By @abenezer_a
How far does ‘DAC’ donors really follow DAC guidelines on governance and development when it comes to strategically important allies? The case of Ethiopia
Introduction
The past few decades have witnessed a
surge in development assistance flowing from affluent countries to those in the
South. The number of donors has also increase together with the size of the aid
that reaches poor countries across the globe. An interesting development in
this regard is that apart from traditional donors in the global North, new
donors are emerging from the south. These emerging donors are not members of
the OECD Development Assistance Committee, a committee which enjoys the
membership of the biggest development assistance providers.
Since
these emerging donors are not members of the OECD DAC, they are not duty bound
to follow the development assistance guidelines or principles of the latter.
They have, since their emergence, been criticized for, among others, focusing
on the provision of aid but neglecting environmental, good governance, human
rights…standards. This allegation, however, could also be thrown at traditional
donors at times who might choose to overlook DAC principles. In the present
essay, I will ask how far DAC donors comply with DAC principles when it comes
to strategic allies by taking the example of US involvement in Ethiopia.
The
structure of the essay is as follows. I start with a brief discussion of
OECD/DAC in order to explain what the OECD
Development Assistance Committee is and describe
relevant guidelines that DAC donors are expected to follow. I will then
proceed to addressing whether DAC donations are achieving their goals in a more
general manner; and whether DAC aid is actually following DAC expectations on
governance and development. I will rely on an analysis of US development aid in
Ethiopia to assess whether the US assistance is in line with DAC principles.
Finally, the paper will attempt to answer the research question: whether DAC
donors adhere to principles when faced with strategic allies. This will be done by taking the
involvement of the US in Ethiopia.
OECD/DAC: a brief discussion
Organization for Economic cooperation and
development (OECD) is an organization that is composed of democratic governments that gives direct efforts towards environmental, social and also economic
issues between countries. The organization brings calls to countries to cooperate
to address the present challenges and it aspires to make the necessary
adjustments to create auspicious future(OECD,2010). The Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
is the assembly of chosen members of the OECD countries which was established
by the ministerial declaration in July 23, 1960. Its primary mandate is the
promotion of cooperation between countries as well as the designing of policies
that enable to conduce sustainable development “including pro-poor economic growth, poverty reduction,
improvement of living standards in developing countries, and to a future in
which no country will depend on aid” (OECD/DCD-DAC 2010).
The committee performs the following tasks to achieve its
objective:
·
“monitor,
assess, report, and promote the provision of resources that support sustainable
development, as specified above, by collecting and analyzing data and
information on ODA and other official and private flows
·
review
development co-operation policies and practices, particularly in relation to
national and internationally agreed objectives and targets, and promote mutual learning
·
provide
analysis, guidance and good practice to assist its Members and the expanded
donor community to enhance the quality and effectiveness of development
assistance, particularly regarding pro-poor economic growth and poverty reduction”(ibid)
To realize the aforementioned and other tasks,
there are guidelines and principles that the committee has put in place. This
guiding principles touch upon various areas ranging from conflict and
fragility, environment, gender equality, good governance, poverty reduction,
untied aid…etc. Since my main focus is on good governance, I will briefly
outline some of DAC’s stances on this issue
DAC’s position on good governance
focuses on such issues as human rights and anticorruption among others which
have direct or indirect bearing on the former. To check the governance performance
of different aid receiving countries based on credible sources, it focuses on
the “Building on and strengthening nationally driven governance assessments” (OECD,
2009:2). Having done this, donors are expected to follow other guidelines. They
have to identify
“a clear key purpose to drive the choice of assessment tools and processes”
by examining different plans of the organization which helps to stay
clear from excessively ambitious plans (ibid). Thirdly, the assessment and addressing
of
governance from “different entry points and perspectives” follows (ibid). The forth relevant guideline that needs to
be followed is “Harmonizing assessments
at country level when the aim is to stimulate dialogue and governance reform”
which appears to be considerably significant for the reformation of governance
through the engagement of different domestic stakeholders (ibid). Finally, unless
results are sensitive and may create conflicts, making them public is expected
in order to promote transparency of donors.
Non DAC providers: criticism and support
Apart from DAC donors, other
emerging members of the international community participate in development
assistance. There are claims that these emerging non DAC donors are impeding
the overall performance of their respective
aid recipients, be it economic, democratic and the like. As noted by Dreher et
al(2010), new donors are accused of
bringing first their political and commercial interest by the opportunity
created through the cooperation. Then
following the same scheme, to easily put their hand on the resources located there.
