Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader, is lavish in his adoration for the country and the people he wishes to lead. His recently published book, True Patriot Love, which dovetailed with his ascension to the Liberal party leadership, is replete with fuzzy bromides about Canada and its “quietly but intensely patriotic” citizens.
Yet Michael Ignatieff, Harvard professor and public intellectual, was once slightly more harsh toward his native land. Following a 2005 lecture at the University of Dublin’s Trinity College, Ignatieff excoriated Canadians for trading on Canada’s “entirely bogus reputation as peacekeepers” for 40 years and for favouring “hospitals and schools and roads” over international citizenship. “If you are a human rights defender and you want something done to stop [a] massacre, you have to go to the Pentagon, because no one else is serious,” Ignatieff said.
“It’s disgusting in my own country, and I love my country, Canada, but they would rather bitch about their rich neighbour to the south than actually pay the note,” he said, in response to a question about peacekeeping. “To pay the bill to be an international citizen is not something that they want to do.”
Ignatieff gave the lecture while he was director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. The talk, which received brief mention in Canadian media at the time, reiterated Ignatieff’s belief that the U.S. is a force for good in the world. “Don’t forget that the speech given by a U.S. president that most committed the United States to the promotion of human rights and democracy in the Arab world was given by George W. Bush,” he said. He later told the Irish Times that he was taken aback by the “waves of anti-American and anti-Bush feeling in an Irish audience.” It was in the question-and-answer session which followed, and which has never been reported, that Ignatieff was most critical of Canada.
He was also seemingly at odds with the party he would come to lead four years later. Peacekeeping is the stuff of lore within the Liberal party, which bills itself as the founding father of Canada’s traditional role as a peaceful international referee to the world. As Liberal external affairs minister, Lester B. Pearson is credited with inventing the very concept when he championed the first armed United Nations peacekeeping force in 1956. “There tends to be a strong association with peacekeeping” within the Liberal party, says author and former Liberal strategist John Duffy. “Liberals are proud of their role in this tradition.”
Ignatieff, circa 2005, begged to differ. Introduced by Trinity College professor Ron Hill as “a challenging liberal thinker,” Ignatieff spoke favourably about America’s peacekeeping capabilities and the need to use “men with guns” when protecting the world’s vulnerable. Ignatieff had already backed away from his support of the Iraq war when he gave the speech, though he still praised George W. Bush’s foreign policy at a time when then-Liberal prime minister Paul Martin was attacking Bush for what he said was the U.S. president’s lack of “global conscience.” Canada certainly didn’t fare well in Ignatieff’s speech; Ignatieff portrays the country as a somewhat frustrated, reflexively anti-American middling power that has become something of a pretender on the world stage.
“We used to be peacekeepers, we used to have the capabilities [but] we gave them away, because people wanted hospitals and schools and roads. And God bless them, but the costs are coming in.” (Ignatieff is correct in his assertion that Canada’s contribution of army and police personnel to the UN has decreased over the last several decades. However, Canada remains one of the UN’s largest contributors of international, professional and general service staff, and is the eighth largest contributor to the UN’s total peacekeeping budget, according to UN figures.)
Liberal spokesperson Dan Lauzon, who declined to answer specific questions about Ignatieff’s speech, said the address didn’t contradict any Liberal party principles. “It’s provocative, sure, but consistent with our long-held position,” Lauzon wrote in an email to Maclean’s. “Though the language used in the quote is more provocative than we’re used to in the political realm, I think it’s consistent with our position that cuts made to the military in the past were too deep, that we’re glad they were corrected, and that we intend to ensure that it never happens again.”
Ignatieff’s speech, which has gone largely unnoticed, threatens to reignite the war of words between the Liberal and Conservatives, the latter of which has launched attack ads largely based on Ignatieff’s (much older) musings. Certainly Lauzon, who passed along a selection of past Stephen Harper quotations to Maclean’s, is in a scrappy mood. “If we’re digging up bones here, I’d like to point out that these comments are certainly more consistent than some Stephen Harper’s past quotes, which you may wish to probe for a future article.”
Still, Ignatieff softened his criticism of Canada’s peacekeeping reputation the very day he became Liberal leader. During his acceptance speech last January, he humoured the crowd with a tale of being saved by a Canadian peacekeeper during a sojourn in the former Yugoslavia. In “a world ravaged by hatred,” he said, “we remain a light unto the nations.” The “Canadian way,” he concluded, was the “way for the whole world.”
With Nancy Macdonald
Print
Comment
I haven't been very impressed with Ignatieff. To sly by half but if he was actually straight with people regarding his views such his aforementioned comments I might start to like him more. I think his comments regarding Canada's military role in the world are spot on.
I'm tired of pandering politicians who stand for nothing but getting elected.
I agree with glenn. Would the real Iggy stand up please.
Ignatieff’s speech, which has gone largely unnoticed
Largely unnoticed indeed. No media outlet other than Macleans is running these obviously inflammatory quotes. In whose world is a potential PM expressing disgust with one of the most quintessential Canadian values of peacekeeping not newsworthy??? The value that is pretty much synonymous with his own party? It's Chretien's legacy he's primarily criticizing in this 2005 speech.
If Kady is reading…regarding your point about what your Conservative friends tell you about how the Conservatives run attack ads because the media doesn't cover this stuff…now do you see their point? Where is the Globe and Mail? Where is the CBC? In this country, gotcha journalism clearly only works in one direction. If Conservatives don't run attack ads, how would news of these inflammatory quotes ever get out?
Every time one of our oldiers is killed in Afghanistan by an IED ask yourself why Paul Martin sent our troops in with inadequate armored troop carriers and no heliocopters to avoid the roads. Also our soldiers have no air cover. Not one ffing plane
Liberals are gutless incompetents and if Grenier objects to that he is free to name the time and place.
That would be Chretien and Martin and all of the Liberal caucus.
Let's put aside the content for a moment, because reasonable people can disagree about the role of Canadian peacekeepers in this dangerous world.
But could Iggy's pompous finger wagging from afar sound more contemptuous of Canadians?
Our collective position on the matter "disgusting"?
We'd rather "bitch"?
The reputation of our brave young men and women "entirely bogus"?
And in order to fully place himself on the mantle high above the rest of us bogus bitchers, he refrains from the WE, settling comfortably with THEY.
"And in order to fully place himself on the mantle high above the rest of us bogus bitchers, he refrains from the WE, settling comfortably with THEY."
Those Canadians not we Canadians.
Could catch biff, it's what Paul Wells calls Iggy's pronoun problem.
Is Iggy really sunning himself in southern France as we speak? Tell me that isn't so. Anon? Anyone?
Sorry. Meant to say 'In your example, they present themselves as the single party that believes in strong families.'
Bully for Iggy!! He certainly hit the bulls-eye on this one. This won't sit well, though, with a most of his colleagues on the Opposition benches. Perhaps he should consider crossing the floor.
The LIberals have used the term 'peacekeeping' in order to reduce funding for our military. Real Who Killed The Canadian Military by Granetstein if you need the whole story of decline by LIBERALS of our national defence. Kudos to Harper for increasing funding for our troops. What Canada doesn't need is insipid cowardly academic comments by a 34-year expat who is using the military for political support.
To the best of my knowledge, we Canadians prefer honesty, integrity and sincerity. We therefore find nothing wrong with policing a line between two groups who want a graceful exit to an earlier conflict. But let's not believe that this is our only calling and the only thing the world expects from us. And lets not redefine Lester B. Pearson as some sort of pacifistic Kumbiya type who applauded unilateral disarmament. He didn''t. And even the NDP will reluctantly admit that Pearson was a strong proponent of the creation of NATO and that his deployment of Canadian troops to Cyprus came in large part from the request of American president LBJ.
Bet this will shock you re deployment to Cyprus
Prime Minister Pearson was initially
dubious about sending Canadian
troops — “Let them cut each other
up,” he told Paul Hellyer, his
Defense Minister. “We certainly
won’t go in just to help the British.
Johnson, worried
about NATO’s future if the Greeks
and the Turks went to war, He was filled with admiration…
when Canada provided a presence….‘You’ll never know what this
may have prevented.’” The president
then asked, “Now what can I do for
you?” Although Pearson replied “nothing, many believe the reward came in an agreement which provided unbelievable amounts of financial reward for Canada-the Auto Pact.
Lester B. Pearson is credited with inventing the very concept when he championed the first armed United Nations peacekeeping force in 1956.
-Pearson, functioning as chairman of the General Assembly's Special Committee on Palestine laid the groundwork for the creation of the state of Israel in 1947.
-Pearson drafted the speech in which Prime Minister St. Laurent proposed the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
-Pearson headed the Canadian delegation to NATO until 1957,
-Pearson was willing to accept nuclear warheads from the United States
-As PM, Pearson pursued a bipartisan foreign policy based on a philosophy of internationalism
The Two Faces of Pearson Peacekeeping
-Canada had a vital
national interest in holding off the
Soviet threat. During the Suez Crisis,
the split between Britain and France
— the aggressors — and the United
States was huge. Canada’s actions
were directed as much to repairing
the breach among allies ( face #1) as to restoring
peace in the area (face #2)
Much misinfo here, as usual. "Canadians" did not 'choose' roads and hospitals etc over peacekeeping – the politicians who run the country did. The two are most certainly not the same thing (i.e. for decades 'Canadians' have been saying they preferred a well-funded health care system over corporate tax cuts, and for decades both major parties have given them just the opposite). But more importantly, in terms of misrepresenting facts, the politicians during the 70s and 80s chose to create and then feed a national debt of a half trillion dollars, through which they could funnel (to date) a couple of trillion dollars of tax dollars to those who actually run the country (banks and wealthy 'investors') rather than spending tax money on things most Canadians might actually want, such as a well-funded health or education systems. And until more Canadians actually understand this massive scam, they're going to keep doing it. More detail at Global Financial Meltdown: Forces beyond our control, or the greatest scam ever?
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greatest-sting-ever.htm... .
Wait.. so Ignatieff argued that the Rumsfeld Pentagon was a force for human rights?
Most sane observers would have balked at “serious”. “Human rights” wasn’t even in the same ballpark.
No real surprise there, Ignatieff's basically a neo-conservative and fits right in with the American neo-conservatives.
No, he’s not a neo-con. Certainly no neo-con would have given that Isaiah Berlin speech.
What Iggy was (and may still be) is the worst kind of enabling liberal hawk, the kind that uses the language of liberalism to support hilariously illiberal ends. Saying “the Pentagon is the only organization that can defend human rights” is just ludicrous/ But by tying together “Pentagon” and “defending human rights”, Iggy was doing Rumsfeld’s job for him, laying out enough FUD to derail the calls for investigations into Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s activities during that sorry time.
Here is the big question:
In the next election Do you want more of Mr. Harper and the Conservatives' way of governing the country based on how they are actually performing? Or do you want to dismiss Liberals based on what the Leader said in the past, or what the Liberal Party has done or not done in the past – or vote them in? Who would you most trust to govern us? It will be all up to "we the people" soon.
Isn't it just awful that once we are in that little voting booth all by our lonesome, politicians, journalists, and blogers will be excluded from our decision.
Canada's lefties are on the run. For years, they've lied a delusioned existence, preached an abundance of anti-American sentiment and done so with impunity. And lefty school teachers have even gone so far as to preach the gospel of anti-Americanism to their students, regardless if some of those students have American parents or are themselves American. This is especially concerning in Ontario, where parents do not have any choice regarding where their students are educated as the good premier has disdain for school choice.
In order to have a free thinking society , our lefties must be challenged vigorously, their "hog-wash" must be scrutinized and thrown back into their faces and we need to liberate Ontario's public school system ( choice should not be an evil word ) which is a large breeding ground for lefties.
