As recently reported by the
Globe and Mail [1], Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper focused on the
improvement of maternal health and the reduction of child mortality at the
recent G8 summit. This has been one of the more interesting G8 topics of the
past.
The
Problem
Pay heed to these statistics
relating to children’s health. [2]
> 37% of under-five children
die in their first month of age per year
> Maternal mortality leaves over 1 000 000
children / year motherless and vulnerable.
Now examine these goals, to
be achieved by 2015. [3]
> Reduce the under-five mortality rate by two-thirds.
Moreover, consider the
following statistics relating to maternal health. [4]
> Maternal mortality rate
decreases by less than 1% / year.
> 500 000 women / year die from complications caused by childbirth/pregnancy.
> Every year, ~ 19 000 000 unsafe abortions are conducted, resulting in ~ 68 000 deaths.
> Maternal mortality leaves over 1 000 000
children / year motherless and vulnerable.
Afterwards, consider the
following goals, to be achieved by 2015. [5]
> Decrease maternal
mortality rate by 5.5% / year to a total of 75%.
> Achieve universal access to reproductive
health by 2015.
For both goals, finances
are lacking, and despite steady increases in monetary supplies, the UN
calculates that it is not enough to speed up progress so that the goals may be
achieved by 2015. Health-wise, the same situation is in place – despite many
victories over diseases that threaten child health, for example, the goals are
still not likely to be fulfilled in time. The UN writes:
“Despite progress, in 62 countries, under-five
mortality is not declining fast enough to meet the Goal 4 target … by 2015.”
[1]
This is clearly a grim
situation. The statistics – what is really happening – show only slight
progress. The goals – what should ideally be happening – are far away. What is
even graver is that these goals were established in 1990. This means that
despite the twenty years the UN has had to fix the problems up to this point,
they are far from being fixed. As the UN stated:
“... it is the area of least progress among all the MDGs.”
[4]
This kind of issue calls
for international aid, and any willing country can join the cause. This is what
Harper has opted for Canada to do.
The
Idealistic Approach
On the basis of moralpolitik, a nation should aid
another nation in need because it is indeed a moral action and the right thing
to do. The nation receiving aid should eventually improve and a mutual relation
should be forged between these two countries, ensuring that no conflict will
occur in the coming.
The
Realistic Stance
The notions of
humanitarianism and philanthropy are two of many different methodologies of
increasing a nation’s international reputation. However, it also
places nations receiving aid in a subliminal position of debt. These nations
will be expected to ally their benefactors and support them in future times of
economic/military/political conflict.
The combination of
humanitarianism and philanthropy thus acts as a way to increase a nation’s
power. This is essential from a neorealistic perspective for two reasons:
> All states are rational
and unitary actors.
> The acquiescence of power
leads to security.
Because states are rational
and unitary actors, one of their primary concerns is security. When a state
uses power to establish security, this new security will provide a strong
foundation for the state to acquire even more power. This can be connected to
Hobbes’ writings from his Leviathan (1651).
He writes that the cause of the desire for power:
“… is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive
delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a
moderate power, but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well
which he has present without the acquisition of more.” [6]
In other words, men desire
power in order to maintain the power they currently have. This is important
because it increases a nation’s odds of survival in an anarchic and innately
chaotic world, which Hobbes also theorized.
“… which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of
violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. .
. .” [6]
Therefore, it is becoming
clear that by establishing Canada as a benefactor, Harper’s is taking a realistic
stance in his proposition for the combating of maternal and child mortalities.
There is another viewpoint
one can take when examining Harper's actions and that is that of the behaviour prescribed by Machiavelli in The Prince (1513).
Harper exhibits various qualities of Machiavelli's prince in this
scenario.
Machiavelli theorizes that
a prince does not need to be qualitative – he need only appear qualitative. He
writes:
“Everyone sees what you seem, but few know what you
are, and these few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who
have the majesty of the state to back them up.” [7]
Harper is most certainly
making his G8 decision under this prescribed behaviour, and what better way to
make Canada look benevolent on the international podium? If Harper actually
does act and make a significant contribution, then he will be exercising
generosity, another feature of Machiavelli’s prince (providing it is exercised
correctly). Machiavelli dictated:
“… I say that it may be a good thing to be reputed
generous, but, nevertheless, that generosity without the reputation of it is
harmful because, though it is worthily and rightly used, still if it is not
known, you do not escape the reproach of its opposite vice.” [7]
By putting this issue
forward to the G8 instead of minor non-governmental organizations, Harper is
making a bigger effort to publicize the image of him being an ideal leader and
Canada being a compassionate country.
One thing that is interesting to note with this issue is that reducing the problem of maternal and child mortality is not difficult. [8] It is thus no surprise that Harper has chosen this issue to target - not only will it not require as much effort as other millennium development goals, but because of its critical situation, it will likely provide more reputation for Canada relative to the other goals.
One thing that is interesting to note with this issue is that reducing the problem of maternal and child mortality is not difficult. [8] It is thus no surprise that Harper has chosen this issue to target - not only will it not require as much effort as other millennium development goals, but because of its critical situation, it will likely provide more reputation for Canada relative to the other goals.
Thus, the role that Harper
is proposing for Canada to play will be quite significant and will therefore
establish Canada (or maintain its position) as a leading nation in
international development. In this case, it appears that Canada is taking a
realistic approach to the situation. This is not necessarily intentional as
there are many who have genuine intentions of providing relief. However, the
fact is that a realistic approach is how Canada became a larger world power. It
had never had substantial economic or military positions in the international
community, but rather, has always taken on a political/diplomatic
and secondary supporting role. Canada’s humanitarian efforts today are a
manifestation of this role.
What do you think of the
situation, VogueFascinists?
Sources
[6] Haberman, Arthur. The Modern Age: Ideas in Western
Civilization. Toronto: Gage Publishing Company, 1987.
[7] Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. 1513. as found in Ed. Burger, Michael. Sources for the History of Western Civilization: Volume II. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2003.
[8] The Globe and Mail: Maternal mortality: Why it's a crisis
Further Resources
[8] The Globe and Mail: Maternal mortality: Why it's a crisis
Further Resources
Posts
