Blog THIS: October 30

October 30, 2008
Obama and NAFTA
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:16 PM ET

The American Presidential election is coming to a close next tuesday, November 4. Canadians might be watching this election as if it were a tv show - amused, entertained, titillated, yet ultimately detached. But let's not forget just how much our future is wrapped up in the dealings of those south of the border.

Case in point, our economies are very much intertwined at the moment. With the signing of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, Canada, the United States, and Mexico, forged a special trade relationship comprising lowered tariffs and, since 1998, the elemination of all tariffs on qualifying goods traded between Canada and the United States. Some of the effects of the agreement include relaxed restrictions on the mobility of workers from the three states; the strengthened role of foreign corporations in domestic affairs; and weakened environmental regulations; and weakened workers unions.

So in light of our growing integration with the United States, and the current election, Paul Cellucci, American ambassador to Canada, thought he would tell us what a Barack Obama administration would mean. He said that if Obama wins, there will be pressure on him "to . . . open up NAFTA and make significant changes. I don't think that's in U.S. interest; I don't think that's in Canadian interest." This would be a "danger" to Canada in Cellucci's view.

What Cellucci fails to understand, or conveniently forgets to mention, is that Canada is deeply apprehensive about NAFTA-as-it-currently-stands. The agreement is still seen as doing more for the United States than for Canada, and a good majority of Canadians feel the agreement should be renegotiated. The kind of renegotiation Cellucci warns of should not be seen as a "danger" to Canada. It's quite obviously an oppurtunity.

Blog THIS: October 29

October 29, 2008
Obama and socialism
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:13 PM ET

McCain, Palin, and their Republican acolytes have recently taken to calling Barack Obama a socialist. In making that "charge" (apparently socialism is a very bad thing in the States) they point to Obama's progressive, or punitive, depending on how you look at it, income-tax plan. In his plan, people making more than $250,000 will face increased tax rates. The rest will experience tax cuts. The McCain campaign calls this redistributionist and, therefore, socialist.

There are a few things to keep in mind at this point: graduated taxation is not necessarily socialism. It is, at best, only one of the conditions for socialism. The United States is now and has been for quite a while a country with a graduated income-tax rate. Obama merely wants to increase the top marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6, amounting to an incremental progression from an existing income-tax plan - not a major shift into a totally different economic system.

Finally, McCain and Palin should not be throwing stones. Palin, as Alaska's governor, did nothing but redistribute wealth. Here is the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on Palin's hypocrisy:

"She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government's activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year's check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269."

And when asked in 2000 why people are being penalized for making more money and if this was socialism, McCain responded: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

That indeed might be what he really feels. Now why can't he bring himself to let the truth out? He knows Obama is not a socialist and, ultimately, he sort of agrees with Obama's plan, if not the specifics. Where's the "Straight Talk Express" now?

Blog THIS: October 29

October 29, 2008
The presidential election is only six days away!
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 11:18 AM ET

Six days from now, on November 4th, America will decide its president. They will either choose the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, or the Republican, John McCain. But what would choosing either amount to? Many of us know what the candidates have said they will do as president, but, of course, what one says and what one does are often two different things.

Michael Walzer, the political philosopher and co-editor of Dissent, composed a very helpful list of what, at least, a Barack Obama presidency would mean to international affairs. No more unilateralism; a more pronounced approach to global warming; the probable shut-down of Guantanamo Bay; and European cooperation on common security issues, among other things.

undecided minds

The New Yorker's David Sedaris wrote an amusing piece for the current issue. It's about undecided voters and the American presidential election. Sedaris, naturally, is a liberal and a supporter of Obama, so on this topic and in the context of a race between an obviously superior candidate, Obama, and the woeful McCain, Sedaris writes:

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

Funny, but is this the way we should look at undecided voters? Are they really this dumb; this incapable of seeing the great and relevant distinctions between Obama and McCain? Well, two neuroscientists want to say that undecideds "may be more willing than others to take their time — or else just unaware that they have essentially already made a choice." Although they may "require a higher degree of confidence before they commit", they might nevertheless betray a preference, an inclination, for one choice over the other. "In psychological studies, people who describe themselves as undecided often reveal a pronounced preference when they are forced to choose. When someone reports being only “moderately sure” of a decision like whether to accept a new job, his eventual choice is all but certain."

If this is true, many self-identifying undecided voters might, after all, be staunch supporters of one or the other (preferebly Obama). And the question Sedaris asks, "I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?", might after all be meant for no one.

Chavez and human rights

A little over two months ago, a pair of researchers for Human Rights Watch released a report on Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and its human rights violations. That night they were expelled. Read their account here: including the helping hand offered by Venezuelen officials who broke into the researchers' room to pre-pack their bags.

Key passage:

In the more than twenty years that Human Rights Watch has worked in Latin America, no government has ever expelled our representatives for our work, not even the right-wing dictatorships guilty of far more egregious abuses than those committed by Chávez. Presumably they knew better. After all, Chávez's decision to expel us merely served to confirm the central message of our report and ensure that it received extensive coverage around the globe.

Why did Chávez do it? One Brazilian on the plane on which we were forced to leave Venezuela offered a view that is increasingly widespread throughout Latin America: "Chávez is crazy." But the human rights defenders we work with in Venezuela have drawn a far more sobering conclusion. Chávez, in their view, was sending a deliberate message to his fellow countrymen: he will not allow human rights guarantees to get in his way, no matter what the rest of the world may think.

Blog THIS: October 27

October 27, 2008
soldiers and terrorists atwitter
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:33 PM ET

The global War on Terror has a new front: Twitter! The American military has now taken up the idea of tracking the Twitter accounts of terrorists in the hopes they can intercept their moves and whereabouts. Of course, this tactic could just as easily backfire, proving to be counter-productive and a great waste of time. For one, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists hepfully points out that if the American military has the time and resources to track Twitter accounts, they probably aren't facing too much danger. Check out the three potential consequences of this move, with special attention to the last one (Scenario 3):

"Scenario 1: Terrorist operative "A" uses Twitter with… a cell phone camera/video function to send back messages, and to receive messages, from the rest of his [group]... Other members of his [group] receive near real time updates (similar to the movement updates that were sent by activists at the RNC) on how, where, and the number of troops that are moving in order to conduct an ambush.

Scenario 2: Terrorist operative "A" has a mobile phone for Tweet messaging and for taking images. Operative "A" also has a separate mobile phone that is actually an explosive device and/or a suicide vest for remote detonation. Terrorist operative "B" has the detonator and a mobile to view "A's" Tweets and images. This may allow "B" to select the precise moment of remote detonation based on near real time movement and imagery that is being sent by "A."

Scenario 3: Cyber Terrorist operative "A" finds U.S. [soldier] Smith's Twitter account. Operative "A" joins Smith's Tweets and begins to elicit information from Smith. This information is then used for... identity theft, hacking, and/or physical [attacks]. This scenario... has already been discussed for other social networking sites, such as My Space and/or Face Book."

Blog THIS: October 24

October 24, 2008
Suzuki is still green
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:40 PM ET

A National Post columnist characterized David Suzuki as saying the Green Party should no longer exist - basing this on some of Suzuki's remarks. On Tuesday, Suzuki spoke to students of Lakehead University and said, it's true, there should be no Green party. But, if we simply read the statement in context, the paradox that Suzuki would oppose the Green party should be resolved. Suzuki later explained:

"The article is a grotesque version of what I said," said Dr. Suzuki. "I said I look forward to the day when there is no Green Party because as long as there is one, the environment is a political football when it should be the basis of every party's platform. But until that time, I said I was glad there was a Green Party and that Elizabeth May got into the leaders' debates. I did not 'rebuke' Greens. I wish these reporters would listen and report, not hear what they want to hear."

Now, I know the National Post can be fairly conservative, but since when did that mean insulting their readers' intelligence?

Human beings deserve better than this

This afternoon, a female volunteer for the McCain campaign confessed to making up a story about being mugged by an African-American man near an ATM. In the fabrication, this phantom-man, angered by her support for McCain, attacked and etched the letter "B" in her cheek. The letter, of course, was scratched backwards...

How high up does this hoax go? Was McCain's inner circle it's author? If so, McCain deserves to both lose this presidential race and be held up on the national stage as a profoundly awful man. To use existing racial tensions and fears for political gain is ignoble, short-sighted, and tantamount to advancing some people at the expense of others. To fabricate a story like this is increadibly unjust and criminal. Black males have been characterized-to-death already. They don't need a fresh, topical, and politically-relevant description of who they are. The McCain camp needs to know that African-Americans are Americans too. They do not deserve to be the go-to scapegoats. No one does.

Blog THIS: October 23

October 23, 2008
The torture of three Muslim-Canadians
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:59 PM ET

The news has come out that Canadian officials indirectly contributed to the arrests and torture of three Muslim-Canadians. This revalation followed an inquiry by retired Supreme Court Judge, Frank Iacobucci into the separate, but thematically linked, cases of Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abdullah Almalki. The RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the department of Foreign Affairs, all did things that had the unintended consequence of having the three men imprisoned and tortured in Syria. The CSIS and the RCMP shared information, leading to Nureddin's torture. The RCMP, Iacobucci's inquiry reveals, received, from outside foreign agencies, information and accusations the men were "Islamic extremists". They then shared this information with Syria before checking the validity of the claims for themselves. It should be noted that they were never officially charged with any crimes.

