Sana Qadar from Toronto asks:

As a foreign correspondent, what kind of personal sacrifices come with the job? How do you balance relationships while reporting from around the world? Is it possible to balance a professional career and a personal life?

CBC's Africa correspondent David McGuffin answers:

David McGuffin

That said, part of the reason we moved to Nairobi was because it's a place where we could both pursue our careers fully (my wife is an aid worker). Finding that balance is key and can take constant work. And then there's raising your children far away from grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, and the gnawing sense that perhaps they are missing out on the "Canadian experience." On the latter issue, I've recently begun taking my young son out for skating lessons every weekend I can at Nairobi's new ice rink. Outside there may be palm trees and 30 degree weather, but once we hit the ice it's game seven of the Stanley Cup finals!

The CBC's Beirut correspondent Nahlah Ayed answers:

Nahlah Ayed

And the effects tend to be cumulative.

There are obvious challenges that come with a calling that consumes so much of one's time. On assignment, a television day is very demanding, especially in taxing places like Iraq. And though it's on these assignments that your loved ones want to hear from you most, they're usually the ones for which staying in touch is nearly impossible. By the time we have finished all what is asked of us on a given day, one might have time and the energy for one phone call, if that, and normally that's reserved for one's next of kin.

So, naturally, staying in touch with friends back in Canada, for example, has become one of my constant challenges, and I would say that my relationships with them have suffered as a result.

There are many other personal sacrifices that come with the job. For one, being able to "leave work at the office" is a luxury denied all of us since we live in the places we cover. It's nearly impossible not to be "on" all the time, because you never know when your next call is going to come.

There are, however, many extremely rewarding aspects of our jobs that balance these drawbacks. We are, after all, paid to do what we do. I certainly could choose another, far more comfortable vocation if I didn't enjoy this so much. I knew what I was getting into when I left Canada nearly four years ago. The trick is to try and balance commitment to a challenging job while maintaining a semblance of a life. And that takes practice.

I'm still working on it.

Alison Starkey of Toronto asks:

Do you ever feel that non-journalistic forces have compromised your ability to tell the stories that you think should be covered by the CBC? What were those stories?

Senior European Correspondent Don Murray answers:

Don Murray

In this way, the CBC managed to miss almost entirely the longest running civil war in Africa in Angola. I managed to go there just after the last ceasefire to do stories on the impact of such a war. And the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which killed upwards of 3 million people, we largely stayed away from.

Another non-journalistic force is quite banal: Visas. When the Beslan siege in Russia started, the CBC was caught between TV correspondents. We had no backup plan, although the radio correspondent was able to help. To get a Russian visa takes two weeks. We had no backup plan (i.e. someone with a visa in his or her passport).

Cliff Boldt of Union Bay, B.C. asks:

It is an old saying (cliché?) that one of the first casualties of war is truth. What constraints do you feel when you report from your location, be it Afghanistan, Moscow, USA or wherever? Is there ever any pressure to spin a story to suit someone or some government? If so, how does this pressure manifest itself?

Senior European Correspondent Don Murray:

In my experience, the pressure in zones of conflict is seldom direct. Often the greatest obstacle is access. Danger can seriously limit access; Baghdad today and for the past couple of years is a striking example of that. To gain access, many media organizations now opt to try to embed reporters with troops. The result is often coverage the embedder force is relatively pleased with, not because of pressure but because of the cocoon effect — being with friendly soldiers in combat creates psychological links. Inevitably a reporter is reporting their side of the story.

The Russian government uses a less subtle method. It does its best to keep journalists away from conflicts in Chechnya and the Caucuses. It extends the policy to television news in the country, which it effectively controls. There is little mention of these areas and their problems now. They have been wiped from the TV map and thus from the minds of many Russians.

