Helping hands that hurt
Unmasking the controversies of international aid
PAUL BUCCI, THE UBYSSEY (UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA)
VANCOUVER (CUP) -- Here’s a thought: what if your favourite charity did more harm than good? What if every dollar you spent to save a child or feed a starving villager was just another step towards their destruction? What if, God forbid, your money was in fact feeding a civil war whose soldiers slaughter entire villages at a time? What if the only reason these supposed beneficiaries were in trouble was because you were just trying to help? Simply put, what if you found out that international aid doesn’t do anything, or can even make things worse?
EVERYTHING WORKS . . . IN THEORY
There are two major divisions of foreign aid: humanitarian aid, designed to save lives during humanitarian crises such as wars or natural disasters, and development aid, designed to rebuild infrastructure after the crisis subsides.
Aid can be given in the form of food, money, or personnel. Typically, governments give bilateral aid to other governments, or multilateral aid to non-governmental organizations. NGOs can also receive funding through private donors.
On the ground, NGOs employ personnel to begin development projects, or, more often, approve and oversee projects, funnelling their resources directly into communities.
In theory, at least, the model makes sense. Rich western countries give money and resources to communities through knowledgeable emissaries who are connected to the local people or to governments who should essentially do the same thing. Eventually, people are supposed to get back on their feet and take over the rebuilding of their country, turning it into a self-sustaining nation, as well as a member of the global market.
Some humanitarian aid seems to work very well. The overwhelming response to the recent tsunami in Southeast Asia demonstrates an effective method of disaster relief that saves lives. But that kind of outpouring is in some ways a poor indicator of the bigger picture.
According to the 2006 UN Millennium Development Goals report, there has been very little progress over the last decade, and in some cases situations have even regressed. Often it seems like we are just throwing money out the window. Could our “aid” just be another quick-fix, feel-good solution to appease our privileged guilt? When we’re spending money and going nowhere there has to be a problem.
LANDS ON LIFE SUPPORT
The saying goes: there’s nothing more dangerous in this world than ignorance in action. In the book The Road to Hell: the Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity, author Michael Maren details exactly how dangerous ignorance can be when it comes to foreign aid.
Maren was stationed in Africa as a member of the Peace Corps for several years, after which he continued to do overseas work, until, disillusioned with the system and finding many others like him, he decided to write about it. In outlining the community crises that develop under the presumption of a constant influx of aid, he asserts that the guarantee of free food and easy money by foreign aid organizations enable people to bypass the vital steps required to build a self-sustaining economic system, including basic infrastructural development and agriculture.
After all, why would anyone work to produce food and find water when relief agencies just hand it over? His is clearly a contentious position, one that has outraged critics.
Maren nevertheless goes on to describe how struggling communities become dependent and fight to keep their free food and money, thus facilitating the eventual abuse of the system. Drawing from his own experience, Maren contends that in countries like Somalia, where aid is a main source of income, corruption is not the exception; it’s the rule.
Goldis Chami, the executive president of the University of British Columbia International Red Cross worries about the state of its current economy in Rwanda, a nation in critical condition when it comes to aid dependency.
“Eighty per cent of Rwanda’s GNP [gross national product] is aid. That is never going to let that country stand on its own two feet,” she says. “Is that sustainable? What if aid stops? What happens? I just worry that we’re doing more harm.”
HOPE SPRINGS EPHEMERAL
Beyond the vicious cycles sometimes created in aid-dependent countries, there can also be a naiveté and ignorance pervading the aid community’s ground workers. Maren, who worked in Somalia during the ’80s, paints a picture of frontlines manned with idealistic kids driving Land Cruisers, signing documents and allocating money and resources this way and that with no real understanding of what they’re doing. At its most harmless level, it seemed little better than tourism. At its worst, he writes, the arbitrary doling out of cash hurts the native community more than it helps.
“There’s a lot of tourism for people who are kind of progressive and want to look into different things,” says Mara Kardas-Nelson, a former UBC student who is currently studying abroad and has volunteered in such places as South Africa and Cambodia. “Social justice tourism is becoming a really big thing.”
Chami concedes that the drive to reach out overseas and do your part is gaining momentum. “It’s trendy to go halfway around the world and volunteer,” she says. “I know people who went halfway around the world to Peru to paint houses and said, ‘I think I really made an incredible difference in the world.’”
Such idealism seems almost cute at first. But what about when people are dying because we’re too unfamiliar with long-term ecological and infrastructural effects to know not to heroically waltz into a desert and dig a well? Andrew Clark gives a thought-provoking example of the effects of intervention in Maren’s book:
“When a well is put in, nomads will set up camp around it. Gradually, the nomads’ animals will graze out the land surrounding the well. After there is a three-day’s walk from the well to verdant pasture, all of the nomads’ animals will have died out. And then the nomad dies.”
Chami cites another instance where stabilizing efforts ultimately caused suffering. She relates a story about researchers in Africa who were testing out a system of mesh nets designed to collect the morning dew for the water-starved village nearby. The researchers were able to obtain the money to pipe the collected water to the village, and this sudden abundance of water caused a population explosion in the village due to immigration from neighbouring villages, which increased the demand for water.
