Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

The question of ‘sovereignty’
It is debatable whether an infringement of sovereignty is a real danger in
these discussions, legally speaking, since the recipient has the option to
reject the deal without risking being blown to bits by cannons. In this context,
the term ‘sovereignty’ will have a moral rather than a legal meaning. A
poor person has a sense of human dignity, which keeps him or her from
engaging in certain acts, no matter how desperate the situation. To representatives
of the poor state, the same type of limits are drawn in the name of
‘sovereignty’. It is important to note that these limits are defined by the
countries themselves and that they vary over time and with the sense of
national dignity and propriety among political leaders on either side of the
dialogue.
For many years the Nordic countries were seen as bending over backwards
in order to protect the recipient’s right to choose. In one of the most famous
dialogues in the history of Nordic development aid, the Nordic aid
agencies jointly organised a seminar in 1983 with the Tanzanian government
in a gentle effort to persuade Tanzania to take decisive steps towards
economic reform, in the direction suggested by IMF but not necessarily at
the pace prescribed by the IFIs. The Nordic participants came back happy
and relieved after having spoken their minds. But president Nyerere interpreted
the discussion very differently, as unwavering support for his resistance
to making up with IMF. This collective learning experience was a factor
in explaining the total about-turn of the Nordic governments a few
years later, from staying out of the ‘Washington Consensus’ of the Bank and
the Fund to becoming the most hawkish supporters of enforcing the SAPs
in Africa. This tilt in the dialogue mode climaxed in 1993–95, when the
Nordics suspended their programme aid and it took a cabinet reshuffle to
bring it back on stream again. 2 Tanzania obliged the donors as the aid relationship
reached its lowest point in thirty years. A joint commission (the
Helleiner Commission) managed to restore the relationship and its rules of
conduct again.
Policy dialogues which are often unproductive are those concerning governance
and human rights. The donor agency 3 may have been instructed by
its principal to inform the recipient side about its official position, but foreign
aid in itself offers insufficient leverage in vital policy issues of this
2 The donors had substantive reasons for ending this type of aid in view of its clear and persistent
misuse by the Treasury. It was the point of leverage which was a new element.
3 The term ‘agent’ or ‘agency’ is used here for the government agencies or officials representing the
donor, IFI or the recipient government. ‘Principals’ in this relationship are the governments, or the
boards of IFIs respectively.
25