DISCLAIMER: THE IMAGE DIRECTLY BELOW IS THE PROPERTY OF BUSINESS SPECTATOR
In the article on The Case Against Foreign Aid for Africa, we presented the various arguments both for and against foreign aid for Africa. We looked mostly at the arguments usually presented in criticism of foreign direct aid for Africa.
It is easy to be blindfolded by the huge amounts of money being thrown into Africa, and not realise the fact that little has changed in Africa since the introduction of foreign aid some six decades ago. But also, the 'bits' of positive change that have come as a result of foreign aid should not also be forgotten, like the thousands of children who now have access to education in poor communities, and the communities that now have access to clean drinking water as a result of World Bank sponsored programs. In my own country Cameroon, the Kumba-Mamfe road is an example of a World Bank sponsored program that has the potential of benefitting hundreds of thousands of people. The thing is, it also has the potential of enriching a select few, and not even being completed like many other internationally sponsored projects.
Now here's my take: We have given the various arguments presented by some of the loudest voices agains foreign aid for Africa, and if you are not conviced yet by these voices, you really should let us know what you think about foreign aid to Africa. In my opinion, the very fact that certain countries depend to such a large extent on foreign aid for their budgets and to finance government spending is an indication of a wider problem within receiving countries, and this is their inability to cash in on their own endowed potential. Why do I say this? Because many of the countries receiving huge amounts of aid are resource rich countries.
We also pointed out in our last article that aid is sometimes given to countries that are highly corrupt, and could do without it. Take Nigeria for example, a country that accounts for 21% of the total GDP of the African continent ($510 billion), and has a mature space program with four satellites launched into space in recent years; and also sitting on one of the world's largest oil reserves...70% of the population of Nigeria live under the poverty line and many more lacking access to the basic neccessities of life. Now $510 GDP would normally assume that a per capita GDP of $3000 for every Nigerian, but that would be a lie. The elite of Nigeria, mostly government officials, their relatives and affiliates luxury and affluence while struggle just to get by.
As far back as the nineties, when military dictator Sani Abacha led Nigeria, the government was receiving huge amounts in foreign aid, probably part of the massive $4 billion dollar fortune he made for gimself at the expense of the Nigerian people. Most recently, the the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria alleged that $20 billion of oil revenue had gone missing, and for that, he was suspended. This just goes to show how foreign aid money is given to inefficient and corrupt governments, that do not have the interest of the people at heart.
In 2012, the UK government gave £86.8 million to 'help' the people of Somalia, which at the time was the most corrupt nation in the world. You'll be forgiven for assuming that money never went to the hard hit people of Somalia, and the UK government knew it wouldn't.
SEE ALSO: A COUNTRY SO CORRUPT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO BURN OUR AID MONEY
Foreign aid also makes countries reluctant to carry out structural changes and reforms to make their economies better. Take Cameroon in the late 1970's for example, when the first signs of the global economic crisis had started showing face. Instead of the then president, Ahmadou Ahidjo implementing such reforms as forcing state run companies to make changes that made them more efficient, he began to carry out a massive subvention scheme that made inefficient firms more inefficient and shut the inflation rate through the roof. So in essence, he was using foreign aid money, along with money from the sale of natural resources to finance consumption. The eventual result was a devaluation of the currency.
Going back to the point of dictators, foreign aid has only empowered dictators in certain places, like it did empower Sani Abacha more. It also breeds more corruption, as power becomes more appealing due to the control of funds that come with aid; and when people get into power, what happens, they don't want to leave...they become dictators, and that could easily lead to civil war, like in the Central African Republc, Mali and Chad. The World Bank reports that in 2009 and 2010, $130mn in foreign aid money given to the Somali transitional government went missing. This explains the frequent power struggles in that area.
SEE ALSO: BRITAIN 'SPENDS £500MN ON FOREIGN AID FOR MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES
With all this, what is a better option for Africa?
- A fair price for the sale of it's resources.
- Foreign aid packages should be tied to a set of structural,
econmic and social reforms. For example, governments could be
asked to reduce the level of poverty or child deaths in exchange
help any sort.
- Aid should be reduced significantly, and where deemed necessary,
suspended for governments seen as corrupt or dictatorial.
- Foreign governments should stop taking sides in conflicts in
African nations that are driven merely by greed.
- International sanctions and asset freezes for African leaders or
government officials who misuse or misappropriate aid money.
With these and more, Africa may not even need foreign aid in the future, and where it is imperative that it be given, it would be properly used.
No comments:
Post a Comment