Introduction:
For every dollar of aid rich countries give to poor countries, they receive between seven to ten dollars back. Not only do the rich countries try to “help” the poor countries, but they also gain control over these countries through various means. Be it debt traps, trade agreements, or “aid to reform” agreements, the motive is pure self-interest.
Once summed up, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development, there is a net transfer of wealth that moves from the developing to the developed countries, peaking at $977 billion in 2012. There exists a significant issue wherein poor nations subsidize the prosperity of affluent nations. To fix this problem, we can't rely on the same structures and paradigms that created it in the first place.
Shifting Humanitarian Aid Paradigms:
The four founding principles of foreign aid – humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence are enshrined in numerous humanitarian standards. Rather than upholding these principles, it has now become a mere foreign policy weapon wielded mostly for personal gain. Political leaders of the world mainly focus on holding power for as long as possible and the interests of flourishing countries lie only in building their economies. Even the overall mindset of people is shifting towards their self-interest while remaining ignorant to the sufferings of others. International organizations often strive to offer aid in all forms despite the ever-existing challenges of limited resources, corruption, conflict, and political instability. Although acknowledging their efforts seems like a plausible step, we also need to be aware of the pitfalls of such efforts and their hidden motives.
Aid Distinctions: Humanitarian vs. Development
Humanitarian assistance is intended to save lives and maintain human dignity during and after a crisis. While this can have a lasting impact on helping a country, development aid can have quite the opposite result, despite some of its positive effects. Careful consideration of the needs and capabilities of the recipient country becomes vital in avoiding crises that sabotage countries that are wounded to begin with.
Relief is meant as a temporary gesture of helping a country and not a long-term strategy. While humanitarian aid resembles a band-aid used to tend to a wound, development aid resembles therapy, which yields better outcomes in the long run. Relief models are frequently used for long-term situations that paralyze the local communities expected to overcome a disaster initially but later on were crippled by the same.
Dependency on foreign aid, debt burden, inability to develop self-sufficient economies, and misuse or siphoning off by corrupt officials or institutions tends to crush these recipient countries. Development aid is mostly a sustainable way of giving the local community ownership of their progress. The term of such aid is debatable and is usually speculated to be healthy only for a year. The overextended stay of an unwanted hero in the form of a donor nation creates a cycle of dependency where the local economy suffers, ultimately affecting the national economy.
Haiti serves as an ironic example of how development aid can create a chokehold for development. It started with a massive influx of aid in response to the earthquake in 2010. Billions of dollars were pledged, reconstruction efforts were put in place and aid gushed into the country. The situation resembled handing a paintbrush to a cripple. Haiti rendered it incapable of using or implementing the assistance and the country suffered even with billions of dollars.
In the next decade, Haiti received $13 billion from the international community. Despite this, it ranks 163 out of the 191 countries in the Human development index (HDI, 2021) as reported by UNICEF.
Development aid served as a bittersweet ray of hope to the locals who, to this day, believe in the development goals. Heavy dependence on aid, inefficient coordination, accountability, corruption and mismanagement have sabotaged the long-term development of the Caribbean nation.
This fractured system of dependency calls for a new approach. Efforts to involve local stakeholders, promote local ownership, and prioritize capacity-building must gain traction to sustain aid programs.
Economic Viewpoint:
Foreign aid is often perceived as a lifeline thrown to salvage struggling economies, yet hidden beneath this goodwill lies intentions that can make or break the economic stability of a nation. Scrutinizing the motives behind such aid becomes crucial to avoid consequences that hinder rather than help a nation in need.
The mixed impact of foreign aid is evident in countries like China and South Korea which have emerged as global powers. Conversely, Afghanistan, Haiti, and Somalia have remained heavily reliant on foreign aid. Recipient countries are often lured into unfair trade agreements with the promise of aid and the prospect of expanding their market. This often, if not always, leads to crumbling of the economic sovereignty as unemployment soars.
The contrast between the Dominican Republic and Haiti’s development indices highlights the importance of focusing on business and private investments rather than solely relying on foreign aid. Developing countries must view foreign aid as a short-term catalyst while formulating long-term economic plans to address poverty and illiteracy, ensuring sustainable growth and avoiding economic stagnation.
NGOs, international organizations, and developed countries often create parallel markets with freely distributed, higher-quality goods that undermine the already struggling local economic structure. Traditional shoes made from domestic materials cannot be expected to compete with high-quality Louis Vuitton shoes which are given away for free. The concept of buying local products becomes extremely non-feasible for the locals who are provided with free goods. This makes it nearly impossible for local businesses to compete with established thriving economies in the region.
