Tag Archives: history

Australia: The Prize No One Talks About

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a story playing out on the world stage that barely makes a ripple in most media cycles. While the headlines fixate on Ukraine, Gaza, or Taiwan, an unspoken contest is quietly unfolding for influence over a country that has, for too long, been treated as a polite and distant cousin in global affairs: Australia.

We’re used to thinking of the United States as having eyes on Canada, economically, culturally, and strategically. The integration is old news: NORAD, pipelines, the world’s longest undefended border, and the quiet assumptions of shared destiny. But if you really want to understand the next chapter of global power politics, don’t look north. Look west. Look south. Look to Australia.

What’s emerging now is not a scramble for land or flags, but for strategic intimacy, a deep intertwining of interests, logistics, defense capabilities, and ideological alignment. Australia is the prize not because it’s weak, but because it’s vital: geographically, economically, and politically.

The American Pivot
The United States is already entrenched. Through AUKUS, it has committed to helping Australia build nuclear-powered submarines and integrate into the U.S. military-industrial supply chain. But this is more than just a defense pact. It’s about locking Australia into a security and technology architecture that positions it as a forward base for U.S. naval and cyber operations, a southern anchor against Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific.

What few people understand is this: Australia is becoming America’s new front line. Not in the sense of war, but in the grand strategy of containment, deterrence, and projection. The U.S. doesn’t want Australia as a vassal, it wants it as a platform, a co-pilot, a bulwark. In many ways, it’s happening already.

India Enters the Frame
But Washington isn’t the only capital watching Canberra. New Delhi is quietly but deliberately courting Australia too, not for bases, but for bonds.

India sees Australia through a different lens: not as a strategic outpost, but as an extension of its civilizational, economic, and diasporic reach. With a large and growing Indian community in Australia, rising trade links, and joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean, India’s interest is long-term and layered.

What India understands, and what many in the West overlook, is that Australia is a natural expansion point for a rising democratic Asia. It’s a source of energy, food, space, and credibility. In a world where climate instability and resource scarcity are redefining security, having Australia in your corner isn’t optional. It’s essential.

Why It Matters
This isn’t a turf war. It’s not a return to Cold War blocs. It’s more fluid than that, a web of influence where infrastructure, education, culture, and soft power matter just as much as tanks and treaties.

The real story is this: Australia is shifting from the periphery to the center of global strategic thought. It’s no longer just “down under.” It’s at the crossroads of the world’s most dynamic (and dangerous) geopolitical contest: the one unfolding across the Indo-Pacific.

And here’s the kicker: Australians are waking up to this. The era of benign non-alignment is over. The decisions they make in the next decade, about alliances, sovereignty, and identity — will echo far beyond their shores.

So the next time someone tells you it’s all about Europe or the South China Sea, remind them: The most consequential strategic competition of the 21st century might just be quietly unfolding in the sunburnt country; and it’s not just China who’s watching. The U.S. and India are, too. And they both want Australia in their future.

The Fragile Independence of NGOs: Funding, Mission, and the Cost of Survival

Posted on by
Reply

After more than 25 years advising organizations across sectors, I’ve come to appreciate the vital role NGOs play in filling the gaps governments can’t, or won’t, address. From frontline social services to environmental stewardship to global health and education, their work is often visionary, community-led, and deeply human. But I’ve also seen behind the curtain. And one uncomfortable truth emerges time and again: far too many NGOs are built on a financial foundation so narrow that one funding shift, often from a single government department, can bring the entire structure down.

This doesn’t mean these organizations lack heart or competence. Quite the opposite, but when 60 to 80 percent of their time and energy is spent chasing the next tranche of funding just to pay rent or keep skeleton staff employed, something is clearly out of balance. I’ve worked with executive directors who are more skilled in crafting grant proposals than in delivering the programs they were trained to lead. I’ve seen staff burn out, not from the intensity of service delivery, but from the treadmill of fundraising cycles that reward persistence over purpose.

The tension is most pronounced when a single government agency becomes the main or only funder. In those cases, the NGO may retain its legal independence, but it quickly becomes functionally dependent, unable to challenge policy, adapt freely, or pivot when the community’s needs shift. I’ve often told boards in strategic planning sessions: “If your NGO would cease to exist tomorrow without that one government grant, then you don’t have a sustainable organization, you have an outsourced program.”

This is not a call for cynicism. It’s a call for structural realism. NGOs need funding. Governments have a legitimate role in supporting social initiatives. But the risk lies in overconcentration. With no diversified base of support, whether from individual donors, private philanthropy, earned income, or even modest membership models, NGOs are vulnerable not only to budget cuts, but to shifts in political ideology. A change in government should not spell the end of essential community services. And yet, it too often does.

What’s the solution? It starts with transparency and strategy. Boards must get serious about income diversity, even if that means reimagining their business model. Funders, including governments, should fund core operations, not just shiny new projects, and do so on multi-year terms to allow for proper planning. And NGO leaders need to communicate their value clearly, not just to funders, but to the communities they serve and the public at large. You can’t build resilience without buy-in.

Supporting NGOs doesn’t mean ignoring their structural weaknesses. In fact, the best way to support them is to help them confront those weaknesses head-on. Mission matters. But so does the means of sustaining it. And in today’s volatile funding landscape, the most mission-driven thing an NGO can do might just be to get smart about its money.

Ottawa Amalgamation Failures: A Critical Reassessment  

Posted on by
Reply

Bigger is not always beautiful, especially when it comes to communities or, more specifically, municipalities. The 2001 amalgamation of Ottawa and its surrounding municipalities was sold as a transformation: a streamlined government delivering better services, greater efficiency, and lower taxes. In practice the results have been far more ambiguous.

