Archive for the ‘Responses’ Category

Vladimir Lenin, for all his faults, had a rather good command of language indeed he coined the phrase “useful idiot” used to describe individuals or groups that naively considered themselves to be allies of the USSR but were in fact held with contempt by the Soviet rulers, and were being used by them. This sort of relationship occurs very frequently in politics especially when dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I am referring to the article written in Issue 3 of the London Student by Rikkie Bruzas entitled “Allow Iran the nuclear bomb” the basic premise being that Bruzas believes that if Iran is allowed the bomb we can then “bend the regime’s ear to our cause”. This betrays a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the Islamic Republic and is sadly not a new tactic. In 1986 two American government officials went to Iran with a Bible, and a chocolate cake, to attempt to persuade “moderates” within the Regime to release hostages. In 1997 the Western powers yet again grew hopeful of change and normalisation of relations as the “liberal reformist” Mohammad Khatami was elected in a shamelessly undemocratic election. Decades on, we can see that their hopes were not realised, and that all the Westerners who eagerly placed their supported in the “moderates” and “reformists” were simply taken for a ride by the Iranian regime and treated as “useful idiots”.

To quote Edmund Burke, “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it”. The West’s fundamental error has always been to assume that the Islamic Republic can be tamed. They forget that the so-called “moderates” in 1985 are the same people that monopolised Iran’s industries through corruption and nepotism whilst a third of the population lived under the poverty line. They forget that the “reformist” Mohammad Khatami was Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance for a decade during which he prevented all “un-Islamic” forms of media or art being published.

So, sadly, Bruzas is “doomed to repeat history” too if his wish that Iran be given the nuclear bomb is granted. The fact is that those in charge of the Islamic Republic are unelected fascists and have no desire to acquiesce to the West’s wishes or “trust in liberal democracy” as the author of last week’s articles believes. The Mullahs that run Iran sit on a vast empire of oil and gas and control all major industry in Iran. Why would they choose to let go of this power when it has brought them untold fortune and wealth? On top of this they already fund terrorists like Hezbollah, Hamas, the insurgents in Yemen and the Taliban. Do we really want to add a nuclear bomb to their arsenal?

Furthermore the article advocates that we could try to bring “Ayatollah Khamenei and the Guardian Council on [our] side”; a truly appalling idea. Whilst tens of thousands of Iranians have been tortured, raped and killed simply for wanting liberty, the most basic of human rights, it is actually being suggested that we consort and associate with people that sanction rape and murder as state policy! The article sounds an awful lot like the Allied powers in the early 1930s that did nothing to stop the spread of the Third Reich by burying their heads in the sand and hoping that Hitler would stop fascism of his own accord.

The author goes onto mention that “nobody in the leadership of Iran is the malevolent despot that some of our media like to portray”. The facts are that four million people in Iran have an opium addiction problem, earthquakes regularly raze entire towns and villages due to lack of government building regulations, inflation was recently running at 29% and all the while the Iranian leadership chooses to spend billions of pounds on a nuclear weapon programme instead of trying to improve the nation’s infrastructure and the lot of the people. The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is unelected, violent, corrupt and does not care for Iran’s populace. If these things do not make the leaders of Iran “malevolent despots” I’m not sure what does.

So as we have seen the Iranian government is not going to change or “bend their ear to our cause”. They instigate fraud in elections to cling onto power and they do not set much store by international diplomacy and treaties either, instead using such occasions as an opportunity to deny the Holocaust. At the end of the day those that suffer most are Iran’s people. The ruling despots do not need further support for their misguided policy of spending Iran’s money on building a nuclear bomb, instead the world ought to be isolating the Islamic Republic’s leaders as it did to South Africa during the darkest days of Apartheid, whilst standing shoulder to shoulder with Iran’s people in their struggle for freedom.

This is written in response to Maddy Fry’s “Getting aid where it’s needed”, which I felt was inaccurate and misleading on many counts and written by a person who has no idea “about the current complexity reality of development aid”.

Having worked in Africa all my life, and specifically in the development sector for nearly a decade, in three different countries, I would like to correct some of the assumptions she makes. The entire article was so badly written, in such monolithic terms and with such a narrow perspective of very real, urgent, pressing human development issues so I will try to break down my response to a few headers.

1. Nature of countries

To speak of Africa as a monolith is dangerous. Every country is different from the next, geographically, climatically, historically, etc. And within each country, the number of tribes and communities with their respective religions, customs and languages vary so much that it makes no sense to speak about an entire continent like it is one simple village.

2.The Nature of Aid

Aid giving varies in its approach. Sometimes it is the government’s policy to accept aid as budget support through what is known as the Sector Wide Approach. Other times, the aid is channelled directly to individual projects. Alternatively, international donors set up their own projects. And other times the aid is given to local community foundations to monitor and channel the funds and make grants to needy communities.

Therefore, the way aid is distributed varies from country to country, from government to government, and from donor to donor. It is wrong to state that the way aid has been distributed has not changed since the 1980s. It changes all the time, and while there are continually problems and loopholes, there are some agencies and some governments also that want to see it improved time in terms of priority setting, partnerships, and most importantly accountability and transparency.

When the aid comes in through credible agencies, many times it is strictly monitored, though many times it is not. There are very often strict grant management contracts, donor compliances and legalities that are imposed on the communities and projects receiving the funds, from those donors that are credible and understand development.

Corruption is inevitable. There will always be ways that monies can be misappropriated, by government officials, by community leaders and indeed even by the donor employees themselves.. But there are also a number of very good projects that have been implemented successfully and benefited many communities, despite the many challenges. Lets not forget the beneficiaries.

3. Nature of governments

Whatever the ideology of a government maybe – communist or other – it is the citizens in that country that suffer; those that are ill, poor and have no hope for a better life and those who have no voice.

