Skip to main content

This piece ran in today's NY Times.
Africa Tackles Graft, With Billions in Aid in Play
LAGOS, Nigeria - One of Dora Nkem Akunyili's lowest moments as a corruption fighter came about two years ago when her son told her not to visit his boarding school. Obumneme Akunyili, age 13, did not want anyone to know that she was his mother.

It was not out of shame. Since becoming Nigeria's top food and drug regulator in 2001, his mother had broken the back of an illicit trade that had flooded Nigeria with fake medicines. She had taken on importers, distributors and an array of officials willing to risk Nigerian lives for a bribe.

But her son feared what might happen should her enemies track him down. So he told everyone that his mother was an aunt.

"That caused me a lot of pain," Mrs. Akunyili said. "He denied I was his mother. But the young boy saw the danger."

In Nigeria, even children understand corruption's menace. Increasingly, so do the donors that have poured more than $300 billion into African nations since 1980 - and watched too much of it vanish into a sinkhole of fraud, malfeasance and waste.

Now the efforts of reformers like Mrs. Akunyili are being scrutinized at meetings where donor countries consider aid to Africa, as leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized nations will do this week at Gleneagles, Scotland.
The summit meeting has been billed as a turning point for Africa, where the billions have begun to flow again. Foreign aid to the continent reached a 17-year low in 1999, but in May, the richest nations agreed to write off $40 billion in loans owed by the world's 18 poorest countries, all but four of them in Africa.

Perhaps more poignant than the suffering in Africa is the question of what constitutes a `legitimate' government. The third world is routinely raped for the benefit of corporations based in G8 nations. Could these billions in `aid' more accurately be described as payoffs to keep these so-called legitimate governments `pliable' to corporate interests?

No African nation points up the challenge quite like Nigeria, a country that is both hampered by corruption and trying to control it. Awash in oil and gas that has flooded its treasury with $300 billion in the past 20 to 30 years, Nigeria remains utterly destitute, in no small part because of waste and graft. Officials like Mrs. Akunyili have scored some victories, but few corrupt officials have been convicted and millions of aid dollars still go astray. So donors are confronted with the question in Nigeria, as in much of Africa, of how much improvement is enough.

Corruption has not only robbed Africa of money to help lift some of the world's poorest people out of poverty. Around the world, it has also stalled economic development and tarnishes people's faith in government and, often, democracy itself.

There's an indictment that hard to ignore. It seems even democratically elected regimes are just as guilty as their totalitarian counterparts of pocketing aid money and turning a blind eye to practices that impoverish the people.

The host of the summit meeting, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, wants to double global aid to Africa to $50 billion a year by 2010. Although he appears unlikely to reach that goal, aid is clearly on the rise. Both the European Union and the United States propose to double their assistance during that period because African nations are lagging further behind their industrialized counterparts and richer nations fear that failed states can become breeding grounds for terrorism. And while the United States devotes less of its wealth to foreign aid than the other nations at the talks, it has already tripled aid to Africa since 2000.

Is there some irony in the fact that the single largest recipient of US foreign aid has been and continues to be Israel? This is a fact, make of it what you will.

But this new giving is increasingly dependent on proof that its recipients are controlling corruption and governing wisely. Mr. Blair's Commission for Africa, which he established last year, concluded in a report in March that "without progress in governance," including tackling corruption, "all other reforms will have limited impact."

The United States has been even more blunt: "Countries like ours are not going to want to give aid to countries that are corrupt or don't hold true to democratic principles," President Bush said last month after meeting with South Africa's president, Thabo Mbeki.

That this tough-love approach is rapidly becoming conventional wisdom is one measure of the turnabout in the approach to foreign aid since the cold war, when both sides showered cash on African allies with scant regard to how much was stolen or wasted.

Still, how high to set the good-governance bar - and deciding who clears it - is in the eye of the donor. Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist who wrote a December 2004 report to the United Nations on fighting poverty, said that at least two dozen poor nations, many in Africa, are well-enough run to manage a rapid infusion of aid. The Bush administration's Millennium Challenge Account, set up last year to promote economic growth in poor countries, says just seven impoverished African nations qualify, with another six on the verge.

So what do you think? Aid or payolla? While there is no question these people need help will the third world mirror the first in the fact that the ones who will see the most benefit from these programs are those entrusted to administer them?

There is ample fodder for pessimists and optimists alike. On the positive side, a growing number of African nations are edging away from crime and autocracy toward democracy and openness. Ghana, which marked its first peaceful democratic transfer of power in 2000, is often cited as a regional model of reform. Tanzania's president, Benjamin Mkapa, claims that an anticorruption campaign has led to a four-fold increase in government revenue in the decade since the nation's first multiparty elections. Zambia is trying its former president, Frederick Chiluba, for stealing $488,000 in state funds - even though he handpicked the successor whose government has charged him.

