After reading Maren's book it is tempting to throw the baby out with the bath water and say "well, if the governments are corrupt, the NGOs and specifically USAID and the UN are more interested in million dollar contracts than helping people... then should we actually be trying to help people? aren't we doing more harm then good?
His argument is an interesting one and goes something like this: Foreign aid (food for example) does not help to develop a people in crisis. Instead what he found (specifically in Somalia in the 80's and 90's) was that
1) refugees had no desire to move from the camp and begin to 'farm' or whatever it is that NGOs try to teach them to do to regain some kind of stability because, after all, why work when you get fed for free. (related to this is the fact that foreign suppliers (read: USA) supply specific kinds of foods and, over time- try to acclimate the culture to American food, so that they'll buy from them when/if the foreign aid is gone)
2) The number of refugees is always exaggerated by NGOs because it will mean more dollars, bigger contracts and longer work... it also means more food is shipped than necessary--
which leads to 3...
3) Foreign Aid is power to local militia because since there is so much extra food, the corrupt government (Somalia, 80's - 90's) gives it to the the makeshift military who end up making a bundle off of it by selling it on the black market. In this way the corrupt government keep the corrupt military on their side because they are getting rich off the deal. They then use the money to buy weapons...as Maren says “It's like a mini arms race fueled with food.”
However.... this means that the extra food ends up being sold for dirt cheap which drives down the prices that honest farmers can get for their crops-- they go bankrupt-- so even if someone tried to earn a living by farming, they couldn't because food is so cheap.
There are some good quotes...here's some favorites:
"Chris and hundreds of others, he had realized that charity and development work are political, that doing relief and development work in the context of oppression is counterproductive. Any real commitment to development requires political action, speaking out against the powers that keep populations from developing themselves” 88
“It wasn't just the former state-owned farms that were being snapped up by Siyaad's inner circle. Traditional farmers were forced out of business by low prices and were either driven off their land or forced to sell it cheaply. In essence, the West's surplus grains were subsidizing the production of bananas and other crops that did not compete with Western agricultural interests” 170.
“There was something poetic about the way he and others stole from the UN and NGOs, used the money to build houses, and then rented those same houses back to the UN and NGOs.” 176.
“Somalia had become addicted to aid, its political system so accustomed to ingesting large amounts of foreign cash, that, like any redundant junkie, it had reached a point where withdrawing the aid would do more damage to the system than keeping it flowing” 180.
“The real beneficiaries of the aid program were, and are, the American equivalent of Siyaad Barre's inner circle. They are a small group of men with connections and money and influence. They are America's merchants of grain” 197.
There's also some interesting chapters on Save the Childrens child sponsorship scandal and the ways in which the media creates wars... fascinating stuff...
.
1 comment:
I LOVE that you are there studying this.
Honestly, look forward to late night conversations of you helpign me understand all this better. Awesome post.
Post a Comment