From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Fri Sep 11 2009 - 16:40:01 EDT
Where Does Africa Foreign Aid Really Go: Africa or Elsewhere?
New Liberian
By Paul I. Adujie, New York
Friday, September 11, 2009
http://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2009/sept/where_does_africa_foreign_aid_really_go
_africa_or_elsewhere.aspx
... The World Bank and IMF, is seen in developing countries, as tools by
which western nations control public policies and the lives of peoples in
the developing world. And anyone who has heard of the so-called "Structural
Adjustment Program" understands the ruinations it wrought in many developing
countries worldwide. Israel receives more aid and more loan guarantees than
all of Africa. So Israel does not need the scandalous fund raising
theatrics. Israel was never subjected to controls and strictures of The
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund or IMF. And why
not?.............
No wise military commander would attempt in good sense, to feed a battalion
or a brigade with the same amount of food which is only sufficient to feed a
platoon.
This is just as no intelligent farmer would in all good judgment, attempts
to feed 200, 000 chickens or 200, 000 cows, with the same amount of grains
which would satiate just 100 chickens or 100 cows. Otherwise, such military
commander will have a very hungry brigade, battalion and such a farmer,
would have malnourished livestock of whether chickens or cows.
In foreign aid logic, more is given to platoons commanders and less is given
to commanders of battalions and brigades. More is similarly given to farmers
with fewer livestock, while much less is given to the farmers with many more
thousands of livestock.
And those given less are frequently required to do much more, and those
given nothing at all, are blamed for poor outcomes, nonetheless. Such is the
nature of foreign aid.
Aid is never directed at places in the world where the need is greatest.
Foreign aid has a pattern of being directed at those who are connected. And
those with clouts and those with the requisite vehemence and cohesion to
pepper donors with complaints when they are not offered aid.
National Public Radio's (NPR) Gwen Thompson reporting from two counties in
Africa, managed to have repeated for each, the irrelevant fact that these
countries are aid beneficiaries of USA and I have never heard any
journalist/reporter say the same of Israel, as the American journalist who
reports from Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
There are those who are completely ignorant of how foreign aid is allocated
both in terms of size and what nations are recipients. Out of such
ignorance, some have assumed that so much or even too much foreign aid, have
been given to African nations.
These ignoramuses therefore argue that foreign aid to Africans is
ineffective. Or that it creates dependency. But by the time that you look at
the tables and schedules of US Foreign Aid below, you will agree, and see
the lie about Foreign Aid. Ignorant people should stop using Africa as cover
for the foreign aid which actually flows elsewhere, far from Africa.
There is a reason why Israel never was in a position to have to rely on Bono
of U2 or the musicians and artistes who performed We Are the World, Live Aid
in support for victims of drought and famine in Ethiopian and Somalia to
advocate public charity as form of aid. It is the same reason why Israel for
instance never has to deal with the conditionality World Bank and
International Monetary Fund stringent strictures, which are frequently
imposed on African nations and nations such as Argentina etc.
The World Bank and IMF, is seen in developing countries, as tools by which
western nations control public policies and the lives of peoples in the
developing world. And anyone who has heard of the so-called "Structural
Adjustment Program" understands the ruinations it wrought in many developing
countries worldwide. Israel receives more aid and more loan guarantees than
all of Africa. So Israel does not need the scandalous fund raising
theatrics. Israel was never subjected to controls and strictures of The
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund or IMF. And why not?
In the metaphorical scheme of things, regarding foreign aid, it is as if
African nations are the ones who must travel longest distances in the
desert, and they are the ones with a junk car with a broken radiator and
burnt gasket, and before donor give Africans 8 ounces of radiator coolants,
donors first announce such plans 2 years in advance. And worse, donors
actually loudly announce plans to donate gallons of radiator coolants, but
eventually only deliver mere 8 ounces of coolants.
These same donors are keenly aware of the fact that Israel does not have a
lot of passengers to transport, and a great distance to travel, and yet,
they will quietly and surreptitiously supply brand new Cadillac Escalade to
Israel without ostentations announcements or even a whimper of donations of
brand new Cadillac and Lexus filled with high octane fuels to Israel, in the
competition to drive through the desert, the outcome between both teams is
slanted and predetermined.
