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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment