[fblike]
Last Monday, Canadian voters delivered a stunning victory to the Liberal Party, a result deemed unthinkable several weeks ago. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party lost its governing majority, losing sixty seats. Meanwhile, the Liberals gained an amazing 148 seats due to the impressive campaigning of its young leader Justin Trudeau, the oldest son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Observers noted that the Liberal victory was due to Canada’s faltering economy as well as perceptions that Harper’s government was inconsiderate toward the plight of Syrian refugees and neglectful of Canada’s proper place in global affairs. A Trudeau-led government has promised to change Canada’s fiscal policy and reform the nation’s drug laws. The Liberals are also poised to alter Canada’s foreign policy, especially with respect to environmental and security issues. What is certain is that the Liberals will have to contend with a new Conservative Party, as Harper announced his resignation as party leader following the announcement of the election results.
This topic brief will provide a summary of the 2015 Canadian elections, discuss the top domestic and international priorities of the Trudeau government, and then analyze what Stephen Harper’s legacy as Canadian prime minister might be.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
October has been a bloody month in East Jerusalem. Palestinian youth, responding to rumors that Israel is planning to take over the Temple Mount, revered as a holy site for Jews and Muslims, are clashing with Israeli security personnel and launching random, “lone wolf” attacks on Israeli civilians. In response, the Israeli government has imposed movement controls and other preventative measures, but critics contend that this will serve to exacerbate tensions rather than produce a lasting solution. Some experts contend that Palestinians are engaging in a third intifada, or uprising, and this would be the second time in two years that Palestinians are reacting violently against the Israeli government. Frustrated at their political leadership, Israeli settlement expansion, and the lack of progress toward a two-state solution, it is believed that some Palestinians are responding through violence to bring greater international attention to their plight. 
One of the most polarizing issues in America concerns the ability of citizens to purchase and own firearms. Relative to other developed nations such as Great Britain, where handguns have been banned since 1996, the U.S. has a higher violent crime rate. Advocates of gun control argue that by reducing the number of guns in circulation, or at least the number of those that are able to obtain them, that the U.S. could reduce lethal incidents of violence, but opponents of gun control argue that significant restrictions on gun ownership would violate the Second Amendment and empower criminals. While remaining dormant for the last fifteen years, gun control has now become a hot political topic again, especially after a recent string of mass shootings over the last few years such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the murder of black churchgoers in Charleston this summer, and at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. Democratic presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley have made the case for greater firearm restrictions, possibly setting up 2016 as a referendum on how America should handle gun control. Furthermore, President Barack Obama is contemplating greater executive action on gun control, which could also shift the political balance for upcoming gubernatorial elections and congressional races in 2016./cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47259524/GettyImages-489129346.0.0.jpg)
Last week, Russian aircraft dropped bombs on Syrian rebel positions, inaugurating an escalation of Russia’s participation in Syria’s four-year civil war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has calculated that it is in Russia’s geopolitical interest to preserve the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Russia’s bombing runs mark a potential turning point of the conflict. Russia’s intervention could improve Assad’s position and force Western nations backing the Syrian rebels to temper their opposition to Assad’s role in a political transition. In addition, Russia’s intervention is cloaked within the bounds of an ongoing war against the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), reflecting how the Syrian Civil War has transformed from an attempt to overthrow Assad to a multi-faceted war where neither side looks good. Although the West insists that Russia will fail in its intervention, extempers should be prepared to discuss this change in the Syrian Civil War at tournaments throughout the fall as it could have implications for the ongoing fight against ISIS, the ability of Syrian rebels to displace Assad, and Russia’s position in the Middle East vis-à-vis the United States.
