Obama: A True Prince

This past December, President Barrack Obama delivered a speech addressing the entire world at the U.S Military Academy at West Point, in New York. The main issue discussed? The war in Afghanistan. In his speech Obama announced his plans to withdraw from Iraq, and to deploy an additional 30 000 troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama uses his natural charisma to communicate such a controversial issue with least amount of harm possible. He demonstrates his knowledge of the world's history and the current situation, and informs the public that he has weighed every option carefully. He shows emotion as he sympathizes for the many devastating loses, yet assertiveness when announcing that his decision is the best option when regarding the well being of the entire nation.

Upon studying and thoroughly analyzing Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, I could not help but recognize the similarities in technique between the two. The comparison begins with Obama's technique to separate himself with the old regime. Prior to his presidency, it is no secret that Americans were fed up with Bush's administration. Obama noted this and found a mean to use it to his advantage. This translated to the entire basis of Obama's campaign, with his clever slogan "Change, we can believe in"and, "Yes we can." Separating himself from the prior administration was undeniably Obama's best campaign movement, a technique Machiavelli stated in The Prince. According to Machiavelli, there are two ways to gain power. One being by force and ultimate fear, and the other is by creating a clearly defined ‘new regime’, which will ensure that the people respect the new leader and prefer him to his predecessors. This explains Obama's lack of hesitation to criticize Bush's administration and vocalize his differences from the previous president.

The similarities between the two do not stop there. By sending over 30 000 troops, Obama practices the following Machiavellian belief, " A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise. " Obama justifies breaking his promise by explaining that he must fix the problem the previous administration started. He shows sympathy and emotion (as a means to earn love, another Machiavellian technique), and persuades the public that there are no other options. In addition, as a means to gain love and support from his people, President Barrack Obama shares that he has read letters and visited burrial grounds of many lost soldiers and their families. Obama strives for the public to love him. Again, this can be compared to Machiavelli's words, "A prince should therefore be very careful that nothing escapes his lips which is no replete with the fine qualities...so that to see and head him one would think him the embodiment of mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion." No matter his decision, the way in which he presents it to the public must earn him the qualities Machiavelli listed above. Reputation is a very important aspect to a well respected and successful prince, a guideline Obama works really hard to maintain. Yet, this tactic of his was a lot easier during his campaign, than during his presidency. With presidency, comes tough decisions, decisions that must be made in the eyes of the public. The troubling aspect is that the public shares many different beliefs, and therefore as president it is essential to find a way to unify all.

Thus, spurs another Machiavellian belief, "Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved."Since Obama's decision will split the nation in two, and therefore hinder national support, the president has no other options but to instill fear within the public. By Obama explaining the extreme regimes out East, and reminding the public of several terrorist attacks, such as in England and on 9/11, the public is reminded that there is evil abroad, and therefore military involvement is necessary.


Upon following Obama's journey since the beginning of his presidency, it is undeniable that there lay many similarities between himself and the works of Niccolo Machiavelli. Whether the public bought his speech or not, President Barack Obama has proven to be quite the Machiavellian Prince.

Michael Ignatieff: Weighing Human Rights over Sovereingty

Michael Ignatieff, the current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has become one of the most controversial figures in Canadian politics. His beliefs regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan followed by his novel, "The Lesser Evil" has resulted in much discussion and debate. Upon doing further research, it becomes quite apparent why his support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in extreme controversy.

The debate over respecting sovereignty on one hand, and standing up for human rights on the other, is the core issue Michael Ignatieff faces. Although a true human rights theorist, Ignatieff supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. His reasoning for supporting the war is not similar to Bush's, but rather he justifies it with his belief that defending human rights over shadows a country's right to sovereignty. This questions the extent of morals within politics and the extremes of Realism vs Idealism. Being a liberal interventionist, Ignatieff supports military action on the basis of left leaning ideals, which strive for global defense and human rights. Micael Cotey Morgan's article on Michael Ignatieff states that when a a group of people is in dire need anywhere, we as fellow human beings can not ignore our obligation to help them. I do believe this statement to be true, yet I stress that the manner in which we intervene and help them must be done in a particular fashion. Ignatieff believes that democracy is consistently a good idea. This being said, although in theory, yes, it is a good idea, when invading another country not similar to ours it is not practical to enforce a certain government. By providing education and informing the people of the country of the benefits, the introduction of democracy can be successful, yet by enforcing it unwillingly, people of the country may rebel and this may result in disastrous rebellious behavior such as in Afghanistan.

Ignatieff believes in doing what is fundamentally right, if this translates in intervening other countries around the world to defend human rights, then so be it. Although I am concerned about the well being of people around the world, there are factors that must be measured. For one, when recognizing an injustice in the world, we must weigh and recognize the cultural differences and act accordingly and respectably. Recognizing that all people do not view things from the Western point of view is key. Countries are separated throughout the world and we must respect our differences, yet when an injustice is being done, it is our duty as a peacekeeping country to see past the boundaries that separate us, and help fellow humans around the world. Key word being "help" not take over, and most definitely not attack. We must provide the instruments for countries to regain credibility and practice proper human rights.

Although in theory I do agree with many of Ignatieff's beliefs, I do believe he is taking the easy route for problems that clearly need much more depth for solutions. How can a man who stands so strong for human rights justify war? Ignatieff explains his reasoning with his belief on "the lesser evil." He states that, "when no option is absolutely moral, one can only choose that which is likeliest to minimize harm." In my opinion, such a statement is extremely vague and lacks substance to justify a solution as extreme as war. First of all, this entails weighing all options, an act which is extremely subjective. Next, he states that the option which is likeliest to minimize no harm must be chosen. How can a self proclaimed human rights activist justify invading a country across the world, killing thousands of people in the process, justify his actions by weighing the likeliest of harm? Better yet, how can a human rights activist even justify war in the first place? In my opinion, the "lesser evil" theory does no such justification. Although I am be coming off as an idealist, I find it necessary in order to truly analyze Ignatieff's beliefs, beliefs that I personally have come to not agree with.

Unveiling Harper's True Intentions from a Realist Perspective

Every year, the world's eight most powerful heads of government gather to tackle international crises and issues. The responsibility for hosting the summit rotates through the G8 in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada. This year, it is Canada's turn to host the summit, which will take place this upcoming June in Muskoka, Ontario. Among the issues Steven Harper wishes to address, he has chosen to focus on maternal and infant mortality in the developing world. Although an important issue, it is needless to say that Steven Harper's choice of focus has shocked many in the international community. Harper has defended his choice by stating, "It is therefore time to mobilize our friends and partners to do something for those who can do little for themselves, to replace grand good intentions with substantive acts of human good will." Yet, before blindly being convinced that Steven Harper is truly acting out of "substantive human good will", one must be skeptical and approach this issue from a realist point of view and determine what Harper may potentially benefit from this announcement.

To help see clearly from a realist point of view, historians such as Hobbes and Machiavelli can be assessed. Hobbes believed that humans are solely self interested and that, “there is no such finis ultimus, utmost aim nor summum bxonum, greatest good". Similarly, Machiavelli believed in appearing of good nature to the people you rule, only to hide true intentions and plans behind closed doors

This may very well be the case with Canada's Prime Minister, Steven Harper.

To unveil Steven Harper's angle on this issue, we must place ourselves in his position and ask, "what could Steven Harper possibly gain by showing ultimate support for maternal and infant mortality in developing countries?"

For one, such a humanitarian act of recognizing such a neglected issue has gained support and respect from many in the international community. The issue of maternal and infant mortality throughout the developing world really is an issue in need of urgent attention. Each year, it is estimated that 500,000 women lose their lives during pregnancy or childbirth. Further, an astonishing 9 million children die before their fifth birthday. Such statistics demonstrate the severity of this situation and its desperate outcry for help. Yet, living in the world we do today, hearing such disturbing statistics are not uncommon. There are many crises happening around the world every day and they are all supported by frightening facts. Why choose the maternal crisis over world hunger and poverty which accounts for half of the world (over 3 billion people) living on less than $2.50 a day, resulting in the deaths of 24 000 children daily. Or perhaps the crisis of HIV/AIDS which 40 million people are living with, leaving 14 million AIDS orphans in Africa and has amounted to 25 million deaths since 1981. Or better yet, the environmental disaster our earth is dealing with which relates to water shortage leaving 1.1 billion people in developing countries inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation. An overwhelming presentation of statistics? Yes, perhaps. Yet the point being, with so many problems and disasters in the world, what is the true reasoning behind Steven Harper's choice of crisis?

One thing is apparent, Steven Harper has not had the best Prime Minister run in Canadian history. Already heading a minority government, Steven Harper is in dire need of gaining the support and respect of his country before the next federal election. More importantly, showing support and seeking help for the maternal and infant crisis will help him gain many votes, especially in the female population.

Another strategic tactic of his is the re introduction of the crisis that has not yet been resolved.Instead of introducing new issues, Harper has concentrated on fulfilling past commitments. He wants to honor the promise the United Nations made in 2000. Yet if this is true, then why not follow on the Kyoto treaty? It has been said and confirmed that solving the maternal and infant death crisis does not require outrageous funds and is fairly simple. Compare this to higher-profile issues such as AIDS or malaria, and Harper has found a way to act out of human good will without paying much of a price. In addition, Harper hopes to build his reputation on the international stage. By committing to past promises, Steven Harper is building his credibility both domestically and internationally, and this tactic of his already seems to be working. Upon his announcement, famous world figures such as Bill Clinton and Bill Gates have praised and recognized Harper's generosity.

Of course, when June comes around maternal and infant mortality will not be the sole issue that will be discussed at the G8 Summit. The Prime Minister admits on http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3093, that other business will also be discussed such as security, nuclear proliferation and the environment. It can be debated whether the maternal and infant crisis is a mere distraction to gain support and put the population at peace about what the top 8 powerful governments will really be discussing. After all, this is not an occasion for the eight most powerful nations to sit around, drink tea, and discuss soft politics. Not being present in Steven Harper's office, it is hard to conclude his true intentions and reasoning. Yet, approaching this situation from a realist point of view demonstrates that Harper truly is a calculative man with more on the agenda that meets the eye.

*Statistics used in this blog were referenced from http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats.