatre, culture, the strengthening of democratisation, or the development of research studies. Is that not funding conditioned by the funder's culture? Can an unelected government fund a programme to strengthen democracy, democratic elections, and the role of civil society?

– Some “funding conditions” are formulated in cooperation between the funder and the receiving party in the first stages of designing the project idea. Here a great responsibility falls on the receiving party to define the local community's development needs and priorities, ensuring the funding conditions cohere with the requirements of the project's successful implementation.

– Some of these conditions are formulated as advice and recommendations, not binding on the receiving party. But the receiving party's weakness in financial and administrative matters leaves it unable to debate these conditions with the funder — and so they become, in effect, imposed conditions that must be carried out.

– It must be affirmed that some funding, regardless of its source, is not innocent: it is deployed to influence the recipient's culture. There is funding that aims to create and deepen the culture of begging and the rentier economy, and to make individuals dependent, idle, and uncreative. Yet conditional funding can be deployed in a way that truly serves society without fulfilling the funder's hidden aims. That depends greatly on any society's internal sources of strength, namely:-

• The strength of the official government, its readiness, its support for creative national initiatives, and the just distribution of resources.
• The existence of a development plan in which society's three sectors participate: governmental, civil, and private.
• The competence of the implementing persons and institutions.
• The application of the foundations and standards of transparency, oversight, and disclosure.