Comment & analysis
Ugandan aid cuts: Good riddance to ‘phantom’ aid
Julius Kapwepwe Mishambi
2006-01-26, Issue 239
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/31576
Printer friendly version
Julius Kapwepwe Mishambi, Programme Officer for the Uganda Debt Network, a civil society organization campaigning on debt relief issues, comments on the current trend of reduced donor funding for the Ugandan government’s budget support programme. In his analysis he criticises donor aid pointing out some of the negative effects of the donor dependency syndrome, and proposes that Africa needs to explore alternatives for independence from donor aid.
One would be mesmerised, looking at the aid cut trends for Uganda by some of the country’s long time funding partners. Countries and institutions that have been instrumental to Uganda’s budget support have recently reduced their funding by millions of US dollars. The estimates at the end of 2005 are as follows: Ireland and Norway– 4 million each, Sweden - 8 million, the World Bank - 15million and the United Kingdom - 35 million.
Since the late 1990s, the Government of Uganda and donors agreed to a budget support programme captured in Uganda’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper; the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). Holding other factors constant, an aid cut means the programmes will be starved of resources. My major concern in this regard is the implication of this for the social sectors of health and education.
We ought to recall here that Uganda was one of the beneficiaries of debt relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. This programme was engineered by the Bretton Woods Institutions - the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank. The initiative was a response to the embarrassment occasioned by the outcomes of the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) advocated by these twin cheat institutions for developing economies, particularly in Africa and Latin America. HIPC was also viewed as a response to the heat of the global call, under the Jubilee debt cancellation campaign, for the end to the killer debt burden borne by the developing economies of the world.
So, what was the original intention of aid support of the 1990s in Uganda, at least at face value? Was it aimed at beefing up Uganda’s savings of debt relief resources for anti-poverty efforts, as reflected in the national policy objectives of Primary Health Care (PHC) and Universal Primary Education (UPE) programmes and other sub-programmes in the war against poverty?
To my mother in rural Kumi district in Uganda, and those in the Zambezi region of Zambia and Ruvuma in Tanzania, the anti-poverty programmes have been of direct help, to a certain degree. Consequently, the no-flow of drugs to health centres due to the aid cut makes those categories of people the primary losers. Cutting this type of aid is criminal, defeats morality and such international goals as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Ironically, the same masters of aid espouse these ideals, at least at face value.
On the contrary, I would argue that aid cuts could be justified for a different category - the expatriate donor community - the type characterized by huge salaries, residential mansions in prime locations in the recipient countries and first class air travellers. The meagre trickle down effects of these expatriate expenditures in our country’s economy cannot compensate for the losses occasioned by the resultant dependency syndrome created by the western world.
The talk of aid cuts is an opportunity for Africa. Africans ought to explore how Kenya has moved on for the past few years with neither aid nor loans from the World Bank. Government securities (bonds and treasury bills) contribute about 6% to the country’s national budget, with the rest accruing from the Kenya government’s own, generated revenues. The government has continued to fund its industrial growth. Africans should opt for frugality so that public expenditure is optimal. For example, Uganda’s expenditure could rhyme with PEAP priority areas, already elaborated upon and jointly updated periodically by the national and local governments, faith-based and civil society organizations, academia and research institutions, individual pressure and interest groups in Uganda, etc. Is it not possible to acquire an affordable yet comfortable car for a government official whose work is over 80% city based? Does a spokesperson for the government need a 4000cc vehicle to ably articulate government positions at a weekly press briefing? How about invoking government standing orders, which provide that government vehicles should only do government business, to reduce the cost of fleet maintenance? Indeed, does a president require 20 armoured cars for his/her security?
Surely, aid conditionality has been an obstacle to decision-making of African countries. The Structural Adjustment Programmes (especially privatisation and liberalization) attest to this. In Uganda for example, the lack of hydropower dams on various suitable sites along river Nile has been a domain of aid influence. As a result, companies in Uganda continue to spend huge sums of money on announcing the schedule for load shedding. These sums should instead be expended on inviting the public to witness the opening of new power sources and resources.
Aid was used to perpetuate the tyranny of the Bath Party led by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and kuku wazabanga Mobutu in former Zaire, for decades. It served to suffocate the interests and human rights of ordinary citizens. But the governance issues that donors have raised should not simply be wished away but squarely addressed. The issues are part and parcel of Africa’s socio-economic and political development aspirations.
* Julius Kapwepwe Mishambi is Programme Officer for the Uganda Debt Network
* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org