Occasionally, when people find out I’m American, a political discussion ensues. I certainly don’t mind talking geopolitics, and going over the complexity of the whole thing. But usually I’m asked very pointed questions, questions I’m not entirely sure hoe to answer. I’m called on to answer on behalf of the United States, and sorry, I’m not secretary of state (yet…). To be specific, there are two conversations in particular that I thought highlighted some points we tend not to think about. Firstly, the financial aide given by America to developing nations, and secondly, how our involvement in development projects may be hindering more than helping. I apologize in advance for an overwhelming lack of knowledge on these topics, but I’ll highlight these conversations, and hear out what people said.
Valentine and the farmer.
You may remember Valentine from my adventure in Altyn Arashan. This hard-as-nails manly man had a few strong opinions regarding our involvement in global politics. We both agreed that the situation is complicated, and that our history with Russia could have gone over a little more smoothly (and still could be…). The example he cited was the following:
When we give aide to foreign projects, specifically food donations, we as Americans will give a lot of money to see that cause come to fruition (we agreed this is a good thing). When that food arrives in target country, we would expect that said food programs are put into place and people are fed. Ideally, this food would be donated, free of charge, to those in need. We were in agreement that many programs do this. However, from his experience on the distribution side of things in a past life, he stated that most programs will SELL that food at a highly discounted price. This gives slight profit margins (maybe not even profit, perhaps just covering some operating costs) to the program, and gives buyers a better deal. Now here’s where Valentine gets aggravated. Think of the farmer whose small crop yield took quite a lot of labor, who then brings it to market (often great distances at a cost to himself). He is selling at $10…while the US food program is selling at $5. You can see where an issue starts to arise. The farmer sells no product, and now has less to go into his crop yield later on. When this farmer gets bought out and cannot afford to sell anymore, a monopoly arises with the food aide program…who then start to sell at $10..$15. You can see where his frustration came from.
Shaktybek and a certain consulting company.
I met Shaktybek while in Karakol, and he was an absolute pleasure to get to know. His background is in telecommunications, and for years was involved in implementing the telecommunications infrastructure here in Kyrgyzstan, and eventually sat under the vice minister of the country. When politics became complicated (the most recent revolution, as it were), it was expected that Shaktybek would start taking bribes for himself and those above him (among other things), as the proletariat could become stronger. He couldn’t do it, and resigned his position. He then entered international consulting, living in London, Switzerland, and the US for some time. He did this in the telecommunications field at first, and then found himself working on a development project at home in Kyrgyzstan. It was through this project that he transitioned into becoming heavily involved in Kyrgyz development projects. Though we talked for hours about many issues, this one frustrated him the most:
He was incredibly excited when a project he was working on was approved for aide from the USA. He thought to himself “ah, the United States, now we will have the help we need”. We donated a sum of money, and instead of sending consultants directly (as he was used to doing in his prior experience), the US hired an outside consulting company, one with quite a famous international name. He was unused to the idea of a third party, but was still excited because of the name of this company. They sent somebody to Karakol to head up the project, and to meet with Shaktybek, the local point man. As he began talking with this consultant, he learned that they had almost zero experience whatsoever. Not only regarding the project they were accomplishing (something about tourism and a cheese factory), but almost no experience….at all. He continued to give two additional examples of almost the same thing happening; You can imagine how disheartened he was to learn that with the USA at the helm, hiring a well known consulting company, the nation of Kyrgyzstan took a back seat.
It was this last though that struck me. Sure, every international consultant may start somewhere with no experience, but you wouldn’t expect it from such a large company. However, it was this idea that Shaktybek felt that his country is not taken seriously as a nation to be invested in. He explained to me their vast natural resources (which, recently, a mining contract was turned down by the USA…), their desire for democracy and education, and to be considered globally minded. He passively mentioned that most global councils have yet to add the Kyrgyz language to their texts.
So what am I trying to get at here? I know far too little about the details of food programs, government aide, geopolitics or consulting, to state whether things are true, how complex they are (and I’m sure they are very complex), and what goes on in the background. But that’s not my point.
My point is that people see what we do in a very different light than what we think. We watch a moving film on Sunday, and pour our money into companies, programs, and websites. A few people even work abroad, and yet sometimes, it’s not being done in the right way. The perspective of what we do is undermined, and perhaps with due cause to think so.
So like…do I have a solution for the entire development project side of the US government? Haha…no. But I think it’s good to have these conversations and to think about things. Valentine and I applauded US companies that stimulate local economies by doing things such as digging wells, irrigation systems, giving farming tools, seeds, and business micro-loans. Shaktybek and I were happy to talk about the success of many projects done by various US companies who found the right people for the job to develop a clear strategy, set up the right people, and follow through with the plan. There were still positive sides to these conversations.
And I think this matters. I think it matters how people view us. I think it’s a matter of fact that our actions, as a nation, have weight (amongst every other nation!). We have a reputation of being able to help, and we should guard that reputation by appropriate actions to see that help go through.
I guess the take home is that if you want to give money to a program, give time in an office, or even go abroad and work, to do your research and ask a lot of questions as to implementation. More than that though, don’t forget that we’re living in a truly global time, and that each place has something to bring to the table. Nobody deserves a back seat, or to be forgotten or thought lesser of.
A final note- I’m sure many of those reading have positive examples, and I’m glad of that. A few of you will want to do a fact-check rant, I’m not looking for an argument. I’m just hoping to bring to light some interesting conversations I had with real people on the ground, highlighting some areas to work on. I hope this all stimulates and inspires you to follow through and be excellent in whatever you’re doing. Thanks for reading!
-BK