Ever since 2006, Nepal’s political parties have attempted to reach an agreement on a new national constitution. Divided over the role of religion in government, whether the nation’s 239-year-old monarchy should be restored, political boundaries, and the rights of ethnic minorities, the nation saw little movement on a lasting constitutional draft. However, a 7.8-magnitude earthquake in April literally shook the country’s major parties out of their prolonged gridlock. On Sunday, supporters of a new constitution gathered in the capital of Kathmandu to celebrate, but reception across the country was mixed. Ethnic minorities in Nepal allege that the constitution denies them adequate representation and women’s rights activists allege that the document rolls back some of the protections women enjoyed in previous governments. Analysts agree that Nepal’s new constitution may give its federal authorities the ability to finally govern the country and fix the problems that ail one of the world’s poorest nations. Nevertheless, if federal officials are not able to acquire adequate buy-in from the nation’s various ethnic groups, the chances of achieving lasting change are minimal.
The last five years have seen an extension of rights in American society, notably for homosexual Americans that wish to get married and for transgendered individuals. However, there is another rights movement that has been very active and is now beginning to win legislative victories. The “right to die” movement, whose advocates say that patients who have terminal illness should be able to take their life with prescription medication at a time of their choosing, recently won a victory in California. California state legislators approved the End of Life Option Act last week, which would enable Californians to obtain life-ending prescription medication from a doctor. Currently, only four states allow for a form of physician-assisted suicide (also referred to as “physician-assisted dying”) – Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana – but advocates of the “right to die” movement argue that a victory in California, which can be assured if Governor Jerry Brown signs the bill into law, could lead to other states passing similar legislation.
While concerns about border security have acquired significant attention in the United States and Europe, another border crisis has created upheaval in the Western Hemisphere. Several weeks ago Venezuelan officials closed border crossings with Colombia, citing security concerns and a need to clamp down on smugglers in the area. In addition to closing the border, Venezuela deported 1,000 economic migrants from Colombia and demolished some of their homes. While Colombia argues that Venezuela’s behavior constitutes a gross human rights violation, Venezuelan authorities insist that they have the right to police their own border and that the inability of the Colombian government to share border responsibilities is what has forced it to act.
One of the biggest anxieties in American culture is the fear that the country is lacking a qualified workforce that will be economically competitive in the twenty-first century. While politicians have primarily focused their efforts on fixing America’s elementary and secondary institutions, college might be the next frontier of state-driven education reform. Less than thirty percent of Americans have a Bachelor’s degree and reformers note that part of the reason is the growing cost of college attendance. Over the last fifty years, tuition costs have exploded at public and private institutions, as have housing and textbook charges. While the number of Americans attending college is rising, graduation rates remain poor and student debt to service the cost of college is also increasing. Fears about the growing cost of college and its impact on American social mobility and the nation’s economy have made college-oriented education reform a part of the 2016 presidential elections. Candidates such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have detailed plans to either slow tuition increases, reduce student debt, and/or make college education more of a national entitlement. Political analysts argue that a candidate with a suitable program to make college more affordable could galvanize the youth vote in 2016, something that politicians have learned can sway elections in the Obama years.
Last Thursday, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras announced that he was resigning. Tsipras’s Syriza Party, which won the Greek parliamentary elections in January, was coming apart at the seams after Tsipras agreed with Greece’s creditors to enact more austerity reforms. When the Greek Parliament had to approve of this deal last week, Tsipras was forced to rely on opposition parties as forty-three of Syriza’s 149 members either voted against the deal or abstained. Following the vote, twenty-five Syriza members of Parliament (MPs) bolted from the party and this left it without a governing majority. Unable to survive a censure motion and likely fearing that anti-bailout leftists would soon rally against his government, Tsipras resigned and paved the way for new elections next month. The news of new elections was hesitantly received in some European capitals, with Paris and Berlin reminding Athens that it would be held to the terms of the new bailout deal regardless of who won power. Nevertheless, financial markets have been roiled by another Greek election – the nation’s fifth in six years – out of fears that Syriza could lose or that the elections will slow down much needed economic reforms.
