Why International Aid Has Not & Cannot Substitute for Reparations
Tags: Culture, Racism, History, World, Economic Development

So why has international aid proved inadequate? There are 2 key reasons.

The majority of this aid is tied or given out of strategic interest, acting as an extension of colonialism

Unfortunately, most countries (and indeed most people) do not like to give large sums of money to people they have wronged in the true nature of altruism. Keeping in line with Western character, any investment into a foreign country must be exactly that: an investment, where they seek a return.

And while I would not disagree with that in any other case, under the topic of reparations this cannot work because you should not profit from making up for crimes against humanity. Indeed, I do not see Germany demanding interest on the money paid to the victorious powers of World War Two.

Thus, as highlighted above, with such prevalent economic ties to Europe, international aid manifests itself in predatory loans among other forms, only serving to further neo-colonialism and prevents any true essence of autonomy or atonoment.

By keeping colonies tied and dependent on European powers Europe manages to retain much control yet do not have to deal with the political and social costs of doing so. As Janaka Jayawickrama describes:

“The United States uses humanitarian assistance as an extension of their foreign policy while the European Union use it as a substitute for foreign policy.”

When compensation is given out of strategic interest, this is clearly not done in the true nature of reparations. I do not remember Japan telling America where they should direct reparations in the mid-20th century.

2. This aid neither recognises the crimes of slavery and colonisation through offering a formal apology nor is it done in the nature of recompense or justice.

Compensation needs to be given in the explicit recognition of the crimes of colonisation, not in the racialised tone of pity which furthers the notion of the “the white man’s burden”.

People often assume that reparations are purely monetary but this is far from the case. For instance, in the Caricom 10-Point Plan for Slavery Reparations, the necessity of a formal apology is indicative in its place as first on the list.

You might be thinking, why is a formal apology so important? Well, firstly the persistent refusal of European countries to issue one, and instead offer ‘statements of regret’ should highlight the gravity an apology would have.

European countries largely wish to not offer a formal apology due to the legal implications of it being tied to the demands for reparations yet, this persistent lack of formal apology also implies the inferiority of Caribbean people, maintaining colonial narrative and imply the victims’ suffering does not deserve official recognition, subsequently perpetuating socio-political hierarchies.

This is of course reinforced by the predatory lending and misdirected aid that functions as neo-colonialism. By offering a formal apology, European leaders would potentially bring to light all the colonial strings they still pull out of the shadows.

It is often argued that reparations would only deepen neo-colonialism and legacies of dependency however, this implies European nations would have control, where this is neither necessary nor inevitable. The system of international aid does this, perpetuating the stereotypes of Caribbean people unable to survive without Europeans, furthering the colonial legacy of the “white man’s burden”.

However, Reparations, rather than aid, stray away from this, stressing justice and atonement as guiding compensation, instead of strategic intervention and racism.

The argument about reparations deepening dependency, in fact, does not detract from the argument for reparations but highlights the need for strict guidelines as to how reparations will be implemented by Caribbean powers themselves.