Further accusation that is raised is that emerging donors are hindering the
achievement of traditional donors by allotting
aid for the undemocratic and corrupted regimes (ibid).
In spite of this claim, according
to the finding of Alesina and Weder (cited in Dreher, et al.,2010), there is no
causal connection between the traditional donors and corruption, indicating
non-DAC donors should not be blamed for
hindering the work of traditional
donors. In addition, Dehrer et
al(2010:5) suggest that “one might suspect that emerging donors provide better targeted
aid than the traditional and more advanced DAC members.” This could flow from the assumption that those
countries that recently moved from the receiving end to be donors themselves
have a better grasp of the situation of aid recipient countries. This suggests
that countries that are at the same level of economic progress as non DAC
donors were once, could take important lessons from the latter. Changing the
focus from the poor countries that are
getting the support, disaster relief and post conflict resolution can be
attained through Need based apportioning(Ibid)
Even though there is a pressure from the DAC donors to follow the set of rules that are set by them, however non-DAC donors show only little interest to follow those set of rules. There seems to be no clear answer to whether DAC donors or new donors are capable of better achieving their development goals. Although non DAC donors are criticized for paying no attention to issues like good governance, DAC countries also receive their share off criticism. Dreher, et al(2010:10),for example, contend that “… old donors are less selective than their rhetoric might make us believe”. It’s a common thing to see countries being present way below what is expected of them and that is one reason for the lagging of various tasks, simply for the sake of formality attention thrilling discourses could be given from the DAC members from time to time in different occasional meetings but from those words spoken or arguments made only few of them are put in effective and the rest would be dissipated.
Since DAC Donors comprise of the strong
economy countries but their contribution should not be undermined. Even if
newly emerging donors are less keen to adhere the DAC guidelines but the aids
they disburse to needy are considerably
small. Dreher et al mentionthat:
“annual average aid
commitments of major DAC donors exceed those of non-DAC donors by a wide margin. For
instance, the annual average of German aid to all recipient countries in
2001-2008 of $4.5 billion (in constant prices of 2000) is nine times the annual
average reported for the largest non-DAC donor, Kuwait” (2010,8)
This shows how much Germany the big share of
aid disbursement from the DAC members.
But the question of debt relief could come to the discussion, assuming
Gemany written off a little bit close the amount of debt that china did. “According to conservative estimates,
China has written off total debts of some US$2.13 billion for 44 recipient
countries, 31 of which are in Africa.” (Dreher, et al.,2010,5) by contrast we
look at the most of the African countries are
totalitarian regimes. It could be a great relief for the countries but
it wouldn’t add considerable amount of effect in their development works. As
the recently deceased Prime Minister (Meles zenawi ) of Ethiopia noted that “…proclaimed that ‘China’s
exemplary endeavor to ease African countries’ debt problem is indeed a true
expression of solidarity and commitment’. Debt relief has been an excellent
public relations tool for Beijing, because it not only garners popular support
but also allows for two positive press events: the first to provide the loan,
the second to relieve the debt.” The
irony is that, the country would not have needed a debt cancelation had it not been
corrupt. As the corruption index of Transparency International 2011 shows
that Ethiopia level of corruption is 2.7 suggesting for the attention of
DAC members(see http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/_)
Not specifying the type of donors, donors
are associated with corrupt
regimes at a level of significance of
one percent . Using the recipient
countries as export market don’t have a
substantial effect. An engagement through resource pertained and trade could
change purpose of aid apportioning. Concluding
about the prospects of the new donors is unjustifiable. (Dreher, et
al.,2010,12) In the aforementioned
point, that drawing a generalization on the newly emerging donors baseless but necessary precautions to assess their
work is a wise move. Although china’s
engagement with foreign countries could
convey an advantageous stance. As it was
pointed out in the
International Conference "Emerging Powers in Global
Governance" of OECD (2007,6)
“While China has a positive impact on debt tolerance
through stimulating exports
and GNP, many argue
that it lowers standards, undermines democratic institutions and increases
corruption, in particular in oil-rich countries that suffer traditionally from such resource curse (Collier, 2007). If
true, this would clearly undermine debt tolerance, as shown by Kraay and Nehru
(2006).”
