Despite Michael Ignatieff’s position as one of the front-runners in the Liberal leadership race, he has not been able to escape the rather unfounded criticisms of his foreign policy. I will first highlight some of the accusations that have been leveled against the candidate. And then I will attempt to illustrate how these accusations incorrect.
Some of the Prominent Accusations:
(1) Harper-lite:
(a) Bob Rae re Afghanistan (Macleans):
Generally, it appears that criticisms of Ignatieff’s foreign policy centre around anything that even remotely appears to jive with American foreign policy. It’s rather backward, to say the least, when a person’s flaw is deemed to be that they are “pro-American” instead of “anti-American”. More importantly, however, these criticisms miss some fundamental distinctions, which are key differences between liberal hawks and neoconservatives.
(I do not know the reasons for conflating such distinct world-views. Perhaps it amounts to a gut reaction that looks even remotely close to Bush politics. Or perhaps it’s simply ignorance of the realities in foreign policy. I’d like to believe that it’s the latter.)
Michael Ignatieff articulates his foreign policy (Speech, “A Foreign Policy Agenda for Canada”, published 23 June 2004), which is an actual policy statement. His policy statement begins with a review of the challenges that face Canada, addresses values that make Canadians unique and our interests (i.e., POGG) and proposes a platform for implementation – all of which Rae’s speech lacks. (In retrospect, my previous commentary about Bob Rae’s talking points of nostalgia, feel-good cosmopolitan values and vague notions of evenhandedness were far too generous. They do not resemble an actual policy at all.)
I will address the accusations in reverse order, because it makes more sense to approach it from the top down, kinda like an upside down pyramid. Most people seem to focus on the bottom end of this pyramid without understanding the top.
(3) Pro-American?
It’s truly sad that I must begin on this note. Not all liberals and progressives are anti-American (Euston Manifesto). Moreover, not all critics are anti-American. And not everyone who supports an American ideal, policy, etc is necessarily pro-American. This should go without saying! But that is not the world we live in.
Oddly, Ignatieff is neither pro- nor anti- American. His foreign policy remains rather matter of fact towards the US.
He acknowledges “our livelihood as a country and our security as a nation depend vitally” on our relationship with the United States, which seems to simply state the obvious. But he also spends the next three lengthy paragraphs discussing ways to guard our independence and sovereignty. In short, he states: “Negatively, we must not be dependent, and we must not be subservient. Positively, we must stand on our own two feet.”
With respect to Laxer’s comments above, Ignatieff recognizes American contributions, but does not advocate “Empire.” In fact, he calls for something quite different. Simply because someone acknowledges the good things that the US has done does not make him or her an advocate. Laxer simply overstates his point.
(Although not mentioned, I think that it’s worth noting that I, personally, would rather be under an American hegemony than a Chinese one or a Soviet one.)
(2) Necon?
This accusation stems from an ignorance in approaches to foreign policy. Neoconservatives are not the only group who believe in a strong foreign policy and world engagement. There are also liberal hawks. And interestingly, it may surprise readers who neocons really are. Unfortunately, the critics fail to make the distinction between the two camps.
(Please excuse the following generalizations, but I hope they will help to illustrate this distinction.)
Neocons tend to be "realists" who stress states as rational and primary actors in foreign relations. They emphasize hard power and view unilaterlism as more readily justifiable. One, they do not believe in global governance, because the UN is corrupt, discredited and dysfunctional (which to be fair, it is). Two, the ends justify the means. The motivations usually relate to actual and perceived threats to national interests and avoid obligations.
Liberal hawks tend to be "internationalists" who believe in the importance of states, because they are the most pragmatic avenue to the ideal of global order, but also acknowledge the importance non-state actors too. They value hard power, but understand that soft power is extremely useful. They prefer multilateralism and thus international organizations such as the UN despite their short comings. However, they recognize that sometimes unilateralism is necessary (e.g., Kosovo). Liberal hawks do not necessarily avoid obligations and they often define threats and interests differently.
