Although the reconstruction process of Liberia has
generated significant ‘good way’ from the
international community, the stark reality is the international
community does not have defined framework for reform
and reconstruction. The involvement of numerous international
NGOs in post war reconstruction in countries emerging
from war, examples ( Mozambique, Eritrea, Rwanda, Cambodia,
Sierra Leone, etc ) shows that these organisations do
not have ‘magic bullet’ but many of them
are in the business of duplicating unrealistic plans
to attract funds from almost the same donors. During
the Cold war period, superpowers provided resources
to African governments without regard to domestic economic
or political performances in return for diplomatic and
Cold war alliances. For example, in the 1980s Liberia
received half billion dollars of economic and military
aid from the United States government.
In return, Liberia hosted a US satellite tracking station
and a submarine listening post. But the end of Cold
war rivalry brought a drastic shift in aid distribution.
The impact of this development in the 1990s has led
to foreign aid intended for Liberia been disbursed through
(I)NGOs, thus leaving the Liberian government with no
option but to quickly seek support from World Bank and
other Western financial institutions. Unlike the Cold
war period, when aid were given to allies without much
conditionalities, the World Bank & IMF imposed economic
conditions. As a consequence, Liberia and host of other
African countries that sought financial miracle from
global financial institution in post Cold war period
were obliged to accept and implement ‘Structural
Adjustment Policy’. Clearly, SAP was not intended
to develop recipient countries but an exit strategy
by former Cold war powers that saw no need to give unconditional
aid to former allies after the collapse of the Soviet
Union. Indeed, Structural Adjustment Policy was a prudent
financial strategy designed by leaning institutions
to ensure that their monies are repaid by recipients’
countries.
The presence of thousands of overseas relief and development
expatriates disbursed by their respective governments
to oversee and manage their denotations to Liberia’s
reconstruction process is reminiscence of SAP period
in Liberia. The ‘Paris club’ made the acceptance
of their nationals, who came as expatriates and were
paid from loans obtained by Liberians government as
pre-requisite for fund disbursement. Similarly, like
the present GEMAP arrangement in Liberia, which is basically
Overseas experts club, in the late 80 and early 90s
Liberia accepted foreign expatriates to implement Structural
Adjustment Policy. Despite the presence of so-called
expatriates, Liberia did not experience economic boom
but tragic decline in the 1990s thereby repudiating
the purported ‘magic bullets’ of Western
experts. Anecdote evidence abound that humanitarian
assistance provided by many international aid agencies
do not often enhance local capacity but perpetuate social
& economic dependency.
Dr. Tipoteh, a famous Liberian economist, referred to
SAP as ‘ill-conceived policy that takes African
economics to their early grave’. What we continue
to see in contemporary Liberia are merely replica of
failed formula developed for other war torn countries
by thousands of expatriates who cruise around Liberia
in 4 wheels drive air- conditioned jeeps and at the
end of the month receive huge paid checks. Within the
framework of ‘New Policy Agenda’ international
NGOs and donors deploy their own citizens to serve as
expatriates in countries where their donations are made.
With this strategy, significant portion of the funds
intended for reconstruction purpose goes back to the
donors countries.
Unmasking the epistemological origin of GEMAP, Cllr.Warner
said ‘We must acknowledge the fact that there
are not much success stories of international engagements
in domestic affairs”, He questioned the transparency
and accountability of GEMAP dwelling particularly on
GEMAP anti-Liberianisation nature, a design which in
his words ‘ consists of placing mostly non-Liberians
in critical positions of governmental authority based
on the conclusion that Liberians are either not available
or insufficiently available to completely and or honourably
occupy the positions sought to be occupied by internationally
recruited persons (The Analyst, Wednesday, April 4,
2007]
If Liberia is to benefit from donors funds and show
some results for the millions of dollars currently being
spent for reconstruction purpose, Liberia should take
the rightful ‘seat’ and insist for mutual
respect. Unfortunately there has always been an uneven
relationship between Western donors and African aid
recipient government. “When donors take the driver’s
seat, Africans move to the back seat. But, when donors
try to do the same thing in Vietnam, Vietnamese get
out of the car” (anonymous). Perhaps a good way
for the Liberian government to reverse prevailing trend
is to review contractual arrangement with many international
NGOs and adopt policies that enhance mutual partnership,
effective accountability and full participation of qualified
Liberians. Without the involvement of qualified local
& overseas Liberians in the implementation of socio-economic
programs, it would be hard to achieve sustainable development.
