Move by OECD members to include military intervention as development aid

DadaKopf

Earlier this year, the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD made moves to change the agreed definition of official development assistance to include security and military expenditure. At present, the generally accepted definition of ODA, as defined by the DAC is:

Grants or Loans to countries and territories on Part I of the DAC List of Aid Recipients (developing countries) which are: (a) undertaken by the official sector; (b) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; (c) at concessional financial terms [if a loan, having a Grant Element (q.v.) of at least 25 per cent]. In addition to financial flows, Technical Co-operation (q.v.) is included in aid. Grants, Loans and credits for military purposes are excluded. For the treatment of the forgiveness of Loans originally extended for military purposes, see Notes on Definitions and Measurement below. Transfer payments to private individuals (e.g. pensions, reparations or insurance payouts) are in general not counted. url=http://www.oecd.org/glossary/0,2586,fr_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_1,00.html#1965586]Source[/url

Surprisingly, two of the countries involved in this move were the Netherlands and Denmark, two highly respected and generous donors. At the time of this meeting (it was kept secret), there was significant opposition to this proposal at the DAC meeting and the defintion stayed the same.

As if it wasn't bad enough that the little ODA given by developed countries comes with economically and politically motivated conditions attached, which strangle poor countries, many donors now want to add security and military expenditure to the mix, further fuelling accusations that ODA is just a political tool the rich use to gain access to cheap commodities markets.

Now it looks as if this dangerous policy shift is edging closer to reality. Today, the Guardian reported that:

Senior officials from members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development met in Paris at the end of last week for discussions about how to define overseas aid spending for purposes of international comparison.

Some countries, believed to be Denmark, the Netherlands and Australia, argue that spending on peacekeeping operations or training of foreign armies should be allowed to be counted as aid spending.

For example, the £18m committed by Britain to the peacekeeping mission in Darfur could be reclassified as overseas aid.

But 25 non-governmental organisations have signed a submission to the OECD saying the proposal runs counter to a pledge by many rich nations in 2000 to push up their aid spending to 0.7% of their gross national income.

Ian Gray, policy adviser at the aid group World Vision, said: "Overseas aid given by the world's richest countries remains close to an all-time low and there is a real danger that these changes could allow governments to artificially boost their aid budgets with spending on military peacekeeping."

Gordon Brown, the chancellor, has made increasing developed countries' aid budgets to 0.7% of GNI a central plank of his "Marshall plan for Africa", which Britain will try to push through during its chairmanship of the G8 leading industrial countries next year.

The 30-member OECD is involved because it sets agreed definitions, including those on overseas aid.

Richard Manning, chairman of the OECD's development assistance committee, which met last week, said it had agreed some relatively uncontroversial changes. "But some other areas are much trickier."

Those were, in particular, peacekeeping missions, either by donors' own forces or when donor countries paid for peacekeeping forces sent, for example, by one African country to another.

Mr Manning said there would be a full ministerial meeting in March, when agreement about allowing such spending to be redefined could be reached. url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1373805,00.html]Source[/url

This move would, for example, transform the US from the worst performing donor in percentage of ODA to GNP terms (0.1%) into the largest by virtue of its military support to Israel and Egypt (which eats up 50% of its ODA budget already). Instantly, countries like this will edge closer to reaching their 0.7% of GNP commitments. But it won't improve matters.

This move also fits in with the UN's 'human security' agenda and a shift in the EU's external security policy ('Battlegroups' etc.), which is trying to bring together every form of security - from food security to national security - together into one formula for sustainable development and world order. But while presenting a more complex understanding of development issues, it also provides donors with even more excuses to secure their interests on legitimate pretences.

Overall it looks like a bad move because it gives developing countries the green light to politicise their aid more than ever. Politicise it not just through soft instruments like political bribery (traditional aid), but through arms trading, military alliance-building and hard instruments like mulitary intervention under the guise of humanitarian assistance.

What do you folks think?

spongebob

DadaKopf wrote:

Some countries, believed to be Denmark, the Netherlands and Australia, argue that spending on peacekeeping operations or training of foreign armies should be allowed to be counted as aid spending

Australia is the most interesting case here IMO.

The Aussies are being steadily sucked into regional failed state morasses in the South Pacific such as Papua New Guinea or New Caledonia or Nauru and are also being sucked into multilateral morasses such as Iraq by the Americans . Somalia and Haiti also come to mind as a failed state situation .

The difference is that the PNG government allowed them in while the Iraqi government and the international community (the UN) did not. Nor is a post facto 'invite' from quislings and puppets such as Allawi or Chalabi a sufficent qualifier .

I would therefore only allow the inclusion of paramilitary or military activities in an aid budget if it :

"Follows a lawful request from the recognised government of the assisted state or if there is no recognised government the UN may make said request (eg the Irish in Liberia) "

and if that formal request was registered with a special office in the UN prior to the 'aid' being sent. That would allow the Aussies to write off some but not all of their 'interventions' .

It is also necessary for the failed state to self declare. If the US wants to write off its intervention in Columbia the first step is for the Columbians to declare themselves a failed state . Lets see what happens then

M

DadaKopf

Think about how that change you support could be, would be, abused. ODA is already abused by donors and recipient governments. Augmenting the soft power of foreign aid with the hard power of paramilitary and military assistance is simply a lethal development in the aid regime.

You're right about Australia, though. I forgot to mention them. Their proximity to so-called trouble-spots is a handy motive, but the real reason is securing their oil interests, which I believe they're entitled to under some tacit agreement with the USA. In the meantime, the US is training its eye on oil-rich Western Africa.

Victor

For example, the £18m committed by Britain to the peacekeeping mission in Darfur could be reclassified as overseas aid.

I can understand the logic of this.

However, I would price the military spending at third world rates and increase the target to 2%.

spongebob

Absolutely Victor.

For the record I would allow the US to lump their Haiti missions in under ODA but to bill for infantry only and not cover their antics in Iraq at all so far or their antics in Afghanistan until recently (post Karzai election) and again cover infantry costs only .

M

DadaKopf

So what you're saying is that this kind of behaviour is a legitimate form of development assistance?

spongebob

Forgot about that, their 1995 intervention TO INSTALL Aristide would qualify IMO . The intent was to say that not everything they do is wrong .

Columbia is the bg definition test for the US, I am against allowing it as ODA .

M

gandalf

This is disgusting imho. Development Aid is there to help build the countries infrastructure and economy (although some would argue otherwise with the OECD sometimes and definately the World Bank). No way should they include military aid under this definition even if it is for Peacekeeping.

If this is passed it will be abused by the US especially but also by Britain and France.

spongebob

gandalf wrote:

If this is passed it will be abused by the US especially but also by Britain and France.

Yes. You are absolutely right Gandalf. Russia is another prime suspect .

I still think that there should be a validation mechanism of some sort. There is no point in feeding and housing the children if the local militia is going to kill them afterwards .

The number of failed states in West and Central Africa in the past decade is such that security is an important precondition to development of any sort. Securitisation Aid that is validated by an international mechanism is development aid .

Germany and Japan, along with Ireland, generally participate in this form of multilateral stabilisation force and should get some recognition for it where there is a request for same and a mandate for same.

My 2c

M

Moriarty

^ seems reasonable.

DadaKopf

Muck wrote:

Germany and Japan, along with Ireland, generally participate in this form of multilateral stabilisation force and should get some recognition for it where there is a request for same and a mandate for same.

Germany's and Japan's official aid programmes are already motivated by commercial and strategic concerns. The question you've got to answer, which you suggest there, is in whose interest aid is being given in the first place. You seem to indicate that, for Ireland at least, it's about boosting our image in the world as an international 'player'.

That's completely detached from the interests of those whom the aid is supposed to benefit.

While it's nearly a truism that sustainable development requires various interlocking forms of security - the UN is now promoting 'human security' - it's still a dangerous development simply because this far-reaching shift in the rules of foreign aid is being decided by the world's richest countries. No effort to consult with the governments and people of the South is being made.

So, rather than devising integrated sustainable development programmes with the people of the South on a democratic, 'partnership' based manner, we're going to have a situation where the rich countries' security agenda is going to become a new area to impose conditions on poor countries to further their own interests. Going on previous generations of aid-giving, those conditions will probably not be compatible with sustainable development at all.

The number of failed states in West and Central Africa in the past decade is such that security is an important precondition to development of any sort. Securitisation Aid that is validated by an international mechanism is development aid.

Yes, before they were saying that economic liberalisation is an important precondition for development, they they were saying democracy is an important precondition for development, now they're saying security is an important precondition for development. First of all: who says? Second: What forms of liberalisation, democracy or security? Third: who says donors' ideas are the right ideas?

Between the 1950s to 1980s, they used to think dictatorships were good for development. Now, the democracies being promoted by the World Bank are very, very 'thin' democracies. Now donors are suggesting that these 'thin' democracies (in many cases, barely concealed dictatorships) be supported militarily, and that this should count as aid.

I'm extremely worried by this development.

Too much is being lumped in with it, and there's hardly any proper global debate on the issue. Plus le change. :rolleyes:

Victor

Muck wrote:

Yes. You are absolutely right Gandalf. Russia is another prime suspect

Russia isn't an OECD member.

http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html