An NGO has concluded that many practices and attitudes in the development aid system reflect colonialism.
Development cooperation is criticised as well because it is based on the idea that the Global South cannot make it on its own and needs help from “white saviours”.
Is “white aid” colonialist? Join the debate!
From the article NoWhiteSaviors: Is ‘white aid’ colonialist?
Shouldn't development aid be channeled through the UN?
If a country directly provides development aid, it will increase the number of supporters of that country, which will lead to ideological conflicts.
China and the U.S. are already competing for development assistance.
Countries that receive development assistance are inevitably influenced by the politics and economics of the country that provided it.
Isn't that what is being criticized as colonialist?
開発援助こそ、国連を介して行うべきではないでしょうか？
国が直接、開発援助をすれば、その国の支持者を増やすことになり、イデオロギーの対立が起きます。
すでに中国とアメリカが開発援助の競争をしています。
開発援助をされた国は、どうしても開発援助をしてくれた国の政治と経済の影響を受けます。
それが植民地主義的と批判されるのではないでしょうか？
Colonialism still exists in different ways: whoever creates crises and wars, feeds their continuation, and then comes to help the vulnerable and affected, certainly has inhuman goals, but to remain present in war and peace and to have the power to benefit from the wealth of these peoples. Humanitarian organizations around the world should unite their word and try to put pressure in every way on the great powers to bring peace to the ground and let their competition be: how to protect the land and man!
الاستعمار لازال موجودا بطرق مختلفة: فمن يفتعل الازمات والحروب ويغذي استمرارها ثم ياتي لمساعدة المستضعفين والمتضررين هو بالتاكيد له اهداف غير انسانية لكن ليبقى موجودا بالحرب والسلم ولتكون له السطوة بالاستفادة من ثروات هذه الشعوب. المفروض أن توحد المنظمات الانسانية حول العالم كلمتها وتحاول الضغط بكل الطرق على الدول العظمى لاحلال السلام على الأرض ولتكن منافستهم هي: كيف نحمي الارض والانسان!
Yes, this is the possibility of colonizing the wealth that exists in poor countries in suspicious ways, such as aid, human development projects, seizing youth wealth by helping them migrate to them, sow ignorance and poverty in these countries, ethnic conflicts, imposing religion and producing everything that is not in the interest of this country. Yes, permanent control over its wealth...
نعم هذا وارد استعمار الثروات الموجودة عند الدول الفقيرة بطرق مشبوهة مثل المساعدات ومشاريع التنمية البشرية والاستيلاء على الثروة الشبابية بمساعدتها على الهجرة إليها وزرع الجهل والفقر في هذه الدول والنزاعات العرقية وفرض الدين وانتاج كل ما هو لا يصب في مصلحة هذه البلد من أجل السيطرة الدائمة على ثرواتها....
Of course, it goes back to what purpose these aids are for? And by what mechanism. I read less about "white aid".
But if the economic and social situation of the recipient countries and nations is studied. Despite the aid, it is still in the worst economic condition. This can be documented and it can be claimed that no help is provided just to improve the living conditions of the recipients. Rather, the donors pursue their personal goals, do not care whether there is an improvement in the economic and social situation of the recipients or not?
On the other hand, I must add that they make the recipients passive and always wait for the help of others and do not try to stand on their own two feet.
I do not consider it colonialist, as long as it is aid for development projects; what is harmful is the welfarism, which turns the beneficiaries into cripples, lame and blind.
Duly funded development projects aimed at the education sector, small business ventures, agriculture in export products such as coffee, fruits, asparagus, tubers, etc. . International lending to developing countries does not always have good results ...
No lo considero colonialista, siempre en cuando es ayuda para proyectos de desarrollo ; lo perjudicial es el asistencialismo, que convierte a los beneficiarios en mancos, cojos y ciegos.
Los proyectos de desarrollo debidamente financiados dirigidos al sector educación, pequeñas empresas de emprendimientos , el agro en productos de exportación como el café, frutas, espárragos, tubérculos etc . Préstamos internacionales a los países en desarrollo no siempre tiene buen resultado …
Yes. Development aid is colonialist. It is a way of playing the 'master-servant' game. Most of the aids are channelled through the beneficiary countries' leaders who squandered them and impoverish their followers more. Corruption is so high in developing countries that there is hardly any noticeable difference between the treasury of the countries and their leaders' purses. Development agencies from the 'whites' will do better by improving schools, awarding scholarships to brilliant students and providing direct infrastructure like roads and farm equipment and trainings. Thanks.
