Pyrcz and Ignatieff not so far apart

(From The Advertiser)

To the Editor:



Greg Pyrcz's commentary (“Thinking through Ignatieff’s rights revolution�, The Advertiser, Oct. 17, 2006) on Michael Ignatieff's views on the role of human rights in foreign policy begs the question of what the latter's views really are on this question. Ignatieff's purported view that human rights violations absolutely justify military interventions (e.g. in Iraq or Afghanistan) regardless of the human cost or the absence of any meaningful democratic consultation is surely morally irresponsible.

On the other hand, just as Ignatieff has offered a series of changing and sometimes contradictory views on whether Israel committed war crimes in last summer's invasion of Lebanon, in like fashion he has on occasion been much more nuanced and flexible than he is portrayed by Greg Pyrcz with respect to the role of human rights in foreign interventions.

I am referring to the important doctrine "The Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). In the aftermath of the massacres in Rwanda and the intervention in Bosnia, this doctrine was developed in 2001 at the initiative of the Canadian government as a means of guiding the international community, and particularly the U.N. Security Council, in responding to situations where populations within nation states are threatened by genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. Michael Ignatieff was one of the co-authors of this doctrine, which was subsequently endorsed by the U.N. General Assembly in 2005 and the Security Council in 2006.

Among the criteria for military intervention enunciated within the R2P doctrine are: that all other peaceful forms of intervention have been tried and failed; that the military intervention is proportionate to the threat posed; and that the intervention will do more good than harm to the threatened population.

Greg Pyrcz's discussion of human rights as guiding principles, which take into consideration the likely outcome of military interventions, is quite consistent with the R2P doctrine. If only the Martin and Harper governments had taken to heart the fruits of Canada's own international diplomacy!

Canada would have surely adopted a far more positive and constructive approach to the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East, an approach consistent with our country's historic peacekeeping role.



Yours sincerely

Scott Burbidge

Port Williams, NS