Canada Foreign Policy
Thursday, March 17, 2005
 

Bigger and Smaller

For some reason, the exact numbers seem a little difficult to track down. In any case, the story goes something like this: in 2004 Ottawa had foreign aid commitments amounting to roughly $2.6 billion to about 115 countries. Most of these states were the recipients of mere pennies, getting sums of $5 million or less. In early March news came the federal government would overhaul how foreign aid works. While the exact details of any changes are not likely to surface in advance of a long-awaited foreign policy review, it has been learned that the number of countries to benefit will be reduced, dramatically. It may just turn out that no more than 20 or so can look forward to Canadian dollars.

The new approach will be sold as an effort to target spending, a measure that’s guaranteed to go a long way not only for the dollar, but also for the developing world. Gone will be the days of pouring scarce resources into infrastructure and agriculture; the new focus is on education, with some funds going to healthcare. To qualify, countries are not going to have to be just dirt poor, but demonstrate more than a mere verbal pledge to “strong civil service, good laws enforced by an independent judiciary, a respect for human rights and an aversion to corruption”. At least that what International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll says. If you’re one who suspects cutting from the most needy can do little to solve global poverty, you’d be among the confused and ill informed. Carroll explains: “If we are to effectively reduce -- and ultimately eliminate -- global poverty, we must better co-ordinate and focus our effort…For Canada, that means not doing everything and not being everywhere” [Text of Minister Carroll’s speech cited in CTV News, 9 March 2005. Article posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110380148530_26/?hub=TopStories]. The key to targeting aid rests in bigger amounts for a smaller number of countries. Why the world’s emerging economic superpower, China, remains on the recipient list is not explained. To date, not even the argument that pouring money into the Middle Kingdom will help set up that country not just as a model, but as a new platform which will evolve into a major donor, has been offered up.

These days, retrenching is a theme more popular than perhaps most of us suspect. In what appears an unrelated item, news broke several days ago that the idea of Fortress North America is very much in vogue again, at least among the trilateral commission architects of a report for the US-based Council on Foreign Relations. The idea is to turn Canada, the United States and Mexico into a European Union for this continent, an eventuality, say the proponents of the idea, made necessary by security and economic factors. Former Deputy PM John Manley, likely preparing to use the Fortress idea in a possible leadership contest in the not too distant future, claims: “The security of North America is indivisible” and when leaders from the three countries meet next week, they should embrace the plan, “think big ... show some vision.” [Cited in “Fortress America’ Sparks New Fears,” by Tim Harper, Vive le Canada, 15 March 2005. Posted at http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050315162820117]. What remains unclear is how China is going to be regarded. The trilateral free enterprisers recognizing Beijing’s growing economic clout will likely seek to defend the Fortress concept while claiming it will in fact somehow facilitate trade with the wider world. If that is to be the strategy, why for now are citizens “being offered a new vision of a Fortress North America in which the continent is wrapped in a security perimeter from the Arctic all the way to the Guatemalan border” [cited in “Fortress America’ Sparks New Fears,” by Tim Harper, Vive le Canada, 15 March 2005. Posted at http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050315162820117]?

The trend seems to be towards thinking bigger, but planning on a smaller scale. Is anyone thinking about what this might turn out to mean?

Stan Markotich
submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

 
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
A discussion of geopolitics and Canada's role in the world. A series of essays to examine the components of Canadian foreign policy making. Psychological, sociological, historical, and cultural variables impacting Canada's perceptions of the world.

ARCHIVES
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 / 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 / 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 / 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 / 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 / 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 / 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 / 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 / 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 / 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 / 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 / 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 / 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 / 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 / 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 / 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 / 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 / 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 / 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 / 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 / 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 / 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 / 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 /

Listed on BlogsCanada