Rights, Freedoms and Repression Woman whose soup run fed 250 homeless in Dublin told to cease or face €300k fine 21:35 Feb 07 2 comments Germany cannot give up it's Nazi past - Germany orders Holocaust survivor institutionalized over Cov... 23:31 Jan 14 1 comments Crisis in America: Deaths Up 40% Among Those Aged 18-64 Based on Life Insurance Claims for 2021 Afte... 23:16 Jan 06 0 comments Protests over post-vaccination deaths spread across South Korea 23:18 Dec 26 0 comments Chris Hedges: The execution of Julian Assange 22:19 Dec 19 1 comments more >>Blog Feeds
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony Waiting for SIPO Anthony
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
News Round-Up Wed Dec 25, 2024 00:32 | Richard Eldred
Starmer Doesn?t Have a Feel for Politics and His Team Lacks the Skills to Run the Country, Says Vete... Tue Dec 24, 2024 19:00 | Will Jones
Church of England Tells Clergy to Edit Christmas Carols to ?Avoid Unnecessary Offence? Tue Dec 24, 2024 18:00 | Will Jones
Best-Selling Hybrids Face Net Zero Ban From 2030 Tue Dec 24, 2024 15:42 | Will Jones
Experts Call For Return of Lockdown-Style Social Distancing as Flu Surges, Claiming ?a Fifth of Thos... Tue Dec 24, 2024 13:46 | Will Jones
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international editionVoltaire, International Newsletter N?113 Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:42 | en Pentagon could create a second Kurdish state Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:31 | en How Washington and Ankara Changed the Regime in Damascus , by Thierry Meyssan Tue Dec 17, 2024 06:58 | en Statement by President Bashar al-Assad on the Circumstances Leading to his Depar... Mon Dec 16, 2024 13:26 | en Voltaire, International Newsletter N?112 Fri Dec 13, 2024 15:34 | en |
AUDIO: Amnesty Lecture 2005: Michael Ignatieff speaks at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
dublin |
rights, freedoms and repression |
feature
Monday January 17, 2005 20:36 by kevin - imc éire
Listen to the MP3 recordings of the lecture, and the Q + A session afterwards.
A comprehensive biography of Michael Ignatieff is available here. In this lecture in the Edmund Burke Theatre in Trinity College Dublin, Ignatieff deals with what he terms "American Exceptionalism" and Human Rights in todays world. He talks about the many contradictions that the current US administration operates under. Controversially, he describes the US as both a leader and an outlier of human rights, and talks about this in relation to the US "project" of democracy in the Middle East. He also brings into question the concept of our own neutrality, among many other topics and values that the liberal communties and human rights advocates tried to achieve in the run up to the war in Iraq.
You can download and listen to this lecture. There are two MP3 files to download. The first audio download is 41 minutes long, and the filesize is 39 Megabytes. This contains the introduction to the talk by Ron Hill, professor of political science at Trinity College Dublin, and then the Amnesty Lecture by Michael Ignatieff. The second audio download is 29 minutes long, and the filesize is 27 Megabytes. This is an edited recording of the Questions & Answers session afterwards, which was chaired by Olivia O'Leary, a well known Irish radio & TV journalist. If you would like a CD copy of this lecture, please contact Indymedia Éire. Thanks to Amnesty Ireland for facilitating the recording of this lecture. Amnesty Ireland is part of Amnesty International, an international organisation fighting for human rights worldwide. You can find out more information at their website at www.amnesty.ie |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (13 of 13)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13To my mind he presonifies, more than anybody else, the craven and sycophantic attitude of US intelectuals to the wholescale terrorism of their political masters. He ignores the obvious motivations and naked imperialism of the US state and prefers to obscure all before him in such intellectually empty concepts as "exceptionalism". By enveloping reality in these, apparently subtle and sophisticated nuances, which are in reality just ignoring the obvious, he creates a space that allows the complicit to avoid facing their complicity in crimes.
For example, he appears to believe that the US has a genuine interest in their much promoted 'democratic' project in Iraq, contrary to all the historical and current evidence. He often pontificates on the nature of terrorism, but for some reason decides to define terrorism in such a way that the actions of states are not included. This allows him to generalise and philosophise about the official enemy, without the merest hint of context and renders his thoughts as worthless.
“To my mind he presonifies, more than anybody else, the craven and sycophantic attitude of US intelectuals to the wholescale terrorism of their political masters.”
Ahem…..except he happens to be Canadian!!!!!
Very clever. He also happens to be a professor in Harvard. Where he was born isn't really that important to his role in propagating ideas.
" Where he was born isn't really that important to his role in propagating idea"
or "expressing his views" as it's known to the civilised world
"or "expressing his views" as it's known to the civilised world"
I was actually being quite precise in my language. Intellectual elites, such as Harvard professors, have a function in Western societies which means that when they express themselves in public, they are also actively propagating ideas within society. I was refering to his role in this process.
If somebody else wants to quibble with my contribution, how about actually disagreeing with the content rather than playing the pedantic smart alec.
