Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 37, No. 11. May 29, 1974

N.Z. Aid — Are we really helping anybody ?

page 8

N.Z. Aid

Are we really helping anybody ?

Many people are already aware that aid, as practised by great powers such as the United States, is just a modem form of imperialism. But what of New Zealand's aid? Is it any different? The material on these pages is part of research done by NZUSA for a conference on aid earlier this year. Next week we will print the section on aid to Malaysia.

Your Plight Moves Me Deeply...

Your Plight Moves Me Deeply...

The initial examination of the aid programme of the New Zealand government must centre on four basic issues.

What do we give?

Who do we give it to?

Why do we give it?

What are the results?

The government has provided answers to the first two questions. It would be useful to repeat some of them here. In the year 1972/1973 ten countries received almost 80% of New Zealand's government aid budget. Five were Asian states and five in the South Pacific.

There are discernable differences in the type of aid given to the Asian states and to the South Pacific countries. This may indicate different motivations, different concerns and and a different level of present New Zealand importance in each region.

Asia is a massive future market for New Zealand goods and services. The biggest single component of our aid to Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia is the commissioning of New Zealand companies and consortiums to study and survey future projects in those countries. During the 1970 Conference on International Aid and the Business Community this form of aid was one that was widely said to provide opportunities for market penetration in the Asian region.

The Pacific does not provide the same possibilities for trade at this stage and in any case our foot is very firmly in the door of the South Pacific. Our aid concentrates on things other than technical cooperation; "General Development" accounts for 62% of our aid to that region.

Already 50 to 60 cents of every dollar given as aid is spent in New Zealand. In addition consider the future profits that will accrue to New Zealand when, for example. Air New Zealand flies into a Pacific airport that has been built under the New Zealand aid programme.

The interest of the commercial community in New Zealand's aid programme has been well established. Mr I.H. Stevens of the Auckland Manufacturers Federation speaking at the 1 970 Institute Seminar on "International Aid and the Business Community" described it as "a means of assisting the penetration of new markets".1 Speaking at the same conference as Mr Stevens, the then Deputy Director of the External Aid Division, Mr Bolt spoke of "the benefits that New Zealanders can derive from a well conceived aid programme."2

Clearly the aid programme of the New Zealand government and the activities of an organisation such as ENEX cannot be considered as simple altruism. It is unlikely that New Zealand will take a disinterested approach to aid in the near future. It is therefore a question as to whether the foreign policy and commercial interests of New Zealand are coincidental with the interests of the people of the third world.

In this paper I intend to take three examples of recipient countries and to examine our aid programme to them. Vietnam, Malaysia and the Cook Islands are all countries with whom we have a special relationship and are in the list of the top ten recipients of. New Zealand government aid. General issues are raised on the role of aid when looking at them.

The author of this paper believes that the key to development for the people of any country lies in their independence and upon their ability to rely on their own resources. Aid never won a war on poverty. Only the poor themselves can do that. Are we assisting them or hindering them in their struggle?

Alejandro Lichauco in his paper on Imperialism said:

"Imperialism has one underlying strategy. That is to prevent its victim from relying on itself, on its own resources. That strategy consists in stifling the emergence of conditions that would induce and enable its victim to pursue an autonomous course of development. Imperialism destroys the capability of its victim to stand on its own, and undermines the victims confidence in itself.

"Stripped of its self reliance, divested of its capability to stand on its own, the victim is reduced to a status of complete dependence and, thus reduced, has no choice but to rely on the very force that has victimised it. It is therefore manoeuvred into a situation where it must accept the aid and assistance offered it — along with the exploitative conditions that attack to that aid and assistance — and wind up, as the Phillipines has, with an immeasurable sense of misplaced gratitude. Reliance of one on another, places the former under the control of the latter. And when one is under the control of another, he is ready for exploitation. This is the core of the imperialist relation."3

Is this the intention or the result of New Zealand's aid programme? Certainly there is no evidence that we are assisting those who are taking the revolutionary course of throwing off their dependence. Those who we assist in Asia are almost invariably allies of the United States and are dependent on the US for their survival.

1 International Aid and the Business Community — Report of a Seminar edited Bruce Brown, NZITA, 1970.

2 Ibid.

3 Lichauco op cit. Page 24.