Transparency, accountability, and unwavering commitment to fostering sustainable development are paramount. Countries like the U.S. and China must avoid undermining the economic independence of developing nations, breaking the cycle of aid money being used as a tool for foreign policy gains at the expense of impoverished countries.
Foreign aid should be wielded with caution and empathy, recognizing the role of donor countries as partners rather than puppeteers in recipient nations' economic symphony. This shift in perspective can transform foreign aid into a force that genuinely empowers, nurturing economies, uplifting lives, and fueling shared prosperity.
Political Viewpoint:
The devolution of foreign aid from a soft power tool to a calculated diplomatic power instrument is aimed at advancing a nation’s foreign policy objectives. Geopolitical considerations often hinder the equitable allocation of foreign aid. Political motivations and strategic interests increasingly influence decisions and the conditions attached to aid. Addressing the complexities of politics and foreign aid requires an understanding of the diverse factors at play, including the need for transparency, accountability, and a focus on genuine development outcomes.
Politicians around the world often prioritize maintaining power over addressing the needs of their people. This tendency can hinder the development and welfare of nations. Instances such as Zimbabwe under former President Robert Mugabe, North Korea under Kim Jong Un, and Syria under Bashar Al Assad highlight how the pursuit of power can undermine a country’s progress. Striking a balance between a nation’s self-interest and compassionate foreign aid is crucial in fostering goodwill and sustainable development.
When examining the effects of politics on foreign aid, two perspectives emerge. The first involves using aid as a means to promote democracy, human rights, and mutual interests between donor and recipient countries. This approach emphasizes cooperation and the betterment of both nations. However, the second perspective views aid as a tool for exploitation, prioritizing the gains of the donor country over the development and well-being of the recipient.
Myanmar and North Korea serve as an exemplary case to describe the role of politics in foreign aid. The many sanctions and restrictions on foreign aid have deprived the citizens of Myanmar, and it is mainly attributed to the military junta and governance structure which is constantly under criticism. On the other hand, North Korea’s closed-off political system is quite hostile to international cooperation. Foreign aid is often used only towards denuclearisation efforts and other political gains while the citizens suffer in inhabitable conditions.
Reforms are essential to break the cycle of aid money being used as a political tool, and they can only be achieved through the implementation of necessary changes. Involvement of multiple international organizations can make the decision-making process more transparent and less susceptible to political manipulation, improving donor country coordination to empower and support developing nations.
Fuelling Violence or Peace?:
The paradox of humanitarian aid lies in its potential to prolong conflicts and wars. For instance, providing medical aid to a wounded soldier may unintentionally contribute to the continuation of the war as the soldier returns to the battlefield. This is the price paid by humanitarian actors for injecting humanity into the inhumanity of war. While humanitarian aid may not be the primary cause of prolonged conflicts, it remains a significant factor. The case of Rwanda in 1994, where refugee camps became bases for launching attacks to end the genocide, serves as an example of the complex dynamics at play.
Weak governance, corruption, illicit trade routes and inadequate monitoring can create loopholes that allow aid resources to be diverted to terrorist groups and extremist groups. They hinder the distribution of aid to victims of terrorism, limiting access to affected populations. In conflict zones like Syria, organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda obstruct humanitarian efforts, worsening the suffering of those in need. The United States of America, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates alleviate the irony of being both arsonists and fire-fighters who offer aid and contribute to the conflict in Yemen.
Criminalizing the activities of terrorist groups in a country seems to be a logical explanation to curb terrorism and instill peace in a country. The same laws do not distinguish the intentional and unintentional support given to these terrorist groups. Thus any service or item passed on to a terror group via innocent people is treated as a criminal offense and these people are held criminally viable. The organizations providing aid in these terror regions end up providing aid goods to the wrong hands instead of the ones in need of the aid. Governments claim anti-terrorism laws are protecting victims of terror, but it is crucial to strike a balance between ensuring security and safeguarding civil liberties.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, to address the complexities associated with foreign aid, it is crucial to strive for neutrality in aid distribution. It is essential to acknowledge and address this crisis happening around the world. This shift can help prevent aid from becoming a liability and instead become a catalyst for economic growth and self-sufficiency. This means ensuring that aid is delivered based on genuine needs and without any political or strategic agendas. Transparency and accountability can help mitigate biases and ensure fair allocation. Additionally, promoting self-sufficiency can contribute to sustainable development and reduce dependency on foreign aid. By embracing neutrality and impartiality in foreign aid, we can foster a more equitable and effective approach to supporting countries in need.
Article By:
Mansi Achar,
Co-Editor. For the Record,
PES MUN Society, RR Campus.
Comments