Foreign Aid - Effect on Civil Conflict - Case Study Example

Foreign aid: effect on civil conflict. INTRODUCTION The United s has for over a century provided aid to both developed countries such as France and Germany and lesser developed such as most of Africa and those that were part of the old Soviet Union. While aid is at times given to entire countries, there are times such as Kosovo, and the Tutsi tribes that aid is given to a subset of a country. When given to a country, aid is an important part of diplomatic relations as it at times ensures the receiving country will assist the giving country if the need arises. However, due to the nature of foreign aid, many of the countries receiving are already in conflict either actively or inactively. Due to these conflicts, the need for aid is greater, which put the United States at an advantage over those in need. Diplomatically aid given by the United States is self assisting. When aid is given to a portion of the country due to unfair practices by the government, or feuding tribes, the overall diplomatic benefit to the United States is greatly diminished and at times actually puts the United States at odds with the government. Before any aid can be given, it is important to review how the aid will affect the civil conflict if there is one, and if there is not could it cause one. Even with research being done, there is a large chance that the aid will create a conflict rather than stop one already in progress. BODY The idea of giving aid is that the people or country should come out better for the aid, and not worse than they were before. This idea was lost on the United States government in the early 20th century when it was thought that giving aid was always beneficial and should be done without much thought. A perfect example of this was when the United States was providing substantial aid to both the allies and the axis powers during World War II prior to joining in the war. It was after this that the United States only gave aid to those already friendly or those who could prove to be a worthwhile ally such as South Korea. Beginning in the 1980s with the push to collapse the Soviet Union, it became apparent that old methods of who should receive aid were outdated and needed to be refreshed. It was during this time that the United States started to give countries that were not allies, nor were part of the larger international picture aid, such as Somalia and Libya. The belief was that with a strong outpouring of aid into these countries, the people would realize that democracy was the better government; therefore it could be considered a win for democracy worldwide. Over the past decades researches and experts in the field of civil conflicts and foreign aid have began to look at the cost benefit ratio of the United States providing aid. These experts have determined that there are specific criteria that need to be followed prior to releasing aid. In addition to criteria to determine if the aid will go to the right individuals or if the internal issues of the country will decrease the effectiveness of the aid been given. The four criteria that need to be reviewed prior to any aid being given are: the territory that the specific group or country has control over, the rivalries that exists between neighboring countries or fellow ethnic groups, the years that the country or group have been in need of aid, and the specific aid needed. Not only do these four things need to be considered before giving aid, but so do the following three “traps” especially when working with Africa; Conflict trap, commodity trap, and corruption trap. The territory that a country or group controls can be a source of tension and result detrimentally if the United States or fellow countries were to give them aid. This is due to the fact that if there is territory in dispute the aid may go towards combating the conflicting group versus helping those in need. Aid is to be given to those in need, and to better a country, not to set in motion the means to combat or kill a group of people over land. This conflict may not necessarily be over land but over ethnic heritage. One country wants a part of a country that is historically theirs, while the land is the sovereign property of another. A good example of this is the past conflict of the Ethnic Albanians versus the Ethnic Serbians. Following the cessation of the Bosnian War in 1995, it was hoped that everyone could live peacefully in this area. Kosovo had been an area that was part of Yugoslavia that had originally had complete autonomy. Many ethnic Albanians that lived in Yugoslavia had family in the Kosovo area, in fact there were many Kosovar Albanians during the late 1990s. When it was decided that Serbia was going to become Albanian free, many Yugoslavian and Serbian militants started to force or kill Albanians living outside Kosovo. However, Albanians were not innocent of killing and wounding many Serbians who resided in the Kosovo province. The United States under the UN banner stepped in and started to send aid to Kosovo. Ultimately the UN deployed military units to the area to calm the conflict. Without UN guidance and a plan to stop the conflict, aiding either side may have escalated the conflict and more individuals may have died. Therefore it is important to view the complete geographical situation before committing troops and/or aid. The second thing to look at is the rivalries if any that exist. This is similar to the territory argument but the issue with rivalries is that they may not actively be involved with conflict until the aid appears. Even after a civil conflict is over there may still be deep seated rivalries that exist which could very easily become another open conflict if an outside force is introduced. Sierra Leone is such a case were a civil conflict that revolved around the diamond trade not only affected the country but created an atmosphere of rivalry regarding the diamond trade and who should be in charge of this very profitable commodity (Grant, 443). If the G8 should go and support one side during the conflict, it would create issues as well. The rival who is receiving aid will therefore be able to use more resources to further their agenda. To decrease tensions it is important to understand what