Modeling Journey

In the Montreal debate, Stephane Dion (despite the boos of Ignatieff supporters) referred to the Ignatieff Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dion was right in doing so.

And Ignatieff owes Liberals and Canadians a full and clear explanation of his recommendations in the article he wrote in the April 19, 2002 The Guardian, headed Why Bush Must Send in His Troops - Imposing a Two-State Solution is the Last Chance for Middle East.

Ignatieff said after the Montreal debate that he stood by his previous writings. Good.

The question facing Liberals in the leadership campaign is a simple one: Does Ignatieff's recommendation to the President of the United States to send troops into Israel in order to impose an American-designed peace on Israel and on the Palestinians, fit the model of the Liberal Party with respect to the use of force to solve international disputes?

When his advocacy in this article is linked to his advocacy of unilateral use of force by the USA in Iraq, a legitimate question arises: If he became Prime Minister, would Ignatieff be committing Canadian troops to enforce unilateral solutions in places around the globe, even without UN sanction of such steps?

Dion was right in linking Ignatieff's support for the Iraqi adventure with his support for the President of the US to impose a solution on Israel and the Palestinians by force of American arms.

This is an extraordinary position for a man who would be Prime Minister of Canada to take. To recommend that American troops be used to impose a solution dreamed up by outsiders on parties in a part of the world who do not agree amongst themselves on a solution to their problems. Equally disturbing, is Ignatieff's justification for such a step as being America's interest.

To summarize, this potential Prime Minister of Canada recommended that America should impose a solution of a dispute among peoples in conflict by use of force, if America saw this as being in America's interest.

What exactly did Ignatieff say in the April 2002 article? Let's summarize:

- While flying over the West Bank, he gained the impression it was a "Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control."

- The Israelis have failed to realize it is in their interest to have a strong Palestinian Authority capable of providing services to their people and to keep them from wanting to kill Israelis;

- The Palestinians have failed to realize that a good neighbour is a strong one;

- If his argument is true, the only hope for Israel to survive is the "recreation of a viable Palestinian state, with a monopoly on the means of violence";

- Both sides were in 2002 bitter and traumatized, with feelings they were being led "by people who are incapable of making peace";

- "But it is also equally clear that neither side is capable of making peace, or even sitting in the same room to discuss it."

What was the Ignatieff Solution? Let's use his own words in this article to describe it:

- "The Americans now face a historic choice. For 50 years, they have played the double game of both guaranteeing Israel's security and serving as honest broker in the region. This game can't go on."

- "The prestige and leadership of the United States, its vital national interests, are now on line. Without a settlement in the Middle East, it has no possibility of support from Arab governments in its campaign against Islamist terrorists."

And then his absolute recommendation to the President of the United States:

"The only way to seize the opportunity is to impose a two-state solution now, before the extremists succeed in removing it from the realm of possibility forever." And: "Imposing a peace of this amplitude on both parties, and committing the troops to back it up, would be the most dramatic exercise of presidential leadership since the Cuban missile crisis."

Note the words Ignatieff uses: imposing a solution, backed up by troops.

Let's explore where this line of reasoning might take Canada if Ignatieff was Prime Minister of Canada. Would be support unilateral action by American troops to enforce an American solution, if the US President deemed it in America's interest, if:

- Conflict arose within a province of Canada (say, in Quebec, between Francophones and First Nations)?

- An Albertan government was to decide to hold a referendum to decide whether to exit Canada and join with the US, and violent demonstrations, for and against, broke out, and the American President, after considering the importance of the vast oil deposits in the oil sands, decided it was in America's interest to allow the referendum to take place, by quelling the demonstrations, and, if the result of the vote was for union with the USA, enforcing this decision using American troops in Alberta? Even if this meant such troops might be used against Canadian troops or police sent in by the federal government of Canada?

- The US President decided it was in America's interest to use force (bombs, missiles and troops of a coalition of the willing on the ground) to overthrow the government of Iran and install a west-friendly government? Perhaps in return for guaranteed access to oil supplies for the USA.

- A President decided it was in his country's interest to secure reliable oil supplies from an African / South American (you insert one) state, and decided to use force to replace the current government there, back an exiled government, stop hostilities, restore peace, build up institutions, and implement a mini-Marshall Plan to improve the standard of living of the inhabitants, reduce mortality rates, and educate women and children?

All because it is in America's interest.

Is this the man Liberals want to head up their party, and become Prime Minister of Canada?