Background: What Was Amalgamated – And What Was Promised
On January 1, 2001, the former municipalities that made up the Regional Municipality of Ottawa–Carleton – 11 lower-tier municipalities plus the former City of Ottawa, were merged into a single-tier municipality: the modern City of Ottawa.  

The rationale was that this consolidation would reduce duplication, unify planning and services, and deliver cost efficiencies through economies of scale. The transition cost was estimated at about $189 million, with the province covering $142 million and the City paying roughly $47 million. The projection for savings from personnel reductions was substantial: roughly $30.7 million in the first year, rising to $84 million by 2003.  

Despite these savings projections, the Transition Board did not promise any tax reductions.  

Mixed Outcomes: Services – Gains, Losses, and Uneven Distribution
One of the primary promises was standardized and enhanced municipal services across the entire new city. In many respects there were improvements, but the benefits have been uneven, and in some rural/suburban zones residents still feel left behind.

What improved
• Services such as recreation programming and library access were expanded. After amalgamation, rural areas enjoyed a jump in activity: for example, by 2007 the rural recreation program catalogue offered 444 programs (up from 62 in 2002).
• The unified municipal structure also enabled coordinated economic development efforts. For example, rural-tourism initiatives (like “Ottawa’s Countryside”) and a “Directional Farm Signage Program” helped rural businesses and agriculture get city-wide support.
• In terms of per-household spending, in its early years the amalgamated city kept overall operating spending roughly on par with a seven-city average of Ontario municipalities; only about 4% higher. And compared with a large city like City of Toronto, Ottawa’s spending was about 30% lower.  

But many promises – Especially in rural and suburban zones, fell short
• Rural residents have repeatedly voiced that core municipal services (road maintenance, snow clearing, local transit, policing) received lower priority compared to urban wards. A longstanding sense of alienation persists among many rural communities toward City Hall.
• The transition diluted local, community-by-community decision-making. Individual municipalities had previously tailored services to local needs; under the amalgamated governance many rural or semi-rural concerns are subsumed under city-wide priorities. This resulted in delays and bureaucratic inefficiencies for issues that once had local responsiveness.
• Perhaps most glaring: the city’s signature transit project, the O‑Train / Ottawa LRT system, has been plagued by cost overruns, operational problems and service reliability issues – undermining its value as a major public-transit asset. A public inquiry’s recent report pointed out serious failures in municipal oversight and transparency around the LRT project.

That failure has broader consequences because many suburban and rural residents rely on a single bus line or intermittent routes, but see a disproportionate share of taxes diverted to an increasingly controversial urban rail system.

Taxes and Finances: Savings Promised – But Higher Costs and New Burdens
One of the largest expectations was that amalgamation would lower costs for taxpayers. That premise has proven questionable.
• Although the transition plan forecast substantial savings from staff reductions, the resulting efficiencies did not translate into widespread tax reductions. None were promised.
• From 2001 to 2005, Ottawa’s property-assessment base grew by 11.1%. Over the same period, education-tax levies on residential properties increased by 33.7%, costing Ottawa homeowners roughly $28 million more than in other Ontario municipalities.
• The uniform tax regime (rather than multiple municipal rates) had disproportionate impacts on suburban and rural homeowners. In many cases they faced tax hikes without corresponding improvements to local services.
• Meanwhile, certain structural costs increased: for instance, the cost share owed to the provincial property-assessment authority (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation or MPAC) rose by 25% since amalgamation, about 5% annually, outpacing inflation and municipal tax increases. That cost is borne by taxpayers.
• In more recent years, the city faces major financial stress. The municipal transit system alone is projected to run an annual operating shortfall of $140 million. Policing, infrastructure maintenance and other capital demands contribute to mounting city-wide debt burdens. As one commentary put it, “there was no tangible, financial benefit from amalgamation.”

These fiscal pressures undercut the core argument for amalgamation — that centralization would lead to stable or lower taxes with better services.

Loss of Local Representation and Identity
Amalgamation replaced dozens of municipal councils and local governance structures with a centralized city council responsible for a vastly larger and more diverse geography and population. That shift came with trade-offs.
• Rural and semi-rural communities lost significant political influence once they became part of a larger ward-based structure. Special “area” or “service” rates were introduced for rural areas, reflecting recognition that service needs differed, but also institutionalizing a two-tier system within the same city.
• Local identity and “small-town” character in villages such as Manotick was diluted. For example, development proposals in Manotick in the mid-2000s (for thousands of new homes) sparked strong concern among local residents that the community’s character would disappear under city-wide policies.
• According to early post-amalgamation polling (2002), many rural respondents rated the new city structure poorly. Among rural residents, 38% said services “need improvement” or rated city performance “terrible,” 43% said “OK,” and only 17% rated things “good” or “excellent.”

The sense of local alienation persists decades later: many rural residents still regard themselves as under-represented and overlooked by City Hall. 

Infrastructure, Planning and Transit: Centralization Meets Complexity – And Breakdown
One of the biggest undertakings after amalgamation has been transit and infrastructure. But the centralized city structure has struggled under the weight of that complexity.
• The O-Train / Ottawa LRT project was to be a flagship symbol of a modernized, unified city-wide transit network. Instead it has become a cautionary tale. A recent public inquiry blamed both the managing company and the city’s leadership for “repeated failures and an abrogation of municipal oversight.”
• Financial burdens from large capital projects like LRT expansion have stressed city budgets. After cost overruns for Stage 1 and 2 of the O-Train project, the burden has fallen heavily on Ottawa taxpayers – unlike comparable projects in the Greater Toronto Area, where provincial or federal funding covers a larger share.
• Meanwhile, suburban sprawl and rural-suburban developments, once under small local municipalities, now stretch the city’s infrastructure capacity. Roads, snow clearing, policing and transit are far more challenging to deliver equitably in a sprawling city than in smaller, more compact municipalities.

The core problem is scale: centralizing everything in a single administration has made it difficult to provide suitable, tailored services across widely different communities, from dense downtown to rural farmland.

Governance and Democratic Legitimacy: Promises of Efficiency at the Cost of Democratic Depth
The transition to a mega-city altered not just service delivery but democratic engagement.
•  Pre-amalgamation, many local decisions:  planning, development, budget priorities were made by small municipal councils familiar with the needs of their residents. Post-amalgamation, those decisions occur within a larger, more remote bureaucracy. Many rural residents feel they no longer have a meaningful political voice.
• The centralization also introduced a complexity of governance that can hamper accountability. As seen with the LRT fiasco, oversight over massive capital projects can become diffuse and abstract, weakening the ability of residents to hold decision-makers to account.
• The uniform tax and service model – despite the wildly different needs of urban, suburban, and rural zones, reflects what critics call “one-size-fits-all governance.” That rarely serves any locality optimally, and often disadvantages those outside the urban core.

A Complicated Legacy – Not an Unqualified Disaster, But Far From the Hopes
It would be unfair to paint the amalgamation as an unmitigated catastrophe. Some benefits have accrued: coordinated planning, a unified transit vision (even if imperfect), expanded recreation and library services, economic development strategies that support rural businesses and agriculture, and, in the early years, per-household spending relatively comparable to peer municipalities.

The long-term trade-offs have been steep: higher taxes (particularly education taxes), rising costs for essential services like property-assessment operations beyond inflation, growing debt burdens, inequitable distribution of services across geography, and a weakened sense of local representation, especially in rural and semi-rural areas.

The classic promise of “efficiency through scale” has often collided with the messy reality of delivering diverse, place-specific services across a vast and varied territory.

Centralization as Compromise
The 2001 amalgamation of Ottawa was a bold gamble: a bet that centralization would bring coherence, cost savings, and improved service delivery. Four decades of experience show that the outcome is deeply mixed.

For some residents the transition delivered real benefits: greater access to recreation, library services, coordinated economic strategies, and the possibility of a unified urban vision. For many others, especially outside the downtown core, it meant increased taxes, loss of local autonomy, and a sense of being perpetually overlooked as part of a sprawling bureaucracy.

In the end, amalgamation delivered some of its promises, but at a cost that, for many, outweighs the benefits. Ultimately the experiment reveals a fundamental truth: size and scale alone do not guarantee better governance. Without careful attention to representation, equity, diverse local needs and transparent oversight, centralization too often becomes a compromise, not a solution.

Objective vs. Subjective Truth: Can Reality Be Independent of Perspective?

Posted on by
Reply

With many of our political leaders and wannabes being even more flexible with facts these days than usual, especially during elections and internal party races, I felt I needed to get back into the whole Truth vs.Transparency debate.  The notion that truth depends on perspective is a long-standing debate in philosophy, epistemology, and even science. This idea, often associated with relativism, suggests that truth is not absolute, but rather contingent on individual experiences, cultural backgrounds, or frameworks of understanding. However, this claim is not without challenges, as there are also arguments in favor of objective and universal truths. To fully explore this concept, we must examine different domains where truth operates: subjective experience, science, social and political contexts, and philosophical thought.

Perspective and Subjective Truth
In many aspects of human experience, truth is shaped by individual perspective. This is especially evident in perception, memory, and personal beliefs. Two people witnessing the same event might recall it differently due to factors such as their background, cognitive biases, emotional states, or even the angle from which they viewed the scene. This idea aligns with psychological research on eyewitness testimony, which has shown that memory is often reconstructive rather than a perfect recording of reality.

Similarly, in moral and ethical debates, truth is often perspective-dependent. For example, the moral acceptability of euthanasia, capital punishment, or animal rights varies across cultures and individuals. Some believe that these issues have absolute moral answers, while others argue that they are contingent on cultural norms, social circumstances, or personal values. This form of truth relativism suggests that moral truths exist only within particular frameworks and are not universally binding.

The same can be said for aesthetic judgments. Whether a painting is beautiful or a piece of music is moving depends entirely on the individual’s perspective, cultural exposure, and personal taste. In these cases, truth appears to be entirely relative, as there is no objective standard for determining beauty or artistic value.

Scientific and Objective Truth
While subjective truths are shaped by perspective, there are many instances where truth appears to be independent of personal viewpoints. In science, for instance, objective truths are discovered through empirical evidence and repeatable experimentation. The boiling point of water at sea level is 100°C, regardless of who measures it or what they believe. The theory of gravity describes forces that apply universally, irrespective of individual perspectives. These facts suggest that some truths exist independently of human perception and belief.

However, even in science, perspective plays a role in shaping how truths are understood. Scientific paradigms, as described by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, shift over time. What is considered “true” in one era may later be revised. For example, Newtonian physics was once seen as the ultimate truth about motion and force, but Einstein’s theory of relativity redefined our understanding of space and time. This suggests that while some scientific truths may be objective, our understanding of them is influenced by perspective and historical context.

Social and Political Truths
In social and political discourse, truth is often contested, shaped by competing narratives and interests. Political ideologies influence how events are interpreted and presented. The same historical event can be described differently depending on the source; one news outlet may highlight a particular set of facts while another emphasizes a different aspect, leading to multiple “truths” about the same event.

This phenomenon is especially evident in propaganda, media bias, and misinformation. A politician may claim that an economic policy has been a success, citing certain statistics, while an opponent presents an alternative set of data to argue the opposite. In such cases, truth becomes less about objective reality and more about which perspective dominates public discourse.

Additionally, postmodern thinkers like Michel Foucault argue that truth is linked to power structures. Those in power determine what is accepted as truth, shaping knowledge production in ways that reinforce their authority. This perspective challenges the idea that truth is purely objective, suggesting instead that it is constructed through discourse and institutional influence.

Philosophical Challenges: Can Truth Ever Be Objective?
Philosophers have long debated whether truth is ultimately subjective or objective. Immanuel Kant, for example, argued that we can never access the world as it truly is (noumena), but only as it appears to us through our senses and cognitive structures (phenomena). This implies that all knowledge is shaped by human perception, making pure objectivity impossible.

On the other hand, Plato’s theory of forms suggests that there are absolute truths – unchanging, eternal realities that exist beyond the material world. Mathematical truths, for instance, seem to be independent of human perspective. The Pythagorean theorem is true regardless of culture, language, or opinion.

Existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre take a different approach, arguing that meaning and truth are constructed by individuals rather than discovered. From this perspective, truth is not something external to be found but something we create through our actions and beliefs.

Is Truth Relative or Absolute?
The idea that truth depends on perspective holds significant weight in subjective, moral, and social contexts. In matters of perception, ethics, and politics, truth often appears to be relative, shaped by individual experiences, cultural backgrounds, and power dynamics. However, in science, mathematics, and logic, objective truths exist independently of human interpretation, though our understanding of them may evolve over time.

The challenge lies in distinguishing between what is truly relative and what is universally valid. While perspective influences many aspects of truth, dismissing the possibility of objective truth altogether leads to skepticism and uncertainty. A balanced approach recognizes that while some truths are shaped by perspective, others remain constant regardless of human interpretation.

Britain’s Return to Europe: A Vision Rooted in Purpose, Not Nostalgia

Posted on by
Reply

Across the United Kingdom, a quiet reckoning is underway. Eight years after the Brexit referendum, the promise of a bold new chapter outside the European Union lies in tatters. Instead of renewed sovereignty and global resurgence, the country finds itself diminished: economically weaker, diplomatically isolated, and socially fragmented. For many, it is no longer a question of whether we should rejoin the EU, but how, and when.

Yet to speak of rejoining is to confront difficult truths. The journey back will not be quick. It will demand political leadership, public engagement, and diplomatic humility. But for a nation with Britain’s history, talents, and spirit, the path, though long, is both viable and vital. What lies at the end of that path is not simply a restoration of past privileges, but a reclaiming of our rightful place among Europe’s community of nations.

The first step must be political courage. While public opinion is shifting, particularly among younger generations and those long unconvinced by the false dawn of Brexit, the political establishment remains hesitant. The shadow of the 2016 referendum still looms large. Yet true leadership does not bow to ghosts; it charts a course forward. A future government must be willing to speak frankly to the British people: about the costs of Brexit, about the realities of international cooperation, and about the immense benefits of restoring our partnership with Europe.

Equally crucial is the task of restoring trust, both at home and abroad. The manner in which the UK left the EU, marked by bluster and broken commitments, left scars in Brussels and beyond. If Britain is to re-enter the fold, it must do so not as a reluctant exception-seeker, but as a committed and respectful partner. There can be no return to the days of opt-outs and special deals. We must approach accession not with entitlement, but with earnest intent, ready to meet the responsibilities of membership and contribute fully to the shared European project.

Legally and procedurally, rejoining would require a formal application under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union. This would involve, in principle, a willingness to engage with all facets of membership, including the euro and Schengen, even if transitional arrangements are negotiated. There can be no illusions of a “lite” version of membership. The EU today is not the same bloc we left, it is more integrated, more self-assured. Britain must return on terms of mutual respect, not exception.

But if the process is demanding, the rewards are profound. Economically, the toll of Brexit is undeniable. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates a 4% permanent reduction in GDP, an astonishing figure that translates into stagnating wages, struggling businesses, and faltering public services. Rejoining the Single Market would ease the friction that now stifles trade; full membership would restore investor confidence, supply chain resilience, and long-term economic momentum.

The argument is not merely about pounds and pence. On the world stage, Britain has not become more powerful post-Brexit, it has become peripheral. While we remain a respected military ally through NATO, our absence from the EU’s decision-making tables has cost us influence on climate policy, digital regulation, and global standards. In an era defined by democratic backsliding and geopolitical rivalry, our values: openness, rule of law, multilateralism, are best defended as part of a European alliance, not apart from it.

There is also a human dimension to this story, one often lost in policy debates. Brexit severed the everyday connections that bound us to our neighbours: the right to study in Paris, to work in Berlin, to fall in love in Lisbon without visas or barriers. Young Britons have had opportunities stripped from them. Scientists and artists find collaboration curtailed. Rejoining is not just an economic necessity, it is a moral obligation to restore the freedoms our citizens once took for granted.

And we cannot overlook the unity of the United Kingdom itself. Brexit has aggravated constitutional fault lines. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The subsequent fallout, particularly around the Northern Ireland Protocol, has exposed the fragility of our Union. A return to the EU would not solve every issue, but it would provide a stable framework in which our nations might rediscover common cause, rather than drift further apart.

This journey will take time. It may begin with small, confident steps: rejoining Erasmus, aligning regulatory frameworks, re-entering common programmes. But these must be steps along a clearly signposted road, not gestures to nowhere. The destination, full EU membership, must be embraced not as a retreat to the past, but as a leap toward the future.

Britain belongs in Europe. Not just because of shared geography, but because of shared values: democracy, dignity, justice, and peace. We left on the back of a broken promise. We can return with purpose. And when we do, it will not be as the Britain that left, but as a Britain renewed, ready to lead once more, not from the sidelines, but from the heart of Europe.

The Quiet Consolidation: Transport Canada’s Aviation Wing Joins the Defence Orbit

Posted on by
Reply

Senior observers of federal policy have learned to watch the quiet moves more closely than the loud ones. Ottawa’s latest decision to transfer most of Transport Canada’s aviation wing to the Department of National Defence fits squarely into that category: a major structural shift delivered with minimal explanation and even less narrative.

Coming only months after the Coast Guard’s administrative move under Defence, a transition this blog has previously analyzed, the pattern is no longer subtle. Civilian capabilities once overseen by departments with regulatory and service-delivery mandates are migrating toward a defence-centered organizational model. The government insists nothing fundamental is changing. The missions remain civilian. The uniforms remain the same. The aircraft will keep flying the same routes.

Canada’s Coast Guard Joins the Defence Team: Integration or Quiet Militarization?

But the context is unmistakable.

Canada is racing to meet NATO’s two percent spending guideline. Billions have been committed. Procurement pipelines have been expanded, and in an era where dual-use assets dominate the security landscape, consolidating aviation and maritime surveillance under Defence is not just operationally convenient. It is strategically elegant.

These Transport Canada aircraft conduct coastal surveillance, monitor pollution, support fisheries and environmental enforcement, and perform specialized logistical roles across government. Under National Defence, they become part of a broader security framework: one that blends environmental, regulatory, and maritime domain awareness with Arctic vigilance and intelligence-adjacent observation. None of this turns civilian missions into military ones. But it places them within a different gravitational field.

The concern, as always, is not the formal announcement. It is the silence around it. Ottawa has offered few details on what assets are being transferred, how missions will be prioritized, or what this means for agencies whose mandates depend on independent civilian oversight. When structural shifts of this scale are presented as routine administrative housekeeping, public trust erodes at the edges.

Canada is not drifting toward militarization. But it is consolidating the tools of national capability: vessels, aircraft, surveillance platforms, under a department whose priorities are shaped by global threat assessments rather than regulatory logic. That may be prudent. It may even be overdue. Yet the public deserves to hear the story rather than infer it.

One move can be dismissed. Two can be explained away. But when both the Coast Guard and Transport Canada’s aviation wing are drawn into the same orbit within a single year, Canadians are owed clarity about the strategic direction of their state.

Silence is not neutrality. It is a choice. And it is time for Ottawa to speak plainly about the one it has just made.

Carriers, Claims, and Crude: Why the Caribbean Is Becoming 2025’s Most Dangerous Flashpoint

Posted on by
Reply

In the windswept corridors of Latin American geopolitics, the tensions between the United States and Venezuela have quietly transformed into something far more consequential than a mere counternarcotics campaign. As of late 2025, the scale of U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean, centered around the gargantuan USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, marks not just a show of force, but a deeply calculated exertion of power.   Beyond the stated mission of interdiction of drug trafficking, this posture suggests a layered strategy: pressuring Maduro, reasserting Washington’s influence in the region, and signaling to Latin American capitals that the era of passive U.S. tolerance may be drawing to a close.

From Caracas’s perspective, this is viewed not as a benign counternarcotics mission but as a direct existential threat. The Venezuelan leadership has responded by mobilizing broadly; ground, riverine, naval, aerial, missile, and militia forces have reportedly been readied for “maximum operational readiness.” Estimates suggest on the order of 200,000 troops could be involved, underscoring how deeply Maduro’s government perceives the risk. In public discourse, the Venezuelan regime frames this as defending sovereignty, not only against cartel-linked accusations but also against what it claims is a looming imperial design.

This confrontation cannot be fully understood, however, without examining Guyana and the long-running territorial dispute over the Essequibo region. Essequibo is no trivial piece of geography: historically claimed by Venezuela, it comprises more than two-thirds of Guyana’s land mass and borders rich offshore blocks. In recent years, ExxonMobil, Hess, CNOOC, and others have developed significant oil infrastructure just off Guyana’s coast, especially in the Stabroek Block.  

Tensions flared visibly in March 2025, when a Venezuelan coast guard vessel sailed deep into waters claimed by Guyana, radioed warnings to floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) platforms, and asserted those vessels were operating in “Venezuelan” maritime territory. Guyana’s foreign ministry publicly protested, noting that the incursion violated not only its sovereign economic zone, but also a 2023 International Court of Justice order that prohibited Venezuela from taking actions that might change the status quo. Guyana also emphasized that its exploration and production activities are lawful under international law, and referenced its rights under the 1899 arbitral award.  

The Essequibo Equation: Venezuela’s Bid, Guyana’s Boom

From a strategic lens, Venezuela’s behavior in Essequibo aligns too neatly with its military mobilization against the U.S. The annexation drive, or at least the territorial claim, is not ideological romanticism, but realpolitik rooted in energy security. On multiple occasions, President Maduro has authorized Venezuelan companies, including PDVSA, to prepare for fossil fuel and mineral extraction in the disputed Essequibo territory. In Caracas’ calculus, asserting control over Essequibo could transform its geopolitical position: it reclaims a historical claim, undermines Guyana’s sovereignty, and potentially gives Venezuela leverage over lucrative offshore oil fields.

The U.S. is not blind to this. Washington’s backing of Guyana is deliberate and multilayered. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warnings to Maduro, at a joint press conference with Guyanese President Irfaan Ali, make clear that the U.S. considers any Venezuelan aggression against Guyana, especially against ExxonMobil-supported oil platforms, as a red line. For Guyana, which has very limited military capacity, the American presence is both a shield, and a bargaining chip; for the U.S., it’s a way to protect strategic investments, ensure energy flows, and project influence in a region increasingly contested by non-Western actors.

Yet, this is not a zero-sum game with only force on the table. Venezuela’s framing of U.S. activity as an imperial threat resonates powerfully with its domestic base, allowing Maduro to marshal nationalist sentiment and justify radical mobilization measures. The Bolivarian militias, riverine units, and civilian enlistment signal a willingness to wage not just conventional defense, but also hybrid and asymmetric warfare. The mobilization is as symbolic as it is practical.

At the same time, Guyana is investing in a diplomatic-legal offensive. The Guyanese government has formally protested Venezuelan naval incursions and made repeated appeals to the ICJ. International support for Guyana is gathering pace: the Organization of American States and other regional bodies have backed its territorial integrity. In parallel, Washington’s military buildup, dressed as counternarcotics, is likely calculated to saturate the region with deterrence against both terrorist/criminal maritime networks and more ambitious Venezuelan designs.

The risk now is of miscalculation. If Caracas underestimates Washington’s resolve, or if Guyana feels compelled to resist more aggressively, escalation could spiral. But equally, if the U.S. overplays its hand, moving from deterrence to coercion, it risks pushing Venezuela further into isolation or desperation, which could destabilize not only Caracas, but the broader region.

In the broader sweep of history, this crisis may well mark a turning point. Venezuela’s push into Guyana is not just about land; it’s about energy, influence, and the assertion of sovereignty in a global order where resources still drive power. For the U.S., the operation may begin as counternarcotics, but the strategic subtext is unmistakable: protecting American economic interests, reestablishing hemispheric primacy, and shaping the future of Latin America in an era of renewed geopolitical competition.

At Rowanwood, we often say that old maps matter: not just for their lines, but for what those lines mean when power shifts. Here, in the tropical currents of the Caribbean and the oil-laden jungles of Essequibo, the maps are being redrawn – quietly, dangerously, and with very real stakes for the future.

Rethinking “Developing Countries” and Embracing the Majority World

Posted on by
Reply

When we talk about developing countries, we rarely stop to ask what the phrase actually means. It slips off the tongue so easily, a piece of polite shorthand meant to distinguish between rich and poor, industrial and agrarian, modern and traditional. But behind that convenience hides a great deal of inherited hierarchy. Calling one part of the planet “developing” assumes there is a finish line defined elsewhere; that a good society looks like a Western one, with high GDP, gleaming infrastructure, and endless economic growth.

In recent years, many writers and thinkers have begun to push back on that language, arguing that it keeps us trapped in a colonial frame of mind. Arturo Escobar, in his landmark Encountering Development, described “development” as one of the most powerful cultural projects of the twentieth century, a system of ideas that reshaped the world to fit Western priorities. The word itself became a quiet command: grow like us, consume like us, measure like us.

Where the Language Came From
The phrase Third World first appeared during the Cold War, used to describe nations that aligned with neither the capitalist West nor the communist East. Soon it came to mean “poor countries”;  those still struggling with the legacies of colonialism, low industrial output, or weak infrastructure. By the 1980s, the term had begun to sound uncomfortable, and developing world emerged as its polite successor. Yet the underlying assumptions didn’t change. To be “developing” was to be “not yet there.”

The problem isn’t just historical accuracy; it’s the moral geometry of the words. They draw the map as a staircase, with the G7 at the top and everyone else climbing, slowly or not at all. They suggest that the proper destiny of the planet is to become more like the already-industrialised nations, despite the ecological and social costs that model now reveals.

Why Words Matter
Language shapes policy, and policy shapes lives. When international agencies use developing, they often frame assistance, trade, and climate policy around the assumption that economic growth is the central measure of progress; but GDP tells us nothing about clean water, community cohesion, or cultural vitality. It counts bombs and hospital beds the same way, as “economic activity.”

When we say “developing,” we subtly affirm that Western modernity is the gold standard. That is not only inaccurate but increasingly unwise in an age of ecological constraint and social fragmentation. There are other ways to live well on this planet, and many of them are already being practiced by the people our old vocabulary patronizes.

The Rise of the Majority World
One alternative that resonates deeply is Majority World. The term flips the script: most of humanity lives outside the wealthy industrialized nations. To call those countries “developing” is not only condescending, it’s mathematically absurd. As development writer Sadaf Shallwani notes, “The terms ‘developing world’ and ‘Third World’ imply that development is a linear process, and that certain ‘developed’ countries have finished developing and are the norm towards which all countries should strive.”

The phrase Majority World reframes the global conversation. Instead of a minority of wealthy states defining progress, it recognizes that the majority of the planet’s population, and its cultural, ecological, and creative wealth, resides elsewhere. It’s not a euphemism; it’s a shift in perspective.

Calling Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific the Majority World centres humanity, not hierarchy. It invites curiosity instead of comparison. It allows us to speak about global issues: climate, migration, food security, health, as shared human challenges rather than one-way rescue missions.

Beyond Renaming: Rethinking Progress
Of course, simply changing labels isn’t enough. The deeper challenge is to redefine what progress itself means. For decades, “development” has equated to industrialization, export-driven growth, and consumer expansion. But that model has left deep scars on both people and planet.

Around the world, alternative visions of well-being are emerging. Bhutan measures Gross National Happiness. New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budgetprioritizes mental health, environment, and equity alongside economic performance. In Latin America, the Andean philosophy of Buen Vivir, “good living”, emphasizes balance with nature and community rather than domination or accumulation.

Each of these ideas challenges the unspoken assumption that there is a single road to modernity. They remind us that prosperity can mean dignity, education, safety, and belonging, not necessarily industrial sprawl and high consumption.

The term Majority World aligns beautifully with this plural understanding. It carries a quiet humility, an admission that the Western model is not universal, and that many societies are rich in social capital, resilience, and wisdom even without high per-capita income.

A Linguistic Act of Respect
For writers, journalists, and policymakers, choosing our words carefully is a small but vital act of respect. Before typing “developing country,” we might pause to ask: developing by whose standards? Toward what end? Whose story does this phrase tell, and whose does it erase?

When we speak instead of the Majority World, we acknowledge shared humanity and diversity of experience. It invites us to listen rather than prescribe, to recognize that there are as many definitions of progress as there are landscapes and languages.

This linguistic shift is also emotionally honest. It reminds those of us in the so-called “developed” world that we are the minority, not the model, and that our own path is far from sustainable. The future will depend not on teaching others to emulate us, but on learning together how to live well within planetary boundaries.

A More Honest Vocabulary
The phrase Majority World is not perfect, but it moves us closer to linguistic integrity. It removes the hierarchy, restores proportion, and invites humility. It replaces the idea of a “developing world” that needs guidance with a mosaic of societies co-creating their futures on equal moral footing.

Language is never neutral. The words we choose reveal the maps in our minds, who we see at the center, who we see at the margins. Changing those words changes the map.

Perhaps, in time, “development” itself will fade as a global organizing idea, replaced by something more ecological, more plural, and more just. Until then, we can begin with something simple and powerful: calling the world as it is, in its vastness and complexity, a Majority World that has always been, in truth, the heart of humanity.

References:
• Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press, 1995.
• Ziai, Aram. “The Discourse of ‘Development’ and Why the Concept Still Matters.” Third World Quarterly, 2013.
• Trainer, Ted. “Third World Development: The Simpler Way Critique of Conventional Theory and Practice.” Real-World Economics Review 95 (2021).
• Shallwani, Sadaf. “Why I Use the Term ‘Majority World’ Instead of ‘Developing Countries’ or ‘Third World.’” sadafshallwani.net, 2015.
• Wellbeing Economy Alliance. “What Is a Wellbeing Economy?” 2023.

Alberta, Natural Resources, and the Challenge of Federal Cohesion

Posted on by
Reply

I am starting a series of articles on Canada, its provinces, territories and confederation for the purpose of exploring a vision for the future. Let’s begin at the currently obvious place – Alberta. 

Alberta’s economic model is deeply tied to its resource wealth, particularly oil and gas, and its assertive stance on resource control has generated ongoing tensions with federal environmental and regulatory policy. While constitutionally grounded in provincial ownership rights, Alberta’s insistence on autonomy often clashes with the cooperative principles necessary in a federal system. This commentary explores the roots of this conflict and offers pathways toward a more collaborative and constructive intergovernmental relationship.

Constitutional Foundations and Ownership of Resources
Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms that Canadian provinces have the exclusive right to manage and develop their natural resources. Alberta has used this authority to shape its energy policy and economic strategy, which remain heavily reliant on oil and gas extraction.

However, under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government retains authority over matters of national and international trade, environmental protection, and interprovincial infrastructure. These overlapping jurisdictions mean that large-scale energy projects—such as pipelines—often require federal approval and regulation, leading to friction between provincial ambitions and federal oversight.

Fiscal Federalism and Perceived Inequities
Alberta’s role as a “have” province in the equalization system has been a long-standing source of grievance. Despite experiencing downturns in the oil economy, Alberta does not receive equalization payments due to the formula used to calculate fiscal capacity. While the system aims to ensure reasonably comparable levels of public services across Canada, many Albertans view it as a redistribution mechanism that penalizes economic productivity without adequately rewarding provincial contributions to national prosperity.

This sentiment is often exacerbated during periods of Liberal federal governance, when policies such as carbon pricing, environmental assessment reform (e.g., Bill C-69), and energy transport restrictions (e.g., Bill C-48) are interpreted as barriers to Alberta’s growth and autonomy.

The Political Psychology of Alienation
Alberta’s frustration with Ottawa is not merely legal or economic—it is cultural and emotional. The legacy of the National Energy Program (1980), perceived as a federal overreach into Alberta’s economy, continues to shape provincial attitudes. There is a widespread belief among many Albertans that their priorities are undervalued in national discourse, while their economic output is taken for granted.

This sense of alienation is particularly pronounced during Liberal governments, which are often associated with centralized governance, regulatory oversight, and climate policy that is seen as antagonistic to Alberta’s resource sector.

The Dilemma of Reciprocity
Despite its demand for autonomy, Alberta remains deeply integrated with the rest of Canada. It benefits from internal migration, national infrastructure, federal investment, and shared services. However, when national unity requires compromise, such as in building pipelines through BC or adhering to environmental targets, Alberta often adopts a defensive posture.