The purpose of aid is to bring help and relief to those who need it . There are other reasons for providing it but they are less valid and , while they cannot be ignored , they must not detract from the true purpose .Those people who are in extreme need of aid are less interested in the motives of the provider and more interested in the actual receiving of it . Those who seek to " colonise" through giving aid should be confronted , but the giving of the aid should be continued . Many people actually depend on it for simpe survival !
Aid is aid and in these times in which we live everything adds up, to think that it is colonialist is to think as Colonialist.
De ninguna manera es Colonialista.La ayuda es ayuda y en estos tiempos en los que vivimos todo suma.Pensar que es colonialista es pensar como Colonialista.
Of course, it is a neo-colonialism that makes these countries assistants. Under the guise of aid, a lot of shenanigans are hidden. Taking Africa as an example, 60 years after their independence, these countries are in an abysmal state, socially, economically and politically, despite decades of financial and technical aid from the West. Most of them are heavily indebted and corruption is all-powerful, so they only have an illusion of independence. Not to mention that many of them are living through bloody conflicts. So we should not be surprised by their mass migration to Western countries.
Bien sûr, un néo colonialisme qui font de ces pays des assistés. Sous le couvert d'aide, beaucoup de magouilles se dissimulent. Ne prenant que l'Afrique en exemple, 60 ans après leur indépendance, ces pays sont dans un état abyssal, tant sur le plan social, économique ou politique, malgré des décennies d'aide financière et technique de l'occident. La plupart d'entre eux sont lourdement endettés et la corruption est toute puissante, donc ils n'ont qu'une illusion d'indépendance. Sans oublier que nombre d'entre eux vivent des conflits sanglants. Il ne faut donc pas s'étonner de leur migration en masse vers les pays occidentaux.
Maybe do what is right, not what is politically correct?
Und was wäre das Richtige?
The simple facts are (1) the North / West does not and has not paid a fair price for commodities from developing countries and (2) during the colonial years, European colonial countries took out trillions in wealth from developing countries.
So, lets not talk in terms of development aid. Lets talk in terms of what the West owes developing countries and how that money can be paid back.
Such an approach would reduce consumption, helping climate change and also help developing countries.
Inwiefern würde das den Verbrauch reduzieren? Weil Rohstoffe teurer würden, wenn man sie fair bezahlen würde?
Correct. It would reduce consumption in rich countries, but increase the quality of life in developing countries and consumption there too. If developing counties were financially and technologically stable they can help tackle climate change without waiting for cash from the North / which the North has promised for 25 years and never paid!
To be honest, I would discuss this topic, but I am offended by the "white aid" and the "white savior" terms. Why even use a race to describe something like this? I think THAT should be the question here...
Vielen Dank für diesen Hinweis! Ja, das verstehe ich gut. Eine Expertin bedauerte ebenfalls, dass diese Debatte so stark um die Hautfarbe kreist.
GBAE_MARIE
I think by using the words - white aid, one can bring focus on the fact that aid is often given by rich (European; white) countries to poorer countries. I am not offended by the words; nothing wrong with them. It is just an attempt to encourage more passionate conversation. It is not racist in any manner; just may be somewhat more "theatrical", but that is a good thing, when we want to push our buttons and really think about the subtle perceptions that play a part in such matters.
A question which comes to my mind - Looking at history (of aid), can we conclude that it has really helped the people (e.g. have better access to education/jobs/healthcare) of the countries, where we sent aid? Who has the aid really benefitted?
The biggest issue I see today, in debates, in people's views, is that often people will judge other cultures, tribes, countries based on the assumption that their own systems are highly evolved and perfect.
In my disapproved comment, I had compared the relationship of aid donor and aid recipient to the man-made concept of Marriage. Why? Because marriage is the most trusted/sacred/well-intentioned contract we humans have. We get married with all good intentions; we get married for life; yet divorce rates are high in many countries.
I tried to explain that even in marriage, there is expectation of - ROI, return on investment i.e. there is an expectation of getting something/a lot back. We do not verbalize it, but it is there in mind.
Giving and receiving aid is also similar. There is an expectation of ROI, even though it is not put into words; but it is well understood, by the donor and recipient, both.
My purpose is to show, that such engagements are a consequence of human behavior, which we actually share with other species as well, hence it is natural.
My point above may be too philosophical, but the underlying reason is what I present to other readers; they may or may not agree.
Sie meinen also, es werde in gewisser Form auch ein Druck und Erwartungen aufgebaut? Dass also die Empfängerländer wirtschaftliche Beziehungen zu den Geberländern zu unterhalten hätten, beispielsweise?
Question is - Why do some countries offer development aid to some other countries? Is it with the intention of helping other Homo Sapiens? Do they want anything in return?
Simple questions, with simple answers. Humans are the same today as we were during Romans times or even before the Pharaohs ruled Egypt; I mean our real intentions for doing some things have not changed. Our human (desires) characteristics remain unchanged, across all countries, including Switzerland.
Persönlich kann ich mir durchaus vorstellen, dass auch hehre Absichten dahinterstecken. Der Mensch als soziales Wesen leidet, wenn er sieht, dass es anderen Menschen schlecht geht. Und der erste Impuls ist, helfen zu wollen. Das finde ich ein natürliches Verhalten.
Yes, I agree with you that aid given, sometimes is simply a result of us humans wanting to help others, when we see other humans suffer. But the aid we are talking about, is not really given by people to other people; it is given by politicians to other politicians (country to country), and using someone else's money (taxpayers money).
Aid can take many forms. Example: On TV in UK, we see ads, daily, by non-profit organizations asking for donations for- Cancer research, Clean water for kids in Africa, Save the donkeys - the elephants - other animals. I think most of these are not motivated by politics.
When I donate money to such causes, I am not using someone else's money, I am using my own hard-earned money, on which I have already paid tax. I am doing it only/really to help, as my only ROI is that I feel good.
Almost always, country-to-country, non-monetary aid (goods) is also proudly marked with big banners on the boxes - Help from the people of ABC to the people of XYZ country. Why the advertising, if one just wants to help? Why the branding?
As a little child my father said to me - If you donate to charity or to help a person in need -- Keep it private; do not broadcast that you are helping another person; do not show off; do not tell others how good you are; good deeds should not be advertised.
But country-to-country aid is always bragged about in the media. Reasons are not hard to understand. There is an intense desire to show the world - Look, WE are the good guys; WE will help you when you need us. Does it really work? Just look at history and form your own conclusions.
But I do agree, as individual humans, we will, on occasions, help others. Politics is another game.
Das haben Sie wunderbar auf den Punkt gebracht, danke!
In no way do I think that the collaboration is colonialist, in my opinion they are countries that are in a better situation and we should be grateful that they can do it, others don't even consider it, they are the ones who receive it and should be grateful.Daniel Beccar
De ninguna manera opino que la colaboración es colonialista. En mi opinión, son países que están en mejor situación y hay que agradecer que. puedan hacerlo. Otros ni siquiera lo consideran, son los que reciben que deberían agradecer.
Personally, I do not have a conclusive opinion on this either. There are experts from the Global South who criticise the term "developed".
It may be that there are economic definitions of "developed". Nevertheless, I am sceptical. To take an example from the agricultural sector: a country with many large corporations producing in monocultures for export may do better overall economically than a country with many small farmers. But the latter are better able to ensure food security for the population because they produce a wider range of products for the domestic market. The profits from exports are likely to flow into the pockets of foreign shareholders. It seems to me, therefore, that it is much more complex than simply measuring economic strength. Moreover, the measurement would also have to take social inequality into account: After all, what good is it if a country is a major economic power and some people are doing very well, but part of the population lives in extreme poverty?
Persönlich habe ich dazu auch keine abschliessende Meinung. Es gibt Expertinnen und Experten aus dem Globalen Süden, die den Begriff "entwickelt" kritisieren.
Es mag sein, dass es wirtschaftliche Definitionen von "entwickelt" gibt. Dennoch bin ich skeptisch. Ein Beispiel aus dem Agrarsektor: Ein Land mit vielen Grosskonzernen, die in Monokulturen für den Export produzieren, mag gesamtwirtschaftlich besser abschneiden als ein Land mit vielen Kleinbäuerinnen und Kleinbauern. Doch Letztere können die Ernährungssicherheit für die Bevölkerung besser gewährleisten, weil sie eine breitere Produktpalette für den einheimischen Markt herstellen. Die Gewinne aus den Exporten fliessen wahrscheinlich in die Taschen ausländischer Aktionärinnen und Aktionäre. Es scheint mir deshalb sehr viel komplexer, als einfach die Wirtschaftskraft zu messen. Zudem müsste man bei der Messung auch die soziale Ungleichheit berücksichtigen: Denn was nützt es, wenn ein Land zwar eine grosse Wirtschaftsmacht ist und es einigen Menschen sehr gut geht, ein Teil der Bevölkerung aber in extremer Armut lebt?
Thank you for your interesting comment.
I agree with you that the framing is not helpful. On the other hand, it is a debate from the Global South that we cannot simply ignore.
There are suggestions on how to do it better (in the article series they are addressed by various experts): Handing over the decision-making power to the locals, letting local initiatives grow and not displacing them with Western aid, some call - similar to you - for the abolition of classical development aid or a transformation into pure emergency aid/disaster relief.
I find your suggestion of letting countries develop themselves interesting. Personally, I also keep asking myself: what does "developed" actually mean? Is that a legitimate goal? Or shouldn't it rather be about everyone being well and having what they need?
Vielen Dank für Ihren interessanten Kommentar.
Ich stimme Ihnen zu, dass das Framing nicht hilfreich ist. Andererseits handelt es sich um eine Debatte aus dem Globalen Süden, die wir nicht einfach ignorieren können.
Es gibt Vorschläge, wie man es besser machen könnte (in der Artikel-Serie werden sie von verschiedenenen Expertinnen und Experten angesprochen): Die Entscheidungsmacht den Lokalen übergeben, lokale Initiativen wachsen lassen und sie nicht mit westlicher Hilfe verdrängen, manche fordern - ähnlich wie Sie - die Abschaffung der klassischen Entwicklungshilfe oder eine Umwandlung in reine Nothilfe/Katastrophenhilfe.
Ihren Vorschlag, die Länder sich selber entwickeln zu lassen, finde ich interessant. Persönlich frage ich mich auch immer wieder: Was bedeutet eigentlich "entwickelt"? Ist das ein legitimes Ziel? Oder sollte es nicht vielmehr darum gehen, dass es allen Menschen gut geht und sie das haben, was sie brauchen?
This may be the case, but the countries receiving aid are colonized by their governors, which prevents their full liberation, and aid is only funding for the rulers to bring it back to their source as a deposit.
قد يكون الأمر على هذا النحو، لكن الدول التي تتلقى المساعدات مُستعمَرةٌ من قبل حكامها ما يحول دون تحريرها الكامل، والمساعدات ليست الا تمويلا للحكام كي يُعيدوها الى مصدرها كوديعة.
Thank you for your post. Do you really think, or all countries that receive development assistance from developed countries, are “colonized” by their rulers? Do you think everyone is in your opinion?
شكرا على مشاركتك. هل تعتقد فعلا أم كل الدول المتلقية لمساعدات تنموية من بلدان متقدمة "مُستعمرةٌ" من طرف حكامها؟ هل يستوي الجميع برأيك؟
Thank you for your post. Do you really think, or all countries that receive development assistance from developed countries, are “colonized” by their rulers? Do you think everyone is in your opinion?
شكرا على مشاركتك. هل تعتقد فعلا أم كل الدول المتلقية لمساعدات تنموية من بلدان متقدمة "مُستعمرةٌ" من طرف حكامها؟ هل يستوي الجميع برأيك؟
Yes, only when it comes to poverty, the rulers are responsible for what beating the people. Give me one example of one narrow country in which true democracy and absolute freedom prevail. regards
نعم فقط حينما يتعلق الأمر بالفقر، فالحكام هم المسؤولون عما يحيق بالشعب. أعطني مثالا واحدا عن بلد واحد يُعاني ضيق الحال تسود به الديموقراطية الحقة، والحرية المطلقة. تحياتي
So would more direct democracy and popular control of the powerful be a solution?
Wäre mehr direkte Demokratie und Kontrolle der Mächtigen durch die Bevölkerung also eine Lösung?
It seems to me that these are foolish criticisms. Colonialist aid? In the name of "political correctness", a real mania coming from the USA (universities), anything the white man does, is now reprehensible, even aid to the so-called "Third World" . What on earth are we to do? Repent, contrite of our bad past and without even attempting to provide aid because we are suspected of "hairy" repentance ? If we continue on this rather hypocritical path, anything belonging to our civilization would have to be erased: monuments, history, books, etc. The West today appears increasingly bewildered by the barrage of criticism of our past, which can only cause frustration and resentment.
Marco Brenni
A me pare che siano critiche insensate. Aiuti colonialistici? In nome del "politically correct", una vera mania venuta dagli USA (università), qualsiasi cosa faccia l'uomo bianco, è ormai riprovevole, persino gli aiuti al cosiddetto "Terzo mondo" . Che mai dobbiamo fare? Pentirci, contriti del nostro cattivo passato e senza nemmeno tentare di fornire aiuti perché sospetti di pentimento "peloso" ? Se si continua su questa strada piuttosto ipocrita, qualsiasi cosa appartenente alla nostra civiltà andrebbe cancellata: monumenti, storia, libri, ecc. L'Occidente oggi appare sempre più disorientato per la pioggia di critiche sul nostro passato, il che può provocare solo frustrazione e risentimento.
