YES: John O'Sheasays Irish aid bestows legitimacy and credibility on rapacious and oppressive governments NO: Hans Zomersays that without government, there can be no development. Aid comes from the outside, but development must come from within
YES:The great and the good were assembled in the splendour of Dublin Castle to present a cheque to Africa's latest great democratic hope. When it was my turn to shake the hand of President Fredrick Chiluba of Zambia, I took the opportunity to whisper in his ear: "You're a corrupt little crook." Afterwards, I told a flustered diplomat that I had merely bestowed a casual "céad míle fáilte". Chiluba was subsequently charged with stealing $46 million from his own people, 75 per cent of whom survive on less than one dollar a day. He was just another in a long line of feted and funded African leaders who fail miserably to meet the most basic requirements of democratic accountability and financial propriety.
War, famine, drought and corruption haunt post-independence Africa. The international community mobilises against the first three, but corruption goes largely unchallenged and wreaks havoc. Take Chad, for example. The Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline to the Atlantic Ocean - the largest aid project ever undertaken in Africa, funded to the tune of $4.2 billion by the World Bank - was completed in 2003. Two years ago, the Chadian government reneged on a deal to spend the oil royalties on development, and the money now flows straight into the government's coffers to buy weapons and help tighten President Idriss Deby's grip on power in a country over which he seized control in 1990.
In his book, The Bottom Billion, Paul Colliers wrote, "In 2004 a survey tracked money released by the Ministry of Finance in Chad intended for rural health clinics. The survey had the extremely modest purpose of finding out how much of the money actually reached the clinics. Amazingly, less than one per cent of it reached the clinics - 99 per cent failed to reach its destination."
Despite countless billions in international aid having gone to Africa, corruption and poverty remain its defining features. The African Union estimates corruption costs the continent $150 billion annually, far outstripping global development spending. The World Bank reckons over a quarter of its entire lending portfolio has been tainted by graft. Yet the Irish Government, through government-to-government aid, pours hundreds of millions into this bottomless pit every year.
While costly tribunals investigate allegations of financial impropriety at home, the fortunes handed to notoriously corrupt regimes go unquestioned.
Presenting enormous cheques to rulers who mercilessly exploit their own people makes a mockery of the life-struggles of the citizens of Africa. Three decades at the coal face of human misery - where survival is the sole aspiration - have cultivated in me an undying respect for the courage, ingenuity and absolute dignity of the peoples of Africa. The contrast between this shinning spirit of independence and the conduct of so many rapacious governments could not be starker.
Bilateral aid bestows legitimacy and credibility on men like Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, whose regime shot to death 194 innocent protesters last year. The World Bank withheld $375 million in a bid to curb his excesses, yet the Irish Government continued channelling aid through Zenawi. Uganda's Yoweri Museveni is another recipient of Irish aid. His invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo left him with the blood of thousands on his hands. We should treat these people as pariahs, not statesmen.
Irish Times columnist David Adams recently wrote of how the people of Africa are paying an enormous price for the folly of trying to "reform a thief by making it easier for him to steal". As Michael Foley highlighted in this newspaper, the top eight recipients of Irish bilateral aid score between 2.4 and 2.9 out of 10 on Transparency International's global corruption index. In 2006, the Department of Foreign Affairs acknowledged that dealing with these governments was "not ideal". Yet the cheques have continued.
Martin Meredith observed in his book, The State of Africa: "After decades of mismanagement and corruption, most African states have been hollowed out. Far from being able to provide aid and protection to their citizens, African governments and the vampire-like politicians who run them are regarded by the populations they rule as yet another burden." We need to ease that burden. I believe we must empower and foster an entrepreneurial approach by focusing our aid on a small number of countries where the conditions are appropriate for sustainable long-term engagement. We must bypass the corrupt regimes and implement development programmes directly with reliable and tested local counterparts while ensuring control of the purse strings, a model successfully used by the Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria.
