The losers of international aid

Much like the fashion houses of Milan and Paris, each season seems to bring with it a new or reinvented world crisis, whether it be natural or man-made. Iraq hasn’t yet reached the status of a likely holiday destination and yet trouble in other countries close by has overcast the problems left by decades of international and civil war, largely inflicted upon its population by Saddam Hussein’s regime. In a trend that seems to be becoming the norm, the western world stepped in to alleviate what it believes to be the bee in its bonnet, without realising there was a whole hive overhead.

My sister has recently returned from a trip to Kurdistan: an independently governed region in the north of Iraq, broadly equitable to the status of Wales here in the UK. Over a period of 10 weeks she worked with a local Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) called KURDS (the Kurdish Reconstruction and Development Society), who were established in 1991. Their original remit was that of providing clean drinking water and sanitation to returnees following more than a decade of conflict and displacement: the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the Anfal Campaign in 1988 when Saddam’s forces destroyed 4,000 villages, and the Kurdish uprisings in 1991 against the Regime. I hope that you would agree that provision of water and sanitation seems to be a noble cause. Around that time, the international scene was largely concerned with the Gulf war, which saw Iraq invade Kuwait. Thus, the international media focus shifted towards concerns of international politics and oil greed. In a western culture where it’s not unusual to give money to causes and charities, individual donors would find it hard to sympathise with the country starting wars. If anything, I perceive that we’ve started to learn that lesson from history: it’s the governments who start international wars, not the people of the country.

In Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya, through the movements now known as ‘the Arab Spring’ populations have been demonstrating their dissatisfaction with their rulers. In many cases, the world initially stood on the sidelines peering in, praising this call for democracy and trying to do what they could to help. These call for regime changes and democratically selected leaders chimes in with the overriding tones of the season including legal aid, abolition of corruption and focus on international human rights which, again I hope we can agree, are also noble causes. So, if this is what’s in fashion how do NGOs like KURDS survive? The answer is that they have to broaden their remit. Instead of focussing on just water and sanitation, grant applications now extend to legal aid courses and voter awareness campaigns and agricultural training courses, whilst the NGO is left choosing which two out of three schools will receive the funding available for a functioning toilet block. And they play the game, so that they can stay on the international aid radar which will hopefully one day service their initial remit, and so that they can stay employed themselves: two further struggles for local NGOs in developing regions.

So what can we discern from this? Probably that we tend to have a very short attention span when it comes to the real scale of these problems. Not to undermine their efforts, but charities like DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee) thrive on this, as people are largely willing to give in response to specific natural disasters. The countries that require the assistance of global charities like DEC will eventually need the assistance of their local NGO’s too, who have the local knowledge of how to restore life to what it was in a culturally relevant way, school toilets and all.

Overall, what could we hope to achieve in a world that is constantly ‘moving on’ with regard to international aid? Is the recent renaissance of the elbow patch (seen this season surreptitiously, but fashionably, placed on a lady’s cardigan) a sign that we are capable of nostalgia and reviewing faux pas or innovation from the past? I worry that we’ll continue in this cycle of trendy development topics or crises and giving to each in turn instead of establishing a sustained commitment to ensure the survival of the efforts of those actually implementing the action for long-term restoration or development. International aid agencies do stick around, in some places for decades, but they aren’t as immune to fluctuating political climates and agendas as many would perhaps hope. It would seem that if targets like the Millennium Development Goals actually have any chance of being met, everyone, not just the governments of developed countries, should keep them in mind constantly. That way, if you do choose to support an international crisis, think about what we should support: those people, organisations and charities who are in the position spatially and for the long haul to provide the assistance on the ground directly to where it’s needed.