Aid, a
Political Weapon Once More
By JONATHAN POWER
LONDON-- Using aid as a political weapon goes in phases
and fashions, fits and starts, lulls and storms. The only
consistent factor is that invariably it is the U.S. that
sets the tone. Other Western and Middle Eastern aid givers
follow in a straggle. Sometimes they do, more often they
don't, as Japan has just made plain over Cambodia, much to
Washington's chagrin.
With Jimmy Carter as president it was a sword to be
wielded in every direction and certainly in Latin America,
combined with a high decibel rhetoric on human rights, did
help in the battle to vanquish tyranny and restore
democracy. Since Carter's days there has been the occasional
spate of activity but of a less spirited kind. But now the
Carteresque fervor is back in vogue. Madeleine Albright's
State Department is charging at every windmill. Although it
is far too early to say whether she will have any more
success than Sancho Panza it comes as a breath of much
needed air into what was in danger of becoming, under her
predecessor, Warren Christopher, the politics of the
doldrums. Cambodia is one target, Kenya another. Moreover,
one remarkable aspect of this swordsmanship is that this
time America is not alone. The stodgy, concensus-seeking
International Monetary Fund (IMF) is also flexing its
financial muscle, which means that the U.S., as always the
IMF's most powerful governor, has won over for this new
policy of toughness not just the West Europeans, Canadians
and Japanese but most of the Third World's financial
heavyweights.
On August 1st the world's monetary institution of last
resort suspended a loan programme to Kenya of $220 million.
This was followed a few days later by the publishing of new
guidelines that instruct IMF staff to become more political.
No longer will only economic and financial criteria be the
deciding issues in giving loans. From now on "governance"
will be factored into decision making. In other words,
corruption and mismanagement will be weighed and, if found
wanting, governments will find their capacity to borrow
curtailed. Kenya is the first test. The IMF finally decided
to pull the plug after the government fired the
independently minded--and honest--head of customs and
excise.
These remarkable developments in policy come not very
long after the IMF decided to examine, when analyzing a
country's credit-worthiness, not just the civilian budget
but the once off-limits military budget too. Some countries
have been told they ought to rein in runaway arms
purchases.
All this raises the sensitive and demanding question, if
the White House has decided to become more rigorous on human
rights and good governance where does it stop, or rather how
far does it go? Is it only aimed at poverty-ridden,
relatively dependent countries like Kenya and Cambodia or
will the White House once again change tack with Beijing and
link human rights to trade concessions? Is it also going to
lead to a more aggressive use of military aid--out of
fashion since the end of the Cold War--making the world
better for the "good guys"? This seems to be the message
from Rwanda where recent revelations of American military
aid and training suggest Washington may have had a hand in
the Tutsi armies' recent overthrow of Zaire's long-time
dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko.
One of these questions can be answered quickly. No,
policy is not going to change towards China. Washington
knows that the Chinese economy is too big and too robust for
it to be able to gain political leverage by punishing China
for human rights abuses with trade sanctions. The Nixonian
policy of embracing China will continue, interrupted as it
was for only the briefest of moments by Tienanmen Square.
The Rwanda/Zaire affair is more convoluted and, let us say,
after the Somalian imbroglio, unexpected. What on earth is
America doing poking around in African civil wars? Were the
old-time marxist analysts right after all--the capitalist
countries will slit each other's throats in order to win
favored access to African minerals? This policy was
discredited by the killing fields of Angola where east and
west competed for the prize of its post-colonial government
and its diamond fields. The murderous consequences of
Africa's worst war still linger on. Surely Washington
doesn't believe it should compete with capitalist Paris as
it did for so long with communist Moscow? (And vice versa.)
But suspending aid to small, dependent countries is another
matter. This must be a very good thing to do and the new
tough America and IMF policies are well overdue. In too many
countries aid and loans have been poured into the coffers of
countries that have misspent and corrupted them away. In
Africa, in particular, aid has not had a good track record
in fostering economic growth and the alleviation of poverty.
Although during the 1960s, 70s and 80s aid contributed to
many important individual achievements, overall they were
negated by the counterproductive policies of governments.
Belatedly, but rather wonderfully, a significant number of
African countries have put their fiscal house in order. Take
Ethiopia. After decades of protracted civil war and corrupt
government it now has much improved governance and a growth
rate last year at the unbelievable east Asian rate of
12.4%.
Aid Ethiopia. Cut-off Kenya. Embrace China and stay out
of Africa's wars. Who said aid as a foreign policy tool was
a simple weapon? More activity is all to the good but
getting it right is even better.
August 20, 1997,
LONDON
Copyright © 1997 By JONATHAN POWER
Note: I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
|