news

Aid and Power, all in the name of the poor

By: Chissu

Ethiopian communities have been reacting differently to the on-going political crisis, which, among other things, is costing human lives. We may categorize these communities roughly into two major groups: those seeking help/solution primarily from "others", some sort of external forces such as God and international community. This group can in turn be divided into two. Majority (mostly public at home) see ultimate solution only in praying to their chosen God, genuinely believing that the ultimate solution comes from Him. A minority adopts religious approach but appear to grab the opportunity to convince us that Ethiopia is being punished for turning away from God, a bit confusing to me but not immediate cause for concern.

Even more confusing is a variant of the "others" approach, which is due to those who hold government as the sole perpetrator hence see solution in swift change of government, at any cost. They are also two types, but share the motto "the end justifies the means". Some pray for the international community (both the problem and solution is external) and lately they have been preoccupied with endless campaigns against aid to Ethiopia. A minority has been calling for armed struggle to oust the TPLF/EPRDF government; these are malevolent hard liners with whom no constructive dialogue is possible. Most of the architects of the "others" category but the very first are of Diaspora origin, highly organized and vocal, provided the cause is political.

The second major group consists of Ethiopians who believe are part of the problem, as much as any other (including governments, past and present), and are of the opinion that lasting solution comes from within and everyone. They acknowledge Ethiopia's problems are structural, deep-rooted and as old as her long (and otherwise enviable) history. They are concerned about the on-going political crisis, of which bad governance is partly responsible, but primarily focused on breaking the vicious circle of dictatorship, poverty and famine. They would not see change of government as an end in itself, instead they ponder on the manner in which governments should be changing. For these, the Ethiopian people are both the means and the end of any change that is to come. They acknowledge the role of external agencies, including international community, but only as partners facilitating the change. These are the silent majority and the least organized, most of the Diaspora belong to this group.

From the outset, I recognize the special role the Diaspora could play in strengthening the democratic process, including its privileged position to expose injustice and human rights violations in their native country. And it is with this conviction that I compose this piece, in the hope of instigating informed and constructive dialogue. My interest for now is specifically with the group campaigning against all aid to Ethiopia. There are several implicit and explicit assumptions underlying such an action. First, aid is one of the means to achieve an end, change of government. Secondly, and most crucially the campaigners act on behaf of the Ethiopian people, who are assumed to agree with both the means and the end. True, there may be some tactical benefits, perhaps achieving change of government but several disquieting concerns remain, such as:

§         Is it morally acceptable, responsible and principled? Would the majority of Ethiopian people, on whose name we campaign, be appreciative and supportive of such a move? If not, it would be self-defeating.

§         Is it well planned and measured, both in terms of short- and long-term interest of Ethiopia and her people? Would it bring about constructive and lasting solution to the problem?

To begin with, the widely used argument by commentators, most vocally government supporters and affiliated media, i.e.; it is immoral and irresponsible and against the interest of the Ethiopian people, thus reflecting lack of foresight. To see why such a stand is irresponsible and morally disgusting, we only ask ourselves: "how could I justify for the aid-dependant and hunger-stricken fellow Ethiopian back home, while I am living abroad in luxury?" We could push this a bit further, and argue that because of our actions some Ethiopians would be definitely dying of hunger. Would not that make us as guilty of killing needy Ethiopians as the government we are accusing of killing innocent civilians?

There are other compelling reasons for asking ourselves. The mobilization and coordination of Ethiopians abroad in times of political crisis, such as the last few months (also during Ethio-Eritrean war) has been breath taking (and indeed praiseworthy). To my knowledge, this has rarely been the case in times of famine and other socio-economic calamities, when the Ethiopian people needed our help even more. During famine, our mouths are shut; our ears bolted, our pride sinking with shame, and yes our hearts bleeding with the pain of having to watch "pornographic" pictures of the dying. Oh, I almost forgot to pay tribute, some of us sharpen our pencils to compose a line or two and post on the Internet, only to shift the blame on to governments (be it Derg or Woyane). There may have been some attempts, but not that I am aware of, at any rate not matching the level of coordination I have witnessed in times of political crisis.

Just imagine how others (particularly Ethiopian people) would judge the Diaspora, they might wonder why we could not mobilize our resources and energy in times of famine. As most of us would like to think of ourselves, we Ethiopians might just be that- "unique"! Diaspora from many other poor nations (e.g., Asians) do exactly the opposite, i.e., exert much more effort and co-ordination in times of famine and other socio-economic problems, putting their political differences aside. The Tsunami and Pakistani earth quake are only recent examples, when it was a common sight to see people, including children, collecting donations even from streets.