...but it did get me thinking in a lot of ways.
I know that the US has a history thats based on imperialism & capitalism, and that their previous invasions are based on greed, and Olivia O'Leary takes him up on this in the Q+A session - but crucially it got me asking: how can we stop dictators in remote places oppressing minorities?
Saddam Hussein's regime WAS involved in human rights abuses - how can we stop this happening, practically?
Do we encourage them to take up arms themselves?
Do we sit back and do nothing?
Do we slap economic sanctions on the country?
Do we adopt of a position of neutrality and not get involved?
If the Nazis were persecuting the Jews today, would the antiwar movement object to a US invasion?
I dont have any answers to these questions, just random thoughts.
"how can we stop dictators"
The key question is who is the 'we' in the above question. You can hide a lot of wars behind that 'we' if by it you mean 'me and George Bush'.
In reality 'we' don't get to make such decisions, 'we' are simply given the choice of supporting or opposing those made by Bush, Blair etc.
QOUTE: Saddam Hussein's regime WAS involved in human rights abuses - how can we stop this happening, practically?
Well, we could not be selling arms to countries like Indonesia that are human rights abusers. We could not trade with violators of international law that torture and murder civilians: like the USA.
That'd be a small start. It'd be much more practical than anything I've heard Ignatieff propose.
QOUTE: Saddam Hussein's regime WAS involved in human rights abuses - how can we stop this happening, practically?
To add to what my esteemed co-commenteers Joe and R.Isible have said above. Firstly, this question is based on a false assumption, namely that the political power in the US has any interest in getting rid of dictators and stopping human rights abuses. Even the most casual look at the history of US foreign policy shows very clearly that this is not the case. In fact, there is remarkably clear evidence that in the poorer parts of the world they favour dictators who invariably carry out human rights abuses. Look at their actions in Chile, Panama, Iran, Liberia, Haiti, etc, etc....
For a man with the obvious intelligence of somebody like Ignatieff to somehow ignore this glaringly obvious fact is simply beneath contempt. Even in Iraq, all the evidence points towards the fact that they have consistently favoured dictators. They supported Saddam until 1990 and helped to arm him - the period during which he carried out his worst atrocities. In 1991, they neglected to depose him as they couldn't guarantee that whatever replaced him would be amenable to their control. They even expressly gave him permission to quash the two rebellions after the first gulf slaughter by relaxing the restrictions on the no fly zone. Between 1991 and 2002, they openly promoted the idea of a 'palace coup' whereby he would be replaced by a former henchman who would be obedient to them. Their policy was quite open about containing him and they were quite against any forces that might democratise Iraq.
In a hypothetic world where the US did want to institute some sort of genuine democracy in Iraq, one could speculate about many thousands of ways in which they might undermine his dictatorial rule. but that is a question for abstract dreamers.
...
Well, listening to this asshat was a nauseating trial (but thanks for posting it) - to critique this barrage of rubbish would be a long and dreary task; luckily it has already been comprehensively done by CounterPunch - check the link for an excellent article on this character -- http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann12082003.html
>>excerpt
"Ignatieff cooks up a testosterone-laced stew in which morsels of freedom and human rights are seasoned with crushing violence, enlightened greed, and calculated hypocrisy. His world contains three races: the ballsy Anglo-Saxons; the Western European surrender monkeys; and those hysterically dim-witted, childlike underachievers, the natives. He avoids explicit racism only through studied obtuseness."
This appearance does at least help show us the true colours of what Amnesty International has become; that such a crass purveyor of imperialist 'White Man's Burden' ideology all tarted-up in pitiful 'Humanitarian' garb is carted to Ireland to patronise, upbraid and instruct the Natives in the performance of their duties to the Imperial Master is a pretty effective indication of underlying AI policy/agenda. His basic message, not easy to decode, is really very simple - "On your knees, white Niggers!!"
All the labourious name-dropping and ass-kissing seems to indicate a champange-circuit social outing for the Irish 'great and good' to lap up; obfuscation and flattery combined with some serious stealth indoctrination. This is a dangerous man, but probably quite effective at what he does. The US ruling class is obviously very happy to sponsor such an obsurantist 'kept intellectual' as a spokesman for its interests.
Quo vadis Amnesty International?
America's claim that it's invasion of Iraq was equally based on the arms issue and Human Rights is hard to believe.
America selects the Human Rights issues that bring advantage to itself either politically or economically. What has America done for the 1.5 milion Tibetans murdered by the Chinese since 1959. Has America any plans to invade China and depose that regime?.
America picks its targets and uses Human Rights as its excuse to rape and pillage.
In its own land it murders more of its own citizens than any country in the world. It murders children and people with learning disabilities without discrimination.
Badman is bang-on.........Well done! You don't have to look very hard to see how complemantary a person like Ignatieff is to a Bush-Blair elitist view of the world. Enjoyed reading your comments, keep up the good work.
http://www.zmag.org/ZNET is a wealth of info.