Questioning the Need for Continued NGO Politics in Sri Lanka

(The Article Published in Yarl Thinakural in Tamil, 02.02.2025)

Dr. Thevanayagam Thevananth

The re-election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States in 2025 has led to significant global policy shifts. In particular, his decisions regarding foreign aid and international development are expected to have a substantial impact worldwide. Shortly after taking office, Trump signed an executive order halting all U.S. foreign aid for 90 days. This decision presents a major challenge for NGOs operating in Sri Lanka, potentially forcing them to reduce efforts in human rights and social development. As these funding cuts take effect, organizations will need to find new ways to sustain their operations and ensure the continuation of essential projects. In the future, many NGOs could disappear due to financial constraints.

At this moment, it is important to reflect on several key aspects. We must assess what impact U.S. aid has had in Sri Lanka, particularly in the Northern and Eastern regions. During the war, INGOs played a crucial role in providing humanitarian assistance. In the post-war period, they have continued to support reconciliation, economic development, and democratic governance. Many of these organizations receive substantial funding from international donors, including USAID and other American donors. According to Sri Lanka's Ministry of Finance, the U.S. has provided over $2 billion in aid since 1956.

While international NGOs have contributed significantly to the Northern and Eastern provinces, their actions have also led to unintended consequences. One such effect has been the suppression of locally driven community organizations in these regions. As a result, today, civil society groups that once had strong local roots are struggling to survive, raising concerns about the effectiveness of NGOs. This raises an important question: Why has efficiency declined in these organizations?

For the past 30 years, international NGOs have systematically weakened civil society organizations in the North and East. Entities such as USAID, UN agencies, and direct funding from various countries have played a significant role in this process. One of their key strategies has been the creation of new NGOs that align with their interests, providing them with millions in funding while portraying them as genuine civil society organizations. These newly established networks have diverted attention away from grassroots organizations.

The most concerning aspect of this strategy is the misrepresentation of entities as community-based organizations. A good example of this is the six-year program to "strengthen civil society" initiated by an international agency UNOPS. This initiative, however, is merely a facade. It unites various civil society groups, offers minimal funding to only a few, and projects an illusion of widespread support. Many UN programs follow a similar pattern, where the actual benefits to communities are minimal. One notable casualty of this systematic dismantling is the Jaffna District NGO Consortium.

During the war, this consortium effectively mobilized resources, provided aid to affected populations, and supported government services. Today, it is struggling to function. Despite having 28 registered members, only a half are currently active. The claim that short-term donor programs "strengthen civil society" is often misleading. Many donor agencies establish their own organizations, control their funding, and create artificial networks with little connection to the actual communities. These efforts have led to the decline of genuine grassroots organizations. The perception that community service cannot function without large-scale donor support has become deeply ingrained.

At present, no NGO is focused on independently developing its own people. Instead, they prioritize projects dictated by donor agencies. Furthermore, a new elite class has emerged in Colombo, capable of understanding and communicating in the language of funding agencies. These individuals secure large amounts of aid in the name of the North and East but allocate only a small fraction to local organizations, while a significant portion is spent on administrative and other expenses.

Many of these organizations function merely to meet reporting requirements, producing attractive reports rather than implementing impactful projects. Consequently, grassroots communities remain largely untouched by these initiatives. This scenario prevents the emergence of independent and self-sustaining civil society organizations.

In this context, Trump’s policy decisions have severe implications for Sri Lankan NGOs. Even before the aid suspension, NGOs in Sri Lanka were already facing financial difficulties. While Trump's announcement may cause immediate setbacks, it also presents an opportunity for the emergence of sustainable, grassroots-focused organizations. To maintain stability, NGOs must adopt innovative funding strategies, enhance local engagement, and seek broader international cooperation. By doing so, dormant community organizations can be revived, and new avenues for securing funds must be explored.