Hi,

This may be a bit off-topic, because the discussion thus far seems to have revolved around NGOs with respect to specific events and incidents (e.g., alleged war crimes). However, that said:

This book (http://www.amazon.com/Country-Politi...0175910&sr=8-1) has an interesting roundtable including, among others, Carl Ford (formerly of State INR) and an HRW staffer. I haven't read the chapter in some time, but if I recall, the HRW staffer stated that, at least in assessing general political stability and political risk, he thought NGOs were at an advantage vis-a-vis government intelligence services. His reasoning was that the latter mainly liased with their counterparts, whereas since the NGOs worked with "the truly disadvantaged" (to steal a phrase from William Julius Wilson), they got a more accurate sense of how things are.

I suppose one could extend the argument, as seems to have already occurred in this thread, to different reporting channels, different oversight mechanisms, different incentive structures, and so on, as well as different world views and recruiting mechanisms.

I know some of the people on this board have served as FAOs, attaches, etc. I'd be curious to see whether they agree with the HRW staffer.

Regards
Jeff