Michael Ignatieff, the idealist

Human rights have always and always will play an important role in foreign affairs and diplomacy. The horrors of previous genocides (Holocaust, Rwanda, etc.) have insured that the avoidance of another such cataclysm is of great import to all nations. However, whilst its importance is renowned and incontestable, its maintenance throughout the world, be it through financial or military aid, is oft at odds with national interests. Hence, one must question the interplay of human rights and national interests- which presides over the other?

I am of the belief that human rights should always guide a country's decisions, should it have the possibility and power to do so, a view that is shared by Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff is currently the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and is an acclaimed historian, author, university professor and diplomat. However, what separates Ignatieff from his fellows politicians, and indeed what endears him most to me, is his cosmopolitanism and adherence to liberal interventionism.

Cosmopolitanism is 'a way of thinking about ethics and responsability [...], cosmopolitans refuse to distinguish between fellow citizens and total strangers' [1]. I completely agree with this internationalist way of thinking. Whilst nationalism creates unecessary boundaries between people, separating nations and creating feelings of superiority and inferiority, internationalism (and hence cosmopolitanism)  brings people together by eliminating cultural boundaries, and instauring and maintaining global values and morals with the same ardency all throughout the world. Cosmopolitanism would allow for a greater proliferation of democracy and human rights by developing man's inherent social compass.

While I find the concept of western 'moral imagination' (man's ability to place himself in another's shoe by an act of imagination [2] ), very intersting, I don't believe that it, coupled with the use of historical evidence of the outcome of inaction regarding human rights crises, will be enough to displace the selfish priorities of Western nations. The influences of nationalism and capitalism are too far rooted in our society to truly be shaken by bringing up the past and appealing to man's continually fading sense of morality. When forced to choose between national interests and moral obligation, developed nations such as the United States and France will always choose national interest.

One might quote France and the United State's choice to send military aid to Libya to fight Ghadaffi's army through Nato's implementation of a no-fly zone [3]  as an example of human rights presiding over national interests, but I believe that its merely a show of neoconservatism. By helping in the development of democracy in Libya, the Western nations are ridding themselves of a problematic dictator, hence I believe that  for many of those countries, 'democracy and human rights are only important because their spread --and the defeat of tyranny-- is the best way to guarantee the safety of the US' [4]. Thus, I belive that Ignatieff's denial that 'national interest [...] must determine foreign policy to the exclusion of considerations of justice'[5] is quite Utopian-- such a thing would require a change of heart in politicians as well as citizens.

All in all, I approve of Ignatieff's beliefs. However, what I am wary of, are the difficulties that would face him were he to become prime minister-- an entire nation's apathy and inaction, due to national interest. His ideology is idealistic but, in my eyes, flawed and perhaps not even applicable in the West, where countries are so focused on their own needs and desires.

But in my mind, Ignatieff will always be a winner.

W for winner, obviously.