Aid appears like a mirage in a desert
By Sanjay Suri
LONDON, Apr 19, 2005 (IPS) — The 4.5 billion dollars promised in aid to Sudan at a donors’ conference in Oslo last week is unlikely to materialise, and would be ”silly” if it does, a leading development expert told IPS in an interview.
The promise was never realistic to begin with, Dr Tim Allen from the Development Studies Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) said. ”At donor conferences it becomes politically correct to make all sorts of promises,” he said. ”Whether that corresponds to actual transfer of capital is another matter; often it doesn’t.”
Dr Allen, author of the paper ‘Developed Countries: Policies and Practices for Development Effectiveness’ in the 2003 Development Effectiveness Report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) said the aid promise raises all sorts of questions.
”Is it coming out of existing aid flows or is it new money?” he said. ”Is it being transferred from other parts of an aid budget?” The whole package promised has to be seen against the source of this aid – and even whether it really is aid at all, he said.
”What is being promised may not be capital transfer at all,” Dr Allen said. ”It may be cancellation of debt that was not going to be paid anyway, and declared as capital transfer. Many countries have often shown debt cancellation as a part of aid flow.”
Worse, it might even have been money lent for military purposes, he said. ”So, aid might not mean what it appears to mean.”
The Oslo conference announced an aid flow of 4.5 billion dollars over the space of three years. ”That’s silly really,” Dr Allen said. ”It is silly if the object is to alleviate poverty and to promote sustained economic growth.”
This is so because Sudan is in no position to absorb such money within three years even if it was actually made available. ”The total budget of Sudan is about 30 billion dollars. How will it be able to absorb this much money in three years? It is an enormous percentage of government spending.”
Sudan is the size of Spain, France, Italy and Germany combined, he said. ”There are hardly any roads, or schools. Everything is concentrated in the central area around the Nile. The country has been devastated by war. Putting in this huge amount of money in this short period of time will only create imbalances.”
In effect, he said, ”it will be concentrated on rest and relaxation for expat workers in Khartoum rather than demining operations in southern Sudan.” The demining is actually not that expensive, but not many are likely to have the will to take it on, he said.
To the extent aid will be forthcoming, questions arise about the motive behind the aid, Dr Allen said. ”Why is Sudan suddenly so important? It is important for the U.S. and others to develop a relationship with a stable Sudan to allow development of its oil resources. Suddenly, Sudan has become a potentially attractive proposition for exploitation of natural resources.”
Given its oil potential, ”giving money can for some be a leverage to get to Sudan’s natural resources,” Dr Allen said.
Motives other than oil appear at work too, he said. ”In the United States, the conflict in Sudan has been presented to aid donors as a conflict between Christians and Muslims. In the U.S. this line has been pushed very hard as the persecution of Christians by a Muslim government.”
But this could be a false distinction. ”Most of the fighting is not between the Northern Army and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM). It is between different local groups.”
Sudan, he said, ”is a deeply, deeply divided society. It is very difficult to deal with that, unless the aid money is spent locally and people see the benefits of that. The money would have to be spent on social control mechanisms, not on oil refineries and mechanisms to exploit oil.