Final answer:
The statement not considered a criticism of geographic/spatial targeting of global health programs is 'The problem of intervening arbitrarily without a plan' as it indicates the necessity of having a strategic approach, rather than being a direct criticism of such targeting.
Step-by-step explanation:
Among the options provided regarding criticisms about geographic/spatial targeting of global health programs, the one that is not a criticism is 'The problem of intervening arbitrarily without a plan'. Criticisms of global health programs often include issues of sustainability with vertical programs (a.), internal brain-drain among health professionals (b.), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) competing for geographical areas of operation or 'turf' (c.). However, intervening without a plan is indeed a problem and not a criticism of geographic targeting because it indicates a lack of strategic direction, which is crucial for the success of health programs. NGOs, through their actions and funding, can influence the sustainability, capacity building, and even the diplomacy of a host country. It is reflected in the way funding is often a Band-Aid rather than a transformative solution and how donor restrictions can hamper truly addressing community needs.
Another important aspect is the role of NGOs in global governance (d.), as they draw international attention to pressing issues, participate in treaty making, and help deliver aid. The case of treating AIDS patients in Africa and Southeast Asia further emphasizes the issue of resource availability, which affects the distribution and accessibility of effective treatments.