It seems that Canadarsquo;s current political (and potential constitutional) crisis has caught the attention of pundits and bloggers in other areas of the world. Here are a few excerpts from some of the commentary.

Cameron of the U.S. based blog ldquo;The Crossed Pondrdquo; offers an insightful analysis of the crisis, noting, among other things, that

Canada is still technically under the thumb of the Queen of England. The Queen’s envoy is called the Governor General who has authority to call together portions of Parliament to form government and whatnot. The last time one was asked to exercise real authority in forming a government was back in the 1920s, making the current power struggle pretty rare.

James Joyner of the ldquo;Atlantic Council of the United Statesrdquo; in a piece entitled ldquo;Canadarsquo;s Conservative Government Nears Collapserdquo; discusses the inherent instability of a Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition:

While seemingly an absurd result, Harperrsquo;s plurality is not a majority. Itrsquo;s doubtful, however, that a Liberal-Quebecois-New Democrat coalition would be any more successful

Meanwhile, another American blogger spins the crisis as a coup with a post entitled:ldquo;Coup in Canada? Overthrowing the Conservatives?rdquo;.

Its also interesting how various media outlets world wide ldquo;spinrdquo; the story, whether as a crisis or a ldquo;power grabrdquo;:

Xinhua News Network of China reports:

Canadarsquo;s Conservative government on Sunday said it would deliver an early budget on Jan. 27, as it struggles to stave off the political crisis sparked by a major economic statement.

Australian News similarly reports

Canadarsquo;s Prime Minister Stephen Harper has deferred an upcoming confidence vote that his Government was set to lose, to avoid a power grab or snap elections.

The Globersquo;s Norman Spectre asks: is Canada heading toward a constitutional crisis? Harperrsquo;s Conservative Government, which has just recently been returned to power with minority status in October, has aroused the ire of the opposition parties in its proposed ldquo;economic updaterdquo;. First, Harper has failed to offer many new ideas about how to deal with the global economic crisis as it has impacted on Canada. Second, the Conservatives have proposed to cut public funding for federal political parties. Essentially, each party gets a fixed amount of federal dollars for every vote earned in a federal election. By eliminating these subsidies, Harper would seriously weaken all three opposition parties, particularly his chief rivals, the Liberals.

The Prime Minister, however, has perhaps fatally misjudged the disposition of the opposition parties right now. Rather than showing leadership, critics say, he has opted for political games and brinkmanship. Now, there are talks between the Liberals, Bloc and NDP to vote no confidence in the government and ask the Governor General to allow them to form a governing coalition, effectively ejecting the Conservatives from government without an election.

Of course, constitutional experts debate the appropriateness of such a course of action. Apparently, Canadian history offers some precedent. In 1926, then Gov. Gen. Lord Byng invited Conservative Arthur Meighen to form government after Prime Minister Mackenzie King lost a confidence vote soon after an election.

That may be precedent, but the Byng-King affair has not escaped sharp criticisms from historians, political scientists, and legal scholars. Many have suggested Lord Byng acted undemocratically. Indeed, the optics of an unelected figurehead such as Gov. Gen. Jean mdash; a figurehead for our former colonial mother country mdash; deciding the fate of our elected government is unsettling, to say the least.

So the stakes are high. The lines have been drawn. And the arguments familiar. But Canadians do not know yet where this all might take us. Yet, the question that the country must ask itself in the months ahead - if stability is restored - is how we can avoid this problem again? Will this finally be the time for further fundamental constitutional reform to change to a republican form of government? Or is something less significant warranted, like a few Parliamentary reforms? Is it now time to start looking elsewhere for guidance? Is it time to start engaging with other countries likewise searching for answers? Australia, for one, has at least asked these questions, despite no resolution so far.

Indeed, for what has always seemed to us to be a quaint vestige of our former colonial status - the need for the Prime Minister to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament - now seems like the linchpin for our entire constitutional system.

I write this post from Boston, where my dad has recently undergone serious heart surgery. There are few better places than a hospital in which to muse over inequality. Beyond U.S.-specific issues of butting heads with insurance companies and dealing with detached million-dollar doctors, my family has experienced first hand how social and economic inequality, racism, sexism, and structural violence is perfectly played out within medical systems across North America.

My dad had to demand his right to health care: it was not given to him, and it did not come easily. His social position allowed him to become his own greatest advocate: he’s a white, middle class man whose primary language is English, and he knows how to deal with bureaucratic BS. Because of his job title and my family’s relative economic stability, he was able to take off time from work in order to study his disorder and research the best doctors and surgeons. He negotiated for the best care by writing continuous e-mails and incessantly placing phone calls, ensuring that the operation happened, and happened soon. “Patient driven medicine,” the cardiologist here in Boston calls it, smiling. He’s become a star because of his self-lobbying efforts, an example of how the medical system can work, given that everything goes perfectly.

But what about a person who doesn’t have his experience, who doesn’t know how to deal with bureaucracy and the “higher ups,” who can’t take time off work, who doesn’t have command of the English language? What would they do? I think of single mothers who can’t get enough time away from their kids or job to make those phone calls or write those e-mails. I think of people who’s primary language is Spanish, Punjabi, or Cantonese; who can’t afford to fly across the continent to find the best care; who don’t have enough information or enough experience to understand the system and demand their rights.

The hurdles that my family encountered over the last several months are not only demonstrative of the downfalls of privatized medicine; more broadly, they are demonstrative of our society’s inequality. We cannot pretend that everyone has the same access to medicine, regardless of whether or not there is a national healthcare system. Simply having a system doesn’t ensure that it will work for everyone, and social, economic and language barriers continue to block millions of peoples’ paths to their greatest right: a long and healthy life.

The United Nations is calling on our government to investigate the deaths and disappearance of aboriginal women, citing ldquo;500 casesrdquo; in need of attention. The UN committee on the elimination of discrimination against women has not so far enlisted much popular support, judging from online commentary, particularly toward the idea reported in one CP story, that systemic racism is a factor in the way aboriginal women disappearances have been investigated across Canada.

Is popular disdain toward the U.N and perhaps toward First Nations issues, building in Canada? In a recent lecture, Carleton Universityrsquo;s James Milner gave a lecture about the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). For more than 50 years, Canada has been a strong supporter of the international refugee protection regime. Is that support now weakening?  Listen to any coffee shop discussion, venture into a boardroom, or participate in community sports at your local rec. centre: how are we Canadians talking about the U.N, about refugees? And First Nations issues?

Over the last decades, has there been an erosion not just of civility in discourse, but also in understanding  of systemic issues in our country? The U.N. perhaps somewhat justifiably, comes under some pretty heavy fire for bureaucratic bloat and un-endingly abstract pronouncements. Fair enough. But imagine a world without it, without international refugee protection, without an ldquo;outsiderdquo; multi-country body, however flawed, to rap the knuckles, at least, of a generous, prosperous country  - Canada - not necessarily about refugees - our overall track record is pretty good - but on the historic and current crisis regarding our First Peoples.

