Industrial nations tie foreign aid to support for “war on terror”
By Barry Mason
World Socialist
June 17 2004
Christian Aid, the British development charity, recently issued a
report entitled “The Politics of Poverty Aid in the New Cold War.” It
states: “Aid is viewed increasingly as a means of promoting and
safeguarding the donors’ own interests, particularly their security,
rather than addressing the real needs of poor people. Aid, in other
words, is being co-opted to serve in the global ‘War on Terror.’ ”
The report points out: “Already some of the world’s poorest people
are paying for the War on Terror. Programmes designed to help them
have been cut, budgets reallocated and hopes dashed as donor
priorities have switched to addressing the needs of ‘global
security.’ ”
What is beginning to take place is the blurring between military aid
and development aid. This change in orientation is being actively
promoted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), which comprises the world’s leading industrial nations. Its
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has been reviewing aid policy.
In 2003, it published a paper, “A Development Cooperation Lens on
Terrorism Prevention.” In the paper it commented: “Development
cooperation does have an important role to play in helping to deprive
terrorists of popular support…and donors can reduce support for
terrorism by working towards preventing the conditions that give rise
to violent conflict in general and that convince disaffected groups
to embrace terrorism in particular…. [T]his may have implications
for priorities including budget allocations and levels and
definitions of ODA [Official Development Aid] eligibility criteria.”
Christian Aid explains that behind its opaque language, the OECD is
considering a “seismic shift in its policy.” Following the report, a
DAC workshop was held in Paris in February of this year. Among the
issues discussed was whether aid could be used for military training.
Whilst perhaps not financing armies directly, the workshop discussed
providing training to the trainers of security forces, training to
armed forces—such as helping militias being integrated into regular
forces—and training to the military in how to enforce peace-keeping
and planning missions. There is an ongoing debate over these issues
within the DAC.
In a similar development, European Union ministers meeting in March
of this year agreed that aid donations and trade concessions to
non-EU countries should be linked to security cooperation. Javier
Solana, the EU foreign affairs chief, described it as a “significant
step in the area of counter-terrorism and intelligence cooperation.”
The EU bloc is responsible for dispensing US$35 billion a year in aid
donation, of which US$7.9 billion is directly distributed by the
European Commission.
Currently, the EU has separate directorates with responsibility for
foreign policy and overseas aid. It is proposed that in future these
responsibilities will be merged in line with the politicisation of
aid.
Danida, the Danish development agency, has announced a switch in its
policy for the period 2004-2008, allocating money to the Middle East.
It will give US$49 million to an aid and reconstruction package for
Iraq, switching the money from grants to Africa.
Australia is using its official ODA money for various anti-terrorism
measures in Indonesia, the Philippines and throughout Southeast Asia.
It will channel AU$120 million (US$83.5 million) of its ODA to Iraq.
The report points out that with an increase of only AU$79 million
(US$55 million) in its ODA budget compared to last year, this will
inevitably result in cuts to other areas.
For its part, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated:
“Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September
2001, there has been greater international awareness of the
possibility of poverty [zones] becoming hotbeds of terrorism and the
role of ODA is being reconsidered.”
At the end of 2002, Japan allocated ODA money to the Philippines,
including US$22.6 million to a governance-improvement programme for
the autonomous region of Mindanao in a “package for peace and
security” and nearly US$370 million for a “peace-building and
counter-terrorism programme.”
The report states: “Within the official 2004 ODA budget, the funds
allocated for peace building and conflict prevention have risen
dramatically from 12 billion yen to 16.5 billion yen. Meanwhile,
Japan has cut its total ODA budget from 857.8 billion yen in 2003 to
816.9 billion yen in 2004. Again, the implications are clear.
Targeting the poor is likely to take second place to security
interests.”
In Britain last year, the director of Christian Aid, Daleep Mukarji,
wrote on behalf of five leading aid agencies to Prime Minister Tony
Blair regarding funding commitments to Iraq from the government’s
Department for International Development (DFID). Blair replied that
“funds will not be redirected from other…programmes.”
But the Christian Aid report says that an internal DFID document
entitled “Resource Reallocation” was leaked last October that stated:
“The burden of financing Iraq will have to be borne by the
contingency reserves and reductions in middle-income country budgets.
These plans will mean that a number of our current programmes in
middle-income countries will close.”
DFID will need to find £267 million (US$489 million) over the next
two years from cutting projects to “middle-income” countries.
Projects to provide drinking water in Guyana and to give support to
indigenous Indians in Bolivia are amongst those to be cut, according
to the Christian Aid report.
The British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND), an umbrella group
of British development charities, wrote in a report last year: “This
international focus on security and terrorism is having an impact on
development, not only by drawing political and media attention away
from development concerns, but by influencing aid allocations and the
nature of donor cooperation with developing countries.”
The New York-based think tank, the Centre for Defence Information
(CDI), noted how the United States has realigned its relationship
with countries that were previously ineligible for military aid but
are now seen as vital in the “War on Terror.” These include Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Pakistan. CDI reports that the US has sold
US$1.2 billion of fighter jets and missiles to Oman and around US$400
million of missiles to Egypt. It is providing large shipments of
military aid to countries identified as fighting terrorist groups.
Indonesia is getting training from the Department of Defence’s new
Counter Terrorism Fellowship Programme. That country was previously
banned from receiving such training following its role in East Timor.
A stark example is the increase in ODA by the US government to
Pakistan following 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan. From a figure of
less than US$100 million per year, it has risen to nearly US$800
million.
In the conclusion to the CDI report, it states: “Having a new
quasi-ideological theme to justify most security assistance is
extremely convenient for the Bush administration. Policy objectives
that could not have been pursued in the pre-September 11 security
environment can now be repackaged and sold as part of the
counter-terrorism effort. In addition, wrapping new security
assistance programs in a counter-terrorism cloak allows the
administration to provide support for repressive regimes and aid to
states verging on, or currently involved in, armed conflict.”
In the recommendations section of the report, Christian Aid states:
“We have shown that dark clouds are already gathering over the ideal
that aid should be exclusively directed towards these that need it
most…. World leaders must ensure that aid is not hijacked by the
imperatives of the War on Terror, as it was by the Cold War.”
The continuing intensification of the drive towards re-colonisation
by the imperialist powers is bringing out the true nature of
international relationships. Christian Aid’s report shows that the
aid programmes of the major powers are not isolated from this
development. In spite of the appeals by Christian Aid, this trend
will not be moderated but will intensify.