The gloves are off, folks!
Lawnchair Larry, speaks, behold.
Great reply, Clair. Nice contribution.
Thanks scf, I'm on the run, the gloves are off.
“Breeding Ground for Lefties”?
Nothing like hearing the eliminationist rhetoric about exterminating the “plague” of liberalism and progressivism, huh?
Reminds you of the kind of National Security State dictatorships that would shoot up universities because they had “red” in the name. Except, somehow, even less sane.
My apologies for guessing that you meant John MacCallum instead of John MacKay.
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>Not a problem. Do you remember when MacKay made the comment?</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>
Sorry, nope. I looked him up, and I do recognize the face (he is on a committee or two, no?), but I honestly can't recall his participation in the particular event that you mentioned.
My memory of the event itself is that the Liberal trial balloon was part of the sequence that led to the Conservatives staking out the opposite position. Maybe that already was a Con position, and it just gave them an opportunity to highlight their opposite approach.
I'm a little disappointed that I don't remember, because I try to follow politics fairly closely (maybe not as closely as the typical poster on this board, but I would say closer than many voters). Sometimes I wish I could have a more relaxing hobby, but so it goes.
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>Its not a problem. I agree it was just before the 06 election and it did lead to Goodale being put on the hot seat and of course the run up in the stock market etc. etc.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>I am like you. I like to follow politics but am becoming increasingly disenchanted with the level of discourse and the bravado being displayed by some MPs and the parties in general.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>In watching the U.S. stations they have panel discussions which are interesting and informative. Here in Canada we have the same characters appearing on the political shows with their spin and hyperbole and it insults anyone who is following politics. </DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>We have reporters interviewing reporters who are giving their opinions. Naturally people see bias and spin in their comments and so when they are actuallyreporting the news they are considered less credible in their day job.</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>
This will serve as an excellent retort for “Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.”
It's like political MAD. You launch ads with that, we'll launch ads with this. Everyone loses. ;)
The Canadian lefties, who is likely pro union, pro infanticide, pro legalization of pot, pro high corporate tax, pro enhanced social safety net, pro double income, pro materialism, pro short work week, pro, divorce on demand,etc, loves peacekeeping. But for reasons too shallow to boast about.
Pearson deployed troops to Cyprus because it was in Canada's interests to keep the NATO alliance together. The mission did save lives and Pearson was handsomely rewarded. meanwhile the lefty saw opportunity.
In lefty world, Canada had a glorious opportunity to bill itself as a super moralizer, preaching the gospel of peace, while lording over other countries who were involved in violent confrontations. it doesn't take much of a defense budget to equip a gathering of peacekeeper-they don't have to be soldiers-and the savings could be used-in fact they were used-to gorge the demands of this lefties who want more and more and more.
Excrementum Tauri Mr. Ignatieff!
Intuitive comments, indeed. The Liberals traded on our reputation of peacekeeping and our heroic efforts in the Second World War for years all the while decimating the military. In the mid 90's the only countries to spend less than Canada in terms of GNP on their militaries were Luxembourg and the Netherlands. "While Canada Slept – How we lost our place in the world" by Andrew Cohen also speaks to the comments made by Ignatieff.
Will the Liberals still love him after all this? My, he certainly is quite pro-Bush and pro-America (not necessarily a bad thing — the latter part, that is).
But these 2005 comments are in line with similar statements made at a lecture Ignatieff delivered in circa 2004 at a Jewish temple in Toronto, which was recently broadcast by BookTelevision in Canada.
In that lecture, Ignatieff spoke about how important it was to defend America and Israel against the evil in the world, and even though he delivered it in Toronto, he kept referring to Americans as “we” and “us”.
He also specifically said during that lecture in Toronto, placing his hand on his heart, that there was nothing more important for him than ensuring the continued existence and safety of the state of Israel – clearly comments that will now get him into major trouble with his Liberal Party, which is becoming more and more anti-Israel.