Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to lend my support to the motion we are debating today. It is the second time I have risen in the House on this issue. Although nearly two years have passed since that time, my position remains the same.
We must continue to lend our support to the international community's efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans. It was these efforts after all that brought about the Dayton peace agreement and we must do our part to show our continued commitment.
As the vice-president of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, I have followed NATO's involvement in the Balkan crisis very closely. Through my participation I learned firsthand of the important role Canada plays in NATO.
For 45 years now Canada has been one of the key supporters of NATO because it was, and still is, in our national interest to do so. NATO membership has been beneficial for Canada in a number of ways: it has prevented world conflicts; it has helped us economically, by enabling us to maintain reduced armed forces, knowing that we could call for help if necessary; and, most important of all, perhaps, it has given us a voice in one of the key fora in the western world on issues of Euro-Atlantic and world security.
The greatest value of these benefits can only be achieved if Canada has credibility with its allies and continues to be an active member of NATO. It is therefore essential that Canada participate in IFOR.
We must not turn our backs on NATO, as if it were turning into a partner we could no longer trust to produce Euro-Atlantic and world security arrangements. It would not be in our interests to do so, particularly since the creation of IFOR is a key element in the changing structures and operations of NATO.
NATO's integrated command structure has always been one of its strong points. The Alliance is the only organization that has created an effective military force from the contributions of its various member states. During the cold war, however, this was a static structure spread out as widely as possible throughout its member states, with its eyes resolutely glued to the eastern bloc. This is not what we need now to ensure our security or that of our allies.
We need a NATO which is cheaper, which is flexible, which can act in any direction from which a threat can emerge and which can assemble forces organized, trained and tailored to a range of possible uses from classical peacekeeping to humanitarian intervention to collective defence.
As well, the NATO for the modern era must also be able to work with others, be they multilateral institutions like the UN or SCE which need organized military muscle or other countries, big and small, which see an interest in what concerns NATO.
In January 1994 such a concept for the evolution of NATO was endorsed by the North Atlantic Council under the concept of combined joint task forces. However, since then, the concept has been stalled in spite of Canada's best efforts to move it along.
Necessity being the mother of invention, the need for NATO to get its act together to enforce the peace in Bosnia is resulting in the alliance's first combined joint task force, the IFOR. There must be no going back for NATO and Canada's voice will only be heard in making these lessons stick if it is part of this latest great step forward in the adaptation of NATO.
Now would be perhaps the worst of times to turn our back on NATO and our allies but the value of participating in IFOR to maintain allied solidarity is at most only half the story. For the past three years, Canada and Canadians have seen participation in multilateral military operations in the former Yugoslavia as being in our national interest.
It was in our national interest because we consider European security part and parcel of our own. We have trade, historical, military and emotional ties with Europe. We have learned from
experience that European conflicts can spread to our allies, and even to our own country. In the past, Balkan conflicts have had a particularly strong tendency to spread with a ripple effect, as far as Canada even.
If we wish to be able to continue to depend on the protection of an effective system of international security for ourselves, we must make a significant contribution to it when the system is being used to protect others.
Many Canadians originally come from these areas and an even larger number come from neighbouring countries whose stability is at risk.
Canadians cannot stand aside while others suffer. Many people in Bosnia today owe their lives to the presence of Canadians.
The signing of a peace agreement has not obscured this aspect of our national interest, and we will not be satisfied until Bosnia and the surrounding region once again enjoy stability, peace and security. This will require the full implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. This, after what has happened in the past, will require the presence on the ground of a multinational military force under the command of NATO.
We have struggled and bled through the worst of times in Bosnia. What do the effort, money and lives that have been spent to date mean if the job is not carried through to its conclusion? It is for these reasons that I support the motion and Canadian participation in IFOR.
My support and what I hope will be the support of this House does not give the government, the military planners or NATO carte blanche to send Canadian troops on the mission. Canadian participation in IFOR should conform with the principles for multilateral missions laid out in the 1994 white paper, including a clear and enforceable mandate, an effective consultation process among mission partners, a defined concept of operations and clear rules of engagement.
The Dayton agreement provides the foundation for a clear and binding mandate. NATO's participation guarantees the presence of a separate agency to monitor the situation. It also provides guarantees for an effective consultation process, until now often lacking in UN operations in Bosnia.
The membership of IFOR, which includes nearly all NATO member countries, Russia and up to 19 other countries, should be
sufficiently diverse to be acceptable to all parties. There is every indication that principles fairly similar to ours formed the basis for planning operations.
Clearly Canada's participation in implementing the peace plan cannot be open ended. The seemingly never ending peacekeeping mission in Cyprus must not be repeated. While the UN operation in Cyprus was an example of classical peacekeeping, different from the peace enforcement initiatives being put forward by IFOR, it is imperative that a definitive timetable be put forward.
The UN security council has repeatedly called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus, the voluntary return of refugees to their homes, the cessation of all interference in the internal affairs of Cyprus and respect for its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity. Now more than 20 years later, the situation on the ground is no different with more than 30,000 heavily armed Turkish troops continuing to illegally occupy nearly 40 per cent of the territory of Cyprus. The UN mission in Cyprus has been hampered time and time again by the intransigence of Turkey.
The proposal for the complete demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus put forward by the president of Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, is the concrete solution to this longstanding problem. Similar resolutions have been supported in the United States congress and most recently the Australian Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution in support of the demilitarization of Cyprus. Canada must also put forward a resolution in support of this to indicate that the status quo is no longer acceptable and negotiated settlements must be brought forward.
Time and time again it has been seen that only a united effort will bring about the resolution of the most complex disputes. Today's debate will lend Canada's voice to the united effort that is being put forward in helping to bring peace to the Balkans.
At this point I wish to refer to the continued response of Canada to the humanitarian issues in the former Yugoslavia. As chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration I applaud the initiatives of the government through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Under the special measures program nearly 7,000 citizens of the former Yugoslavia have been landed in Canada since 1992. As well, the joint sponsorship program has seen more 270 persons in need of resettlement sponsored to date.
The government will continue these programs for as long as a need for humanitarian aid continues. It is part of our commitment to the United Nations and our responsibility to the international community to ease the suffering of citizens in the formerYugoslavia.
The people of Canada will not rest until peace and security have been restored in Bosnia. As parliamentarians we have a duty to support them and to oblige the government to report on the progress of this mission.
In conclusion, I believe that Canada should participate under NATO command first because it is in our national interest to take our three years of efforts to bring peace and succour to Bosnia to the logical and positive conclusion and second, because it is a demonstration of our commitment to NATO which is a vital component of our national security.