Mr. Speaker, considering the present situation, I do not think that it would be rude to point out that world diplomacy did not play its role very well. Had it fully played its role and been fully effective, we could have avoided military intervention.
It would have been better to go about things differently. For me, diplomacy is always the first choice. When we can solve a problem without resorting to arms, I think that is the course we must take.
In this case, NATO would have a much stronger position, morally, if it had been what I would call the military arm of the UN. That would have been a lot more effective, and it would be a lot easier to build a consensus among countries outside of NATO.
Earlier, I gave the example of Mexico. Had there been a UN resolution justifying a military strike based on the need to protect human rights in the Balkans, I think our position would have been much stronger.
My intention was not to lash out against Canada's actions on various issues over recent years. I do think that in the situation at hand, Canada could have done more than just go along with the other NATO players. It could have taken up a more dynamic, aggressive and positive role to try to bring about a broad international consensus, and thus put pressure on UN members who have a veto, like Russia and China, and find some other solution or approach. In the future, that is what we should do in other such instances.
Who can say that, a couple of months from now, we will not need a special force to defend a protectorate in Kosovo. To have a sufficient moral authority, will this special force not need a mandate from the UN?
After the NATO bombardments, soldiers involved in those NATO strikes may not be the best choice to act as a buffer between these two communities. We may need a different kind of intervention. This is what Canada should be concerned with, and it should be more active, on the diplomatic front.