U.S. AID
Lisa Haugaard and the Latin
American Working Group
(LAWG), along with a host of other
nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), have been hoodwinked by
U.S. AID into endorsing a counter-
revolutionary agenda in Nicaragua
[“Development Aid: Some Small
Steps Forward,” Sept/Oct 1997].
According to U.S. AID’s “Nica-
ragua Strategy for 2000” (Managua, 1995), the LAWG and a host of
other former critics contributed to, endorse and share the report’s
analysis and strategy.
Among the positions being
endorsed by Haugaard and LAWG
is that Nicaragua in the 1980s was a
socialist dictatorship that is now
making a historic transition to
democracy. The U.S. AID report
recommends the growth of agro-
industrial exports like beef and
coffee and of nontraditional agro-
exports. Food First researchers have
shown these to be examples of high-
Readers are invited to address letters to The Editors, NACLA Report on the Americas, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 454, New York, NY 10115. Letters can be sent by e-mail to: editor@nacla.org.
risk, pesticide treadmill-type farm-
ing that favors large farms over
small. U.S. AID grossly overstates
the importance of such nontradi-
tional exports to the Nicaraguan
economy by reiterating the phe-
nomenal growth rate in this sector,
while never mentioning that they
still account for a tiny portion of
total exports. Although AID func-
tionaries concede that Sandinista
agrarian reform gave Nicaragua the
most equitable land distribution in
Central America, they view the dis-
integration of the cooperatives as a
good thing.
In the background study for the
strategy statement, U.S. AID con-
cedes that the complete reversal of
downward trends in the economy
since 1979 and the skewed concen-
tration of wealth accumulated over
the preceding century will take at
least a decade. Fortunately, the AID
revolutionaries will have some help,
and not just from their past critics
but from the likes of the U.S.
Ambassador, the Country Team and
other Agency programs like the
Peace Corps and the U.S.
Information Service (USIS). So
much for U.S. AID’s great shift
toward sustainable development,
away from being an enforcer of
structural adjustment, and a toadie
of U.S. foreign policy.
Lisa Haugaard, you’ve been in
Washington too long. It’s time to get
back to your roots in the solidarity
movement. Lisa Come Home!
Andy Stewart
Nyack, New York
Lisa Haugaard responds:
The question of how much has
changed within the Agency for
International Development-and
how much it even matters given the
U.S. Treasury’s strict adherence to
adjustment-is a valid debate. But
to recognize that there has been
some positive, incremental change
in one department is hardly the sell-
out envisioned by Mr. Stewart.
While the Latin America Working
Group never did and never would
endorse a document written by
AID, we did discuss the Nicaragua
strategy paper, and others, with
them. That AID now routinely
invites such participation with
NGOs here and in Central America
is one, still inadequate, step towards
the participatory approach advo-
cates have always stressed. We
can’t demand participation, and
then refuse to talk.
It would be cavalier of us to write
off the $20 million or so per coun-
try per year-and much more to
Guatemala-that still flows to
some Central American countries
simply because we deem AID unre-
formable and unworthy of our
attention. A central point of my arti-
cle is that there is space for Central
American and U.S. organizations to
present informed critiques of AID
programs and ideas for new direc-
tions-space that has not been fully
used.
Occasionally, though not often
enough, the grassroots efforts of
people like Mr. Stewart do have an
impact on administration officials. I
believe that the incremental change
seen in AID’s Central America pro-
grams is due in great measure to
such efforts. To work honestly for
social change, once in a while you
need to recognize success.
Menu
