[NYTr] Canada: Ignatieff's mea culpa

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Stephen Gowans' Wordpress.com via Dave Silver - Aug 5, 2007
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/ignatieff%e2%80%99s-mea-culpa/


Ignatieff's mea culpa

Even in apologizing for backing the war, 
Ignatieff defends "imperialism lite"

By Stephen Gowans

Former Harvard professor and now Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff
is admitting he made a mistake in backing the 2003 US invasion of Iraq
(1). But not because the invasion was based on a fraud, but because the
humanitarian goals he and others attributed to the invasion have not
been achieved.

Ignatieff's mea culpa comes on the heels of an Oxfam report that paints
a grim and disturbing picture of an Iraq that has become a shocking
charnel house, where four million are displaced, infrastructure remains
in a shambles, and poverty is rampant. More than Darfur, Iraq is a
humanitarian disaster; it is an acute embarrassment for those who
plumbed for war on humanitarian grounds, promising the ouster of Saddam
Hussein would usher in an era of peace, prosperity and the flowering of
human rights between the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates.

That doesn't mean that Igantieff is backing away from the doctrine of 
humanitarian intervention he and others championed to justify the 
"imperialism lite" that has wrought such misery in Iraq. On the
contrary, his mea culpa is a defense of the thinly disguised
justification for military imperialism left-liberal public
intellectuals have promoted since Yugoslavia to elevate wars of
conquest waged on behalf of the corporate elite to human rights
crusades.

Ignatieff says his support for the war grew from the moment he "saw
what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds (2)." It was at that point he
became convinced that Saddam Hussein had to go, and that a war to
remove him could be justified on those grounds alone. Others, including
Noam Chomsky, also believed the Iraqi leader was a menace whose forced
removal from power would constitute a major gain for humanity, though,
to be sure, not all of those who shared this view backed the war. With
hundreds of thousands dead as a result of the invasion, and a refugee
crisis of a magnitude not seen since WWII, one wonders how many of
those who invested the war with moral gravitas by demonizing the Iraqi
leader, regret their craven pandering to Washington's propaganda
requirements. I suspect few do.

That doesn't mean, however, that a few soft-left public intellectuals
are not squirming in embarrassment. Ignatieff, for one, can no longer
leave unaddressed the uncomfortable gulf between the reality of what
the invasion has created and the promises of the war's ameliorative
effects the humanitarian interventionists inveigled the public into
accepting.

Ignatieff's error, he says, was in letting his good intentions cloud
his judgment. He didn't realize it would be so difficult to hold Kurds,
Sunnis and Shiites together without "Saddam's terror" or that it would
be impossible to build a "free state" on the foundations of "35 years
of police terror." What's more, his revulsion at Saddam's repression of
the Kurds (apparently one he doesn't feel for the Turk's repression of
the same people, at least not enough for him to plead for a war on
Turkey on humanitarian grounds) left him blinded to the reality that
just "because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and
Kosovo (didn't mean) it had to be doing so in Iraq."

Ignatieff's mea culpa has enough references to "Saddam's terror" to
make plain he still regards the invasion as justifiable on moral
grounds (as in, it's all right to kill 600,000 to depose one man from
power, especially when he keeps giving away all the oil concessions to
the wrong countries.) Moreover, his claim that US intervention in
Bosnia and Kosovo represented a defense of human rights and freedom
genuflects to the myths upon which the doctrine of humanitarian
intervention is built. Ignatieff isn't apologizing for "imperialism
lite"; he's defending it.

The United States no more defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia
and Kosovo than it is doing today in Iraq and Afghanistan, except for
the rights of those who own income-producing property and the freedom
of US corporations, banks and investors to secure profitable
investments, i.e., rights that are against the interests of you and me
but are dearly held by those who give Ignatieff high-profile academic
posts, open the op-ed pages of the New York Times to him, and encourage
him with money and advice in his bid to become Canada's prime minister.

Ignatieff speaks the language of the bamboozler. It is enough, he
knows, to invoke the terms human rights and freedom, without in any way
indicating whose rights he's talking about and what referent he's
pairing freedom with (free to achieve what or be free from what?) to
get people to at least acquiesce to the idea of war. This, George Bush,
Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown also know. And so, in his mea culpa, human
rights and freedom get star billing. Ignatieff wants us to believe his
intentions, like those of America, were good; it's just that his zeal
to promote human rights and freedom kept him from seeing that Saddam
had poisoned the soil in which the US government has so painstakingly
tried to plant the seeds of democracy.

It's impossible to take Ignatieff seriously. His self-appointed role is
to justify the US ruling class's naked pursuit of its class interests
by dressing them up in the galvanizing language of humanitarianism to
bring the rest of us onboard. His job is to enlist you and me to be the
dupes who will sign up to fight in, promote, or acquiesce to, wars
Bechtel, Exxon-Mobil, Lockheed-Martin, Chase Manhattan and scores of
wealthy investors will profit from.

For this he is amply rewarded with high-profile academic positions, a
pulpit in high-circulation establishment newspapers, and financial
backing for his dalliances with electoral politics. Were he a German in
Hitler's Germany he would be on Goebbels's payroll, putting a
humanitarian gloss on the Fuehrer's aggressions; in Mussolini's Italy
he would be demonizing Haile Selassie, pleading for an Abyssinian
invasion; and in Tojo's Japan, he would be calling for the invasion of
China to liberate Asia from Western imperialism. Like the sophists who
hired out their forensic skills to the highest bidder,

Igantieff is an intellectual whore who trades his credentials and
skills of persuasion to shape public opinion in support of his patron's
wars for profits. His mea culpa is no apology; it is simply an attempt
to save face now that the humanitarian disaster of Iraq has become an
embarrassment that can no longer be ignored.

End Notes:

(1) Michael Ignatieff, "Getting Iraq Wrong", The New York Times, August
5, 2007.

(2) Ignatieff's deep feelings of humanitarian solidarity extend only to 
ethnic minorities whose plights Washington uses as a pretext to
intervene in the affairs of other countries. Ignatieff feels sympathy
for the Muslim community of Bosnia and ethnic Albanian Kosovars, but
not for Palestinians or Lebanese. During the summer, 2006 Israel
re-invasion of southern Lebanon, Ignatieff dismissed deaths of Lebanese
civilians by Israeli forces as something "he wasn't losing sleep over."
-Toronto Globe and Mail, August 31, 2006.