Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>The hypocrisy of aid</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Sir Ronald Sanders
Sunday, April 01, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>The development ministers of the world's most economically powerful nations - the G8 - met in Berlin this month to consider aid to developing countries.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=110 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Sir Ronald Sanders </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>The conference underlined two things: first, aid is not a response to need: it is a tool for achieving the objectives of the donor; and second, there is a rivalry evolving between the G8 countries and new donor countries such as China and India using aid as a tool.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This second point is underscored by a report in the London Financial Times that the G8 countries are concerned that their efforts to link some aid to performance-based criteria "could be undermined by emerging economies".
The G8 countries are Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.<P class=StoryText align=justify>By "performance-based criteria" they mean those conditions that they have imposed for decades on developing countries bilaterally and through organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).<P class=StoryText align=justify>I should acknowledge that Russia is a newcomer to the collective approach to setting conditions for aid. Nonetheless, Russia too has used aid bilaterally to bolster Russian interests (and before Russia, the interests of the former Soviet Union).<P class=StoryText align=justify>In any event, the G8 link their aid to developing countries to the following conditions: opening up the markets of developing countries to goods and services from the industrialised world; privatisation of State-owned companies; deregulation; low foreign debt and taxes.<P class=StoryText align=justify>For decades, each of these countries has used aid to influence or coerce developing countries into adopting positions that suited the donor.
Aid was also withdrawn or reduced either to punish developing countries for pursuing policies that a donor country considered to be inimical to its interest, or simply because the country or region concerned no longer held any strategic interest to the donor.<P class=StoryText align=justify>There was - and is - nothing altruistic about aid from G8 countries except in the most dire of circumstances such as the Asian Tsunami. And even then, it is the people of these countries - rather than their governments - who have responded magnificently to alleviate human suffering.
Years ago at the United Nations, the industrialised nations promised to allocate 0.7 per cent of their gross national income to aid; none of the G8 countries have yet done so. Only the Scandinavian countries have been outstanding in trying to meet their commitment.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Then, in Scotland in 2005, the G8 heads of government made a commitment of US$50 billion in development aid. Almost two years later, they are far from fulfilling their promise.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Now, at the Berlin meeting, the development ministers have declared that their governments must "keep their pledges to increase official development assistance", including "doubling their funding for Africa by 2010". Not many people or organisations are holding their breath in the expectation that these pledges will be met.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Tellingly, the G8 development ministers invited China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico to their meeting as the "next generation of potentially large donor countries
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Sir Ronald Sanders
Sunday, April 01, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>The development ministers of the world's most economically powerful nations - the G8 - met in Berlin this month to consider aid to developing countries.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=110 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Sir Ronald Sanders </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>The conference underlined two things: first, aid is not a response to need: it is a tool for achieving the objectives of the donor; and second, there is a rivalry evolving between the G8 countries and new donor countries such as China and India using aid as a tool.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This second point is underscored by a report in the London Financial Times that the G8 countries are concerned that their efforts to link some aid to performance-based criteria "could be undermined by emerging economies".The G8 countries are Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.<P class=StoryText align=justify>By "performance-based criteria" they mean those conditions that they have imposed for decades on developing countries bilaterally and through organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).<P class=StoryText align=justify>I should acknowledge that Russia is a newcomer to the collective approach to setting conditions for aid. Nonetheless, Russia too has used aid bilaterally to bolster Russian interests (and before Russia, the interests of the former Soviet Union).<P class=StoryText align=justify>In any event, the G8 link their aid to developing countries to the following conditions: opening up the markets of developing countries to goods and services from the industrialised world; privatisation of State-owned companies; deregulation; low foreign debt and taxes.<P class=StoryText align=justify>For decades, each of these countries has used aid to influence or coerce developing countries into adopting positions that suited the donor.
Aid was also withdrawn or reduced either to punish developing countries for pursuing policies that a donor country considered to be inimical to its interest, or simply because the country or region concerned no longer held any strategic interest to the donor.<P class=StoryText align=justify>There was - and is - nothing altruistic about aid from G8 countries except in the most dire of circumstances such as the Asian Tsunami. And even then, it is the people of these countries - rather than their governments - who have responded magnificently to alleviate human suffering.
Years ago at the United Nations, the industrialised nations promised to allocate 0.7 per cent of their gross national income to aid; none of the G8 countries have yet done so. Only the Scandinavian countries have been outstanding in trying to meet their commitment.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Then, in Scotland in 2005, the G8 heads of government made a commitment of US$50 billion in development aid. Almost two years later, they are far from fulfilling their promise.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Now, at the Berlin meeting, the development ministers have declared that their governments must "keep their pledges to increase official development assistance", including "doubling their funding for Africa by 2010". Not many people or organisations are holding their breath in the expectation that these pledges will be met.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Tellingly, the G8 development ministers invited China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico to their meeting as the "next generation of potentially large donor countries