The presence of Non-DAC donors in corrupted states don’t necessarily foster the corruption in the
country. Referring the index of CPIA
Momzambique is a corrupted government,
however the existence of china in that country hasn’t fostered
corruption(OECD,2007). On the contrary
the, DAC donors especially the major
ones are highly blamed for selfish aid
motives that don’t really hit the intended target due to the motive they have.(Dreher,
et al.,2010,3)
Are traditional donors actually adhering to
DAC principles?
Due to having common interests donors reacted with
endeavor to examine their own policies we don’t observe the increment of development
assistance. However, new planes were set out
for a change to a better. As it can be argued from this is that, donors policy assessment helps to
strengthen the cooperation between aid the donor and the aid recipient
(Birdsall, 2005)
One
thing that the assessment must look at is , the performance of the institutions
that must be in place for the donor
governments to undertake their tasks smoothly. Reversely, it is being witness
now that, countries without the right institutions will be moving in uncertainty
lane. The outcome of this that financial crisis. (Birdsall, 2005)
It is observed that there is a lack of
patience among donors in giving an ample time for aid recipient countries for
the creation of institutions (Birdsall, 2005).This recalls what has previously mentioned
DAC donors observed feature, there has been an observed selfish intent among
them. (Birdsall, 2005).in spite of that fact that, there are some with selfish
motives but there are donors who are
impatient to bypass the prevailing bureaucracy in the aid recipient country. According to
Birdsall(2005,5) “Research shows that hoped-for better (or faster) results do
not outweigh salary distortions and the opportunity cost of failing to ensure
that projects and programs are ultimately incorporated into the government’s
own budgeting, staffing and other institutional arrangement which provide for
continuity.” Taking in to account the considerable wastage of money, It is
imaginable that In order to bypass bureaucracy donors must bribe officials at
different administrative levels to ensure what they want.
When we see the case of
Ethiopia, the country is highest receiver of foreign aid. Basing the
information available on Foreign assistance.gov “The
U.S. assistance portfolio in Ethiopia remains one of the United States’ largest
and most complex in Africa” (http://foreignassistance.gov/OU.aspx?OUID=171&FY=2013&AgencyID=0&budTab=tab_Bud_Overview) what could be reason for that? The first thing that could come to one’s mind is
that, the strategic location of country in order to control the Arabia
peninsulas which has been a great threat for the US and having
a good partnership with Ethiopia will ease the US to establish a
military base in the Ethiopia and this would open(ease) for the US to closely
work with the Ethiopia as well us avoid unnecessary office procedures that
could hinder their work in Ethiopia. According to the publication Washington
post of October 27,
2011 the US has established a military base “The Air Force has invested millions of dollars to
upgrade an airfield in Arba Minch, Ethiopia, where it has built a small annex
to house a fleet of drones that can be equipped with Hellfire missiles and
satellite-guided bombs.” and when
head of public diplomacy was asked to
respond about the military base “That’s the
government’s position,” said Tesfaye Yilma, the head of public diplomacy for
the embassy. “We don’t entertain foreign military bases in Ethiopia.” (ibid)
Even if he said that, lately, there is an increment of US military personnel
who are being seen in the specified region of the military base.(ibid)
The disclosure of the information
about the military base could be kept for political reason but it is strange
that Ethiopian government denied the information that was disclosed by an
American newspaper. It could be the political game or there a void that is
loosening that the long term relation of the two countries. For instance back
in 2009 the Ethiopian government has made a proclamation that would restraint
the overall work of NGOs in the country. Based on the human right watch report
of 2012 puts it “
“The restrictive Charities and Societies
Proclamation, adopted in 2009, which prohibits organizations receiving more
than 10 percent of their funding from abroad from carrying out human rights and
governance work, continues to severely hamper basic rights monitoring and
reporting activities. Two former leading rights organizations, the Ethiopian
Women’s Lawyers Association (EWLA) and the Human Rights Council (HRCO, formerly
EHRCO), have had to slash their budgets, staff, and operations. Their bank
accounts, which the government arbitrarily froze in December 2009, remain
frozen.” (http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/ethiopia)
Referring
the International
Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) Report of 19
October 2012 “ that this law was proclaimed from the observed
siding of foreign countries with the opposition parties during the 2005
election of Ethiopia and the ruling party of the Ethiopian government. Relying
on ICNL(2005) “… during the 2005 elections, NGOs
supported voter education, and monitored and observed the election process.” What
translates as siding by Ruling party of Ethiopia isn’t what it seems it is, For
Eprdf anyone against it is always a threat to the thugmanship and oppostions
are always seen that way. Recently leaked date fetched from the wikileaks indicates
cited in report of the human right watch report of 2012
The formerly known “The Development
assistance group (DAG) and now called DAC remain passive while money is being wasted for
spreading deep political propaganda of the ruling party and brainwashing the students starting from the elementary level,
As the Report of the human right watch(
2012,4) puts “
“In October 2010 Human Rights Watch published
Development without Freedom: How Aid Underwrites Repression in Ethiopia, a
report which documented discrimination in the administration of foreign
donor-funded government services, including agricultural assistance,
food-for-work programs, educational training opportunities, and civil-service
reform programs. The report also showed how donor-funded facilities, such as
schools and teacher training colleges, underwrite the indoctrination of civil
servants and school children in political propaganda. Human Rights Watch’s
research suggested that donors in the Development Assistance Group (DAG),
including the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, were
aware of such allegations, but were taking insufficient steps to investigate
the misuse of their aid money.”
