The role of international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has come under increasing scrutiny in an era marked by great power rivalry and regional instability. While NGOs have long been celebrated for their humanitarian missions and grassroots advocacy, history and recent events reveal a more complex reality: these organisations can, intentionally or otherwise, serve as proxies for foreign intelligence and military objectives. For Bangladesh—facing persistent security challenges along its borders—recognising and addressing these risks is now more urgent than ever.
NGOs: Humanitarian Agents or Instruments of Statecraft?
NGOs operate at the intersection of civil society and international relations. Their access to conflict zones, refugee camps, and vulnerable populations often grants them unique insight and influence. Yet, this very access makes them attractive tools for states seeking to advance their interests through indirect means. Academic research highlights how non-state actors, including NGOs, are increasingly used by powerful countries as instruments of irregular warfare and malign influence. States benefit from the plausible deniability and local access that NGOs provide, enabling them to shape events on the ground without direct military involvement.
Historical Precedents: Lessons from Other Regions
The use of NGOs as cover for intelligence gathering or influence operations is not new. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union covertly supported or co-opted NGOs to promote their respective ideologies and gather information. More recently, in the case of Iran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a dissident group with NGO status, provided intelligence that enabled foreign actors to pinpoint sensitive nuclear sites. This example underscores how NGOs, even unwittingly, can become conduits for strategic intelligence.
In Africa and the Middle East, major powers have funnelled resources through civil society organisations to sway political outcomes, support proxy groups, and collect local intelligence. In some conflict zones, the presence of NGOs alongside military forces has led local actors to view them as extensions of foreign intervention, undermining their neutrality and exposing them to retaliation.
The Grey Zone: NGOs in Contemporary Geopolitical Competition
The “grey zone” between war and peace is increasingly populated by non-state actors, including NGOs, who operate in ambiguous legal and political spaces. States like China and the United States have refined the use of NGOs and other civil society groups as tools for indirect influence, funding organisations that promote narratives favourable to their interests or gather information on adversaries. These operations are often subtle, involving support for local initiatives, media campaigns, or humanitarian projects that serve dual purposes.
The diffusion of technology and the complexity of modern conflicts make it easier for NGOs to be co-opted or manipulated. As a result, traditional distinctions between humanitarian work and statecraft are blurring, with NGOs sometimes acting—wittingly or unwittingly—as proxies in broader struggles for influence1.
The Bangladesh Context: Security and Sovereignty at Stake
Bangladesh’s border regions, particularly those adjacent to Myanmar, are already fraught with security challenges. The influx of Rohingya refugees, the presence of armed groups, and the prevalence of cross-border smuggling create an environment ripe for exploitation. NGOs, both local and international, play a significant role in providing aid and services in these areas. However, this presence is not without risk.
There is a disconnect between security forces and local communities, exacerbated by poor coordination and bureaucratic hurdles. In such a context, NGOs can inadvertently become channels for illicit activity or intelligence gathering. The lack of robust regulatory oversight and transparency in the NGO sector further heightens these risks. There have been cases where NGOs have failed to comply with government regulations, lacked financial transparency, or operated with limited accountability—conditions that can be exploited by foreign actors seeking to advance their interests under the guise of humanitarian work.
Unintended Consequences: Neutrality and Local Perceptions
The proximity of NGOs to military operations or foreign interests can have serious consequences. In past conflicts, NGOs working alongside or perceived as aligned with foreign militaries have become targets for violence, as seen in Somalia and Angola. Such associations erode the essential neutrality of humanitarian actors, making their staff and beneficiaries vulnerable. In Bangladesh, where border security is already strained, any perception that NGOs are acting as proxies for foreign powers could further destabilise sensitive regions and undermine public trust in both aid organisations and the authorities.
The Need for Vigilance and Reform
Bangladesh’s experience with NGOs is not unique, but the stakes are particularly high given the country’s strategic location and the volatility of its borderlands. While NGOs have made significant contributions to development and humanitarian relief, the sector’s governance challenges—ranging from financial opacity to weak oversight—must be addressed to safeguard national security. Strengthening regulatory frameworks, enhancing coordination between NGOs and government agencies, and ensuring transparency in funding and operations are critical steps.
Moreover, Bangladesh should remain vigilant against efforts by external actors to instrumentalise NGOs for geopolitical ends. This requires not only robust intelligence and law enforcement capabilities but also a nuanced understanding of how civil society can be leveraged in modern statecraft. Training security personnel to recognise and respond to grey zone threats, fostering dialogue between civil society and state institutions, and promoting a culture of accountability within the NGO sector will all contribute to a more resilient national security posture.
NGOs remain vital partners in addressing humanitarian crises and promoting development. However, the reality of contemporary geopolitics demands a sober assessment of the risks they can pose as proxy actors in great power competition. For Bangladesh, the challenge is to harness the positive contributions of NGOs while guarding against their potential exploitation by foreign interests. Achieving this balance is essential to preserving sovereignty, maintaining border integrity, and ensuring that humanitarian efforts truly serve the needs of the people—not the agendas of distant powers.
