The lecture and debates about the
aid development in Africa led to stress several interesting points and issues,
from the question of the altruism in the aid programs to the efficiency of
these policies.
• Indeed
this first question that come more-or-less naturally while speaking about
international development aid is probably the question of altruism and real
goal and interests in financing this kind of help.
As stated
during the lecture, by asking the question why should a state give money to
another state, it is possible to understand that this kind of policy could have
other roots and consequences than pure altruism and willing to help.
When you
look at the origins of such policies, with the Marshall plan after the Second
World War, this become even more obvious. Indeed, such policy was a way for the
US in a destroyed and fragile Europe to avoid the fall of the European States
in the communism. By helping and financing the European States, the US were
trying to convince them to stay out of what was going to be the Eastern bloc,
so basically communism, in accordance with the Truman doctrine. This first
example shows perfectly that the use of international aid could be heavily motivated
by political, economic or ideological interests. International development aid
can then be seen as a strong diplomatic tool and even been used as a way to
increase it soft power.
As it was
presented during the lecture, the example of Japan is here totally relevant. Indeed,
if Japan had to pay war reparations to the states it invaded during the Second
World War, Japan didn’t stop to finance these states after the end of the total
payment in the 1970s. This situation of a state obliged to pay another one is
usually problematic and lead to tensions, but this case prove that states have
interests of doing so. In the case of Japan that continued to pay these
reparations by calling them development aid afterward, such policy had an
impact both to increase the soft power and image of Japan in the region, to
build friendly relationship with these states and by creating an economic
market where it can export and trade with. The interests of development aid are
then in this case both economic and political and is then useful to be more
vigilant when it comes to this kind of policy, justified by altruism.
•
It is then possible, in accordance with this first point about the interests of
states behind the development aid programs, go further in the nation’s
strategies by thinking is these kind of policies have or not a more harmful
goal or consequences. To justify and bring concrete examples stressed during
the lecture and discussions that followed, the Nordic countries and former
colonial powers such as France and the United Kingdom could be bring here, as
well as China.
We
have indeed in one hand countries such as the Nordic ones, especially Sweden,
that are huge donors for international development aid, especially in Africa.
These countries seem to be characterized by a will to help without any economic
benefit, by pure altruism and will to help. Such social and ideological point
of view led then the Nordic government and foreign policies about international
aid to be central in their policies. A political consensus is even noticeable
in these countries where even the far-right parties are mostly open to these
policies, if in their case this choice is less altruist because supposed to
stop the issues where they started, it takes the same form and support for
international aid program as the one proposed by the more leftists Scandinavian
political parties or leaders. However, such strategy led then the Swedes for
example to be over represented in institutions such as the United Nations or
the European Union on the questions of international development aid and
humanitarians issues. If such situation could be seen as just a logical
reaction of altruist investments from their respective government, it is also
possible to wonder if on the long run, this precious advantage could not become
the consequence and interest reached by government that chose to invest in
these policies. Indeed, it has been so far the only way to become central on
the diplomatic field for these countries that couldn’t have done the same by
the conventional means that are military or economics because not as important
on these fields as bigger actors. The investment in international development
aid could then also hypothetically be motivated by more realistic reasons such
as a gain of importance in the diplomatic area.
On
the other hand, there is another type of strategies used by states in order to
get benefits from the investment into international development aid programs.
These states’ interests are in this case, most of the time, way more visible
and concretes. In the special case of France, the United Kingdom or other
former colonial powers first, the relations with their former colonies and
especially the different forms of financing presented as international
development aid seem to be particularly obvious of a will to get economic,
political interests or both of them. The case of France is here maybe more
obvious since it is the only country to have a permanent military force present
on the continent, and keep ambiguous relations with the political situation of
its former colonies, relations that received a name: France-Afrique. This
name reflects and characterizes the relationship of France vis-à-vis of its
former colonies that could easily be called patronizing or belonging to a kind
a neo-colonialist attitude. Indeed, by getting economic benefits for its trade
or companies, and supporting political leaders, sometimes by military means,
and financing, France contributes to continue to patronize some African states
and its investments in the continent by the form of development aid could then
be a way to finance its political allies and avoid such regime to fall into a
civil war situation that could be problematic for its economic investments. The
enormous amount of money that these states seem to offer as international
development aid could then be seen through a totally different angle that shows
a situation where these donations are far from being due to truly altruist considerations.
It is also possible to wonder if this fact cannot be stressed even more by the
fact that this kind of funding can pass directly from a state to another when
it could pass through institutions like the European Union that already fund
such development programs. The will of some states to keep independence in
these funding could be seen as just practical, or on the other hand, as a way
to pursue specific and personal goals and interests.
In
the special case of China, we can also wonder if all the investments that China
started to provide in Africa by huge amount are not, in the same way, due to
pursue political and economical interests and benefits on the continent. Indeed,
the case of China reminds slightly the one of Japan after 1973, by huge investments
in African states, China manages quite quickly to become a huge trade partner,
get economic benefits, especially from the raw material and minerals, and
increase its soft power and diplomatic influence within the continent. We can
see with this example that investments and funding of international development
aid programs are at the end of the day the same kind of process and reach
similar goals.
•
Finally, it is possible to see that the situation in Africa, despite these
development aid programs, is not getting better. Indeed, if some examples such
as the post civil war program in Mozambique that almost totally cleaned up the
country from the mines fields, only few international aid programs managed to
be really efficient in Africa. As stated during the debate, if the global idea
when the development aid programs came to Africa in the 1970s was that the
continent would know the same kind of economic process than South Asia, it is
possible to observe today that the situation didn’t improve at all. This can
lead to wonder if the strategy apply is really efficient for the development in
Africa, and even if there is not a will of the international powers to keep
African states at a low economic level in order to continue to exploit it and
get economic benefits. The latest Trudeau’s visit in Kurdistan emphasized
during the class could here be a concrete example of this strategy. By giving
some really useful material to rebuild the country, Trudeau seems to reach a
humanitarian goal, whereas this could just be a way to build economic ties with
the new regime that would be obliged and dependent of Canada in the future
because don’t have any knowledge about this material, non enough quantity of
it. In the mean time we can also question if the aid workers in Africa are
really helping or not. It could be just a way to know adventure or get a kind
of political, social or media influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment