When the Zambian-born economist Dambisa Moyo argued that aid has not done much good to Africa, some accused her of being antagonistic to aid, noting that the problem does not so much appear to be with aid as it is with how aid has been used. This forced Moyo to argue for the usefulness of aid in emergency situations such disasters. The current Ebola crisis in some African countries has once again brought the question of aid to the fore as the governments of Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia have been begging for aid from the international community. America and Britain have sent soldiers and money to Africa to help build infrastructures to tackle the epidemic at its source. These infrastructures are however only temporary fixes suited for what it seen as the African situation.
In spite of all this move, providing aid to a country, under any circumstances, is still a bad idea and should be stopped. While I may allow that aid given to individuals may sometimes be a good idea, aid given to a country under any circumstance is quite a bad idea. I define aid as resources (monetary, infrastructural, or otherwise) that is given to a country at any time without any explicit commitment of said country to reciprocate in anyway. Aid may therefore be seen as resources freely given by one country or international organization to, and intended to benefit, the people of another country through their government or other bodies in said country. If aid as here defined does exist, it should be stopped.
Such aid should stop because it often happens as emergency measures and so help to mask the existence of structural injustices which we do not want to do the hard work to address. We therefore prefer giving aid rather than doing the hard work that is needed to overcome a global system that keeps some poor an others rich. It masks the fact that the poverty which many countries, especially in Africa, suffer is not an accident but is rather orchestrated by iniquitous national and international structures.
Take the case of the current Ebola crisis. NGOs are begging for money to set up temporary structures in the affected regions and some Western countries have sent their military there to help fight the outbreak of the deadly disease. Now, saying that aid should not be provided in the context of the Ebola crisis and other such emergency situations may sound heartless but that is actually not the case. In fact, calling for the abolishing of aid especially in such conditions is a way of demonstrating the structural injustices that characterize the world we live in. It is to force us to ask the question of why it is that aid always seem to be going to certain places in the world when there is a disaster but not to others when similar disasters occur. Rather than thinking about aid as a permanent regime in our world, emphasis should be directed towards abolishing it altogether. Abolishing aid altogether would be based on working on the structural weaknesses that exist in places like Liberia and Sierra Leone so that these countries may be able to address crisis that develop in them without the need to cry for international aid. Aid workers should therefore be seen as people who contribute to the present unjust social structures rather than those who are trying to help, as they tend to commonly see themselves. My goal here is not to disparage those involved in the aid industry but simply to suggest that the venture is not as benign as it might seem. Those playing leadership roles in any country have the responsibility of ensuring that their countries develop structures that may take care of their people. Those interested in aid work should shift their focus towards holding these leaders accountable rather than constantly putting band aid on the sufferings of people. Aid workers who do not focus on building permanent structures of justice only temporarily sooth the persistent pain of a nation like Sierra Leone or Liberia. After the current Ebola crisis is addressed, without such permanent structures, we will only be waiting for the next emergency.
Giving directly to individuals under distress is in a different category and will be addressed in a separate post.
In spite of all this move, providing aid to a country, under any circumstances, is still a bad idea and should be stopped. While I may allow that aid given to individuals may sometimes be a good idea, aid given to a country under any circumstance is quite a bad idea. I define aid as resources (monetary, infrastructural, or otherwise) that is given to a country at any time without any explicit commitment of said country to reciprocate in anyway. Aid may therefore be seen as resources freely given by one country or international organization to, and intended to benefit, the people of another country through their government or other bodies in said country. If aid as here defined does exist, it should be stopped.
Such aid should stop because it often happens as emergency measures and so help to mask the existence of structural injustices which we do not want to do the hard work to address. We therefore prefer giving aid rather than doing the hard work that is needed to overcome a global system that keeps some poor an others rich. It masks the fact that the poverty which many countries, especially in Africa, suffer is not an accident but is rather orchestrated by iniquitous national and international structures.
Take the case of the current Ebola crisis. NGOs are begging for money to set up temporary structures in the affected regions and some Western countries have sent their military there to help fight the outbreak of the deadly disease. Now, saying that aid should not be provided in the context of the Ebola crisis and other such emergency situations may sound heartless but that is actually not the case. In fact, calling for the abolishing of aid especially in such conditions is a way of demonstrating the structural injustices that characterize the world we live in. It is to force us to ask the question of why it is that aid always seem to be going to certain places in the world when there is a disaster but not to others when similar disasters occur. Rather than thinking about aid as a permanent regime in our world, emphasis should be directed towards abolishing it altogether. Abolishing aid altogether would be based on working on the structural weaknesses that exist in places like Liberia and Sierra Leone so that these countries may be able to address crisis that develop in them without the need to cry for international aid. Aid workers should therefore be seen as people who contribute to the present unjust social structures rather than those who are trying to help, as they tend to commonly see themselves. My goal here is not to disparage those involved in the aid industry but simply to suggest that the venture is not as benign as it might seem. Those playing leadership roles in any country have the responsibility of ensuring that their countries develop structures that may take care of their people. Those interested in aid work should shift their focus towards holding these leaders accountable rather than constantly putting band aid on the sufferings of people. Aid workers who do not focus on building permanent structures of justice only temporarily sooth the persistent pain of a nation like Sierra Leone or Liberia. After the current Ebola crisis is addressed, without such permanent structures, we will only be waiting for the next emergency.
Giving directly to individuals under distress is in a different category and will be addressed in a separate post.
No comments:
Post a Comment