Roger Waters Has a Point: Foreign Aid Is Flawed

“In the end, whether it is rich businesspeople donating their money for the reconstruction of a national monument or ‘average Joe’s’ trying to help others in need, foreign aid is, and always will be, flawed.”

Almost three-and-a-half decades ago, the air was filled with hope and compassion. In London, hundreds of people chorused to a song about Christmas and healing the world; in Philadelphia, a song about unity and change made thousands raise their voices. Meanwhile, entire communities and countries in Africa were fighting for survival in an epidemic of famine and poverty. Millions of dollars were raised, but the suffering didn’t stop.

Three months ago, a wind of solidarity and faith traveled with the sound of reggaeton. In Colombia, hundreds sang and danced their hearts out to songs about Latinidad and happiness. Meanwhile, across the border in a hunger-stricken Venezuela, people were thirsty for freedom and justice. Millions of dollars have been raised, but the suffering continues.

Foreign aid and donations are flawed. Still, they are not easy to handle, nor should be criticized as lightly as many have. I will not get into the nitty-gritty of how foreign aid and donations work, but it is important to mention that there are many ways they are provided. Foreign aid can be transformational or marginal, focusing either on specific issues of specific groups or in aiming for economic growth. While transformational aid intends to fix larger problems, it needs a large and practically flawless organization to handle capital or material resources. On the other hand, marginal foreign aid seeks immediate benefits and usually gives donors or volunteers nice memories or pictures of their kindheartedness. As I see it, there are three main problems with foreign aid: the white savior complex, corruption and lack of transparency, and the political interests shadowing any type of help.