However, there is definitely another side to food aid. Instead of presenting the bread ready-made, International Aid should give the country wheat to reap and sow the bread themselves. This would not only score ‘self-sufficient points’, but also gives continuous nutrition to people who need it at convenience. At present, because of the WFO’s (World Food Organization) program, the refugees residing in Tanzania are receiving an 80% food ration. Some are even receiving a full 100%! This is due to the government assigning small plots of land to them upon arrival. These plots allow them to grow their own crops and make hunger their own responsibility, rather than the governments’. Another example of sustainable food aid is the incident in Bosnia, where the three year war (beginning in 1992) had damaged the agricultural aspect of Bosnia the most. From then on, early aid efforts focused on the most vulnerable parts of the country. Over three years, FAO's Special Relief Operations Service dispersed over 15,000 tons of seed (such as barley, wheat, potatoes and onions), 300,000 vegetable packs, and 7000 tons of fertilizer to the most affected farmers and such in the country. The aid provided instant relief and maintained a hunger-free record for quite a while after. Since 1996, the FAO has strived to arrange a seed production and maintenance network in Bosnia. Sponsored by the UNDP (United Nation’s Development Program), the organization aims to increase the local production of high-quality commercial seed. Only good can come of this, wouldn’t one say? However, to every cloud there’s not only a silver lining, but a thick grey one too. The refugee situation in Tanzania, or anywhere for that matter, is not ideal, though; in order for the refugees to make sufficient amount of food, the government must give them more land. However, this is what the government is afraid to do, in case refugees find lifestyle so comfortable that they end up living there permanently. Although many benefits come with food aid in general, certain conflict arises and instead of a necessary rise in economy, a standstill or decline forms.
The advantages of financial aid are very similar to food aid. Obviously it helps countries greatly to ‘get back up on their two feet’ when they’re in trouble. This relief can be for any type of problem, since it is said that ‘money makes the world go round’. Financial aid can also cause problems though; unlike food aid, financial aid problems do not depend on the helpers, but the countries themselves and how they wish to spend the money. The temporary way of spending financial aid would be to spend it on temporary problems. An example of this is of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, an estimated 7.5 million are affected by war and drought and are doomed to face harsh winters. 1.5 million of these people are young children under the age of five. Since September 11th, the situation has greatly worsened, and about 200,000 people have sought refuge since. The circumstances have been described as a crisis of “stunning proportions”. The UN’s estimation that $10 billion was needed over the next 10 years initiated a meeting between the world’s powers. It was decided that $4.5 billion needed to be pledged to Afghanistan within the next couple years. The UN was in for a shock when it so happened that the beginning donation of $20 million was consumed last week paying the country’s 170,000 civil servants, teachers and health workers for the very first time in six months. This is a prime example of temporary financial aid, where the money gets spent unbelievably rapidly. This solves one problem, but doesn’t help to rebuild the economy.
The other way of exhausting financial aid is to invest towards the future of the country. This is generally the smartest way to keep the aid as a long term effect. Investing aid can range from the setting up of organizations, to programs that develop infrastructure within the countries. This is why the war and famine-stricken Afghanistan is beginning to request long term aid, and alleged at a conference in Norway that they wished to be granted assistance with infrastructural projects, rather than short term aid such as food and medicine. “We would like to ask the member states to continue to assist us with rehabilitation and reconstruction by funding long-term recovery," stated President Hamid Karzai of Afganistan. It is quite evident by this that realization is hitting hard on countries all over the world. Wisdom through experience is transpiring, and the acumen of aid is growing. In many countries, though, the problem is not short term or long term aid; the problem is corruption. Much of the donated money to the country ends up in the pockets of government officials. At present, however, there are several NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) that donate funds to countries that need it. These organizations are non-profit, which displays the maturity the world has gained throughout the years.
Centuries ago, aid was substantiated as a weapon within world conflict. Countries used aid as a way of forming allies, which became a very useful tool in a world issue (which is generally one major popularity contest). Now, aid occurs for less selfish reasons. Although aid definitely exists with good intentions and does help a country to some extent, too much of it can spoil the country and deteriorate its independence. Since now Africa is starting to realize the importance of long-term sustainability, they are taking slow but sure steps to determine future development. One of their big focuses at present is to have more trade, especially with the developed countries, instead of just receiving aid (the overall short term solution). Trade is also a better option for ELDCs because the investments received from this are very beneficial. This is because it is seen as an injection into the economy, in which the “illness” begins to fade away as “health” improves. Trading between internationals also brings new products into the market. From a rich country to a poor, the products that are sold bring up the poor country’s technology benchmark by a notch, and thus follows an eventual rise of the standard of living.
From these facts and arguments laid out, would one say that International Aid is effective? There are many advantages and disadvantages to the subject, and the issue is rather disputed all over. A World Bank Analysis of 56 internationally aided countries recorded that those with “good policies” (low inflation, a budget surplus and an open-mindedness towards trade) and “good institutions” (little corruption, a good determination of law, and good governmental rule) found International aid extremely advantageous. Therefore, it can safely be proclaimed that countries with genuine commitment to economic administration and go “by the book” will find aid an effective element. Despite this, however, trade will always be more constructive towards an economy than aid, whether it is in Africa or not.
Bibliography