Ignatieff’s foreign policy statement identifies both cosmopolitan values (e.g., multiculturalism, human rights, etc.) and Canadian national values (i.e., “peace order and good governance”), which just so happens to contrast the Jeffersonian “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The policy explains that states are important to any notion of global governance (which neocons are opposed to), and that it is in Canada’s interest to aid in the good governance of burdened, failed and rogue states. It discusses soft power means (which neocons underestimate) and even mentions non-state actors such as NGOs (that neocons pay little attention to). However, the policy does admit that soft power cannot replace hard power. Ignatieff believes in the “responsibility to protect”, which actually resembles a more European view of security than an American. He sees this as part of “muscular multilateralism” on side with international institutions (which neocons care little for). And perhaps most ironic, the elements of his plan that apply to Afghanistan are so very liberal. “[T]he responsibility to protect entails, first, a responsibility to prevent ethnic and religious conflicts before they destroy a state, second, a responsibility to react when states are either unwilling or unable to protect populations, and finally, a responsibility to follow through, with reconstruction assistance, stabilization forces and institutional reconstruction over the long-term [emphasis mine].”
In sum, the accusation that Ignatieff is a necon would be laughable if people didn’t actually believe it. His foreign policy is in direct contrast to a neoconservative agenda and demonstrates a truly engaged liberal world-view.
(1) Harper-lite?
It may be on the specific issues of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon that the critics have found some glimmer of similarity between Ignatieff and the conservatives (Please note the small “c”). Iggy may share similar positions, but the underlying pretext differs greatly.
(a) Iraq
Many liberal hawks would have supported, did support or continue to support the war in Iraq. For them, the international community should have addressed Saddam a long time ago for his oppressive regime, unconscionable human rights violations, aggression against other states and general destabilizing nature. Once it became apparent that the Iraq war was inevitable, many decided that one should make the best of it.
It should be understood that many liberal hawks believe that the US should have more sincerely approached multilateralism – even if it meant appeasing the French by including the phrase “all necessary means” in another UNSC resolution. It should also be remembered that Kosovo was illegal.
Iraq has been and is so unpopular in public opinion that many politicians distance themselves as far from it as possible. And those that own up to their previous beliefs regarding Iraq are skewered.
(b) Afghanistan
Afghanistan is not Iraq. Once again, Afghanistan is not Iraq. This war is legal and sanctioned by the international community.
The only true connection between Afghanistan and Iraq is the one that the Bush administration tried to paint in order to justify its invasion. This connection has been proven to be false. So the only connection is a rhetorical one.
What matters now is whether the international community follows through in its commitment to the Afghan people and its responsibility to them. We may debate how to go about doing that, but there should be little confusion that Ignatieff believes Canada must do its part to fulfill that commitment and own up to that responsibility.
(c) Lebanon
Whether it’s a rookie mistake or simply a stupid thing to say, Ignatieff suggested that he was “not loosing sleep” over Qana. He has subsequently apologized and articulated his sympathy for the innocents in the Israel-Hezbollah war. It’s rather refreshing for a politician to own up to a mistake, much more apologize for it.
What’s forgotten is the context of this stupid remark. He made this remark in the midst of explaining the perils of modern guerilla warfare. It’s down and dirty, if not plainly ugly.
Sadly, in the Israeli-Arab conflict, lines are drawn in the sand and anything that can be construed as being on one side or the other is dubbed so. However, I’m still baffled how any sign of support for Israel is somehow uniquely “c”onservative (or “C”onservative).
Conclusion:
Compare Ignatieff’s policy statement with Bob Rae’s vague allusions to a nostalgic past without any concrete presentation of how to implement such grandeur. Rae’s criticisms vis-à-vis Ignatieff strike me as weak and unworthy. They play upon emotive and tenuous connections to the US. But worse still, Ignatieff had the decency to spell out, literally in black and what, what his plans for Canadian foreign policy are and how to achieve them. He has a coherent tangible plan. And Mr. Rae apparently does not.
Also, compare his policy with the neocons (see #2). It contrasts a neoconservative approach on numerous levels. In fact, Ignatieff’s foreign policy epitomizes an engaged progressive approach to international affairs.
Unfortunately, there’s much myth and nostalgia in the public’s mind when it comes to the truly sad state that Canadian foreign policy finds itself in. Canada has lost much of its credibility and sway in the world since the 1960s. We’ve forfeited “our international citizenship”, in the words of Andrew Cohen. There’s a credibility gap between our talk and our actions.
I commend a politician who has (excuse the expression) the balls to spell out what s/he thinks for everyone to see. I believe in the straight-talking politician. The one who says what he thinks and apologizes when he screws up. Thus far, Ignatieff has been the politician. Love him or hate him, you can’t deny that he’s got a plan and he’s straight-forward about it.