If extempers followed global economic news over the past week, they probably remember that China’s currency devaluation was a significant topic. On Tuesday, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) announced more market-friendly reforms that will allow the nation’s currency, called the renminbi (RMB) or the yuan, to be managed less arbitrarily. The effect of this market-based move was a sudden decline in the value of the RMB, a currency that some market analysts argue has been overvalued for some time. The 1.9% decline versus the American dollar last Tuesday was welcomed by some economists, who say that it will provide a valuable market correction, but China also came under fire from American politicians and Western economists, who allege that China’s devaluation is designed to help boost the nation’s ailing exports. The move has provided ample fodder for Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, who has made anti-China sentiment a large part of his campaign. In addition, China’s devaluation may contribute to more deflationary pressures in Western economies and complicate the Federal Reserve’s decision about whether to raise interest rates by the end of the year.
Every few decades, there is a controversial personality that seeks the White House outside of the confines of conventional politics. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt sought the presidency on the Progressive Party ticket, splitting the Republican vote and enabling Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace came close to preventing incumbent Harry Truman from winning the presidency as they sought the votes of Southern segregationists and progressive Democrats, respectively. In 1968, Alabama Governor George Wallace ran on a states’ rights and “law and order” platform that carried five states and nearly fourteen percent of the national vote. In 1992 and 1996, billionaire Ross Perot tapped into American frustrations over the economy to capture sizable percentages of the popular vote and arguably help Democrat Bill Clinton win those elections. And in 2000, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader cost Democratic candidate Al Gore the presidency by taking away crucial votes in Florida.
Although environmental and animal rights activists have advocated for stronger anti-poaching efforts for the last several decades, their efforts never attracted sustained media attention outside of a few notable campaigns during the late 1980s and various periods throughout the 1990s. This all changed with reports about the death of Cecil the Lion, a significant tourist attraction at Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park. Cecil was killed several weeks ago by American dentist Walter J. Palmer of Minnesota, who is said to have paid $50,000 for the ability to hunt and kill an African lion. The incident created a firestorm of international outrage, with people blasting Palmer on Twitter and many donating funds to wildlife and anti-poaching groups. However, the question remains over whether the outrage over Cecil’s killing will be a turning point in terms of attention paid and resources diverted to strengthening global anti-poaching efforts and protecting threatened species. Over the last fifteen years, African nations have struggled to maintain their existing wildlife and international controls on the ivory trade have weakened. Fixing both problems will be necessary if poaching efforts can be curtailed and threatened species such as lions, elephants, rhinos, and tigers can be protected more effectively.
Since the shooting of eighteen-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last August there have been growing calls for reforming police tactics in the United States. Liberal and libertarian groups charge that American police have become “militarized” and much too aggressive. These groups note that in addition to Brown, other unarmed suspects have died after interactions with police officials such as Freddie Gray in Baltimore and Eric Garner in New York City. Protests that emerged from the deaths of these men and others sometimes degenerated into violence with Ferguson and Baltimore experiencing riots this season, thereby creating some of the worst civil unrest that America has seen since the late 1960s. President Barack Obama and the Justice Department have investigated local police forces more diligently over the last six years and such investigations are likely to continue as an estimated 500 Americans have been killed by police officers this year. Proponents of reform argue that police need to do a better job interacting with the communities they serve and that better training is needed for officers when they interact with young people, the mentally ill, and minority groups. Opponents argue that an emphasis on community policing will create the re-emergence of a national crime wave, with some noting that a “Ferguson effect” is taking place where criminals are more empowered than ever before as police hold back for fear of criminal prosecution if they make a mistake.
On May 27, Swiss authorities arrested seven high ranking officials of the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), the world’s governing body for soccer. The arrests were due to a United States investigation into bribery and corruption within the organization that federal prosecutors allege played a role in the awarding of television, licensing, and hosting rights to soccer competitions, notably the World Cup. In addition to the United States investigation, Swiss officials are also examining how corruption may have influenced FIFA’s decision in 2010 to grant future World Cup competitions to Russia and Qatar. Longtime FIFA President Sepp Blatter has already been forced to resign over the investigations and observers are likening the scandal to what the International Olympic Committee (IOC) dealt with in the late 1990s. The ongoing investigation into FIFA should produce some momentum to reform the organization, while potentially producing geopolitical fallout if the organization revokes Russia and Qatar’s World Cup hosting rights. The investigation will also be a test of how far the U.S. Justice Department can apply American law abroad.