No where better illustrated than in this past weekrsquo;s news that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, laudably set up by the current government, is still stalled over who to appoint as chair, in the wake of Justice Harry LaFormersquo;s resignation.

To the UN call for a Canadian government response into the disappearance of aboriginal women, no official federal response to date.

To the demand from some residential school survivors, that an Aboriginal should occupy the Truth Commissionrsquo;s chair, a prepared statement from Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl. According to some media reports the Minister first denied that a new Commission chair would be ldquo;required to be Aboriginalrdquo; and then added, that such a position would be filled by ldquo;finding the best person for thehellip;job.rdquo;

No reading of any of the wire reports available suggests that anyone was calling for an ldquo;undeservingrdquo; or ldquo;unqualifiedrdquo; aboriginal to be appointed.  Why shouldnrsquo;t the Chairperson for this Commission - with its sad, complex charge, its great moral demands, be chosen on the basis of both the ldquo;bestrdquo; and as an Aboriginal?

Last Thursday, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled that Bell Canada was not engaging in a discriminatory activity by shaping the traffic of its wholesale clients. The CRTC found that because heavy-usage residential customers were also having bandwidth throttled, commercial customers could not be said to have been discriminated against. The Commission found that there was, as Bell claimed, network congestion due to P2P traffic, and that traffic shaping was appropriate in this case.

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), a group of businesses that purchase bandwidth for their reselling enterprises, stipulated in their suit that Bell discriminated against them, primarily because their services successfully compete with those of their providerrsquo;s. The CAIP, who launched their suit last April, stipulate in their CRTC application, that they were only using a service that they had already paid for, and that therefore, Bell was not honouring their contracts.Bell argued that increased use of torrent clients was choking bandwidth so much that they had to shape traffic to be able to keep the lines open. This is debatable, as the telcos could easily alleviate the congestion by adding more bandwidth to deliver the service that their clients have already paid for.

The CRTCrsquo;s conclusion, that one group is not being singled out because the same treatment has been applied to another, is specious logic at best, and it dodges a larger issue; when governments take a laissez-faire approach to something as essential as network neutrality with medium as ubiquitous as the Internet, the result is that the arbitration of national communications policies will effectively default to large cable companies rather than legislators. Presently, there is no law preserving network neutrality in North America. Though it was not addressed in this first round, the CRTC did recognize that the issue needs to be revisited, and so there will be dedicated hearings in 2009. This is in itself welcome news, as network neutrality was a low-profile issue in Canada until recently, despite its importance.

Though Canadian telecommunications companies have impeded web traffic before, Thursdayrsquo;s decision is the first blow to network neutrality that has the blessing of an official regulatory body. The Conservative government has been hesitant to comment on network neutrality, and appear to be opposed to federal regulation of the Internet. What is troubling, is that the public is left without a concrete measure constituting what an ISP can say is too much usage. For the time being, the practice of network throttling has been legally sanctioned.

At this point, Canada appears to be going in the opposite direction than the US; President-elect Barack Obama, is an advocate of legislating network neutrality, which has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” It is easy to see why Obama backs network neutrality. His incredibly successful grassroots campaigns effectively utilized the innovative potential of the free net for awareness and fundraising. He recognized that the nature of the new media lends itself to a more direct and instant participation in democracy, an insight that mobilized voters in record numbers.

Network neutrality facilitates innovation and democratic representation in the media, and fosters healthy competition among Internet companies. These are important elements for Canada to retain if it would remain a leader in the communcations world.

Correspondents say Somali coastal waters are now considered to be among the most hazardous in the world. With no effective government, pirates are able to operate largely uncheckedhellip; [T]his is the first time in nearly a year that no hijacked ships are being held by Somali pirates.

- BBC News, December 2007

The correspondents hadnrsquo;t seen anything yet. Since last December, many more vessels have been seized, and some of the attacks have been quite high-profile. In April the pirates grabbed a French luxury yacht, the MY Le Ponant. In September they took the MV Faina, a Ukrainian-owned ship carrying tanks that were probably destined for South Sudan. Among Octoberrsquo;s victims was the MV Yasa Neslihan, a Turkish ship of interest to Canadians because it happened to be carrying iron ore from Canada to China. Just this week, Somali pirates claimed a Saudi-owned oil tanker, the MV Sirius Star.

A report by the UK think tank Chatham House (PDF here) puts the problem in perspective. As of September 25, at least 61 attacks had taken place in 2008, although of course not all were successful. This is a small number compared to the 16,000 ships that pass through the Gulf of Aden  every year, just as the estimated total ransom money that has gone to the pirates in 2008 - US $18-30 million - is barely a fly in the ointment of the global economy. Even so, the attacks are raising insurance premiums and threatening to force shipping companies to divert their vessels to the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope. The Chatham report gives other reasons to take the problem seriously, including the possibility of a major oil spill in the Gulf of Aden.

Beyond the economic and environmental costs, itrsquo;s simply absurd that the worldrsquo;s nations - including Canada, in the wake of the Yasa Neslihan incident - are allowing their commerce to be raided with near-impunity by packs of lightly armed maritime bandits. There is a substantial international naval presence in the region, including some Canadian vessels, but the ships cannot be everywhere at once and a thicket of legal obstacles make it difficult for them to go on the offensive and actually hunt down the pirates. As a result, theyrsquo;ve barely dented the problem, while pirates gloat over their spoils in the thoroughly infested port city of Eyl.

However, squeamish legal niceties didnrsquo;t stop the French from swooping into Somalia to capture six pirates and recover some of their ransom money after Le Ponant was released, and nobody seems to be rushing to haul President Sarkozy in front of an international tribunal. This is the kind of direct, decisive action that Canada and its partners in the region should emulate whenever possible. Blackbeard was a great pirate in his day, but his head eventually ended up swinging from the bowsprit of the HMS Pearl. The petty raiders of Eyl can hardly complain if they find themselves in his august company.

Corwin

Although trade missions to China may not seem all that newsworthy these days, one recent trade mission stands out.  The delegates on this trip were not the usual federal and provincial representatives or the heads of well-known Canadian companies.  They were Aboriginal Canadians.  And they mean business.

From November 4-12, Aboriginal leaders and business people from coast to coast to coast travelled to China in search of investment. In the words of Calvin Helin, president of the Native Investment amp; Trade Association (NITA) and co-organizer of the trip:

ldquo;Our lands are full of oil, full of diamonds, full of iron ore and ripe for responsible and sustainable development, but there is a need for infrastructure, capital investment and value-added expertise. We are here to tell China that Aboriginal Canada is open for business.rdquo;

I find this trip fascinating for many reasons.  For one, it highlights just how far several Aboriginal communities have come in their sophistication and business savvy.  Although the reality for most Aboriginal people in Canada today is one of hardship, there are also many success stories that deserve our attention.

