John Ralston Saul
Culture and Foreign Policy
Republished with permission

a) Languages

One of Canada's potentially great advantages in Foreign Affairs (cultural, political and economic) is its encouragement of two official languages which remain the two most useful languages in international communications.

I say potentially because so far we have tended to treat them on both sides more as a subject of continuous internal debate. I am always amazed to hear people arguing over whether they must learn a second language. They are often the same people given to singing the praises of globalization. What they don't seem to realize is that the globe remains a linguistic puzzle. That speaking more than one language is a way to make more money in large export markets. The real question is what advantages can we develop internationally with our two languages. More to the point, those who wish to succeed in the foreseeable future, particularly in business, will do better with three languages.

A great deal of progress has been made in English Canada. There are now 300,000 Anglophones in immersion schooling in 2,000 schools throughout the country. This is a remarkable figure; the equivalent of 600,000 students being educated in French in England, or in English in France. Yet very little effort is being made to take advantage of their qualities. Business rarely seeks them out, in spite of its theoretical devotion to globalization. Neither federal nor provincial governments make more than perfunctory efforts to make use of them. In Québec the English-speaking surroundings ensure a continued high level of bilingualism. But again insufficient use is made of it and the schooling system does much to discourage these skills.

The federal government should be concentrating on the practical applications of bilingualism in all of its international efforts. They should be pressuring business to make use of this natural advantage. They should be pressuring the provinces to increase language training and to make serious strides towards third language education. A great deal is said about the need for improvements in education to relaunch our economy. Language is central to export success. The provinces have an obligation to the citizens to develop that training.

It should be added that our development of immersion schooling has turned Canada into one of the most advanced countries in language-training methods. This should be capitalized upon. There are tens of thousands of people around the world eager to learn English and French. This is a market in which we are more than competitive. It is a matter of concentrating on how to take advantage of it. For example, the set language-training programs of the Public Service Commission and our use of the bain linguistique are already drawing people's attention elsewhere in the world. We could be aggressively selling these programs. We could also concentrate on bringing people here for training.

b) Post Graduate Education Abroad

This has always been a Canadian pattern but it has too often been concentrated in Britain, France and the United States. Just as foreigners educated in Canada can become a long-term arm of Canadian interests, so can Canadians educated abroad at senior levels. But it is not in these three countries that we are in greatest need of levers.

What we need are better links with other parts ot Europe, with Asia, with Latin America. These are places where our role can be less limited by the colonial fixation. These are places which can provide our foreign policy with balance and so should be encouraged. Unfortunately the tendency towards concentration of efforts does exactly the opposite. It throws us back onto the old narrow relationships.

c) Imbalance Between Education and Culture

The general point here is that the emphasis seems to be wrong. It is not on culture. And if culture is to be treated as an essential mission then the necessary budget increases must come in the area of culture itself, not of academic studies and exchanges.

d) Scholarships in Canada

It makes little sense that some three-quarters of the Foreign Affairs cultural budget is. in fact for academic relations. I do not mean by this that the $10 to 12 million in scholarships are a mistake or that the Canadian Studies program of about $4 million is a failure. But if we are talking about culture and foreign policy then it must be said that this represents a serious imbalance.

For example, that approximately the same amount ($4 million) is spent on Canadian Studies as on all cultural efforts makes no sense at all. Culture, as I have said, is creation, production, distribution and consumption. The study of culture comes a very distinct fifth in order of importance. In fact it is not culture, except by indirection.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that Canadian Studies should be cut. But look at another, smaller program - Youth and Personality Exchanges. It has been cut, but at last year's $400,000 level, $80,000 went to youth and most of the rest went to academics.

My sense is that public structures are comfortable working with academic structures. There is something comforting, concrete, administrative about them. Especially when compared to the complex confusing world of culture.

But why is a program of cultural personality exchanges dominated by academics? What we desperately need to do is insert more and more of our creators into international cultural situations where their peers and the public can get at them. Sending academics about to talk to each other is of far less importance and of little relevance to culture.

This same tendency can be seen in many Canadian Studies conferences where the number of creative people is small while that of academics is large.

This is an important part of our foreign poll' provided that there is some sense of what sort areas we are encouraging study in and provided that we follow up these scholarships by keeping relationship with the student who returns here.

Its unfortunate that we seem to be cutting bc on Commonwealth Scholarships and reciprocal awards - that is, student exchanges - with other countries. At the same time we are develop)' unnecessary programs with the United States. These are unnecessary because we are already sufficiently exposed in that direction. Again, need to develop more balance in our relationship.

e) Canadian Studies Program

There seem to be very mixed views as to how successful this is. With the years, it may well fleshing out, but many in the cultural cornmunity remain sceptical. It is a worthwhile effort if it really  does create a community of interest. But agE approximate comparisons are troubling. Some $890,000 is awarded for faculty research. That's about the same as the total Foreign Affairs effort the visual arts and literature/publishing together. Surely it is more important to person the world a living culture and those who create than to deal with culture indirectly in small classrooms through study. What we need is not more analysis of Canadian literature but more books in bookstores.

This is not necessarily to suggest cuts in Canadian Studies Program, but it ought to be closely monitored and it should not be an are benefit if more money is put into our cultural effort.

f) Exiled Writers

I have not dealt with the Social Science Research Council here, but one specific suggestion is in order.

Canada presents itself and is known as a haven of free speech and an advocate of social justice.

Both our government and organizations such as PEN CANADA play a large role in international movements on these subjects. And yet when the many writers or playwrights or other intellectuals, who flee their countries to escape danger or prison, look around for haven, they find none in Canada. That is, our government is quite fair and open in letting them in. But once in, there is no structure to help them. As a result, creative people whom Canada has helped while they were in trouble in their own countries, end up fleeing to Britain, France, Sweden, even the United States.

This is in large part because the universities in those countries find places for them. Those of us who have been involved with these cases in Canada know that there is little desire in our universities to make room.

This is surely an area in which the SSHRC could play a role. A small series of annual grants (for example, $35,000 per writer) tied to universities would play an important role in making our protestations on the subject of justice into a reality.

g) Selling Canadian Education Abroad

I have already talked about the importance of developing long-term local relationships and of encouraging foreigners, particularly from outside of the traditional triangle of the United States, France and Britain, to come for their education to Canada. It follows that we should be selling our higher education to foreigners. But to do this effectively we need a clear strategy on areas of concentration - both intellectual areas and parts of the world. Universities and provincial governments need to develop those strategies with the federal government. They will not appear spontaneously.

This does not seem to me to be an interference in provincial responsibilities. Rather, it is a matter of foreign policy and international commerce. We all have a great deal to gain from building up a community of Canadianophiles around the world. And of course, we have the advantage over most other countries of being able to offer all education in two key international languages.

The money earned directly in this way is probably not a primary concern. But the effects of the long-term relationships, as I continually repeat, are the real purpose of such education strategies.

John Ralston Saul is an essayist and novelist. He is the author of many books, including The Doubter's Companion - A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense, Voltaire's Bastards: the Dictatorship of Reason in the West, and Paradise Eater, which won the Premio Letterario Internazionale in 1990. Mr. Saul has a Ph.D. from King's College, London.