Postcolonial Guilt and International Aid

It seems simple and obvious, so much that everyone from Bono to George W. Bush have are all in agreement: Western nations should provide more aid to Africa. Could there possibly be a downside - could anyone disagree? Maybe international assistance can be more efficiently distributed, but you'd have to be crazy (or cruel) to envision that the best way to help Africa would be to stop giving them money and food.

Kenyan economist James Shikwati takes a contrarian view in this Spiegel interview [via Instapundit], and reveals some uncomfortable truths about how Western societies like to think they are "helping" while actually destroying any chance for self sufficiency. The whole piece is worth reading, but a few highlights:

About corruption and people afflicted with starvation:

But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested.

About the corn that Europe sends:

A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

On AIDS:

If one were to believe all the horrifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It's not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it's only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.

Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."

But Shikwati's argument really gathers force is when he takes a broader view, looking at the devastation wrought by Western aid across the continent, and felt everywhere from the impact of donated clothing on Nigeria textile workers to German "assistance" for the former butchers of Rwanda.

It's not hard to see how post-colonial guilt and a strictly materialist conception of prosperity have conspired to create dependence, corruption, and helplessness. As with most excessive attempts at socialist "solutions", the checks are really being written so people can feel good, like they're solving a problem. Opportunistic politicians and bureaucracy thrive in this faux economy, and cause the system to exist in perpetuity.

And yet cutting off international aid seems unthinkable - even to those of us who can see merit to Shikwati's argument. We simply cannot stop ourselves. Thousands - millions of people are starving in Africa. Certainly we can help them, can't we? How could we do anything less as compassionate individuals?