It must be clear that aid is not the solution to Africa’s problems as some European political leaders prefer to think, egged on by the 500,000-man strong aid industry, by far the biggest beneficiaries of aid. These European politicians, including Merkel, seem unaware that the trillions of dollars in various forms of aid to Africa over the past 50 years have had little if any impact. It is naïve to think that more of the same would make any meaningful difference. Einstein may or may not have said: “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity”. The saying would hold true for aid to Africa no matter if it was, for the umpteen time, tweaked just a little bit.
It is not difficult to make a convincing case that aid has made it easier for many corrupt African politicians to stay in power. Do naïve politicians in the west and corrupt politicians in Africa conspire with the insincere aid industry to keep the aid money flowing, in spite of all the evidence of inefficiency and corruption?
The biggest culprits may well be the hundreds of NGOs that have made aid to Africa their lucrative livelihood. They are often headed by failed politicians with their rolodexes still up-to-date. Some NGOs are very powerful, strutting around Davos moralizing and lecturing. OXFAM has even taken to advise the French Government on how to run its pension system, while they are short of an answer on how they have helped Africa develop. Nobody is embarrassed.
Belatedly, the UN agencies seem to have been reading the writing on the wall. Some are concluding that they were never about development, but about values. While that may hold true for a few, the vast majority was and is about development. They may need to call in some very skilled contortionists to get their new message through.
The situation with unregulated migration from Africa to Europe is not entirely dissimilar to the aid story. Migration is beneficial not only to the individual migrants and their traffickers, but also to the political leaders who get often unruly and troublesome youth off their hands. The out-migration also lowers the unemployment rate and secures hard currency remittances. This is manifested in many African countries refusing to take back migrants who fail to obtain residence status in Europe. Even if Europe with its shrinking population needs a lot of immigrants, migration will never be a solution to the problems of Africa’s 1.4 billion people, even if some on the political left appear to think so.
Africa’s overriding problem is poor governance; so what is the solution? Aid, capacity building and rolling out the red carpet for African leaders have all failed. Museveni, the president of Uganda, met with four US presidents but to little avail. Africa did have some impressive statesmen like Mandela, Nyerere and Nkrumah, but the vast majority of African leaders do not fall into this category. There are many more Abachas, Mugabes and Mobutos than there are competent, honest and caring political leaders.
The intelligence community of the West surely knows how much African leaders have stashed away and where. Would exposing this make them change their ways? Would letting their subjects know make a difference? Would it make it easier, for a knowledgeable public, to get rid of their incompetent, corrupt and abusive governments?
Or is it all about something else as Tarzie Vittachi may have put it. Was it about stemming the Soviet Union’s influence and is it now about obstructing China’s? Or is it about the west creating some perceived stability as perhaps was the case in Uganda – a strategy The Economist has advocated for. Are Africans used as chess pones in a cynical geopolitical game? In any case the manipulable aid practitioners are looking rather naïve.
I am glad that Thomas' article has stirred the conscience for this anonymous response. I wish, however, that the person had identified himself/herself/themself. Anonymity clouds the comment in mystery, and it pays to stand up to say who you are when making a comment of this nature. As for Thomas, those who had known him through the harrowing times under OLS Sudan and a complex emergency in Iraq under his leadership as Rep will know where he comes from. I wish there was more to the anonymous comment by way of substance than a tirade of anger against Thomas in person. This is an open forum for and by UNICEF retirees. It pays to be frank and forthright in expressing our opinions, but let us not do it in anger, devoid of civility.
ReplyDeleteThis is perfectly fine. The anonymous is right, he/she/they deserve an explanation. It is true that I was of no prominence. I may have, at least according to the audit, sorted out a couple of corrupt and incompetently run offices, but that did not bestow any prominence. On the contrary, the air was thick with: "why could he not have swept that under the carpet". Prominence came from giving speeches, making presentations, and writing frameworks - regardless of impact.
ReplyDeleteNo, the Swedish government had nothing to do with my recruitment. They did not know me at the time. I understand the question though as many were recruited that way. However, I did get to know the GOS rather well as I was often asked to go and see them when on leave, begging for more money, a duty none of my US or UK colleagues were asked to perform. GOS even consulted me occasionally. I recall one case when Grant had stood up at a board meeting criticizing Sweden for reducing its contribution slightly which had upset the GOS enormously. That was at a time when Sweden's seven million people contributed more to UNICEF than America's 300 million. I told GOS to advise Grant to get down to Washington and try to set this anomaly right. I also mentioned to GOS that the US was by far the biggest beneficiary of UNICEF and that fact may help Grant in his negotiations.