How many of you see a `pardon' in the making here?

Crucial Role for Donors

Yet a May study by the World Bank found that between 1996 and 2004, the quality of governance deteriorated in as many African countries as it improved.  Kenya is a painful illustration: a government ushered in two years ago on an anticorruption platform saw its widely respected anticorruption czar quit in frustration in February, apparently because his work was thwarted. The United States and Germany quickly withdrew nearly $10 million in aid.

Whether the new wave of African aid avoids the pitfalls of the past depends not just on its recipients but also on the donors, who have often pushed poorly devised projects, refused to coordinate their efforts or demands with one another and failed to monitor the impact of their largesse.

Foreign aid must be tied to teaching poor nations how to build accountability into their governments, development specialists contend. In some countries, it is not even clear whether the executive branch or the parliament controls the budget, said Steven Radelet, a senior fellow for the Washington-based Center for Global Development. He warned, however, that such improvements typically require generations to take root.

We can't get our elected officials to spend responsibly. What kind of chance do you think a third world nation has? Failing to strike at the root of the problem, which is the system itself, will inevitably fail to solve the problem.

Nigeria is one of many nations where aid has been wasted, or simply stolen. Lagos, home to 15 million of Nigeria's 137 million people, is among the world's most troubled cities, replete with open sewers, foul tap water, garbage-strewn roads and traffic that perennially seems at a standstill.

Not including World Bank loans, which in some years totaled as much as $1 billion, Nigeria took in $3.5 billion in aid from 1980 to 2000. That was a few hundred million less than Sani Abacha has been accused in news reports of stealing in the five years he ruled Nigeria as a military dictator before his death in 1998. Dismayed, donors pulled back or out. Aid in 1999 totaled half the 1990 level.

Later audits disclosed scores of botched projects financed with hundreds of millions of dollars in international loans. Nigeria's government never even cleared the site for an $18 million construction project. Millions were spent on paper mills that never produced any paper. Eighteen projects costing $836 million were never completed; another 44 either never operated or were quickly shut down, the Nigerian Finance Ministry reported. Of 20 other projects started between 1985 and 1992, more than half had little impact or were unsustainable, the World Bank concluded. But with the 1999 election of Olusegun Obasanjo, donors' enthusiasm reawakened. Mr. Obasanjo's anticorruption credentials seemed impeccable: he helped found Transparency International, an anticorruption group, and strongly backed a program by African leaders to review each other's adherence to democracy and good governance. Since his election, aid to Nigeria has doubled.

Yet Mr. Obasanjo's first term ended with little progress. "He wanted a second term, and he believed that if he took the anticorruption war too seriously, they would make sure he didn't get a second term," Jibirin Ibrahim, a political scientist and director of Global Rights, a Nigerian pro-democracy group, said of corrupt officials. "Which was a strategic mistake, because these people were able to further entrench themselves in the system."

Now, with two years left in his second term, Mr. Obasanjo's crusade appears to have regained steam. In recent months, his education minister was arrested for bribing legislators. His housing minister was fired for selling government property at cut-rate prices. And the police inspector general was led away in handcuffs on charges of money-laundering.

This illustrates that electing one `good guy' along with a bunch of crooks is like trying to fight a fire by dumping gasoline on it.  Herein lies the problem with electing anybody to public office. Leaders should earn the right to serve, not have it handed to them for mouthing the words.

Some early initiatives also appear to be bearing fruit. Oby Ezekwesili, a senior aide to the president, said the government had saved $1.3 billion since the start of 2003 by insisting on competitive bidding in awarding contracts.  But the list of unfinished business is formidable, including removing the constitutional guarantee of immunity for the nation's most senior officials and opening government records to the public.

Herein lies yet another crucial issue that affects us here as much as it does people the world over. Only scoundrels and thieves have the need for secrecy, there is no place for it in a government by and of the people.

Any government that exempts itself (or its officials, elected or otherwise) from prosecution under the law is illegitimate.

Bribes and Bottleneck : Other obstacles remain.

Although Mr. Obasanjo's first act as president was to establish an anticorruption commission, the office has secured just two corruption-related convictions among the 85 people it has charged in its five years.  Mustapha Akanbi, a retired judge who heads the commission, said he suspected that some judges have been paid off to toss out cases.

Government officials have also resisted change.

After investigators uncovered bribes to a hospital medical director, Mr. Akanbi said, the health minister refused to fire him until Mr. Akanbi complained personally to the president. "Every single step you take, there are bottlenecks," said Mike Sowe, the commission's spokesman.

