Beyond the Myths of Foreign Aid

Yesterday, I wrote a piece about the incredible benefits the US gets from administering foreign aid. I had seen so much chest pumping by Americans saying they were making all the sacrifices and getting nothing back. The Alt Right had championed that view and it was already something Nigerians were parroting. The Joe Rogan podcast done by Mike Benz, whose Alt Right affiliation and racist conspiracy theories are well known and who mixed facts with fiction in his narrative, must have been the most-watched clip in the Nigerian intellectual circles yesterday. So, my article was an attempt to tilt the conversation and show the other side they were deliberately not letting on.

In the comments of the article, some chided me for ‘crying more than the bereaved’ and wondered why I could not stay in my lane. They were of the view that gutting aid completely should be welcome and encouraged as it does not help at all. Critics quoting from well-known books argue that it fosters dependency, fuels corruption, and serves as a tool for Western control. As usual, in this piece, I am making an attempt at shedding light on the perspective that may have been intentionally kept hidden from them.

The above concerns critics have gotten from these books aren’t unfounded — history is full of cases where aid was weaponized to serve U.S. and Western interests rather than genuinely help recipient nations. But here’s the truth: aid itself is not the problem. The real issue is how it is negotiated, accepted, and utilized.

A common misconception is that only African nations receive foreign aid, as if the continent is uniquely dependent. But nearly every country in the world has, at some point, benefited from foreign assistance.

Latin American nations, from Mexico to Argentina, have received billions in aid. Asia’s economic powerhouses — India, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan — built parts of their infrastructure with U.S. and Japanese assistance. Even Europe has been a massive recipient of aid. The Marshall Plan pumped $13 billion (over $160 billion today) into Western Europe after World War II, helping rebuild economies and solidify American influence.

And let’s not forget: the United States itself has accepted aid.

• After Hurricane Katrina (2005), countries like Canada and the UAE sent emergency relief.
• Following 9/11, Britain, Germany, and France contributed to recovery efforts in New York.
• In the early days of the U.S., France provided crucial financial and military aid that helped secure American independence.

So, if aid is such a terrible thing, why does almost every country — including the wealthiest ones — accept it, and almost every country gives it?

Many of today’s economic giants owe much of their success to foreign aid.

In the 1950s, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world, devastated by the Korean War. Between 1953 and 1961, U.S. aid accounted for nearly 80% of South Korea’s total imports and almost 10% of its GDP. It funded critical infrastructure, industrial projects, and education programs. By the 1960s, South Korea had shifted its approach, using aid to stimulate industrialization rather than relying on direct financial assistance. The U.S. and Japan provided billions in grants and loans, helping build roads, factories, and research institutions. In return, South Korea developed industries that now dominate the global market — Samsung, Hyundai, LG. Today, South Korea is the world’s 10th largest economy and a major donor of foreign aid itself

After Japan’s surrender in 1945, its economy was in ruins. The U.S. stepped in, providing extensive financial and technical assistance — around $2.2 billion ($20 billion today). This investment allowed Japan to rebuild its industrial base, and by the 1960s, Toyota, Sony, Honda, and Panasonic turned Japan into a manufacturing giant. By the 1980s, Japan had the world’s second-largest economy.

Between 1951 and 1965, Taiwan received $1.5 billion in U.S. aid. That money funded land reforms, infrastructure, and technology, laying the foundation for Taiwan’s world-leading semiconductor industry today. TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company), now dominates global chip production.

Would South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan have succeeded without aid? Possibly. But their rise would have been much harder, slower, and bloodier.

As innovative and wealthy as Israel, its story would not be possible without the massive foreign aid it received.

Many Nigerians believe that aid only flows from the West to Africa. This is false. Nigeria itself is a donor country.

Nigeria’s Technical Aid Corps (TAC) program has trained teachers, engineers, and medical professionals in countries across Africa and the Caribbean. Nigeria also provides peacekeeping troops, disaster relief, and humanitarian support across the continent.

So if aid is such a bad thing, why do even developing nations give it?

A common argument is that cutting aid will force countries to be self-reliant. The reality is no country has ever grown in complete isolation.

Even China, often cited as a model of self-sufficiency, received extensive aid from the Soviet Union in its early years and later attracted massive foreign direct investment from the West. The roles that organizations like the World Bank and Ford Foundation played in the rise of China is significant.

Even North Korea — the most isolated nation on earth — relies on aid from China and Russia to keep its economy from total collapse.

African nations making economic progress — anyone you want to name — have all received aid. Rwanda used international assistance to rebuild after the 1994 genocide. Ethiopia, once synonymous with famine, leveraged aid to become one of Africa’s top hydropower producers.

