Many developing countries, including Namibia, are stunned following the move by the United States of America (USA) president Donald Trump to cut funding to all United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance programmes. 

Trump claims this is a mechanism to evaluate whether USAID programmes align with his “America First” policy. Aid has long been a cornerstone of global efforts to combat poverty, respond to crises and promote sustainable development. 

However, not all aid is created equal. 

Research shows that the effectiveness of aid depends on the type of support provided, how well it aligns with local needs, and the mechanisms used to deliver it. 

Cunningly, there are also strings attached to aid. Principally, in our needy world, compassion must be the only justification for foreign aid. However, foreign aid by most affluent and powerful countries is rarely charity. 

It usually comes with strings attached, despite earnest claims to the contrary. 

This is a clear weaponisation of aid, ironically recognised as such by the recipients who have no other means to rely on for a living. 

Admittedly, some donors are more honest when they talk of win-win aid and development and make no claims that aid is a form of charity. 

Modus operandi

Elements of foreign aid may be directed through humanitarian non-governmental organisation (NGO) agencies. 

This has aspects of charity because, often, the donor is at arm’s length from the way the assistance is delivered and expended. 

Some NGOs have been used for political purposes, but the level of foreign aid funding allocated to NGOs is just a small part of the overall government aid budget. 

What is conspicuous is the fact that foreign aid budget components directed to the United Nations (UN) may have a more charitable aspect in that the distribution of the aid is largely beyond the control of any individual donor. 

But this is also not the case, as the withholding of World Health Organisation (WHO) funding by the USA illustrates this fact. 

The reality is that government-led foreign aid is a primary method of expanding soft power, a persuasive approach to international relations. 

Aid is provided in the expectation that the recipient will become and permanently remain a dependable friend of the donor. 

Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, aid has become a weapon of foreign policy. 

In addition, aid can also be used as a method of hard power, a coercive approach to international political relations, especially the one that involves the use of military power, and effective foreign interference in sovereign decision-making. 

Hence, aid can also be used to counter and control the influence of other competing donor nations. 

Certain powerful countries made barely veiled threats along the lines to developing countries with aid delivery dependent on the recipient countries making decisions that do not disadvantage the interest of a ‘Big Power’. Essentially, the recipient nations need to determine their destiny. If closer ties and investment with their neighbours and other nations are in their primary sovereign interest, so be it. 

Importantly, this is the question that needs to be more broadly applied to all countries offering aid, irrespective of the class of aid given.

Furthermore, aid can be used to counter instability, and cover and protect the strategic interests of a donor country. 

It has been a practice for aid to easily slide from the position of civilian advisors, educationists, etc., to military advisors, spy agents as well as military support and assistance. 

The Vietnam conflict remains one of the vivid examples of this type of mission creep in foreign aid. Aid is used to shape the political and social environment to meet the donors’ aspirations and domestic political agenda. 

It often comes to developing countries with a host of bureaucratic and time-consuming requirements. 

As such, developing countries which often have less developed administrative capacity, are incredibly compelled to follow rigid complex regulations, which include compliance factors relevant to donor economies. 

Also, aid is used coercively in the so-called debt diplomacy. 

Certain donor countries own about 81% of developing country’s foreign debt – more than three-quarters of their international obligations. 

Except for some disaster aid, government-led foreign aid programmes are designed to deliver benefits to the donor and recipients. This, however, does not nullify the good that foreign aid comes “with no strings” attached and is a comfortable falsehood. In summary, foreign aid is essential for the survival and development of many in developing countries. 

In honesty, and in accepting aid, government leaders must be acutely aware that there are always strings attached to aid. 

How they effectively and diplomatically deal with them is the crux of the matter. 

In addition, for foreign aid to be truly successful in achieving lasting or long-term benefits, it needs to be accompanied by evidently well-written commitments with a strong emphasis on ‘no strings attached’. 

Critically analysing the above-mentioned narratives, government leaders of developing countries must be critically aware of the shenanigans involved in offering aid as well as assess associated benefits and risks. 

Foreign aid dependency generally fosters underdevelopment. 

Hence, leaders of developing nations must, in earnest, lead their development to generate resources to reduce the risk of total dependence and cease the insincere display of grief following the move by Trump to cut funding to all US-AID foreign assistance programmes. 

Indeed, foreign aid is welcome, but it should not come with hideous agendas – with suffocating strings attached.

*Maj. Gen. (Rtd) J. B Tjivikua is a criminal intelligence analyst.