Whose responsibility is it to protect.

A very interesting debate between my comrades on the legality of intervention has prompted me to ask Whose responsibility is it to protect because when one looks out of the window the globe does not seem to be a global village but rather a global jungle engulfed in current ideological extremism and conflicts in Central African Republic, Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eastern Chad, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Kashmir. The challenges facing these states as well as the intentional community are thus not limited to dealing with the recurring cycles of violence in these countries but also include the chronic poverty that accompanies this violence. Also terrorists groups namely the al-Qaeda Organization in the Maghreb (AQIM) or al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Islamic Salvation Front (Fis), Jamat Tawhid Wal Jihad Fi Garbi Afriqqiya (Movement for Monotheism and Jihad in West Africa) and al-Shabaab all these groups are challenging the international order as we know it now in the name of justice. One asks can human security establish an unblemished free political order?  

The map below shows current conflicts worldwide.

The most distinct feature of the international system today is interdependence—Fostered by advancements in communication and transportation technology, integrated markets and increasingly irrelevant borders, and globalization which is the engine behind this interdependence as drastically transformed traditional security to reflect the changes and needs in our international system. Among the variety of transformations observed is the concept of human security which places its emphasis on the individual rather than the state. However, recent events indicate that the state is still the primary emphasis as a unit of organization.

Human Security is anchored within international law on humanitarian intervention. International law spells out the basis for intervention embodied in 3 principles:

There is convincing evidence of extreme, large-scale humanitarian distress;

There is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved;

The use of force must be proportionate and aimed at relieving a human crisis.

To those of us who are students of politics, human security presents the unorthodox approach that the international community needs to meet the challenges that we face today. These challenges include trafficking of weapons, transitional crime, piracy, terrorism, terrorist breeding grounds and sanctuaries, rear bases for warlords, refugee overflows, and protracted conflicts that not only threaten regional but global peace and security. Human security seeks to build governments that endeavor to make a real difference in people’s lives this includes security, basic services and job creation. Human security also calls for building functional governments with the capacity of ensuring law and order.

Human security looks at all the above variables as threats to regional and global peace and lends its security, material and moral support to deal with these threats during, before or after they happen. In human security we find the principles of freedom from want (material well-being) and freedom from fear (security) which is people centered and necessary. Freedom from fear as the term is often used refers to protecting individuals from violent conflict that has its roots in poverty, weak state institutions and other forms of inequality. Freedom from want on the other hand places its emphasis on eradicating hanger and disease because they have the potential to cause economic, social and political instability. Freedom from fear and want are consistent with the obligation of the state to look after the welfare of its citizens. This brings us full cycle whose responsibility is it when a state cannot meet its obligation and whose responsibility is it in achieving Human security. 

 

 

My Quarrel with “Dead Aid” written by Dambisa Moyo

Dambisa Moyo argues that aid (development aid) is the cause of Africa’s underdevelopment. This argument hardly holds water.

Correlating Africa’s underdevelopment to aid betrays a misunderstanding of the malignant nature of poverty -not even to mention that correlation doesn’t necessarily explain causation. According to her,“the answer to Africa’s economic underdevelopment has its roots in aid.” (P.6)

Thus Africa’s underdevelopment is not caused by;

Rampant poverty?

Lack of Infrastructural development?

Absence of Foreign Direct Investment?

HIV aids?

Poor governance?

Tropical Diseases like Malaria?

Famine?

Geographic Impediments?

Lack of access to markets?

Absence of technology?

Structural Adjustments Programs (SAPS)?

Illiteracy?

Poor sanitation which contributes to high mortality rate?

Geopolitics; e.g. Cold War when the West was more concerned in maintaining regimes like Mobutu’s at the expense of economic development in Africa?

None of the above explain Africa’s underdevelopment but aid, according to Moyo. In other words, if we simply stop aid, Africa’s economic development will take off like an eagle?

She does not seem to grasp the multicausal nature of poverty.

