Canadian Imperialism

A few years ago I was watching a lecture series on TVO. The guest speaker that particular Saturday was discussing the differences between British and American imperialism. While he was not supportive of imperialism in general, he was suggesting that there was a clear difference between British imperialism of the 19th century and American imperialism of the late 20th century. One wonders if more Canadian politicians should have watched that program.

His primary argument (if I can remember correctly) was that British Government, while it did use soldiers to enforce its foreign policy, it also, for almost a full century, sent some of its brightest and best trained young men to live and work as civil servants into all of the corners of the empire. The men, frequently university educated, along with their wives spent their entire adult lives re-creating the only kind of society that they knew. Were they wrong to do so ? Of course - because these young men's vision of how the world should look destroyed the culture and the social structures of those countries. However, as misguided as they were, they did commit their entire lives to those countries frequently living in close proximity to the citizens and if not treating them as equals, at least having some sense of what some of their lives were like.

American foreign policy on the other hand, in imposing its cultural or moral values upon other countries, has relied far more on its army. Traditionally, in countries such as Viet Nam, Afghanistan or Iran, the American Government have sent its poorest educated, and most socially deprived citizens to enforce their policies. For the most part, many of those soldiers only enlist because of the lack of opportunity in their home communities. The soldiers stay for the briefest period possible, live is separate compounds and for the most part to not have the opportunity to develop relationships with the local citizens.

While the above comparison may be far too general to be taken much further, it does provide a useful platform to discuss how developed countries should provide aid to countries that are struggling. Clearly while it is wrong for a "helping" country to impose cultural, religious or any other values upon another country- encouraging and supporting well educated, enthusiastic young adults to make a 20-30 year commitment to being engaged in a developing country has to be better and more useful than sending over those whose primary qualification may be that they are not employable.

I would never suggest that Canada's armed forces are poorly educated or that the majority of its members have only enrolled because of a lack of choices. I just don't think that it true. Furthermore it would be absurd to imagine that Canada even in its wildest fantasies would dream that it has the ability to force, through military might, anyone to do anything. On the other hand the way some of our aid is delivered, Canada seems to believe that one can just "parachute" into a country, spend billions of dollars and then leave assuming that someone else will continue with the plan. CTV argued in an on-line article today that Canada spent 2.3 billion in its aid program in Afghanistan (which I am assuming including the cost of the military intervention)  but when it packed up did little to ensure that any of the programs would continue. According to CTV, an internal government audit has found that there is little proof that the good work that the Canadian soldiers did there in terms of building schools or repairing the irrigation systems is sustainable in part because there was no exit strategy. We just left. And we most likely will make the same mistakes in the Middle East.

If the Canadian Government believes that we have something to contribute then we must be in it for the long term. Going to a country for a few years, pouring millions of dollars into projects that we think are important (because we don't know the people well enough to ask them what they want) and then leaving when we think the job is done, is just not good enough. It is a waste of our money and more importantly it only confirms the developing country's perception that we believe that our agenda is more important than theirs.