|
|
|
Are you tired of searching for the term paper you so much need? Look no further! A group of experienced writers will produce any term paper you request in a matter of hours. All papers are written from scratch on an individual basis. For only $12.95 a page you will receive an exclusive custom term paper.
The Cold War and decolonization in Asia framed Canada's decision in 1950 to offer capital and technical assistance through the Colombo Plan for Co-operative Economic Development in South and Southeast Asia. Since then, Canada has disbursed over $40 billion in official development assistance (ODA) to countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. A reserved player in Western aid efforts in the 1950s, the Canadian government became more enthusiastic in the 1960s, a time of optimism, idealism, and prosperity when support for international development captured the imagination of growing numbers of Canadians . During the late 1980s, Canada slashed its ODA from 0.5 percent to a mere 0.26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). Clearly Canada's commitment to helping other nations has come into serious debate. Canada had a good beginning to its international development program but has let it degrade over time. Canada must return foreign aid and development programs back to their original standards of funding.
The creation of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in 1968 symbolised a commitment that led to expansion of the aid program to most parts of the developing world, making Canada one of the more generous donors among industrialised countries. As a percentage of GNP, ODA allocations reached a crest in 1975 and then fell. Again they rose in the 1980s amid changing ideas about development and periodic bouts of aid fatigue. There has been a pronounced declining in Canadian aid since 1989, driven by immediate pressure to reduce the federal deficit, but also by dramatic changes in a world order transformed by the fall of communism, the rise of global markets, and the predominance of ethnic conflict. Also, the ascendancy of neo-liberal ideology has played a part in the eventual ebb of support on ODA. By allowing Canada to fall behind in foreign aid, it is making it that much harder to return to the previous level of support given to programs, let alone reach the goal set out by the liberal government.
Although Canada has not always been the first to offer support to other countries, it has always joined in when another nation has acknowledged a problem brewing. When the United States and the old colonial powers noticed Canada was not supporting countries in the Philippines, they made this situation apparent. As a result, Canadian participation in aid efforts expanded gradually until the early 1960s, reaching 0.20 per cent of GNP in 1960-61 but then slipping to 0.13 per cent in 1962-63, the last year of John Diefenbaker's Conservative government. Soon thereafter, the Liberals under Lester Pearson responded to the challenge put forth by the US more vigorously and growth was rapid. Expenditures in 1967-68 were reaching a high $190 million at the time, yielding an ODA/GNP ratio of 0.29 per cent . At this level, Canada moved into the top five countries for International Development Programs (IDP).
After former Prime Minister Pearson's time in office, the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau succeeded him. Prime Minister Trudeau had a great understanding of, and appreciation for, foreign aid and helped the Canadian based programs immensely. He made a number of stirring appeals for an enlightened response to the plight of the world's poor and disadvantaged. Shortly after his resounding victory in the 1968 federal election, he proclaimed:
Never before in history has the disparity between the rich and the poor, the comfortable and the starving, been so extreme; never before have mass communications so vividly informed the sufferers of the extent of their misery ... We are faced with an overwhelming challenge. In meeting it, the world must be our constituency.
This quotation demonstrates Trudeau's passion for helping others, and illustrates why there was such a thing as 'Trudeamania'.
As was mentioned earlier, the CIDA was formed in 1968. One of Trudeau's early actions was to upgrade the small External Aid Office attached to the Department of External Affairs--turning it into CIDA, which still reported to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but now through a president with the rank of deputy minister. From 1968 to the mid-1970s, the new Agency oversaw rapid growth in aid expenses, spurred on by Canada's promise to make steady progress towards the target for donor countries endorsed in 1970 by the UN General Assembly--0.7 per cent of GNP. Total Canadian aid exceeded $900 million in 1975-76, and the ODA/GNP ratio reached 0.53 per cent. That was to be the highest percentage ever attained. Canada should be expected to surpass these figures by the estimated 5-10 per cent that Prime Minister Jean Chretien had promised to attain presently.