Non-Ethiopians appear to find it utterly incomprehensible for Ethiopians, of all people, to campaign against debt relief. For, it means writing-off all debt that has accumulated over the past several decades, as far back as the Derg. We are calling to stop aid at a time when many humanitarian activists and friends of Africa are very much concerned about the marginalization of Africa. At a time when the world is united against global poverty and inequality, under the umbrella of a new global humanitarian elite led by the likes of Bob and Bonno. Ethiopia has been starving from foreign direct investment, even during the best of the Imperial era. Common sense dictates that a sensible Ethiopian would take every opportunity to attract investment by giving good pictures about their country. My experience of people from other nations, even political exiles, is that they have been doing just that. And we?

One other example of lack of probity and piety is the Diaspora's stand on the border conflict. The issue here is not whether the war was just, or in Ethiopia's interest or whether it could have been avoided. Others always think that a poor country like Ethiopia would try to avoid war at any cost, and may be wondering what the Diaspora has done to avert the conflict, which is now showing concern about human rights violation. In fact, misuse of aid money is more likely in times of war, and perhaps rightly the donors closed their doors on the government during the war. My worry is that the paradox will fully resurface if the government, pressurized by donors, may rather sign off Badme, about which donors are more concerned, to prolong its power. Some government puppets accuse anti-aid campaigners of being traitors and opportunistic, the latter might be true, but the former is utterly inappropriate and equally shortsighted.

In short, the Ethiopian Diaspora may have the financial and political (and to an extent intellectual) power to make a difference in their country, but seem to be lacking the ingenuity and perhaps the integrity to take the moral high ground. Therefore, it needs to reflect hard on its actions if it is to restore credibility and trust of the people, and the moral upper ground to lead the democratization and development process.

It is with this conviction that I point out a few areas for reflection. Firstly, the starting point for any action should be the future of Ethiopian people and their dire misery. For that we need to learn to be able to distinguish between government and the people. Some of us appear to be too obsessed with government to realize the potential impact of our actions on the people at large. Swift change of government and stopping aid alone will only perpetuate the status quo, i.e., spiral of violent transitions. Secondly, we need to recognize that we are part of the problem as much as the solution. We need to be in-ward looking and responsible, hence pull our efforts towards bringing about lasting and sustainable democratic order, rather than helping instigate political instability. We need to show that our criticisms and actions are well intended and measured, and most importantly we are intellectually capable of offering sensible and viable alternatives.

With regards to aid, the following issues would have to be reflected upon. First of all, we need to recognize that Ethiopia needs more (not less) aid, in the short to medium term, particularly if we are to achieve the millenium goals, a long term commitment that can not be reversed in an overnight. A legitimate concern, and one that needs to be debated, would be the long run implications of massive aid flows, i.e., aid dependency and debt burden. Even then, the approach should be to come up with well-articulated and viable alternative financial scenario. Some good has come out of aid, particularly in terms of investment in infrastructure, agency and institutions, whose legacy would last longer than the statue of this government. Our preoccupation should be as to how to maintain and strengthen these investments, so we will not go back to the usual habit of complete reversal of policy and institutions.

Secondly, we should be asking if the government is using aid for the intended purpose, and if not we need to come up with convincing explanations and evidence. One thing is for sure, that this government has shown commitment to poverty reduction like no other in Africa, in more ways than one, promulgation of indigenous poverty reduction program, shortening the border conflict, and demobilizing the army, some of which against the wishes of many Ethiopians, particularly the Diaspora. We may not agree with the policies, but these should be the criteria with which we assess its effective use of aid. World Bank's own assessments and studies by those affiliated to it indicate that Ethiopia is performing better than many other African countries in all regards but one, political governance.

But this by no means should be taken as an excuse for a blanket campaign against all aid. One possibility is to distinguish between humanitarian or relief aid and development assistance, and a smaller but politically motivated aid. The last of these is given in the name of terror partnership in recent years, and it is this type of aid that would strengthen dictatorial regimes and often be used for repression, it would make sense if anti-aid activists were to target such undesirable aid. In the case of humanitarian relief and development assistance, the focus should be on how aid could be made more productive and effective, including influencing governance and democratic process. We know some bilateral donors are now considering channeling aid to regional governments/NGOs. I am also aware that the solution proposed by the World Bank, i.e., to re-direct budget support aid to that effect so as to protect basic social services and continue helping the poor has come under ruthless scrutiny of the anti-aid campaigners. I keep on asking myself “why ain’t these people are willing to come up with well-articulated alternatives?” I think the energy and time of the architects of anti-aid group should be spent on this, so the campaign would be credible, constructive and perhaps effective.