rivalries exist and how aid will impact those relationships. The amount of time that a country has been in need for aid can both assist and decrease a countries ability to receive aid. There are countries in South America that have been in need for decades due to poor governmental choices, or lack of natural resources. This causes instability in the area which can result in aid causing conflict. Countries like this will also without a change in politics or other influential matters. If the country or group needing aid does not actively look to change issues will always been in need of aid and that will create what is known as a welfare type situation (Michael, 62). These groups no longer need to change because they know that the United States or other countries will assist them when needed. The opposite of a welfare type situation is a group that needs immediate aid due to a specific event such as governmental overthrow or a natural disaster. Those countries that are in immediate need are less likely to have a conflict over aid unless there are not enough resources for all of those in need. This situation is usually less volatile situation than a country with constant aid. The last criterion to consider is the type of aid needed. Due to the type of aid needed could determine if there is a possibility for conflict. Food and water are more likely to create a conflict than things such as shelter and transportation. This is due to the fact that food and water are usually scarcer than shelter or transportation. In addition food and water can be bought and sold on the black market which increases the chances of conflict versus large immoveable types of aid. The aid that was given to refugees in Sudan and other African countries at times leads to conflict by the government due to the resources that are being given to those in refugee camps. The governments believe those resources could and should be used in other ways, specifically government led militaries and supporters. When the four things have been considered and aid has been designated for use, each receiving party needs to be free from “traps” that could hinder those in need from receiving the aid. The first and possibly the most important is the “Conflict Trap” which means if there is a chance that the aid will enact a conflict. Africa, although not the only area that is affected by the conflict trap, it is the area that experts use as an example in discussions regarding the effect that aid could cause (Collier, 191). Aid causes conflict if one group be it partisan or ethnic receives a large amount of aid, when another group in the same or similar situation receives none or little. A lack of resources be it natural or given will cause conflict as one group attempts to survive even if that is to the detriment of another group. The second trap is one of commodities. This has been referred to earlier in such cases of diamonds or other material resources such as oil, gold, and/or diamonds. Sierra Leone and Cote D’ Ivoire are both countries that have had and will continue to have civil conflicts due to having natural resources that are worth a large amount of money (Collier, 193). Specific ethnic groups or political parties are used by others to work without reaping the proper benefits. The result in situations like this is civil conflict between the haves and the have-nots. Knowing this information, by giving aid to one group could tip the balance and actually force a group into submission and therefore another requester for aid. To understand what commodities there are and how giving aid to one group could affect these resources could lessen any chance of having a commodity civil conflict. The last trap that is looked at prior to giving aid is the trap of corruption. Due to many areas that request aid are ran by corrupt tribal, military, and/or country leaders there is also a possibility of the aid never reaching the intended target population.(Collier, 192) This is seen in Africa a great deal as well as in South America. When it becomes impossible for the resources to get to the intended target without dealing with political or military power there is a good chance that corruption may occur.(Collier, 192) When the resources are able to be hand delivered directly, there is less of a chance for corruption to occur. Corruption occurs for a variety of reasons. One reason is that the leader does not want the target population to receive aid due to political or ideological difference. Another reason is that there is are limited resources in the entire area, and the leader wants to make sure that everyone who is a supporter, or part of a privileged class receives aid as well. There is also sadly plain greed where those in charge want to make money on those who are suffering. CONCLUSION Without a full awareness of how aid will affect a given area or group it is not something to be taken lightly. In some situations such as natural disaster or an ethnic group that has become refugees in another country it is an easier decision to give aid. Not only is an in depth study into each group requesting aid important but so is deciding who is going to be the ultimate payer of the aid. When a group is in such a situation that they are constantly requesting aid, it is costly to continue to aid them. In very few cases the action of giving aid will actually cause a conflict to stop, but there is a great chance that aid will cause a conflict. This topic is specifically important right now as many countries are in need of aid with a decrease in the international economy. With that however, those countries that are generally providing the aid are also in a decreased economy. The cost/benefit is extremely important in this stage of international politics. From the research, it is apparent that aid can create conflict, but can not necessarily stop conflict that is already occurring. Reference List: Collier, P. African Growth: Why a ‘Big Push’? Journal of African Economies. 00(2), 188-211 Grant, J. (Sep. 2005).Diamonds, Foreign Aid and the Uncertain Prospects for Post-Conflict Reconstruction in Sierra Leone. The Round Table, 94(381), 443-457 Michael, M. and C. van Marrewijk. (1998). Tied to Capital or Untied Foreign Aid. Review of Development Economics. 2(1), 61-75 Read More