On the face of it, I find such an argument weak, but most importantly, it betrays her failure in understanding the root causes of poverty and the malignant dynamics of the poverty trap. Cancelling the debt is one part of the equation. And debt cancellation in and of itself will not bring economic development to the continent.

The other part of the equation requires the following;

1. Rich countries need to make good on their promise to raise development aid to 0.7% of their GNP. This promise was made in Monterrey in 2002. This amount is necessary to start denting poverty not only in Africa but around the world. This amount of aid is critical to have those living in extreme poverty have their feet on the first rung of the ladder of economic development as it will make it possible to target infrastructural deficiencies, combat illiteracy, improve agricultural production by raising crop yield, assault malaria and HIV aids. Such a concerted effort will generate the much-needed economic growth needed to lift people out of poverty.

2. Such commitment ought to be sustainable over a defined period of time. According to Jeffrey Sachs, who did an amazing job studying and understanding the dynamics of poverty, the period ought to be at least 10 years.

3. More accountability for the use of aid as it has been poorly structured and squandered. Both aid donors and aid recipients share responsibility for this. During the Cold War, aid was not a sincere attempt to take on poverty in Africa. Those giving aid had as political calculus maintaining clientelist regime in their camp hence accountability for aid usage was the least of their preoccupation, let alone ending poverty in Africa.

Furthermore, Dambisa Moyo swims into contradictions. She argues, rightly so, that aid has been misused by some regimes in Africa. For example, Mobutu. This is a classic example of aid misused for personal enrichment which ought not to be repeated. But yet, she dives into contraction arguing, the Continent needs “Benevolent Despots” to push for reforms.

How many benevolent despots will the continent need to pull out of poverty? She doesn’t say.

How long is benevolent despotism supposed to reign on the continent? The reader is left to guess.

How do we control for “Benevolence” in a putative despot? She is unresponsive.

How do we distinguish a “benevolent despot” from Mobutu, Paul Biya, Blaise Compaore, Eyademas in Togo, Bongos in Gabon, ObiangNguema in Equatorial Guinea, the very despots who have squandered aid? She has yet to enlighten us.

I cannot understand how and why she would start by arguing that aid has been mismanaged by the likes of Mobutu and turn around to advocate for benevolent despots in Africa. That strikes me as counter intuitive as Africa needs more accountability not less.

In the final analysis, her book does a great disservice to the cause of ending poverty and underdevelopment in Africa. It fails to run what Jeffrey Sachs calls a “differential diagnostics” to determine and demonstrate the multicausal nature of poverty and its malignant nature.

Worse still, her book is peddling racist stereotypes which explain Africa’s underdevelopment as the result of laziness on the part of Africans.

“Aid engenders laziness on the part of African policymakers.”(P. 66)

Ironically, halfway true her book she had an epiphany arguing; “However worthwhile the goal to reduce and even eliminate aid is, it would not be practical or realistic to see aid immediately drop to zero. Nor, in the interim, might it be desirable.”(P. 76)

Had she started by that realization maybe, just maybe, the book would have added something more in understanding the multicausal nature of poverty and bring forth some meaningful suggestions.

Edwile Vedel M.

Short Response to Edwile’s Quarrel with “Dead Aid” written by Dambisa Moyo

I think it’s disingenuous of my colleague to discredit Moyo’s take on aid and I think to suggest that she doesn’t grasp the poverty on the continent shows a total disregard of her contribution in understanding the relationship between developmental aid and Africa’s underdevelopment. I don’t think Moyo is conclusive that ending aid will lead development, but rather she rightfully says that aid is part of the problem among the many such as leadership and the other problems Edwile points out. I think Edwile has wasted a lot of intellectual capital trying to disprove what some of us already know him included that Africa’s underdevelopment has many moving parts. If Edwile wants answers on the other problems he should find other sources because I think Moyo’s book is specific with aid and not addressing all the problems that Africa is mired in.