Alas, caring is no longer enough. We must also be careful, especially with the aid given out of the goodness of the hearts of the Irish people. That direct aid has failed is no crime. But it would become one if vital lessons are not learnt.
• John O'Shea is chief executive of Goal, which this year celebrates 30 years of working in the developing world
NO:The role of aid is to help the poor and vulnerable and to strengthen the forces of change within a country, be they farmers, youth, refugees, media - or government. The truth is that in many countries, governments are failing miserably in their duty of protecting citizens and providing the framework in which people can thrive.
In the years that I worked in Pakistan and Chad - countries suffering under some of the most corrupt and ineffective regimes around - I have witnessed government inability, disinterest and oppression. I have experienced the suffering brought on by lawlessness and exploitation, and I have seen people shot by government-sponsored militia, simply for disagreeing with the regime. But I have also seen the immense good that can come from the actions of well-designed government policies. In the majority of developing countries, governments are trying their best to play a positive role, often against impossible odds.
Critics of government-to-government aid point at the failings, and propose to bypass government altogether, in the hope that the injustice and corruption will magically disappear. In reality, however, withdrawing aid from dislikeable regimes serves no one. It leaves the poor to suffer, and does nothing to eradicate bribery, injustice and oppression. Surely we cannot tell a schoolgirl that her school will close because we don't like her president? Should we tell a refugee that his food aid is cancelled because we think his government is crooked? The challenge is to fight injustice - not run away from it.
Cutting aid and isolating governments increases the scope for graft and exploitation.If no one is watching, corrupt leaders can continue their kickbacks and oppressive regimes can continue to eliminate opposition figures. Aid donors must bring about change. They must engage governments, even unsavoury ones, in a process of accountability and reform and actively support the people outside government who keep an eye on them. Aid must support what Transparency International calls the "pillars of integrity": informed citizens, a strong judiciary, independent media and watchdog agencies and - crucially - international co-operation.
Irish charities and their overseas partners can play a critical role. The tireless efforts of missionary organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have saved countless lives and they have had widespread success in strengthening African civil society groups. But they cannot - and should not - hope to do the job of government. NGOs can build schools or train teachers, but governments must determine curricula and education priorities. Charities can provide food aid and agricultural support, but governments must regulate markets. Aid workers can provide loans to micro-businesses, but governments set the legal framework.
As we can see from so-called failed states such as Afghanistan and Somalia, without government people can survive, but there will be no development. Aid agencies can provide temporary relief, but to bring about lasting change, government needs to be on board.
Researchers - from the World Bank and Transparency International to people like Wolfgang Kasper, Joseph Stiglitz or Amartya Sen - have shown time and again that cutting aid to oppressive regimes does not reduce injustice or oppression. Yet there is ample proof that working through government does deliver vital services for people in poverty. When the Tanzanian government got international assistance to abolish school fees in 2001, the number of children enrolled in primary schools rose from 4.4 million to 7.5 million in 2005. The figures in Uganda are similar. According to the UN, public spending on education in sub-Saharan Africa continues to grow, and enrolment levels in primary schools are up by 36 per cent. There is simply no way that NGOs could have achieved this type of impact - only governments can operate at this scale.
There are no blank cheques and no one gives aid unconditionally. Stringent processes are followed in planning how aid money will be best invested and how it will be accounted for. Similarly, it is untrue to suggest that government is the main source of corruption. In fact, businesses are the principal payers of backhanders, shelling out bribes to win contracts or licences. The biggest bribe-paying businesses are western, not African. And as long as Ireland has not ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption, we cannot be sure that some of them aren't Irish.
It would be convenient to write off all African governments, and present NGOs as the only safe way to deliver aid.
In reality, if we want to bring about lasting improvements for the poor, we need to strengthen governments, and those who keep an eye on them. And that is exactly what aid from Ireland is doing.
• Hans Zomer is director of Dóchas, the umbrella organisation of Irish development non-governmental organisations