Rosemary Noelke

By: Rosemary Noelke

Introduction

Foreign aid, a cornerstone of international cooperation and humanitarian assistance, is often hailed as a vital tool for alleviating poverty, promoting development, and addressing global humanitarian crises. However, beneath its altruistic facade lies a complex web of political agendas, strategic interests, and power dynamics that shape its allocation and utilization (Zwart, 2017). Through case studies of Uganda and Rwanda, it is clear that the political agendas of both aid-giving and receiving governments influence aid distribution, particularly in conflict-affected regions. The politicization of aid during emergencies, the concept of ‘genocide credit’ in Rwanda, and the strategic partnerships between Uganda and the United States reveal the nuanced and multifaceted intersections of politics and aid.

Understanding Foreign and Humanitarian Aid

Foreign aid is a crucial development strategy encompassing financial, technical, and material assistance. Through governments, international organizations, and non-governmental entities, foreign aid addresses humanitarian needs, fosters development, and strengthens governance and institutions in recipient countries (Apodaca, 2017). The international system can influence domestic conflicts through humanitarian aid, diffusing and encouraging internal strife, reconciling hostilities, and supporting citizens (Lyon, 1999). Various forms of humanitarian aid have emerged throughout history, including emergency humanitarianism, which focuses on immediate relief efforts and impartiality, and alchemical humanitarianism, which seeks to address root causes of suffering for long-term solutions (Ehrenfeld, 2021).

Determinants of Aid and Political Capital

Aid is an essential tool for political manipulation, serving as an incentive for compliance (Apodaca, 2017). In contrast, the threat of aid termination can act as a deterrent (Apodaca, 2017).

Western humanitarianism emerged as a paternalistic belief among colonial powers with a perceived duty to ‘civilize’ their colonies (Ehrenfeld, 2021). Influenced by such colonial constructs, modern foreign and humanitarian aid allocation is often based on economic self-interest and moral responsibility (Zwart, 2017). Economic interest often takes priority, causing donors to their strategic and commercial interests when deciding the recipient, quantity, and conditions of the aid (Apodaca, 2017; Zwart, 2017).

Humanitarian action has also become increasingly tied to political objectives, such as welfare state institutions, public opinion, and other domestic factors (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; Ehrenfeld, 2021). The governance structures, human rights records, and recipient countries’ alignment with donor priorities are also key political factors (Hagmann & Reyntjens, 2016; Zimmerman, 2007). To meet political agendas and consolidate power, some donors concentrate humanitarian and development aid on countries and regions that they perceive as threats to their immediate security interests, neglecting other equally insecure areas (Blair et al., 2021; Oxfam, 2011). The politicization of aid is also reflected in the coherence agenda, where humanitarian action becomes part of a broader political strategy to achieve liberal peace, stability, and development, sacrificing the immediate needs of vulnerable populations (Ehrenfeld, 2021).

Aid and Development in Rwanda

While foreign aid plays a vital role in Rwanda’s development and poverty alleviation efforts, paradoxically, it also perpetuates the crisis (Hakizimana & Endless, 2009). The government, dominated by the elite Tutsis who migrated from Uganda in 1994 and their close allies, governs primarily in their interests (Hakizimana & Endless, 2009). However, the flow of aid to this government inadvertently empowers this group to maintain control, even though their

control relies on deliberately restricting the development opportunities of most of the population (Hakizimana & Endless, 2009). Despite concerns about human rights abuses and authoritarian tendencies, aid continues to flow into Rwanda, reinforcing existing power dynamics (Hakizimana & Endless, 2009). While aid is crucial for Rwanda’s development, it also perpetuates the crisis by enabling the ruling elite to prioritize their interests over those of the broader population (Hakizimana & Endless, 2009).

The Genocide Credit Intervention and Rwanda

Despite these political concerns, Rwanda has been the recipient of large quantities of aid, particularly after the 1994 genocide (Hakizimana & Endless, 2009). The concept of the ‘genocide credit’ suggests that the international community, feeling guilty for its failure to intervene during the 1994 genocide, is more lenient in its scrutiny of the Rwandan government’s actions (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020). However, the recognition of Rwanda’s tragic past and the international community’s failure to prevent the genocide does not equate to unwavering support or disregard for the Rwandan government’s actions (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020). Instead, decisions regarding aid distribution and political interaction with Rwanda are shaped by many factors, including political agendas, bureaucratic considerations, and personal interests, rather than solely a sense of guilt (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020). The concept of ‘genocide credit’ oversimplifies the intricate dynamics of donor support and engagement with Rwanda, which are influenced by many factors extending beyond mere feelings of guilt (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020).
The Political Benefits of the Emergency Period

Marked by reactive decision-making, the immediate post-genocide period, known as the ‘emergency period,’ allowed significant personal and political influences to shape donor policies

in Rwanda (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020). The period presents a unique opportunity for donor countries to establish aid partnerships that serve their political, bureaucratic, and idiosyncratic agendas (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020). The situation’s urgency often drives donors to prioritize rapid response and crisis management, leading to decisions that may not align with long-term development goals or the needs of affected populations (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020). This situation also allows for the development of aid partnerships without heavy consultation or opportunity for disapproval (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020). This politicization of aid can exacerbate existing power dynamics and perpetuate conflict and instability in recipient countries (Desrosiers & Swedlund, 2019; LSE, 2020).

Uganda Geopolitics and the USA Aid Intervention

The United States has a long-standing history of diplomatic relations with Uganda, creating clear economic and political incentives to allocate aid to the country. However, Uganda’s strategic partnerships with donor countries like the United States have allowed President Yoweri Museveni’s regime to maintain power and undermine government accountability (Boehm, 2011). The political landscape in Uganda has long been characterized by patronage politics and the marginalization of certain groups, fueling violent opposition movements in the North (Boehm, 2011). Despite concerns over democratic regression and human rights abuses, the United States has provided substantial aid to Uganda, noting strategic interests in regional stability and counterterrorism efforts (Boehm, 2011). However, this approach to aid distribution has strengthened Museveni’s hold on power while further alienating local communities and exacerbating sentiments of marginalization in conflict-affected areas (Boehm, 2011).

The motivation behind the USA’s actions lies in its economic interests in Uganda, particularly regarding access to natural resources and the preservation of market opportunities (Boehm, 2011). United States business interests in Uganda are expanding, with increased investments in various sectors and the introduction of bilateral investment treaties to facilitate economic relations (U.S. Department of State, 2022). Economic restructuring tied to aid has predominantly favoured U.S. corporations, which benefit from access to inexpensive raw materials and export prospects (Boehm, 2011). In addition, exposure to US aid positively affects perceptions and support of the US and its values while strengthening recipients’ commitment to liberal democratic values (Blair et al., 2021). American aid policies have undermined governmental accountability within Uganda, as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and aid agencies frequently bypass the government in executing development initiatives (Boehm, 2011). These economic and geopolitical incentives have led to the neglect of critical determinants of aid, impacting the success of these donations (Zimmerman, 2007).

Regional Dynamics and Conflict

Beyond individual countries, the politicization of aid in Africa intersects with broader regional dynamics and geopolitical interests. Rwanda and Uganda have invaded the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) since 1996, resulting in significant human suffering and economic collapse (Reid, 2006). The politicization of aid has exacerbated the exploitation of natural resources, competition for influence among regional powers, and the proliferation of armed groups (Reid, 2006). As a result, US aid has exacerbated existing power dynamics and perpetuated conflict and instability in recipient countries (Hagmann & Reyntjens, 2016). The prevalence of wars in Africa raises questions about the effectiveness of politicized aid and the incentives it creates for conflict (Reid, 2006).

Addressing Challenges and Promoting Accountability

Initiatives promoting accountability, transparency, and inclusive decision-making processes are crucial for the depoliticization of aid (Hagmann & Reyntjens, 2016). By promoting genuine partnerships between donors and recipients, stakeholders can work towards a more equitable and sustainable approach to African foreign assistance (Hagmann & Reyntjens, 2016). Despite Rwanda’s heavy reliance on foreign aid and its economic challenges, the government has effectively established ‘red lines’ boundaries to prevent donor interference (Fraser & Whitfield, 2008). Rwanda has initiated policies and initiatives related to social stability and state security without relying on donor support, revealing how broader contextual shifts, including changes in negotiating power, can instigate change (Fraser & Whitfield, 2008). Initiatives aimed at strengthening governance structures, combating corruption, and engaging civil society can help mitigate the negative impacts of aid politicization and ensure that resources are effectively allocated to address the needs of affected populations (Fraser & Whitfield, 2008).