The current initiative undertaking by the Ministry of
Labour aimed at building data bank of Liberians professional
with the intend of fostering Liberian participation
in INGO programs in Liberia is a step in the right direction.
In terms of tapping the Liberian Diaspora resources,
the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has
multi-sectoral strategic plans, which encourages highly
skilled African Nationals living abroad and committed
to contributing to the developmental goals of their
country of origin to return through a special arrangement.
The Migration for Development Program in Africa (MIDA)
is geared towards assisting and strengthening the institutional
capacities of African governments to manage and realise
their development goals through the transfer of relevant
skills, financial and other resources of Africans in
the Diaspora for use in development programmes in Africa.
Hitherto, more than 16 African countries, including,
neighbour Sierra Leone and Guinea are benefiting from
this international initiative. Liberia is definitely
eligible for this program. However, getting on this
programme requires intensive lobby and sustained effort
by our leadership. The Liberian Diaspora, particularly
in Europe, could benefit from MIDA programme once on
going arrangements are finalised.
In many African countries, international NGOs are limited
in terms of the number of foreign personnel that they
are allowed to bring in a country. There are qualified
Liberians locally and internationally who are competent
to assume managerial roles in programs implementation.
Regrettably, I am not sure whether there are laws in
Liberia to streamline the influx of foreign expatriates
& consultants. The World Bank, in May 2007 admitted
for the first time that consultants were taking $20
billion from global aid budgets i.e, 40 per cent of
the total amount given by the industrialised world for
overseas development. Last year, the Inquiry (27th Dec.
2006 Edition ) reported that the American talk show
host, Oprah Winfrey-an African American whose DNA test
result shows that her ancestral originated from Liberia,
will shortly embark on a million-dollar educational
program for Liberian youths with girls as the major
target.
Instead of dispatching only American expatriates/consultants
who do not have understanding of the socio-economic
dynamic in Liberia to commence ground work, Oprah’s
educational project is allegedly been pioneered by group
of Liberians women based in the United States. This
is a clear example of ‘indigenous humanitarian
initiative’, which is a sin qua non for ‘sustainable
development’. Are other International, European
NGOs ready to emulate such approach or would that affect
embedded donor’s policy, which gives preference
to their own nationals than national of the recipient
country. An African friend of mine who is pursuing graduate
studies in the USA told me that while discussing development
ethics in one of their classes an American classmate
who happens to be white opposed the idea of National
of developing countries receiving the same salary as
Northern expatriates. Her argument was based on the
fact that paying high salaries to people in country
with low standard of living creates social and economic
inequality. In other word, even though she pays exactly
the same amount of $45.000 U S dollars to study at masters’
level just like her African counterpart, after graduation,
if her African counterpart decides to return to his
country of origin, he should not enjoy similar benefits
as his Western colleagues. This partly explains the
underlying philosophy within the Aid industry. Implicit
in this line of thinking is a xenophobic notion that
only Western aid workers deserve high remunerations
because they are the Messiah of our problems.
The most damaging revelation of the hypocrisy within
relief and aid organisations was written by the former
East Africa correspondent of the prestigious ‘Economist
magazine. According to Graham Hancock's Lords of Poverty,
virtually all government-sponsored aid to underdeveloped
nations has been disastrous. Although I do not agree
with his criticism, yet conventional practices with
in aid industry requires critical thinkers to not up
rightly dismiss his claims. Quite often, substantial
portion of aid provided by international donors through
international organizations help to entrench dependency
in recipient countries rather than eradicate poverty.
When too many INGOs rely on their respective governments
to fund their programs, it is obvious that they tend
to be more concerned with winning their next government
contract rather than endorsing into long time poverty
alleviation and sustainable development activities.
