Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Prime Minister for allowing this debate and also for allowing members such as me to express their individual opinions freely and openly and according to individual conscience.
I do not necessarily share the majority view of my colleagues from my own party but I must speak out in the way I feel. The question is this.
Should we or should we not participate in a U.S. led military operation and provide the U.S. with the logistic support it is asking for?
If ever there was a consensus in this debate, it is around zero tolerance for Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, brutality, savagery and cowardice and his systematic violation of human rights, especially those of the Kurdish people. We cannot let Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government continue to defy United Nations resolutions and inspection teams with impunity. We cannot let Iraq and the Iraqi government continue to produce chemical and biological weapons capable of killing people by the millions around the world.
While there is a widespread consensus about the Iraqi dictatorship, that of Saddam Hussein, there is no consensus on the approach to convincing the Iraqi dictator and his government to do as democracy would dictate, yield to reason and comply with UN resolutions.
I have to admit, and I find it very sad to do so, that the United States has gradually become the lone ranger of the new world order. It seems to me, fond as I am of the United States and Americans, that since Eisenhower, with the brief exception of Jimmy Carter, all U.S. presidents seemed to have sought their own shoot-outs at the O.K. Corral, believing as they seem to do that U.S. might is inevitably right.
Unfortunately their shoot-outs have had far more serious consequences to the international world order than that at the O.K. Corral. They have known the Bay of Pigs under President Kennedy, the Vietnam war under President Johnson and the amplification of the Vietnam war by the massive bombing of Laos and Cambodia under Nixon, the brief respite under Jimmy Carter followed by the invasion of Grenada under President Reagan. Of course, there was the Iran Contra operation and, more recently under President Bush, Panama and of course the 1991 gulf war.
It seems to me, listening to the news, that President Clinton and his cabinet are sparring for another fight, almost brimming with eagerness to take on another shoot-out, this time against Iraq.
Let us give President Bush his due. Iraq had invaded a neighbouring country and the military operation to free Kuwait was sanctioned fully by the United Nations.
Several Arab countries supported the deployment of troops to the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia had agreed to let its territory be used for that purpose.
Today's reality is completely different. There is no invasion threat by Iraq, which does not have the capacity to do it. There is considerable diplomatic activity and pressure led by important nations such as Russia and France, members of the security council.
There is no clear support at the UN, in the world at large and certainly not in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia at this time refuses the use of its territory to any military operation.
The only countries supporting the United States are the United Kingdom, which has been traditionally tied to the U.S. by a special friendship, and to a lesser extent Germany. Under the circumstances, why should we accept to participate in a potential military operation?
Time calls for caution. I back the words of my colleague for Davenport for caution, restraint and for continuing diplomatic activity and pressure, in which we should play a leading role. We should have nothing to do with any bombing or military operation, massive or otherwise, which experts hold will not change the reality and displace Saddam Hussein. It will only provoke international unrest and cause an untold number of human lives to be lost.
Further, we should ask this question. Does the U.S. really need our logistic support to carry out this operation? The U.S., a mighty formidable power with its own military and logistic systems, does not need us. What it needs is our name on its sparse shopping list, to add one more country to the two that already support it to beef it up.
Given the reality of today's conditions, the example which should inspire us is that of Lester Pearson. I recall clearly, during the Vietnam war, on U.S. territory, when he directly addressed President Johnson, and said “your military operation flies in the face of common sense, of respect for human life and world opinion”.
I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to tell President Clinton that his request is premature and that all diplomatic avenues have yet to be explored. Given our tremendous international credibility we should use it and become the leader in exerting diplomatic pressures on Iraq. We should join Russia, France, Germany and others to urge them to obey the world order. I urge caution, restraint and continuing diplomatic pressure.
The answer we should give President Clinton is until all these avenues have been explored and exhausted, we must defer any intervention on our part. For the time being we should say no.