"Is development aid for Africa good or bad for Africans?" - Didier Champion

Development aid is a good gig for African top politicians. They know it comes with strings attached, but they do not care about self-reliance and political freedom of their countries. Aid money is easy money that they do not have to be accountable for. With aid money, they can simply ignore their constituency and focus on pleasing their imperialist masters in Western countries.

The donors know that it does not help at all. They just use it to gain political and economic deals beneficial to their interests. It might be getting enough votes for their agenda at the United Nations, having a monopoly share in Africa’s mining industry, processing coffee and tea in their countries, and all sorts of mega deals worth billions of dollars in profits.

In relative terms, development aid is a small investment they make to take over the economic and political freedom of African countries. Who is the biggest loser in these transactions? The African people.

The other two parties get what they want, but the African people are their collateral damage. I myself have been a beneficiary of aid and worked in the aid industry.

There are multiple types of aid. In this question, let me focus on multinational aid and soft loans. I hope this is what the OP means by development aid. The aid that developed countries give to developing countries to “develop” their people.

This topic is not new. Since the 1960’s, Africa received about $ 1.3 trillion so-called aid. If we still need aid 50 years later, you have to admit there is something wrong with aid. What has aid been doing all these years? Why did it not take Africans out of poverty? What has gone wrong on both sides, the donors and the receivers?

The truth is Africa would have been better off without aid.

The questions are not that hard to answer. We have estimates of what has been given and what it has achieved on the ground. The results speak for themselves. You don’t need to be a genius that “aid” is nothing but a tool to control African countries.

Without foreign aid,

1. Our countries would be forced to trade with one another.

2. Our politicians would start discussing ideas with others, the people.

3. African leaders would have fewer incentives to hustle to the top for cheap money. 4. Corruption and entitlement sentiments would go down significantly.significantly

5.They would be more accountable if our taxes were funding the governments.

6.They ( leaders) would be more efficient and effective.

7.Instead of spending years writing useless “donor” reports, and thousands of evaluation meetings, they would actually work on what improves people’s lives.

8. We ( Africans) would be more respected around the world. Nobody respects beggars.

9. More investments would come into Africa. No private equity wants to invest in an aid-dependent country. It is a red flag for corruption, bureaucracy, political antagonism, and others.

Pay for play.

There is no such a thing as a free lunch. Aid comes with strings attached.

Thanks to development aid, African countries have supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They supported the bombing of Libya. They supported the move of Israel capital to Jerusalem, and many other things they were coerced into doing in fear of the collateral damage that would come if they said otherwise. What did Africans get for supporting the war in Iraq? Nothing.

Just recently, when China announced the $ 60 billion package to Africa, countries were coerced to deny the sovereignty of Taiwan as an independent country. The African countries who decided otherwise were excluded from the deal.

At the UN, the votes from African countries do swing favors to the donors’ way.

Anytime, the donors can stretch their muscle to impose their willpower on African countries. Political interference in internal affairs, etc.

The donor aid is as follows: “I do this for you, you will do this for me”.

The donors who give aid are not stupid. They know quite well that aid has been a disaster to Africans. They know it has only benefitted their African cronies who are in charge. When they give it, they know damn well that a significant portion will make it to the real beneficiary. However, they have kept pumping the gas. Do they really care that much or there is something in it for them? Why would they be doing all this “charity” when they have their own issues to take care of at home?

Whether be the US, the EU, and now China, they are all the same. Since China is the new player, I will start by the big heavy hitters, the EU, and the US.

Aid Recycling.

When EU or the US issue loans, they make it a requirement to hire their companies to do the work. This prevents African countries to negotiate good prices with different contractors around the world.

The donor countries make it a requirement so that no Chinese or Turkish companies can get a piece of their money. Whether you are talking about aid or loan money, they do not allow beneficiaries to do projects on their terms.

In mid-2000’s, we had a German company ( Strabag International) build many of our roads in Rwanda. Why? Because it was part of the requirement to contract European companies to build the roads. Strabag would bring in their pieces of equipment, civil engineers, and other experts to do the work.

As soon as the work was done, they took them and went back to Germany. I don’t have to remind you that this probably adds cost and makes the process quite inefficient. You don’t want to hire a company who knows they have a monopoly on the market. In the end, developing countries get the worst deals, but loans will have to be paid back with interests, regardless of obligations.

Aid is political. Lack of neutrality.

Just a few months ago, three East African countries got together and decided to launch their own cloth industry. These 3 countries have a combined population of over 100 million people. The garment industry is a $ 10 billion industry every year. Most of the used clothes are imported from the US market.

When Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya imposed a 25% tariff on secondhand clothing imports to make way for their local garment industry, the US threatened them with sanctions.

Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya are low-income countries. The US is the most developed nation in the world and gives some “ aid” to these 3 countries. If the US goal is to help these countries, why would the US threaten to impose sanctions?

In the end, two countries got out of the alliance to develop their local industries.

Only Rwanda was strong enough stand tall against US threats.

For the rest of whether aid is good or bad for Africans, this question covers many other ideas.

Given the facts and evidence today, the supporters of development aid will have a hard time to justify a net positive effect for aid. They would have a hard time showing where else aid has worked and why should Africans be different from other people around the world. Whether be in other Asian countries who have made significant progress since the 1970’s or elsewhere

.