EN - FR - Yükselen Afrika ve Türkiye / Rising Africa and Turkey 3
EN - FR - Yükselen Afrika ve Türkiye / Rising Africa and Turkey 3 EN - FR - Yükselen Afrika ve Türkiye / Rising Africa and Turkey 3
262 Yükselen Afrika ve Türkiye / Rising Africa and TurkeyNo where did the document mention the more consequential corruption andmismanagement and exploitation by the powerful nations—to whom NEPADsought to appeal. Even the consequences of the domination of the BrettonWoods institutions and their policies were not taken to task at all.It appears that, rather than denouncing them, they were only too anxiousto embrace the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs). If the G8 endorsedNEPAD at Kananaskis, it is because it absolved these nations from all responsibilityof the historic injustices meted out on the people of Africa. Those whoprepared NEPAD ignored the fact that Africa rejected global developmentstrategies when it produced the Lagos Plan of Action (LPA), for example in1980, a document that stood for “collective self-reliance.” LPA had pointedout that Africa “remains the least developed continent….Africa is susceptibleto the disastrous effects of natural and endemic diseases of the cruelest typeand is victim of settler exploitation arising from colonialism, racism andapartheid. Indeed, Africa was directly exploited during the colonial period andfor the past two decades; this exploitation has been carried out through neocolonialistexternal forces which seek to influence the economic policies anddirections of African States.” (Organization of African Unity 1980: 5)The Abuja Treaty of 1981 had also rejected the neo-liberal wisdom ofSAPs, and other documents that were to do the same were such as the AfricanAlternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes of 1989, theAfrican Charter for Popular Participation and Development (the ArushaCharter) of 1990 and the Cairo Agenda of 1994. It even fell short of even theinitiatives of the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa,in September 2001, when 6,000 delegates from 153 countries gathered toexpose the evil of racism or the Gorée Conference that condemned slaveryinflicted on Africa as a crime against humanity. No wonder that the documentmade very few references to human rights, and even when these were made,it was in a rhetorical manner. Hardly, did it make any efforts to guarantee selfdeterminationfor the people, and in a way it advanced some policies that areincompatible with democracy and human rights.NEPAD pledged to support its successor policies and the Africa Growthand Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed by the US Congress. It was not even criticalof the fact that Overseas Development Aid (ODA), are used to imposeeconomic and political conditionalities on the governments and peoples ofAfrica. Instead it took ODA as a basis for Africa’s development. In this way,it accepted the fundamentals of SAPs paradigm by uncritically endorsing theso-called Poverty Reduction Strategy Programmes (PSPRs). The documentcould not discern that poverty reduction strategies that are being currently
Foreign Aid and Africa’s Development 263sponsored so heavily are part of the approach of “pursuing Darwinist economicsand then sending in Florence Nightingale to tidy up” which is a “difficultand counterproductive approach to development.” (Pieterse 1997)Summing UpWhat has aid been actually doing in Africa? According to GrahamHancock’s (1989) Lords of Poverty, virtually all sponsored aid to underdevelopedcountries has been disastrous. Hancock provided numerous examples ofabuse and incompetence in the administration of international aid by theUnited Nations, the World Bank, and other organizations engaged in “humanitarian”activities. According to him, much of the aid provided through internationalorganizations has gone not to those for whom it was supposedlyintended, but rather to enlarge the fortunes of the aid bureaucrats themselves.Most often, aid had also gone to entrench Third World governments that havelittle or no interest in promoting the commonwealth of those they govern.Where aid actually reached its intended destination, it usually was wasted onprojects that did nothing to contribute toward economic development: InHancock’s somewhat ponderous prose:[A)t every level in the structure of almost all our most important aid-givingorganizations, we have installed a tribe of highly paid men and womenwho are irredeemably out of touch with the day-to-day realities of the ...underdevelopment which they are supposed to be working to alleviate. Theover-compensated aid bureaucrats demand—and get—a standard of livingoften far better than that which they could aspire to if they were working, forexample, in industry or commerce in the home countries. At the same time,however, their achievements and performance are in no way subjected to thesame exacting and competitive processes of evaluation that are considerednormal in business. Precisely because their professional field is ‘humanitarianism’rather than, say, ‘sales’, or ‘production’ or ‘engineering’, they are rarelyrequired to demonstrate and validate their worth in quantitative, measurableways. Surrounding themselves with the mystifying jargon of their trade, theselords of poverty are the druids of the modern era wielding enormous powerthat is accountable to no one. (ibid: 32-33)Further on, he noted that “Garnered and justified in the name of the destituteand the vulnerable, aid’s main function in the past half-century has beento create and then entrench a powerful new class of rich and privileged people....At the same time...it has condoned and in some cases facilitated—themost consistent and grievous abuses of human rights that have occurred anywherein the world since the dark ages.” (ibid: 192-3)
