Ignatieff Ignites the Mind

Canadian politicians never seem to have controversial views, make controversial moves, or stick to their guns when challenged with a real-life situation. This is why Michael Ignatieff stands out. Not only does Ignatieff have many strong opinions, but he has defended them time and time again, and stuck to them in light of tough conflicts like the US invasion of Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan.

Ignatieff’s core beliefs include cosmopolitanism (an ideology in which everyone – stranger and fellow citizen – is linked together and made equal by a shared moral being), a firm belief in democracy and human rights, and the willingness to intervene – although as a last resort – to protect these ideals.


Cosmopolitanism is, in my opinion, a perfect way to describe the commitment that human beings owe to each other. We are all equal, whether born in a village in Lesotho or in a mansion in LA, and thus must not curb human rights and civil justice at those within our national borders. If we only feel a responsibility to those within our country we are being indifferent to the plight of others, and thus setting ourselves up for warfare; if we keep it within our civilization, we risk a clash of civilizations.



I believe that democracy and human rights, two things that Ignatieff stresses above all else, are the two most important components of a society. Human rights all us to be true to ourselves and live freely, and democracy allows us to exercise those rights to the good of the majority.

The last of Ignatieff’s main ideals – that intervention is sometimes necessary to defend human rights – I also agree with. It ties in to cosmopolitanism, because if we must defend our rights and the rights of others, our responsibility to our fellow human beings means we must intervene if their rights are being infringed upon. Intervention is a last resort and is not undertaken arbitrarily – especially as it inevitably involves destruction and, more often than not, death – but in situations such as genocide it is the lesser evil. If we say we only owe our aid to those who contribute to our national security, we are in essence sitting back and allowing people to be persecuted. However, Ignatieff makes the good point that we must be careful not to do too much damage to the rights of the opposition, or we go against what we are fighting for.

I believe that Ignatieff promotes true and just beliefs. Not only this, but he has shown the public how we must be able to adapt our beliefs to real situations and conflicts as the need arises. Cosmopolitanism, the importance of democracy and human rights, and the willingness to intervene on behalf of them, are – in my opinion – very worthy beliefs with which to govern one’s life.

Machiavelli's New Face

In light of recent developments made in healthcare in the USA, it seems that Obama has been reinstated to his position of 'world-changing leader'. People once again believe in him, and think that he represents the new world, in which we are accepting of others, peace-oriented and modern thinking. However, Obama's views reflect those of a man who penned his thoughts more than 450 years ago: Machiavelli. Obama delivered a speech almost four months ago to the West Point Military Academy, announcing his decision to send thirty-thousand more troops into the conflict in Afghanistan. This speech indicated his accordance with a few Machiavellian beliefs, such as the fact that a leader must know how to be other than good when necessary, and that princes should always be on their guard and prepared for war.

Machiavelli's expresses many radical views in his article, "The Prince," such as that it is better to be feared than loved, that a leader must appear upright but be ready to adapt to situations, and that leaders must be sneaky so the public doesn't think badly of you. He stresses the stability of a state, and of the people's view of their leader.

Obama's speech began by emphasizing that the USA has been wronged by the Taliban and repeating the damage done to America by them. He reiterated the tragedies of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This reinforced his position as 'the good guy,' and made sure the public viewed Obama and themselves in the same category - the victims. This was tested when he announced that more troops were to be deployed, going against his 'good guy' reputation, and showing that he could adapt appropriately to situations.

Most importantly, Obama's speech indicated that he knew what was at stake when sending off more troops, but it was the lesser evil. "... I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said.

All of this evidence points towards the fact that Obama - while a modern leader who is making a great deal of change in the world - still reflects the centuries old beliefs of Machiavelli. In the face of change, even the best of us sometimes revert to what's been proven before.

Afghans Are Doing It For Themselves

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/22/afghanistan-un-kandahar.html

President Karzai of Afghanistan recently met with leaders of a Taliban-linked insurgent group in order to negotiate with them. This is not random - meetings of this sort have grown increasingly popular, even though foreign troops are currently trying desperately to counter the insurgency. This may indicate that the Afghan people are losing hope in their international allies... or perhaps that they have decided problems can be handled more efficiently by talking to terrorists rather than shooting them.

The insurgent delegation brought to the meeting a 15-point peace plan, which included steps such as the withdrawal of all foreign troops between July 2010 and January 2011, which is a year earlier than US President Obama said he would begin withdrawal from Afghanistan. (Although Karzai will probably be okay with this.) Another step is the removal of Karzai's government in December, to be replaced with a shura (interim government) until elections are held within the year. A third step is the writing of a new constitution; Afghanistan's current constitution was approved in January of 2004, when Karzai was himself head of an interim government.

This meeting could be the beginning of the end of the Afghan War. If negotiations are successful and Karzai reaches an agreement with this group, many more such agreements could be made with terrorist-linked groups, and peace could be attainable.

Worth noting is the last sentence in the CBC article concerning this meeting, noting the death of two 'service members' of NATO. Why is this relevant to this article? I believe it is to spark the thought that many readers seemed already to share: should peace be established, it would seem that Afghanistan is in the same position as they were eight years ago, only with hundreds of foreign soldiers' deaths on their hands.