Think about it if African leadership was serious enough to utilize its natural resources without the endemic corruption in which millions of dollars are lost annually then sure it is no rocket science that Africa wouldn’t need that much developmental aid. It is evident now that Africa’s endemic corruption is holding Africa hostage developmental wise. Our national budgets are overly reliant on aid as if we cannot harness our own resources. The question Edwile must ask is in spite of all the aid that has been poured into Africa why hasn’t Africa achieved the necessary economic development or traded itself out of perpetual poverty.

For the past 40 years or so African countries have been with the help of aid trying to attain self sustaining national economies, create markets and industries that would generate economic growth and development. In spite of that fact our manufacturing is in limbo we still produce raw materials that we cannot manufacture into final products.

This notion that Africa needs aid in order to develop is misplaced what Africa in my view needs is good leadership that is honest and can manage people’s expectation and ready to offer an ideological orientation that does not undermined Africa’s growth. In a nut shall aid eradication isn’t Africa’s answer to development or reducing poverty, but rather its one of the many tools in the tool kit that can force governments to think creatively and be responsible and accountable to how the national coffers are managed.

To be fair Edwile implicitly raises a question of how Africa has been betrayed by poor leadership on a number of fronts chief among them aid. African people need reliable governments that can deliver on the promise of development, prosperity and self-reliance for the people short of that we will be debating whether Moyo is RIGHT or WRONG on aid. Can African governments work for us and restore hope in our eyes.

Denis Bogere. 

The American Dream “Steal Chasing It”

I use STEAL instead of STILL to highlight its elusiveness. Below is how people from diffrent circles feel about the American Dream.

America is the land of opportunity; the American Dream ideology informs us; the place where if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. The American dream ideology has hampered solidarity among the poor. The dream proclaims that anything is possible as long as a person works hard and long enough he/she can make it. I might argue that masks the inherent social, political and economic differences in America, by projecting an illusion that we live in a meritocracy with hopes for a better tomorrow, if that tomorrow comes. So we are taught that in order to achieve the American dream we must work hard, get an education, and find a good job, I guess this explains why some us are in school in order to participate in the American Dream. May be God willing we can achieve that elusive dream. As a result people do not question their place in the society if they believe that one day they will achieve upward class mobility. For capitalism to work effectively, companies and the government need individuals to socialize with the American Dream ideology. This market conformity is exemplified by Nobel (1997) when he attributes the lack of mobilization to social class between the business class and labor, government institutions (federalism), and race (individualistic political culture which is embedded in the American dream ideology) For example, government programs enacted to combat inequality do nothing more than maintain the status quo because these programs must be market conforming in which labor is weak. This partly explains the lack of a strong labor movement in America which has left the working class unorganized resulting into law class consciousness, hence high divisions amongst the class hierarchies, suggesting that American identity is more rooted in race rather than social class. In fact I might add that race is not the problem but racism is. Thus, the lack of a strong social class movement in America may help explain why today people are not demanding more from government. The graph below shows wealth distrubtion in America.

This is also evident in our immigration policy that tends to turn Americans against each other. In fact Kymlicka and Banting (2006) argue that solidarity is central for both having and expanding welfare. Thus, Kymlicka and Banting contend that increase in immigration decreases solidarity and decreases social welfare spending because it tends to divide people, echoing back to the issue of deservedness but in this case immigrants’ vs native. This can also be attributed to America’s contemporary history of racial relations. Furthermore, Kymlicka and Banting argue that the politicization of immigration, multiculturalism to be exact in which the failure to embrace our differences has unintended consequences of decrease in solidarity. As well as Dulio et al (2009) suggest that the lack of efficacy or the mistrust of poor people can be attributed to prior negative experiences with the government which can undermined their mobilization. As a result poor people are less inclined to be involved in shaping an effective government social policy if they believe that the government will not listen and represent their interests. For example TANF does not only shed light on the tensions between the poor but also that negative experience in which say questions of how many sexual partners a recipient has, and when was the last time a recipient had sex, leaves a bad test in the recipients mouth which prevents collective mobilization. During the Clinton administration, many citizens called for welfare reform because of their belief in individual responsibility and meritocracy. For many Americans, the policy reinforces the belief that individuals should work for what they receive. The primary goal was to reduce the number of people dependent on government support in lieu of employment. Many Americans assumed, from the resulting emphasis on self-sufficiency through employment, that wages were the way out of poverty. TANF, does not consider the job market, and lack of quality, and good paying jobs. The Idea of American Dream Ideology is a glass half empty or half full.

