USAID: Much talk about nothing in PNG
09 February 2025
MICHAEL KABUNI
| Academia Nomad
PORT MORESBY - Whilst there’s much talk about the potential impact of cuts to USAID on the Pacific Islands, in the case of Papua New Guinea I cannot point to a specific USAID project and say with confidence it has transformed lives.
This is not a criticism of USAID. The quality of life in PNG is not the responsibility of foreign countries and donors. We Papua New Guineans get that.
But don’t use the Pacific as a justification for existence of USAID, or any donor aid.
Last week I sat through the 2025 PNG government-business breakfast in Port Moresby and the seminar presentations that followed. None of the PNG speakers mentioned USAID.
When they discussed the many issues affecting PNG, they rightfully pointed to our government’s failure.
So discussions on the loss from USAID, which should be discussed on whatever merit it has, its importance to the Pacific, and certainly PNG, should not be overstated.
If PNG had substantial exports to the USA, and if there was a 25% tariff imposed on them, only then would we come close to discussing the impact of Trump on PNG.
At the moment, it’s as though there was no USAID in PNG. Yes, there may be some people somewhere who have lost jobs funded through a USAID project. But no one in PNG is discussing USAID in any substantial manner.
For Papua New Guineans, as the former president of Kenya said, we don’t pay taxes to the US. They can do whatever they want with their money.
We should just focus on holding our government accountable and on demanding better of it.
Now what about China: will it move in and fill the assumed void?
As Brian Kramer used to say: The short answer is NO!
If you want to talk about loans, China matters in the Pacific. Not USAID.
The Lowy Institute aid map clearly shows that Chinese aid is no match to Australian aid in the Pacific and PNG. Sometimes huge discrepancies exist between money promised and money given.
The Chinese are not big on climate change. And they don’t pretend to be. The avatar for such concerns is the West. But again, you cannot point to a climate initiative that has transformed anything.
So toktok lo skel blo toktok.
Eh ya! Bai yumi skelim toktok bilo gavaman olsem wanem a?
This is the nub of the problem. What benchmark or standard do you use to evaluate any program or government aid initiative?
The obvious and easiest method would be to define the yardstick that the government uses to evaluate any action it takes. Nogatia! Traipla mauswara ikamap planti.
If you run a business however, and you don’t or can’t meet your profitable benchmarks, you go bankrupt. So why doesn’t this logic apply to a government?
The only one reason is that while a business cannot continue to operate if it runs at a loss, (although that doesn’t necessarily apply to a village trade store), it can’t buy more product to sell.
A government on the other hand can, and mostly does, operate by promising programs that people want.
But unless there is an effective and vocal opposition, there is no real reason to expect the government will be held to account.
The second reason why governments can operate without meeting any definite objectives is that they don’t have to cope with the electorate’s view until an election.
On the eve of an election however, there are usually huge promises of what will happen if the government is or isn’t re-elected.
Thirdly, unless the voting public is educated, informed and (essentially) interested in how their government works and how it’s supposed to achieve its promises, there is no reason why a government should have to worry about public opinion.
Finally, there’s the endemic problem of governments ‘borrowing’ from the future. This is how many governments today are able to promise being able to spend a lot of money when they actually don’t currently have any.
Therefore, if any government’s ‘aid’ program is to be evaluated, what yardstick do you use and at which end of the so called ‘aid’ program do you apply it? At the ‘kunai roots’, at the village level, at the regional or state government level or at the federal level?
Husat isave?
Posted by: Paul Oates | 09 February 2025 at 01:41 PM
I was involved in a climate change USAID project as a recipient of several training programs as I was a co-founder of a climate change initiative.
USAID conducted a lot of training here and there and the funding of the training went to either New Zealand or Australia. PNG mipla no kisim wanpla benefit - only those contracted PNG nationals on the job.
Apart from that there was no tangible project benefit from USAID to PNG on climate change.
So if USAID pulls out, PNG will definitely not be affected.
USAID comes in many fronts but in climate change for the years 2019 to current, nil balance to PNG. There was no tangible project that affected people's lives.
The agency was not even funding innovation projects for climate change initiated by locals. I wonder what they were up to.
I agree with President Donald Trump cutting off this aid to do some acquittals of where the American people's tax money has gone and then to re-introduce programs with clear missions and vision.
As compared to JICA, the Japanese funded projects that impacted some communities in terms of climate resilience, mitigation and adaption. But not USAID that I know of in the climate change space.
Posted by: Peter S Kinjap | 09 February 2025 at 12:01 PM