Neo-colonial donations are embedded in systems where donor nations outwardly present ‘aid’ while subtly extracting greater value through the terms of those gifts. Contemporary international relations often echo colonial-era dynamics, with recipient nations expected to acquiesce to the interests of donors. For donor nations, understanding the socio-economic status of the recipient nation is as vital to maintaining these colonial-era power dynamics, as selecting the instruments through which influence is exerted.
One pervasive tactic is disguising sales or leases as donations. Botswana, among other nations, has experienced such arrangements where political leaders are constrained by inequitable power dynamics. A recent example is the 2024 transaction involving the United States and Botswana-a case that underscores the problematic nature of quasi-donations and their implications for transparency, accountability, and national sovereignty.
Case Study: The Botswana C-130 Aircraft Acquisitions
Background
In 2024, the Government of Botswana entered into what was publicly described as a donation from the US Government: the provision of a C-130 military cargo aircraft. Despite appearances, the transaction functioned economically as a sale or lease, not a true donation. The arrangement required Botswana to pay an estimated US$20 million (P280 million), a significant portion of the pronounced US$30 million aircraft value, with another estimated US$10 million (P140 million) anticipated for heavy maintenance by 2027. The total expected expenditure by 2027 is over US$30 million (P420 million) for an aircraft purportedly acquired ‘at no cost to Botswana’.
Misdirection of the Public Discourse
According to Bame Piet of The Voice Publication, former President Masisi characterized the deal as an act of goodwill, stating, ‘Recently, the US Government offered us excess defence articles in the form of a C-130H aircraft, at no cost to Botswana… instead of selling to us used equipment like others, they opted to partner with us in preservation of global peace.’ This rhetoric however, obscured the true financial obligations incurred by the Botswana government, while echoing the falsehood that this was a donation.
Regulatory Evasion
A press release by the US Embassy in Gaborone titled ‘United States Grants $30-million C-130H ‘Hercules’ Cargo Aircraft to Botswana’ pronounced that, ‘The United States delivered a C-130H ‘Hercules’ cargo aircraft to Botswana on May 24, representing a $30 million (400 million Pula) contribution from the United States to enhance the Government of Botswana and the Botswana Defence Force (BDF)’s capability …’, never explicitly stating the actual purchase price. The US Government’s approach leverages Botswana’s predilection towards intergovernmental donations over commercial procurement. This tactic intentionally circumvents Botswana Public Procurement Regulations, while exploiting the inequitable power dynamics of the relationship, to the detriment of accountability and transparency.Ultimately, the processes for the subsequent public procurrent of products and services ancillary to this quasi donation, such as maintenance costs, purchase of spare parts, and procurement of ferry services, were sidelined for expediency.
Ongoing Patterns: The Offer of Additional Aircraft
The pattern has persisted as the US Government, following the 2024 deal, offered Botswana two more C-130 military aircraft under similar terms. Again, official channels refer to the aircraft as ‘valued at’ US$12 million (P170 million) each, avoiding mention of the actual costs to be borne by Botswana. Each aircraft is expected to require a payment of US$12 million (P170 million), plus additional maintenance expenses estimated at US$10 million (P140 million) per aircraft. This brings the estimated total to roughly US$22 million (P304 million) per aircraft, or US$44 million (P608 million) for both. This is before any required upgrades to the aged aircraft. The aircraft offered for donation are either decommissioned or about-to-be decommissioned US Government assets, often located in a decommissioned aircraft scrapyard referred to as the boneyard.
Ownership and National Interest
A hidden stipulation of these quasi donations is that the US retains ownership even after all payments, denying Botswana the right to freely sell or transfer the aircraft in the future. This indefinite leasing structure means that despite significant outlays, Botswana never achieves full ownership. Ironically, at a time when the US has withdrawn a wide range of humanitarian aid programs programs-such as PEPFAR- it is with the other hand offering to ‘donate’ its decommissioned military assets, calling into question donor priorities and the net impact on the recipient nation,
Broader Implications: Public Procurement and Dependency
These quasi donations are a sham, and constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation of the true nature of the transactions, and are unashamedly facilitated by the relevant authorities. Furthermore, the transactions constitute a drain on national resources, with Botswana effectively resuscitating decommissioned foreign assets for which it will never assume ownership. The lack of transparency and accountability evident in these quasi donations also undermines public procurement processes and confidence in public procurement, and betrays the trust vested in public administration.
Conclusion
These cases demonstrate how donations, when structured opaquely, can mask the true costs and perpetuate dependencies, eroding public accountability in recipient nations. The procurrent of products and services ancillary to all donations, such as maintenance costs, purchase of spare parts, and procurement of ferry services, should at all times comply with public procurement regulations. The Botswana example illustrates the urgent need for greater transparency and rigorous oversight in international aid, ensuring that national resources serve genuine public interests rather than facilitating disguised extractions under the guise of benevolence.