What makes Eritrea - that coastal country on the Red Sea next to
Ethiopia -- the most unusual in Africa, if not the world, is that it doesn't
like foreign aid.
Unusual, too, in that while it's the world's newest independent state
(1993) and one of Africa's poorest countries, it's also the safest, least
corrupt, most self-reliant. This, despite being engaged in a border dispute
with Ethiopia, whom it defeated in war and won independence from a decade ago.
Compare Eritrea to, say, South Africa, arguably the most dangerous country
in Africa: As far as crime and internal violence are concerned, Eritrea is
tranquility. It has nothing, yet it has everything; its citizens like one
another.
|
|
| Women make up 30% of the Eritrean army -- in the front line with men, even commanding platoons. Inset, a woman soldier has a "V" for victory tattooed on her arm. Photos by Peter Worthington, SUN |
Due to its wartime experiences when it was abandoned by most of the outside
world, Eritrea has developed a spirit of confidence and self-reliance that
some interpret as neo-arrogance and friendly paranoia. They listen to advice,
but decide for themselves.
Through Isaias Afewerki, its wartime leader and now president, Eritrea has
taken a lead in Africa with regards to foreign aid and women's rights which
other countries, and not only African ones, could benefit by studying.
Eritrea believes foreign aid breeds both corruption and dependency.
Although poor (in 1993 the World Bank figured the annual average Eritrean
income was less than $150), Eritrea accepts foreign aid only under certain
circumstances.
It sees how foreign aid in some countries has been used to keep
dictatorial, repressive regimes in power; how it thwarts social and political
change. The power structure of foreign aid programs often sets the agenda for
recipient countries. When people (and states) become dependent on aid, they
stop helping themselves.
To offset what it sees as dangerous and seductive programs, Eritrea insists
that foreign aid be administered by Eritreans and not by foreigners. It does
not want independent operators deciding how things should be done, but wants
Eritreans responsible. The providers of funds are expected to work through
Eritreans.
CORRUPTION PERSONIFIED
This is fine, providing there are competent, honest Eritreans doing the
planning and administering. Back in the '70s, Western aid givers considered it
patronizing and demeaning to dictate how aid should be spent. What the world
got as a result was Tanzania, the prototype for abundant, wasteful, misused
and useless aid programs. Today Tanzania is a basket case of lethargy and
poverty, despite being the largest recipient of aid.
Kenya too, is corruption personified with pot-holed streets beneath
skyscrapers and millions of foreign-aid dollars.
There's a message here for Canada, whose philosophy on foreign aid, as
reflected by CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) is to scatter
$2.5 billion among 143 countries (50 in Africa) and regions world-wide. Some
get more than others (Eritrea gets a puny $3 million, Ethiopia around $27
million).
The Netherlands, on the other hand, targets some $3 billion US in aid to
poor countries it feels will benefit most -- 78 countries down from 119 last
year -- 18 of which are in Africa.
Canada should also focus programs more. Why Canadian aid goes to impossible
regimes like Angola, Zimbabwe, Congo, Sudan, Cuba, Afghanistan, Indonesia,
Myanmar (Burma) and China, to mention a few, defies logic. Why not concentrate
it on countries where there's movement towards human values we respect?
Why not divert the $19 million we waste in Afghanistan, and the $26 million
to Indonesia, Burkina Faso's $16 million, Zimbabwe's $12 million, all of which
achieve nothing, and concentrate on helping countries that will use it wisely?
Eritrea, the hope of Africa, the Caribbean, certain Asian countries? But no,
that's not the Canadian way.
When Eritrea accepted European Union aid to (re)build the 130-km highway
from Asmara to the vital coastal port of Massawa, to the astonishment of the
providers only 70% of the allotted budget was needed. The remaining 30% was
put to other uses -- repairing other roads and building houses.
Europeans had factored in bribes, waste and kickbacks in their funding, not
realizing that (as yet) there is no corruption in high places and Eritrean
decision-makers don't siphon off funds to Swiss bank accounts.
By law, NGOs (non-government organizations) and other development agencies
wishing to help Eritrea -- and boy, the country is needy -- must file
financial reports proving that only 10% of the money spent in Eritrea goes for
administration costs.
Eritrea is determined to avoid the lavish lifestyles traditional for some
aid agencies -- no fancy cars, no big houses, no exorbitant salaries for
locals.
Too often, when aid agencies pay salaries to local administrators that are
higher than the local rate, it means that the best and brightest prefer to
work for aid agencies rather than for the government and the country.
In Eritrea, aid agencies must only pay the local rate, and if the agency
isn't big enough to function on 10% of its budget, it can look for clients
elsewhere. Small aid agencies are encouraged to rely on local representatives,
and to periodically visit to ensure that funding is being efficiently used.
Money is saved all around.
DELICATE BALANCE
Even though it's been an independent state only since 1993 and is dirt poor
with enormous needs, Eritrea has already quietly asked certain agencies and
individuals to leave.
Also, Eritrea bans religious aid groups from funding projects in the name
of their religion. There is such a delicate balance of ethnic and religious
groups, that it won't risk religious aid tilting the balance. All aid and
involvement has to be secular -- no foreign religious group can finance
projects for their believers -- only secular projects that are
non-denominational or non-ethnic.
In its 30-year struggle against Ethiopian imperialism, various Eritrean
"liberation" movements got little outside help. (Ethiopia illegally annexed
Eritrea in 1961 after the UN made Eritrea a protectorate of Ethiopia, rather
as South Africa was given responsibility for South West Africa, now Namibia.)
The victorious EPLF (Eritrean People's Liberation Front) eventually
replaced the rival ELF (Eritrean Liberation Front) and its weaponry was all
captured from the Ethiopians. During the famine of the '80s it got little
humanitarian food aid, other than some from church groups, Oxfam and
Scandinavia.
The EPLF started out as a Marxist-style organization and evolved into a
social-democratic self-reliance. It set up its own relief agency which was
remarkably resourceful and effective.
| RETURN TO ERITREA: PART THREE |
|---|