Ignatieff: I Am Your Leader—I Must Follow You

“I am your leader. I must follow you,” Michael Ignatieff could have entitled his article on the Middle East that ran in today’s Globe and Mail.

Since the beginning of the Liberal leadership campaign, Ignatieff has been dogged by his positions on foreign policy that are out of line with the thinking of the “centre left” constituency he has said he wants the Liberal Party to represent. He supported the American-led invasion of Iraq and he recently voted in parliament to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan for two years. 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.

Take a look at the results of the Globe and Mail/CTV poll on Canadian views of the role Canada should adopt toward the Middle East conflict. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents said Canada should remain neutral in the current conflict, with 16 per cent saying we should support Israel, and 1 per cent wanting us to back Hezbollah. Thirty-two per cent of those polled said they agreed with Stephen Harper’s support for Israeli actions in the conflict, while 45 per cent disagreed. In Quebec, only 17 per cent agreed with the Harper position and 61 per cent disagreed. In answer to the question, why do you think Harper has supported Israel’s actions, 53 per cent of respondents across Canada said this was because it was in line with the position of George W. Bush and his administration. In Quebec, 72 per cent had this view.

The results of this and other polls reveal that the stance of the Harper government is sharply at variance with the views of Canadians on the Middle East, Afghanistan and on aligning Canada closely with the policies of the Bush administration.

Michael Ignatieff is getting the point. In his Globe article, he says Canada should call for “an immediate ceasefire, authorized by the United Nations Security Council.” He breaks ranks with those who indulge in simplistic labeling when he acknowledges that Hezbollah is more than a “terrorist” organization: “Hezbollah cannot be wiped out militarily. They have support among Lebanese Shiites, because they provide social welfare and have the blessing of the mullahs. They also have political power, having won parliamentary seats in free elections.”

To be sure, he leaves himself plenty of wiggle room in spelling out a few details about the kind of international military force that should be deployed in south Lebanon to keep the peace. His formula could end up looking a lot like the one Condoleezza Rice is developing, whose true goal is to disarm Hezbollah and strike a blow at Syria and Iran, or it could be more genuinely neutral. In the article, Ignatieff calls Canada “a country of peace-makers”, obviously an effort to square this position with his stance on Afghanistan where the debate has been about whether Canada should be a “peace-keeper” or a “peace-maker”, i.e. war maker.

Ignatieff’s positions on empire, Iraq, and Afghanistan remain highly troubling for progressives. But his Globe article makes positive suggestions and indicates some evolution in his thinking. To those who would charge that his position is now rife with inconsistencies, Ignatieff could justly quote Emerson’s adage that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Nothing Ignatieff has said in today’s article could not have been said two or three weeks ago. The Canadian debate would have benefited from his input earlier in this rapidly developing crisis. An English friend of mine observed that when he lived in London, Ignatieff tended to be a “radical conformist”, someone who waits until almost everyone has adopted a position on an ethical or political question, before jumping in to align himself fervently with the developed consensus.

The poll in the Globe demonstrates that foreign policy could well become a critical issue in the next federal election. That is a rarity in Canadian elections and the Harperites undoubtedly hope it doesn’t happen next time. By listening to Canadians and following them, Ignatieff has staked out the ground for a debate with the Conservatives. Let’s hope that the other Liberal leadership candidates and the NDP clarify the debate and make it more far reaching.