Where spin does work is in creating a separate, competing narrative, which simply drowns out inconvenient facts. This, for me, was most noticeable in Iraq before and right after the invasion. The rhetoric from Washington and London talked of a state armed with weapons of mass destruction and potentially dangerous. We, on the ground, saw a beaten, sleepwalking people and a state manifestly unprepared to fight. The disconnect was even greater after the fall of Baghdad. Looting and the virtual breakdown of order featured heavily in our reports but were overwhelmed by the rhetoric of democracy triumphant. But spin is a limited weapon and may eventually boomerang. Iraq, again, is the instructive example.

Bill Gillespie, former CBC Radio Moscow Correspondent:

Bill Gillespie

The Russian Government allows us in the country so as not to be accused of stifling a free press. But we're more of an annoyance than a threat. Nor have I experienced inordinate pressure in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other country I have reported from. In my experience the most overt media manipulation occurs when journalists are banned from entering a geographical location by a government. For example, the Russian government has made it illegal for journalists to enter Chechnya without Kremlin approval. Therefore a war taking place in Europe, in which thousands die every year, receives very little media coverage.

Jonathan D.M. Allan from St. Catharines, Ont., asks:

What is the likelihood of an attack against Iran, and secondly, of an attack by or against North Korea, or even Syria, by the United States? Also, what is the likelihood of an attack against Taiwan by China, considering the fact that two years ago they passed legislation to allow for an attack? Would Russia and/or China help defend, or at least support, Iran in the event of an attack against them by the U.S.? Who in this world has the ability and authority to bring the United States to justice, besides the U.S. itself?

Washington correspondent Neil MacDonald:

Neil MacDonald

The fallout of an attack on Iran? Ferocious. Which is why Washington would likely look for the political cover of allies, or even proxies, if it ever came to that. Remember, the French have said publicly they would use military force to prevent an Iranian bomb.

A Chinese attack on Taiwan? Again, the price of doing that would be awfully steep. China would be instantly isolated, and its awesome economic growth imperiled. The Americans, among others, would take a very dim view. But as one American author recently put it, and I paraphrase here, imagine if the role were reversed: If Maui declared independence from Hawaii, and the Chinese warned Washington not to take any action, and began sailing warships up and down the strait separating Maui from the big island? There are ancient assertions of sovereignty here, and as Churchill said, talk-talk is better than war-war. My guess is the West would lean hard on Taiwan to cool the nationalist rhetoric before it ever came to conflict.

Mr. & Mrs. Paul Templeton from Ancaster, Ont., ask Adrienne Arsenault:

You have been an observer of the Middle East conflict from various locales over the years. Most women in the Middle East are often portrayed as being repressed members of their societies. What role do women (Muslim, Christian, Palestinian, Arab) play in political activities in the Middle East and do the male leaders publicly acknowledge their contributions?

Middle East Bureau chief Adrienne Arsenault:

Adrienne Arsenault

There are so many well educated, influential and respected women in the region, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories: Hanan Ashrawi, Diana Buttu are just two impressive people who will be well known to Canadians. Certainly, Palestinian universities are full of female students destined for greatness. And women's rights activists are working hard to change the landscape.

Consider the recent Palestinian elections. This was the first time rules had been put in place guaranteeing seats for women. That meant 20 per cent of the listed candidates were women. And, when the votes were counted, 13 per cent of the elected members were women. (The Israeli percentage by the way was 15 per cent and the Arab world average is an appalling 6 per cent)

So, that's some of the slightly encouraging news. But there's a lot of bad news. While it's true that the constitutions of most Arab states guarantee women equal rights to men, formal rights don't mean much on the ground. You simply don't see widespread political participation by women as members of parties or parliamentarians. In some Arab states, women are denied even the right to vote, never mind participate in the development of legislation.

Look beyond the sphere of politics and you will see that gender discrimination exists in legal, educational, business and family structures. It's grim for women in many ways and while change is happening, it's far too slow.

Pat Nelson of Vancouver, B.C. writes:

If yes, why were they so unaware of that likelihood?