Marco Brenni
Thank you very much for your comment. It is an interesting point that you raise. In my personal opinion, the criticism should be taken as an opportunity to rethink the current system and make it as fair as possible, including international trade rules and agricultural subsidies, etc. What has happened has happened, but we can influence the present.
Vielen Dank für Ihren Kommentar. Ein interessanter Aspekt, den Sie da ansprechen. Meiner persönlichen Meinung nach sollte man die Kritik zum Anlass nehmen, das aktuelle System zu überdenken und möglichst gerecht auszugestalten, dazu gehören auch internationale Handelsregeln und Agrarsubventionen etc. Was passiert ist, ist passiert, aber auf die Gegenwart können wir Einfluss nehmen.
According to psychologists, we live in a narcissistic society today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZn7d3aqu0Y
And since narcissists install themselves in positions of power and destroy critics and those who think differently, it is obvious that sooner or later development aid will be misused to destroy people with different opinions, especially critics, in other countries, as in colonialism.
https://www.3sat.de/wissen/wissenschaftsdoku/210930-sendung-wido-102.html
Years ago an African UN representative once said "Good development aid is help for self-help - if the natives ask for this help of their own accord". As soon as the help is imposed or the people are seduced to it, it would be nothing else than a colonialism in which the people are determined by others and thus deprived of their dignity as human beings.
To be fair, what other, non-European countries are currently doing in the global village is also nothing other than a kind of colonialism. So the Europeans are in "best company".
It would be more honest if the other countries would officially put the money for economic, development aid, cultural promotion and understanding in other countries right into the pocket of their own secret service.
Gemäss Psychologen leben wir heute in einer narzisstischen Gesellschaft.
Googeln Sie: "Youtube Reinhard Haller: Die Narzissmus-Falle"
Und da Narzissten sich im Machtpositionen installieren und Kritiker und andersdenkende zu Grunde richten ist es naheliegend, dass früher oder später die Entwicklungshilfe missbraucht wird um in anderen Länder Menschen mit einer anderen Meinungen, insbesondere Kritiker, zu Grunde zu richten wie bei einem Kolonialismus.
Googeln Sie: "Selbstverliebt, machthungrig, kaltherzig - 3sat-Mediathek"
Vor Jahren sagte mal eine afrikanische UNO-Vertreterin "Gute Entwicklungshilfe ist Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe - wenn die Einheimischen von sich aus nach dieser Hilfe verlangen". Sobald die Hilfe aufgedrängt wird oder die Menschen dazu verführt werden wäre es nichts anderes als ein Kolonialismus bei dem die Menschen fremdbestimmt und somit ihrer Würde als Mensch beraubt werden.
Fairer Weise, was zur Zeit andere, nicht-europäische Länder im globalen Dorf betreiben ist auch nichts anderes als eine Art von Kolonialismus. Somit sind die Europäer in "bester Gesellschaft".
Es wäre ehrlicher wenn die anderen Länder das Geld für Wirtschafts-, Entwicklungshilfe, Kulturförderung und Verständigung in anderen Länder gleich offiziell dem eigenen Geheimdienst in die Tasche stecken würden.
Do you mean the narcissism of individual aid workers?
Meinen Sie den Narzissmus der einzelnen Entwicklungshelfer und Entwicklungshelferinnen?
Thanks for asking.
The individual aid workers can probably not usually exercise much power over the locals and would then be according to the link not so much the problem as the states or organizations behind it.
Whereas, considering the coercions and abuses of WHO staff, it does raise a lot of questions about what criteria are used to select and manage staff.
Google: "SRF WHO confirms sexual abuse by staff in Congo".
Danke für das Nachfragen.
Die einzelnen Entwicklungshelferinnen und -Helfer können vermutlich in der Regel nicht viel Macht gegenüber den Einheimischen ausüben und wären dann gemäss dem Link nicht so sehr das Problem als die Staaten oder Organisationen dahinter.
Wobei, wenn man die Nötigungen und Missbrauchsfälle von WHO-Mitarbeitern bedenkt, dann stellt sich doch sehr die Frage nach welchen Kriterien Mitarbeiter ausgewählt und geführt werden.
Googeln Sie: "SRF WHO bestätigt sexuellen Missbrauch durch Mitarbeiter im Kongo"
Good hint! Oxfam and other international organizations have also had incidents like the WHO.
Guter Hinweis! Auch bei Oxfam und anderen internationalen Organisationen gab es solche Vorfälle wie bei der WHO.
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.