Online Reporter
Tendai Hildergarde Manzvanzvike
Herald Correspondent
FOLLOWING the Trump administration’s recent shutdown of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), under the “fraud, waste and abuse” mantra, Congressman Thomas Massie posted a banner pregnant with irony: “If cutting government funding shuts down an NGO, it is not, and never was a Non-Governmental Organisation”.
Established in 1961, USAID was responsible for providing foreign aid and development assistance in over 120 countries. But the chickens have come to roost.
The organisation was an arm in the United States’ foreign policy framework.
It dabbled with anything and everything: from international development, human rights projects, democratic governance, interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, cultural invasions to regime change agendas and sponsoring terrorist organisations.
Its tentacles reached far and wide, earning itself the moniker “sugar daddy”.
Among the alleged funding items were: US$2,5m for “inclusive democracies in Southern Africa”, US$10m for “Mozambique voluntary male circumcision”, US$2,3m for “strengthening independent voices in Cambodia”, US$40m for “gender equality and women empowerment hub”, US$486m to the “Consortium for elections and political process strengthening”, including US$22m for “inclusive and participatory political process” in Moldova.
Interrogating what USAID meant by “inclusive democracies” is an analysis for another day, although it would be interesting to know the democracies they targeted in the SADC region.
Recently, Republican Congressman Scott Perry made audacious claims when he alleged that USAID sponsored terrorism.
Giving evidence at a Congressional Subcommittee hearing on “Delivering on Government Efficiency”, Perry said, USAID funded terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorasan.
“Who gets some of that money? Does that name ring a bell to anybody in the room? Because your money, your money, US$697 million annually, plus the shipments of cash funds in Madrasas, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorasan, terrorist training camps. That’s what it’s funding …”
Boko Haram, a jihadist terror group has destabilised north eastern Nigeria since 2009. It has also been active in Chad, Niger, northern Cameroon, and Mali.
The conflict has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of people, while millions of others have been displaced, creating a massive humanitarian crisis and undermining security in the process.
The alleged sponsorship has peeved Nigerians in general, and Africa as a whole.
How could the US be funding terrorism, when it has been in the forefront of sanctioning countries or individuals that fund terrorism?
The alleged sponsorship can be traced back to former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan who has accused former US Barack Obama of undue interference in the internal affairs of Nigeria, effecting regime change along the way.
President Jonathan was a one term president (2010-2015). He was succeeded by Gen Muhammadu Buhari.
When President Jonathan assumed office in 2011, the Boko Haram insurgency was escalating.
According to sources, his government’s power to fight the insurgency was constrained by the United States’ refusal to sell weapons to Nigeria.
Following his loss in the presidential elections of 2015, partly because of the security situation, President Jonathan reacted in a widely shared video: “The level of interference by Obama’s government was very overwhelming. It’s not as if I couldn’t have won the elections … But they (went) outside the normal diplomatic relationship … Sending that person (Secretary of State John Kerry) to Nigeria on the eve of the election even after Obama (had) issued a statement directing Nigerians to vote for the next chapter, that tells you something. And we should not sweep it under the carpet. Immediately (after), the Chibok girls issue came up.”
The abduction of 276 girls from a secondary school in Chibok town (northeast of Nigeria) in April 2014 exposed the dangers posed by the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency.
President Jonathan said his government was looking at ways to bring back the girls, but “within a couple of days, we saw people going to the US with #BringBackOurGirls placards. Why? How? And of course, Mrs Obama received one of those placards.”
Why would Obama have targeted Jonathan?
The latter had signed into law the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, which criminalises same sex marriages in Nigeria, a policy that Obama desired to be embraced in every country as a human right.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama was among the first people to come out holding the #BringBackOurGirls campaign placard.
Was it a smokescreen, hiding the underhand dealings by the US government through USAID? The campaign also featured Hollywood stars, former British Prime Minister David Cameron and musician Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs.
Sections of Nigerian society are calling on the government to investigate Perry’s allegations.
But these were claims made by a US lawmaker and when we combine them with other examples of “waste, fraud and abuse” by USAID, which led to its eventual dissolution, do recipients have the wherewithal to carry out the investigation?
Nigerian Former Foreign Affairs Minister Prof Bolaji Akinyemi told Arise News: “I served on the Boko Haram committee, and villagers consistently told us about helicopters flown by foreigners that kept landing in Borno (State) with arms, ammunition, and cash (foreign currency). We made a mistake by assuming it was the French. Even with revelations from the US Congressman, there’s nothing Nigeria can do even if the allegations are proven.”
A military general concurs. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Chief of Defence Staff General Christopher Musa asked why whenever they “were winning against the terrorists, they (the international community/US) came with baseless accusations of human rights violations”.
He called on the United Nations to “trace and track the funding”. How has Boko Haram been able to sustain themselves for 15 years without an international flow of funding?
Other critical questions that needed to be answered as Boko Haram kept expanding and regrouping are:
Where were they coming from?
How were they getting their training?
Who was funding them?
How come they had foreign currencies on them each time they got caught?
How have they been able to sustain themselves for 15 years?
Was the international community complicit?
Allegations that USAID sponsored terrorism and was involved in unsavoury activities have sparked outrage about the potential mismanagement of funds and the unintended consequences of supporting extremist groups.
The claims suggest that USAID’s efforts to provide humanitarian aid and support economic development may have been compromised by corruption and lack of oversight.
Although these allegations are yet to be confirmed, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has already launched a USAID probe declaring past funding as “detrimental to the United States”. The implications of the allegations are also far-reaching and potentially devastating.
If true, they would indicate that US taxpayer dollars have been carelessly funding terrorist activities, undermining sovereign states’ national security and global stability.
It can also be classified as an international crime, which could damage the reputation of the US government, eroding trust among allies and partner countries.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has also accused USAID of funding left-wing takeovers to undermine sovereign nations and pushing its ideological goals worldwide through left wing media and journalists, opposition groups, and NGOs.
*Tendai H. Manzvanzvike is an independent social and political commentator. Feedback: [email protected]