There was a brief period of prosperity, but eventually, Chami says, the researchers had to return home, leaving everything to fall into disrepair, since no one knew how run the nets. Ultimately, the village fared worse than before, as they now had an even larger population and still no water.
A third terrifying reality is the fact that all-out wars can be fuelled by international aid efforts.
Bernard-Henri Lévy explains in his book War, Evil and the End of History how the trade of stolen foreign aid supplies can, in fact, support rebel groups responsible for the unstable circumstances in the first place.
The complexities of international crisis intervention are often far beyond what your average volunteer or student might consider. Chami mused, “People think, ‘obviously since I’m doing a good thing, it’s going to work and be a fairy tale ending,’ but it’s not that way.”
CHECKPOINTS OF CORRUPTION
This is a major point at which our aid system can fall apart. When it comes to free supplies, there will always be people trying to grab a slice of the cash and pocket it for their own gain. In the end, we, the benefactors, are hurt, the people we are trying to help are hurt, and the only ones who manage to profit are those taking advantage of the system. There is enough of a problem with such corruption that the U.S. has created policies designed to deal with it.
“The United States is the single biggest donor,” says Richard Price, a UBC expert on international security and world politics. “Aid programs now specifically require recipient countries to be able to demonstrate lack of corruption and good governance so that the aid isn’t just being funnelled into [the] bank accounts of whoever is in charge.”
Governments can also act as a greedy middleman, absorbing all the aid that donor governments throw at them. If aid is given bilaterally its effects often never get past government officials. Some governments adopt a policy of the “trickle-down” effect, meaning that when the fat cats on top drop some scraps, ideally those below can get at them before the dogs do.
“We’re pumping the money in, but lives aren’t getting
better. Conditions aren’t improving,” Chami says. “There
are examples of previous dictators retiring with billions of dollars in the
bank . . . while their people aren’t doing that well.”
It is also well known that Canada’s military poses very little threat globally. Some subscribe to the school of thought that it is cheaper, never mind more politically astute, to buy influence through “aid” than to exert force through a military presence.
“Some countries have what they call a “3-D” approach, combining diplomacy, defense, and development,” says William Reimer, director of food, disaster and material resources for the Mennonite Central Committee, an NGO. “We would rather develop relationships and interactions in a balanced, neutral, and impartial way that does not connect with the military.
“It certainly has been the attempt of countries like Canada and Scandinavian countries and others to have an influence in the global community because they can’t compete militarily,” Price says. “What has been interesting is the way the two have crossed over in recent years -- it’s caused a lot of controversy.”
Militaries are perfectly aware of the benefits of crossing the line between soldier and aid worker, adds Price. “They want to be seen as actually assisting nation-building and humanitarian projects. They’ve started to be engaged in many of those things; building wells and schools and things. The unfortunate result for humanitarian workers is that those who may oppose the intervention, say in Afghanistan, oppose U.S. or other forces being there, they might attack humanitarian workers as well, as they see them as being basically the same thing, as they’re all doing the same activity.
“Médecins Sans Frontières [Doctors Without Borders] pulled out of Iraq because they were just being attacked because they’re seen as too close to the intervening force. Colin Powell made a statement saying that [he] sees these humanitarian workers as a real force multiplier for them.”
STICKING WITH IT
“If you ever say, ‘Maybe we should just cut aid and make countries stand on their own two feet,’ you look like a callous jerk,” Chamis say, “[But] when you force a country to stand on its own two feet you encourage them to perform and then you will be able to see some differences. People are not sure that they will work towards solutions [when they have aid].”
It seems that the only projects that truly have a sustainable positive effect are those that are based in the community, with most of the work being done by the people who live there. The Mennonite Central Committee, which does work in relief aid, development aid, and trauma counselling (addressing the socio-political effects of crises) has a policy of trying to work as much as possible with community groups.
“Instead of building houses for people, [we] have people build their own houses,” Reimer says.
Another safeguard against corruption is reputation and high profile. “I really think the big NGOs do a great job,” Chami says, “They’re huge and they’re constantly scrutinized, so if they weren’t accountable and . . . transparent and weren’t doing a good job, somebody somewhere would find out and it would all blow up. And things have blown up,” she adds.
“Any money that goes to the government will always be mismanaged because it’s such a huge amount and the government isn’t as accountable. But when the money goes to private organizations, they’re just a lot more efficient.”
So are there problems with aid? Yes. Should we give up? No. There definitely should be stronger hands-off policies, and people need to be critical of the true nature of their aid efforts, but things are slowly working.
“In places where you have water development it’s very obvious . . . you can visibly see it with your eyes. There are . . . fruit trees, kids can go to school,” Reimer says. “I think there’s tremendous value in joining together with people around the world to make life better for people in these circumstances.
“The key is . . . working with local agencies that have developed these themselves. They have seen the need; have seen how it’s transformed their communities.. . . . that’s collaboration and local involvement that makes sustainability all the more feasible.”