Donors who are only willing to donate junk cars to African nations are also
quick to want to complain about our African drivers of such junk cars.
Donors are blaming African drivers for the fate of the junk cars, fates
which should be clear to any observer that the best driver could not
magically turn the junk pinto into a Cadillac or Lexus or some sort
engineering marvel. Even if with best efforts and intentions are invested
into junk cars, a clunker is a clunker still.
Again, this is the crux of the matter too regarding foreign aid; foreign aid
is something that does not flow to any part of Africa. But, it so irritating
to hear Western commentators wring their metaphorical hangs as they moan and
bemoan "aid-fatigue or donor-fatigue"! How do you suffer fatigue from what
you have not done? How is possible to suffer "donor fatigue" connection with
Africa, when 99% of your donor goes to nations outside Africa?
Those in the world who have probably heard of such terms, such as
donor-fatigue and or, aid-fatigue are liable to think Africa in the same
sentence as they would upon hearing of war, chaos and a starving child. But
those terms, are marketing tools of disinformation. Those vexatious terms
erroneously lead readers and listeners, of those who spout them, into
thinking that so much or enough has been given or done for Africa already.
Africa is therefore as, thereafter thought of, and presented in portrayals
of irredeemable basket case. It is critical to examine the role played by
this erroneous portrayal of Africa, which in turn affects policy
formulations and haphazard implementations, in particular reference to
foreign aid.
This is an effort to show how, even the best optimist, the most enthusiastic
worker becomes discouraged by those who peddle disinformation and then
pretend no amount of efforts will change Africa. The truth is, not enough
have been done, let alone too much. Where then does the donor-fatigue and
aid-fatigue arise from?
It is noteworthy that foreign aid is determined by criterion, which have
nothing to do with where the needs are greatest or where the largest
population of neediest cases reside. What determines the destination and
quantum of aid are rather mere ephemerals of friendship, lobby, clout and
the quality or lack, in the leadership of a given aid donor country. These
flimsy factors which have nothing whatsoever to do with need, are often
fleeting, but, sometimes, also as a result of inertia. Successive
administrations send foreign aid, to where aid was always sent.
There is this astonishing discover y that successive American
administration, regardless of whether it is led by social conservatives or
liberal-progressives, tend to direct aid, to where aid was always directed.
The truth about foreign aid is almost silly and amusing, it will make anyone
with good sense have a rethink of what we all thought we knew about foreign
aid. Too many people seem to have this sort of auto response when asked
about Africa as the destination of foreign aid, a woefully mistaken belief
and hence the auto-response.
When it comes to foreign aid to Africa, here is what happens. Western
nations take the best friends forever or preferred non-African friends, to
Five Star Restaurants in foreign aid metaphorical terms. Western nations
treat these non-Africans to sumptuous 14 course meals of caviars, champagne,
wines, desserts and more. At the end, their "conscience" suggests photo
opportunity of a feel good type with the Africans, and so, leftovers and
doggie-bags are brought to the Africans in full glare of television cameras
from CNN and BBC etc in tow. And in the full glare of television cameras,
Africans are portrayed in dire straits and genuflecting and picking up the
leftovers with gratitude and appreciation with so much flourish.
Remember that the television cameras were conveniently out during the events
of sumptuous dinners with foreign aid donors' best friends. Africa is then
splashed all over the news, as African was actually the recipient of the 14
course meals sumptuous dinner! Africans are the ones everyone hears and sees
being feted.
Someone could argue, that westerners are entitled to spent own money,
however and whomever they prefer. True! But why lie about who the major
recipients or beneficiaries are? They are not Africans! Let there be truth
in charity, as we demand truth in advertising. Foreign Aid is not squandered
on Africa as many have been made to believe.
Africa receives less than one percent of foreign aid. But discussions about
foreign aid, frequently pretend that Africa is the epicenter of foreign aid
and that Africa is the major beneficiary of foreign aid and this is not so
at all. Again, I implore you to be the judges. see the accompanying tables
and indexes.
After slavery, after colonialism and after World Wars and After various
economic meltdowns, what Marshall Plan or forms of financial bailouts,
rescues etc were offered to Africans compared to the Marshall Plan, bailouts
and rescue packages which were offered to the rest of the world over and
over again?
