Last week Barack
Obama and Mitt Romney shared the stage at a function organized by the Clinton Global
Initiative. In his speech Mr. Romney, who might become the next President of
the USA, laid out how he views foreign aid. “The aim of a much larger share of
our aid must be the promotion of work and the fostering of free enterprise,” he
said. Mr. Romney added that the “United States should make foreign aid
conditional on countries’ lowering barriers to entrepreneurship and trade with
the United States.”
This view
of foreign aid is, at the very least, grossly outdated. Normally, Mr. Romney’s
views on aid should not be of much concern to us except that I think that our
government’s view on this matter is similar; “Trade, not aid” is the mantra. A
key piece of evidence here is that New Zealand Aid, a body which is in charge
of handling our foreign aid is part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade.
Before I
discuss why this is a misguided way to view foreign aid, let me disabuse
readers of some often held misconceptions. Most rich counties in the world
actually provide a very small fraction of their gross national product in
foreign aid.
The
governments of developed countries promised to spend 0.7% of their gross
national product on development assistance in 1970, 42 years ago! They have
consistently failed to reach this goal; the amount of aid has been around 0.2
to 0.4% on average. Among developed nations only USA, Italy and Japan donate
less in percentage terms than New Zealand.
So no, we
are not really spending that much of our hard-earned money to help out
“victims” in poor third-world countries who fail to take responsibility for
their own well-being. But then do we have any obligation to help out those
people at all?
Usually,
those who answer this question in the affirmative, do so by appealing to
morality, compassion and fairness. Those are valid arguments and I agree with
them. But there is a case to be made in favour of foreign aid purely on the
grounds of national security and self-interest. And that is where we need to
think of foreign aid in different and more strategic terms.
First, in
today’s globalized world opening up markets for our country’s businesses is not
a major concern anymore; at least it is not a predominant concern. Most
countries around the world are now clamoring for foreign investment. There are
few counties in the world with the possible exception of North Korea and
Myanmar which hang on the old-school ideas of autarky and self-sufficiency. If
there is one thing that we have learned from the rapid growth of countries like
China, India, Singapore, Taiwan and others it is that international trade
provides poor countries an escape out of poverty. India recently opened up its
retail sector to foreign investment. This was one of the few remaining sectors
of that vast market. Yes, there may be some sectors in some countries that may
require opening up but that is a minor concern.
Let us talk
about tuberculosis in New Zealand. According to a report issued by the Ministry
of Health there were 626 cases of TB in New Zealand in 2011. “The most commonly
reported risk factors among the cases were being born overseas and current or
recent residence with a person born outside of New Zealand. Based on country of birth, the highest TB
disease rate was among those born in Asia (61.7 per 100,000, 155 cases),
followed by those born in Sub-Saharan Africa (38.9 per 100, 000, 23 cases) and
in the Pacific Islands (27.2 per 100 000, 37 cases).”
Given that
the symptoms of TB can be dormant for many years, routine health-checks as part
of the immigration process may not pick up on this.
Another
serious medical problem facing us is the over-the-counter availability of
potent antibiotics in third-world countries leading to their widespread abuse.
This in turn is giving rise to numerous multi-drug-resistant diseases which are
spreading rapidly around our globalized world.
Pandemics
like SARS, swine-flu or bird-flu (or ones that may happen in the future) have
enormous detrimental effects on our economy.
Note: If
you are inclined to dismiss these arguments as fear-mongering then, if nothing
else, you need to borrow a copy of the DVD of Stephen Soderbergh’s film
“Contagion” and watch it immediately!
This
implies that any aid program that leads to greater immunization of children in
third-world countries or prevents the widespread abuse of antibiotics has
positive implications for our own well-being.
But a much
bigger threat to our interests and security come not from disease but from
failed states like Afghanistan, where a number of Kiwi soldiers have died
recently.
The problems
we face in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Congo, Angola, Haiti or Sudan is not of
opening up their markets. There are no markets in those countries! Because
there is no government to create functional markets in the first place. And the
problems are the same: corruption, graft, terrorism, civil unrest, warfare,
genocide.
And much of
that unrest is washing up on our shores in the form of the smouldering ruins of
cafeterias and bars and ships and yes, skyscrapers.
Here is the
lesson from the Arab Spring. In order to improve the situation in poor
countries the primary focus needs to be on only one thing: governance. This
means reducing corruption, creating rule of law and transparency in the
operations of the government, ensuring property rights and fostering democratic
ideals.
Therefore
aid that goes towards providing primary schooling or towards microfinance in
helping people get out of poverty may not pay off in terms of business
interests in the immediate present but has a far greater payoff for our
security interests down the road. It is not easy to recruit “shahids” for
“jihad” when the prospective shahid has a job and a wife and children who go to
school; people who have middle-class dreams and aspirations and stability in
their lives and things to look forward to.
The result
of this will not always be to our liking; people whose viewpoints are radically
different from ours will sometimes end up in power. But then we must have faith
in the people of those countries to overthrow their own despots. The west has
tried doing it at gun-point and yes, there are clearly times when military
intervention is unavoidable. But military interventions are costly in terms of
money and lives lost. In the wake of the current recession, few nations, if
any, have the appetite for incurring those costs. This is mostly why we have all
gone about business as usual in the face of the massive human calamity unfolding
right now in Syria.
It is time
that the rich countries in the world began to wake up to the real threats
facing us in our globalized world. Yes, some of the aid we provide will be stolen;
some will go towards helping ultra-conservative religious zealots or despots
who will stash the money in Swiss accounts. But if we are smart about it and
direct our aid well then much of it can help bring about lasting change in poor
countries. In the long run this will be a good investment in our own future and
that of our businesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment