US WILL NO LONGER FUND CORRUPT GOVTS â GONZALES
US Ambassador to Zambia Michael Gonzales says his government will now only fund nations that are taking steps to fight corruption and grow their economies.
He says the US approach to foreign assistance had previously failed to spur development, and had instead enabled and perpetuated dependence and corruption by leaders in recipient countries.
Further, Ambassador Gonzales says the US government is not like China, as its engagements with nations are sincere and without hidden agendas or anything that comes at the partnerâs expense.
In an article titled âBreaking the Cycle of Foreign Assistance Enabling Corruptionâ, posted on the US Department of State website, Ambassador Gonzales stated that, too often, what was needed for economic growth and development was not more money, but sound reforms.
âWhile the hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance spent over the years have dramatically improved many peopleâs lives and livelihoods around the world, too often the United Statesâ approach to foreign assistance failed to advance U.S. interests, failed to spur systematic development, and enabled and perpetuated dependence and corruption by leaders in recipient countries.
Since 1991, the United States has provided more than $200 billion in foreign assistance to Africa, yet the African Union reports that African countries lose an estimated $88 billion each year through tax evasion, money laundering, and corruption. Too often, what is needed for economic growth and development is not more money, but sound reforms that incentivise enduring private investment and growth,â he stated.
âInstead of insisting on mutual accountability to use U.S. assistance to address the causes of poverty and underdevelopment, too often we funded outputs to allay the symptoms. In so doing, we failed both the American taxpayer and the citizens of developing countries who looked to their governments and ours to help create the conditions to realise a better futureâ.
He stated that in the past, the US government did not have a consistent policy as to whether its assistance was charity or a foreign policy tool.
Ambassador Gonzales added that this lack of clarity had helped to perpetuate corruption and bad governance.
âFor decades, the United States did not have a consistent policy as to even whether assistance was charity or a foreign policy tool. We did not require a committed partner, a coherent business plan, equity collateral at risk, or funding subject to performance-based disbursements.
We infantilised recipient governments instead of having candid discussions on mutual performance expectations. Too often our approach to developing countries â frequently perpetuated by the excuses of those same governments â reflected the soft bigotry of low expectations.
We excused away the lack of political will as âcapacity constraintsâ, dismissed it with âwe shouldnât expect too muchâ, and did not challenge them when governments acted in contrast to their professed commitments,â Ambassador Gonzales stated.
âToo often, we were content to confuse governmentsâ commitments for actions. We misinterpreted our access to leaders as influence with those leaders. We mischaracterised aid projectsâ outputs as outcomes and program objectives as results. We misconstrued governmentsâ permission for us to expend aid as evidence that they shared a commitment to advance professed objectives.
Perhaps worst, we failed to acknowledge when leaders of aid recipient countries demonstrated over and over through their actions that they prioritised their personal interests over, and at the expense of, the interests of their own country and citizens. Virtually never did we withhold assistance funds because host governments failed to deliver on their commitments, instead we responded by providing even more aid âbecause they have needsâ.
By trying to save people from bearing the brunt of the bad governance and corruption of their leaders, we helped perpetuate that very same corruption and bad governance. Quite simply, we violated the central maxim of international development: the donor cannot want development more than the recipient. By doing so, we fuelled moral hazardâ.
Ambassador Gonzales stressed that American foreign assistance was not charity but a tool to advance the countryâs diplomacy, security and prosperity.
âAmerican foreign assistance is not charity but a tool to advance American diplomacy, security, and prosperity. To accomplish these goals, we must focus our assistance and insist on administering it with host-government buy-in and mutual accountability for outcomes. This, in turn, will leave space for market driven growth that will also help close off the means by which malign international actors exploit developing economies and workers.
We should not be dissuaded by detractors who will attempt to vilify a more transactional approach as âneocolonialismâ. Quite the opposite is true. By insisting on systematic reforms that spur transparent and accountable growth and allow governments to retain funds to support their people, the United States can do more to catalyse actual economic development and the upliftment of developing countriesâ societies â and advance tangible U.S. interests â better than we have in recent decades. It is the dependency-oriented, NGO-driven old model of development that is fundamentally colonial in mindset â refusing to respect development nation sovereignty, determinism, or agency,â he stated.
Ambassador Gonzales stated that the US government will now favour nations that are taking steps to fight corruption and grow their economies.
âOperationalising this approach involves adopting investment-oriented goals, requirements, and incentives: A Serious Host Nation: Secretary Rubio has been clear, âAmericans should not fund failed governments in faraway landsâŠwe will favour those nations that have demonstrated both the ability and the willingness to help themselvesâ.
If a government is not already taking steps to stem corruption and grow the economy when its own funds are at stake, we should have no expectation that they will be better stewards of U.S. funds. Without an aligned host-government, we should focus our resources elsewhere,â he stated.
âThe Right Focus: Our purpose is not to give money away, but to catalyse systemic reforms that enable sustainable growth and opportunities for the U.S. and recipient country. Neither governments nor donors create growth; instead,
our roles are to foster conditions for the private sector to invest, create jobs, spur growth, and pay taxes to fund public services. Hence, U.S. foreign assistance should focus on curbing corruption and overcoming and remediating binding constraints to growth to lay the foundation for a transparent, level, and accountable business enabling environmentâ.
The US envoy added that it was important for his government and the recipient government to craft a bespoke package.
âThe Right Resources: Again, our purpose is not to give assistance away, and the history of both corruption and assistance has shown that money is not what is most lacking to spur development.
So, building on an analysis of binding constraints to growth and a business plan that we have confidence in, it is incumbent on the United States and the recipient government to craft a bespoke package of technical assistance interventions to inform and enable the reforms needed.
This should not be an approach of letting a thousand flowers bloom, and it must not be built around the question of âhow can we help?â Instead, we must start with the questions âwhat are the outcomes we want to achieve in the American interest and what needs to happen to realise them?â and build an assistance program around that,â he added.
âPerformance-Based Funding: Too often, once development projects were approved, donorsâ focus turned inward to implementation, achieving outputs, and keeping funds flowing even if receiving governments actively undermined them.
Gradually, funding agencies have begun shifting to performance-based disbursements. By requiring a host government to demonstrate â through its actions, not merely its rhetoric â that it remains politically and financially committed to achieve professed objectives, we ensure that U.S. assistance achieves greater and courage to acknowledge our mistakes, to embrace candid lessons learned, and to do better.
Americaâs generosity in doing business with those who help themselves remains as strong as ever. We are not turning away from less developed nations, instead now is the time to lean in to lend a useful hand to those who are sincere and treat them as mature stakeholders. In engaging valued, sincere nations, nothing should be imposed, hidden, given as ultimatums, or come at the partnerâs expense; we are not China.
Foreign assistance that delivers for the American people and our partners must be founded on sincere, voluntary, and transparent engagement. But it must be backed by tangible action and, if a recipient nation proves through their actions that they are not committed to our professed shared objectives, our allegiance must first be to the American people to be stewards of their resources,â stated Ambassador Gonzales.
âHaving dedicated my life and career to Africa and the developing world, I am invigorated by the massive potential these nations possess, and I have witnessed how the United States can help turn that potential into a reality that benefits both nations.
By restructuring our approach to foreign assistance and engaging developing countries based on national interest, we can help curb the corruption that deprives families of the hope of that better future. We can deliver lasting and systematic growth alongside recipient countries. And, we can deliver tangible value for the American people through a more secure and prosperous worldâ.
News Diggers