Conclusion: Toward a More Equitable Approach

As the cases of Rwanda and Uganda reveal, foreign aid is often used to pursue international policy objectives (Apodaca, 2017). Donors may aid friendly or compliant regimes or withdraw aid from ideologically adversarial regimes to create economic hardship or destabilize them (Apodaca, 2017). Donors’ foreign and security agendas have prioritized conflicts and unstable governments, resulting in biased assistance policies (Oxfam, 2011). The politicization of aid underscores the need for a critical reevaluation of aid practices and policies. While aid is intended to alleviate suffering and promote development, it often serves the interests of donor governments and perpetuates existing power dynamics in recipient countries. In order to address these challenges, efforts must be made to depoliticize aid and prioritize the needs of

affected populations (Apodaca, 2017; Boehm, 2011). By fostering genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and cooperation, foreign aid can fulfill its transformative potential and contribute to lasting peace in conflict-affected regions.

References

Apodaca, C. (2017). Foreign aid as foreign policy tool. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.332

Blair, R. A., Marty, R., & Roessler, P. (2022). Foreign Aid and Soft Power: Great Power Competition in Africa in the Early Twenty-first Century. British Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 1355–1376. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/foreig n-aid-and-soft-power-great-power-competition-in-africa-in-the-early-twentyfirst-century/ 55AECCCE48807135072DCB453ED492F1

Boehm, Sophie (2011). “The Politics of American Aid and Politics in Uganda,” Undergraduate Journal of Global Citizenship: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 4. https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/jogc/vol1/iss1/4

Desrosiers, M., & Swedlund, H. (2020). Aid giving to post-genocide Rwanda reflects larger patterns with authoritarian states. London School of Economics and Political Science. 2024, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2020/03/02/aid-post-genocide-rwanda-authoritarian-stat es-guilt/

Desrosiers, M.-E., & Swedlund, H. J. (2018). Rwanda’s post-genocide foreign aid relations: Revisiting notions of exceptionalism. African Affairs, 118(472), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ady032

Ehrenfeld, Andrew P, “Politicization of Humanitarian Aid in the 21st Century” (2021). ETD Collection for Fordham University. AAI28496531. https://research.library.fordham.edu/dissertations/AAI28496531

Findley, M. G., Harris, A. S., Milner, H. V., & Nielson, D. L. (2017). Who Controls Foreign Aid? Elite versus Public Perceptions of Donor Influence in Aid-Dependent Uganda. International Organization, 71(4), 633–663. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26569448

Fraser, A.; Whitfield, Lindsay (2008) : The politics of aid: African strategies for dealing with donors, GEG Working Paper, No. 2008/42, University of Oxford, Global Economic Governance Programme (GEG), Oxford http://hdl.handle.net/10419/196304

Hagmann, T., & Reyntjens, F., 2019. Aid and authoritarianism in Africa: Development without democracy. Oxford University Press. https://nai.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:913030/FULLTEXT01

Hasselskog, M. (2023). Exploiting international development ideals. The Rwandan government’s approach to local participation in light of its exercise of national ownership. Forum for Development Studies, 50(3), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2023.2230203

Hakizimana, E. & Endless, B. 2009. Rwanda today: Foreign aid, the United States, and strategic partnership. https://paulr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/rwandatodayforeignaid.pdf

Lyon, A. J. (1999). International contributions to the mobilization of ethnic conflict: Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Rwanda (Order No. 9939194). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Closed Collection. (304543870). https://login.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-thes es/international-contributions-mobilization-ethnic/docview/304543870/se-2

Oxfam International., 2011. Whose aid is it anyway? Politicizing aid in conflicts and crises (Briefing Paper No. 145). https://d1tn3vj7xz9fdh.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp145-whose-aid-any way-100211-en_0_3.pdf

Reid, T. B. (2022). Killing them softly: Has foreign aid to Rwanda and Uganda contributed to the humanitarian tragedy in the DRC? Africa Faith and Justice Network. https://afjn.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/timothy-b-reid1-killing-them-softly-has-fore ign-aid-to-rwanda-and-uganda-contributed-to-the-humanitarian-tragedy-in-the-drc.pdf

The United States Department of State. (2022). The United States and Rwanda: Strategic partners. https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-and-rwanda-strategic-partners/

Youngs, R., & Zihnioğlu, Ö. (2021). Eu Aid Policy in the Middle East and North Africa: Politicization and its limits. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(1), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13136

Zimmerman, R. A. (2007). The determinants of foreign aid: An inquiry into the consequences of welfare state institutions and public opinion. University of Amsterdam, Political Science Department. https://www.oecd.org/Dev/40699467.Pdf

Zwart, J., 2017. Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development Cordaid: Delivering Aid in South Sudan and the Central African Republic. https://edepot.wur.nl/463621