Related articles

• The American dream by Annie (americandr3am.wordpress.com)
• Chasing Your Version Of “The American Dream” (joedegiorgio.com)
• 21 Mind-Blowing Facts: Rising Government Dependence in America (directorblue.blogspot.com)
• Chase the American Dream (shenssite.wordpress.com)
• Working Poor-Poverty in America: The New Poor and Old Poor (denisbogere.wordpress.com)

Culture the Heart of Africa

When I blogged on the importance of elections a number of you challenged me on that and raised the question of the economics and culture. Setting aside the quality of African democracy, in relationship to elections one ought to consider the political, economic and cultural history of Africa’s dilemma with democratic rule. And as rightfully so questions were raised whether Africa had a viable alternative to democracy and whether Africa needs it, hence where did Africa go wrong.

I look at democracy as encompassing the economics and politics and culture. Democracy is a quintessentially contested issue as it is evident from the responses. How democracy is understood and interpreted is an issue that is up for intense discussion and I will leave it for your own conclusions. To me I see democracy as a culture and culture is a receptor in which different elements or variables such as the form of government people want can be plugged, and that does not mean that the variables will work. Africa’s tragedy as it relates with democracy starts right at its independence from colonial rule.

Present day African States at some point in time were empires, kingdoms and chiefdoms that had their traditional political, economic and social structures that made them independent and autonomous. However on the eve of independence of African countries from their colonizers these traditional structures or institutions were deemed archaic and seen as obstacles to the newly independent nation-states. As a result wrangling between various ethnic groups and allied interests over the fate of the newly independent states in the post colonial order produced various regimes on the continent from Authoritarianism, Military Rule, Neopatrimonialism, and “Big Men” regimes of the likes of Gnassingbe Eyadema – Togo, Idi Amin Dada – Uganda, Jean-Bedel Bokassa – CAR and Mobutu Sese Seko – [Zaire] Congo and the list goes during the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s and now to illegal electoral democracies and so-called hybrids.

It should be noted that these entities prior to their dismantling had political, economic and social administrative power to govern. They had their own courts, ability to collect tax from their people and deep ethnic cleavages that provided legitimacy for the kings and chiefs to govern. In the new modern state kingships were regulated to cultural figure heads without political, economic and administrative power. After four decades of post colonial governance in Africa as the map below from the Economist indicates most of the African countries are weak nation states.

The implication being that if you’re a kin observer of history it should not take long to realize that culture is and should be part of Africa’s ideological dispensation. Culture is a receptor in which different elements of various political and economic ideologies can germinate and each and every culture has one, although to the eye of a common observer this may not be apparent. Culture accepts or rejects given aspects of political and economic ideologies.

The failure of earlier leaders and yes to a certain extent we; to look at kingdoms or culture as a means of addressing the political, economic challenges of African solely lie on our feet. Basically we started from scratch in building institutions in Africa yet we had kingdoms and due to their long traditions already had a culture that had habits and practices or political culture that current institutions lack.

In the end Tradition and Modernity are not antithetical to each other and we should be ready to use these institutions that the common man identifies with to curve out an African Ideology that at its core meets the developmental needs of the nation-state and must work for working families. Otherwise the experiment of nation-state so far as proven to be a challenge because it hasn’t delivered on its promise. In fact Thabo Mbeki’s Letter on the need for an African Renaissance at its core speaks of an African Ideological dispensation deep rooted in our culture that yes recognizes the progress made in modern times but also looks at how our cultural heritage can be used to spur growth and development and also protect those gains if any.

Recource and Conflict Part II

Diamonds and oil are one example of a long list of African resources that have caused conflict despite international efforts designed to mitigate the impact of resources on conflict. Resource conflict countries such as Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Angola point to a stark truth: the conventional approach to understanding the relationship between resources and conflict is not complete and has gaps to fill. In doing so I started by looking at the Resource Curse Paradigm and I look at the last 2 below. Probably this can shed light on the many causes of conflict within resource rich countries and that no one size fits all in dealing with resource based conflicts.

