Sure A Not

As part of a wider plan spearheaded by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency ( DOGE ), US President Donald Trump has shut down USAID, the country’s top international aid organization.

USAID has been harshly criticized by the Trump administration for perpetuating errors and oddities through its support to developing nations. Musk called USAID” the most crooked establishment” and declared that “it deserves to die”.

While USAID has long claimed to focus on humanitarian aid, health services and growth, Trump has said that it has rather facilitated political interference, problem, opaque governance and unwarranted interference in the inner affairs of recipient countries.

Trump and Musk’s claims would seem to corroborate accusations that recent unrest in Bangladesh and Ukraine’s 2014 “orange revolution” —an event that ultimately led to the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022—are evidence of USAID’s role in orchestrating” color revolutions”, a modern form of regime change akin to a military coup around the world.

The US international coverage framework has three columns: security, politics, and growth. By promoting international policy and expanding effect, USAID purports to support the interests of the US, but it doesn’t always address the real needs of the sender nations.

Only a small portion of the allocated budgets are used to reach the intended recipients, as a significant portion of USAID money is absorbed by administrative costs, high wages, obligations for intermediaries, and highly expensive consultants ( many former USAID senior officials ).

Studies reveal that for every 100 US dollars USAID spends, a mere 12.10 money reaches reader places. Additionally, funding from USAID has been accused of undermining local laws and regulations, causing bribery and opaque governance in host nations. Criticisms contend that the company generally benefits the country’s ruling political elite and its US-educated offspring rather than the less fortunate.

Trump’s” America First” coverage, which is apparently trying to stop the theft of US taxpayer funds domestically and internationally, includes the decision to close USAID. The disclosures of Trump-Musk information have also made the Global South countries have to consider the effects of American support and take the necessary steps to increase financial independence, sovereignty, and progress.

American foreign aid acts as a double-edged weapon for several developing countries. While it claims to bring about growth in the terms of the recipients ‘ nations, it entails dominance and undermines their economic sovereignty and independence.

Western donors first disburse sizable grants, but after recipient nations become more dependent on external aid, they switch to smaller grants.

The recipient countries ‘ economic independence is restrained by the severe economic policy conditions of Western loans ( bilateral and multilateral, such as from the World Bank and IMF), which keep them stuck in a never-ending vicious cycle of borrowing to pay off outstanding debt.

It undermines the foundation of people’s employment and sustainable development by using a more limited government budget to pay off debt and suppress home agriculture and young industries.

American support typically has a relationship to the political objectives of the donor countries, making the recipient countries have to connect their guidelines with those of their donors. In consequence, the receiving nations are unable to develop their own economic and trade techniques.

Moreover, according to Musk, American aid has been linked to promoting fraud and errors in recipient nations by shutting down USAID. Some funds are lost there or mismanaged by help administration, failing to achieve their original objectives.

While frequently well-intentioned, including initiatives to distribute gratis food, grains, and other essential services, USAID’s assistance frequently tramples local crops and companies by displacing domestic producers and deteriorating local knowledge and skills.

Instead of fostering long-term financial self-sufficiency, for investment breeds dependence symptoms, making nations centered on outdoor aid. Some academics contend that American aid fosters resentment and hopelessness rather than promoting real growth.

It is now a very good idea for developing countries to move to financial freedom and independence. Trump’s discovery on USAID calling for a conscious effort to build local business, cut down on imports and boost local production.

Investment in training, technology and equipment is crucial to developing the ability to grow effectively. Development-focused countries must collaborate with lenders who offer enhancement funds without having to meet any social or policy requirements in order to accomplish these objectives.

The Global South has a promising future ahead of geographical trade and assistance. The Global South must abandon the notion of getting rich by exporting cheap products to Western markets or relying on foreign support for national development as the US embraces protectionist policies, which are more demanding than even the Smoot-Hawley Tax Act of 1930.

Rather, it should concentrate on fostering local partnerships and business contracts. To protect themselves from raw materials and manpower exploitation, American nations can use pan-African assistance and collective bargaining.

South America may improve frameworks for local partnership, while ASEAN countries should take advantage of the opportunity to build similarly bold local initiatives. The integration of the Asian economies to produce tangible outcomes is essential under the leadership of Russia.

To implement its stalled free trade agreement (FTA ), South Asia should revive the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation ( SAARC ). These local efforts can be strengthened by a reinforced BRICS framework, which will encourage greater cooperation among the Global South countries.

More important, these nations need to regain possession of their natural sources. By regaining control over their separation, miners, utilization, and trade, developing nations had put an end to wealthy nations ‘ use of their resources. This will increase the value added from these resources by allowing nations to offer their resources fairly.

Through shared and regional discussions with China, there might be a good chance of achieving this objective. Compared to the zero-sum sport usually promoted by the West, China’s “win-win” trade and development method emphasizes common benefit. Cooperating with China may help China achieve its goals while avoiding the numerous negative effects of American support.

Under the American support model, which is defined by the conditionality of grants and loans, political and economic passions of donor countries are given precedence. American aid often comes with needs for democratization, social reforms, animal rights improvements and stress to meet alliances against rival nations.

It is a type of interference in the domestic affairs of the receiving nations, making them to adhere to American economic, political, and social norms, which are frequently incompatible with their social values and traditions.

China, in comparison, favors trade and investment over social engineering. Through procedures like the Belt and Road Initiative, China invests in large-scale infrastructure projects, including ports, railways and bridges, in recipient places. For numerous emerging countries, these activities are the foundation of long-term monetary expansion.

For example, Chinese investment has accelerated Africa’s clean energy transition and online and transport infrastructure. Interestingly, because China’s design does not impose monetary policy, social systems or cultural requirements, it permits nations to preserve financial policy-making and social autonomy. In this way, it has surpassed the need for nations to chart out their development plans.

China’s expanding monetary potential has a lot of benefits for the global south. China has a great need for resources and products from developing nations because it has the largest financial and luxury market in the world since 2020.

By engaging more closely with China’s supply chains, developing nations can gain significant new markets for their products, including for meals, fresh materials, and manufactured products. Also, China’s industrial overcapacity offers opportunities for relocating its” twilight business” and low-technology-based manufacturing industry to the Global South, fostering native modernization and job creation.

China’s critics often warn of the dangers of resource exploitation and “debt trap diplomacy”. However, many people in the Global South believe that China’s approach is a viable replacement for Western aid, which has always prioritized the needs of its recipients over those of their donors.

Where there was no alternative in the Global South ten years ago, China offers a frequently welcome alternative to Western aid. ( Though Japan has long provided foreign aid without the constraints put on by Western donors ) )

These countries can lay the foundation for self-reliance, economic sovereignty and sustainable development by embracing China’s positive-sum game model over the West’s often zero-sum approach.

To be sure, the debate over development models and foreign aid is not entirely settled. However, as the Global South grapples with the legacy of Western aid and explores new partnerships, it must prioritize its economic sovereignty, national interests and independence.

The Global South may break the cycle of dependency and lead a more just and prosperous future by utilizing regional collaboration, asserting control over natural resources, and engaging with alternative partners like China.

Bhim Bhurtel is on X at @BhimBhurtel

Continue Reading