I am disgruntled and was definitely a "backbencher". To put it mildly, I left UNICEF unhappy. I went sailing around the world for four years to get UNIVEF out of my head. That failed and I suffered bad depression. My shrinks have it down to not standing up for myself allowing the incompetent, abusive, and corrupt to bully me. That is true and to be honest, I was too concerned about feathering my own nest to dare to speak up.
Gautham, whom I worked with in Iraq, may remember that when I left I sold everything in my house and donated the money to UNICEF. Due to the absurd exchange rate, it amounted to millions of dollars. I was one of the biggest donors to UNICEF that year. However, a colleague of mine at HQ who did not have much affinity for Iraq decided to put her own currency exchange rate on my donation reducing it to a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Though, UNICEF in Iraq used my money and saved many millions of dollars by not having to convert dollars to Iraqi dinars. Again I was too weak and timid to stand up for myself and she got away with it. I was naive and believed that it would be unacceptable for a UN worker to violate a member state's sovereignty so blatantly. "Who cares what the government of Iraq thinks" still rings in my ears.
When corruption and abuse, even sexual abuse, are ignored perpetrators believe they are immune. An organization that is determined to protect its reputation rather than acknowledging failings perhaps should tone down aspirations for management excellence.
As regards what I did about this very sad situation - regrettably preciously little. I am profoundly ashamed of that. My psychologist tells me that the fact that I am writing this indicates that my mental health is improving. She has taken an interest in UNICEF and encourages me to do more of it.
Let us leave why I joined UNICEF to another day.
I am glad Thomas that you have spoken. This catharsis was long overdue. In a forum of this nature, we should be honest with ourselves and with our feelings. Through prolonged service within the organisation with very little else to add to our experience, many of us run the risk of turning into self-righteous souls dwelling in blissful complacency within our fold. We no doubt feel alarmed to find someone different. I am not surprised that the anonymous commentator never knew you. You never grabbed the limelight afterall.
ReplyDeleteWe took down a comment left by an Anonymous user. We did so because in my opinion as editor the comment did not meet our 'Conditions of Use' which can be found under 'About and FAQS' on the sidebar.
ReplyDelete"As a network of former international civil servants, we assume that members who add comments or engage in discussions will use a tone and etiquette similar to that used in professional communications. Inappropriate discussions of character or performance of individuals will be removed."
Thomas had in the meantime responded to the comment. We apologize for any confusion caused.
Thanks for that Tom, but I am very critical of the aid industry, and that upsets people who disagree with me - I must accept that. I have no problem with being criticized and there is plenty to criticize.
ReplyDeleteThat said it would be very interesting to have former staff take me on and point out where I am wrong. There has been far too little of that. The article on the success of iodizing salt would be a case in point. Not even I could be critical of that.
For this blog to be interesting we must be able to debate failures, it should clearly not only be about reminiscing and mutual admiration.
I am convinced that Africa would have been better off without any aid. African countries would have been more prosperous if they interacted with the rest of the world in the same manner as all other counties do. There are many economists and intellectuals in Africa and elsewhere who agree with that.
If people on this blog or organizations such as UNICEF disagree with this it would be reasonable to expect them to make their case.
Gautam, I did not know it was about grabbing the limelight. I thought it was about designing and managing the delivery of programs in collaboration with counterparts in support of development.
ReplyDeleteNot only brave but indeed critical to criticise aid and indeed our role in delivering it - or not - and the impact and value of aid particularly on the African continent as an extension of colonial rule. Many African intellectuals have expressed this admirably. I have been witness to many an embarrassing exchanges between aid agencies quibbling over SAM and MAM children ... particularly UNICEF and WFP officials both claiming them as "their children" while RUTFs pile up and children die as aid does not get delivered because it cannot be agreed who should do it. Or indeed when a government prevents aid from being delivered as a weapon of war or power. RUTFs being destroyed in warehouses etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever I would be grateful for some reading materials - hard scientific evidence - from Tom or others on how you measure whether Africa would have been or indeed is better off without aid. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. . . Don't dispute it, just don't know how you document something that is not there. Wasted aid, wasted resources definitely plenty of evidence of that (seen it myself).
Important discussion.
The above on aid and Africa was not intended to be anonymous.
ReplyDeleteMy name is SarahCrowe