CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Background
to the Study
United States foreign aid is aid given by the United
States government to other countries. It can be divided into two broad
categories: Military and economic assistance. It is given by the United States
government and by private organizations and individuals in the United States
(U.S Greenbook, 2014).
United States foreign aid is a fundamental component
of the international affairs budget, for decades viewed by many as an essential
instrument of United States foreign policy. Each year, it is the subject of
extensive congressional debate over the size, composition, and purpose of the
program. The focus of United States foreign aid policy has been transformed
since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 ).
In 2002, a National Security Strategy for the first
time established global development, a primary objective of United States
foreign aid, as a third pillar of United States national security, along with
defense and diplomacy. A 2010 policy document reiterated that notion, arguing
that development is as central to advancing America’s interests as diplomacy
and defense (www.usaid.gov/./03ts-nigeria/202)
For the first
hundred years of the United States’ existence as a country, government aid was
practically nonexistent. It was generally considered that the Constitution did
not authorize the government to use the people’s money for foreign charity.
There was, however, some private aid from charitable foundations and religious
organizations. Missionary societies, for instance, operated schools in Africa
and other areas, and provided some scholarships for foreign students to study
in the United States. Later, the idea of government aid became more accepted.
During World War One, the food was sent to the hungry in that war-torn country,
received $387 million from the United States government (as well as $314
million from the British and French governments and about $200 million from
non-governmental sources). These government monies were given in the form of loans,
but a considerable portion of those loans were forgiven ).
On the
attainment of independence in 1960, Nigeria began to conduct its external
relations with the rest of the world under the leadership of its Prime
Minister, the Late (Sir) Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. The objectives and guiding
principles of Nigeria’s foreign policy emphasized Africa as the centre-piece of
the nation’s overall foreign relations (i.e. pre-occupation with Africa
issues). It could be recalled that Nigeria had been previously under British
sovereignty before independent. Saliu and Aremu (2006) observed that “at
independence, the British influence and interest in Nigeria was overwhelmingly
active as to allow for any clear role for the Americans. Since both
United States and Britain were (still are) close allies, there was no strong
desire to change the status quo. Hence, in the immediate
post-independence Nigeria, United States came third after Britain and Germany
in the areas of trade, aid and technical assistance.
Nigeria concentrated its fullest
diplomatic attention on the United States and Britain, and cooperated rather
intimately with the United States on major contemporary Africa issues. On
November 17, 1960 a Nigerian, Dr. Jaja Wachukwu – Acting Permanent
Representative for Nigeria at the United Nations was elected Chairman, United
Nations Conciliation Commission on the Congo through the instrumentality of the
United States and, on December 12, 1961 President John F. Kennedy of the United
States announced an offer of $225 million as a long term development aid for
Nigeria. Furthermore, the implementation of the American aid, within the
framework of the First National Development Plan, marked the start of Nigeria’s
strategy to multilaterize its external economic and political dependency in
contrast with the traditional exclusive bilateral focus on the United Kingdom.
As a result of this development, the United States emerged as the second most
important metropolitan centre in Nigeria’s external economic relations.
Nigeria
is a neo-colonial country, whose development to a great extent is manipulated
external factors. Nigeria occupies a peripheral status in the global economic
order. Nigeria is dependent on the external support of the western capitalist
countries, for the promulgation and enforcement of programmes aimed at the
development of her economy. Scholars such as Ake (1996); Offiong (1980, 2001)
and Adeghite (2008) have considered the negative impact of the dependence
status of the Nigerian economy on its development objectives. The dependence
status of Nigeria has greatly influenced her quest to achieve economic growth.
Nigeria relies on the advanced capitalist countries for basically, everything;
starting from technology, finance, military, health, etc. This excessive
reliance have greatly affected and deepened Nigeria’s ‘Dependence statuses in
the global economic order.
Nigeria leaders and policy makers
believe that Nigeria cannot do without external aid; so they keep borrowing
funds for phantom and white elephant projects. Nigeria faces intense pressure
to accept multi-billion dollar loans for railroads, power plants, roads and
other infrastructure. These borrowings in turn increases Nigeria’s debt burden.
Our leaders advocate foreign aid as a panacea for resuscitating our ailing
economy. The point here is not only about the quest among Nigerian Leaders for
foreign aid but more importantly on how such foreign aid engulfs Nigeria in a
cobweb of conditionality. This conditionality consequently ensure that Nigeria
economy remains open for the continued exploitation by the advanced capitalist
countries such as; the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy,
Offiong (2001:195) corroborates the foregoing assertion by noting that cheered
on by the western countries that dominate the World Bank, IMF and the Paris
Club, the key aid donor, the
International Financial Institutions (IFIs) impose incessant
conditionalities to make sure that these poor countries continue to pay their
debts..
Such
agencies such as United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and
the Department of International
Development (DFID) of Britain are charged with the direct administration of Aid
funds in benefiting countries. These agencies have a country mission,
containing key areas that have posed a major problem to underdeveloped
countries. In contradistinction, it is pertinent to note that the activities of
such agencies, greatly affect the ability of home governments to evolve
indigenous development programmes. Thus they remain tied to the
conditionalities of these advanced capitalist countries. With this new pattern,
the underdeveloped world would remain in peripheral dependence and reliance on
the advanced capitalist countries. In view of the foregoing facts, this study
therefore focuses on examining the interface between United States government’s
foreign assistance and the dependence of Nigeria on United States for her
national development, 1999-2007.
1.2 Statement
of the Problem
The pride of any
government is the attainment of higher value level of development in such a way
that its citizens would derive natural attachment to governance. Development is critical and essential to the
sustenance and growth of any nation. A country is classified as developed when
is able to provide qualitative life for her citizenry. Nigeria in the last
forty seven years has been battling with the problems of development in spite
of huge human, material and natural resources in her possession.
Gboyega
(2003) captures development as an idea that embodies all attempts to improve
the conditions of human existence in all ramifications. It implies improvement
in material well being of all citizens, not the most powerful and rich alone,
in a sustainable way such that today’s consumption does not imperil the future,
it also demands that poverty and inequality of access to the good things of
life be removed or drastically reduced. It seeks to improve personal physical
security and livelihoods and expansion of life chances.