Some of the Prominent Accusations:
(1) Harper-lite:
(a) Bob Rae re Afghanistan (Macleans):
Rae, one of 11 contenders for the Liberal throne, is expected to underscore the differences between his approach to foreign policy and that of front-runner Michael Ignatieff. Rae has previously derided Ignatieff as "Harper-lite" for supporting a combat role for Canadian troops in Afghanistan.(b) Bob Rae re Iraq (G&M):
Although it is not clear whether Mr. Rae will actually refer to Mr. Ignatieff by name, it will be "implicit" in Mr. Rae's speech that he does not agree with the front-running candidate's views on extending the mission in Afghanistan and supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq.(c) Re Lebanon: Ignatieff’s following comments (same G&M article) were deemed too pro-Israel along with his apology for suggesting that he was “not loosing sleep” over it (Toronto Star)
Mr. Ignatieff voted with the Harper government to support the two-year extension of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Before entering politics, Mr. Ignatieff supported the Americans going into Iraq.
Mr. Ignatieff said, "Qana was, frankly, inevitable in a situation in which you have rocket launchers within 100 yards of a civilian population. This is the nature of the war that's going on.''(2) Neocon: Koby (BlogsCanada):
It is what he added next that has stirred up controversy: "This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that."
Ignatieff is the only candidate is to propose a replacement and for that he deserves credit. Ignatieff, however, proposes that we adopt a Neo Conservative doctrine that works in theory, but is a miserable failure in practice. So here we Liberals are, trapped between ideology and nostalgia.(3) Pro-American: James Laxer:
His enthusiasm for the American Empire and the good it can do in bringing civilization to the barbarous regions of the world cemented his place in American academe and became his calling card when he wrote for prestigious American journals. But that enthusiasm has caused him nothing but grief in Canada.The Truth:
Generally, it appears that criticisms of Ignatieff’s foreign policy centre around anything that even remotely appears to jive with American foreign policy. It’s rather backward, to say the least, when a person’s flaw is deemed to be that they are “pro-American” instead of “anti-American”. More importantly, however, these criticisms miss some fundamental distinctions, which are key differences between liberal hawks and neoconservatives.
(I do not know the reasons for conflating such distinct world-views. Perhaps it amounts to a gut reaction that looks even remotely close to Bush politics. Or perhaps it’s simply ignorance of the realities in foreign policy. I’d like to believe that it’s the latter.)
Michael Ignatieff articulates his foreign policy (Speech, “A Foreign Policy Agenda for Canada”, published 23 June 2004), which is an actual policy statement. His policy statement begins with a review of the challenges that face Canada, addresses values that make Canadians unique and our interests (i.e., POGG) and proposes a platform for implementation – all of which Rae’s speech lacks. (In retrospect, my previous commentary about Bob Rae’s talking points of nostalgia, feel-good cosmopolitan values and vague notions of evenhandedness were far too generous. They do not resemble an actual policy at all.)
I will address the accusations in reverse order, because it makes more sense to approach it from the top down, kinda like an upside down pyramid. Most people seem to focus on the bottom end of this pyramid without understanding the top.
(3) Pro-American?
It’s truly sad that I must begin on this note. Not all liberals and progressives are anti-American (Euston Manifesto). Moreover, not all critics are anti-American. And not everyone who supports an American ideal, policy, etc is necessarily pro-American. This should go without saying! But that is not the world we live in.
Oddly, Ignatieff is neither pro- nor anti- American. His foreign policy remains rather matter of fact towards the US.
He acknowledges “our livelihood as a country and our security as a nation depend vitally” on our relationship with the United States, which seems to simply state the obvious. But he also spends the next three lengthy paragraphs discussing ways to guard our independence and sovereignty. In short, he states: “Negatively, we must not be dependent, and we must not be subservient. Positively, we must stand on our own two feet.”
With respect to Laxer’s comments above, Ignatieff recognizes American contributions, but does not advocate “Empire.” In fact, he calls for something quite different. Simply because someone acknowledges the good things that the US has done does not make him or her an advocate. Laxer simply overstates his point.
(Although not mentioned, I think that it’s worth noting that I, personally, would rather be under an American hegemony than a Chinese one or a Soviet one.)
(2) Necon?
