The Effect of USAID in Africa

A dialog from the Pan-Africa Discussion List (AFRICA-L@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU), December 1994

For anyone who may be interested in USAID success stories, I have the rather long-winded Statement of John F. Hicks, Assistant Administrator for the USAID Africa Bureau, from his testimony before the House Subcommittee on Africa on 27 September 1994. After the traditional thank-you-Mr.-Chairman- yadda-yadda-yadda, it contains a fairly general overview of various African countries’ advances during the past few years, and documents USAID’s contributions and programs in those countries. Feel free to contact me if you’d like me to email a copy to you’it’s 24 pages long, so I didn’t want to clutter everyone’s mailboxes with it unless any of y’all so desire.

In addition, to respond in more specific terms to the request for successes, someone over in our legislative & public affairs bureau has agreed to send me some of the hundreds of docs they have on file about the Agency’s efforts in the field of nutrition and disease control in sub-Saharan Africa. I’ll keep you posted.

Meanwhile, please rest assured that Jesse Helms will be hearing quite a bit about "these wonderful accomplishments" (as well as the Agency’s myriad faults) over the next few years, now that he’s the chair of the FRC. Whether or not he’ll be "sold" on USAID’s efforts, even after all the testimony in the world, is another matter.

I don—t think it is possible to categorize foreign assistance as "good" or "bad" in a sweeping generalization. Although "aid" can be questioned on the basis as discouraging creative economic thinking on the nations to which it is given, it can be lauded as providing the opportunity to do such things as build schools in Gabon, as John Shinnick pointed out from his personal experiences administering USAID in Africa. Other than simply stating the obvious, I think a question must be asked about the application of "aid": Is "aid" better served when it is applied on the micro level, with specific aims that can be achieved in short term whose results can be clearly seem, rather than on the macro level, by efforts of international organizations (e.g. IMF, World Bank) to completely restructure the economies of developing nations. The strong reaction in many nations against the whole notion of Structural Adjustment Programs seems to suggest this.

Tackling smaller tasks, rather than the gargantuan feat of attempting to restructure economies at the suggestion of a few self proclaimed Messiahs at these International Organizations, or even within USAID itself, may seem as taking the "easy road" to economic development. In administering "aid" to Africa, the United States must ask itself what its ultimate goals are. Days of easy "aid" to the developing world are over with the Republican Congress and of course, Jesse Helms. "Aid" given to tackle specific problems (malnutrition, education, infrastructure) may not only be more beneficial for the recipient, but could give more credibility to the idea of "aid", by giving the Republicans exactly what they want: results that can be clearly evidenced. There are no easy answers to this problem, but I still believe that USAID can be beneficial, it is just a matter of the philosophy from which it is applied that plays such a fundamental role in determining its chances of success (re: earlier discussion of Mozambique). Recipients of "aid" need to be given a greater voice in the application of assistance to their own nations, rather than having Draconian measures applied to them, often times unwillingly, just to assure themselves of loans.

----Jennifer Brick brickj@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu

I am very delighted at the lively debate that foreign aid to Africa has generated so far. However, I think we are still missing the point. The question is not wether or not econimic aid is useful, yes of course they could be useful in whatever form they come in. The real question is at what cost must Africans continue to receive aid from the western world.

John highlighted some success stories like feeding people in certain places and also building schools, some of these are humanitarian in nature and they are to be found everywhere including here in the US. We are generally talking about aid at the national/international level where the donor nations often impose conditions on the application of the aid. Usually these conditions are detrimental to the development of the recepient nation.

Furthermore, to present a far fetched analogy, would anybody justify being called a dog, or let’s just say disrespected simply because he is actually benefitting from a hand out. This may sound harsh, but let’s consider the case of the school built by USAID(which by the way is a noble gesture, I am not in any way faulting the donor orgs) if foreign organizations continue to bulid schools and roads when are our so called leaders going to recognize their responsibility toward their people.

If the US congress has a package for Africa I wont refuse it,all I’m saying is let us stop asking and begging for these aids. It is a shame that Africa can nolonger feed itself. It should not have to look to USAID for food NO. If that means for the country to sell off its military wares to feed its people so be—it we dont need them anyway, we need food. As long as our "Fake" Govts know USAID is there to provide food they’ll never exert themselves to feed their own people. How sad!

COMPLIMENTS OF THE SEASON!
PAUL KONYE E-MAIL PKONY01@UKCC.UKY.EDU

Personally, I think that regardless of what we might think of AID to Africa, the mere fact that some people regardless of how small the number have benefitted from them calls for an expression of appreciation. In my opinion the problem lies with African nations always begging for help. We should try what is known as self help and living within ones means.

I would like to express our appreciation to AID donor nations/organizations including individuals like Ryan and John and hundreds more who spend their energy, time and resources feeding and helping Africans who have been disenfranchised by their own people and leaders through corruption and several other means. We are not blaming them for feeding our people, we only blame our govt for making/letting them go hungry while globe trotting, aquiring wealth, and stock pilling military machines that......would ultimately kill those who survive hunger, neglect and being relegated to the lower class. They are the ones who die, they are the ones who suffer, they are the ones who fight. In fact as I think of it it just seems politics as usual. We may critizie fo- od AID all we want, the fact is we are not the ones starving. Unfortunately, the point must be made that Africans must look within to feed itself.

To our friends the donor countries and organizations, we thank you immensely.

Paul Konye

It is pleasing that a lively discussion has so far sustained itself over the issue of US economic aid to Africa. But what has been missing is the intellectual context in which this contradiction can be disscused. Implicitly there is, of course, a tacit relience on some rationale of neoclassical economics (especially the Chicago School type) and hence that some of you find theselves actually on the same side with the pro businness Republican Party thesis regarding aid. This is a mistake.

1. At the core of the problem of underdevelopment is Africa’s lack of capital (capital in its broad economic sense). One aspect of this capital is technology which has proven to be a major strategy of domination on Africa by advance capitalist countries. Another is employment. The ideological role the two elements pose for a developing country has proven to be their Achiles heel. The diffusion of new technologies have not taken place as the "free market" model have predicated, but has in fact resulted in a net transfer of material wealth from the peripherery to the center.
2. "Aid", whether considered as grants or loans, has been a critical tool of imperialism and exploitation of Africa. Taking varied form, such as bilateral form between governments and multilateral form as in international organizations such as the UNDP. Underlying these imperialist gestures of charity has been, of course, the strings attached to it in the form of creating conditions favorable for penetration by multinational corporations. A kind of "wash and clean them before we can rape them syndrome". And with willing collaborations with corrupt African leaders such as in Zarie, Egypt, the largest recepients of imperialist aid, neo-fascist political systems have been promoted in Africa with US Aid. Of course not be left out is the IMF and the World Bank whom apart from from the draconian liberalization regimes designed to favor imperialist capital and trade, currency devaluation, etc the debt trap has been an instrument of keeping backward Africa within they orbit of global capitalism and internal economic crisis.

Therefore, there questions raised in this discussion can better be resolved as soon as we devote our intellect to modelling alternative structures of acccumulation that will minimize the devastaing impact that have come with previous models and taking good care to notice that even the African child, mother and parents are human beings that bleed, suffer pain, not just images to be plashed in pages of glossy Western magazines, TV informatials and brochures for more extortion.

Thami
New School for Social Research
Department of Economics
New York.

While on this aid thing perhaps people should address the fundamental reasons occasioning the need for aid. In emergency situations, like in Rwanda and Somalia, we know that it was bad governments. In the former, France and her western allies backed a dictatorship right through the time genocide plans had been completed! In the latter, western governments backed and armed a dictaor for their own strategic interests. Without western armament, Siad Barre wouldn’t have stayed as long as he did. He wouldn’t have caused as much damage as he ended up doing. The same goes of for Habyarimana as can be said about Savimbi of Angola and Dhlakama of Mozambique. The solution to this is simple: stop the arms trade and armament sales to unpopular leaders. In fact stop arming Africa all the same. They cannot afford it! Arming someone to the degree of suicide attempt and then turning back to seek to rescue the fellow, to me is hypocricy.

On the other front there is the skewed world economic order with the net flow of resources from the third world to the developed world. Those well wishers need to address the matter at this level for it will have several fold the effect the current band aids are having as in putting up schools. I have nothing against helping school construction or road building or supporting hybrid seed productioon. I am simply saying that these efforts are mere band aids. Stir things where real effect can be felt: the skewed economic order and excessive arms supplies to dictators. Then we shall be left with natural emergencies like earthquakes and the likes to deal with.

Of course there are other things like encouraging accountable governments and democracy. However, this should be done to the extent that the beneficiaries’ agenda is paramount. The past thirty years have shown that simply giving people a flag and a national anthem is not sufficient to implant democracy. Indeed, on the political front, leave the Africans alone to map political paths suitable for their own conditions.

Matunda Nyanchama

I read with interest your statements on African Aid. The last paragraph of your statement, however, makes it seem that you believe that AID is given out of altruism or because of moral reasons.

I think that that assumption may not be valid. Thami is probably correct in his assertions that AID is being used as a tool to gain access and control of underdeveloped economies and to keep them in the world capitalist orbit. The demands by donors to restructure has an impact beyond aid per se. It impacts the political and social system of the country. For example, structural adjustment has been used to dictate cash crop production over food crop production (with diastrous consequences in the Sudan); it has been used to force governments to get rid of "excess workers", e.g., Jamaican health system recently, etc, etc. These have had impacts beyond a specific project. They have caused massive pain and suffering for the masses of people (in the latter case mainly for women and children) in the countries concerned. Structural adjustment policies, if implemented, can destabilize a government and cause its demise. A potential example is if Egypt listens to its donors and removes its subsidy to bread, the staple for the majority of the population (mainly poor). No doubt this would cause some huge problems.

AID is as much an instrument of foreign policy as military alliances are. It is also used to reward the obedient and to punish the "nonobedient". The kind of assistance that is given as grants (gifts) is a very small part of the AID that is given worldwide. This is not to minimize that form of assistance hoever. It plays a critical role in helping the real lives of the very poor and those who administer the programs to the poor.

On the weapons question, why would you think that the countries that manufacture guns and other armaments would not want to sell them to the underdeveloped countries. The manufacture and sales of weapons is very profitable. The factories that make them and the people who work in the weapons industry (production, marketing, finance) make huge profits from their sale. Anyway, what better avenue to test weapons than in a civil war or in ethnic fighting that is always fomentable in the underdeveloped world.

Thanks for your comments and I would appreciate hearing your views on these issues.

Robert T. JACKSON
Email:Robert_T_JACKSON@umail.umd.edu (rj36) Phone:(301) 405-4533
University of Maryland Department of Nutrition and Food Science
Room 3303, Marie Mount Hall
College Park, MD 20742 FAX (301) 314-9327

(1) At the core of the problem of underdevelopment is Africa’s lack of capital (capital in its broad economic sense). One aspect of this capital is technology which has proven to be a major strategy of domination on Africa by advance capitalist countries. Another is employment. The ideological role the two elements pose for a )developing country has proven to be their Achiles heel. The )diffusion of new technologies have not taken place as the "free market" model have predicated, but has in fact resulted in a net transfer of material wealth from the peripherery to the center.

Thami

This is true, Thami, but add to that a heavy dose of mismanagement and corruption on the part of African leaders. Added to this is the propensity to receive education (brainwashing to western ways of thinking and doing things) in the Western countries and you have an ideal situation for exploitation. The scenario goes something like this. Go get a "good" education in the west, become imbued with non-African ideals, tastes, and standards which cannot possibly be reconciled with or satisfied by the current level of productive forces in Africa and you have created an alienated disaffected African to work for the West. That individual hates himself and will not think of the plight of Africans as a whole. He thinks of his best personal interests and comfort.

A solution to this problem for the African "intellectual" might be to become more African-centered, more Pan African. This is not easy though because his education has taught him to think individually, not as part of the collectivity of Africans. There is an identity problem.

(2) "Aid", whether considered as grants or loans, has been a critical tool of imperialism and exploitation of Africa. Taking varied form, such as bilateral form between governments and multilateral form as in international organizations such as the UNDP. Underlying these imperialist gestures of charity has been, of course, the strings attached to it in the form of creating conditions favorable for penetration by multinational corporations. A kind of "wash and clean them before we can rape them syndrome". And with willing collaborations with corrupt African leaders such as in Zarie, Egypt, the largest recepients of imperialist aid, neo-fascist political systems have been promoted in Africa with US Aid. Of course not be left out is the IMF and the World Bank whom apart from from the draconian liberalization regimes designed to favor imperialist capital and trade, currency devaluation, etc the debt trap has been an instrument of keeping backward Africa within they orbit of global )capitalism and internal economic crisis.

Therefore, there questions raised in this discussion can better be resolved as soon as we devote our intellect to modelling alternative structures of acccumulation that will minimize the devastaing impact that have come with previous models and taking good care to notice )that even the African child, mother and parents are human beings that bleed, suffer pain, not just images to be plashed in pages of glossy Western magazines, TV informatials and brochures for more extortion.

This last part is an interesting call to intelligent reflection about how to extricate oneself from the throes of imperialist control.

My only comment is to ignore the scores of stupid responses that you will get from subscribers to this network who do not have the interests of Africans at heart and will raise all kinds of narrow and specific diversions away from the critial thinking on solutions. Keep sending out thoughtful and provocative ideas.

Sincerely,
Bob

Robert T. JACKSON
Email:Robert_T_JACKSON@umail.umd.edu (rj36) Phone:(301) 405-4533
University of Maryland Department of Nutrition and Food Science

My comments were addressed to those arguing that aid is beneficial to Africa and what I sought to demonstrate is that what we are hearing are pretences rather than true concern for African good. Indeed, I said as much when I challenged those do gooders to stir things where they can have real effect. Only then can they have the moral claim to doing good for the Africans. At times I think that the so called aid agencies and NGOs are like the Christian missionaries in their collaborative role with the colonialists of yesteryears. Then the Africans flocked to churches discarding their gods as the imperialists grabbed their land, dethroned their leaders and made the natives slaves on their own land, in their own country. The NGOs of today as well as aid agencies are playing a parallel role, albeit one that has become sophisticated with the times. Thus when us Africans are busy being thankful and begging for more crumbs being thrown around, Europe and Ameircca are busy consolidating their continued control of African resources.

In short, my position is closer to Thami’s than you read. To his credit, his articulation was more succinct. Let the do gooders stop the pretences and come out in true colours for then many an African would understand who the true enemy is. Until then, and as I said before, the band aid providers’ sincerity will stand to question, especially in fora such as this. I suggest they take their propaganda elsewhere where it can sell.

Happy New Year

Matunda Nyanchama

I’m reading the postings on aid to Africa and I am thinking about my observations when I visited South Africa. . .

Years ago, in high school, we learned about colonialism (also called mercantilism). The concept was that colonies are exploited for their natural resources which are shipped to the mother country for finishing and then shipped back to the colonies as high-priced products.

