I think there are a number of tangible benefits, from public health to promoting Canada’s image and creating good will with trading partners. It’s also good for Canadian morale, where we can see ourselves as producing positive change in the world.
That said, we do need to invest in ourselves and create more positive change within our own country too, and maybe prioritize it more. But just because the US abandons soft power and diplomacy doesn’t mean we should too.
Trade with African countries is a tiny fraction of Canada’s overall trade. “Good will” is only beneficial if it delivers some sort of result for the spend – even if that benefit is not immediately realised, not entirely reciprocal, or clear at the time. That hasn’t really materialised for Canada, even after decades of aid spending - trade remains at a fraction of what it could’ve been with African countries.
That goodwill is also something that was more generally beneficial in the old rules-based order – being able to get others to side with you on UN Resolutions for example. That doesn’t matter so much if the UN is dying out as a result of major powers exiting and the US defunding all its programs.
Soft power means a lot less with smaller, targeted trade initiatives and a deteriorated rules based order.
In terms of HIV etc, most likely Canada’s aid on this front historically was tied to USAID / US Pharma companies. They’re still contributing to a global africa-focused health fund. Neither of these approaches does what’s preferred in terms of benefitting Canadians directly – ie. spending money to bolster Canadian biotech capacity/capability, and having the excess go to those in need. Biotech’s an area Carney should’ve been focusing on building up, especially with the US shying away from science – even moreso, as biotech firms can quickly pivot to bioweapon firms should Canada be existentially threatened.
As for morale on this front, most Canadians won’t care. Like if you go back a couple decades, Canada had boasted that we participated in every UN Peacekeeping mission as good global citizens. That went away under Harper I think, and few cared.
you just wrote a long shpiel about AI datacenter jobs none of us want in response to a topic about cuts to soft power and preventing the spread of an epidemic that killed millions in the 1980s
Ah, yea, my bad. I’ll remove/edit it a chunk – that was sorta a cross post as I’d figured you were responding to a more recent post about Canada’s india deals. Wish lemmy provided more context sometimes in the reply snippets.
I think there are a number of tangible benefits, from public health to promoting Canada’s image and creating good will with trading partners. It’s also good for Canadian morale, where we can see ourselves as producing positive change in the world.
That said, we do need to invest in ourselves and create more positive change within our own country too, and maybe prioritize it more. But just because the US abandons soft power and diplomacy doesn’t mean we should too.
Trade with African countries is a tiny fraction of Canada’s overall trade. “Good will” is only beneficial if it delivers some sort of result for the spend – even if that benefit is not immediately realised, not entirely reciprocal, or clear at the time. That hasn’t really materialised for Canada, even after decades of aid spending - trade remains at a fraction of what it could’ve been with African countries.
That goodwill is also something that was more generally beneficial in the old rules-based order – being able to get others to side with you on UN Resolutions for example. That doesn’t matter so much if the UN is dying out as a result of major powers exiting and the US defunding all its programs.
Soft power means a lot less with smaller, targeted trade initiatives and a deteriorated rules based order.
In terms of HIV etc, most likely Canada’s aid on this front historically was tied to USAID / US Pharma companies. They’re still contributing to a global africa-focused health fund. Neither of these approaches does what’s preferred in terms of benefitting Canadians directly – ie. spending money to bolster Canadian biotech capacity/capability, and having the excess go to those in need. Biotech’s an area Carney should’ve been focusing on building up, especially with the US shying away from science – even moreso, as biotech firms can quickly pivot to bioweapon firms should Canada be existentially threatened.
As for morale on this front, most Canadians won’t care. Like if you go back a couple decades, Canada had boasted that we participated in every UN Peacekeeping mission as good global citizens. That went away under Harper I think, and few cared.
you just wrote a long shpiel about AI datacenter jobs none of us want in response to a topic about cuts to soft power and preventing the spread of an epidemic that killed millions in the 1980s
Ah, yea, my bad. I’ll remove/edit it a chunk – that was sorta a cross post as I’d figured you were responding to a more recent post about Canada’s india deals. Wish lemmy provided more context sometimes in the reply snippets.