Dogs of war — mercenaries, arms dealers, profiteers — those who profit from conflict are universally vilified but another class of organisation whose fortunes are no less dependent on conflict and suffering is rarely subject to the same disapproval, NGOs.

Few organisations benefit as directly from human suffering as INGOs – images of malnourished children, amputees and poverty inevitably sends money flooding into INGO coffers.

Of course not all NGOs are sinister organisations bent on profiting from the world’s suffering in fact virtually all major INGOs were founded on admirable premises. However there is no avoiding the fact that NGOs almost universally profit or at least derive their funding as a result of human suffering.

What is ultimately troubling in Sri Lanka’s case is the proliferation of these organisations and their intimate involvement with matters of vital national importance, the rehabilitation of virtually the entire population of the Killinochchi and Mullaithivu Districts.

Regardless of the government’s constant anti NGO rhetoric rehabilitation efforts in the north remain, for the most part, dependent on funding and assistance from INGOs.

Recently The Sunday Leader highlighted the efforts made by these INGOs to deliberately alter government policy by refusing to provide assistance to IDPs in certain zones of the Menik Farm resettlement site, and to sabotage the government’s plans to construct long term shelters for IDPs.

Recent weeks however have seen the UN begin to work more closely with the government and INGOs are now operating in all zones of the camp. Despite the government’s rhetoric regarding tough regulation for NGOs on the ground in the Wanni NGOs remain a force to be reckoned with while the government – impoverished, disorganised and reliant on the perpetually ineffectual bureaucracy has little choice but to rely on the well funded, highly organised NGO community.

According to the director of the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies (CHA), Jeevan Thiagaraja, which has a mandate to help coordinate the work of NGOs operating in Sri Lanka, "The INGOs resources – their funds — are needed, however local NGOs and state institutions have the capacity to handle a large portion of the rehabilitation work directly. Ultimately LNGOs and government agencies will always have more of an interest in the long term development of the country than INGOs."

While INGOs provide necessary funding and expertise in most cases their work is outsourced; subcontracted to local organisations.

Typically the UN is given a contract – which it will subcontract to an INGO and that INGO will in turn hire a local NGO to carry out the project.

In practical terms the UN might be awarded a contract to construct sanitation facilities, which they will in turn subcontract Oxfam who will ultimately hire a local NGO to actually oversee the construction of the latrines.

This three tier process – apart for being tremendously inefficient is also hugely wasteful with money spent at every level — and ultimately it is that tendency to waste that is the INGOs’ biggest failing.

If there was some way contracts could be directly awarded to local NGOs or state organisations a vast amount of waste could be avoided.

While the government has been obsessed by the threat to the nation’s sovereignty posed by INGOs, which it accuses of arming and funding the LTTE it has missed the main failing of Western backed aid agencies, their tremendous inefficiency.

Despite the immense popularity of aid agencies in the West and the reverence with which Oxfam, Care, Save The Children etc. are regarded in London, Paris and Washington, internationally the record of aid agencies is dubious.

Billions of aid dollars poured into the poverty stricken corners of the world have achieved little in terms of long term poverty alleviation.

While aid agencies have spent billions of dollars in East Africa — Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia where they have had a presence for decades, these countries remain impoverished while countries that received genuine investment; Korea, Taiwan rather than aid have been able to chart paths to prosperity.

The much derided Nike shoe factory seems to have contributed more to poverty alleviation than all the sustainable development projects offered by NGOs.

And this reveals the fundamental failing of NGOs – which unlike cooperate entities do not earn money and as a result tend to be utterly profligate in their spending but not geared towards meeting tangible goals. As they do ultimately need conflict, refugees, poverty etc,. in order to justify their existence their commitment to actually combating poverty in the long term remains questionable.

Of course the role played by INGOs is far from being entirely negative, in emergency/ crisis situations where local institutions are overwhelmed INGOs can offer invaluable support as was the case after the tsunami.

But like the tsunami, after the initial emergency phase the presence of INGOs becomes more difficult to justify. After the defined crisis has passed ‘mission drift’ often sets in and INGOs begin spreading their tentacles into various other ‘development’ projects – providing services, etc., many of which are unnecessary or might be provided by local organisations.

Recycled paper making or micro agriculture projects might seem like worthy endeavours but in the long term they are rarely a spring board to genuine development – unlike a Nike shoe factory.

A local example of an organisation affected by mission drift is the IOM which entered the country to help resettle migrant workers displaced by the 1994 Gulf War. Today however the IOM operated dozens of different projects in Sri Lanka from operating in the refugee camps, to modernising passport offices and fostering cadju development schemes.

According to Jeevan Thiagarajah "The IOM’s work overlaps with the work of several other organisations. Much of work of the UNHCR is undertaken by them in addition to a mix of work of UNOPS and UNDP on ‘early recovery’ as well as rehabilitation of former combatants on which ILOP has the competence, therefore I question their role."

While a lot of the work carried out by NGOs is undoubtedly beneficial often a lot of money is spent to achieve remarkable little and in the long term the continued presence of these organisations tends to foster dependence when the only real means for any country to advance is through the development of local capacity.

And that ultimately should be the crux of the debate about INGOs. The threat these organisations ultimately pose to the nation’s security is negligible. And rather than working to prevent them ‘threatening the nation’s sovereignty’ the government’s energies would be better spent ensuring that the various INGOs operate as efficiently as possible, and that local organisations are involved as directly as possible in all aspects of the rehabilitation process.