Interlude

For more info, please visit The Niapele Project News blog

Why We Fight

Before I finish my "three part series" on refugees, I thought I would share some thoughts on the joyful subject of American military spending.

For an in-depth look at the American military-industrial complex, watch this documentary entitled "Why We Fight" (E. Jarecki, 2005). If you're not in the mood to watch a full length feature about a pretty dry topic (I recognize that not everyone is into nerdy things like military spending), you should at least watch President Eisenhower's farewell address, which is the first 3 minutes of the movie. Like him or not, he was definitely a visionary, and his words of warning ring so true today...

Facts about military spending

(Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)

This graph shows the proportion of our military spending that is earmarked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)

Why is the US spending so much on its military? Besides the fact that the military-industrial complex continues to have a huge influence on how much of the federal budget is allocated to military spending, it feels like the United States is construing its domination of the world as a matter of hard power - we are the strongest, mightiest nation on Earth because of our military. We used to dominate the global scene through our economic, political and military influence, but the former two have decreased sharply in recent times.

In terms of economic power, the United States is now contending for top dog with emerging market economies (China... India.... ), and economic interdependence makes it very difficult to truly dominate the world through that channel (thank god).
In terms of political influence, apart from Africa which apparently loves the United States and George W Bush, the US is confronted with the fact that its voice is not as powerful as it used to be.
I recognize that these are all debatable points - the point is that we really need to ask ourselves why the US is spending over half a trillion dollars/year on its own military, and if the reasons for doing so are valid.

Note: the US spends about $70 billion on education annually.... wonder why "63% of Americans aged 18 to 24 failed to correctly locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East. Seventy percent could not find Iran or Israel. Nine in ten couldn't find Afghanistan on a map of Asia. And 54% did not know Sudan was a country in Africa"(2006, National Geographic.)

"Why We Fight" offers an interesting perspective on the relationship between the US government, and the military and its industries. It should fuel further examination of the reasoning behind astronomical spending on conventional military activities in a world where the threats that loom the largest are no longer conventional.... Our failure to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan are testament to this.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place - part 2

Last post, I discussed why repatriation, which is favored by the UNHCR as a "durable solution" for dealing with refugees, is a flawed policy.

"Securing durable solutions for refugees is a principal goal of international protection and part of UNHCR’s mandate. These solutions can take three different forms: (i) voluntary repatriation to the home country; (ii) resettlement in another country or; (iii) finding appropriate permanent integration mechanisms in the host country[...]

Among the three durable solutions, voluntary repatriation is the one which generally benefits the largest number of refugees. Resettlement of refugees is a key protection tool and a significant burden and responsibility-sharing mechanism. Local integration, the third durable solution, is a legal, socio-economic and political process by which refugees progressively become part of the host society."(Source: 2006 UNHCR Statistical Report - released December 2007)


As I previously discussed, voluntary repatriation sounds great in theory, and can be a pragmatic solution in practice, but it fails to recognize and deal with the psychological, social trauma of displaced populations. Celina and Kristin both recently brought up issues related to resettlement of refugees in third countries - a fascinating topic.

Recently, Dave Eggers shed light on this topic with his book "What is the What", which retraces the life of Valentino Achak Deng from peaceful times in Southern Sudan as a boy, to becoming an orphan refugee, to being a resettled refugee in the United States. If you haven't read it yet, you should. You can read a review here.

RESETTLEMENT

Thousands of Liberian refugees were resettled to the United States since the 1990s, partly because of the natural connection between the United States and Liberia - which was founded by freed American slaves - , and partly because the United States has a tradition of taking in refugees and asylum seekers from around the world.

-- note: another incredible book about resettling in the United States, which has nothing to do with Liberians, but is absolutely fantastic, is "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down". It depicts how difficult integration can be for foreigners - in this particular book, it focuses on the strikingly different cultural approaches to medicine, illness and healing. You can read a review here--

Many of the Liberian refugees that have been resettled in the United States face some daunting challenges - first of all, the US government has decided to place these refugees in what seems to be the most random of communities - Minnesota is now home to one of the largest Liberian communities in the US, and places such as Philadelphia, Tennessee and Georgia are also hosting this influx of refugees.

The first and foremost issue encountered by resettled refugees is to find a way to integrate into their host communities - after years of living in the direst of circumstances, dealing with murder, rape, and other atrocities, refugees are parachuted into a new and unknown society. Thankfully, a lot of Liberians being resettled already have a family member present in the United States (family reunification is one of the few reasons for which asylum or resettlement is granted).

Nonetheless, as this investigative report highlights, integration in local communities is far from easy - Liberian refugees have suffered greatly from discrimination, which shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing as most foreigners from developing nations arriving in Western countries usually receive poor treatment.

Excerpt: "An African-American woman [in South-West Philly] walked up to one of them [ Liberian refugee child], picked up his hand and said: "My God, how did you get so black?"
(Listen to the full NPR report here: "Liberian Youth in US Find Threat from New Violence")

In spite of the difficulties of adjusting to the "American Way of Life", most Liberians in the United States have been there for years, and have successfully managed to rebuild their lives - a lot are home owners, have jobs, pay taxes and play a vital role in enriching the micro economic life of the communities which host them. Now, as the war in Liberia has subsided, the United States is getting ready to lift the Temporary Protection Status (TPS) which it has given to Liberian refugees (this has already happened to Sierra Leonan refugees in the 90s).

Refugees coming to the US are not given permanent residence, or citizenship, nor do they have actual refugee status - the TPS, as NPR notes, "first granted in 1991, as Liberia descended into a decade of brutal conflict, [is] something of a fallback for those who don't qualify as a refugee and can't obtain a permanent green card through marriage or work."

As I write this, it seems that this matter has not been resolved - a bi-partisan bill was introduced in Congress in April 2007 to extend the TPS for Liberian refugees, but it apparently has not been voted on. Looking at legislative records, it seems that similar legislation has been introduced year after year, always ending up "dead" - for details, click here or here.

It seems really ridiculous (and I'm weighing my words) to want to deport these people, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, some of them have been in the United States for literally decades, have American-born children, and are fully integrated into their local communities. How dare we uproot these people again? How dare we try to tear them away from their lives? And to go back to what??

Secondly, as is pointed out in this NPR report, the livelihoods of entire Liberian communities in West Africa depend on the remittances and goods sent from family members resettled in Western countries, particularly the US. In Buduburam, there are two (not one - TWO) Western Union branches, through which transit the only stable form of income for most of the refugees. There are two types of refugees in Buduburam: those with and those without relatives in Western countries, and the difference is striking. Depriving these refugees of this vital lifeline is tantamount to depriving them of their right to life. The Liberian government estimates that remittances to Liberia from the United States average $6 million each month, according to Charles Minor, the country's ambassador in Washington.

Thirdly, and this is the kicker - this is what Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the President of Liberia had to say about sending resettled refugees back to Liberia:

"Liberia needs time to rebuild and recover and is unfortunately not in a position to absorb and provide for an influx of refugees"
(read full article here)

And the Liberian ambassador to Washington adds that

"This could jeopardize our progress.
We don't have the housing stock, the schools or the medical facilities to support this many returnees as yet."
President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has made job creation a top priority, Minor said, but the country cannot yet provide employment for thousands of returning Liberians, even if they have skills and experience.

(In case you weren't already convinced that Liberia was in no way able to take in tens of thousands of returning refugees from previous posts (like this one, or this one), then check out this report discussing the utter lack of trash collection in Liberia.)

Lies?

Now, for those who have been following my "meanderings", don't you find this slightly ironic?
On the one hand, we are encouraging Liberian refugees in Ghana to return home to Liberia (because it's "fine" there now), and on the other hand, the Liberian Head of State recognizes that Liberia is in no position to absorb an influx of refugees.

There are about 5,000 Liberians risking deportation in the United States.
There are about 40,000 Liberians in Ghana.

So the UNHCR and other international organizations, as well as donors, are no longer willing to spend their money on Liberians displaced in West Africa, and want them to return to their home country, because it "benefits the largest number of refugees". Meanwhile, the government of Liberia is acting schizophrenic, by both supporting this first policy, and explaining to the United States that it's in no position to absorb a measly few thousand Liberians (who are much more well off than their relatives who stayed in West Africa).

That makes no sense. It simply doesn't.

Meanwhile, thousands of refugees in Ghana are still hoping to be resettled. They call it "travelling", and a lot of them think it will soon be their turn - because their aunt/cousin/sister is there, because God wants it that way, because that is the only possibility they are willing or capable to envisage... There are so many reasons why Liberian refugees cling on to this possibility.

As time passes, the likelihood of resettlement gets slimmer and slimmer, but, nonetheless, Liberians still believe.

I have seen the UNHCR boards in Buduburam notifying the community that resettlement to the United States was officially over, but still - people believe.

There is a total lack of appropriate socio-cultural communication between the UNHCR and other relevant authorities, and the refugee population. This absolutely needs to change if long term, durable solutions are to be created for Liberian (and other) refugees who find themselves in protracted situations, which, apparently, is what the UNHCR is trying to do...

Stuck between a rock and a hard place - part 1

Rather, stuck between rockS and a hard place. Liberian refugees in West Africa have 3 - and only 3 - options available to them.

They can either:

• go back to Liberia, although no longer through UNHCR, which has ended voluntary repatriation programs.
• hope for resettlement in a Western country
• stay where they are, ultimately lose their refugee status, and hope to become integrated into the local community

Now, my fabulous co-director Celina attracted my attention to a couple of news reports concerning the fate of ex-refugees - in Liberia and in the United States. This subject is both very interesting and quite important - it really begs the question: how should countries, international organizations, and civil society deal with protracted refugee crises? There is no set framework for dealing with these, particularly as refugee crises are sui generis and it would be difficult to develop a "one size fits all" model to work with.

My expertise is circumscribed to the Liberian refugee crisis, and I will not attempt to generalize at this point - below, I will simply try to unravel the different possibilities available to displaced Liberians, and indeed show how they are stuck between a rock, another rock, and a hard place.

REPATRIATION

The first possibility mentionned above, which is to repatriate to Liberia, seems like the most practical, sustainable solution. Indeed, as highlighted in the media, donor money is being channeled to reconstruction efforts in Liberia, and away from displaced communities - this is supposed to be seen as an incentive to go back to Liberia. With the withdrawal of UNHCR looming, it seems that going back to their country of origin is THE viable solution for refugees.

I highly recommend listening to this report entitled "Liberia repatriation dilemma" (4:45 min - you might need to use Internet Explorer, it doesn't seem to work in Firefox for me)

According to this report, things are "fine" in Liberia. "Very fine", as Liberians are fond of saying. But let's look at some facts:

• On January 14, 2008, the BBC reported that "Liberia's Supreme Court has ruled that the president can appoint local mayors because the government cannot afford to hold municipal elections."

• A year ago, the BBC published an alarming article on child rape victims in Liberia. An excerpt:

"[Raped?] Seek free treatment now at Benson Clinic," reads another [sign]. It is run by the charity Médecins Sans Frontières.

With a queue outside her door, the head nurse told me that five to 10 people arrive there every day but half of them are not women. They are young girls between five and 12 years old.

And it gets worse.

Each month the clinic treats several babies for rape but, from all the cases that have been recorded by the clinic since 2003, you can count the number of men convicted on one hand."

• You can also listen to a very interesting investigative report about gender based violence in Liberia.This report highlights the weakness of the judicial system, as well as the tremendous obstacles that Liberia is facing on the road to reconstruction. It notes that:

"Liberia had just emerged from 14 years of civil war, during which time women and girls experienced unprecedented levels of sexual violence, with 3 in 4 women in some regions, having been raped. But evidence suggests that violence against women remains an extensive problem during this post-conflict era. "

• In December 2007, the UN Security Council decided to renew the arms and travel embargoes imposed against Liberia for another 12 months - one of the concerns leading to this decision was "the dramatic increase in armed robberies involving firearms.

• Another issue is reconciliation - this International Herald Tribune article from January 2008 discusses the case of General Butt Naked:

"One of Liberia's most notorious rebel commanders, known as Gen. Butt Naked for charging into battle wearing only boots, has returned to confess his role in terrorizing the nation, saying he is responsible for 20,000 deaths.

Joshua Milton Blahyi, who now lives in Ghana, returned last week to face his homeland's truth and reconciliation commission, this time wearing a suit and tie. His nom de guerre is derived from his platoon's practice of charging naked into battle, a technique meant to terrify the enemy [...]

Before he led his fighters into battle, wearing only a pair of lace-up boots, Blahyi said he made a human sacrifice to the devil.

The sacrifice was typically "the killing of an innocent child and plucking out the heart which was divided into pieces for us to eat," he told The Associated Press on Saturday."

Now, the IHT article does discuss the fact that a war crimes tribunal, rather than a Truth and Reconciliation Commission seems more appropriate for Liberia. There are hundreds of guilty war criminals roaming the streets of Liberia. In any case, the issue of justice and reconciliation has not yet found a satisfactory resolution, and, understandably, many Liberian refugees fear that they will face more violence, more retributions and more horror if they go home, knowing that a lot of those responsible for previous atrocities are free.

(General Butt Naked lived in Buduburam, where he preached. Yes, as the IHT article notes, he became a born-again Christian, and now has a congregation to whom he preaches. I knew he was on camp, and was tempted to go see one of his sermons, but decided against - I thought this might have been too emotionally taxing. One of the missionaries I met in Buduburam told me that he saw General Butt Naked weeping on his hands and knees, begging two brothers whose other brother he had massacred for forgiveness.)

I am trying to show here that there are a lot of psychological factors, as well as material ones, that make repatriation to Liberia very difficult for those who have been displaced. It's not a matter of picking up their things and just "going". It's unfortunate that this is not taken into consideration by any responsible authorities dealing with repatriation efforts.

A Call to Skepticism

George W. Bush is having fun in Africa. According to a recent Pew poll, he enjoys an overwhelming popularity on the continent, and, as the International Herald Tribune notes "with some [African nation] holding America in higher regard than America views itself."

Look at all the great things the US has done for Africa:

"Yet since taking office, U.S. development aid to Africa has tripled, funding for HIV programs vaulted from under US$1 billion (€ 700,000) to over US$6 billion (€4 billion) per year and garment exports from Africa to America, helped by special trade deals, increased sevenfold, according to official U.S. statistics.

The Bush administration has, moreover, made Africa the centerpiece of its overall aid strategy. Twelve of the 15 focus countries receiving funding from the five-year, US$15 billion (€10 billion) President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief are in Africa, as are nine of the 16 countries drawing grants from Bush's Millennium Challenge Corporation [...] "

But also, note that:

"Today, a fifth of U.S. oil imports come from a single African nation — Nigeria. By the end of the decade, one in five new barrels of oil entering the global market are projected to come from Africa, according to the Council on Foreign Relations." (Source: IHT)

Interesting.

But behind the ceremonies honoring George W. Bush and American involvement in African affairs, behind all the pomp and hype, shouldn't we exercise caution when judging the actions of the US - and the West in general - in Africa?

At some point, Western leaders will have to shift the loci of "cooperation" with Africa (and with the developing world in general) away from hand outs. What countries need is not another major grant that will end up being mismanaged and have relatively little impact on people's welfare - they need Western leaders to encourage investors to work in those countries, to highlight the business and development opportunities, and to build healthy commercial, financial and economic ties with the private sector of developing nations. The meager handouts by the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC) represent yet another attempt to impose a certain social, political and economic vision on nations that are construed as malleable. It does not represent a significant departure from previous development models devised by Western countries or their representative Bretton Woods institutions.

Furthermore, there are some fundamental issues with the way the MCC functions, in that it selectively engages with countries deemed "respectable" enough - ie. countries who have produced a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) with the World Bank, who are committed to a market economy, committed to democracy... It would be very naive to think that countries whose governments are desperate for funding aren't simply jumping through the hoops imposed on them by outsiders.

In addition, note that these stringent conditions are imposed only on a certain group of non-Western developing nations. There are many countries which receive untied aid - Egypt and Israel, two of the largest recipients of US aid received $1.7 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively, in 2006. These countries receive these large sums of money unconditionally, and only very recently, with the events at the Gaza/Egypt border, has the US Congress suggested to tie its aid to Egypt to certain conditions.

How about countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo - a country the size of Western Europe - whose stability is key to the overall stability of the region? It's hard to imagine that the DRC will be able to meet the required standards for Western aid in the near future, even though the government relies almost exclusively on foreign aid. The DRC's government established a 2007-2011 program for reconstruction, with a budget reaching $14 billion. Half of this budget is expected to be provided by donors - but considering the track record of Western donors in that country, it's almost certain that this budget is little more than wishful thinking: in 2007, the World Bank promised $380 million, and the EU 161 million euros.... Keep in mind that these figures don't reflect actual disbursements - in 2006, the DRC had only received a 1/3 of the funds promised in 2004 and 2005 ($1.1 and 1.2 billion, respectively)

So congratulations Mr. Bush! $700 million for Tanzania. Way to go. Oh, and that $306 million to Benin promised in 2006 through the MCC? Which should be disbursed over.... 9 years? What a gesture.

The hypocrisy which shrouds the supposed benevolence of the US in Africa is appalling. The fight against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria is crucial, and American financial involvement in this entreprise is certainly worthwhile, and commends respect. However, this generosity shouldn't be considered independently from other policies which fuel increasing global inequalities, such as the much criticized subsidy program to the cotton industry in the United States, or the backward, racist and unfair immigration policies pursued by most of the Western world.


"President George W. Bush's coming African tour will emphasise the caring side of U.S. policy but it is widely seen as being more about military interests, oil supplies and combating Chinese influence." (Source: Reuters Africa)

Sorry, Steven, but I won't praise you

Perhaps you live on another planet, and haven't heard that Steven Spielberg is boycotting the Beijing Olympics because of China's responsibility in the Darfur crisis.

Everyone including rebel groups in Darfur seems to be praising this courageous act - apparently, some people think that this will make a difference for the people suffering in that forlorn region of the world. Well, in my (very) humble opinion, not only is this act only superficially meaningful, but it's also hypocritical.

Sorry, Mr. Spielberg, but I think this is BS.

I'm curious to see how Mr. Spielberg's decision to withdraw as artistic advisor will impact the situation in Darfur. Will China decide to forgo its massive politico-economic investment in Sudan? Will China modify its foreign policy? Will China - one of the strongest, fastest growing economies in the world - seriously take into consideration Mr. Spielberg's indignation when deciding to pursue whatever policy options they choose? Highly doubtful.

Will Mr. Spielberg's decision make a concrete difference for the victims of this conflict? Well, perhaps if his stance actually motivates governments and meaningful entities to really deal with the situation.... But this is shifting the blame for primary responsibility from Sudan, President Bashir and his henchmen (the real culprits) to the Chinese.

This isn't to say that China plays no role in this - they do have leverage over Sudan. And they should be considered "complicit" in what is going on in Sudan. Furthermore, I think that the inevitable politicization of the Olympic games (of such great importance to China) is at the very least going to change China's perception of itself, and perhaps it will lead to internal reform. But that it is entirely up to the Chinese themselves.

But I also think that the criticism of China should focus on its internal problems, rather than its foreign policy, which is the real issue. Perhaps if China was ruled differently would it project its power on the world stage in more benevolent ways. In fact, Human Rights Watch issued a press release following Mr. Spielberg's statement, which shifts the loci of the accusation from Darfur to a wider range of issues:

"Human Rights Watch has urged that sponsors not only press China’s government to end its support of governments such as Sudan and Burma that commit massive abuses but also that they encourage Beijing to improve deplorable human rights conditions in China itself."

Also, I'm curious to know how much money Mr. Spielberg and Spielberg owned companies make on the Chinese market.... Is Mr. Spielberg still buying clothing "Made in China"? Does this now mean that Mr. Spielberg is no longer "supporting the Darfur genocide" and is now a peace activist? Gee! It's easy these days to switch sides.

Here is an interview of someone who somewhat agrees with me, or at least expresses a healthy doubt as to the real effectiveness of Mr. Spielberg's stand

They Come in the Name of Helping - part 2

If you have read my previous post concerning the movie by Peter Brock "They Come in the Name of Helping", then you might be interested in reading his response:


"Penelope,

I am excited to see that my film provoked such a response from someone as devoted to development as yourself. Interestingly enough I completely agree with all of the critical points you have made. To be frank, the film was not so much intended for veteran development types like yourself, but rather for concerned yet inexperienced western students. But still, your charge of oversimplification is a valid one.

While making this film (and even now) I laid awake in my bed at night wondering if there was a better way to express the need for respect without such generalizations. As you can probably tell, the film is more about human interactions than development. I was seeking to capture the in a convincing way the reality that development deals with real people's lives, and furthermore that those 'people' are not merely passive sufferers waiting to be saved by the west (think 'SAVE DARFUR'). I wanted to capture some articulate young Africans expressing their critical opinions as a (perhaps overstated) warning against the type of objectification of the poor that is so common in the west. I wanted to make a counterpoint to the countless images of emaciated African children that appear as advertising for major NGO's such as World Vision, Save the Children, or CARE. I wanted to shatter this objectified conception of the poor African because I see it as extremely harmful and detrimental to the very cause of development.

My intention was to make the viewer wary of simple solutions. I wanted to complicate the picture of development that is given by the internet ads reading "Click here to save a child!". I wanted to make people reflect on why the help others and the way that they do it. I wanted to show African's who were not hesitant to DEMAND respect from those coming to help them, not to deter them from coming, but to make sure that they come in the spirit of sincerity and cooperation. Hopefully you saw that the main message of the film was that we need a respectful dialogue.

Also, if you listen closely, you'll see that I never said that we shouldn't help people that we don't fully understand. I simply said that we have to recognize that it is inherently harder to help people and communities which are foreign to us. There a tons of ways to help people abroad, but the path towards each of these solutions begins by recognizing the limitations of our own 'expertise'. Perhaps I was too harsh in my iteration of this point, but I feel strongly that the battle against the mentality of the savior (a re-incarnation of the colonizer) is extremely important.

You are quite correct that there are huge differences between humanitarian and development work, but the point about respectful interaction still remains. You are also right to point out the diversity of the NGO world. However, I think that you'll find that the smaller more grassroots NGO's that you refer to posses the commitment to sincere and respectful interaction that my film tries to articulate. There are many aspects of development work that are simply beyond the scope of the film. My film is not about 'development' (which is a pretty ambiguous and loaded term in itself), rather, as I stated above, it is about human interactions in the context of development. The reality is that most of the particulars about development and development NGO's are beyond the scope of the film. It is really about people. I make no claim to treat the subject of 'development' in its entirety. To do so would be just plain silly. I tried to identify one small but important aspect of development (the need for respectful and sincere interactions) that I felt transcended specific contexts.

I hope that my comments have helped you understand the intentions behind the film. I greatly appreciate the attention you devoted to the film. The development community would be better off if more people had the type of experiences and convictions that you do.

In Peace,

Peter Brock "

I wholeheartedly agree with this: "I wanted to make a counterpoint to the countless images of emaciated African children that appear as advertising for major NGO's such as World Vision, Save the Children, or CARE. I wanted to shatter this objectified conception of the poor African because I see it as extremely harmful and detrimental to the very cause of development."

Seriously - is this necessary?




I'm curious to hear if others agree or disagree with this - feel free to leave comments and/or email me!

They Come in the Name of Helping?

I both completely agree and completely disagree with Peter Brock's movie, "They Come in the Name of Helping". This undergraduate student from Skidmore took it upon himself to uncover the Truth behind the dynamics that animate Western aid to the developing world. While I applaud Mr. Brock for the courage he displays by trying to answer such a vast, complex question, I unfortunately feel that he falls short of providing a well-rounded perspective. Having studied the same issues and read the same books as an undegraduate and graduate student, and as someone who is actively involved in "helping" the developing world, Mr. Brock's movie really stirred me. If you don't feel like watching the whole movie, here is the basic premise, in Mr. Brock's words:

"The unsettling coexistence of extravagant material prosperity and abject poverty in our world has caused many well-intentioned people in the more prosperous countries to worry about the condition of the poor. This concern has caused private citizens, corporations and even governments to donate their time, money and resources to the cause of development and poverty alleviation. Despite this deluge of support and the vast crop of NGO’s that it spawned and continues to sustain, the western world has faced considerable difficulty in its attempts to translate these copious resources into concrete improvements in the lives of the world’s poor. To explain these shortcomings, the most insightful critics of western development efforts identify our lack of local knowledge and narrow-minded approach as the root of our repeated failure.

Most of the West’s knowledge about the people of the developing world, and Africans in particular, come from heart-wrenching but superficial newspaper articles and TV news stories about genocide, famine and child soldiering. Even those westerners who wish to understand the issues of poverty and development usually find themselves reading reports from the United Nations or the myriad of NGO’s that make it their work to ‘end poverty’. As with the mainstream media, it is outsiders who almost always author these reports, and they are often written to please the donors who sponsored the project in question. While many western scholars have written lengthy critiques of the development industry and recommendations for its reform, I wanted to see what development efforts look like from the perspective of those they are intended to benefit. I wanted to know if we could gain insights into improving and reforming our development efforts by simply listening to those people whose lives we have sought to change.

With this purpose, I traveled to Sierra Leone, the world’s second poorest country according to the UN development index, and began to ask young students about the effectiveness of foreign development programs. As I had expected, the opinions I heard differed substantially from the hopeful and often self-glorifying accounts given by NGO reports and UN documentaries. These are their stories."

The problem with this introduction - as with the whole movie - is that it entirely fails to operate essential distinctions between different realities. For instance, I agree that

"Most of the West’s knowledge about the people of the developing world, and Africans in particular, come from heart-wrenching but superficial newspaper articles and TV news stories about genocide, famine and child soldiering. Even those westerners who wish to understand the issues of poverty and development usually find themselves reading reports from the United Nations or the myriad of NGO’s that make it their work to ‘end poverty’. As with the mainstream media, it is outsiders who almost always author these reports, and they are often written to please the donors who sponsored the project in question."

But I simply don't understand what the logical connection is between those people who have superficial knowledge of the complex issues affecting the developing world, and those who make it their life's work to understand and bring about change in said developing world. Those are two VERY different categories of people. At the beginning of his introduction he discusses "our repeated failure". This is something that is definitely hard to grapple with - William Easterly (whose book The White Man's Burden obviously influenced Mr. Brock a great deal!), describes how the billions of dollars spent in the developing world by the West since the end of the colonial era have very little to show for today. While this is the unfortunate and undeniable truth, Mr. Brock fails to distinguish between the efforts of private citizens to make a difference at a grassroots level, and those of government international aid agencies who invest in infrastructure projects - and everything else in between. This comes back to a previous post about the different types of international organizations operating in the developing world - what a gross misconception to consider them as a whole!! Their goals, philosophy, modes of operation and income structures are so varied. We must aim to not fall for the easy shortcuts - USAID, the Chinese government, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, and organizations such as The Niapele Project, TunaHaki Foundation or Under The Reading Tree cannot be amalgamated and considered similar. That amounts to intellectual dishonesty. In addition, his assessment that international aid has "failed" is rooted in the notion that this type of aid should be "efficient" and that it should show returns on investment.

We need - from this intellectual standpoint - to get some bang for our buck. I actually somewhat adhere to this position, because it is truly shocking that billions upon billions have been spent, and that, comparatively, very little has emerged from this constant investment. But we must really think about if coming to that conclusion leads us to say that we should then limit international aid - what exactly would limiting or reducing amounts of international aid accomplish? And is "efficiency" the yardstick to be used to evaluate the impact of international aid?

Governments already spend a minuscule fraction of their budget for this (the stated goal is 0.7% of GDP - which is only attained by Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg and Norway. In fact, the average for OECD countries is 0.46%. Source: OECD Development Cooperation Report 2007) In any case, whether or not that money is effective should not necessarily be the primary concern - it should be one of an array. I discussed this previously, but shouldn't we be engaged with those whose situation we find intolerable? According to Mr. Brock, I shouldn't be involved with Liberian refugees because "I do not fully understand the way their society operates" (repeatedly stated throughout the movie by various protagonists.) Should I then only engage with people I understand? I don't understand Polish culture very well, in spite of the fact that they are part of the European Union, nor do I understand rural French customs and traditions (and I'm from France).

While I will recognize that there are enormous cultural divides between "us" and "them", this "us" and "them" is a common yet almost meaningless distinction. I might feel closer to a South African, Ugandan or Brazilian who shares a similar global vision, than to my immediate neighbors. To brandish the excuse of "you don't understand so you cannot help" is just a very convenient way for people to simply remain disinterested from the communities around them. And, personally, I don't consider my community to be a geographic one... I (and I hope you do too, dear reader!) belong to a community of values and of vision within which racial, national and religious divides can be bridged.

In his movie, Mr. Brock shows NGO workers relaxing on a beach in Sierra Leone to show that they are disconnected from the reality which they are trying to ameliorate. His interlocutors also point out that there is a discrepancy between wanting to help, and then coming to a developing nation to live in a big, clean house with a cook and maid, and drive around in a fancy Land Rover. I think this is a very valid claim on their part - indeed, it seems that this creates both resentment and breeds misunderstanding in a wide variety of settings. While this is how a number of international NGOs operate, a lot don't. I'm not trying to "ring my own bell", but when we work in Ghana, we don't drive fancy cars and we live in the same type of house the refugees do (sans electricity or running water, let alone A/C!). In any case, it's very unfair to denigrate the work that NGOs and international organizations perform simply on the grounds that they live in better circumstances. They should certainly attempt as much as possible to understand the conditions of the people which they are trying to help, but I am not sure that this would necessarily occur if they lived in the same conditions. We all aprehend our reality differently - and even if NGO workers renounced all luxuries while they worked in the field, this is not their permanent reality, and will never be. I think understanding the conditions of those you are trying to help really depends on your own capacity to put yourself in the other person's shoes, whether you live in a mud hut or in a 4 star hotel is (almost) irrelevant.

Also, I'm not sure what Mr. Brock is trying to accomplish here - should we feel bad for wanting to help where we think we can make a difference? Should people who give money to charitable organizations operating abroad stop doing that on the grounds that they aren't knowledgeable enough? What exactly is the purpose of pointing to all the dysfunctionings of the international aid sector?

There are horror stories - for instance, how the 2004 tsunami catastrophe was met by the international community by an overwhelming response. A lot of NGOs received unbelievable amounts of financial support that they had no capacity to use - a huge budget is ultimately not a guarantee of success and can most definitely lead to money being wasted. The unprecedented levels of aid that were deployed in the aftermath of the tsunami have not met a match - the 2005 earthquake in the North of Pakistan did not attract a fraction of the international attention, and the continued, chronic plight of billions around the world still doesn't attract as much attention (we might cynically note that the tsunami affected Westerners, and not just people with a different skin color, but that is a different topic).

In any case, Mr. Brock's movie makes some incredibly sweeping claims about the nature and the value of international aid, as if it could be considered as a whole. His approach is based on a perception of aid to developing countries as "neo-colonial" - while this might be a correct framework of reference for some international aid, it certainly isn't for others. I keep referring to Doctors without Borders, but really, how can we accuse them of being neo-colonial? What should DWB do? Should they no longer intervene when governments and the international community fail to do so? This also highlights the fact that Mr. Brock uses the terms "humanitarian aid" and "development aid" interchangeably, which is another amalgamation of two very different areas of international aid. Shouldn't we be distinguishing between providing medical and food aid to displaced people and providing micro loans to women? Aren't these two entirely distinct activities?

I had a wonderful professor at Sciences Po, Mr. Rony Brauman, who was the head of DWB (you guessed it) for many years, and who was one of the original founders of the French Doctors movement. He insisted that, as students and practictioners of international relations, we understand the differences between "development" and "humanitarian" aid - one aims to create or induce socio-economic change, the other has to do with providing urgent, necessary aid in times of crisis when a State is no longer able to take care of its citizens.

To go back to "They Come in the Name of Helping", Mr. Brock and his interlocutors discuss the importance of education, and how it is the only way for the impoverished to ever fix their own problems. This is obviously extremely true - but currently, the quality of education in a lot of developing nations is pathetic. Besides the poor quality of infrastructure, the lack of books, chalk, pens, educational materials and pretty much anything that makes a school a school, there is also a problem with teachers' qualifications, overcrowded classrooms, girls being left out of the system, malnutrition leading to poor physical and intellectual development.... Come on, let's get serious here. I sincerely, honestly, genuinely wish that today, we could leave it up to developing nations to educate their future leaders, but I don't think that's fair or realistic. The need for teacher training, for educational resources and improved curriculums is enormous. If we truly believe that education is salvation (I do, and Mr. Brock apparently does too), then why shouldn't we support efforts towards that goal?

In any case, Mr. Brock's movie definitely touches on sensitive issues, and, for those of us involved in international aid, it does incite critical thought, which is great. But we must really be wary of generalizations that oversimplify extremely complex realities. While I agree with a lot of the premises that Mr. Brock puts forward in his movie - essentially, that we need to be respectful and work in genuine partnership with developing nations - I think his movie is quick to judge. Perhaps he should interview those who feel they have genuinely benefited from international aid...
I look forward to the day where Western money and efforts in developing nations will be completely redundant and useless. I really do. But are we there yet? In the mean time, let's be careful not too judge all international aid as misguided, inefficient and patronizing.

"Both [Ben Bella and Boumedienne, Algerian leaders of the 1960s] are victims of the same drama that every Third World politician lives through if he is honest, if he is a patriot. This was the drama of Lumumba and Nehru; it is the drama of Nyerere and Sekou Touré. The essence of the drama lies in the terrible material resistance that each one encounters on taking his first, second and third steps up the summit of power. Each one wants to do something good and begins to do it and then sees, after a month, after a year, after three years, that it just isn't happening, that is is slipping away, that it is bogged down in the sand. Everything is in the way: the centuries of backwardness, the primitive economy, the illiteracy, the religious fanaticism, the tribal blindness, the chronic hunger, the colonial past with its practice of debasing and dulling the conquered, the blackmail by the imperialists, the greed of the corrupt, the unemployment, the red ink. Progress comes with great difficulty along such a road. The politician begins to push too hard. He looks for a way out through dictatorship. The dictatorship then fathers an oppositon. The opposition organizes a coup.
And the cycle begins anew"

Excerpt from Rysszard Kapuscinkski's The Soccer War.

Expanding Niapele's Reach

In an attempt to broaden our base of friends and supporters, The Niapele Project has just launched a brand new blog, which we will use to keep our growing audience abreast of the latest Niapele news.

I encourage you to subscribe to the feed, or by email - seriously! We're continually striving to improve our communication with you, and we welcome your feedback and comments.

The Niapele News Blog!

GiveMeaning to The Niapele Project

theniapeleproject

Check out our newest fundraising platform at GiveMeaning - besides making a donation, we are very grateful to people who blog for us and help us spread the word. Visit the page, check it out! Thanks for helping us make a difference in the lives of refugee children.

The Stateless Refugees

Recently, Kristin left a comment asking this
"This is probably a really dumb question but I am wondering why a lot of refugees do not want to become citizens of Ghana? It sounds like a lot of them want to go to an alternate country. Why would that be? It is clear that they don't want to have to pay taxes but they will have to pay taxes wherever they end up! Is there another reason that I am unaware of? To me, I would think they would want to stay there and actually become part of the Ghanaian community after having lived there for so many years..."

First of all, it's definitely not a dumb question, and it touches on one of the most difficult - yet crucially important - dimensions of refugee issues.

Before delving into a long winded explanation, let me answer her question very directly:

Liberian refugees already pay taxes - those "hidden" taxes such as VAT or excise duties collected on gas, tobacoo and alcohol. Do they benefit from Ghanaian public aid or social services? No - there are not eligible. I dont believe Ghana has an income tax - a lot of developing nations do not have that kind of tax. In any case, refugees would love to become integrated into Ghanain society, if they thought that was a possibility. Most refugees want to be resettled abroad - they call it "travelling". A lot of people are convinced they will "travel" and life will be better then - except that countries like the US, Norway and Australia, which have already accepted a number of refugees, are no longer carrying out resettlement programs - a reality which refugees simply do not accept or believe (The UNHCR Global Appeal - mentionned below - makes note of this problem). In any case, as I explain below, none of the different options available to these refugees offer a simple, realistic solution.

In protracted refugee situations - like the one in Buduburam - where the country of origin is no longer at war, and where people should, in theory, relinquish their refugee status and return home, dynamics at play often warp this seemingly simple reality.

It's not a matter of "let's pack our bags and go home, the war is over". For those who have been away from Liberia for a decade, "home" is a hazy concept. "Home" stopped existing when their sister/mother/wife/daughter was raped and killed before their eyes in their home - you don't return to that kind of home. Nonetheless, the UNHCR, as well as the Liberian and Ghanaian governments (but all for different reasons) are very eager for the Liberian refugees to leave Ghana and return to their country.

The UNHCR 2008-2009 Global Appeal document discusses future options for refugees. First of all, it grossly underestimates the number of refugees living in Buduburam. They talk about 40,000 refugees in Ghana, and 24,000 Liberians in Buduburam. These numbers are based on the results produced by the "verification exercise" that the UNHCR carried out in January 2007, an exercise rife with irregularities. Many refugees are not registered with the UNHCR, and aren't counted; some use a friend's ID card to register; others have more than one ID card. I personally met dozens of people who were not being counted, because they are not "officially" refugees - UNHCR seems to have stopped giving refugee status to people fleeing their country at some point. There is no way to know - but a lot of people suggest there is in fact at least twice the official number of registered refugees living in Buduburam.

The stated goals of the 2007 UNHCR Global Appeal are laudable – to repatriate as many willing/capable Liberians to their country, and, in turn, to focus on self-reliance initiatives starting in August 2007, when the last voluntary repatriation took place. Programs meant to increase the self-reliance of refugees and to integrate them into Ghanaian society have been enshrined as the main objective for UNHCR in their 2008-2009 Global Appeal. Unfortunately, this strategy is misguided, for the simple reason that the reality of the situation is such that these goals are, I believe, unachievable.

While the rationale for voluntary repatriation is perfectly logical and, in the long run, the only viable solution for war displaced people, it seems that taking the reality of the situation is not being taken into account at an institutional level, and that arbitrary decisions are being made on behalf of a heterogeneous group of people. A number of people on camp left Liberia over 15 years ago, following the first civil war in 1989, and have never returned to Liberia. Others came at that time, returned to Liberia in the mid-90s, only to be subjected to a new round of violent conflict, forcing them to seek refuge again between 2003 and 2005.

In July 2006, “high-level” Liberian officials visited Buduburam, as part of the UNHCR effort to convince people to move back to Liberia:

“Accompanied by UNHCR representatives, the delegates held open meetings with members of the two refugee communities in the hope of persuading undecided Liberians to return home and contribute to national reconstruction. They said they were impressed by the wide range of skills and expertise many of the refugees had picked up.

The main concerns of the refugees, some of whom had not been home in 16 years, included shelter and employment opportunities. Johnson told refugees in Buduburam about democratic progress in Liberia, including the election last year of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, adding that lack of teachers, health-care workers and construction crews was a great opportunity for the skilled refugees. "If Her Excellency the president is making an appeal for you to come back home, she is doing it against the background that when you return, there are measures in place to absorb you. Obviously, if there isn't, you'll be idle and there'll be trouble and she doesn't want trouble," the minister said last Thursday.”

If the lack of teachers and health workers is a “great opportunity” for the Liberian refugees, perhaps it helps explain their unwillingness to return - to construe this lack of capacity and services as an “opportunity” borders on hypocrisy. Furthermore, can Buduburam residents be blamed for doubting the guarantee of “absorption measures”, in a country that is struggling to provide basic necessities to its population?

Understandably, the refugees have serious doubts as to whether returning to Liberia only 3 years after “peace” has been declared, only 2 years after legitimate elections occurred, is what is best for them. Many of the refugees still have relatives or friends in Liberia, who they are in touch with, and it seems that the general consensus is that while they ultimately would like to go back to Liberia, they do not want to back now. The most common answer when asked is, “oh, perhaps in 2 or 3 years.” Clearly, this attitude can be perpetuated, and every year, refugees can push back the date that they wish to go back to Liberia.

But while conditions in Liberia have certainly improved, there are still nearly 15,000 peacekeepers, the new police and army forces are only just being organized, electricity has just been brought to Monrovia (and remains unaffordable or unavailable for most), official unemployment is 85%, and 80% of the population live below the poverty line. To bring the country back on its feet, “Ellen” – as the President is universally referred to – only had an annual budget of $129 million last year.

Of course, individual perceptions cannot all be taken into account by the UNHCR and other relevant authorities, but it seems that enforcing a universal voluntary repatriation program in conjunction with an end to aid, is not the solution to ensure that the camp’s inhabitants will all return to Liberia, because they will not. Many see that the $5/person, the bag of rice, blanket, gallon of oil and other provisions are by no means sufficient for them to return to their home and start a new life – and who can blame them? First of all, their home, their village may have been wiped out, leaving them – very literally – homeless. Secondly, as stated above, considering the enormous challenges that the Liberian authorities are faced with in terms of provision of public goods, it is hardly surprising that most do not want to go back. The paradox is that while water and electricity are unaffordable to a lot of people on camp – an unacceptable, unsustainable situation – at least the supply of these goods exists, which is not necessarily the case in their home region. Similarly, while the situation on camp is rife with hardship and struggle, many feel that repatriating to Liberia will only worsen their current situation, which has the merit of being predictable, and which they are now “used to.”

Economic opportunities in and around the camp are more or less inexistent. While Ghanaians themselves are already struggling to meet their needs, it seems that Ghana will have a hard time providing opportunities for development for the Liberian community. The business venture providing water in the camp relies on Liberians for distribution, and a number of people sell water to generate income. But how many refugees can sell water before the market is saturated, before supply overtakes demand, and all the people living on water revenue re-enter the cycle of poverty?

In its 2007 Global Appeal, the UNHCR notes that voluntary repatriation efforts will be phased out by June 2007, and that the Ghanaian government has “indicated it may consider local integration when the number of refugees has been significantly reduced” That the government of Ghana has “indicated” it “may consider local integration” does not by any stretch of the imagination suggest that the government of Ghana is in fact seriously planning on “local integration efforts.” From my conversations with many people on camp, discrimination against Liberians in Ghana is rampant. Ghana itself has a huge unemployment problem to deal with, and the idea that its economy can absorb over 40,000 people is not realistic. The last time citizenship was granted to a Liberian refugee was in the 1990s. For ANY government to be expected to take charge for such a significant amount of refugees is unrealistic.

In the 2008-2009 Global Appeal, the UNHCR suggests it will work with the Ghanaian government to insure local integration takes place, and that the camp structures become the responsibility of the local authorities. Ha! Seriously. And - to top it off - they will spend a whole $20,000 on "income generation programs". $20,000? That's less than The Niapele Project's annual budget. Give. me. a. break.

Essentially, while the concerted effort by the UNHCR, the Governments of Liberia and Ghana and all other relevant authorities to essentially put a term to the refugee situation in Ghana is by all means necessary, in the short and medium term, the reality is that these policies are in fact hurting the refugees. The desire to restore their human dignity by allowing the refugees to become self-reliant and independent should be the ultimate goal, but not at the expense of these people’s livelihoods. The reduction - and ultimately the disappearance - of international aid will probably not be replaced by governmental social services, and refugees who will no longer be refugees but not Ghanaian either - stateless people - will be left to their own devices.

Support The Niapele Project without spending a penny!

This will really take you no more than 2 or 3 minutes - we need 100 people to vote for us before March 1st so we can be eligible to raise money through Give Meaning.

Click here
theniapeleproject to support us!