Powerlessness is evil! Africa have been made powerless since slavery and
colonialism, hence the world says and does what it pleases regarding Africa,
things which are clearly unacceptable elsewhere.
"War and Peace" or "War What Is Good For"; was not written about Nigeria or
Africa. The Medieval War was not fought in Africa or by Africans. The
Hundred Years War was not about or of Africa. And yet, it has become
fashionable for revisionists to pretend that chaos scenario or chaos theory
came about, because of Africans.
The Balkans has brimmed with crises for a hundred years. The "troubles" in
Northern Ireland is known to Dubliners and everyone else on earth. The World
Wars, I and II, were not caused by Africans. Oliver Cromwell was not an
African. Adolf Hitler and Nazis were not Africans. Napoleon Bonaparte was
not an African.
The Balkans is not in Africa. And despite all these, revisionists have been
convinced a good segment of the world populations that war and chaos is of
origin and still resides there? That would make Chechen Africans? Ditto
Afghans and Pakistanis?
That would have made Tamil Tigers Africans? The truth of the matter is, I do
not like wars. This is regardless of whether or not such war is on the
African soil or somewhere else in the world. But the fallacy which is
repeated about Africa as the center of war and chaos is simply nonsense. A
major factor and huge contributor of the challenges which Africa have faced,
is the image devastation inflicted upon Africa by Western media and press.
It is either out of inertia, intellectual laziness, dishonesty or outright
racism that Western journalists do this in matters concerning Africa;
whatever the case is, it is plainly unacceptable and rather voyeuristic.
Western journalists will amaze you with how they are quick to become some
pseudo experts on Africa. They will also kill your joy with a strain of
ineptitude which allows them to always address African matters in the
singular as they were siblings of Sarah Palin of Africa is country fame.
Often, you will hear, "This is John Doe, reporting from Africa." If the same
journalist will not say, "This is John Doe, reporting from North America" or
"This is John Doe, reporting from Europe" why is the treatments for
countries, and cities in African nations grouped together? Why is the
treatment reserved for Africans always warped, twisted and inconsistent with
treatment of everywhere else?
Westerner journalists report from Afghanistan, Myanmar-Burma, Tibet, Japan
or Vietnam or Pakistan, with accompanying sounds of local music,
atmospherics and flavors, and never reporting from South East Asia or
Central Asia for instance. But, you must have heard, this year, that "This
is John Doe reporting with the Pope in Africa.
This is John Doe, reporting with Hilary Clinton in Africa. Western media are
more focused on Britney Spears, Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, and most
recently, on the life and death of Michael Jackson, than on coverage of
substantive issues concerning the African continent during the past ten
years. Western media revel in squandering their attention and would be
valuable coverage time on salacious and scandalous prurient behaviors of
certain celebrities.
In the news, politics, chaos, war, foreign aid, AIDS are portrayed as
phenomena peculiarly African. I have observed over time that only African
writers, singers, and sundry which are critical of Africa would get
publicity or a mention in the Western media.
If all you write or crow about is war, crises, chaos, bad leadership,
diseases, Ebola, AIDS, genital circumcision sensationally labeled clitoral
mutilation by Westerners, you will get a mention in the Western press and
may even be showered with publicity! But whatever you do, never lay any of
the blames at the doorstep of Western interlopers and intermeddlers in
African affairs.
Westerners always seem to be in the business of selecting and imposing their
preference of leadership on developing nations. And these are frequently
persons who are unpopular with the local populace in their own nations, fine
with Western nations because they are pliable and can be manipulated on
strings like puppets by Western nations.
Think Pervez Musharaf of Pakistan. Think Hamid Kharzai in Afghanistan. Think
Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine. Think Chalabi in Iraq for a time. I reckon that
in a hundred years, there will be Westerners blaming poor people in these
countries for being such basket cases.
These countries are being engineered now for future failures, and when the
results become apparent, the entire world would have forgotten how Western
nations are engineering these failures, being engineered right now by the
West. Engineered, it seems to me to, be mere expansion of consumer base or
markets for products from western nations, or suppliers of energy or other
materials which propel the engines of western nations' economies.