The United Nations has always promoted foreign aid whenever possible. In doing so, the UN has currently and in the past set a target per cent for its members to exceed. In the past years ranging from 1975-85, the target was 0.5 percent. In 1982-83, Canada's GDP spent was 0.49, which then fell to 0.43 in 1984-85 . Just before retiring in 1984, Trudeau promised that Canada would achieve the 0.7 per cent threshold by 1990-91. When Brian Mulroney's Conservatives won the federal election later in 1984, both the new Prime Minister and Joe Clark, now Secretary of State for External Affairs, affirmed the commitment. It was almost immediately denied. Looking for ways to bring down the federal deficit, the Tory government set back the date for achieving 0.7 per cent to 1995 with an interim goal of 0.6 in 1990. In 1986, each of these targets was deferred a further five years. At a time of deepening crisis in Africa and escalating debt in Latin America, however, Clark fought successfully to keep funding pegged to the 0.5 per cent level during Mulroney's first term. As a result, during a period of rapid GNP growth, spending on development assistance rose to almost $3 billion in 1988-89 (0.49 per cent) and fell just short of the UN's target of 0.5 per cent. The focus on reducing the deficit had set back foreign aid; thus Canada should not cut spending on foreign aid and development in order to reduce the federal deficit.
Foreign aid was a prime target for spending cuts in the name of deficit reduction after the Tories' re-election in 1988. An absolute reduction in 1989-90 was followed by two years of sub-inflationary increases. ODA reached a current dollar high of almost $3.2 billion in 1991-92, but then the axe fell more heavily; by 1992-93, aid spending had dropped to 0.44 per cent of GNP. After 1993, Jean Chretien's Liberal government authorised much deeper cuts while still proclaiming a commitment, to making progress towards the ODA target of 0.7% of GNP when Canada's fiscal situation allows it. That bit of misconception coincided with the February 1995 budget of Finance Minister Paul Martin, JR., which reduced the government's total International Assistance Envelope by 20.5 per cent over three years, including an immediate cut of 15 per cent.
During 1994-98, the ODA/GNP level had dropped from 0.42 per cent to a shameful 0.26 per cent. This illustrates Canada's lowest aid effort ever since 1965-66 when the aid program was still in its infancy. Martin's 1996 budget projected a further decline in 1998-99, which will take the ODA component of the International Assistance Envelope (which stood at $2.9 billion and 0.40 per cent of GNP in 1994-95) down to $1.9 billion and a ratio of about 0.25 per cent. This is roughly half of the proportionate effort a decade earlier, thus showing that a return to the grass roots of foreign aid is needed to secure Canada's reputation of sharing.
Although Chretien is authorising these cuts to the deficit thereby lowering the expenditure on foreign aid, he admits acknowledges his actions. He realises that these cuts affect people in Third World countries and has seen what good aid can bring to citizens of these poorer countries:
When you are travelling you know that there are a lot of social and economical problems around the world … We are a fortunate nation and we have to be able to share with others … You don't win election with that, but governments have the responsibility to do it because it's the right thing to do.
Chretien has admitted he is never satisfied with the level of foreign aid, which is not surprising, given the Liberals' election Red Book demanded only 1.5 per cent of GDP be spent on foreign aid, and the level in 1999 was just 0.26 per cent.
Even if Chretien does raise the per cent of GDP employed for foreign aid, NDP leader Alexa McDunnough doesn't agree that it will help:
Canada's foreign aid has taken the form of being tied toward commercial interests … We need to get back on a focus of humanitarian aid and ensuring it's aid that's genuinely going to those who most benefit from it.
McDunnough goes on to denounce the fact that the Canadian government failed to increase its aid budget and fears that foreign assistance nowadays is too directly related to trade. We're still way behind what is widely accepted as a reasonable level of commitment toward aid. By bringing the level up to United Nations par is the first step to returning to the glory days of foreign aid.
After reviewing some of the highlights of Canada's foreign aid experience since the 1950s, one can see that Canada started off in the right direction, but since then has faltered. With an excellent crest GDP of 0.5 per cent going to foreign aid during 1975, was remarkable during that time, when the dollar was worth more. Allowing it to slide to its mere 0.26 per cent today is shameful, especially with the decline in value of the Canadian dollar. The objective of 0.7 per cent GDP designated for foreign aid and developments set out by the UN are realistic and within Canada's grasp.17 Canada must return it's funding level for foreign aid to their original levels.
Word Count: 1656
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