In today's Globe and Mail, Wesley Warm, a security specialist, would not let us forget the importance of intelligence sharing. Although we must be careful to protect the civil rights of citizens, intelligence sharing is a critical step on the road to global security, he argues. The last line of his piece:

"Judicially inspired degrees of caution about the sharing of intelligence might save some Canadians from harm; it might also expose many Canadians to harm."

This sounds very callous. It amounts to justifying the mistreatment of the three men because such acts are essential aspects of a system (intelligence sharing) that will prevent potential harm. But can't we have both: intelligence sharing with rigorous fact-checking and oversight, thus maintaining our status as a part of the global network without indirectly throwing your own citizens under the bus?

Foreign Policy Magazine compiled two informative lists: one with Barack Obama's 10 worst ideas and another with John McCain's.

Blog THIS: October 17

October 17, 2008
Canada in the world
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 12:21 AM ET

Embassy, a foreign policy newsweekly and division of The Hill Times, published a report on Canada's current place in foreign development yesterday. This report consisted of articles written by journalists and professors on what Canada has done, might do in light of the Tory win this Tuesday, and probably should do.

Stephen Brown (page 17), professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, insisted Canada provide more aid to developing countries. We have not, he points out, lived up to our promise to devote 0.7 per cent of the gross national product (GNP) to foreign aid - not by a long-shot if we only look at Stephen Harper's 0.28 per cent allotment last year. He urges us not to use the financial crisis as an excuse to cut funding because developing countries will be hurt by it as well, and this, of all times, is not when we should be frugal. He also criticizes the Harper government for endorsing the concept of "aid effectiveness". This is the practice of only spending money on countries, and on specific sectors of society, that will benefit the most. Now, this sounds like a perfectly fine thing: all things being equal, efficiency should be sought. But, in practice, "the policy implies focusing on middle-income countries that already have the capacity to transform outside financing into economic growth. However, the poorest countries often require assistance to create a growth-friendly environment." It is the poorest countries, the ones that lack the kind of infrastructure and social institutions to benefit most effectively from aid, that happen to need it the most.

Nipa Banerjee (page 18), professor of international development at the University of Ottawa, wrote about the primacy of aid effectiveness, contra Stephen Brown.

Jeff Davis (page 19) discusses the effect the financial crisis will have on the developing world, noting that foreign direct investment will drop; developing world exporters will have fewer buyers; and developing countries that subsist on the money from luxury goods exports will suffer.

Hugh Segal (page 20), a conservative senator, wrote about making the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) less mired in bureaucracy and, by dispersing it from its central location, Hull, make it more responsive to the realities of/in the developing countries it's supposed to assist. As such, he supports Bill C-293 because it "calls for a new consultative relationship between CIDA and our NGOs, many of whom are better situated in aid recipient countries than CIDA itself."

Lee Berthiaume (also page 20) discusses the role and future of democracy-promotion, ie. helping developing countries become more democratic. He writes of the Tory proposal to create a separate agency for democracy-promotion, and the complexities involved in this task.

Read the full report to fill my summaries out. It might be helpful considering that foreign policy was an issue almost nobody discussed this past election.

Blog THIS: October 15

October 15, 2008
Harper's Economics 101
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 02:56 PM ET

In the wake of Stephen Harper's and the Conservative Party's win last night, the leader has drawn a six-point economic plan. He spoke today of holding a conference with first ministers; issuing a fiscal update by the end of November; and forging an expanded relationship with the European Union. This last one involves freer trade based on a prospective bilateral agreement between Canada and the EU.

Interestingly, this happens the same day the Globe and Mail publishes a commentary by Roy MacLaren, co-chairman of the Canada-Europe Roundtable for Business. He endorses the idea of eliminating tariffs and increasing bilateral trade.

This leaves us wondering if liberalization and deregulation are, in fact, part of the solution to this economic problem; and why Harper failed to discuss this plan earlier. Why did he wait until the day after he'd won the election to unveil this plan? Transparency is an essential aspect of both elected and potential governments alike, and Harper seems to have stumbled his way through the gate.

Blog THIS: October 14

October 14, 2008
A final hearing
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:07 PM ET | Comments (0)

The Toronto Star today published short pieces written by four of the national leaders: Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, and Elizabeth May. There essays included specific proposals, broadsides against other leaders, and some evocative language.

