junkies.” He and a number of other aid workers separately “arrivedrnat the conclusion that the relief program was probablyrnkilling as many people as it was saving.”rnAdvocates of aid simply argue that they will do better nextrnhmc. Now that the Cold War is over, they contend, there is le.ssrnpressure on Washington to offer assistance as de facto bribes tornrepressive regimes. However, the bulk of aid has always beenrneconomic, and much of it has come from mulhlateral lendingrninsritutions. For instance, between 1971 and 1994, the UnitedrnStates accounted for barely one-fifth of total assistance to Somalia.rnLouring the same period, Burundi and Rwanda receivedrnmore from the International Development Association, arnWorld Bank affiliate, than from the United States.rnAid supporters claim that they have learned their lessons andrnnow are both more competent and selective in providing aid.rnYet economists Alberto Alesina and Beatrice Wedcr report in arnnew study for the Nafional Bureau of Economic Research thatrnmore corrupt governnrents tend to receive more aid.rnhidced, on the same day last summer that newspapers werernreporting the President’s remarks to the VFW, the New YorkrnTimes published the results of an investigation by the Office ofrndie Higli Representative in Bosnia which reviewed the effects ofrndie $5.1 billion in aid provided to that nafion (using the termrnlooselv) since 1995. According to reporter Chris Hedges, “Asrnmuch as a billion dollars has disappeared from public fimds orrnbeen stolen from iutcrnafional aid projects through fraud carriedrnout by the Muslim, Croafian and Serbian nationalist leadersrnwho keep Bosnia rigidly parfifioned into three edinic enclaves.”rnAn enraged administration responded that it was not foreignrnaid that was looted but Bosnia’s own resources. Now fiiere is anrnargument for providing more assistance! Of course, money isrnfungible: Foreign transfers allow a country to squander its ownrnfunds. Why should the West subsidize a system which is corrupt?rnThe scale of theft was staggering. For instance, in 1999, $200rnmillion simply disappeared from the city of Tuzla’s budget;rn$?00 million had gone missing over the previous two years. Aidrnagencies and foreign embassies lost $20 million deposited inrnone Bosnian bank. Rather than reacting widi outrage. Westernrnofficials feared even to diseu-ss the problem lest it frighten “awayrniutcrnafional donors.”rnThe invesfigafion was conducted by the anfifraud unit of diernOffice of the High Representative—essentially tlie West’s dictatorrnin Bosnia. Officials compiled a 4,000-page report and invesfigatedrn220 cases of alleged corruption and fraud. However,rnthe ofiFicial recipients of aid seemed uninterested in prosecufingrnwrongdoers. The high representafivc formally barred 1 5 miscreantsrnfrom office, but most, reported the ‘limes, retain their influence.rnBosnian President Alija Izetbegovic dismissed the high representafive’srnallegafions. President Izctbegovic’s son, Bakir, isrnreputed to be one of the richest men in Bosnia. Bakir Izetbegovicrncontrols Sarajevo’s City Development Institute, which determinesrnwho gets to occupy 80,000 public apartments. Membersrnof the ruling party get preferenfial access, while averagernBosnians complain that they have to pay a $2,000 kickback.rnWestern officials report that the younger Izetbegovic receivesrnsome of the extortion money extracted by Sarajevo gangstersrnfrom local businessmen. He also owns 1 5 percent of state-eontrolledrnBosnia Air.rnThe problem is not just those who are stealing, but those whornare paying. James Lyon, director of the Crisis Group, complains,rn”The international administrators beg, plead, cajole andrnin some eases engage in what looks like bribery, promising citiesrninfrastruchirc projects if flicy allow some refugees to return.” Itrnshould surprise no one if what looks like bribery ends up beingrntreated like bribery.rnAlas, die experience of Bosnia is all too common. The venalit)’rnof aid recipients such as the Philippines and Zaire wasrnlegendary. Russia has sucked in more than $20 billion from thernIMF alone, making a few people ver)’ rich.rnThe industrialized West has spent a half-century attemptingrnto purchase self-sustaining economic development in the ThirdrnWorid. The policy has failed. There is no correlation betweenrnforeign assistance and economic growth, let alone evidence thatrnaid caused the success of those few nations which have escapedrnpoverty.rnSo aid advocates have developed new arguments for theirrnprograms. But the attempt to put old wine into new wineskinsrn—to dress up yesterday’s failed policies with today’s newrnjustifications —will not work. Instead, developed nationsrnshould assist poorer states by doing no harm. Washingtonrnshould end government-to-government assistance, which has sornoften buttressed regimes dedicated to little more than maintainingrnpower and has eased the economic pressure for neededrnreforms. The United States should stop meddling in foreign affairsrnwhich matter little to America; the result is usually to stirrnup conflict, raise expectations, and leave nations worse off thanrnbefore. At die same time, the United States should improve thernaccess of poorer states to the international marketplace —includingrnits own. Most importantly, it should clearly state thatrnforeign countries, not the West, ultimately control tiieir ownrndestinies. trnNorthern Voice BookstorernWe have hundreds ofrn”politically incorrect” books on:rnPoliticsrnImmigrationrnNWOrnConspiracyrnPrivacyrnFreedomrnSelf-DefensernAlternative SciencernTry us, you’ll like us. Send $2 for price list to:rnNorthern Voice, P.O. Box 281, Wildwood, PArn15091.rnJUNE 2000/1 5rnrnrn