Of course, not all aid is good.

During the Cold War, foreign aid was used to prop up dictators. Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now DR Congo) received billions in U.S. aid while running one of the most corrupt regimes in history. In Angola, aid money fueled a brutal civil war for decades.

But for every failure, there are success stories.

• Healthcare: Aid-funded programs eradicated smallpox, nearly wiped out polio, and provided millions of HIV/AIDS patients with life-saving treatment.
• Education: USAID, the World Bank, and other donors have funded free primary education in multiple countries, giving millions of children opportunities their parents never had.
• Infrastructure: projects funded by aid have connected remote villages to cities, allowing farmers to sell their produce in larger markets. In Nigeria, international partnerships have led to the development of technology hubs like the Co-Creation Hub in Lagos, fostering a new generation of African tech entrepreneurs.

Yes, the U.S. has used aid to push regime changes. Declassified reports confirm that the CIA backed coups in Iran (1953), Chile (1973), and Congo (1961).

But here’s something to consider — America is not the only player.

• China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has trapped countries like Sri Lanka, and Angola in debt dependency, forcing them to hand over ports and infrastructure. The funds have also allowed dictatorships like in Laos, Myanmar, and Djibouti to continue their suppression of dissents, while achieving little economic progress.
• Russia’s Wagner mercenaries have propped up dictators in Mali, Sudan, and the Central African Republic.
• Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have funded coups in Egypt (2013), Yemen, and Libya.

Unlike the U.S., these countries have no free press. In China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, journalists are jailed or killed for exposing corruption.

If America’s aid-related corruption is exposed, it’s because America still has independent media that investigate their own government.

And talking about corruption, you have heard a lot about that on social media these past few days. Yes? Yes, foreign aid is often misused and corrupted. But so are governments, financial markets, and even the Pentagon’s budget.

The hypocrisy of anti-aid advocates is clear. If corruption is the reason to stop aid, then by that logic, no government should exist. Is the U.S. government itself free from waste and inefficiencies? How much of the Pentagon’s budget disappears into overpriced contracts? How many fraudulent claims exist in Medicare? How many Wall Street bailouts ended up enriching the very institutions that caused financial crises? If the argument is that aid should be abolished due to corruption, then by that logic, no government program — domestic or international — should exist.

The irony is that many critics of USAID do not actually care about fixing corruption. If they did, they would advocate for reforms, not a wholesale shutdown. Instead, their goal is to create chaos and melodrama as have been observed in the last 48 hours, not problem-solving. If the United States were to cut every inefficient program, dismantle every corrupt institution, and shut down every bureaucracy with wasteful spending, there wouldn’t be a single government agency left standing.

The same hypocrisy applies to those who dismiss NGOs as corrupt, money-draining entities. Yes, it’s true that some have lost their way, morphing into bloated bureaucracies far removed from the communities they claim to serve. But what about the countless NGOs that have transformed lives? The ones that have drilled wells to provide clean water, eradicated deadly diseases, equipped unemployed youths with skills for a brighter future, and rebuilt communities shattered by war? Do their efforts count for nothing?

Without these organizations, many victims of gender-based violence would remain voiceless, their stories buried in silence. Countless autistic children would go without the support and care they desperately need. Innocent people seeking justice for even the simplest grievances would be left unheard. And many physically challenged individuals would struggle to find even a semblance of dignity and independence. These are the very NGOs you so eagerly vilify — organizations that have become lifelines for the marginalized and forgotten.

It’s easy to generalize and condemn, but let’s not ignore the undeniable good that so many NGOs have done. Their work is a testament to what humanity can achieve when compassion meets action. Before we cast stones, perhaps we should ask ourselves: “What would the world look like without them?” “Are we simply not talking from a place of privilege?”

What’s more important is how recipient countries negotiate their interests. I mentioned South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan earlier. These nations received massive U.S. aid after World War II. But unlike many African nations, they had political leaders who ensured that aid was used for industrialization, not personal enrichment.

• South Korea was once poorer than Nigeria. Today, it is a global economic powerhouse.
• Singapore, under Lee Kuan Yew, took Western aid but refused Western exploitation.
• China itself received billions in Western investments, but the Chinese government controlled how that money was used.

Contrast that with many African countries, where leaders accept aid but make poor deals, mismanage funds, and allow corruption to fester.

Therefore, if Africa is to chart its own path, it won’t be by rejecting aid — but by leveraging it effectively, like Asia did. The world is not an empty chessboard. If the U.S. retreats, others will take its place. But with fewer resources, worse terms, and no competition to restrain them. Africa must be careful what it wishes for.