OPINION:Aid is enriching and entrenching some of the worst governments in Africa
DURING A recent BBC Question Timeprogramme, an audience member complained about the British government spending a fortune on overseas aid while the nation is suffering severe economic recession. He was particularly angry at the idea of giving aid to India, a country with its own space programme. His comments prompted sustained applause and vigorous nodding in agreement from the rest of the audience.
One of those who responded from the Question Timepanel was Tory grandee, Sir Michael Heseltine. He said, "Well, of course we could adopt a charity-begins-at-home approach, and stop sending aid overseas." Heseltine paused momentarily for effect, before adding, "If that's the sort of nation we want to be." This drew another robust round of applause, much of it from the same people who had earlier sided with the complainant.
This little episode perfectly encapsulated the public’s attitude to overseas aid. The belief that we are morally obliged to help others remains deeply ingrained, despite the largely secularised nature of modern society. Yet competing with this religion-inspired impulse is the more earthly concern that we are being taken for bloody fools. The problem for people like me, who believe passionately in the concept of western aid, is that the public’s concern is largely justified. In many instances we are indeed being taken for fools, and worse.
Sometimes, in the name of helping them, we are colluding in the subjugation of entire populations. Yet how to raise this issue without running a risk of the public finally dumping one of the last vestiges of its Christian heritage, and turning against overseas aid altogether?
If the man on Question Timehad been more familiar with the full range of recipients of aid he would almost certainly not have chosen India to illustrate his point. India is in fact a paragon in comparison to many other aid beneficiaries.
Across sub-Saharan Africa in particular, substantial amounts of aid intended to provide food, water and medical facilities are all too often being siphoned off by state officials, from government ministers down to local clerks.
Rather than encourage democracy and respect for human rights, which has always been a long-term ambition, aid is in fact enriching and entrenching some of the worst regimes on the African continent. Many of the autocratic leaders whose actions we despise owe the longevity of their rule and their personal fortunes largely to western aid. They use it to rig elections, as a political weapon against their peoples, and even on occasion to fund military adventures.
It isn’t as if any of this happens without the knowledge of donors. It was hardly a secret when Uganda plundered and occupied Congo, where its troops committed horrific atrocities. Nor can major donors pretend that they don’t know the Ethiopian government is using western food aid as a tool of repression against its own people. The respected Human Rights Watch organisation has told them often enough. And the UN itself has compiled a detailed report accusing Rwanda’s current rulers of committing acts of revenge genocide in Congo. Yet the supply of western aid to these and other equally obnoxious administrations continues virtually uninterrupted. It is as though the very act of sending money overseas is deemed by donors to be enough in itself.
It would be wrong to suggest that aid does not do some good. It certainly does, but not nearly as much as it should, and unfortunately in many instances it is doing more harm than good.
Still, how to solve this, short of simply walking away and abandoning the poor and the destitute of the world to their fate? The root problem with aid is in the methods of its dispersal. Vast sums are being handed directly to governments in the naive belief that they will use it for the betterment of their populations. This is practically an invitation to abuse.
To its credit, the British government has acknowledged the problem and is moving to address it. One of the first things it did was launch a comprehensive review of overseas aid. It also established (or, more accurately, reinvigorated) a four-member independent panel of experts, the Independent Commission for Aid, to police “every pound” spent.
These developments are not a signal that the British government intends to row back on aid, quite the reverse in fact. Its annual aid budget of about £7.8 billion is set to increase by one-third during the current parliamentary term.
The new Government here will presumably be reviewing all aspects of public expenditure, including an annual aid budget of some €700 million. Such a review presents a perfect opportunity for the Government to adopt a similar attitude to overseas aid as its British counterpart. It should begin tackling the widespread corruption and abuse, before the public loses faith altogether and finally decides that charity must indeed begin and end at home.