El-Ay Cafe (Pt. 1)

I've been thinking lately about the accusations made against Iran regarding how they've been supporting Hezbellah in order to draw attention away from their domestic nuclear weapons regime. But you know who has really benefited from this all? The Americans. In no way am I trying to suggest that the Americans support Hezbollah or that there is some sort of conspiracy, but they have really benefited from this crisis in regard to media coverage of Iraq. I've seen very little emphasis on Iraq recently, and when Bush and Blair met recently, I didn't hear any questions on Iraq. There have been huge bombings in Iraq lately, and sectarian violence continuing to be on the rise, and certainly there is more bloodshed there than in the area between Lebanon and Israel, but it is covered less. I would argue that Iraq is still more volatile. I mean with a few car bombs, the toll in Iraq could equal that of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict in a day.

Combine this with Castro's health deteriorating (yesterday I actually thought he might have died and this information not released to the public, but after reading a few articles on BBC and CBC I changed my mind), and the situation in the Koreas deteriorating (shots fired from North Korea into South Korea across the DMZ yesterday - two shots from the north, with the south responding with six shots), and you have a pretty volatile world right now.

My socials teacher walked into our classroom to absolute silence on the morning of September 11th. He grabbed the map that hung by the chalkboard, and it rolled up with a snap. He looked at us and declared, "Today, your world has changed."

The dangers of our generation is extremism of political and religious natures, nuclear proliferation, and the vaccums of power left by deteriorating regimes of a different era that suppressed national self-determination.

Turning to Canada, recent polls indicate that the Conservatives have lost support across the country due to their stance in the Middle East. Many in the media have written about how outrageous it is that the Conservatives are abandoning what they call Canada's traditional policy of neutrality. This just goes to show what happens after thirteen straight years of Liberal Party rule, that their actions were so engrained in society that the population is socialized to believe that whatever happened during their governance is what defines us as a country. Emminent historians have stepped forward to say that this is not, in fact, the case. In most of Canadian history, we have taken a moderately pro-Israeli stance. Speaking of tradition, however, we see that Quebec has always been a fierce advocate of pacifism, going back to World War I and the drafts of WWII. As a result, we see that the Conservatives are losing support there because of this and because of the large Lebanese population in Quebec. The problem is that during the last campaign Harper spent most of his political capital on garnering support in Quebec, and the ground he once gained he is now losing.

What should be done? Switching to neutrality is not a good foreign policy choice. Neutral foreign policies perpetuate a weak foreign policy, as one is seen as quite irrelevant when non-aligned. For Canada to make a difference on the world stage, we must continue with the current policy of siding with a country that is defending itself against a non-governmental organization that purposely targets its civilians. There can be no neutrality when dealing with a terrorist organization.