प्रेजेंटेशन08

Project Presentation

In this presentation I will draw heavily upon a book by Terje Tvedt called Foriegn Aid, Foreign Policy and Power Politics: Power and Democracy 1998-2003.(my translation)

My aim is to illustrate how Norwegian aid policy effects the way in which we view ourselves here in Norway.

Why critique the system?

A ctitique of the system can lead to a reevaluation of how we percieve ourselves. We can attain a more realistic view of the world and Noway’s and Norwegians place therein. A critique can also help us to reevaluate conventional perceptions of ourslves. Hopefully we can achieve a new and more realistic level of self-perception. Which aspects of the Norwegian / European tradition are worthwhile and which aspects should we discard?

Differnt aspects of political power associated with foreign aid:

Power of Association: The aid complex claims to represent the poor of the ”south” and to be their spokesbody (representing 3-4 billion people). At the same time the different organizations represent Norwegians. But how representative are the different organizations? The Governments minimum contribution level from own funds
1962: 50% 1979:20% 2001:10%

Power of Identity: The power to determine the collective identity. It is natural to distinguish between ”us” and ”them”, and it is interesting to see how this dichotomy is established in a society. How is the sense of identity produced and who is in control of this process? This is interesting when one looks abroad and wants to place Norwegian aid in an international context.

Power of Normality: The act of seeking aid confirms on the behalf of the aid seeking country that it deviates from the norm. The applicant countries seeks to achieve the norm, i.e. to develop, but needs our help to do so. This confirms our basic assumption that we in the west have developed in the ”correct” manner, and that we aret he norm. We are as such exporting universal values.

Moral Power: In any society which believes that moral fibre is eroding, any party which can claim to reassert morals, or the belief in such, will gain moral power and social capital. In Norwegain public debate there are few moral issues which recieve more attention than the growing gap between the rich and the poor. The politics of aid and a new world order seems to have greater impact in Norwegian public discourse than in other Western countries. This by itself may lead to aid workers having a higher level og moral power.

What groups and institutions are involved in Norwegian foreign aid today?

The ”Norwegian model” is a central concept with regards to who is involved in foreinn aid. This modell alludes to cooperation between State agencies, academics and NGO’s. It is claimed (no doubt by those working within the modell) that this is an ideal methodology for achieving altruistic goals on global issues. It is also being pushed as the nations trademark in the ongoing process of internationalisation.

Historical Views on Aid

When Norwegian foreign aid was established it was seen as a method of surpressing global Comminism. This was an attitude typical of Western countries at the time. Even the Christian Democratic Pary (traditionally aid friendly) stated that Aid policy should be seen in conjunction with defense policy.

On the first page of the first Norwegian White Paper on aid published in 1963 one can read:
It is important that aid to developing countries should be given without reference to political, economical or religous special interests. It should represent a practical application of cooperation between peoples in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations.

In October 1999, 38 years later and 15 years after State Aid had become a Department of government, the Foriegn Office published its own report. In this report aid was discussed as an instrument of foreign policy and that all aid should be centrally coordinated. It was percieved as best for the national interest that Norwegian opions were not divergent. NORADs autonomy was gradually recinded. NGO’s would henceforth work in a contractual framework with the Foreign Office. Academics at Universities and in research institutions were viewed as policy tools and as door openers.

Under what conditions will the system grow and thrive?

While we are proud of our achievments in aid development and peace keeping it is obvious that we gain much more from the status quo than we give. Norwegian companies have direct investments in developing countries whose profits far outstrip Norwegian aid transfers. Indirectly we have erected vast toll barriers so that we can perserve our wealth.

The underlying assumption for all foreign aid is that there are rich powerful countries and poor less-powerful countries. The recipient of the ”gift” of aid must acknowledge the donor morally and politically correct. There is also an undertone of submission in that the recipient acknowledges the donor as a teacher and role modell. In this light aid can be seen as institionalising and reproducing the hierarchy between the rich and the poor. Thus arises an ethical dilemma between preservation of this hierarchy and the fundamental question ”What causes development?”

Five Central Questions Regarding Present Foreign Aid Policy

Is it possible to establish meaningful aid programs with little or no knowledge of the peoples and society involved? Western aid programs are frequently started with little or no such knowledge of the involved country’s history or culture . This does not deter Western nations and / or organisations in any way. Furthermore there is an implicit assumption that Western values and norms are universal, applicable anytime, anywhere.

Should countries in the Southern hemisphere neccessarily develop to be like countries in North America, Europe or Japan? I have worked in the Peace Corps and was struck by the one sidedness of the communication. There are values and norms in non-Western countries which we in the West could certainly benefit from but which are not communicated in any meaningful way back to the donor organisations / nations.

Are the ethics of aid sound or fraught with self-interest? It is interesting to observe, as has been done in the academic litterature, how donors give priority to issues and values in the donor countries and not those in the recipient countries. The contacts and networks established in the recipient countries are subsequenltly used to pursue other goals, be they religious, strategic or economic.

How would Western nations react to having self finterest groups with substantial financing from abroad? NGOs (Non Government Organisations) have been the primary channel through which Westeren foreign aid has been channelled since the 1980’s. NGO’s appear from nowhere in recipient countries with little or no local representation. They prosper or perish at the mercy of the donor nations.

Does Foriegn Aid widen the poverty gap rather than norrow it? The system as it functions today gives us the perception of donor nations as ”good” or ”kind” and the recipient nations as being ”needy”. This is an interesting but skewed view of the world. Continued aid does not seem to help alleviate poverty. Perhaps the major effect of Foreign Aid is to enhace and entrench a vision of a dichotomised world of the West (rich) and the South (poor).