By JIM GENARO

Private aid groups often are more effective than government bureaucracies, but their involvement overseas can result in an undue influence on American foreign policy, according to Marc Mullinax, an associate professor of religion at Mars Hill College.

Mullinax discussed some of the ways private groups shape U.S. foreign policy in a talk titled “Privatization and Philanthropy in U.S. Foreign Affairs” at the World Affairs Council of Western North Carolina last Monday. About 75 people attended the talk at UNC Asheville’s Owen Conference Center.

Often, famous philanthropists can generate more publicity about an issue and have a more substantive effect than governments can, Mullinax said.

As an example, he cited filmmaker Steven Spielberg’s recent decision to quit his role as artistic director for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing because of China’s support of Sudan.

Noting that China buys two-thirds of Sudan’s vast oil reserves, Mullinax said that by bringing publicity to the issue, Spielberg’s actions result in “awareness brought to an under-the-radar crisis ... These are the priceless assets that private philanthropic efforts can make to the world.”

He noted that a number of high-profile efforts have been made in recent years to address major crises in the world, such as the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which uses the vast resources of the billionaire couple to promote health and education worldwide.

Such groups have several advantages over government aid efforts, including more streamlined organizational structures that have been tested through competition in the free market, Mullinax told the audience.

By contrast, when governments take on aid projects, “each new arrangement on an issue somehow needs a new bureaucracy,” Mullinax said. This leads to “an inconsistent government super-structure. As a result, America punches well below its throw-weight.”

However, the effectiveness of non-governmental groups can also be harmful if the intentions of those groups are less than charitable, he said.

For instance, he cited the group Christians United for Israel, which Mullinax described as “Christian Zionists” who oppose any sort of peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians that does not maintain absolute Israeli control of the areas designated in the Bible as the “Holy Land.”

The organization has significant influence on U.S. politics, he said. President Bush and presidential candidate John McCain are among the many American politicians who have addressed the group.
Partly as a result of efforts by groups like CUFI and the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, U.S. foreign policy has been grossly slanted in favor of Israel, he argued.

Mullinax noted that $3 billion of the $21 billion the U.S. gives in foreign aid each year goes to Israel, “which is not a developing nation, by the way.”

Behind this support is a section of the American evangelical community, which he said constitutes “a well-funded, counter-cultural movement that believes that God Himself has written a political agenda” into the Bible.

“When you get a critical mass of a population that’s ready for the rapture ... you can get a lot of money and influence in the form of philanthropy,” he elaborated.

However, philanthropic organizations are not the only private groups shaping U.S. policy. Private companies like the security firm Blackwater engage in military and political activities that traditionally are considered the realm of governments.

Blackwater, which was founded in 1997 by former Navy seal and evangelical Christian Erik Prince, maintains “a shadow army of tens of thousands of private contractors,” Mullinax said. The company currently is employed by the U.S. government to provide security for dignitaries in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“In strictly military terms, Blackwater could overthrow many of the world’s countries,” he added.

In Iraq, the company operates with complete legal immunity for its actions, thanks to a law passed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the agency established to rule Iraq after the U.S. invasion.

Blackwater first made headlines in 2004 when four of its contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated by insurgents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah.

The American military responded with “an immensely huge revenge attack on the city of Fallujah” that killed thousands of civillians and galvanized the Iraqi resistance movement.

More recently, Blackwater’s protected status was brought to national media attention when a convoy that was guarded by the company opened fire on a crowd of people in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, killing 17.

A subsequent investigation by the FBI found no evidence to support Blackwater’s claim that the convoy was fired upon first, a claim that was also contradicted by numerous witnesses.

Summing up his presentation, Mullinax told the audience that “the genius of the American system, where any idea can continue to survive as long as there is money to support it ... (is that) it allows the very best and the very base American values to continue to exist.”

He then entertained some questions from the audience.

“Can you say more about the Gates Founation and its role in changing WHO (World Health Organization) policy and health policy?” a man asked.

“When he does something, it’s bigger news than the president,” Mullinax replied. “He’s making tremendous statements that will be emulated and that’s the power of philanthropy.”

“How much of AIPAC’s support is religiously based?” a man asked.

“A huge percentage,” Mullinax answered. Many of the group’s supporters are evangelical Christians who believe that the establishment of a Jewish state in Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem is a crucial prerequisite for the return of Jesus, heralding the end times, he explained. “Take away the Second Coming and there is no funding.”

A man noted that the involvement of private groups in U.S. foreign policy is not a new phenomenon. In an effort to counter Soviet aspirations in Europe during the aftermath of World War II, the American government employed many private groups, including labor unions, to promote the economies of European nations, he said.

Mullinax agreed, saying that there is little that is new about the privatization of U.S. policy. He noted that while the Constitution specifies a basic power structure, in relation to foreign policy, “there’s not much in our Constitution about how the nuts and bolts of our foreign policy are to be carried out.”