For another, it shows that Aboriginal peoples are not going to wait around for Canada (or the courts) to sort things out for them.  Aboriginal leaders expect to have a nation-to-nation relationship with Canada, so why not extend this thinking to other nations of the world?  Sometimes you have to leave home to appreciate what it has to offer.

But as much as this trip signifies a new beginning for Aboriginal self-sufficiency, it also highlights the vulnerability of the economic base of most Aboriginal communities.  Aboriginal economies, for the most part, remain rural economies dependent on natural resource extraction.  Forestry.  Mining.  Hydro.  These are the golden eggs that most Aboriginal communities are hoping will allow them to emerge from the despair of poverty and unemployment that plagues so many of their people.  But, as the ongoing financial crisis is only too clearly showcasing, natural resource economies are very fickle.  They arrive before you are ready, and then leave just as you are getting to know them.

Only time will tell whether the recent trip to China will mark the beginning of a new era of internationalism in the Aboriginal business world, or just another story from the financial crisis of what-could-have-been.  In either case, it is a story worth noting.

Adam

CBC journalist Melissa Fung must wince whenever she sees one of those newspaper articles that begins, ldquo;Unless yoursquo;ve been living in a cave, you must already know abouthellip;rdquo; It was Fungrsquo;s misfortune to actually spend four weeks imprisoned in a cave in Afghanistan, courtesy of a criminal gang who wanted a ransom. Her ordeal was scrupulously kept out of the media until it was over.

Fung told the whole story in a recent interview. She had gone out to a refugee camp on the outskirts of Kabul, to talk to displaced people from parts of Kandahar Province where Canadian forces had been operating. During her visit to the camp a car pulled up and disgorged two ldquo;guys with big gunsrdquo;, one of whom promptly grabbed her. She hit one of them, got stabbed in the shoulder for her pains, and then found herself on the floor of the car and on her way into captivity.

The men claimed to be Taliban, although she didnrsquo;t believe them, and treated her decently enough under the circumstances. They cleaned her wound, fed her juice and cookies, let her hold on to some of her possessions, and provided dubious medicine when she tactically feigned sickness. According to her kidnappers, they would have simply chained a male prisoner and left him alone in the cave, but this only happened to Melissa Fung during the final week of her captivity. Prior to that, she was unchained, but constantly guarded. Eventually they let her go, without any ransom being paid.

Fungrsquo;s story illustrates some interesting aspects of the situation in Afghanistan. Itrsquo;s perhaps worrying that she was seized so close to Kabul, since it shows how little security exists even near the capital. However, her kidnappers were decidedly amateurish. At one point they wanted to take a video of her talking, in order to prove her identity, but they didnrsquo;t have a video camera. They seemed terrified that they would be discovered, by the real Taliban if not by the law, and their ldquo;gangrdquo; was a family business in which the father of one of the kidnappers handled all the ransom negotiations. Afghan intelligence eventually secured Fungrsquo;s release by arresting some family members and negotiating an exchange. All this is a reminder that many of our problems in Afghanistan arise from simple criminality, rather than the bloodthirsty business of jihad.

Fung seems to have handled the whole misadventure with admirable tough-mindedness, insisting at the end of the interview that she felt ldquo;pretty goodrdquo; and just wanted to get back to her normal life. One article came awfully close to scolding her for endangering herself, but in my opinion this attitude is misguided. We need more Canadians who are willing to go out into the world, get off the beaten path, and inevitably accept a certain level of risk. The things they will accomplish, the hard-won knowledge and experience they will bring back to share with the rest of us, can only enrich and strengthen the nation.

Corwin

I like maps.  I like knowing where I am and whatrsquo;s around me.  I like to imagine the places Irsquo;ve never been.  I like the way they make you think.

Which is why I often wonder why the lines on a map are drawn where they are drawn.  Those lines that represent environmental features are obvious enough, but what about all those political lines?  The national, provincial, state, county, municipal, and other lines that we take for granted as having real meaning and purpose behind them.

In the age of globalization, these lines are losing more and more of their relevance each day.  The EU, NAFTA and other economic unions are dissolving boundaries for all things economic faster than you can say ldquo;Made in Chinardquo;.  As goes economic control, so too goes political power.  Although the nation state remains the base unit for United Nations authority and OECD statistics, national sovereignty is under attack from all sides as cities, regions, companies, NGOs, and various international conglomerations of the above take on a greater political presence in the minds of citizens.  As these meanings fall away, it is becoming harder to discern exactly what the purpose and value of the lines on most maps really represent.

One meaning these lines are still holding on to is the portrayal of people who share a culture.  This can be seen by the proliferation of new map lines that have been created over the past few decades.  The break-ups of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Indonesia, and other large countries have created new nations based largely on cultural distinctions (ethnicity, language and religion all being part and parcel of the cultural character of a place).  But what does this mean for the lines that define the place we call Canada?



At a time when borders mainly demarcate distinct cultural identities, Canada remains an anomalous collection of diverse interests and beliefs.  Trying to define Canadian culture has become something of a national pastime with no clear winner in sight.  We may know who we are not, but still struggle to express who we are.

Canadian values, on the other hand, are somewhat more tangible.  It is fair to say that most, if not all, Canadians are bound together by a shared respect and belief in certain core values.  Democracy. Equality.  Tolerance.  Peace.  Excessive politeness (sorry).  What I find interesting in this list is that what may be classified as Canadian values could just as easily be classified as universal values.

Maybe this explains the paradox of Canadarsquo;s borders.  They define a place where people share a certain view of the world.  And who yearn for a time when these borders wonrsquo;t matter.

Adam

One of many stories lost in the frenzy of political navel-gazing between the Canadian and American elections was this:

Maude Barlow named 1st UN water adviser

Canadian activist Maude Barlow has been appointed as the United Nationrsquo;s first senior adviser on water issues, a role she hopes to use to establish water as a human right and to convince Canada to ldquo;change its shameful positionrdquo; on the issue.

Barlow, chair of the citizensrsquo; advocacy group Council of Canadians, will work with the current president of the UN General Assembly, Miguel drsquo;Escoto Brockmann.

ldquo;This is a wonderful opportunity to advance a more democratic and transparent method of policy making around water at the global level than now exists,rdquo; Barlow said in a press release. ldquo;Water is a commons, a public trust and a human right.rdquo;

Maude Barlow has been a well known and somewhat notorious figure since she helped lead the movement against free trade with the U.S. back in the 80s, and for the past two decades has made it her mission in life to ensure that clean, fresh water is made a human right and not a commodity to be sold for profit.

Whether all that makes her a principled activist or a dangerous crackpot depends largely on which side of the globalization debate you stand on. Happily, the man who appointed her has considerably more respect for her opinions than many in our own government. From his letter to her:

Given your outstanding experience, your creativity and your leadership in water issues, I would like to appoint you as my Senior Advisor for this 63prime;d session of the General Assembly. I can promise you my first commitment to the water justice movement. I hope I can count on your invaluable assistance to me and my cabinet as I implement our common agenda for water justice around the world.

