Trade Not Aid

Third Quarter 1998

NIAMEY, Niger—"Trade not aid" is the slogan and the general trend now of American policy towards the African continent. USAID programs have been slashed over the past ten years, two-thirds of the total being phased out. Several countries—some of them among the neediest—do not even figure as a part of the American development aid program. American leaders talk of Africa as the "new Southeast Asia," with its "untapped potential" of millions of consumers.

Some aspects of "trade not aid" have great value. There is little danger of creating unhealthy dependencies or inadvertently financing corrupt government structures. "What do we have to show for fifteen years of work and $35 million of aid to Niger?" asks Linda Gregory, head of the USAID mission in Niger. She has a point. Niger figures consistently at the top of the list of nearly all the indexes measuring child malnutrition, illiteracy, and general lack of well-being as defined by the United Nations.

So, is American policy changing because we have learned from the mistakes made in places like Niger?

USAID is pulling out its mission. "It's a pity," Gregory said, "that we would let the actions of a small clique of armed bullies deprive hard-working Nigeriens of a partnership with us. But it is the law. When a democratic country is taken over by dictators, American law says we have to get out. So that's what we're doing." USAID will close its mission in Niger completely by the end of 1998, in response to the military coup of January 1996.

American policy says to Niger, we can trade with you. We are taking away U.S. customs barriers. If your government is democratic, we can support development initiatives. Defend human rights and don't shelter terrorists.

This was also the message of Bill Clinton, in his whirlwind tour of the continent last spring. Again, there are some positive values in such an approach, but for those hungry for justice, some questions come to mind.

"Trade not aid" means first of all that American interests take the lead. That is to say, those countries that have something to offer American businesses will more easily be able to establish a relationship with the United States. Clinton's Africa visit was primarily to Central and Southern Africa—where the mineral-rich countries of South Africa and CongoKinshasa played a big role in his agenda. What about the poorest countries, like Niger, whose largest export is onions? Or Burkina Faso, Tchad, or Sierra Leone?

"Trade not aid" is not a policy that hits at some of the roots of the African development obstacles. What are those general obstacles? How can we help our friends get over them? Africa is big, complex, and full of ethnic variety. Consider the following.

Obstacle 1: Civil Insecurity, Wars, and Guns

Where there is no peace, children do not go to school, vaccination programs fall apart, and even the American bulwark trade is halted. Conflicts currently continue around the continent—from Sierra Leone to Burundi, from Sudan to Niger, to name just a few.

President Bush experimented with a military intervention in Somalia to counter the mounting violence in the country. The project ended with an American pullout and a conflict that continues through today.

In the case of Rwanda, President Clinton admitted in Kigali that the international community could have done more to prevent the genocide of 1994 which claimed nearly a million Tutsi and Hutu-moderate victims. It is generally understood and agreed that reinforcing the MINUAR-UN military security forces in Rwanda at the time could have prevented the majority of the killing. Force against madness does have its place, and it most likely could have protected thousands of victims.

In general, however, peace in Africa seems to be threatened more by the fact that there is too great a military presence. In Niger, for example, the government is a military one and spends most of its energy trying to maintain its own existence. Schools do not function. Government employees do not get their pay for six months, and then only a fraction of it. Free journalism is squelched.

Would fewer guns mean more peace in Africa? It is hard to imagine that international concordance to stop the trade in land mines, guns, and military equipment to strongmen in Africa would not be a good thing. Americans can clamor for that.

Obstacle 2: Debt

Many African countries live under yet another oppressive shadow: mounds of international debt. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been instituting debt-relief policies to try to alleviate the burden. Often they call for a currency devaluation or for reform—usually by means of the privatization of government-owned utilities and resources.

Where did the debt originate? The debt story differs from country to country, but a typical scenario is that a government would gain outside financial resources (from another country or from the World Bank, or from an international development bank for that region) and then find that it could not pay back the loan. One reason for this was that the price of that country's exports on the world market fell drastically while interest rates on its loans skyrocketed. In other cases a government taking the loan was replaced as the result of a coup and the new government squandered the money. In most cases, the loans were used to build hospitals, roads, dams, and also, unfortunately, to purchase guns.

When a poor country finds itself in debt, the first government services to go are those that serve the weakest—its children and the sick. That means that funding for education gets whittled down, even in countries where most children already lack access to it. It means that community health care, which in most rural places is marginal at best, can be threatened by lack of basic equipment, vaccines, and medical care. African countries currently spend four times as much money on interest payments as they do on health care.

What can be done about debt? One option is for the international lenders to forgive much of it. That is the goal of the JUBILEE 2000 program, which is calling for debt forgiveness and a new start with fiscal reforms for African countries.

Obstacle 3: Worldview Problems

The worldview problem is two-sided. Often people and programs from the North come to Africa attached to the idea that bigger is better. Many Africans approach life with the attitude that "nothing can be done against the will of God."

The bigger-is-better mentality has been reflected in the type of program generally supported by funds from the World Bank and American USAID. Typically, large budgets build big infrastructure projects or buy lots of vehicles and equipment, even if smaller grass-roots projects could make a more immediate and practical difference in the lives of the poor.

The conviction that "nothing can be done against the will of God" represents more of a fatalism than it does an understanding of the will of God. Most of the rural poor in Africa, particularly in Muslim West Africa, see their plight as fate, and when one believes that one has little or no control over the future, one naturally does not struggle to take control of it.

What can be done about these worldview problems? Americans can clamor for policies that support smaller, grass-roots programs managed by nongovernment agencies, associations and cooperatives. Americans should also take note that the causes of poverty are more than a lack of resources, trade, or education; they may be woven into life, into the attitudes and habits of people and leaders.

The two-worldview problems already mentioned inevitably lead to a third. Many of the most effective programs to help the poor tend to be smaller and faith-based. Faith-related efforts have a handle with which to address the worldviews people hold. American views of the separation of church and state thus present the third problem, namely a tendency to close the funding door to faith-based agencies.

Americans, then, should clamor for international policies that recognize and accept the public reality of people's faiths. A just, pluralistic approach can assure that one faith will not be imposed on all or given an advantage by public funds. Americans can clamor for public support of smaller, nongovernment organizations, whether explicitly religious or not, whose programs really help the poor.

In sum, "trade not aid" can be helpful. But justice calls for something more. We need deeper reflection on how best to use resources and how best to relate international assets to the needs of African countries. At the very least, the United States should adopt policies to control arms proliferation, to relieve and contain debt, and to support effective grass-roots efforts that help people recognize the responsibility God has given them to control their lives and shape their future. We can and should go beyond a preoccupation with commercial interests to see our neighbors as more than potential consumers. We, and they, have been called to practice justice and mercy in regard to all of life.

[Keith Syler works on small development projects in Niger for the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee. He has also lived and worked in Eastern Europe.]