Sarkozy Wins Presidency, Vows Reform

Hello Friends,

This being my first post since July, I would like to thank you for returning to my site and continuing to be an integral part of the ongoing political debate that will accentuate 2007. I'd also like to remind readers that I will post any article submitted to me, regardless of partisan tidings. Fruitful opinions and debate are the main goal of this forum. Now, back to business... :)

On May 7, Nicolas Sarkozy and his Conservatives captured 53% of the French vote en route to winning an election that could not have come at a more important time. Running on the premise of massive economic reform and curbing the influx of France's uncontrollable immigrant population, Sarkozy made his mark prior to winning the Presidency just days ago.

Since the war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, France has solidified itself as a vocal yet subdued member-state in the Western coalition. Quick to criticize those who rescued it in years past, the country has taken on the image of one becoming increasingly hostile toward the political and economic system which garnered its success and world-presence.

Such a stance has undoubtedly led it down a path of self-destruction. On one front is an unemployment rate soon-to-reach double digits. The overall standard of living is on the decline, and with the average work-week registering only 35 hours, one can only assume will deepen in time.

On the other front is an increasing hostile yet growing population of immigrants. The world looked on in disbelief last year as large groups of Arab youths went on a rampage through France for weeks on end in 2006, burning cars and torching homes while wrecking havoc on a country which has taken them in with no pre-conditions, housed them, and supported them through welfare systems.

France's previous leader has, for the past five years, taken the route of ignoring such actions in hopes they will disappear if no one pays them any attention. Such a passive outlook has only worsened the country's present and future state, and on Monday, a gentleman by the name of Nicolas Sarkozy took the reigns with a new and refreshing outlook.

In his acceptance speech, Sarkozy acknowledged in front of his fellow citizens that the title "Sarkozy the American" bestowed upon him by his Socialist opposition was something he took pride in, something he felt should not be hiden. He declared himself an avid believer in the American system, that hard work and tax cuts as its reward would revolutionize the financial standing of a country looking for an answer.

In strengthening both the domestic and foreign outlook of France, Sarkozy looks to posture his country as an economic powerhouse in years to come. He doesn't promise goals which are unattainable, nor does he suggest that greatness will be thrust upon the people of France overnight. He offers a path to success, extending his hand to those willing to make a difference. Such a change requires a community willing to work longer hours for themselves, not for others.

The current system sees a country noted as having the fewest working hours on average of any European Union member. With dwindling numbers, the country has still managed to upgrade its support to non-active members of the country, namely those immigrants who enjoy the benefits of living on funds they have not earned. Sarkozy is adamant about ending this cycle of self-destruction, which is welcomed by the majority in France who are tired of the position Jacques Chirac has left them in.

Domestically, both the USA and Germany are the 'poster boys' for such a plan. High productivity and incentives given to those playing an integral role in the turnaround are intended to provide the fuel for France's economic reconstruction. Internationally, France will look to align itself with those who share its economic/political/social goals, namely Washington.

In the past, Nicolas slammed members of his own government for their anti-war stance.“You must have loathed us then,” he told the American media. France's foreign policy made him feel like a stranger in his own land. On Monday, in front of a cheering and supportive crowd, he stated "I want to call out to our American friends to tell them they can count on our friendship,” reassuring his friends across the Atlantic that it was time to rebuild what had been shattered during the Iraq War.

Sarkozy has been vocal about following America's lead in such troubled areas as Africa and the Middle East. Having Jewish ancestry on his mother's side, he is a self-proclaimed 'friend of Israel'. Unlike his predecesor, he disagrees in laying blame equally in order to sustain nuance. When questioned about the Summer War of 2006, he accentuated his belief that Israel was a victim of terrorist aggression during the war with Lebanon, further calling Hezbollah a terrorist group out to destroy Israel.

Nicolas also looks to lead the coalition against Iran's growing nuclear program, offering to support any amendment which would sanction the country, and even create his own legislation to sanction Iran further. Sarkozy depicted Iran as “the most important problem on the international scene” and said calls by the Iranian president for Israel’s destruction represented the most serious threat to world peace.

He intends to keep Turkey on its heels by denying them acceptance into the EU on the grounds that they have not yet met economic and humanitarian protocol, and that their current values aren't similar to Israel and Lebanon (countries which have the potential to join the EU).

It is clear that Sarkozy has his work set out for him. A timeframe has not yet been put in place for his specific endeavors, but it's clear that he's ambitious and driven towards change. The world awaits his next step.