Moreover,
as the the DAG has denied claim that the money that is misused for spreading
the propaganda. Thus, the prevailing assessment methods couldn’t extract if
whether is there is politicization is going or not. Recommending for a second
phase of assessment to be made. However, this could leave one in state of doubt
that how well the assessments are done while the ineffectiveness of the aid money
is evident. In addition to the aforementioned
blames of the powerful nations( US, Germany, UK and the like) there is a
claim of the donors money miss allocation, according to the HRW(2012,4) cited
the WikiLeaks,it goes as follows “A 2009 US diplomatic cable released by
WikiLeaks said that the US embassy in Ethiopia was “keenly aware that foreign
assistance … is vulnerable to politicization,” but that monitoring the problem,
“risks putting the assistance programs themselves in jeopardy from a ruling
party that has become confident that its vast patronage system is largely
invulnerable.” What we can deduce from
this is that, the US is manipulating Ethiopia as a tool to fight against the
fundamentalists in the horn of Africa as well as in the Middle East.
Conclusion
In this brief essay, I have attempted to address the
question whether DAC donors actually adhere to DAC principles. Unlike emerging
donors or commonly called non DAC donors, traditional donors are assumed to
follow a set of guidelines and principles put in place by the Development
Assistance committee. However, I asked, if these donors still comply with these
principles even if their strategic interests are in question. I explored the
development assistance of the US in Ethiopia in light of the issue mentioned
above. Since Ethiopia is an important strategic ally, although its human rights
record and governance situation is deteriorating, the assistance flowing from
the pockets of the US have been on the increase over the past few years. It
appears that the good governance expectations of the DAC has not influenced the
US to seriously seek change of direction in Ethiopia. As long as the latter
remains an indispensable counter terrorism ally, no matter grotesque the good
governance record is, it would not really matter for the former.
It appears that it should not be surprising to see
DAC donors share the same criticism forwarded against non DAC donors: that they
never care about other issues like good governance, human rights, gender
equality…etc. It therefore requires a country by country(donor by donor)
evaluation to identify the real behavior of a donor. The fact that a donor is a
DAC country does not necessarily mean it complies with the principles.
References
Articles
Birdsall, Nancy(2004) Seven
deadly sins: reflections of donor failings. CGD Working Paper 50.The Center for
Global Development.
Dreher
Axel, Nunnenkamp,peter and Thiele, Rainer (2010)Are “New” Donors Different?
Comparing the Allocation of Bilateral Aid between Non-DAC and DAC Donor
Countries.
Zurich:ETH Zurich
OECD/DCD-DAC (2010) “Development
Assistance Committee Mandate 2011-2015” available at:http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC(2010)34/FINAL&doclanguage=en
OECD/DCD-DAC (2009) “Donors approach
to Governance Assessments:Guiding principles For Enhanced Impact,Usage and Harmonisation”. Available
at:
Reisen, Helmut(2007) “ Is China Actually Helping Improve Debt
Sustainability in Africa?”,OECD
The International center for
Not-for profit Law (2012) NGO Law Monitor in Ethiopia. Available at:http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/ethiopia.pdf
Whitlock,Craig,2011.U.S
drone base in Ethiopia is operational, Washington post , [online] October
27.Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-drone-base-in-ethiopia-is-operational/2011/10/27/gIQAznKwMM_story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment