causes to widen their donor base. To expand their resources, NGOs increasingly rely on
governments, an alternative that comes with its own set of limitations. If NGOs choose
to accept state assistance, then their neutrality and legitimacy are potentially compro-
mised. They may be forced continually to report “success” to renew their financing, even
though success may be difficult to prove or even be an inaccurate description of real ity.
In short, NGOs are locked in a competitive scramble for resources.^17
Do most NGOs succeed in accomplishing their goals? This question is difficult to
evaluate, because the NGO community is itself diverse; it has no single agenda, and
NGOs often work at cross- purposes, just as states do. Groups can be found on almost any
side of every issue, resulting in countervailing pressures. In a world that is increasingly
viewed as demo cratic, are NGOs appropriate? To whom are NGOs accountable if
their leaders are not elected? How do they maintain transparency when they have no
publicly accountable mechanism? Do NGOs reflect only liberal values?
Incomplete or unsatisfactory answers to these questions have led scholars to suggest
that NGOs may be more like other actors and less altruistic than supposed— self-
interested, self- aggrandizing, concerned with their own narrow agendas, hierarchical
rather than demo cratic, more worried about financial gains than achieving progressive
social purposes. This suggestion has led some critics to refer to NGOs as “wild cards”
and “benign parasites.”^18 Some case studies have found that NGOs’ actions have led
to unintended and detrimental consequences. In refugee camps in Rwanda run by
NGOs such as Doctors Without Borders and the International Rescue Committee,
the leaders of the genocide were actually being protected. When NGOs are active in
war zones, are they becoming more like “force multipliers,” expanding the capabilities
of the military.^19 The roles NGOs play and the legitimacy they may or may not have
depend in part on how they answer critical questions of accountability and transpar-
ency. Whether accountable and transparent or not, NGOs increasingly work with
states, IGOs, and regional organ izations.
analyzing Igos, International law, and ngos
the realist view
Realists are skeptical about intergovernmental organ izations, international law, and
nongovernmental organ izations, though they do not completely discount their place.
Recall that realists see anarchy in the international system, wherein each state must
act in its own self- interest and rely on self- help mechanisms. While it may be useful to
use IGOs, states prefer not to do so out of distrust and skepticism. Realists doubt that
collective action is effective and believe states will refuse to rely on the collectivity for
254 CHAPTER SEVEn ■ IGOs, INterNAtIONAL LAw, ANd NGOs