South Sudan: The Implication of Official Development Assistance "Foreign Aid"

South Sudan president Salva Kiir

With a territory as large as France, the Republic of South Sudan became the world's 193rd independent country on July 9 2011. But while the South Sudanese now have an independent state with vast natural resources, they have yet to build a nation out of some 50 different tribes with diverse languages, beliefs and other key characteristics. Many obstacles will impede progress toward this end, and the outcome depends primarily on the South Sudanese themselves. Therefore I ask, will the Official development assistance (ODA) make important contributions to help realize this goal?

Official development assistance (ODA) is the transfer of resources one concessional term, which is undertaken by official agencies (bilateral and multilateral) with the aim of promoting economic development and has a “grant element”. Foreign aid incorporates military assistance, political development programmers’ technological transfer, and transfer of expertise from any aid agency to the poor countries. Foreign aid can also be in terms of money to fund development projects in the receiving country. The agency that is giving aid is referred to as the donor while the country receiving it is known as the recipient country. These multilateral urgencies include United Nations Organizations World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) among others.

Internationally, the major basis for today’s developed aid structures on a government to government basis has inevitably politicized the business to an extend that all actors involved are jealously watching the integrity. As a result, it has become rely difficult to know what the effect of foreign aid is. Is it based on the development of the developing (third world countries) states or based on the national interest of the donor countries. Thus, for instance arguments have been raised whether aid is an integral part of foreign policy; the tendency has been that it has a given profile that reflects the donor country’s general foreign policies. Foreign policy must contain strategies to achieve national interest. Strategies may contain a statement of instrument. A foreign policy of a country cannot be complete without the instruments and strategy in order to achieve the set goal and this has to do with behavior in the international system by choosing an alternative instrument. Foreign policy is an externalized public policy and the effectiveness of foreign policy will depend on the effectiveness of public policy the only thing that differentiates them is because of the territorial. Therefore, a manipulation of the third world internal policies will have a major ramification on the external policies which in turn affects the development of the developing states or the third world states.

South Sudan Celebrations

The shortcomings of foreign aid or official development assistance (ODA) can be divided into four categories: that is, economic, political, ideological, administrative and environmental motives. Each one of these creates distortions that not only limit the effectiveness of foreign aid but also impose serious limitations on recipient governments in Africa to promote development within the third world developing countries.

The economic distortions created by foreign aid base from inclination to most donor governments to tie aid by insisting that the recipient government uses part of the aid for purchase of equipment and services from the donor country. The tendency  among donors to tie a certain part of a given aid programme to purchase on the “home” market has increased in recent years with recession putting a limit to the degree of selfishness exercised in the aid business. In regards to tied aid what the donor country should facilitate among aid advocate who maintain that aid must not be influenced by commercial criteria. It must be allowed to remain an activity of its own in order to avoid the distortion of economic policies of the third world or developing countries.Similary, Norwegian economist Erick Reinsert’s “How rich countries got rich and why poor countries stay poor” shows that all countries that are rich today had an aggressive industrial policy that adopted some form of protectionism. While Britain set out to industrialize in the late 18^th and 19^th centuries, it imposed tariffs and other measures to curb imports and increase exports. It used its colonies for raw materials, but prevented those colonies (including the United States of America) from manufacturing goods using those raw materials. On the same case, the United States fought for independence from the Britain and today subsidizes a whole range of products, form agricultural to high-tech industries. Yet the United States and free market advocates such as the International Monetary Fund –IMF condemn countries that adopt such protectionist policies.

In the recent past, fight against global terrorism especially after the United States of America bombing of September 2001, by terrorist believed to be linked to Al-Qaida Network of Osama bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, became a criterion of giving aid. United States of America and Britain which are usually targets of terrorists intensified their fight against the vice by mainly supporting governments of countries that support their initiatives as far as fight against global terrorism is concerned. President Bush echoed that either you are with them or with the terrorists in this fight. Political motives, therefore, play major roles behind doors’ foreign aid initiatives and politics. It is only of modest effect among the Scandinavian countries since they are not all that involved in high politics that has characterized the globe for several decades. Even though, at times they are equally driven by political motives. One cannot escape the conclusion that a major factor contributing o these growing pressure is that the international aid community, and particularly the donor agencies, have been given too much autonomy as a result of political insulation.

Generally, donor countries are motivated by disparate factors which could be single or a combination not always but also dynamically. In conclusion, it should be noted and emphasized that national economic and political interest of the donor countries have always been the major motives behind their foreign aid policies and initiatives. Environmental donor countries whose taxes have been used to give foreign aid to poor countries. More specifically, moral and humanitarian feelings have always been the drive behind assistance geared toward alleviation of human suffering based on natural disasters and other hazards posing threats to human existence. But time will tell, whether the ODA is a benefactor or a threat to South Sudan nation economic takeoff or based on the national interest of the international community…