Whatever one thinks of Maude Barlowrsquo;s politics, there is no questioning her commitment. Hopefully her appointment will help to bring water issues to the forefront both in Canada and on the world stage, and encourage our government to take a leadership role in ensuring that all people have access to that which we take for granted.

(more on Barlowrsquo;s appointment in Embassy Magazine)

Do ldquo;ordinaryrdquo; Canadians follow the life and times of prestigious literary prizes - who wins, who doesnrsquo;t, does it matter? This yearrsquo;s Giller Prize winner is Joseph Boyden whose work, Through the Black Spruce, ldquo;focuses on the experience and traditions of Canadarsquo;s First Nations.rdquo; Even Prime Minister Harperrsquo;s cabinet, via the Hon. James Moore, minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages weighed in with a gracious very short presser, perhaps consciously trying to make amends for the cultural ldquo;snafurdquo; surrounding the comments of his boss during our just completed federal election.

Canadians who follow such matters will probably know about the Giller, or more properly the Scotiabank Giller Prize, clocking in at a cool $50K; not the richest prize but certainly one that gets the most Canadian media attention. Adam McDowell for Canwest News service posted a little piece tracking just such coverage, and he states that his ldquo;unscientific surveyrdquo; confirms that most arts editors and literati cover this prize more than the staid Governor Generalrsquo;s or the Griffin Poetry Prize.

Founded by Jack Rabinovitch, one of Canadarsquo;s high profile philanthropists in memory of his wife, Doris Giller, this yearrsquo;s prize was adjudicated by Margaret Atwood, Colm Toibin, and, er, Bob Rae.

The lead up to the announcement of the winner usually generates interest as well - everyone loves a horse race - and this year was no exception. The Globe and Mail featured a lengthy and fascinating online discussion with short listed authors and their nominated works: Boyden as mentioned; Anthony De Sa for a short story collection, Barnacle Love (Doubleday); Marina Endicott, Good to A Fault (Freehand Books/Broadview Press); Rawi Hage, for Cockroach (House of Anansi Press) and Mary Swan for The Boys in the Trees (Henry Holt/HB Fenn).

In Britain, the Man Booker Prize (formerly the Booker) has for many years been both scorned and praised - the 2008 winner, Aravind Adiga for The White Tiger (Atlantic) is a thirty-three year old writer who won for his debut novel. Each of the debut novelists to win the prestigious award have been ldquo;non native Britonsrdquo; - Keri Hulme (New Zealand) for The Bone People in 1985; DBC Pierre for Vernon God Little (American) in 2003, and most controversially, Arundhati Roy (Indian) for The God of Small Things, in 1997. Both Ms. Hulme and Ms. Roy were excoriated in the British press for a range of reasons; in the case of Ms. Roy, even her  good looks seemed grist for the mill.   Perhaps in response, the Man Booker Prize sports a ldquo;transparentrdquo; website, that encourages all kinds of interactive online discussion about the merits of the ldquo;short and longrdquo; lists of nominees.

Given the brouhaha that erupted here over arts and culture and our PMrsquo;s theorizing on such matters, Irsquo;d be interested in knowing what readers of this blog think about the Scotiabank Giller - do you agree with this yearrsquo;s choice? In 2006, Stephen Henighan published in Geist magazine a very critical look at the Giller prize and was roundly condemned. Thoughts?

Exactly a week has passed since President-Elect Barack Obama triumphed over rival John McCain. For many of Americans, the outcome of the election offered the chance to be proud of their country once again, and people the world over saw a hopeful glimmer of light at the end of a seemingly infinite tunnel that has characterized Bush policies for the last eight years. Yet although a wave of the now well-known slogans of “hope” and “change” do seem to have swept the globe, I want to offer a word of cautious optimism.

As expressed in his victory speech, Obama’s promised “hope” and “change” did not automatically occur when he won the country’s vote, but will only come when he wins the country’s confidence and respect through well thought out policies that truly help to pull America up by it’s very tattered boot straps. Essentially, the momentum and energy that the world is feeling right now must only be the beginning of the story and not the end; now is the time to work. Obama is no saint, no savior: he is a smart and charismatic man who can campaign like none other, but he will hit many road blocks and make many mistakes along the way, perhaps more so than past presidents because of the dire situation his successor has left the country in. It is our job as citizens of the world to both continue to support him, and to hold him accountable to his uplifting rhetoric. We must tap into that incredible momentum and energy that helped him get into office and use it to ensure that he’s a president we’re proud of, not simply another politician who leaves office with a trail of pre-election promises turned into post-election failures.

For Canadians, our job is two-fold. Firstly, we need to continue to put pressure on our down-South neighbors on issues like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as these topics will no doubt be at the forefront of American politics in the months and years to come, and Canada’s support on both issues may prove to be important within the decision making process. We must ask ourselves: if Obama truly does follow through on his campaign promise of a “surge” within Afghanistan, do we want our troops to continue to be deployed there, and even consider sending more? Secondly, we can use Obama’s momentum in the U.S. on key issues like health care and education to help support discussions and movements on these issues within Canada. We’ve spent eight years avoiding our closest ally, and now is the time to both push the U.S. to do what is right, and to bring some of that excitement to our politics up North.

I havenrsquo;t seen a single Remembrance Day poppy here in Beijing, possibly because I live well away from the expat-dominated parts of the city. Or possibly, in the spirit of doing as the Romans do, nobody bothers with poppies in these parts anyway. Perhaps itrsquo;s just as well. Nowadays therersquo;s a certain irony to using the poppy as a symbol of remembrance for our military dead.

In Afghanistan, the only place thatrsquo;s killing our soldiers in significant numbers at the moment, poppies donrsquo;t wave serenely above the graves of the fallen. They grow in farmersrsquo; fields in alarming profusion, forming the first link in a great chain that leads to dead junkies on the streets of European cities and fat profits in the hands of thugs, unfriendly warlords, and even the Taliban. Can we and our allies afford to leave this chain of destruction in place? Can we afford to shut it down, given that we would be destroying the livelihoods and earning the enmity not only of the thugs and warlords but also of the farmers and their families? Can we hope to neutralise the problem by helping Afghans set up facilities to convert the poppy crop into medical morphine, as advocated by the International Council on Security and Development (formerly called the Senlis Council)?

Such dilemmas are the curse of so many military adventures these days, contrasting to a degree with the past. There was a time in the history of the West when fighting took place mostly between professional armies, and stopped when one army was conclusively defeated or prepared to sue for peace. The winning country would then impose its will on the loser, often helping itself to loot and territory.

