The Big Picture

I don't want to get fratricidal on anyone, especially not after being a card-carrying progressive for only a few days. But Scott Tribe gets something wrong when he writes this:

Let's be clear - Ignatieff is what we would call a liberal "hawk". He supported the Iraq war initially (though he has criticized the intelligence that was used to go), not just because of the supposed WMD's but because he believed that getting rid of Saddam was the best way to bring democracy to the region. Obviously, that puts him at odds with a fair number of the Progressive community, as does his publicly supporting the US's Ballistic MIssile Defence (BMD) shield program. There are calls to have him defeated because of this.. to keep him out of Parliament and to derail any chance he has of becoming the next Liberal leader/PM in waiting.

I dont find the argument that you're trying to derail a future leader of the Liberal Party with potentially pro-US or hawkish views on international relations very convincing. I think people are way overstating his supposed chances of winning. Liberal Party delegates are on the whole more left-of-centre then their politicians/leaders are, and despite the good reviews Ignatieff got at the Liberal convention earlier this year, his views simply would not win him votes in any leadership convention among the grassroots of the Liberal Party.

Scott needs to explain how Liberal leaders keep getting elected if their delegates are more to the left of the politicians who represent them. I'm pretty sure he's right that Liberal Party delegates are further to the left than Martin or certainly Ignatieff. But that hasn't kept Martin or Ignatieff out of the leadership, or potential leadership. If Ignatieff is elected, I'm confident he will a) find a place in cabinet, and b) try for a leadership position in the party.

But that's not what's important in Scott's post. This is:

Given the choice between electing someone who has opinions on a couple of topics that I dont agree with, and electing a Conservative candidate (who I can probably safely say I would disagree with on almost everything) whose seat gain theoretically might contribute to putting neo- and social conservative Stephen Harper in as the PM and the Conservatives as the ruling party, the choice to me is pretty clear:- I hope Ignatieff wins, and I think progressives who are trying to rally to defeat him are indeed not looking at the "big picture" here.

I agree with Scott that a Conservative victory is a fearsome prospect. And on the face of it, it doesn't seem like it makes sense to vote against the pro-war Ignatieff if it helps bring in the pro-war Conservative government. But Scott is wrong. The victory or defeat of one Liberal candidate is not sufficient to make or unmake a government. Furthermore, the Conservatives have at the very least backed off from their support for the war, something Ignatieff hasn't had the good sense to do. We don't have a PR system, and for once it's paying off. The people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore can vote against Ignatieff, and all they're doing is voting against Ignatieff. Which they should do, even if it means voting Conservative (though for obvious reasons, I hope they vote NDP.) If the election results are so bad that a Martin government is defeated for the lack of one MP, then maybe I'll eat my words later.

Why should they vote against Ignatieff? Because this - a single riding in Ontario - is not, as Scott puts it, "the big picture". This is:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained...

-UN Charter, Preamble

So is this:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

-UN Convention Against Torture, Article 2.

We in Canada aren't at war in Iraq. It's tempting therefore to let this debate slide simply in to a partisan fight. It isn't one. It cannot be allowed to be merely a partisan fight. After World War II, aggressive war was called the "supreme war crime" from which all others follow. When Ignatieff argues in favour of the Iraq War, he's not just advocating a different path for Canadian foreign policy. He's advocating a war crime - the war crime, in fact.

The war in Iraq was not just an attack on a nation innocent of the allegations made by the US. Rather, as many US advocates stated quite plainly, the war against Iraq was part of a plan to undermine the entire post-WWII international system, especially the UN. This was most recently expressed by the Pentagon itself:

WASHINGTON - America’s strength is being challenged by “a strategy of the weak,” a Pentagon document says, listing diplomatic and legal challenges in international forums in the same sentence with terrorism.

The sentence is one of several that describe U.S. vulnerabilities in the document, released Friday, titled “The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America.”

“Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak focusing on international fora, judicial processes and terrorism,” it says. It does not go into detail.

I've drifted a bit from Ignatieff, but this is important. If one party in Canada supports the war in Iraq, fine. Something like 25-35% of Canadian supported the war when it began, and Harper has a right to express his views. But it is crucial that the Liberal party not be allowed to support war crimes. We already have the pro-war crime party, the Conservatives. Allowing Ignatieff in to the Liberal club would simply mean Canadians could only choose between one of two pro-war, pro-torture parties.

As bad as this would be for the voters, it could destroy Canada's international image. Ignatieff's views would be seen as rewarded by the Canadian electorate. Our country has for 60 years been one of the strongest advocates for international law and human rights, and electing Ignatieff would undo that - not all of it, but it would tarnish an otherwise excellent (though not perfect) record. Our support for the UN and the ICC is what the Pentagon calls a "strategy of the weak", and they equate us with terrorists for it. Ignatieff similarly disparaged the international community for getting in the way of his precious war. I think our support for international law and human rights is what makes Canada great, what makes us an exceptional country. Ignatieff's presence in cabinet would pollute that, and frankly would make me ashamed of my country.

He cannot be allowed to win. If that means a Conservative MP from Toronto, even if it means Prime Minster Harper, so be it.