There's a classic article by Hans Morgenthau, "A Political Theory of Foreign Aid" (1962), which observes that the stated goals of foreign aid and the actual benefits are often quite different. "The problem of foreign aid is soluble only if it is considered an integral part of the political policies of the giving country - which must be devised in view of the political conditions, and for its effects upon the political situation, in the receiving country. In this respect, a policy of foreign aid is no different from diplomatic or military policy or propaganda. They are all weapons in the political armory of the nation." www.jstor.org/stable/1952366
For Canada, foreign aid is a form of soft power. And we're living in a more insecure and unstable world. It seems prudent for us to build up both our hard and soft power in all its forms, which will require spending more rather than less: military forces, espionage and counter-espionage, and diplomacy. And for Canada, diplomacy includes foreign aid.
That is fascinating. On the one hand, it would be helpful if the government would articulate that to its stakeholders (i.e., taxpayers) instead of publishing "expectations" that amount to misdirection. On the other hand, of course, being more transparent about it would probably defeat the purpose.
But the larger problem that I see is that your formulation - which may well be 100% true and correct - means that transparency is impossible: we can *never* know what our government is doing with our money and why. Or, for that matter, if the government's "soft power" projections are even successful.
If we look at national security spending in terms of cost-effectiveness, it's an ugly picture. Comparing the next 30 years to the previous 30, we're going to be spending a lot more money (as a percentage of GDP, not just in absolute terms) on Canadian soldiers, spies, and diplomats, and getting a lot less national security in return.
As Canadians, I think we pay less attention to the outside world and to our own security than we should. I've learned a lot from reading Hans Morgenthau (especially "Politics Among Nations") and George Kennan. As Kennan puts it, the great divide in international politics isn't between good and evil, it's between those powers supporting the international status quo (right now, the US and its allies) and those which oppose it and seek to overturn it (right now, China, Russia, and Iran). When the powers opposed to the status quo outweigh those supporting it (e.g. in the leadup to WWII when Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Imperial Japan outweighed Britain and France), we can expect trouble.
Russ, I offer a minor quibble to your list of countries seeking to overturn the international order. While there are many countries which would be happy to see the existing order overturned, the only serious actors in that respect are the three that you mention PLUS North Korea. Yes, of those many others we can find a myriad who do various things that are "unseemly" [I am excessively polite there] but those "unseemly" actors are generally supported and armed by the four named countries.
As always, your comments are useful additions to the discourse.
This is my first experience with your commentary and I must say that I am impressed. I am not at all certain how much time went in to diving down the various rabbit holes to accumulate this information; I am not at all certain except to say that you have spent a great more time than I would have due to my a) lack of patience; and b) lack of awareness of the resources available.
Therefore, I commend your work (that I couldn't do myself) and I look forward to further commentary from you.
Thanks! As it turns out, rabbit holes are my specialty...and my curse.
Your comment got me thinking about how much time I actually spend researching this particular article. Given my growing familiarity with the way government data resources are structured and my data analytics tools, probably less than three hours. But you also have to factor in residual benefits: those were three hours through which I had an ongoing excuse not to help my wife. :)
But a total of, say, four hours creating an article actually masks my false starts. I will sometimes sink all kinds of time into hypotheses that turn out to be not only wrong, but sometimes hilariously wrong. If I ever get the courage, I might one day share some of those.
There's a classic article by Hans Morgenthau, "A Political Theory of Foreign Aid" (1962), which observes that the stated goals of foreign aid and the actual benefits are often quite different. "The problem of foreign aid is soluble only if it is considered an integral part of the political policies of the giving country - which must be devised in view of the political conditions, and for its effects upon the political situation, in the receiving country. In this respect, a policy of foreign aid is no different from diplomatic or military policy or propaganda. They are all weapons in the political armory of the nation." www.jstor.org/stable/1952366
For Canada, foreign aid is a form of soft power. And we're living in a more insecure and unstable world. It seems prudent for us to build up both our hard and soft power in all its forms, which will require spending more rather than less: military forces, espionage and counter-espionage, and diplomacy. And for Canada, diplomacy includes foreign aid.
That is fascinating. On the one hand, it would be helpful if the government would articulate that to its stakeholders (i.e., taxpayers) instead of publishing "expectations" that amount to misdirection. On the other hand, of course, being more transparent about it would probably defeat the purpose.
But the larger problem that I see is that your formulation - which may well be 100% true and correct - means that transparency is impossible: we can *never* know what our government is doing with our money and why. Or, for that matter, if the government's "soft power" projections are even successful.
That's something I'd like to explore further.
If we look at national security spending in terms of cost-effectiveness, it's an ugly picture. Comparing the next 30 years to the previous 30, we're going to be spending a lot more money (as a percentage of GDP, not just in absolute terms) on Canadian soldiers, spies, and diplomats, and getting a lot less national security in return.
As Canadians, I think we pay less attention to the outside world and to our own security than we should. I've learned a lot from reading Hans Morgenthau (especially "Politics Among Nations") and George Kennan. As Kennan puts it, the great divide in international politics isn't between good and evil, it's between those powers supporting the international status quo (right now, the US and its allies) and those which oppose it and seek to overturn it (right now, China, Russia, and Iran). When the powers opposed to the status quo outweigh those supporting it (e.g. in the leadup to WWII when Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Imperial Japan outweighed Britain and France), we can expect trouble.
Russ, I offer a minor quibble to your list of countries seeking to overturn the international order. While there are many countries which would be happy to see the existing order overturned, the only serious actors in that respect are the three that you mention PLUS North Korea. Yes, of those many others we can find a myriad who do various things that are "unseemly" [I am excessively polite there] but those "unseemly" actors are generally supported and armed by the four named countries.
As always, your comments are useful additions to the discourse.
Thanks Ken - I'm afraid it's not an exhaustive list, but I think China certainly belongs at the top.
Noah Smith: "You're not going to like what comes after Pax Americana." https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/youre-not-going-to-like-what-comes
Stumbled on your sub stack from Paul’s, well written and informative. Thanks
Thanks. I hope you enjoy the content!
Hmmmm......
This is my first experience with your commentary and I must say that I am impressed. I am not at all certain how much time went in to diving down the various rabbit holes to accumulate this information; I am not at all certain except to say that you have spent a great more time than I would have due to my a) lack of patience; and b) lack of awareness of the resources available.
Therefore, I commend your work (that I couldn't do myself) and I look forward to further commentary from you.
Thanks! As it turns out, rabbit holes are my specialty...and my curse.
Your comment got me thinking about how much time I actually spend researching this particular article. Given my growing familiarity with the way government data resources are structured and my data analytics tools, probably less than three hours. But you also have to factor in residual benefits: those were three hours through which I had an ongoing excuse not to help my wife. :)
But a total of, say, four hours creating an article actually masks my false starts. I will sometimes sink all kinds of time into hypotheses that turn out to be not only wrong, but sometimes hilariously wrong. If I ever get the courage, I might one day share some of those.
David, if you don't tell your wife then I - quite respectfully, I should add - won't tell her either.