Germany suffered this humiliating ordeal in something like its traditional form with the Treaty of Versailles, which Canada helped formulate at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. The Second World War, however, ended differently. The Allies decided that helping the Axis powers rebuild themselves, on Allied terms, was a better long-term strategy than simply plundering and punishing them. Now such rebuilding is a normal part of the aftermath of our wars, and often gets underway long before the shooting has stopped. Fighting the armed enemy takes place simultaneously with fighting for the hearts and minds of the people. Purely strategic concerns inevitably get tangled up with political, economic, and even moral ones, as in the case of Afghanistanrsquo;s poppies.

Compared to this labyrinth of conflicting imperatives, the image of Canadian battle groups advancing on Vimy Ridge to tackle a well-defined enemy might seem refreshingly simple. But if complexity is the curse of Canadian wars present, the curse of Canadian wars past was their sheer lethality. In that four-day battle at Vimy, 3,598 of our soldiers were killed and about 7,000 wounded, and the German casualties were never even properly counted. Compared to our 98 dead (counting one diplomat) over years of fighting in Afghanistan, the numbers are staggering. Lest we forget, indeed.

Corwin

This year will mark the 90th anniversary of World War I. Even as someone who has been to ceremony after ceremony every year on November 11th, ninety years ago still has very little resonance in my life. I was born almost 70 years after the end of WWI, and 40 years after the end of WWII. My parents weren’t even born when Canada entered the Korean War in 1950, and though I was born near the end of the Cold War, I can’t remember a world in which the Berlin Wall still stood and have never felt the real fear of nuclear attack. Even living through the beginning of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan, I feel very removed from violent conflict. Every generation, thankfully, moves further from war; but when Remembrance Day comes along, what are we remembering?

We’re remembering the great sacrifice that has been made for Canadian freedom, and we’re remembering how fortunate we are as Canadians to live in a free and relatively peaceful environment. In a world where most of us take our freedom for granted, though, how do we make Remembrance Day into something more tangible? Afghanistan is a good place to start. Although most Canadians wouldn’t think of Canada as currently “in war-time,” the Canadian military is involved abroad. Whether or not we agree with the politics of Afghanistan, Canadians have made the choice to go and fight for what they feel is a just cause. As fellow Canadians, we should support their cause and the gravity of their sacrifice. We need to remember that although wars have been fought in the past, Canadians still have a real presence in military operations today.

The Canadian military has not been limited to war, and we need to remember this as well. Canada has been touted as one of the world leaders in peacekeeping, and Canadians are proud of this role. Canadians value democracy and human rights, and have taken steps to pursue these objectives abroad through involvement in Egypt, the Middle East, Haiti, Rwanda, and other nations facing political and humanitarian crises. Canada led the initiative to ban landmines, and although Canada has faced scrutiny over the lack of leadership anywhere outside the field of landmines, this is still a large accomplishment for Canada in the world. All these contributions have been made by Canada to better the international situation, and we should remember this.

Doubtless there are many more ways in which Canada can increase its role in the world, militarily, environmentally, economically, etc. But let’s all take this November 11th to remember that Canada is a pretty great place in the world to be, and have faith that our international role can only continue to expand.

So, the great irrational wave of desire and expectation has broken. When it became clear that Barack Obama had taken a firm little majority of the popular vote, much of the world greeted his victory with euphoria. Two papers that might have been expected to display skepticism, Britainrsquo;s Telegraph and Canadarsquo;s National Post, respectively editorialised that the victory was one of ldquo;those rare, dramatic moments in history on which much else then turnsrdquo; and that Obama had ldquo;breathed fresh life into the American projectrdquo;. Ah, the tenacity of hype.

Itrsquo;s not that I donrsquo;t like Obama, or recognise his positive qualities. He gets full points for intelligence, eloquence, and coolness under fire, and he apparently displays a refreshing willingness to listen. However, the flaws - inexperience, intense religiosity, an almost Blairite slickness with the media - are all too apparent. I can understand why people prefer the man to McCain, but not why they fall head over heels.

By people, incidentally, I mean not only Americans but also Canadians, Europeans, and Antipodeans. (Obamamania is more explicable in Africa, and generally less pronounced in Asia and Latin America.) Again, donrsquo;t get me wrong. In comparison to the last eight years, we can expect to hear a more courteous and consultative voice from the White House, and this will help international discussion of issues ranging from Afghanistan to climate change and global trade arrangements. Even if the difference is largely one of tone, the diplomatic wheels should turn more smoothly.

However, non-American leaders are not merely looking forward to working with Obama - they are displaying an unwholesome adulation bordering on servility. Australian PM Kevin Rudd sycophantically proclaimed that ldquo;[t]he world looks to America for global leadershiprdquo;, and apparently various heads of government are jockeying anxiously for the honour of the first audience with his newly crowned majesty.

Closer to home, my fellow Canadarsquo;s Worlder Zandernat makes a well-argued case that a stiff dose of Obamarsquo;s leadership would be good for Canada: with luck, hersquo;ll push us to take action on various issues that wersquo;re too timid or small-minded to address for ourselves. However, we cannot outsource our political will to America or anywhere else. If Obama is really so much more visionary than our own politicians, we must simply push Harper, Layton and the rest of them to do better.

In fact, Obamarsquo;s presidency may present a golden opportunity to deflate American hegemony without creating undue rancour or enmity. Obama is conciliatory by nature, and he campaigned partly on promises to repair Americarsquo;s relationships with other countries. Letrsquo;s try to persuade Europe and Australia, in particular, that the price of reinvigorated cooperation should be an end to American pretensions of unilateral global leadership. If we are to work closely together as a community of Western nations, it will be on far more equal terms. To make this credible, Canada would have to be prepared to accept greater military and diplomatic commitments, but the price seems well worth paying.

Corwin

There were many reasons for Canadians to support Barack Obamarsquo;s historic campaign.

That the USndash; despite its economic crisis, unfathomable debt and prolonged warsndash; will strengthen their leadership in the world, is certainly up there. In a world where the competing alternative is Chinarsquo;s ldquo;business firstrdquo; approach to human rights, this is a fundamentally good thing.

But the new administration will push Canadian politics and the Harper government to act on issues it has stalled on. With an uninspired and leaderless Liberal party that must learn from the Obama phenomenon and a NDP that refuses to embrace its role as the activist (witness Jack ldquo;Irsquo;m running for Prime Ministerrdquo; Layton), we now enter an unparalleled period where the Conservatives find themselves across the line from a powerful Democratic house.

The Harper government, bound to its smallmindedness, has been unwilling or perhaps unable to inspire a vision for our country. Cuttingndash; be it the GST, the Kelowna Accord, Childcare agreements, or green programsndash; has been the extent of it. Dionrsquo;s Liberals had their Green Shift, but were wholly ineffective (much as BC Premier Gordon Campbell has been in pushing through his shift) in communicating and adapting the policy. It remained just that, an uninspiring document written off as a carbon tax.