Middle East Bureau chief Adrienne Arsenault answers:

That Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections didn't just surprise the west. It also jolted Palestinians, their pollsters, as well as Hamas. Certainly, all knew there was a chance Hamas would do well in the elections and many an analyst mused that those in the West pushing for Palestinian democracy might not like what that democracy produced. But winning? In some ways it seemed so counterintuitive. This militant group dedicated to the destruction of Israel is ideologically a bit out of step with most Palestinians. It won't recognize Israel and won't give up its violent ways. Yet polls have consistently demonstrated that most Palestinians effectively want a negotiated settlement with Israel and believe the armed intifada has caused enormous harm.

So what happened?

Palestinians were fed up with the corruption, arrogance and inept ways of the ruling Fatah party. And Fatah likely didn't worry enough about that come election time. Its campaign and candidates were fractured. Hamas presented itself as the clean, disciplined alternative. It hired high-powered public relations firms. It fronted female candidates in a campaign where the rhetoric was played down and the message was appealing to exhausted Palestinians. Hamas focused on ending corruption and enforcing law and order on the streets. The group presented a real choice for Palestinians for the very first time. Palestinians went to the polls in staggering numbers. They cherished the opportunity to vote. Most election observers say it was a clean and fair election. And democracy delivered a twist.

Months in, has Hamas delivered on its promises? That's another story.

W. Eric Johnson of Westmeath, Ont. asks:

Considering the history of Afghanistan from the British occupation through to the present day, what chance is there within the next two years of Canadian involvement that the country will begin to settle down into a democratic status or will we (as I expect) see a further extension of Canadian troops presence there.

CBC's Paris correspondent Paul Workman:

Paul Workman

This is a country with a history of foreign domination and countless occupying armies have been brutally and decisively thrown out. Time is on the Taliban's side. The Canadians and other foreign troops are more or less pinned down at their bases, travelling outside only in well-armoured convoys. Aid workers have all been withdrawn from Kandahar province. There simply aren't enough western soldiers on the ground to provide security to the local population. But let's remember, this is a combat mission, not peacekeeping.

Does that mean Canadian money is being wasted? If we accept that the only way to bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan is through military force, then I'm afraid more soldiers and many more years of commitment will be needed.

Colin Chappell of Oakville, Ont., asks:

Unless there are precise answers to these questions, it would appear that we have learned nothing from our southerly neighbours who repeatedly dig themselves huge holes and then jump in at great cost of life and dollars!

CBC's Moscow correspondent Nick Spicer:

If I may, and with respect, I will let the government explain why we are there. As for measuring success, I personally would point to the return of many of Afghanistan's three million refugees (as many as Sudan, by the way), and to the holding of parliamentary and presidential elections described as free and fair by international observers. I would point to the improved everyday life of Afghans. Granted, it has in some regions seen the return of low-level violence, as an expanding NATO force knocks heads with the insurgents. Still, day-to-day life across Afghanistan is nothing like the 27 years of brutal war the country went through. And above all, Afghans remember that the men who brought "peace and order" before did so through terror: Executions in soccer stadiums, or the stoning of adulterous women, and the effective house arrest of half the country's population — its women. Human rights groups say the presence of foreign troops since 2001 has made life much better, on the whole, and describe the Taliban as ruthless, retrograde Islamists living in a mental stone age. If there was one country in the world in need of regime change, Afghanistan was it, say the interventionists. Whether or not you agree with that kind of violation of state sovereignty in international affairs is another question. Many would argue it's only acceptable with a United Nations mandate. However, the Western military presence in Afghanistan has been approved by as many UN and NATO rubber-stamps, blessings, imprimaturs as you could possibly request, starting in 2001. Unlike, ahem, Iraq!

Mark Davies of Sylvan Lake, AB asks:

A supplementary question, if I might be permitted: Do you think the prerequisites exist in Afghan society to develop and sustain a functioning democracy?

CBC's Moscow correspondent Nick Spicer answers:

I think military planners know there are no guarantees, and actually ask themselves a different question: What is the cost of not going to Afghanistan? Most Western experts will tell you that abandoning the new, democratically-elected Afghan government to the Taliban insurgents would create a regional security risk. What happens if you allow a hardline Islamist government to return to power in a country surrounded by nuclear powers China, Russia, Pakistan, and possibly Iran? Will a new Taliban government worsen the situation in already-fragile central Asia?

But there's not just the Great Game realpolitik (behind which some see the hand of Big Oil). Some countries, such as Canada, have pledged to defend human rights and human security around the world. Supporters of the Afghan deployment (it's hard to call it an intervention now, as the troops have been invited in by the legitimate government) would probably argue that it is worth fighting men who blow up girls' schools and medical clinics in order to return to power. The prospects for nation building in the larger sense are almost irrelevant, given the chance to stop wide-scale human rights abuses from becoming the norm again.

The chances for democracy taking root in Afghanistan are good, by certain measures: The ancient local traditions of consultation (loya jirgas and shuras), for example. But there was also the country's rare experience, in a Muslim nation, of a homegrown parliamentary democracy (albeit shambolic and intermittent) during the postwar period, under King Zaher Shah. This reporter's opinion is there's a better chance for democracy taking root in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

Heino Molls of Stratford, Ontario asks:

Somebody has to have thought of this before. My question is why isn't this being done?

CBC's Africa correspondent David McGuffin:

I completely understand your frustration, and it is shared by the people living through wars in Africa, such as in Darfur. When I was visiting refugee camps in Darfur last fall, several people asked when UN and Canadian peacekeepers would come to end the fighting. Certainly having more peacekeepers in Darfur seems like an obvious answer. Currently there are only 7,000 African Union troops monitoring the peace (or lack thereof) in Darfur, which is an area the size of France.

It is simply impossible for them to provide protection to refugee camps holding 2 million people, which are being constantly attacked by government-backed Janjaweed militias. Added to this, they are poorly equipped, getting around mostly in open pickup trucks. One Nigerian peacekeeper I spoke with said he felt like a sitting duck every time he went out on patrol. This doesn't encourage robust action by the troops. Furthermore their mandate is as peace monitors, not peacekeepers or enforcers. This means they can't attack or intervene unless they are directly attacked themselves.

This is the same kind of mandate that Canadian General Romeo Dallaire's peacekeepers endured during the Rwandan genocide, with tragic results. As you know, the UN is currently looking into sending a UN peacekeeping mission to Darfur. The Sudanese government still hasn't given its consent to this. And it has powerful allies on the UN Security Council.

Both China and Russia have large oil interests in Sudan and could veto a peacekeeping mission at Sudan's request. They have blocked UN initiatives in Darfur in the past. Beyond that there is the problem of finding UN troops. Canada has already said it will likely not lend any additional troops to a Darfur mission because of its obligations in Afghanistan. (Canada currently does have a handful of troops in Darfur, giving logistical support.)

No other major western nation has stepped forward to lead the mission. In the past, western countries have shown themselves reluctant to suffer losses in Africa. The UN and U.S. pulled out of Somalia in 1993 after the Black Hawk-down incident. And Belgium pulled out its peacekeepers from Rwanda after ten of its paratroopers were killed at the outset of the genocide. Ultimately this is unfortunate, because skilled western forces can make a big difference, as they did when British troops ended the war in Sierra Leone in 1999.

Matt Cahill of Toronto asks:

I'm very curious to have your input on this issue as I feel there hasn't as yet been a wide-ranging (as in educational) perspective put forth.

CBC's Africa correspondent David McGuffin:

One of the problems recently has been access into Darfur itself. Since the beginning of May, the Sudanese government has stopped issuing travel permits into the region for foreign journalists. I have many colleagues who have waited for weeks in Khartoum for permission to enter Darfur with no luck. The few journalists who have got in, on official UN visits for instance, have had their movements restricted. This has certainly worked to stem the flow of information from the region at a crucial time.

A flip side to your question though is that many people in Africa complain that Darfur gets a disproportionate amount of attention, hogging the limelight from other huge problems that the continent faces.

A good example of this is the Democratic Republic of Congo. There has been war raging in the eastern Congo since the mid 1990s. Roughly three million people have died because of the fighting. Even with the presence of 17,000 UN peacekeepers, the aid agency Oxfam estimates that 1,000 people are still dying each day as a result of warfare. This is the equivalent of the Asian Tsunami every six months. But many fewer people hear about this than about the conflict in Sudan because, for a variety of reasons, western news agencies tend to focus resources in Africa on Darfur instead.

Susan Brockley of Vernon, B.C. asks David McGuffin

Am I correct that monetary donations to the World Food Program are not tax deductible? If not, why not? How do I help? How do I/we raise awareness? Thank you.

CBC's Africa correspondent David McGuffin:

Donor fatigue seems to be the main problem in Darfur. When I was there last November, I reported that a number of aid agencies were warning that their funding was under threat because wealthy nations, like Canada, seemed to be tiring of financially supporting a relief mission that had no end in sight. The result was that at the end of April, the UN was forced to cut rations to drastically low levels.

You are correct, a person cannot live indefinitely on 1,050 calories a day. This shameful fact, combined with the news of the peace deal between the main Darfur rebel faction and the Sudanese government, seems to have spurred wealthy nations into action. First, U.S. President Bush pledged $225 million US in humanitarian funding to Darfur, then Canada promised $40 million dollars. This should get food rations back to normal levels by October, which is still a long way off.

In Canada's defence, though, we have been one of the largest donors to the African Unions peace monitoring mission in Darfur, giving $170 million dollars since 2004. The rations refugees get tend to be a combination of grains, rice, maize and vegetable oil. Not appetizing necessarily, but it gets the job done. The refugees do have to cook it themselves. In Darfur this has caused problems. The women have to leave the camps to get firewood, many are then raped by the Arab militias that prey on the camps.

I assume the reason you can't get a tax deduction for a donation to the World Food Program is because they are not a registered charity in Canada. I'm not sure why this is, but you could address that question to the World Food Programs Executive Director, James Morris at james.morris@wfp.org. There are other reputable aid agencies registered in Canada who do work in Darfur, such as Oxfam Canada, Care Canada and World Vision Canada, to name just a few.

Gary Carney of Ashbourne, Co. Meath, Ireland asks:

Senior European Correspondent Don Murray:

I agree with you. For such a large political body, with 450 million citizens, it seems to have a low profile. By way of excuse, let me suggest that EU looks to outsiders much like Canada does — a political entity obsessed with its constitutional shape and division of powers.

This may be of great interest to those inside; to those looking on from the outside, it can seem tedious. I should also say that covering the EU puzzles journalistic organizations within it. They, too, are aware of the incipient boredom sparked by news of yet another leaders summit. Perhaps the answer, indeed certainly the answer, is to try to shift the coverage to social and economic questions in a more user-friendly way. But to do such stories costs money. They often aren't headline stories. When money is short, these stories often get shelved.

Sergei Loutchaninoff of Kinfwood, Texas, asks former Moscow correspondent Bill Gillespie:

How does the Canadian Correspondent for the CBC in Moscow explain the speech by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in Vilnius some days ago attacking domestic democracy and international policies regarding Ukraine? How do the Russians react to your explanations?

Bill Gillespie (former CBC Radio Moscow Correspondent) answers:

My stories don't reach Russians, except a handful of curious younger people who sometimes access CBC.ca and the internet. Also I wasn't in Russia at the time Cheney made his speech in Vilnius. But I can tell you how my Russian friends and most Russians who care about politics reacted: They don't care what Cheney or anyone else thinks about them. They are Russians with a long history and certainly a history of choosing their own path.

At most Cheney's speech was annoying but not something most Russians (including Putin I think) would take seriously. On the other hand I have to say ordinary Russians find much to admire about America. They admire America's superpower strength, having once been a superpower and hoping to be one again. They admire the way the American government works so smoothly in the service of its citizens without the corruption that poisons trust between citizens and public officials in Russia. And they like American consumer culture. But Cheney? He is just another politician playing a game that doesn't have a whole lot to do with the lives of ordinary Russians.