In the name of Aid (Addendum)

When I wrote my last blog entitled “In the Name of Aid” I thought I had sufficiently covered that topic and that a revisit of that topic would not be necessary for some time to come. How wrong I was. It turns out, there is another interesting dimension to the Aid saga.
According to a new report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) - a prominent Think Tank that monitors international arms transfers- 90% of Air Cargo Companies with links to arms trafficking have also been used by the UN, Western Countries and International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to transport humanitarian aid.

The report singles out the Sudan as the worst case where many of the air cargo companies are owned by the country’s political and military class who are profiting from both the war and the humanitarian efforts. In Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, humanitarian agencies regularly use air cargo companies owned by Warlords involved in mining activities.
In Somalia, Dyncorp – an American private security company – which is contracted by the US government has used an air cargo company accused of transporting arms to Al-Shabab, an extremist militia with alleged ties to Al-Qaeda.

The question which, as far as I know, the report did not ask is “where do these arms come from?”

In the Name of Aid

No continent is, perhaps, as closely associated with the term – Aid, as Africa is. I am even convinced that the ‘A’ in ‘AID’ stands for Africa (Smile). From Live Aid to Band Aid to USA for Africa to Bi-lateral to Multi-lateral Aid, Africa has received it all. In fact, an entire industry of Non-Profit Organizations, is sustained and a source of employment for millions of people worldwide, on the basis of African Aid. By some estimates, since the 1970s close to $1 Trillion has been transferred to Africa in the form of Aid. The proponents of Aid argue that Aid helps alleviate poverty, supplements national budgets, and even facilitates economic growth and development.
Certainly, Aid has provided Africa with short term benefits and many of the Aid workers and agencies operate from genuine motivations and concerns.

However, after decades of Aid, the proportion of Africans living in squalor and abject poverty is too great to let the issue of Aid pass by without a thorough scrutiny of its effectiveness and moral foundations.
The concept of Aid is advanced by resorting to arguments of morality and when that is insufficient it is clothed in questionable theories of development economics.
In terms of its moral basis, the question that needs to be asked is what should a moral compass place greater value on – a just or moral motivation or a just or moral end result? More importantly, what about having good or moral motivations behind an act when available evidence suggests that the act may even contribute to an evil condition?

One need only look at the quality of governance in Africa to understand how Aid undermines its own intentions. Large percentages of African national budgets are funded by Aid. For instance, many national healthcare budgets are less than 50% funded through internal resources the rest comes from international funding like aid. Other budgets like education and social services have similar funding ratios. This situation transfers government accountability from the electorate to donors.
In addition, aid effectively serves as a form of subsidy of government incompetence.
The need for competence is greatly reduced since the lack of results and the inability to provide minimal levels of basic services is concealed. African governments and Non-Profit agencies are so used to Aid that they claim it with a defiant sense of entitlement. When Pres. Obama recently made public his $63 Billion Global Health budget, health activists groups expressed their disappointment with the amount.

Nonkosi Kumalo of the Treatment Action campaign said:

"The broken promises and skewed priorities of governments and
donors have reduced the right to health and access to treatment to
unattainable rhetoric. In the last few months, we have seen
trillions of dollars spent on financial 'bailouts' to stimulate
economic recovery…a tiny portion of this sum could have bought quality,
sustainable healthcare for millions of people."

Said Paula Akugizibwe of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern
Africa (ARASA):

"We need to ensure that African lives do not become
a silent casualty of the global financial downturn. Our lives are
not cheap or expendable. We expect health to be prioritised over
weapons, sports and lavish politics."

The above sentiments, in my view, are quite representative of the sense of entitlement that aid recepients and activists harbor. African leaders, not Western leaders, should be held responsible for the deplorable conditions under which Africans live. These leaders have direct responsibility to improve living standards, provide basic amenities and ensure security, afterall, these are the very things they swore they would deliver during their electoral campaigns. Is it not to provide these very things, that taxes are insituted? More importantly, is it not to provide these very things that aid has been given for decades and still these amenities are in short supply if present at all?

The country now called Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire), in 1982 had accumulated a foreign debt of $5 Billion, whilst the then President Mobutu Seseko had a personal fortune of about $4 Billion. Where do you think Zaire’s Aid went?

All of these evil conditions all come about in the name of Aid.

Will Obama "Change" Africa Policy too?

President Obama campaigned and probably won the election on the basis of his promise and vision of change. He eloquently painted a picture of what ‘Change’ looked like and Americans fell in love with that mental picture. Within his first 100 days, Pres. Obama has taken America’s domestic and foreign policies in directions that do contrast with the administration of Pres. George Bush. However, one area of his foreign policies that post 100 days still, in substance, resemble the policies of his predecessor, is his Africa Policy.
Granted, his nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Mr Johnnie Carson was only officially sworn in two days ago on Wednesday the 6th of May. Thus, one could argue that an assessment of his Africa policy should now commence.
However, I do think that certain events, within these first 100 days, have permitted us to catch a glimpse of what Obama policy toward Africa, might look like, and it doesn’t not materially differ from that of Pres. Bush, in my opinion.

The Somali “Piracy” issue is a case in point. Certainly, armed robbery in high seas of US vessels is an act against US interests. But the story is much bigger than that, although mainstream media has not made sufficient ‘noise’ about the untold other side of the story.
I find it hard to believe that Pres. Obama, being one with a probing mind and a careful examiner of all facts available, would be unaware that since the early 90s reports of toxic dumping and illegal fishing have been taking place off the coast of Somalia by Western and Asian nations. These nefarious and clandestine acts, have for nearly 20 years, threatened Somali fishermen’s ’ source of livelihood and caused diseases.

Understandably, timing is of great importance and when an American Captain is being held hostage with guns pointed to his head, that is not the time for a history lesson of geo-political events. But, the American Captain is now freed, and the issue of “Piracy” is being talked about by all the media pundits. Now, is the time for the untold story to be injected into the public debate as an issue that needs to be addressed as part of the solution.

There is also no sign that the AFRICOM idea has been scrapped. I intend to write about what specific changes I would like to see the Obama administration effect, in my subsequent postings.

What Obama’s policy toward Africa will look like is not clear. At this point, we can only make inferences, and the conclusion they lead me to is not change but continuity. But the jury is still out on this one.