Elephant poaching is nothing new to the park rangers of
Africa. But what is new is the increased organization, voracity and
militarization of elephant poaching in the pursuit of precious ivory. Also new?
The decisive role my tax dollars play.
According to a New
York Times article from September 4, 2012, tens of thousands of elephants
lose their lives each year to poachers who then hack away their tusks and leave
the corpse to rot. Officials seized a record-breaking 38.8 tons of ivory in
2011, an amount accumulated at the expense of over 4000 elephants. Though
poaching was a “job” previously thought to be reserved for the criminal type,
the increasing demand of ivory from China has encouraged more participants to
join the lucrative hunt. Ivory has peaked at $1000 per pound in some areas. At
that price, and especially when compared to the minuscule salaries soldiers
receive, one can understand the irresistible attraction of the ivory trade.
Efficient elephant hunting, however, requires proper
weaponry. Proper weaponry costs money. Conveniently, the United States appears
happy to help.
During 2011 fiscal year, the United States gave 456.1
million dollars to Uganda, 400.2 million to Sudan and 215.9 million to the
Democratic Republic of Congo (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33591.pdf).
Soldiers from all three nations have been caught and reprimanded for elephant
poaching (see the above NY Times article). To Tanzania, another area of active elephant poaching, the
United States gave 501.7 million (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33591.pdf).
In addition to funds, the United States also provides some armies, including
the Ugandan military, the Congolese Army, and the South Sudan military, with
training and assistance (see the above NY Times article).
I don’t dispute the need for foreign aid in many African
countries. Poverty and disease are rampant and as a leading world power, we
have a responsibility to aid weaker institutions and areas. Yet corruption is
also a notorious problem. At the same time, ensuring that financial assistance
reaches the rightful recipient is an impossible task, one that no amount of
manpower, sanctions, or security could resolve.
My concern lies directly with the funding and training of
the military groups that in turn use the US assistance to kill elephants and
buy more weaponry from the sales of the ivory. In my opinion, stricter
regulation and oversight should accompany further donation of funds. Conviction
or acknowledgement of participation in the ivory trade should result in
deductions or withholding of aid.
It’s simple: If abused, I want my tax dollars going
somewhere else. Preferably, I want
them going away from the elephants.
This post definitely sparks curiosity as to why the U.S. doesn't seem to pursue a better infrastructure for aid allocation. It's frustrating to see our money go toward something so harmful. I think the majority our foreign aid should be cut off unless countries can prove it's going to the intended location.
ReplyDelete