Changing donor policy and practice on civil society in the post-9/11 aid context
Jude Howell and Jeremy Lind
Download NGPA Research Paper 25| (PDF)
This paper argues that the "global war on terror regime" has contributed towards the increasing securitisation of aid policy and practice. By this we understand a complex weaving of discourses, political alliances, policy and legislative shifts, institutional arrangements and practices. The trope of the "global war on terror" serves as a mobilising discourse, used by global and political leaders in pursuit of military and political objectives. It embodies a polarising vision of the world, which pits modernity against backwardness, civilisation against barbarism, right against wrong, evil against good and freedom against oppression. This in turn triggers a global political re-ordering, generating new alliances and divisions, within and across states, redrawing the balance sheet of enemies and friends. The militaristic content of the phrase and the depiction of the enemy in extreme terms rationalises extraordinary responses such as pre-emptive military intervention and the rolling-back of civil liberties and human rights. The 'global war on terror regime' also involves the reconfiguring of institutional and policy arrangements, as reflected in the interweaving of development and security agendas. Though the UK government and some politicians have rejected the term 'global war on terror', preferring instead to use words such as 'radicalism', or 'extremism', the notion of a threat, the need for extra-ordinary measures and the gradual institutionalisation of particular rules and practices to avert terrorist attacks mean that the effects of this new regime continue to prevail.
This paper does not propose that the 'global war on terror regime' has singly subordinated aid policy and institutions to the security agendas of the USA or other advanced capitalist countries. Nor does it suggest that the 'global war on terror' has had no impact on development agendas, policies and institutional behaviour. Nor does it claim that the 'war on terror regime' has wholly reframed the way donor agencies engage with non-governmental public actors. We argue that the 'global war on terror regime' has accelerated and consolidated trends in the direction of development thinking and aid policy and practice that already were emerging during the 1990s. Specifically it argues that the 'global war on terror regime' has contributed in diverse and complex ways to the increasing securitisation of development and aid policy. Moreover, the securitisation of aid has affected the way donor agencies relate to non-governmental actors, though this relationship has not been wholly subordinated to or framed by security interests. By 'securitisation' of development and aid policy we refer to the encapsulating of global and national security interests into the framing, structuring and implementation of development and aid.
The paper explores these propositions through case studies of select bilateral development agencies. It identifies some emerging patterns and points out distinctions related to the security priorities of different governments, the bureaucratic architecture of aid and the historical backdrop to aid. The first section examines how the 'global war on terror regime' hastens the securitisation of aid. The subsequent sections look in turn at the various manifestations of these processes in the context of American, British, Australian and Swedish bilateral development aid. Thus, we examine the pronouncements of national political leaders and the changing mission statements and grand goals of donor agencies. We explore the changing institutional architecture of aid and particularly the closer relations between development and security agencies, the emergence of new co-ordinating groups and pooled resources. The shift in donor engagement with civil society and particularly donors' discovery of 'Muslim' parts of civil society is examined. This paper also traces how agencies have responded in varying degrees to perceived global security threats by introducing checks on partners, engaging with 'suspect communities', specifically Muslims, and demanding greater accountability from civil society actors.