OPINION:The days of "us" doing it for "them" in Africa are long behind us, writes Eamonn Meehan.
JOHN O'SHEA suggests (Opinion and Analysis, Friday, March 14th) that Ireland's aid programme should concentrate its efforts and "adopt" one poor country, that Irish managers should directly implement the programme, and that "control of the cheque book must be kept in the back pocket" at all times. We are asked to believe that this will "stem the rapacious march of China through Africa".
This is not an approach likely to bring too many positive results for poor people. We know from experience that real progress in development is made by self-reliant local people, coming up with solutions to their own problems. We cannot "deliver" development (or indeed democracy) from outside. We can, however, support genuine efforts by reforming governments and by civil society which have a significant impact.
I have recently returned from Liberia and Sierra Leone, two countries in West Africa ruined by decades of conflict over natural resources, military rule and bad government. Both are now, through newly-elected governments and with international support, making serious efforts to overcome the legacy of the past. In Sierra Leone the opposition recently took over in an election judged free and fair by the international community. Both countries have a brief window in which to respond to the needs of their people for jobs, health, food and basic human rights. These are fragile states and nothing is guaranteed. But we can help tip the balance in favour of a positive outcome.
The support by Irish Aid for a pooled fund with other donors and the government of Liberia to build up the devastated health service is an innovative and carefully-planned project, as is Ireland's support for the creation of a new police force. The support given by Ireland to the National Electoral Commission in Sierra Leone was critical to the smooth running of elections. The work of other donors in funding the office of the visionary auditor general in Liberia and the anti-corruption commission in Sierra Leone are helping to build capacity in areas which are key to future stability and public confidence in the institutions of the state.
Governments are essential to development. There is no way in which a foreign enterprise can take responsibility for areas such as these. Frankly, the people would not stand for it. The key is to be able to support reforming and democratising governments with funding in carefully-planned interventions. Doing this does not involve recklessness with taxpayers money.
International development has for decades been plagued by grandiose schemes and the search for "silver bullet" solutions to poverty and bad governance. Aid programmes need to be experimental and able to change course quickly. In general official aid programmes have not been good at this. Corruption is still a problem, although money stolen from aid programmes is dwarfed by that paid in bribes to secure contracts and concessions and by locally-generated revenue stolen from national treasuries.
The primary responsibility of aid donors is to the poor in the countries where they operate. This begs the question as to whether aid donors are held sufficiently accountable for their actions and use of funds.
People in developing countries should have access to information detailing the amount dedicated to particular projects by donors and they should be involved with attempts to evaluate outcomes. After all, no one knows better whether the service was delivered than those at the end of the line - the poor in urban slums and remote rural communities. In my experience people are very capable of providing this information but rarely get asked.
Fortunately the days of well-meaning "us" doing it for the unfortunate "them" are pretty well behind us. This approach has been tried and it has failed.
Africa is changing rapidly. Mass communications and greater freedom to travel are creating an aware and restless young population. They want solutions to lack of jobs, poor infrastructure and bad governments. We need to have a programme which is innovative, not afraid to take risks, supports what works, and involves the beneficiaries in all its aspects. Of course, we must also be hard-headed. If the work is not delivering results we must stop funding it; if we cannot trust our partners we should find others. We also need to ask if money provided to multilateral agencies such as the UN and World Bank is the best way to assist poor people.
On corruption, we as a country could do something useful by introducing legislation to ratify the UN Convention on Corruption; we could begin a campaign to end the secrecy and privilege enjoyed by banks around the world which keep secret accounts loaded with money stolen from the treasuries of poor countries.
In this way we can make a significant contribution to overcoming poverty and injustice and not waste our time contemplating taking from others what is ultimately theirs - responsibility for their own development. We can choose to help or not, depending on the circumstances. The search for workable solutions goes on. What we cannot do is impose an outdated model which is doomed to failure. If this is the approach we wish to take we are better off keeping the money at home.
Eamonn Meehan is deputy director of Trócaire and a member of the advisory board for Irish Aid