Obviously, the dilemma is arising from the unfortunate (but unacceptable) human rights violations, especially post-May. But that is just one, admittedly key, of the issues for judging government's commitment towards democratic order. However, in relation to aid, government's commitment to good economic management and governance (barring monopolistic party parastatals) can not be considered below African average. Again, the progress towards democratic order in recent years, up until May, should not be discounted outright. We need to understand that sustainable democratic order would come about from change of attitude of everyone, including the Diaspora, not change of government. Swift and disorderly change of government would only causes political instability, rather key for effective use/misuse of aid.

My opposition against anti-aid campaigners comes mainly from my strong conviction that it is wrong to use aid as a political tool. History shows that this has been one of the reasons for aid being ineffective and for perpetuating the vicious circle of dictatorial regimes in Africa. Incumbent African governments, including ours, were advancing similar cause against their predecessors, and self-appointed leaders-in-waiting are doing the same, and so on and on. The ultimate victim is the African people and economy, which suffers due to aid instability and the resulting lack of confidence. I only hope that Donors have learned enough lessons from history to resist the temptation to use aid as a political tool.

This particularly applies to the Bretton Woods institutions which, more than anyone else, know that any tendency to go beyond their mandate and contractual commitment to poverty reduction and economic governance would only jeopardize the social capital and trust that have been accumulating over the past few years. Redesigning aid modalities and development agendas (on which so much intellectual and financial resources are invested over the past decade or so) in response to a few influential elite is utterly unacceptable. Any such move would only play into the canning hands of ruthless and malevolent hard liners who have no any respect for Ethiopian people, and are seizing the opportunity to sink the country into the abyss of partisan politics. It is political instability they are dreaming for, so they justify their campaign.

I am not saying that human rights violations and dictatorial regimes should be tolerated and traded for sound policies. Rather, quick-fixes and posthaste reactions to political hypes would only exasperate the already mounting problem of credibility and trust among the wider public, making it difficult to build upon some of the good policies and institutions, should a new government assumes power. Instead, donors should show their maturity out of politicization of aid and commitment to the African poor by facilitating constructive dialogue among all agents and stakeholders. Alternative mechanisms would have to be carefully designed so aid would reach to the people, and at once make it clear to the government that human rights violations are unacceptable. Indeed, donors could (and should) use the opportunity to put pressure on the polarized element of the Diaspora to engage in constructive dialogue with the government as well as domestic civic institutions, which should be given the leading role in any such attempt.

I still think, perhaps naively, that there is some room for dialogue and negotiated settlement out of the current political stalemate, including peaceful sharing of power. My message to the EPRDF government is that Ethiopia (with aid/GDP ratio of about 20%) is not China, hence has to show sincere (and only sincere) commitment to good political governance and functioning democratic order, as well as poverty reduction. Government needs to accept that there are some fundamental political issues that should be resolved by a more representative and legitimate parliament, if it really wants some of its good policies and efforts to bear fruit and last longer than its statue. Its evasive, uncompromising and at times worryingly defensive stance on these issues has been reinforcing the already deteriorating credibility and trust even among its loyal supporters and close allies. Silver lining with "smart" political machinations and tactical arguments, of the sort coming from senior politicians may buy time, but are not in the long term interest of anyone anymore, not least the ruling elite itself.

Let me conclude by reminding us of a couple of historical episodes, first of which is typical of shortsighted politics. About 13 years ago, there was a riot by students of Addis Ababa University, as a result lives were lost (possibly one). A couple of days later, Government media released the news thus: "…only one person died, a member of the [Derg's] Ethiopian Worker's Party too". Second is more fundamental, epitomizing all die-hards. Both TPLF and EPLF initially set out to fight injustice, bigotry and repression of people in their constituencies, ironically the latter was also to redress the federation that it believed was unjustly overturned by the Emperor (its initial intention was never secession). But then, the Derg and other die-hard Ethiopians were not willing to give in peacefully. The rest is history, a bloody one too!

Finally, a few years ago, I was watching a TV documentary, among other things, criticizing Bob Gildof for directly handing in the proceeds from Live Aid to Mengistu's Derg, which apparently diverted it to other purposes. And the legendary humanitarian and real friend of Africa remarked something like "I would shake hands with a devil if that means saving the life of a single person".

[Opinions in this article are solely that of the writer.]

TO GO BACK