Resource conflict: posits that conflict emanates from the incompatible claims to the resource in question, that is who has the right to the resource in question. These incompatible claims emanate from various sources such as resource exploitation, compensation, exploration and environmental degradation. Thus, conflict arises from the revenues generated and how these revenues are allocated. The prism of the resource conflict is that the discovery and the excavation of the resource itself can lead to conflict arising from the allocation of revenues (rents) from the resource. That is the inability of governments to deal fairly with the economic and political interests of groups pertaining to the resource in question can increase the likelihood of conflict.

Resource Conflict: Resource Based Causes of Conflict.

Source: Natural resources and conflict in Africa: the tragedy of endowment (Abiodun 2007).

Resource Accessibility: posits that conflict emanates from the opportunity in terms of the revenues the resource provides and how easily accessible the resource is.  In essence, conflict is caused by the outrage and sense of injustice over the fact that the resource is stolen or unfairly appropriated. Conflict emanates where opportunities exist for easy access to the resource in question and the rent-seeking generated from the resource. The core argument of resource accessibility is purely about greed, that is, greed is the primary motivator of the conflict and the conflict may have nothing to do with incompatible claims to the resource in question. Thus, the “lootability” of the resource in question and the opportunity it offers for revenues increases the likelihood of violence. Resource Accessibility has to do with access to the resources and the opportunity the resources provide for revenues and thus attracting various interest groups.

Resource Accessibility: Resource Based Causes of Conflicts

Source: Natural resources and conflict in Africa: the tragedy of endowment (Abiodun 2007).

Resource Curse, Resource conflict and Resource Accessibility and the several empirical and systematic studies done on resources and conflict bring out the complexities between conflict and valuable mineral resources such as diamonds and oil. In some cases, the connection between resources and conflict works through the resource curse in which natural resource abundance impedes economic development and leads to conflict. In other cases the connection between resources and conflict works through resource conflict and can be seen when groups within a state challenge the ownership claim of the central government over the valuable resource in question. In other cases the connection between resources and conflict works through resource accessibility in which groups take the opportunity for personal enrichment. This to me is the basis by which resources and conflict should be understood and addressed.

Resource and Conflict

There are three major arguments about conflict and natural resources. For this blog I will discuss the Resource curse and in the preceding blogs I will discus the other 2 arguments.

 Resource Curse: There is a negative relation between the mere abundance of natural resources, quality of institutions, and economic growth.

Resource based Causes of Conflict

Source: Natural resources and conflict in Africa: the tragedy of endowment (Abiodun 2007).

The “resource curse” or “paradox of plenty” (Karl, 1997), hypothesizes that there is a negative relation between the abundance of natural resources, quality of institutions, and economic growth. Some Scholars have taken the resource curse thesis further by positing that resource dependence creates an atmosphere conducive for the emergence of conflicts via its negative impact on economic performance and the quality of governing institutions. That is countries that are heavily dependent on natural resources as a share of their gross domestic product (GDP) tend to neglect other major sectors of the economy, resulting into financial problems. For instance Nigeria and Sudan economies are oil economies, that is, their economies are heavily reliant on oil revenues as oil-exporting countries with no other substantial economic sectors in existence.

Normally countries with resource endowment tend not only to make heavy investments in the extraction of the resource at the cost of developing other sectors of the economy such as manufacturing but also essential public and social services such as health and education to its citizens are neglected. Such countries according to the resource curse thesis are conflict prone. This is so because the countries are exposed to the volatility of the commodity prices on the world market. A decline in the GDP as a share of the primary export generated from the mineral resource may create domestic pressures for these countries since they don’t have other sectors of the economy that would act as bulwarks to the boom and bust of the commodity prices on the world market. Resource abundance/wealth has to do with when the resource constituting a high production as a primary commodity for a country’s export.