AID TO AFRICA:

Quotes are from "Global Issues That Affect Everyone" by Anup Shah.  See section on "Sustainable Development."  (Italics throughout are mine.)

       Many who study the politics of aid from wealthier nations to those in need of assistance, have said that aid to Africa is a gift with strings attached, one in which the donor generally receives more than the recipient, or even one which actually does damage to the growth potential of recipient nations while claiming to serve that growth. 

       These criticisms of U.S. aid and aid from 'first world' nations in general, do not relate to the actual number of dollars received in terms of assistance, but to the conditions attached to receipt of these dollars - conditions which often bring greater wealth to the wealthy than to the poor.  'Conditional aid packages' sometimes force receiving nations into voting in support of U.S policies, or risk losing their aid.  At other times, they compel these nations to change their economic policies so that instead of producing commodities and farming their land in a way that would benefit home markets, they must produce commodities for the markets of the wealthier nations but for a price that is quite low.  This is due to the fact that the poorer nations must compete with each other in the export of goods.  Therefore, to remain competive, labor costs must remain low, gross national income remains low, and the overall wellbeing of the people is sacrificed.

       Here are some quotes from international leaders in humanitarian aid to Africa, who express their concern about this situation:

Briefing by Action for Southern Africa and the World Development Movement.

       "Africa is often highlighted as an area receiving more aid, or in need of more of it, yet, in recent years, it has seen less aid and less investment etc, all the while being subjected to international policies and agreements that have been detrimental to many African people.

       For the June 2002 G8 summit, a briefing was prepared by Action for Southern Africa and the World Development Movement, looking at the wider issue of economic and political problems:

"It is undeniable that there has been poor governance, corruption and mismanagement in Africa. However, the briefing reveals the context - the legacy of colonialism, the support of the G8 for repressive regimes in the Cold War, the creation of the debt trap, the massive failure of Structural Adjustment Programmes imposed by the IMF and World Bank, and the deeply unfair rules on international trade.  The role of the G8 in creating the conditions for Africa's crisis cannot be denied. Its overriding responsibility must be to put its own house in order, and to end the unjust policies that are inhibiting Africa's development."

Also, in relation to 'conditional aid packages':

"Inter Press Service (IPS) noted that aid tied with conditions cut the value of aid to recipient countries by some 25-40 percent, because it obliges them to purchase uncompetitively priced imports from the richer nations. IPS (cited) a U.N. study which also noted that just four countries (Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) were breaking away from the idea of “tied aid” with more than 90 percent of their aid “untied”.

50 Years is Enough Campaign

       In two specific areas, conditional aid from the U.S. has affected two extremely important areas of African life and economy.  The first has to do with help in fighting HIV/AIDs.  The second has to do with trade policies which interfere with the possibility for generating income through the export of agricultural products and textiles.

       [Njoki Njoroge] Njehu (Director of the '50 Years is Enough' campaign) points out:

"that money being doled out to Africa to fight HIV/AIDS is also a form of tied aid. She said Washington is insisting that the continent's governments purchase anti-AIDS drugs from the United States instead of buying cheaper generic products from South Africa, India or Brazil.  As a result, she said, U.S. brand name drugs are costing up to 15,000 dollars a year compared with 350 dollars annually for generics.

In addition,  AGOA, theAfrican Growth and Opportunity Act, signed into U.S. law in 2000, is more sinister than tied aid, (she continues).  If a country is to be eligible for AGOA, it has to refrain from any actions that may conflict with the U.S.'s 'strategic interests.'

The potential of this clause to influence our (Africa's) countries' foreign policies was hinted at during debates at the United Nations over the invasion of Iraq...  The war against Iraq was of strategic interest to the United States... As a result... several African members of the U.N. Security Council, including Cameroon, Guinea and Angola, were virtually held to ransom when the United States was seeking council support for the war in 2003."

'Giving with one hand, and taking away with the other'

       The subject of how 'trade' relates' to 'aid' is complex - as complex as the matter of how the self-interest of nations affects their giving to others.  Many feel that offering aid without changing the world trade practices of wealthier nations, will inevitably defeat the uses to which aid dollars can be put.   One critic, writing below, says that it is like "giving with one hand and taking away with the other."

      Here, first, are the comments of James Wolfensohn, World Bank President, made in a speech in 2002. 

       "Our compassion (at the 2002 G8 Summit)... may be well meant, but it is also hypocritical. The U.S., Europe, and Japan spend $350 billion each year on agricultural subsidies (seven times as much as global aid to poor countries), and this money creates gluts that lower commodity prices and erode the living standard of the world's poorest people...  These subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty.”

       Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that these (domestic) farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports. By coincidence, that's about the same as the total of rich countries' aid to poor countries, so we take back with our left hand every cent we give with our right.

“It's holding down the prosperity of very poor people in Africa and elsewhere for very narrow, selfish interests of their own,” Mr. Malloch Brown says of the rich world's agricultural policy.

It also seems a tad hypocritical of us to complain about governance in third-world countries when we allow tiny groups of farmers (the agricultural conglomerates) to hijack billions of dollars out of our taxes (referring to the large agricultural subsidies that go to the few)."

 

To return to newsletter, click here.