Colonialism, at least that we are familiar with in Africa, has more than a simple economic dimension. It influences other dimensions as well:

1. destruction of traditional authority systems (so people don’t respect the authority of kings, chiefs, etc. and new kings, chiefs, are appointed by the colonizers. This had the impact of weakening current and future government structure. ONE RESULT: Faith, trust, and respect for govt decreases. Establishment of alternative and alien government systems.
2. social relationships become warped (relationship between young people and elders becomes turned on its head. Extreme sexism is unchecked and women bear both political and social oppresion. The system of polygamy and wives and extra girlfriends especially devalues older women.
3. psychological dependency (like children the colonized require validation from the "masters". "How am I doing now boss" syndrome. "Is it okay for me to consider how I can improve my own condition, because I don’t want to anger you, boss, in any way" "After all you define the platonic model that we are striving to imitate.)"
4. cultural dependency (belief that things African are not quite modern and worthy even though African culture, a priori is modern culture. It is false to assume that African culture is pristine and wonderful and uninfluenced by the modern world. Culture changes as people experience the world. The experiences that African and Africans have had include
   • a) struggles to transform the material world (they were the first to wage this struggle successfully
   • b) interethnic struggles (kingdoms, early civilizations, conquests),
   • c) contact with Asians,
   • d) contact with Arabs,
   • e) contact with Europeans (even before colonialism), and
   • f) colonial and neo-colonial contacts.
   All of these demarcations impact and change the culture. For many years, African culture was hegemonic, partly due to recent influences (colonialism, imperialism) however, African culture has been made subordinate. Western colonial education and the cowardice (eagerness to let the enemy define one’s reality)of African "intellectuals" plays a substantial part in the latter.
5. arrestment of material development. Science and technology would have allowed Africa to solve most of its econmic problems, in some way. Colonialism took away the need to solve African problems. Those problems were expunged and the problem became, (how do we set up an efficent extractive mechanism and use as little force as possible to maintain the colonial gravy train going? One answer was colonial education, where Africans learned more about the "mother" country than about their kin across the arbitrary political border and virtually nothing about their ancestors 5-10,000 years before.

In SA I saw this in action for the first time. Virtually all consumer goods were imported. High-sulphur (low quality, high polluting) coal was burned in power plants because high-quality coal was imported. I saw sheep all over, but I could not find a reasonably priced wool sweater. Foreign aid seems to be used to maintain this dependency. Shouldn’t countries dependent upon the largesse of others instead try to develop their own industries to develop their own natural resources? I suppose )this might be a good measure of the quality of foreign aid, whether it allows the recepient to develop self-sufficiency or remain addicted to aid.

Yes, but the much of the foreign aid that is given is an investment that pays generous returns to the aid-givers. Why would someone who can keep their industries going from the demand generated by foreign aid; employ a large number of their nationals in other countries; derive a sense of psychological well-being, if not superiority, want to give all this good stuff up. The only price might be an occassional school or health care center that can be pointed to as indisputable evidence of the altruism and benefit of aid.

Robert T. JACKSON
Email:Robert_T_JACKSON@umail.umd.edu (rj36) Phone:(301) 405-4533
University of Maryland Department of Nutrition and Food Science

The discussion on this subject of aid is lively and very much interesting. But it lacks solutions to the problem of underdevelopment in most African states in terms of technology and improving the standard of living for all Africans.

My assumption based on most of the messages is that there is a consensus that aid is not the right remedy to address problems faced by African people. The good news is that most African countries are adopting democracy as a way to bring upon accountability from their leaders. The bad part is that these new leaders are inheriting exhorbitant amounts of debt. Thus it will be very difficult for them to address issues that are important to their constituencies because they need to pay these loans and interest.

I will appreciate if the discussion could shift to debt relief targeted to those countries adopting democratic values and implementing sound economic policies. Let us face it will not make sense to write off debt in Ziare while Mobutu is still there or the country is under dictatorship. But countries like Ghana, Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Malawi and Lesotho needs special attention. They have shown that now they mean business they want to eliminate poverty and illiteracy and bring development to most rural areas where the majority of Africans live.

Our task then is to identify these countries and then try to influence Western countries to provide debt relief, and forget about economic aid. Africa has abundant resources but they have never been used wisely in the interest of African people. For the first time in many centuries Africa is in a position to partially do what it wants with less influence from dominant powers.

Thanx Vusi.