Between the Lines: Out of Africa
Wolfowitz leads World Bank effort to cut back much-needed aid
By Patrick Callahan, senior writer
Posted on September 28, 2006

Since taking over the chairmanship of the World Bank last year, Paul Wolfowitz has made very strong statements about his reservations in the area of financial aid to the poorer nations of the world. He has expressed much doubt about the inability of African leaders to responsibly spend the millions and billions of dollars being sent their way for the most basic of needs. The majority of Africans are in dire need of substantial health care facilities and medicines, vaccinations, food and clothing, and sustainable infrastructure. Yet due to the corrupt actions of many African leaders, Wolfowitz is calling for a severe drawback in the amount of funds being acquisitioned for the purpose of aiding Africa’s long awaited ascent into development.

James Shikwati, director of the Inter-Region Economic Network, was quoted in The Washington Post Sept. 20 as saying, “We want Africans to build their economic strength through creativity and talent — aid throws all that out of the window.” The pervasiveness of this kind of thinking will soon leave leaders with nothing in Africa to debate about. Without vital aid, the majority of Africa will one day in the foreseeable future simply become a breeding ground for plunderers, arms dealers and murderers. Fortunately, many nations, including most European nations, have voiced concern and disapproval of the drawback tactics — yet it is former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz who helped plan the invasion of Iraq, who is leading the way.   

Advocates are using the actions of former President of Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko, as an example of the need for drawbacks. There are many documented accounts of Sese Seko taking world aid money and converting it to his own personal wealth. World Bank officials use instances of Seko’s shopping extravaganzas to the United States and his frequent chartering of private jets for his family. It goes without saying that a large portion of that money was spent in ways much drearier and probably even more frivolous than the ones we know about. Yet the question must be asked of Wolfowitz, “Is this policy of aid drawbacks a true answer to the multiple problems abounding in Africa, or is it an easy cop-out for a group of fiscally conservative executives who’d rather see money go to places that will immediately become incubators for private industry?”

Let’s face it: Africa is a long way from becoming the type of private industry fiasco where global companies are drawn in by cheap labor and an abundance of natural resources, as has been seen in Latin America and South America. Africans can’t provide profit for big companies when they don’t even have electricity in their streets, when they don’t have feasible means of transportation to and from work, when children are lucky to gain a middle-school-level education in many areas, and where one in four Africans is afflicted by HIV/AIDS.

These problems must be dealt with first, and doing so means sticking by our aid policies and perhaps more importantly, devoting the time and if necessary, the increased resources, to be able to ensure that our aid dollars are going where they’re supposed to. Oversight and reconstruction aren’t old news for the West. We rebuilt Europe after a war-torn global conflict, and we seem pretty gung-ho about “rebuilding” Iraq — why not spend some of our time and dollars on a continent that has never in the history of mankind been in more need of aid? Africa is in dire straits, and its global neighbors to the north and west have never been more prosperous than they are now — it’s time to bridge the divide and even the global playing field.

Patrick Callahan is a junior political science major.