This accusation stems from an ignorance in approaches to foreign policy. Neoconservatives are not the only group who believe in a strong foreign policy and world engagement. There are also liberal hawks. And interestingly, it may surprise readers who neocons really are. Unfortunately, the critics fail to make the distinction between the two camps.
(Please excuse the following generalizations, but I hope they will help to illustrate this distinction.)
Neocons tend to be "realists" who stress states as rational and primary actors in foreign relations. They emphasize hard power and view unilaterlism as more readily justifiable. One, they do not believe in global governance, because the UN is corrupt, discredited and dysfunctional (which to be fair, it is). Two, the ends justify the means. The motivations usually relate to actual and perceived threats to national interests and avoid obligations.
Liberal hawks tend to be "internationalists" who believe in the importance of states, because they are the most pragmatic avenue to the ideal of global order, but also acknowledge the importance non-state actors too. They value hard power, but understand that soft power is extremely useful. They prefer multilateralism and thus international organizations such as the UN despite their short comings. However, they recognize that sometimes unilateralism is necessary (e.g., Kosovo). Liberal hawks do not necessarily avoid obligations and they often define threats and interests differently.
Ignatieff’s foreign policy statement identifies both cosmopolitan values (e.g., multiculturalism, human rights, etc.) and Canadian national values (i.e., “peace order and good governance”), which just so happens to contrast the Jeffersonian “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The policy explains that states are important to any notion of global governance (which neocons are opposed to), and that it is in Canada’s interest to aid in the good governance of burdened, failed and rogue states. It discusses soft power means (which neocons underestimate) and even mentions non-state actors such as NGOs (that neocons pay little attention to). However, the policy does admit that soft power cannot replace hard power. Ignatieff believes in the “responsibility to protect”, which actually resembles a more European view of security than an American. He sees this as part of “muscular multilateralism” on side with international institutions (which neocons care little for). And perhaps most ironic, the elements of his plan that apply to Afghanistan are so very liberal. “[T]he responsibility to protect entails, first, a responsibility to prevent ethnic and religious conflicts before they destroy a state, second, a responsibility to react when states are either unwilling or unable to protect populations, and finally, a responsibility to follow through, with reconstruction assistance, stabilization forces and institutional reconstruction over the long-term [emphasis mine].”
In sum, the accusation that Ignatieff is a necon would be laughable if people didn’t actually believe it. His foreign policy is in direct contrast to a neoconservative agenda and demonstrates a truly engaged liberal world-view.
(1) Harper-lite?
It may be on the specific issues of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon that the critics have found some glimmer of similarity between Ignatieff and the conservatives (Please note the small “c”). Iggy may share similar positions, but the underlying pretext differs greatly.
(a) Iraq
Many liberal hawks would have supported, did support or continue to support the war in Iraq. For them, the international community should have addressed Saddam a long time ago for his oppressive regime, unconscionable human rights violations, aggression against other states and general destabilizing nature. Once it became apparent that the Iraq war was inevitable, many decided that one should make the best of it.
It should be understood that many liberal hawks believe that the US should have more sincerely approached multilateralism – even if it meant appeasing the French by including the phrase “all necessary means” in another UNSC resolution. It should also be remembered that Kosovo was illegal.
Iraq has been and is so unpopular in public opinion that many politicians distance themselves as far from it as possible. And those that own up to their previous beliefs regarding Iraq are skewered.
(b) Afghanistan
Afghanistan is not Iraq. Once again, Afghanistan is not Iraq. This war is legal and sanctioned by the international community.
The only true connection between Afghanistan and Iraq is the one that the Bush administration tried to paint in order to justify its invasion. This connection has been proven to be false. So the only connection is a rhetorical one.
What matters now is whether the international community follows through in its commitment to the Afghan people and its responsibility to them. We may debate how to go about doing that, but there should be little confusion that Ignatieff believes Canada must do its part to fulfill that commitment and own up to that responsibility.
(c) Lebanon
Whether it’s a rookie mistake or simply a stupid thing to say, Ignatieff suggested that he was “not loosing sleep” over Qana. He has subsequently apologized and articulated his sympathy for the innocents in the Israel-Hezbollah war. It’s rather refreshing for a politician to own up to a mistake, much more apologize for it.
What’s forgotten is the context of this stupid remark. He made this remark in the midst of explaining the perils of modern guerilla warfare. It’s down and dirty, if not plainly ugly.
