Most humanitarian aid organizations will gladly report that billions of dollars are given to the impoverished citizens of developing countries each year. Global Humanitarian Assistance claimed in their annual report that global spending on humanitarian aid surpassed $17.9 billion in 2012. What these organizations fail to report, however, is that such copious amounts of aid regularly fail to reach their intended recipients.
The Red Cross and United Nations would never admit that they transfer aid from kind-hearted donors to nonfunctioning governments. The Guardian reports that in 2009, the UN halted aid shipments to the Gaza Strip after the corrupt Hamas government stole “thousands of tonnes of food and other provisions.” According to Express, British taxpayers were robbed of over $2 million when corrupt Ugandan government officials stole Britain’s aid packages in 2013.
Humanitarian aid given to corrupt nations is wasteful. Instead of trickling down to those in need, corrupt governments cut off the flow of benefits long before the poor can access them. These individual officials benefit greatly from aid packages and resource access, so they have an incentive to demonstrate a need for continued support in their countries. Officials are faced with the option of putting in work to spur national growth and losing aid or stealing aid packages, perpetuating poverty, and guaranteeing future aid. Well, don’t donors just cut off aid to these types of countries? Studies by New York University found that there is no evidence “that aid donors give less to corrupt governments…in some cases donors give more.”
Even when implemented in politically stable regions, humanitarian aid fails. Margaret Taylor, a fellow of the council on foreign relations, says, “Insurgents, terrorists, and other armed groups will continue to be a reality in fragile states and regions for donors looking to provide assistance.” Stability is a prerequisite for successful humanitarian aid. Articles published in the Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN) describe the failures of aid in Somalia, saying “Security deteriorated in Al Shabob areas during the course of the implementation period due to military incursions by the Kenyan and Ethiopian armies into Somalia.” Following violence in the region, the US State Department halted in supplying Somalia with over $50 million in aid, according to The New York Times. Terrorism and insurgency are just two of the many factors contributing to the failure of humanitarian aid.
The HPN claims that in areas plagued by corruption and violence, less than half of humanitarian aid actually reaches those in need. This means that of the $17.9 billion donated in 2012, less than $9 billion was impactful. This magnitude of waste sets donor countries back while leaving the world’s poor populations ill-equipped to battle the cycle of poverty.
Hey Lydia, this post was very shocking and I like how you chose a topic that not only talks of failure of Humanitarian Aid but also the prominent problem of corrupt governments. You had great sources to prove your point. But in your second paragraph, I think you could've tied your two facts more to your topic sentence. Especially your Britain fact because I didn't find a relation. I like how you proved your point for both stable and unstable regions. Your 4th paragraph seemed contradictory, since you said even in stable regions aid fails, yet you say stability is "a prerequisite for successful humanitarian aid". Just to make your quote about Somalia more clear, it would've helped to clarify why the US stopped giving humanitarian aid to them. It may be because of the violence as the quote described, but I thought that donor countries still try to help unstable regions? In the last paragraph, I really like how you ended your point with how only 9billion dollars is impactful. I've never thought about this problem, and now that you've written about it, I understand why poverty is still an issue. Your post opened my eyes to the reality behind corrupt governments and what they will do just to gain power.
ReplyDeleteLydia, this post is very strong. Very strong. You write well and synthesize convincing evidence. I agree with Hope that your fourth paragraph seems a little contradictory. I'm not sure what you're getting at in this paragraph. Regardless, you have a clear thesis and you support it well. I thank you for reminding me of an important issue. I was particularly struck by the information you included in your third paragraph. There is no real incentive for governments to reform, because a more stable nation means less international aid to steal. So sad. The older I get, the more I realize that there is a large percentage of the world population that exists with a completely different interpretation of what it means to be human.
ReplyDeleteOne quick writing tip...I would avoid the random rhetorical question in the middle. This question, "Well, don’t donors just cut off aid to these types of countries?" seemed to deviate from your otherwise professional and scholarly narrative perspective.