In Hancock's somewhat blunt but realistic description
of the cynicism underlying the aid & relief industries,
he said "[A)t every level in the structure of almost
all aid-giving organisations,…the over-compensated
aid bureaucrats demand -- and get -- a standard of living
often far better than that which they could aspire to
if they were working, for example, in industry or commerce
in the home countries. At the same time, however, their
achievements and performance are in no way subjected
to the same exacting and competitive processes of evaluation
that are considered normal in business. Why? Precisely
because their professional field is 'humanitarianism'
rather than, say, 'sales', or 'production' or 'engineering',
they are rarely required to demonstrate and validate
their worth in quantitative, measurable ways. Surrounding
themselves with the mystifying jargon of their trade,
these lords of poverty are the druids of the modern
era wielding enormous power that is accountable to no
one." [pp.32-33]
The validity of his critique was somewhat confirmed
recently by a study conducted by Action Aid. The study
concluded that consultants and western companies benefited
to the tune of 60p for every £1 intended to go
towards eradicating poverty. In the wake of rising crime
rate in Liberia allegedly carried out by abandoned ex-combatants
and one wonders whether these ‘Lords of poverty’
are actually committed to helping the poor. For instance,
when the Asian Tsunami happened, the international community
pledged about US$ 3 Billion for Disaster relief programme.
However, it was later discovered that donor’s
countries take back huge percentage of their donations.
Out of the $31 Million Australian aid money, there was
a serious allegation that 50% of the $31 Million actually
returned to Australia in what is known as “Boomerang
Aid.” Similarly, a poll conducted by a Dutch development
organization (NCDO) in 2002 found that 1 out every 4
Dutch supports an increment in development assistance
to 3rd world country. In terms of the use of foreign
experts in recipient countries, about 37 percent of
Dutch citizens want their financial support to be accompanied
by their own folks (Trouw, 27 April 2002). Surface to
say that about 1.7 million Dutch are directly or indirectly
involved with international development activities.
Indeed, poverty alleviation and post war reconstruction
have become a worldwide business from which INGOs derive
a profitable living. While donor countries make financial
contribution with one hand for Liberia reconstruction
process, they withdraw huge portions of their money
with the other hand leaving Liberia’s reconstruction
and rehabilitation problems in shambles. By November
2006, it was reported that about 39,000 ex-combatants
had not yet been absorbed into reintegration programmes
despite millions of dollars been challenged through
INGOs to post war Liberia reconstruction purpose. Why
such huge vulnerable group has not been attended to?
Are foreign INGOs returning 50% of money denoted by
their respective government through ‘Boomer Aid’?
Today, Liberia is saturated with thousands of foreign
expatriates who are brought in to manage local projects
while thousands of Liberians professional seek jobs.
Parallel to this is the deliberate marginalisation of
Local contractors and entities when it comes to awarding
contracts. The Defence Minister, Samukai, on several
occasions raised issues with the American company responsible
for training the new army. The delay in completing some
urgently needed infrastructures is attributed to the
monopolisation of contract by overseas firms to the
detriment of local firms. Recently, to the bewilderment
of many Liberians the entire Ethiopian troops departed,
even before the official UN terms ended. It was only
by stretch of sympathy that UN voted to extend the mission
for another 6 months, which should be ending in September
2007. The fecundity of unresolved challenges confronting
Liberia prompted an official of government to express
fear of Liberia repeating the East Timor experience.
In the New Democrat ( 3rd April 2007 edition), Defence
Minister Samukai averred that Liberia does not have
the capability at this point in time to handle its post
war problems and thinks a premature departure by the
UN without building local capacity would throw the country
back in chaos.
Surely, without a parading shift in the current arrangements
with various International NGOs and foreign entities
involved with Liberia’s reconstruction process,
there will be no tangible evidence of money and resources
said to be given by international donors for post-war
reconstruction. The Government should assert its muscle,
prioritise the wellbeing of its citizen and start insisting
for equal partnership. If qualified Liberians are awarded
contracts and employed by internationals NGOs, the huge
revenues/salaries associated with these engagements
would be used to improve the living standard of Liberians
whether through investment in private sectors or traditional
social net. In the latter case, by virtue of traditional
external family ties, income earned from better paid
jobs could be of direct benefit to larger group of people
and sometimes the whole community thus creating breeding
room for Government to focus in other essential areas.
In contrast, an expatriate would remit his/her earnings-which
normally constitutes a significant portion of donors’
funds. Urgent changes are indeed needed now otherwise
come September 2007 as we usually say in Liberia ‘it
will be history’. The consequences are not difficult
to predict.
Contact: e-mail: suahshilue@yahoo.co.uk
©
2007 by The Perspective
E-mail: editor@theperspective.org
To Submit article for publication, go to the following URL: http://www.theperspective.org/submittingarticles.html