Comments

Hi Bill, Thank you for an excellent comment. I like how you've used the contradictory behaviour to shine a light on potential issues with aid. In a practical sense, I don't think donors manage to achieve much directly through their attempts at imposing women's empowerment on aid recipients. Or at least, I don't think their efforts in this area wouldn't get far were it not for the fact that women in the countries in question support at least some aspects of empowerment, and for the fact that there are often very committed domestic actors keen to take up the cause. Aid likely contributes to positive change on gender-related matters, and is very worthwhile in that sense, but I don't think external actors would often get far in imposing norm shifts from the outside if they had no support from within aid recipient countries. Ethically, I do not think that trying to impose change from without is wrong, or neocolonial per se. If aid actors succeeded in compelling the military in Myanmar to stop repressing their own people and introduce real democracy, this would be a good act, and would hardly seem colonial in any sense. Similarly, I don't think it's inherently wrong to work with existing social structures in a country -- hereditary chiefs for example -- if that's the best way to improve people's lives, in a rural agricultural scheme for example. As aid actors aren't omnipotent, it seems reasonable that they be pragmatic, as long as they are genuinely trying to help, and not being blinded by their own bright ideas. Thanks again for a good comment, it was great to have chance to think this one through. Terence

As one of those who says that overall, aid IS colonial, I take issue with the comment that "donors simply don’t give enough aid to gain much leverage." Granted, they don't give a lot. But much of it is thinly-disguised bribes (per-diem payments, consulting fees, electronics, motorbikes and cellphones "to help you do your job"...) to government officials, in return for permission to operate in that country. Bribes, in the cases I've been able to find, typically influence amounts roughly 10 to 100 times bigger than the bribe itself. That's considerable influence. Furthermore, officials who keep their eyes on how to get some of the money, rather than figuring out what's best for their country, represent another negative influence, even if they never get the money.

Barrick Australia v PNG (Arbitration Tribunal) – recent developments Following from the failure of PNG to respond to ICSID notices served to the PNG ambassador in Washington the Chairman of the ICSID Administrative Council has appointed M Alexis Mourre (French) as the presiding arbitrator. Alexis Mourre is President of the ICC Court of International Arbitration. He is a widely-published author and very experienced arbitrator. He has extensive experience in Latin American arbitrations and is familiar with the ‘Calvo doctrine’ and the political attractions of ‘resource nationalism’ for many countries. The Arbitral Tribunal is now duly constituted and will likely convene for a first session quite soon. In the mean time I expect the Conciliation Tribunal (Barrick PNG v PNG) will be seeking a direct confirmatory response from PNG that it does not wish to enter into conciliation proceedings with Barrick. Following receipt of such a notice the Conciliation Tribunal will make a report to the ICSID Council. The issue of ICSID costs against PNG may also come up for consideration. The Conciliation Commission will, I expect, peruse the Supreme Court judgment of Makail J (Barrick (Niugini) Ltd v Nekitel [2020] PGSC 94; SC2005 (25 September 2020) where His Honour declared that “the relationship between the parties at worst has become obnoxious and broken down to the point of no return and it would not be in the interests of justice that the unwilling party be ordered to maintain the relationship” (para 21). Makail J continues to explain his judgment as made in the “Interest of Justice”, a seemingly weighty phrase, but the SC report makes no reference to the reasoning that must underlie the use of this phrase. The absence of a reasoned judgment opens the door to an argument for the international law delict of ‘denial of justice’. It may also stand as proof of the expropriation of Barrick assets and property by the PNG Government (e.g see Z. Douglas Int. Responsibility for Domestic Adjudication: Denial of Justice Deconstructed, 2014). Today, before posting this to Devpolicy, I turned to The National newspaper and found the article headlined “Govt close to sealing a deal with Barrick”. It seems that the PNG Government has turned away from the brink and is no longer sliding into an abyss. Very likely PNG has taken the Tanzanian path. I am sure that the new deal Mr Marape refers to will be much better for PNG than the old and that Barrick will now go forward and develop the Porgera mine and increase its investment in PNG. Phew! Vailala

Development partners have very strong feelings about the role and treatment of women and they do not hesitate to use their aid to drive that agenda. Many would defend this "neo-colonial" approach as the right thing to do. At the same time donors are very happy to quietly work with hereditary chiefs in the Pacific, for example, to implement their projects while they would never support hereditary leadership in their own countries. Which approach is right? Deferring to local sensibilities or imposing dramatic change that they think is proper?