Sound familiar?

When Mrs. Akunyili took over as director of Nigeria's National Agency for Food and Drug Administration four years ago, perhaps four-fifths of her agency's regulators were corrupt, she said in a recent interview. Even worse, two in three drugs sold publicly were either unregistered or unsafe for consumers.  Mrs. Akunyili knew the danger well: her sister, Vivian, a diabetic, died in 1988 after what she believes was an injection of fake insulin.

Every few weeks, Mrs. Akunyili's agency made a show of burning heaps of fake drugs collected at airports, seaports, illegal factories and distributing houses. A spot check last year showed the impact: only one in eight drugs was unregistered. Major pharmaceutical companies have now returned to Nigeria, and other African nations have agreed to lift their bans on Nigeria's drugs.

Doctors were among the most grateful. "We know the drugs are real now, because the patients don't come back with the same symptoms," said Sister Josephine Ngama, a senior doctor at Ancilla Catholic Hospital on the outskirts of Lagos. "People had been trading in these fake drugs for years."

Yet it's sad to say that such a victory today can just as easily disappear tomorrow with the pull of a ballot lever...or in the backroom where the votes are supposedly being counted.

Honored and Imperiled
Mrs. Akunyili has been showered with awards, but her family is pressing her to quit.
Seven months after she took office, 10 armed men invaded her home, leaving only after learning that she was not there.  In December 2003, armed gunmen attacked her car. A driver in a nearby bus was killed. One bullet went through Mrs. Akunyili's blue headdress, grazing her skull.

"It's like a war," she said. "They are fighting back."

Reformers like Mr. Akunyili stand out partly because they are so rare.  

"Hopefully, they are going to do enough good that people are going to be attracted to them," said Victoria Kwakwa, the lead economist for the World Bank here. "It is going to have to start with small groups, because you don't have the base. If you did, you wouldn't have gotten to this point to begin with."

Africa does not have a monopoly on corrupt government. Until we attack that which corrupts governments, the profit driven interests of private enterprise, we will not better the lot of the ordinary citizen anywhere on this planet.

Thanks for letting me inside your head,


Originally posted to Gegner on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 06:43 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush dislikes graft in Africa (none)
    I guess he wants to keep it closer to home.
  •  Interesting article - thanks for the diary (none)
    I think I would agree more with your conclusion if you added the phrase "in the long term."  That is, I think that charity given through accredited NGO's, debt relief, condom distribution, protease inhibitor distribution, malarial shot distribution and even, to a very limited extent, some forms of direct governmental aid can better the lot of the ordinary citizen in the short term.

    I agree, however, that to accomplish anything over the long run requires a serious effort at reducing corruption and conditionality for aid seems to be the only viable solution.

  •  I know all too well (none)
    how much monies donated by these rich nations could help the people of Africa.Our problem is that corruption is so entrenched so that it is some how a way of life.

    In most government, bribery is just a part of how business is done. From the drivers assigned to government officials to the government officials themselves, who stop at nothing to make a quick buck.

    Watching Live 8 and the throngs of people striving to bring attention to Africa's poverty, I worry desparately about what happens when the lights are turned off and everybody goes home.

    I wonder if anything at all will change in their lives of the people that needs it the most. Why? Because if funds are not regulated and governments are not held accountable, none of what all these people across the world did or the monies donated by the G-8 will mean a damn thing.

    Take Liberia for an example. An interim government was set up about two years ago, until elections are held this October.

    Government officials there were racing to get all that they could before their term ends.
    With thousands of dollars poured into that country, there is nothing to show for it. We still have no running water, electricity brought to a halt more than a dozen years ago is non-existent and hospitals are in shambles.

    Though the roads are unfit for a mere bicycle, officials there roam around in SUVs and other luxury cars.

    How you break this mentality is beyond me.

    If there are no plans to enforce accountability, in another 10 years, G-8 summiters will still be trying to fix Africa.

    It is a crying shame.

    •  If we are ever to defeat this mentality (none)
      We must work to change 'I' to 'we'. I have devised a system that removes the ability of the individual to benefit at the expense of the rest of us.

      It's actually pretty simple but people are resistant to change so I hesitate to say more.

      Keep reading my post for more on how we can take the world back from those who think it is their personal toy.

  •  You are correct (none)
    That providing aid in the form of meeting specific needs is the most effective use of the money. I was illustrating that the cash aid as well as the fact that Africa's abundant natural resources haven't lifted it's people out of poverty due to their governments lining their own pockets with it, a problem not confined to Africa alone.

    I point directly at corporate self-interest here but perhaps people don't want to make the kind of connection that implicates the entire free world.

    Three things people don't like, cameras, mirrors and the truth.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site