International assistance: reinforcing dependency or fostering self-sufficiency?
By Bit Seanglim (November 1998)
In recognition of Cambodia’s massive needs, the Paris agreements made generous provisions for international reconstruction assistance beginning with the arrival of UNTAC and continuing well after its departure. This assistance has been invaluable and, in response, Cambodians have usually expressed sincere gratitude to international donors. Too often, however, insufficient attention has been paid by both the providers and the recipients of this aid to ensuring it has a long-term impact which will move Cambodians toward progressive independence and greater cooperation.
Overcoming obstacles to long-term community development
Since 1991 the foreign assistance agenda, underpinned by the notion that Cambodia has been ‘devastated’, has been dominated by emergency aid and repairs of physical infrastructure. Due to an overwhelming reliance on outside ‘expertise’ and resources, there has been inadequate consultation of the ‘beneficiaries’, an absence of public debate and insufficient attention paid to the longer-term goal of self-sustaining community development. In the rush to rebuild there has often been an unwillingness to consider that there is an intangible element relating to the ownership of the reconstruction process which should perhaps take priority over the concrete one.
Given the weakness of Cambodia’s state institutions and its extremely low levels of human resource development, the international community faces genuine dilemmas in helping Cambodians assume responsibility for their own affairs. In the current politically divisive environment, it is particularly hard for donors to know which groups to support or at what point these groups are in a position to be accountable in terms of quality and coverage of programmes as well as use of donor funds. Many Cambodians themselves willingly buy into the ‘magic’ of outside assistance without adequate consideration given to how the country can gradually alleviate its current culture of dependency.
Cambodia’s politicians, for instance, have a tendency to subscribe to short-term goals and the use of overwhelmingly concrete indicators to measure progress in rebuilding the country. Their uncritical glorification of the country’s past triumphs deflects attention from the difficult choices Cambodia must make regarding the future and further reinforces the focus on what has been destroyed at the expense of what exists and can be built upon. Without prudence and cross-cultural sensitivity, international assistance can reinforce these narrow and ultimately self-destructive attitudes.
Recognising local resourcefulness
Foreigners are, however, well placed due to their positions of influence, to help unleash creativity inherent in Cambodian society and promote the idea that a return to pre-war patterns of social interaction is not only impossible, but undesirable. Provided a long-term perspective is adopted, much can be done to counter Cambodia’s profound social malaise by promoting the development of local leadership resources and a critical capacity for self-evaluation.
More than financial and leadership resources are required, however, for Cambodia does not have a strong tradition of voluntary or cooperation-based development efforts. The prevailing attitude towards community involvement among many Cambodians is that helping others is against one’s own self-interest. International assistance since 1991 has clearly shown an important lesson: non-profit principles and management skills have to be nurtured through practical examples and careful training. The staff of international NGOs, in particular, are in excellent positions to promote an attitude-change and demonstrate through personal commitment that options and advantages are expanded when people work together.
Re-opening dialogue
With due cross-cultural sensitivity, outsiders can also facilitate cooperative efforts between Cambodians at other levels which would not otherwise come about without their involvement. The lack of trust, particularly within the intellectual and political leadership, stands in stark contrast to the reception Cambodians give to many foreign workers or diplomats. This gives the latter an important opportunity to play emissary roles in rebuilding confidence and re-opening lines of communication between Cambodians. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasised: the historical legacy of foreign interventions in Cambodia has been to fuel competition among its people and many still seek outside support today for partisan political gain at home.