When a government’s rule is through terror, the havoc and destruction that is caused has no limits. Is the author suggesting that those innocent victims of corrupt governments should be punished for their governments over which they have no control?

When governments are inexperienced, inefficient and so on, should the world forget those that suffer under those regimes? Where is our common humanity forgotten in all the preaching about the best way to do things?

4. Nature of projects:

Most international donor agencies (such as Ford Foundation, Action Aid, Aga Khan Foundation, BRAC etc) and government donor agencies (e.g. USAID, DFID, SIDA, CIDA) etc work cross sectorally and multi sectorally. What this means is that they work in education, health, rural development, micro-finance, micro-credit, civil society enhancement, advocacy and so on. They work in each of these sectors, and furthermore across them, such as health education, training for management etcetera.

Indeed many of these agencies work in partnership with each other and also with the governments in question (where possible) to ensure that projects are rooted in the needs of citizens, that the projects are culturally sensitive and relevant and sustainable in the long term.

It is true that not all projects are successful. But not all are a waste. The nature of development work is such. Not all work in ways that are open and transparent, but many do.

Development work itself has developed. Successful models from Asia are experimented in Africa and vice versa. However, no two projects are the same, as the needs of no two communities within a country are the same; the needs differ from one area to another and depend on geography, religion, government policies, climate, and the communities historical relations with its neighbours and so on.

Therefore, credible organisations view each project an experiment based on best practices, on previous models and try to ensure that as far as possible there are measurable, sustainable outcomes, which will improve the overall quality of people’s lives.

5. Economic development

No country can develop by making investments in only one sector. Investments are needed in human development in capacity building, in health care, in education, in housing, in financial services for micro credit, in rural development and so on. This is the way to self-reliancy. It can never happen just through trade and economic development. Economic growth on its own is not sustainable in the long term without basic human rights and needs being met and upheld at the very basic level.

6. Civil Society

Civil society organisations are those organisations that range all the way from international NGOs all the way through varied organisations, such as women’s groups, self-help organisations, trade associations, fishermen’s co-operatives, and local NGOs. They are groups of citizens who have come together around a common cause. Not all civil societies are good, like terrorist groups. However, they are critical for development. This is where citizens have a forum to raise their concerns. This where they can decide on what their issues are, and what is the most pressing need, for instance the choice between agricultural training or medicines, or advocacy for better policies?

By arguing that all monies should be channelled through good (if there is such a thing) governments, the author of the article is ignoring not only a very significant partner in development but also more importantly, the place where citizens are actively participating in democracy. Civil society organisations need capacity building, training, support, to be guided how to put structures in place to ensure accountability and transparency within themselves, and at the same time understand how to hold governments accountable to their people.

Therefore the statement “NGOs lack a certain perspective” reflects the fact that the author has no real understanding of the role, nor the constituents of NGOs, (which can be good, bad and otherwise.)

7. Good governance and wise development

This is not the responsibility of “us, the developed world” to ensure it happens.

It is the responsibility of all global citizens, who understand that events in another part of the world can very quickly affect and impact one another. It is for those who have a better and clearer understanding about our common humanity to bring about change; in small ways, big ways, through trade, through aid in health, education micro finance, rural development, advocacy for better rights, civil society enhancement and through “multi sectoral ” inputs – to build trust, confidence and hope for citizens who live in countries out of no choice and no fault of their own.

I hope that this gives the author, a very small perspective into the complex, multi – layered nature of development, aid, Africa and the world.

Written in response to Sam Kiss’s “Who are we to judge Castro and Cuba?” , March 10th 2008.

On the announcement of Fidel Castro’s resignation, sympathisers across the world were quick to praise him on his 50 years of continuing revolution. His fellow travellers hastily pointed out Cuba’s 99.8 per cent literacy rate and free universal healthcare program; they praised his defiant stand against Western imperialism even after the Soviets faded away.

But for all the supposed benevolence a dictatorship can never be excused. We should judge Castro not as a saviour, but as a repressive despot. Supporters who make light of his achievements always ignore his manipulation of the electoral system, his firm grip on the media and Cuba’s detestable record on human rights. Support for Castro’s vision is merely a justification of totalitarianism.

The flaws of Cuban communism while perhaps being hyped have never been exaggerated. Since the Revolution trade has stagnated and the government has amassed colossal debts. The government continues to set prices and ration goods; it relies on handouts from Chavez to survive. In no uncertain terms, it was, and continues to be, a failure.

There are many myths that surround the cult of Castro; one of the greatest being is his enduring popularity amongst Cubans. But the recent IRI poll, the first authoritative poll to take place in Cuba simply does not support this. 79 per cent of people do not believe the current government can fix the problems facing Cubans, and when asked what kind of government could only 3 per cent said a socialist one.

Castroites more than anyone turn a blind eye to the fact that over two million plus refugees fled Cuba for the United States since the Revolution in 1959. Amnesty International has highlighted that Cubans live under a climate of severe restrictions on freedom of expression. Elections are held, but in a one-party state where there is one candidate on the ballot for every seat. Citizens are detained without charge and arrested arbitrarily; dissidents and critics are harassed and intimidated.

Fidel Castro’s socialist intentions, for what they’re worth, are under no circumstances an excuse for his brutal, harsh and devastating regime. Freedom and justice are fundamental human rights, yet he chose to bypass these for some greater cause which turned out to be a disaster for his people and his country.

The best assessment on the reign of Castro came from the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt: “the withdrawal of Fidel Castro marks the end of an era that began with high hopes but ended with oppression”. So indeed it has drawn to a close, and one can only hope that his retirement will pave the way for a new era of liberty and democracy.