- Page 103 and 104: The Role and Effeciency of Foreign
- Page 105 and 106: The Role and Effeciency of Foreign
- Page 107 and 108: The Role and Effeciency of Foreign
- Page 109 and 110: The Role and Effeciency of Foreign
- Page 111 and 112: The Role and Effeciency of Foreign
- Page 113 and 114: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 115 and 116: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 117 and 118: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 119 and 120: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 121 and 122: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 123 and 124: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 125 and 126: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 127 and 128: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 129 and 130: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 131 and 132: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 133 and 134: D›fl Yard›m ve Afrika’n›n K
- Page 135 and 136: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 137 and 138: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 139 and 140: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 141 and 142: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 143 and 144: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 145 and 146: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 147 and 148: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 149 and 150: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 151 and 152: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 153: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 157 and 158: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 159 and 160: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 161 and 162: Foreign Aid and Africa’s Developm
- Page 163 and 164: Afrika’daki Güvenlik Sorunlar›
- Page 165 and 166: Afrika’daki Güvenlik Sorunlar›
- Page 167 and 168: Afrika’daki Güvenlik Sorunlar›
Foreign Aid <strong>and</strong> <strong>Africa</strong>’s De<strong>ve</strong>lopment 263sponsored so heavily are part of the approach of “pursuing Darwinist economics<strong>and</strong> then sending in Florence Nightingale to tidy up” which is a “difficult<strong>and</strong> counterproducti<strong>ve</strong> approach to de<strong>ve</strong>lopment.” (Pieterse 1997)Summing UpWhat has aid been actually doing in <strong>Africa</strong>? According to GrahamHancock’s (1989) Lords of Po<strong>ve</strong>rty, virtually all sponsored aid to underde<strong>ve</strong>lopedcountries has been disastrous. Hancock provided numerous examples ofabuse <strong>and</strong> incompetence in the administration of international aid by theUnited Nations, the World Bank, <strong>and</strong> other organizations engaged in “humanitarian”activities. According to him, much of the aid provided through internationalorganizations has gone not to those for whom it was supposedlyintended, but rather to enlarge the fortunes of the aid bureaucrats themsel<strong>ve</strong>s.Most often, aid had also gone to entrench Third World go<strong>ve</strong>rnments that ha<strong>ve</strong>little or no interest in promoting the commonwealth of those they go<strong>ve</strong>rn.Where aid actually reached its intended destination, it usually was wasted onprojects that did nothing to contribute toward economic de<strong>ve</strong>lopment: InHancock’s somewhat ponderous prose:[A)t e<strong>ve</strong>ry le<strong>ve</strong>l in the structure of almost all our most important aid-givingorganizations, we ha<strong>ve</strong> installed a tribe of highly paid men <strong>and</strong> womenwho are irredeemably out of touch with the day-to-day realities of the ...underde<strong>ve</strong>lopment which they are supposed to be working to alleviate. Theo<strong>ve</strong>r-compensated aid bureaucrats dem<strong>and</strong>—<strong>and</strong> get—a st<strong>and</strong>ard of livingoften far better than that which they could aspire to if they were working, forexample, in industry or commerce in the home countries. At the same time,howe<strong>ve</strong>r, their achie<strong>ve</strong>ments <strong>and</strong> performance are in no way subjected to thesame exacting <strong>and</strong> competiti<strong>ve</strong> processes of evaluation that are considerednormal in business. Precisely because their professional field is ‘humanitarianism’rather than, say, ‘sales’, or ‘production’ or ‘engineering’, they are rarelyrequired to demonstrate <strong>and</strong> validate their worth in quantitati<strong>ve</strong>, measurableways. Surrounding themsel<strong>ve</strong>s with the mystifying jargon of their trade, theselords of po<strong>ve</strong>rty are the druids of the modern era wielding enormous powerthat is accountable to no one. (ibid: 32-33)Further on, he noted that “Garnered <strong>and</strong> justified in the name of the destitute<strong>and</strong> the vulnerable, aid’s main function in the past half-century has beento create <strong>and</strong> then entrench a powerful new class of rich <strong>and</strong> privileged people....At the same time...it has condoned <strong>and</strong> in some cases facilitated—themost consistent <strong>and</strong> grievous abuses of human rights that ha<strong>ve</strong> occurred anywherein the world since the dark ages.” (ibid: 192-3)