Unconditional aid
The U.S. is really ticked that China provides aid to Latin America without strings attached. I am trying to sort through the multiple ironies, hypocrisies, and contradictions implied in that criticism, but there are too many and it makes my head hurt.
10 comments:
Here's the first headache: What is meant by term "aid"? Commodities? Tech assistance and/or training? Outright cash transfers?
Second headache: The term "no strings attached" needs to be defined/clarified since it's simply not credible. The Chinese aren't dumb. As well, they're some of the best businesspeople in the world, so somewhere, somehow, they're expecting some sort of return on their "aid". There's no way that there's no quid pro quo, if only implicit, buried somewhere in written or verbal agreements between the Chinese and LA folks. So what are the real quo's (to hatch a term) that China expects to obtain?
We might better see "strings" in terms of a spectrum. So although China might hope for something, they are not demanding it.
We might even argue that no explicit strings demonstrates their better business sense. If are a Latin American president looking for "aid" (however defined) then the Chinese offer of few or no strings looks much better than the string-loaded U.S.
Somewhat related, an EFE story came out this afternoon titled "Morales accuses US of placing conditions on aid." Apparently Bolivia is turning down a donation of $10 million in flour and wheat.
This is really a great research question--what are the effects of a marketplace for aid? During the Cold War it was the U.S. and the Soviet Union, but now there are more players. There are many different angles to take--U.S. influence, Latin American autonomy, implicit vs. explicit strings, etc., etc.
Of course, somewhere at the heart of that question is why do some countries give aid. The aid could be going to help accomplish the specific objectives (helping poor people is a good on its own), to coerce a change in policy (the strings attached issue) or to increase influence in general (the soft power model).
On some level, I'm sure all three objectives play some role in every country's decision to provide aid.
However, to go back to Tambopaxi's point, I think China is probably looking more for a generic "soft power" increase than any specific strings in many cases while the US, in our utter brilliance, often demands to see specific effects for the aid money we spend.
The aid isn't always without strings. Alot of this, especially in Latin America, has to do with Taiwan.
Costa Rica, for example, dumped their recognition of Taiwan in exchange for Chinese aid just last year. President Arias was a complete a-hole about it too, by the way. He didn't even say thanks to the Taiwanese for all the free money as he kicked them to the curb.
Wait a minute. The "what do donors want?" issue is interesting to analyze, and it's always good to have one's hypocrisy radar activated, but unconditional aid is a real issue. The US and other Western donors obviously have a troubled history with LatAm aid, especially in relation to IMF-conditioned funds. But lots of aid should certainly have conditions. The most obvious case is military aid, receipt of which should definitely be contingent on certain norms of behavior. Nobody wants to go back to the worst practices of the Cold War era, when "our sons of bitches" had a relatively free hand. The debate over China has emerged because this style is exactly what they're doing in Burma, Sudan, etc. It may not be a big deal in LatAm yet, and the US certainly lacks the high ground, but it's a real issue.
"the worst practices of the Cold War era, when "our sons of bitches" had a relatively free hand.'
Jake,
I think it's worth pointing out the end of the Cold war freed the United States up in that regard. We no longer have to placate "our" tyrants in Latin America for fear they will switch sides.
I may have overstated the case a bit - the US is now much less likely to back a Batista/Trujillo/Somoza type. But I'm talking more about China - their aid to odious regimes is dependent almost solely on (largely unrestricted) access to commodities and non-recognition of Taiwan, and people should be welcome to say so. If the US government were to keep quiet about every issue it's ever been on the wrong side of, it wouldn't get to open its mouth very often. Some commenters here would love that, but since it'll never happen, we might as well note when the government has a point.
Maybe China knows the economic benefit of lending aid for social projects (ie the rise of standards of living). Doing so, makes for a rather interesting market in the near future.
Just think about it, people who live better buy more stuff and are less prone to disruption ... its the untapped and ignored hundreds of millions in future consumers and traders.
Smart move.
Post a Comment