Sadly, in the Israeli-Arab conflict, lines are drawn in the sand and anything that can be construed as being on one side or the other is dubbed so. However, I’m still baffled how any sign of support for Israel is somehow uniquely “c”onservative (or “C”onservative).
Conclusion:
Compare Ignatieff’s policy statement with Bob Rae’s vague allusions to a nostalgic past without any concrete presentation of how to implement such grandeur. Rae’s criticisms vis-à-vis Ignatieff strike me as weak and unworthy. They play upon emotive and tenuous connections to the US. But worse still, Ignatieff had the decency to spell out, literally in black and what, what his plans for Canadian foreign policy are and how to achieve them. He has a coherent tangible plan. And Mr. Rae apparently does not.
Also, compare his policy with the neocons (see #2). It contrasts a neoconservative approach on numerous levels. In fact, Ignatieff’s foreign policy epitomizes an engaged progressive approach to international affairs.
Unfortunately, there’s much myth and nostalgia in the public’s mind when it comes to the truly sad state that Canadian foreign policy finds itself in. Canada has lost much of its credibility and sway in the world since the 1960s. We’ve forfeited “our international citizenship”, in the words of Andrew Cohen. There’s a credibility gap between our talk and our actions.
I commend a politician who has (excuse the expression) the balls to spell out what s/he thinks for everyone to see. I believe in the straight-talking politician. The one who says what he thinks and apologizes when he screws up. Thus far, Ignatieff has been the politician. Love him or hate him, you can’t deny that he’s got a plan and he’s straight-forward about it.
Labels: ideology, international relations, Michael Ignatieff
10 Comments:
Excellent post! I have gotten sick and tired of people labelling Igantieff as a right-wing nutcase in the Liberal party when in fact he stands up for the very principles we always used to defend.
We "always used to defend". When exactly did we lose our way? Does Iggy think we lost our way?
Frankly, your post is a brave attempt, but I am not really convinced. For example, with Iraq, Iggy has never come out and said he was wrong about the war, that the evidence was trumped up etc. He still falls back on the Bush line: Saddam wasn't cooperating; Everybody thought there was WMD. Saddam was, and all sorts of people knew the WMD line was crap.
Michael,
Thanks for leaving a comment. I’m glad to know that I’m not alone. BTW, what are you a student of?
BigCityLib,
I do not argue that the liberals have lost their way in this post although I might be inclined to think so. The Trudeau, Clark, Martin and especially Chrétien administrations deviate from the Pearson liberal hawk model. In truth, I will need to give it some more thought.
It appears that your main contention that Ignatieff is somehow Right-wing is based soley on Iraq. I guess that my paragraph explaining the pyramid was unclear. The top is most important because it explains the distinction between liberal hawks and neoconservatives. The two camps sometimes share similar stances, but for different motivations and by different means. It’s like comparing the JFK-LBJ administration to the Reagan one. Iraq is only one piece within the larger picture of two differing world-views.
One policy, one stance does not make an entire outlook to foreign relations.
Also, I guess my paragraph about liberal politicians who try to distance themselves from Iraq (e.g., Clinton) and those who don’t shy away from it (e.g., Liberman) was unclear as well. To my knowledge Ignatieff has not come out with a public statement to distance himself from the war, but I’m not sure (1) that it’s fair to require him to do that, and (2) why a Canadian politician should have to when Canada did not support the war.
Essentially, I do not think that Ignatieff should be skewered for this.
Finally, as to the particulars and justifications of the Iraq war, it is important that many people held very different views. The American justification for the war differed greatly from the British one. The American one relied heavily on pre-emption whereas the British one relied on legal arguments in which the UNSC Resolution providing for “serious consequences” recalled the previous UNSC Resolution that employed the use of force (i.e., the legal Persian Gulf war). Blair even contended that it was a moral obligation. I think that there is a tendency on the part of the Canadian public to falsely tie all justifications for the war to the “trumped up” American one.
Basically, I think that it’s incorrect to tie the American justifications for the war to Ignatieff.
Interesting post, and well researched.
I think the labeling of Ignatieff as "right-wing," at least by those who aren't just skewering him, has more to do with his positions relative to the other leadership candidates than it does with his position on the spectrum overall. I mean, Liberals refer to Gerard Kennedy as "left-wing," and he sure looks like a centrist to me (as do all the other candidates).