-Josh Bower

Harper is right on the Middle East

Stephen Harper could have taken the safe route. When fighting broke out in the Middle East, it would have been easy to stick with the usual Canadian formula: denouncing the violence on both sides, calling for a ceasefire, proposing peace talks. Prime ministers down the decades have done precisely that, tiptoeing between the usual American support of Israel and the usual Arab denunciation.

Instead, Mr. Harper did something unusual and refreshing: He said what he thought. He didn't denounce the violence on both sides; he denounced Hezbollah violence and said that Israel had a right to defend itself. He didn't say there should be a ceasefire; he said Hezbollah was primarily responsible for starting the fighting and must be primarily responsible for ending it. He didn't call for peace talks; he called on Hezbollah to return kidnapped Israeli soldiers and stop attacking Israeli civilians.

Mr. Harper's opponents in Parliament find this shocking. NDP Leader Jack Layton says he has ruined Canada's reputation for diplomatic neutrality. The Liberal's Bill Graham attacks him for lacking "nuance". Well, diplomacy and nuance have their place, but shouldn't Canada also be able to call a spade a spade? Isn't that part of the repetoire of a middle power?

What we're seeing in the Middle East is not an ordinary "cycle of violence", with each side equally to blame. It started with an unprovoked attack across a recognized international border. When Hezbollah killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more, then rained missiles down on Israeli civilians, it was not fending off an Israeli attack or resisting Israeli occupation. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon six years ago. This was a deliberate act of aggression by extremists sworn to destroy the state of Israel. Israel had every right to respond.

Harper is right not to fall into the trap of saying that because Israel's bombs are killing civilians, it is just as much to blame as Hezbollah. There is a world of difference between those who deliberately kill to make mischief and those who kill in response. When an Israeli airstrike gone wrong killed innocent civilians, Israel issued a heartfelt apology. When Hezbollah rockets kill Israeli innocents, its supporters hand out candies.

This is not always an easy distinction to talk about when civilians are being killed all around. To his credit, Mr. Harper insists on making it. No one would be dying on either side without Hezbollah and its twisted belief "that through violence it can bring about the destruction of Israel". But violence, he said, "will only bring about more violence and inevitably the result of violence will be the death of primarily innocent people". That is the real cycle here. Those, like the Israelis, who defend themselves against unprovoked attacks are not perpetuating the violence. The instigators alone are to blame for that.

That is the important point Mr. Harper was trying to make when he broke from the pack to support Israel so forcefully in the current conflict. It may not have been the safe thing to say, but it was the right one.


- Anonymous Author

The Significance of Illegal Immigration

America’s exceptional status as a “nation of immi­grants” is being challenged by globalization, which is making both migration and terrorism much easier. The biggest challenge for policymakers is distinguish­ing illusory immigration problems from real prob­lems. One thing is quite clear: The favored approach of recent years—a policy of benign neglect—is no longer tenable. Members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives recognize this and deserve credit for striving to craft a comprehensive law during this session of Congress.

Illegal immigration into the United States is mas­sive in scale. More than 10 million undocumented aliens currently reside in the U.S., and that popula­tion is growing by 700,000 per year. On one hand, the presence of so many aliens is a powerful testament to the attractiveness of America. On the other hand, it is a sign of how dangerously open its' borders are.

Typical illegal aliens come to America primarily for better jobs and in the process add value to the U.S. economy. However, they also take away value by weakening the legal and national security envi­ronment. When three out of every 100 people in America are undocumented (or, rather, docu­mented with forged and faked papers), there is a profound security problem. Even though they pose no direct security threat, the presence of millions of undocumented migrants distorts the law, distracts resources, and effectively creates a cover for terror­ists and criminals.

It's important to look at the pro's and con's of illegal immigration before accepting or rejecting it entirely:


Pro's

- The population today includes a far higher percentage (12 percent) of foreign-born Americans than in recent decades, yet the economy is strong, with higher total gross domestic product (GDP), higher GDP per person, higher productivity per worker, and more Americans working than ever before.

- The increase in the immigration flow has corresponded with steady and substantial reductions in unemployment from 7.3 percent to 5.1 percent over the past two decades. Unemployment rates have fallen by 6 percentage points for Blacks and 3.5 percentage points for Latinos.

- Whether low-skilled or high-skilled, immigrants boost national output, enhance specialization, and provide a net economic benefit. The 2005 Economic Report of the President (ERP) devotes an entire chap­ter to immigration and reports that “A comprehen­sive accounting of the benefits and costs of immigration shows the benefits of immigration exceed the costs."

- Immigrant unemployment rates are lower than the national average in the U.S.

- Most immigrant families have a positive net fis­cal impact on the U.S., adding $88,000 more in tax revenues than they consume in services.

- The increasing worry about outsourcing jobs to other nations is just one more reason to attract more jobs to Amer­ica by insourcing labor. If workers are allowed to work inside the U.S., they immediately add to the economy and pay taxes, which does not happen when a job is outsourced.

Con's

- Flouting the law has become the norm, which makes the job of terrorists and drug traffickers infinitely easier.

- The economic costs of terrorism can be very high and very real, quite apart from the otherwise positive economic impact of immigration (for example, one terrorist attack may directly/indirectly cost the U.S. billions of dollars).

- Efficient legal entry depends on a waiting period used to screen applicants, without which creates instability and safety concerns.

- Unregistered citizens take jobs that have been set by the American government to meet the number of employable U.S. citizens, throwing off the supply-demand balance.


To summarize, the real problem presented by illegal immigration is security, not the supposed threat to the economy. Indeed, efforts to curtail the economic influx of migrants actually worsen the security dilemma by driving many migrant workers underground, thereby encouraging the culture of illegality. These facts can serve to drive either support or opposition to American policy regarding the handling of immigration.


Any thoughts?


- Written by Tim Kane and Kirk Johnson, Adapted and contributed to by Josh Bower

The USA Must Have Guts To Terrorize The Terrorists

If we ever hope to rid the world of the political AIDS of our time, terrorism, the rule must be clear: One does not deal with terrorists; one does not bargain with terrorists; one kills terrorists.

And if that rule is too much for the United States to stomach, let it resign itself not only to the constant threat of kidnapping of Americans in the Third World, but worse, bombs in U.S. department stores, and other public places.

One of the great problems with Americans is that - being a decent people - they assume that everyone else is equally decent.

They assume that, all humans being equal, all cultures are therefore similar in concepts and values. But that is simply not so. And the Middle East is just not the Middle West.

The Middle East and the Moslem-Arab world possess their own unique cultures and values that in so many cases are at variance with those of the West. Human rights - especially those of non-Moslems or non- Arabs - simply do not have the same absolute value that they do in the West.

Above all, it is not decency or goodness of gentleness that impresses the Middle East, but strength. Because of this, the U.S. is looked on as a paper tiger - with all the accompanying contempt. President Reagan's constant flexing of muscle, with absolutely no reaction to the murder of U.S. Marines and the kidnapping of U.S. citizens, has created for him an image of one who speaks loudly and carries a small twig.

That is the heart of the problem. The answer? Never, ever deal with terrorists. Hunt them down and, more important, mercilessly punish those states and groups that fund, arm, support, or simply allow their territories to be used by the terrorists with impunity.

It is abundantly clear that if Syria wished to, terrorists would be deprived of huge areas of haven in Lebanon. But why should Syria want to? Or Iran? They're happily enjoying Western agony without suffering one bit. And that is the key: Make them suffer.

Terror in Syrian and Iranian cities will soon enough convince those two unworthy states that it is unhealthy to support terrorism. And if towns and villages that support terrorists in Lebanon are mercilessly dealt with, they, too, will soon enough turn on them.

The question is whether the United States has the stomach to defeat terror or whether Americans will sink into what the Rabbis of the Talmud call "the mercy of fools." When one refrains from terror against terrorists, he is not better than they. He will be deader, and there is nothing moral or ethical about that.

The choice is clear and once again, the Rabbis put it well: "If one comes to slay you, slay him first." (Brachot, 58 )


- By Rabbi Meir Kahane, published in the New York Times in 1987

Afghan Christian Convert Faces Execution

Muslim clerics say Abdul Rahman, 41, must be executed despite Western outrage. Rahman has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed. "We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," said prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination. "If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him," he said. "He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped." However, senior clerics warn that if the government caves into Western pressure and frees him they will incite people to quote -- "pull him into pieces." One cleric, who is considered a moderate, says "this man must die."

Meanwhile, a western diplomat in Kabul and a human rights advocate -- both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter -- said the government was desperately searching for a way to drop the case. Canada, the United States and other countries that have troops in Afghanistan have voiced concern about Rahman's fate.

A spokesman for Karzai, Khaleeq Ahmed, said the government would not interfere in the case but that the government "will make sure human rights are observed." The case is believed to be the first of its kind in Afghanistan and highlights a struggle between religious conservatives and reformists over what shape Islam should take four years after the ouster of the fundamentalist Taliban regime.

Afghanistan's constitution is based on the Shariah, which is interpreted by some Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death. The state-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has called for Rahman to be punished, arguing he clearly violated Islamic law. It was not immediately clear when Rahman would be examined or when the trial would resume.

Television footage of Rahman at last week's hearing shows him leafing through a Bible before saying, "They want to sentence me to death and I accept it, but I am not a deserter and not an infidel. I am a Christian, which means I believe in the Trinity."

With close-cropped hair and a beard, and dressed in a baggy shirt and pants, Rahman spoke in a level voice and waved his hands in an imploring gesture. Rahman's neighbours in Kabul showed little sympathy for him.

"For 30 years, we have fought religious wars in this country and there is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian," said Mohammed Jan, 38, who lives opposite Rahman's father, Abdul Manan. "This has brought so much shame."

Rahman is believed to have converted to Christianity while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He then moved to Germany for nine years before returning to Kabul in 2002, after the ouster of the Taliban regime.

Police arrested him last month after discovering him in possession of a Bible during questioning over a dispute over custody of his two daughters.


- article posted in National Post

The Future of Iran

Greetings everyone!

As I'm sure you've all been following the international dialogue surrounding Iran's nuclear development program, I've received some suggestions to post an article reflecting the current situation.

As the world is aware, Iran has been working towards developing nuclear weapons. After dismissing several recommendations from surrounding Muslim nations, as well as the pleas of the world community to abandon such plans, the future is unknown for the situation set to transpire in the Middle East. The IAEA has held failed talks with the Islamic Republic, showcasing an ongoing problem in Iran's unwillingness to negotiate.

The Quartet Committee grouping the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, has been the key Mideast peace brokers. However, even alternative choices and potential solutions by this group have fallen on deaf ears, as Iran pledges to move forward with its plan to continue enriching uranium, intending to focus on creating nuclear materials without IAEA supervision and approval.

As the situation worsens, one can't help but feel a sense of anxiety toward the idea of a future war in Persia. As democratic citizens, we believe constructive dialogue is the key to a safer world, and war must only be a tool used when all other means have failed. But how can one who has truly studied the current situation in its entirety still hold any 'practial' hope that this situation can be side-stepped and an agreement reached?

What we have is perhaps a very ignorant President in Iran, one who refuses to represent the beliefs held by the majority of his Republic, but rather, pursues his own personal interests while defying world regulations. Although one could argue that George Bush might be characterized the same way, I should point out that prior to the the invasion of Iraq, the American President did in fact hold the support of the majority of US citizens. His approval rating has since dropped significantly along with support for the War in Iraq, which is expected due to war being a process that brings with it uncertainty, instability, and loss of support over time. In order to accept the current promise America has accepted, we must realize that Iraq was meant as just a stepping stone towards converting most Islamic states into democratic entities. The task the US faces will not be completed by November of 2008 when Bush leaves office, nor by 2010. It will be decades before foreign nations leave the Middle East, so we might as well accept it for what it is.

On the opposite side of the table, sitting across from Iran is a plethora of nations to whom war is no new matter. They have witnessed first-hand the consequences of waiting too long to confront the matter of terrorism, as well as the experience of entering a country with their eyes closed. Because they have fallen victim to both situations, one can assume they are much less tolerant of being both defied and humiliated. This leads me to believe that when the world's attention is turned to Iran, the US will not be playing games. They will garner international support and proceed into Persia under the presumption that letting a situation like this linger will carry with it serious consequences to future tranquility.

It is a known fact that cancer can be best eliminated when detected in its early stages. And so, like a doctor taking his place above an ailing patient, I believe we will see an American scalpel held by the world community carefully examine its infected Iranian counterpart, and then move in for what it hopes will be a solution to the infirmity. Do I support the Iranian people? Yes. Do I support their government? No. Will peace eventually come to its people? It will take a committed set of nations, the united effort of many, and most importantly the courage of a people who wont stand idly by when the prospect of democracy in the Middle East comes knocking.

- Josh Bower

East-Asian Drug Policy

I've decided to put an interesting twist on today's article. Rather than rant or rave about this topic, I'd instead like to begin a facilitated discussion on what people know, think, and believe of the way East-Asian politics conducts the treatment of drug crimes, and the penalties that result.

Please direct ideas and discussion to the comments section :)

- Josh