longer. The crucial point however was that the dynamics of political and cultural diversities were underestimated. In
opposition to the slogan “diversity is our strength”, diversity was perceived as weakness and as annoying. The con-
tradicting interests, resulting from a variety of identities, could not be conciliated, for example according to a model
of democratic parliaments on a national level, with an institutionalised majority and opposition.

CONTRADICTIONS EXIST BETWEEN:

- NGOs from the North and the South NGOs from the North and the South

- “moderate” and “radical” NGOs "moderate" and "radical" NGOs

- NGOs oriented towards lobbying or towards movement NGOs oriented towards lobbying or towards movement
- Anglo-Saxon and romanic political cultures Anglo-Saxon and romanic political cultures

~ rich and poor NGOs rich and poor NGOs

~ large and small NGOs

This is why numerous NGOs gave up international cooperation. Others continue to operate, but they have to do so in
an unstructured sector, characterised by almost anarchical and/or market conditions concerning democratic proce-
dures. In the absence of a democratic set of rules, informal hierarchies and asymmetric, competitive and hegemoni-
al structures emerged comparable to an unregulated market.

As a result, some NGOs which continue to operate on an international level, focus on strengthening their own organ-
isation and position. Political and/or thematic alliances continue to exist between NGOs or NGO networks, but they are
pragmatic, temporary and restricted to single issues as well as restricted to a manageable number of partners, which
are carefully selected.

THE NGO TRANSNATIONALS

After having failed to create an international network in accordance to grassroots principles, a number of large NGOs
decided to transnationalize their structures or to speed up this process in cases where it had already started before
and they began to operate as “global players” in order to be able to act in different places at the same time worldwide.
A number of large environmental organisations in the U.S. have acted as the avant-garde of transnationalization.
Above all, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) systematically founded branches in different Latin-American countries.
(Gudynas, 1994). These branches are managed by a local staff while receiving funds and know-how from the head-
quarters in the U.S. Greenpeace International and World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) from the very beginning were
designed with the intention to establish a net of international branches. Especially Greenpeace operates very sys-
tematically in this respect and proofed to be strategically far-sighted by opening offices in Russia and China. Since
the organisation does not depend on members, it is quite easy for Greenpeace to establish branches controlled by a
central office that can provide the necessary financial means and build a homogenous “corporate identity" worldwide.
Like no other NGO Greenpeace resembles an economic “global player". Greenpeace turns into "McGreenpeace”.

The Third World Network (TWN) is another very special example of a transnational NGO. The TWN is the only real
transnational NGO which was founded in a developing country (Malaysia), managed to establish itself in other devel-
oping countries, both in Latin America and Africa, and above all operates very successfully. The TWN strongly builds
its expansion strategy on prominent figures from the relevant countries, often scientists. For example, the organisa-
tion of the Indian winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize, Vandana Shiva, is member of the TWN. The reputation and au-
thority of these personalities in combination with qualified analyses - and not to forget the bonus of being from the
South - enabled the TWN to play a leading role in the international NGO-community, many times winning conflicts with
large transnational NGOs from the North.

THE NETWORK GUERRILLA
On April 30th 1998 the Financial Times published an article under the headline "The Network Guerrilla". The article