Government Schmuverment: The Question of Renegade Aid.

When is it okay for international aid agencies to work around a national government and not through it?

1. In Afghanistan, where the government is very interested in developing the whole country, just not so effective right now in doing so? 

The Associated Press reports that "International donors are plowing as much as $ 1 billion into Afghanistan without going through the government." According to the article, donors believe that the government is not well-equipped to manage aid funds. 

Now, neither the government nor the UN have any idea how much aid is available. "As a result of the lack of coordination and transparency, large parts of the national development strategy will go unfunded," said Kai Eide of Norway to the UN Security Council.

2. In Sudan, where a week ago, Omar al Beshir kicked out international aid groups? 

According to Agence France Presse that Beshir had said Sudanese authorities will replace the work of the foreign aid agencies and warned that Kharoum wanted no foreign aid groups on the ground within a year. 

3. Or in Gaza, where Jerusalem has delayed for two month's Mercy Corps' delivery of macaroni to people suffering as a result of the latest Israeli offensive?

The News and Observer (out of North Carolina) reports that the issue will be addressed by diplomatic means (and not through renegade action)...

"Aid should never be used as a political weapon," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Wednesday in Washington. "We'll try to push to get into Gaza as many supplies as possible." 

* * * 

To me these examples seem backward. It seems like aid agencies should act outside the national government when that government refuses to act: when that government is willfully withholding aid to harm a population. And they should work through the government that wants to do development work on their own, even if they don't have the capacity to do that right now. 

Am I wrong?