Firstly, I'm not advocating violence; I'm not advocating further military action, which you've extrapolated as the reason for greater support for Hezbollah. I don't follow that logic.
Canada has consistently looked for ways to make a positive contribution to this process and will continue to do so at every available opportunity, at every forum. We support the establishment of this multinational force; that much is clear. That's been very much the preoccupation of much of the discussion around what can be contributed to lead to the ceasefire and to make it lasting, to make it durable.
Canada, as you know, is already heavily committed in its operations in Afghanistan; we have other commitments to Haiti; we are increasingly looking at the contribution that we can make in Africa, in Sudan. There has been no request for Canada to participate militarily in this international force that is quantifiable. There has been no mandate set for the international force. There has been no decision taken as to what other countries will participate. Those are all questions that require answers before we could even contemplate what role we might play.
In the meantime, I think and I believe, we have demonstrated our commitment already to the humanitarian effort, to the diplomatic effort, and to certainly be participants in the discussion around what the mandate of the international force should be: the timing; what it will be comprised of; what countries will and will not participate; what role NATO might play, if any. Those are all big, important questions on which the United Nations security force and, I suspect, a group of countries that will include Canada will focus their attention now.
As I mentioned earlier, I think you would expect no less than for Canada to be at the table and to help influence, in whatever constructive and positive way we can, what that multinational force should look like and what its role should be in bringing about a lasting, durable peace in Lebanon.