Such is the history of Africa too. Africa is a case of "Planned
Obsolescence" planned by Westerners. Think Slavery. Think Colonialism. Think
Berlin Conference 1884-1885 and the meddling-interferences in African
affairs ever since! And yet, the face of paucity of foreign aid from Western
nations, Africa is presented in humiliating terms, as the recipient of the
bulk of foreign aid. Westerners proclaim loudly, that they have poured aid
into Africa, but it has not changed Africa's lot.
The Truth about Foreign Aid is that, Africa is not where foreign Aid really
goes. The bulk of foreign aid, in reality, flows elsewhere and not Africa.
How come then, those westerners and their journalists are always screaming
about donor or aid fatigue?
There was no Marshall Plan for Africa similar to the ones for Europe and
Asia after the World War II. There was no Bailout for Africa similar to the
ones for Asia and Mexico in the 1990s. There have been no meaningful foreign
aid efforts for African nations.
Is Djiboutian ready the First-lady, Mss. Khadra Haid as their next
President?
by Mohamed Awaleh
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
http://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2009/sept/is_djiboutian_ready_the_first_lady_mss_
khadra_haid_as_their_next_president.aspx
Spending two years and half of research in Djibouti - about Djibouti's
politics brought me the conclusion that the President of the Republic of
Djibouti, Mr. Ismail O. Guelleh is wowing his wife as his next successor.
For one thing: Mss. Khadra Haid is not an ordinary first-lady. She is very
much in politics - and influential. She doesn't shy away to actively compete
with the Cabinet Ministers - for instance, there's one incidence few years
ago at the Djibouti University's Students, who were striking against a fee
the Ministry of Education imposed them; which over ninety percent of them
complained that their parents could not be able to come up. Yet, the
Minister publicly refused to back down, and even expelled the Students
Organizers. When the negotiations between the Ministry and the Students did
not go anywhere; her office immediately contacted the Students - and waived
the fee for them and help re-instate the Students Organizers into their
classes without consulting the Ministry.
A reliable source, who wished to remain unanimous, recently, confided me
that, the First-lady also exiled the richest man in Djibouti, Mr.
Abdulrahman Borreh, while the President Ismail O. Guelleh was in Quebec,
Canada. To further prove with her ambition, there's as well a rumor flowing
in Djibouti that the next target is the current Minister of Interior, Mr.
Yacin Elmi Bouh; in attempt of eliminating with any future potential
obstacles with her geol: the Presidency.
With Respect of Mss. Khadra Haid, she becomes the center of her husband
government. And certainly started already playing tribal cards: placing her
Tribes, Issaq, the Habaar Awal, on higher positions. Though, some of them
genuinely expressed disdain with this outdated political game, and worry
this might eventually ignite hatred toward their community. Unfortunately,
the First-lady's objective is definitely aiming at creating a new class of
Loyalist for herself in order to hold on the power when her times come: In
the School of Machiavelli, its call building your own power-base. Will it
work in Djibouti? I don't know. But, I do know for one thing - it indeed
infuriated the Djiboutian.
After conducting serious polls, we came to realize, Madam Khadra is very
unpopular to the Djiboutian Citizens. If election is held today; there's a
great possibility, she may end up getting 2% of the vote. The question is
though; how's she going to lull the Citizens - or- win their hearts and
minds? Or will simply her Husband hand over the power to her. Allah knows -
we just have to wait and see. But, there's no doubt she's for sure, eying
for the higher office of the Land.
In spite of what anyone would say - if Mss. Khadra persuades the Djiboutian
to vote for her, and she gets their votes fairly. I will be the first one to
congratulate her. But, the way her Husband and herself run the country
doesn't look like she has a chance: purging their opponents, parading fancy
and expensive cars (Hammers) and throwing lavish parties in the eyes of the
people, while half of them are without Electricity and Running Water, and
could not even afford to have two meals a day.
Either way, it doesn't seem, the duet will just easily give up the power
without a fight; even if it means taking the Country to the path of Somalia.
With the Grace of Allah, I pry it will not come to that level. I hope the
President will not leave behind a similar legacy of Ziad Barre.
Mss. Khadra Haid already demonstrated, she will not be fair and just
President. Therefore, I don't think the Djiboutian with right minds will
elect her as their next President. But at the end of the day, they have to
decide for themselves.
_____
Mohamed Awaleh
<mailto:awaleh@consultant.com> awaleh@consultant.com