On UK’s aid threats to Ghana: do beggars have a choice?

Aid contributes to the fight against poverty and hunger in developing countries. It is also increasingly argued that aid is hurting developing countries especially those in Africa.

In recent decades, Africa has witnessed more aid than any other continent. According to the 2011 ONE Data Report, total development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa reached $39.7 billion in 2010, representing an increase of $13.5 billion over 2004 levels.

It is incredibly disappointing that the region that receives more aid is today the poorest continent in the world considering the valuable natural resources at its disposal. Even with increased foreign aid, it is overwhelmingly evident that about 51 per cent of people in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1.25 per day.

The disparity between aid and effective development has therefore generated unprecedented debate regarding whether or not Africa really needs aid to combat the ever-increasing poverty, hunger and economic backwardness.

The Rome Declaration (2003), Paris Declaration (2005) and Accra Agenda for Action (2008) meant to rethink the architecture of aid have been necessary but have barely made a headway. The declarations and commitments constitute talks without action. The thirteen measurable targets set by the Paris Declaration only had one target been realized as revealed by the 2011 Monitoring Survey of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

This is a stark reminder that aid is not effective. Aid makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. It is widening the gap between rural and urban settings. Development and progress is at a standstill – if not dwindling.

The causes of aid ineffectiveness are not far-fetched. The world does not need a miracle to make sure that aid alleviates poverty. It is about getting right priorities, cooperation and real commitments to global development. Aid commitments are falling short apart from aid being used as a tool to threaten developing economies. The potential global recession has seen aid threatened with cuts too.

Britain has made moves to cut aid to developing countries. This means donors choose when and what to give out. Obiageli Ezekwesili, World Bank Vice President for Africa – at the first-ever African Investment Summit organized by the London Stock Exchange (LSE) on Tuesday October 11 in London – warned that the temptation to cut aid to Africa would be a great mistake.

The warning may have been defied already. David Cameron, UK’s Prime Minister, has threatened to cut aid intended for budgetary support to both Ghana and Uganda in response to their treatment of homosexuals. Britain has already done it to Malawi. The UK government has cut aid by $30 million to Malawi after two homosexuals were sentenced to 14 months hard labour for having an engagement ceremony.

The burning question remains – is aid obligatory or merely a country’s wish?

Britain can decide the amount and the timing of its hand-outs to needy economies. These are the modalities of today’s aid. But can aid change the cultural values of such economies. The ‘beggars can’t be choosers’ syndrome should no longer play a role here. Developing economies should own what they receive! Uncertain aid unsettles the priorities of developing economies. Shouldn’t aid commitments be made certain to inform development agenda of less developed economies? Threats to cut down or withdraw aid only vindicate aid ineffectiveness, misplaced priorities of aid and unfulfilled commitments. Accra Agenda for Action’s (AAA’s) ownership of programmes of aid is just a mirage. Donors still decide. Aid with strings attached more often than not misguides development priorities.

Ghana and Uganda should stand for the value of their culture. They should act within the ambit of their constitutional laws. Homosexual practices are foreign to these countries. They shouldn’t be compelled into making hasty decisions that could generate huge costs to their economies in the near future. We are obliged to welcome justifiable aids that do not contradict constitutional laws and values.

Discussions at the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness at Busan should tackle strings attached to aid. When talking about the ownership of aid we are in essence talking about aid without strings. Over 13 million people are in danger to life-threatening hunger in the horn of Africa, increased child and maternal mortality is gradually putting Africa on the brink of extinction and hopelessness, and civil war is apportioning precious time for tensions and killings. These are what contemporary aid should address.

The lesson is glaring. Africa dares not depend on aid. Commitments are the sole wishes of donors. They decide what, how and when to give. If aid follows this pathway, then aid should be regarded as needless for less developed economies. The alternative to aid is simple. The sustainable decision is for Africa to wean itself off excessive foreign aid while generating local revenues to fund their budgets. But with Ghana’s inordinate taste for aid, can Ghana wean herself off aid? And is there a choice when on continual basis the country depends entirely on aid to undertake several development projects and programmes.

It is not surprising when aid does not meet its intended aspirations. Aside from these threats, the little handouts that developing economies receive are shrouded in secrecy. Donors support opaque deals. According to Publish What You Fund, a number of donors seem to be ”attempting to dilute or undermine” commitments to aid transparency “by removing all references to the International Aid Transparency Initiative” and implementation deadlines during the “Working Party on Aid Effectiveness” meeting held in Paris. Africa loses nearly $150 billion a year through pervasive corruption. It stands to reason that transparency is a precondition for effective aid. How much is invested in poverty and hunger reduction programmes? Only donors and governments of developing countries are aware of what comes in and goes out. Citizens have been turned spectators — watching just for the fun of it while they bear the brunt of poor utilization of those funds.

If aid is intended to strengthen democracy, then citizens reserve the right to know. The ‘Arab Spring’ revolution was the result of frustration with increasing secrecy and demand for openness. Light should be shed on what governments are doing with the few stipends at their disposal to improve the lots of the poor.

I put this question to stakeholders that would be gathering during the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, the Republic of Korea — Is the aid regime teaching Africa to fish? Or is aid driving Africa to fish in waters without fish or with dead fish?

This trend smacks of an empty approach to ensuring global human development. In all, achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 should set the motion for a new transparent architecture of aid that makes eradication of poverty and inequality a priority. This should inform Busan.

Busan should set new standards and mandates for aid effectiveness that go beyond mere talk. Aid should not be used as a tool to threaten lawful practices of developing countries. Less of that, Africa should think inwardly for a development miracle. Africa should as a matter of urgency wean itself off the inordinate taste for foreign aid. Ensuring effective sustainable development in backward economies especially those in Africa is urgent.

By Stephen Yeboah

Email: [email protected]