This tension between autonomy and interdependence is the core dilemma of Canadian federalism. While the provinces retain control over resources, their development impacts climate goals, international trade obligations, and national economic stability, issues that fall under federal jurisdiction.

Recommendations for Constructive Engagement
To resolve these tensions and restore national cohesion, both Alberta and the federal government must reconsider their approaches:

For the federal government:
• Strengthen regional engagement: Appoint trusted regional representatives to act as intermediaries between Alberta and federal departments.
• Clarify jurisdictional boundaries: Work collaboratively to define areas where federal environmental goals can be met without impeding provincial development.
• Modernize equalization: Review and revise the equalization formula to ensure transparency and responsiveness to changing economic realities.

For Alberta:
• Acknowledge interdependence: Embrace the reality that long-term prosperity requires cooperation, not confrontation.
• Diversify the economy: Invest in emerging sectors like hydrogen, critical minerals, and clean technology to reduce economic vulnerability.
• Engage Indigenous leadership: Collaborate meaningfully with Indigenous governments who hold treaty rights and are key to sustainable development.

Alberta’s assertiveness over resource development is constitutionally grounded, but politically volatile. The success of Canadian federalism depends not on uniformity, but on mutual respect and intergovernmental cooperation. Both sides must move beyond grievance-based politics toward a pragmatic and future-focused partnership that serves both regional needs and national interests.

Drawing the Lines of Power: Why the United States Needs an Independent Redistricting Commission

Posted on by
Reply

Every ten years, Americans count themselves, and then politicians carve the nation into pieces. In theory, these lines are the skeleton of democracy, each district meant to represent a roughly equal share of the people’s voice. In practice, however, the scalpel is often in partisan hands, and the result looks less like democracy and more like a game of political cartography gone rogue.

A System That Rewards Its Own Abuse
The U.S. Constitution leaves redistricting to the states, with Congress retaining the right to regulate the process. Yet for more than two centuries, Congress has chosen not to exercise that right in any meaningful way. The result is a patchwork of state systems, most of them controlled by whichever political party happens to dominate the local legislature.

Both parties have used this power when it suits them, but in the modern era, sophisticated mapping software and microtargeted data have turned gerrymandering into a science. Districts now snake through neighborhoods like drunken serpents, connecting voters who share little except their predicted loyalty. In some states, the shape of the line, not the will of the people, determines who governs.

When the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) declared that partisan gerrymandering was a “political question” beyond its reach, it effectively shut the courthouse doors to citizens seeking fair maps. The message was clear: if Americans want integrity in their elections, they must legislate it themselves.

What an Independent Commission Could Offer
Other democracies long ago recognized that fairness cannot coexist with self-interest. Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia entrust their electoral maps to independent, arms-length commissions. These agencies are staffed by nonpartisan experts; demographers, judges, geographers who follow clear criteria: compactness, respect for communities of interest, equal population, and transparency. Public hearings and judicial oversight ensure that citizens, not party operatives, shape their representation.

The results speak for themselves. Voter confidence in the fairness of elections in these countries consistently exceeds 80 percent, while American confidence has hovered around 50 percent in recent years. In Canada, where each province’s independent boundary commission reviews the map after every census, electoral boundaries are rarely the subject of scandal or court challenge. People may disagree on policy, but they do not argue about the legitimacy of their ridings.

The Case for a Federal Solution
The United States could adopt such a system tomorrow. The Elections Clause grants Congress the authority to “make or alter” state regulations governing federal elections. A single piece of federal legislation could establish an Independent Federal Redistricting Commission – a transparent body tasked with drawing all congressional districts using uniform national standards.

Such a commission would:
• End partisan manipulation by removing politicians from the mapping process.
• Increase public trust by making all deliberations open and evidence-based.
• Strengthen democracy by ensuring that voters choose their representatives, not the other way around.
• Stabilize governance by reducing the incentives for extreme partisanship, which flourish in safely gerrymandered districts.

Imagine a Congress in which every member must appeal to a truly representative cross-section of their district; urban and rural, conservative and progressive, wealthy and working-class. The tone of national politics would shift overnight. Legislators would need to persuade rather than posture. Compromise, that most endangered of political virtues, might even make a comeback.

What Stands in the Way
The only obstacle is political will. The party that benefits from the map has no incentive to surrender control of the pen. Both have been guilty at various times, though the imbalance today tilts heavily toward Republican-controlled legislatures that have perfected the art of map manipulation. The proposed For the People Act and Freedom to Vote Act, which would have mandated independent commissions for all congressional districts were blocked in the Senate, not because they were unconstitutional, but because they were inconvenient.

This is the real scandal: that a fix so obvious and achievable is continually thwarted by those who fear fair competition. Gerrymandering is not a feature of democracy; it is a form of quiet electoral theft.

The Moral Argument
Democracy, if it means anything, means that each citizen’s voice carries the same weight. When politicians choose their voters, that principle collapses. Independent redistricting is not a partisan reform; it is a moral one. It says that legitimacy must flow upward from the people, not downward from the powerful.

Americans deserve to know that their ballot is worth as much as their neighbor’s. Until they demand that Congress create an independent, arms-length agency to draw the lines of power, those lines will continue to be written in the ink of self-interest.

The map of a democracy should be drawn by its people’s conscience, not by its politicians’ convenience.

Sources:
• U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4
• Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015)
• Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)
• Elections Canada, “Independent Boundaries Commissions and Electoral Fairness” (2023)
• Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Elections and Government” (2023)