With that in mind, would you agree that Ignatieff, while perhaps not being "right-wing," is at least further right than the other candidates? If not, which of them would you consider to be further right than he is, and why? (I'm concerned that this question will meet with the standard "he goes beyond the left-right distinction" sort of answer, but I figured I'd ask it anyway.)
As for this: I’m not sure (1) that it’s fair to require him to do that, and (2) why a Canadian politician should have to when Canada did not support the war.
I'd be interested in hearing your elaborations on #1 (i.e., why it wouldn't be fair--other politicians, including John Kerry, have come out and said "I was wrong about this," so why wouldn't it be fair to expect the same of Ignatieff?). On #2, the issue is that the man could conceivably become prime minister. It's not at all strange to be concerned about how things might have been different had Ignatieff been in charge at that point in history, and for that to factor into people's leadership decisions.
Hi IP,
Thanks for stopping by. I enjoy your company. I’ll do my best to respond.
(1) Left-Right
To begin, I have a hard time with the Left-Right continuum to describe the political spectrum, because it does not account for varying axis, such as the economic axis and the social-authoritarian axis. Numerous politilogues have come up with various alternatives to the Left-Right continuum from the French Revolution. But I think the most accessible, or at least, the easiest to understand and implement, version is this British one. (Take the test. It’s fun.)
But to address your questions, I’ll forget all that:
Does Ignatieff lean more “Right” (or as I prefer, more centre) than other Liberals? Sure. Why not? If you understood the “Right” comment to be within the larger framework of the Liberal Party, which is wholly “Left” of the Conservatives, then sure, I do not see much problem with that kinda perspective.
However, I would temper such a statement, because much of Ignatieff’s commentary and justifications for his foreign policy are Very liberal. He pushes very hard for the enforcement of human rights, unlike many anti-War ideologues. In this sense, he is more “Left” than those who oppose him within the liberal ranks.
In the end, the notion of “Right” or “Left” within the Liberal Party seems rather inconsequential for me, because it comes to down to how one draws the line within the pack.
What matters to me and what I object to are the allusions to the Conservatives, the Republicans and Neoconservatives, which are “Right” of the Liberal Party.
(2) Fairness remark in the subsequent commentary
Please be patient. BigCityLib’s commentary has inspired me to write a post entitled “Ignatieff on Iraq.”
Engaging patience! *grin*
Oh, and thanks for giving me a more straightforward answer than I've gotten from any other Ignatieff supporter on this subject.
Colby,
Tried to write this yesterday but was foiled by Blogger.
Iggy has indeed denounced the conduct of the war (incompetent, on the cheap) in a NY Times article from 2004 (you might find a link to it somewhere in my archives).
These are the same flaws he discusses re Afghanistan in Empire Lite. In fact, when I read the book it surprised me that he supported the Iraq invasion. It also surprised me that he was surprised that incompetence and cheapness should afflect the Iraq effort, since he talks so much about these things happening in E-Lite.
BigCityLib,
Thanks for the suggestion. I actually already have the NTY Magazine article that you mention. And I've got another article that he wrote prior to the invasion.
As I mentioned to IP, I'm writing a post about Ignatieff on Iraq. It is sometimes difficult to separate the academic discussing American interventionism and the Liberal candidate advocating a role for Canada to play in the world. The two events come rather close in time, but do not necessarily over lap. His critics tend to conflate the two.
IP,
I guess that the "unfair" comment you asked me about is moot. He has already distanced himself from Iraq, but not in the same way as Clinton et al, because his arguments for Iraq were not based on WMDs.
Foreign policy and defense being my pet interests, this post caught my eye. I have always considered myself a conservative on these issues, while having serious differences with both the conservative party and the conservative political establishment. While I have a record of voting Conservative, it is more based on hating the other options more, than actually liking the Conservative foreign and defense policy any. With Ignatieff, or anyone similar, at the head of the Liberals it would require some serious consideration of the party, as well as lend more significance to other parts of their platforms, at least in my mind.
I would temper such a statement, because much of Ignatieff’s commentary and justifications for his foreign policy are Very liberal. He pushes very hard for the enforcement of human rights, unlike many anti-War ideologues. In this sense, he is more “Left” than those who oppose him within the liberal ranks.
Life Experience Degree | online doctorate degree
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home