Barack Obama has vision in spades and it will smoothly fill the Canadian vacuumndash; he makes such uninspiring documents dance. Vision and a spirit of cooperation fosters post-partisanship; witness the embrace of Obama by many Republicans. Our Prime Minister and President Bush both have failed to embody this notion. Overnight many of those whorsquo;ve decried the movement of Canada towards North American annexation now yearn to call Obama their leader. Finally someone able to step beyond the partisan blinds and engage citizens.

Immediately we see the Canadian government trying to jockey itself into the position of lsquo;leaderrsquo; on climate change and the oilsands. The appointment of Jim Prenticendash; considered one of Harperrsquo;s strongest ministersndash; to the Environment portfolio was a mere anticipation of a dramatic US shift in policy. The vacuous megaphone of John Baird wonrsquo;t suffice.

And on issues beyond the oilsands where Canada has been castigated, such as our opposition to banning the export of asbestos (we produce lots of it in Quebec!) or deep sea trawling, and our lacklustre willingness to ban cluster bombs, letrsquo;s hope that wersquo;ll be pushed to act.

On Afghanistan, we will be challenged by the US to step up and stay beyond 2011. Letrsquo;s hope that, in the face of increased US forces and a renewed approach to rebuild Afghan civil society, Canadian politicians undertake an honest dialogue about our commitment.

At its best, Canada has led to ban landmines globally, solve a transcontinental acid-rain crisis and foster peacekeeping in the world. Until we regain our own leadership, Canada will be pushed and led internationally by President Obama.

Taking back our leadership starts, much as the Obama phenomenon did, with grassroots engagement here in Canada. We must see our environmental and social justice work as being complimentary to debating the policies and leaders that our political parties choose. The American democratic process finished on Tuesday, but the countless primaries and caucuses that drew millions of its citizens into debate were fundamental to the final product.

We must reinspire our political process and engage all Canadians in choosing the leaders of our parties.

As most Canadians rejoice in the Obama victory of last night, I have to wonder what this all means for Canadarsquo;s role in the world - donrsquo;t you?

Itrsquo;s interesting as a Canadian viewing this election as part of the global community. Considering that Canada had itrsquo;s own election a few weeks ago, which generated the lowest voter turnout since Confederation, and also the lowest interest, why do we show such interest in the American election?  Itrsquo;s as if the US election has more impact on Canada than our own election does - and that may be quite true. The US is our only neighbor and our primary trading partner. Our economy is incredibly tied to the American economy. But we cannot vote in the US elections, a fact which almost seems untrue when looking at the number of Canadians who donated their Facebook status to Obama on Tuesday (when there was little mention of Canadian elections on October 14 among Canadians, except for the extreme political junkies), as well as the number of American election parties and results viewings across Canada with turnouts that rival hockey crowds. What does this really say about Canadarsquo;s role in the world? It tells me that we donrsquo;t believe we have a role at all - that our role is tied to that of the US. Obama received more Canadian support than Canadians turned out for our own election - what does that tell us about the importance we place on our leaders in comparison with Americarsquo;s?

I am in no way suggesting that I do not support Obama, but I think this election and Canadarsquo;s interest in it tells us something about how far we still need to come if Canada is to play a role in the international realm. Americans donrsquo;t pay attention to Canadian politics, because it doesnrsquo;t affect them. In order to increase Canadian presence worldwide, but also to increase Canadarsquo;s role in Canadian-US relations, we need to pressure our government to ensure America doesnrsquo;t take Canada for granted.

Professional matters aside, the best thing about my nearly-concluded trip to the US has been the abundance of good English-language bookstores, which are rare in Beijing. One of the first books I purchased was an old favourite, the historical novel Flashman by George MacDonald Fraser.

Harry Flashman, the eponymous protagonist, is a dashing but cowardly cavalryman fighting foreign wars with the British army of the 19^th century. When I first encountered Flashman as a teenager in the 1990s, it struck me as a rollicking, well-researched adventure story. Rereading the book a couple of weeks ago, I encountered a new undercurrent that was more serious and almost chilling. Most of Harry Flashmanrsquo;s exploits, you see, are part of the First Afghan War, 1838-1842.

From the British point of view, the First Afghan War was all about securing the throne of Afghanistan for a friendly monarch, Shuja, in the face of local resistance. If this doesnrsquo;t sound sufficiently familiar, consider Flashmanrsquo;s description (the book is in the first person) of the situation in 1841:

Our army prevented any big rising - for the moment, anyway - but it was forever patrolling and manning little forts, and trying to pacify and buy off the robber chiefs, and people were wondering how long this could go on.

In November 1841 there was a big rising, and the British army in Kabul was subsequently massacred while withdrawing under a supposed guarantee of safe conduct. Thousands of British and Indian troops, along with camp followers, were brutally killed (although Flashman slipped away before the armyrsquo;s last stand).

Artistic depiction of Afghan tribesmen slaughtering British and Indian troops, 1842 (image in public domain)

Shuja was from the Durrani tribal grouping of the Pashtun people, and his chief opponents were from the rival Ghilzai. The current Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, happens to be Durrani - and the Taliban has its roots among the Ghilzai. As Mark Twain said, history may not repeat, but it does rhyme.

Canadian troops in Kandahar are not going to be butchered in 2008 as Britainrsquo;s 44^th regiment was butchered in 1842. We have a greater technological edge, including the ability to airlift ourselves to safety if things get truly desperate. Nevertheless, Flashmanrsquo;s fictional 19^th century voice is well worth listening to. In order to avoid a ldquo;big risingrdquo; that could destroy much of our progress to date, we need to get beyond our ldquo;little fortsrdquo;, destroy or subdue the ldquo;robber chiefsrdquo;, and play the game of tribal politics seriously and well.

Corwin

With Barack Obama and the Democrats looking more and more likely to sweep the U.S. election on Tuesday (knock on wood), we are faced with the real possibility that they will follow through on their promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. They will, of course, be looking to gain further advantage for the U.S., and particularly for U.S. workers.

But what about Canada?

The fatal flaw in NAFTA, as in most other free trade agreements, is that it tends to favour corporate interests above all other considerations. One result of this has been the string of lawsuits filed under NAFTArsquo;s Chapter 11 over the past 15 years by transnational corporations against governments who presume to implement policies or pass regulations that interfere with their lsquo;investors rightsrsquo; (i.e. profits). While many of these suits have been brought against the U.S. and Mexican governments (with several aimed specifically at California), Canada has always been a favourite target because of our more stringent regulatory regime and our fondness for keeping things like health care out of private hands.

Two cases which have made the news recently illustrate the danger:

NAFTA-based suit threatens Canadarsquo;s medicare

Suit seeks to open Canadian health care to privatizers

hellip; a group of 200 private investors led by Arizona businessman Melvin J. Howard is planning to use the NAFTA national treatment mechanism to pry open Canadian medicare — often described by neoconservatives as “the last great uncracked oyster in the North American marketplace.”

Howard and his partners want to open a private surgical centre in B.C. similar to the Cambie Clinic owned by Dr. Brian Day, past-president of the Canadian Medical Association, but are facing what they call anti-American roadblocks in several municipalities.

And even more recently:

Quebec herbicide ban violates NAFTA, pesticide maker alleges

A company that makes the commonly used herbicide ingredient 2,4-D is challenging the Quebec government under the North American Free Trade Agreement for banning its product.

The Canadian unit of Dow AgroSciences alleges the prohibition of the weed killer is without any scientific basis and in violation of the trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Other NAFTA-based corporate lawsuits and trade actions against Canada have involved the Wheat Board, Canada Post, a ban on a toxic gasoline additive, (we lost that one), and perhaps most disturbing - repeated demands for commercial bulk water exports.

If Obama really is serious about re-negotiating NAFTA, we must demand that our government use the opportunity to protect the public interest and remove Chapter 11.

It wonrsquo;t fix everything that is wrong with NAFTA, but itrsquo;s a start.

Halloween - the night of laughs, scares, and orange UNICEF boxes. While the number of boxes are slowly declining due to the hassle of carrying and returning them, UNICEF still asks Canadians to take the UNICEF Global Citizenship Challenge every Halloween and donate small change, which then goes to pay for education, health care, and clean water for children and families in Africa - 2008 is focusing on Malawi and Rwanda.

I personally have always supported the UNICEF campaign and what it stands for - but is it really the right way to encourage global citizenship in Canadians? Is UNICEF the right forum to be allocating money and other resources to to help those overseas? Are there better ways to be involved in the global system? Are there other options?

All considered, I would consider UNICEF, as UN mandated, an effective institution to help children and families abroad. What I propose in addition to UNICEF donations this Halloween, however, is that we all take time to think about why it is important to be a global citizen year round, and to collect knowledge about the issues that UNICEF addresses without giving money blindly. I completely advocate donating to UNICEF, but an even better global citizen would understand why he or she is donating, and what else can be done to address the problems of developing nations worldwide. Thoughts?

Tonight on CBC Radiorsquo;s As It Happens, a piece aired examining voter registration and voter suppression in the United States 2008 Presidential election. Unlike many European countries and in complete contrast to Canadarsquo;s federally administered national elections, America cleaves to a ldquo;Statesrsquo; Rightsrdquo; version of voter franchise. Across each of the fifty states irregular practices abound.

The recent brouhaha over ACORN - the non profit consortium dedicated to community building and anti-poverty advocacy - there are even Canadian chapters - regarding alleged voter registration ldquo;fraudrdquo; illustrate a chaotic and non-standardized system.

In a country where a Florida anchor woman asks the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate if his running mate for President is a Marxist based on her understanding of his centrist tax policies, perhaps such an allergy to systemic, nationally sponsored and administered systems should come as no surprise.

In startling contrast to Canadarsquo;s Chief Election Officer, in the U.S., the votes of each eligible citizen are determined by processes overseen by a Secretary of State who is either a partisan Democrat or Republican. An example of the risk of this practice is no better exemplified than in the person of Indianarsquo;s Secretary of State, Todd Rokita. He is infamous in the world of political hackery as a GOP operative in earlier Florida presidential elections under then Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Ms. Harris, the scion of one of Floridarsquo;s wealthiest ldquo;oldrdquo; families (Griffin cattle and citrus) gained notoriety for questionable practices such as an overly expansive ldquo;sweeprdquo; of ldquo;felonsrdquo; in order to suppress their votes.

In California, private for hire companies get paid ldquo;by the cardrdquo; to ldquo;bring inrdquo; registered voters.  In Canadarsquo;s regulated voting system voter enumeration, registration and poll conduct on election day are nationally mandated and by paid Federal civil servants and their local agents. Many of us have perhaps been poll clerks or even District Returning Officers and yes, we often adhere to a political party. But we swear oaths to a non partisan Chief Officer and to the Crown. Compared to the chaos of the U.S. piece meal system, the ldquo;red taperdquo; of regulation never looked so good.

What might not be widely understood is the line threaded from voter suppression in 2008 in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth of Virginia to the legacy of slavery. In comparing Canadarsquo;s  Elections Act to that of the patchwork in the United States which lacks any such central law, what we see is an aversion to federalist power rooted in a very old concept: Statesrsquo; Rights, most famously enunciated by the Confederate, John C. Calhoun. You cannot understand todayrsquo;s screaming headlines of the Republican Party, claiming ldquo;voter fraudrdquo; without also thinking about slavery, emancipation, Reconstruction, the Black Codes (Wynton Marsalis, in the liner notes to his album of the same name, explains things very well) the terrible era of Jim Crow and segregation and the subsequent Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In the coming weeks, American should look away from Dixie and train their sights north, to see how to properly enshrine and deliver on one person, one vote.

The Canadian election is now done, but for many observers, the political strategies of the different parties remain raw in our minds.  The Conservative tact of defining Liberal leader Stephane Dion as too ldquo;weakrdquo; to be a leader, and their attack on his proposed Green Shift plan as a ldquo;tax grabrdquo; was by all measures successful.  So much so, that Dion cited the Conservative misinformation campaign as a key reason for his decision to resign as Liberal leader.

I want to focus, in particular, on Conservative Leader Stephen Harperrsquo;s attacks on Dionrsquo;s Green Shift proposalndash; a policy, put in (overly) simple terms, to shift tax burdens onto polluting behavior. Harper, however, redefined the Green Shift policy via ldquo;scare tacticsrdquo; focusing on Dionrsquo;s supposed latent socialism. The Green Shift was not an environmental policy, declared Harper, but a ldquo;hidden agendardquo; to tax everything in the country. In fact, Harper consistently stumped that the Green Shift was a secret socialist-style redistribution program:

ldquo;Dionrsquo;s carbon tax is not an environment policy. It is just a wealth redistribution program disguised as an environment policy,rdquo; Harper told the crowd. ldquo;The Green Shift is a green shaft and we must never let it happen to our countryrdquo;

The economic turmoil of late September and early October only served to accentuate these poignant attacks; Dionrsquo;s Green Shift was transformed from bold environmentalism to a secretive socialist tax grab beset among tough economic times. Harperrsquo;s Conservatives won the election, albeit still with a minority. But the Liberals lost 19 seats.

Interestingly, here in the United States, the McCain-Palin campaign for the 2008 presidency have recently settled on a line of attack ominously similar to Harperrsquo;s. After toying with several different ldquo;scarerdquo; attacks over the last few weeks mdash; including VP candidate Sarah Palinrsquo;s base assertion that Senator Obama has a history of ldquo;palling around with terroristsrdquo; mdash; McCain and Palin have likewise focused on Obamarsquo;s supposed hidden socialism. Seizing on remarks Obama made to a voter now known as ldquo;Joe the Plumberrdquo;, that Obama, with is tax plan, wished to ldquo;spread the wealth aroundrdquo;, the GOP have declared Obama a closet socialist wanting to impose wealth ldquo;redistributionrdquo; on America. In McCainrsquo;s own words:

ldquo;He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity.rdquo;

Commonsense tells us that in Canada, a country with a greater affinity for socialized programs like universal healthcare, such scare tactics alluding to secretive socialist agendas would be less effective; conversely, such attacks should more effective in the United States, with its staunchly anti-socialist historical tendency. Ironically, however, the Republican attacks (unlike Harperrsquo;s election win) have been largely ineffective: the Obama-Biden campaign is widening its lead over the Republican ticket.

Is this one of those great inexplicable electoral ironies? Or perhaps evidence that certain communications strategies are ineffectual, given broader social, political or economic currents (such has concern among Americans that the Republican party has mismanaged the countryrsquo;s finances)? But maybe we should not be too quick to judgendash; alas, we will have to at least wait until November 4th before beginning our answers.

American presidents like to style themselves leaders of the free world, and at the moment Barack Obama (or That One, as John McCain dismissively called him during one of their debates) must be wishing the entire free world could vote in the upcoming US election. It doesnrsquo;t even really matter how you define the free world: the results of an international poll show that people in almost every country would rather see Obama as the next US president. Canadians favour Obama by a three-to-one margin, and in some countries itrsquo;s more like ten-to-one or even higher.

Why are Canada and the world so eager to see That One in the White House? For most people, attitudes to foreign elections presumably reflect both self-interest and sympathy (in the sense of imagining oneself in anotherrsquo;s place). Itrsquo;s natural to ask whether Canadian interests would be better served by McCain or Obama, but itrsquo;s also natural to ask which man we would vote for if we were Americans.

I suspect that both factors work somewhat in Obamarsquo;s favour with Canadians. Obama is probably the more protectionist candidate, which could hurt our economy, but he also comes across as less likely to behave aggressively on the international stage and stir up geopolitical trouble that Canada might get caught up in. Many people in Canada probably also find it easy to imagine voting for someone whose positions on a range of social and economic issues can be plausibly described as rather, well, Canadian.

However, Canadian enthusiasm for Obama sometimes goes well beyond these reasonable arguments, and crosses into a kind of fervour that I personally find incomprehensible and slightly repugnant. Heather Mallick, for instance, lapsed into semi-glossolalic mode in one of her CBC columns:

Thank god for Barack Obama, thank god, thank god. But this is Americarsquo;s last chance.

The website CanadiansLoveObama.ca, whose creators claim ldquo;a sincere devotion that comes along only once in a generation, if at allrdquo; seems to be either mocking Canadian Obamamania outright or gently acknowledging its essential foolishness from within - itrsquo;s hard to tell which. And I do think foolishness is the word. There are reasons for Canadians to hope Obama gets elected. There are also reasons to hope for McCain. But none of them are overwhelming, and neither outcome would automatically herald either a brilliant new dawn or a disaster for the US, Canada, or anywhere else.

Every now and then I like to read The Economist, usually on an airplane. Early last week, on my way from my usual haunts in Beijing to a conference in Cleveland, Ohio, I decided to find out what the venerable ldquo;newspaperrdquo; had to say about the global financial crisis.

Itrsquo;s possible to find people willing to attribute the turmoil to almost anything: the lack of a gold standard, affirmative action, the judgement of Yahweh, the vengeance of Allah, militant atheism, foolish governments, greedy bankers. The Economist, however, was mostly interested in deflecting blame from what it described in a special report as ldquo;the highly leveraged, lightly regulated, market-based system of allocating capital dominated by Wall Streetrdquo;. The special report did make a couple of good arguments: that the bad loans at the heart of the crisis were encouraged by ldquo;a political edictrdquo; to finance more mortgages in order to provide access to affordable housing, and that Americarsquo;s interest rates were set too low. Perhaps the lesson is that any economy that wallows in excessive debt is simply asking for trouble, irrespective of whether that debt is the result of bad government policies, financiers run amok, or sheer greed and short-sightedness.

At the moment America is probably suffering from a combination of these factors, as are European nations (with Iceland as the prime example) that joined in the credit-fuelled binging. The Canadian financial sector was apparently somewhat more prudent, which really leaves us with only two major worries. Firstly, our economy is almost symbiotically intertwined with Americarsquo;s, so this largely foreign-made crisis is taking its toll on our own finances. Secondly, yowls of pain from south of the border can be irrationally contagious, damaging confidence and leading to self-fulfilling pessimism. As another article from last weekrsquo;s Economist put it:

hellip;Canadians are exposed to the American media and their now daily drumbeat of dire economic news in a way few other people are. They tend to think that what happens south of the border will eventually come north, and often it does.

Surely the answer to both problems is a modest degree of amiable disengagement from the United States. Economically, we need to divide our eggs among more baskets, so that we can rely on overseas trading partners when America hits a rough patch. Psychologically, we need to learn to ignore that daily drumbeat and cultivate the habit of thinking for ourselves.

Corwin

Over the past three days, over 1% of the global population has lsquo;Stood Uprsquo; against poverty marking the UN International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Coordinated by the UN Millennium campaign, the estimated 67 million shattered last yearrsquo;s Guinness Record of 43 million. Of the nearly 7000 events, over 5000 took place across Africa and Asia.

Yet, except for the keen eye, one would easily miss this unprecedented show of solidarity. Sure therersquo;ve been articles around the world and yet it has gone mostly unnoticed in the North American mainstream press. Economic woes, as always it seems, trump the plight of the poor.

But shouldnrsquo;t this be a time to prioritize the people most affected by global economic decline, nationally and worldwide? The Bush bailout plan, as noted in the Huffington Post, leaves little money for aid. Yet, if several trillion can be mobilized worldwide in a fit of panic, where is the urgency to end extreme poverty?

Prior to the market crisis, the NYTimes wrote a series of editorials chastising the G8 for failing to make their 2005 commitments. For all its good intentions, Live8 failed to produce the results it demanded. Now wersquo;re behind the ball, with nearly half the world living on less than $2 per day, and the Millennium Development Goalsndash; despite great progress on some frontsndash; are falling out of reach.

The Canadian Election, despite the admirable efforts of the Make Poverty History campaign and mentions by Elizabeth May and Jack Layton during the debate, failed to focus on addressing poverty in Canada and in the world.

McGill Med students Stand UP on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty last Friday, calling for the Canadian government to increase its foreign aid from 0.28% to 0.7% of national income

In calling for a new world financial order, letrsquo;s hope that Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy ensure that trade and aid are put front and centre in discussions. Stephen Harper, for his part, should set a timeline to increase Canadarsquo;s foreign aid to 0.7% and build off the progress made by untying Canadarsquo;s aid.

Letrs