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.
