On Jean-Paul Marthoz's "Bush's legacy will be NGOs with a truly global vision"

Sir, 

Jean-Paul Marthoz raises an important question when he asks whether the end of the Bush Administration will change the relationship between the US government and NGOs. The answer will, of course, depend in part on whether a Republican or a Democrat wins the presidential race. But either way, the outcome will have ramifications well beyond the borders of America.

Some of the anticipated changes will, no doubt, be specific to those items on the international agenda where large numbers of NGOs vehemently oppose Bush Administration policies. These include the American intervention in Iraq, Washington’s overall position on the Kyoto Protocol, genetically modified organisms and stem cell research. But the new administration’s relations with NGOs will also impact more widely on the on-going reorganisation of civil society across the world.

I believe that we have witnessed an acceleration of the globalisation of civil society during this first decade of the 21st century, enhanced by the spread of new technologies such as the Internet and mobile telecommunications. NGOs have been influenced by the great social shifts of our time, both in post-industrial countries in the trans-Atlantic zone and in post-communist states undergoing a transition towards democracy. One early example of this global phenomenon occurred at the failed world trade negotiations in Seattle. Other NGOs have been used by the US government as agents of political and ideological change in eastern Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

This aspect of US relations with NGOs is often overlooked, especially the way it affects the structure of civil society in eastern Europe. Here, NGOs are often quasi-political, with strong links to right-wing politics. Consequently, if the Democrats win the White House, the new president might discover that eastern European civil society is rather hostile to American liberalism, which is perceived to be a form of post-communist ideology.

On a wider front, however, a Democrat Administration that promoted a progressive social agenda could have a strong influence on the globalised civil society movement.

Many tantalising queries about the next US administration’s relations with NGOs and global civil society remain open, and we certainly need a more thorough analysis of what might occur if the White House remains Republican. Will it continue the Bush tactic of "exporting democracy" or will US policies become more nuanced, perhaps adopting some features of the Democrat agenda? Alternatively, could a Democrat victory open the way for Chinese and Russian NGOs to join the process of globalisation in civil society without triggering a hostile government reaction in these two countries? I hope Jean-Paul Marthoz will return to these fascinating topics in future.