Both Harper and Dion used the word "strong" in one form or another, and often. Harper used it three times, saying "Canada now has the strongest economy in the G7"; insisting on your vote because of his "strong support for families"; and concluding that he will ensure Canada remains "strong, united, independent and free." In his first sentence, Dion asks if Canada has "grown stronger under the Harper Conservatives?". He also litters one sentence with the word, saying: "Only the Liberal Party offers the combination of a strong record as economic managers, a strong team of experienced men and women ready to take action on Day 1, and a strong plan for Canada's future."

Layton surprised me when he used the word not once. But he did use another one of his catch-phrases: evoking the mythical "kitchen-table" and asserting that Harper does not care about the concerns of people who make their decisions there.

May was increadibly vague and lofty in her essay. She wrote of representative democracy's history in North America and the moral obligation to political engagement, only mentioning her actual proposals in the penultimate paragraph. She doesn't exactly have Barack Obama's gift for expression, so I suggest she sticks to more concrete discussions in the future.

Harper wrote of his party's economic prudence. He wants to convince us he can do a good job of handling the current economic situation. For that end, he criticized Dion's carbon tax for being expensive and, therefore, very untimely. Dion, in turn, did not forget to include Harper's comment that the economic downdraft was the right time to buy stocks, effectively painting Harper as insensitive and unprepared to handle the problem. Naturally, Layton criticized Harper, but he also had some words for Dion. He called the carbon tax unfair and pointed out the fact that Dion voted along with the Conservatives 43 times as Opposition leader. Layton wants us to believe that he, unlike Dion, can truly fulfill the obligations of the official Opposition party's leader. If not the government's leader.

And that's what we all want to know. Who will best fulfill the role of Prime Minister today? We will not have a conclusive answer to that question anytime soon, but we will know who the nation elected to be Prime Minister by the end of this evening.

Blog THIS: October 8

October 08, 2008
Can the Conservatives be defeated by a coaltion of parties? Doubt it.
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:10 PM ET

Judy Rebick's piece in today's Globe and Mail raises the troubling possibility that this election will not be democratic. For it to be democratic, the thoughts and feelings of Canadians would have to be represented by their government. "More than two-thirds of Canadians", Rebick says, support "strong action on climate change; government intervention to create jobs and defend ordinary Canadians against the impact of the global economic crisis; an end to the war in Afghanistan; public support for the arts; implementation of at least the Kelowna Accord to raise the standard of living for aboriginal people; and a national child-care program that includes the creation of thousands of new child-care spaces." And still, the Conservatives may just eke out a win, even a majority. How representative would that be?

Her suggestion is that the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois establish an alliance in the event of a Conservative minority government. As a majority-of-minorities they can overwhelm the Conservatives with their concerted effort to push progressive policies.

I like the sentiment behind this proposed tactic: it would be nice to see our representatives cast differences aside for the greater good. But things might not work out as smoothly as Rebick hopes. She describes the events unfolding like this: "With such agreement, they can defeat the government and go to the Governor-General with an offer to form a new government. They don't have to agree on everything, and they don't need to form a full coalition government. They just have to agree on some key points, and whoever has the most seats can form the government with a written promise to bring in the policies agreed on."

Well and good. But I can't help but think this is a little idealistic. This sounds a lot like the power-sharing of proportional representation and we've seen how that's worked in other countries. In Italy, for example, the Prime Minister's office has been occupied 37 times, sometimes by the same man, like the the current PM, Silvio Berlusconi, who is serving his third and inconsecutive term. It's the constant coaltion-building and power-sharing that causes all this instability. Alliances of parties that are still, let's not forget, in competition with one another are inherently unstable. The various parties in Italy simply realized they have as good a reason to dissent from even the most noble coaltion as they do to cooperate.

Canadian political parties are not above all that, in my opinion.

On the possibility of racism without racists

The New Yorker has shed its garb of journalistic neutrality to support Barack Obama in this election. Anything else would be irresponsible.

Blog THIS: October 1

October 01, 2008
enviro-friendly debate
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:51 PM ET

For all you environmentally conscious types who believe the problems facing our rapidly weakening ecosystem can be tackled by government regulation and coordination, check out this piece from the CBC. It streamlines the deluge of information we have been getting from our federal parties into a simple assessment of what their environmental proposals are, how they plan to achieve them (the most important part, in my opinion), and suggested questions to ask these parties.

Let's hope enough time is spent discussing this during tonight's debate so people can make informed (read: correct) decisions.

Is the juggernaut to the south, the world's sole superpower, the global hegemony, falling down? Read John Gray's piece arguing that indeed it is.