It's nonsense written the author doesn't have all the facts and is based on hear say . The only thing that is keeping peace in Northern Somalia is that SNM and liyu police force make sure that no descended in somaliland and 30 years long propaganda on the youth that Somalia hates somaliland has made the youth unaware of the reality and the old generation and its tribal leaders are held at gun point. The secessionist have successfully maintained the grip on that tiny land. The reality is that if the people were give the opportunity to choose were they belong without fear or false information they will choose to be part of Somalia as it shows today where many people of Northern Somalia move to Mogadishu to work and live there. Its the criminal leaders who control the Northern Somalia have deep hatred for Somalia and they are doing everything they can to deceive foreigners like this writer to publish glowing articles to confess the Westerners that Northern Somalia is different than the rest of Somalia and it works perfectly

Hi Maho, Thank you for sharing some of what you've experienced, and also how it's shaped your perspectives on aid. It's a great question too regarding aid being used to procure support at the UN. There is good empirical evidence that this does occur. It's frustrating, and an example of the sort of flaw that is too common in foreign aid. I don't think it's neo-colonial though, in that the procurement of votes does not subsequently lead to the economic exploitation of the aid-recipient country(s) in question. Thanks again for an excellent comment. Terence

Hi Ai, Thank you for a great, thought-provoking comment. I think you may be right that subjugation is too high a bar. I would happily settle on a definition along the lines of: aid is neocolonial when it affords donors significant power which they then use to consistently exploit recipients. I do think, however, that -- with my caveat about aid during economic crises -- aid as a share of recipient GNI provides a useful guide as to the ability of a donor to effect power over a recipient country. Except during crises it is hard to see how a small amount of funding could be used as a lever to get a recipient government to change a policy, such that the replacement policy led to meaningful exploitation of the country in question. I can think of exceptions, but these would usually require some additional ingredient -- for example, situations in which elites in the recipient country themselves will profit from from the same exploitation. The exceptions are not trivial, particularly at the level of the community, rather than the nation state -- Honduras provides us with some sad, recent examples -- but I think they are the exception, rather than the norm in aid giving. As I make clear in the post, the norm in aid giving is still flawed, but I think it can be best described, and hopefully one day rectified, if it is seen for what it is, rather than neo-colonialism. Thank you again for an excellent comment. Terence

I love a lot of Wood's writings and other articles but this one I think was whipped together too quickly. Neocolonialism isn't just about subjugation in that first instance. The dictionary definition he refers to even mentions that neocolonialism also concerns power and exploitation. GNI percentages don't even need to register for power and exploitation to occur in aid flows: these dynamics are already in huge potential when a tourist pulls out a $50 bill, whether there is any intention to 'subjugate' or not. "Even in the Americas," tiny amounts of aid money ( we could say both types, "aid" and actual aid) in many communities and many nations sponsored insidious ideas and individuals in ways that have had massive (and often terrible) consequences for the local populace but which served political, economic and other interests or ideas of those from the donor end. Sometimes even with good intention! These were exercises in power, in exploitation, and/or paternalism. Neoliberal ideas are certainly intertwined particularly with the example of the Americas, but it is all still very much neocolonialism.

Thanks Terence, I found this very insightful. Working on a few Australian aid projects in PNG, in the past 2 years, I've seen many aid workers who are both keen to work with locals actors, and hear our insight. This makes me hopeful that at least in some places, the approach to how aid is administered is changing - it's more effective (in my opinion) to adopt a searcher approach, to borrow from Easterly. I was also wondering if the donor power you mention extends to aid being used to influence recipient country votes at the UN?

What are the benefits of hosting APEC to PNG? If any please provide information . (The current benefits?)

Thank you Michelle for this important piece. There is some excellent research by Barry + Bonnie Hewlett from the Ebola epidemic that also emphasises the ways funeral practices can be safely maintained in contexts of extreme epidemiological risk. It would be interesting to see how well their insights and interventions could translate to the covid/PNG context.

Do Indian Lives matter? May be the Vaccine diplomacy could have indirect benefits for India. One has to sacrifice something to gain something.