Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to take part in what I feel is a very important debate on Canada's intervention in the former Yugoslavia, Serbia specifically.
I would like to start with a Latin saying Si vis pacem, para bellum , which means if you wish peace, prepare for war. I must admit that it is a bit ironic to start my speech in such a way, since it is linked in a way with the principle of dissuasion which has put the planet in fear for the past while.
In the light of what is going on at the present time, however, this saying must be understood as having a totally new connotation as we speak. We find ourselves in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to use force, even to wage war, in order, ironically, to impose peace. Given that peace is defined in relation to war, in that peace can only exist in the absence of conflict, needless to say there is some feeling of discomfort about all of this, one that is totally legitimate under the circumstances.
I would also say that a degree of sympathy can be felt for the Serbian demonstrators throughout the world, including here in Canada and Quebec, who are massing in front of legislative buildings and foreign consulates to protest NATO intervention in their country.
It is understandable that seeing their country attacked in this way may indeed awake in them a certain nationalistic pride. As well, they have very legitimate concerns about their relatives and friends still living in the former Yugoslavia.
While we can sympathize with these protesters, while we deeply care for peace, it is absolutely out of the question not to act, to stand idly by while terrible things are going on in Kosovo.
We cannot stand idly by when such ethnic cleansing operations—which look more and more like genocide—are taking place. It is impossible to remain silent when we see such massive displacements of human beings, when we see 650,000 people forced to leave and go into exile. We cannot remain silent when we see those burned houses, those civilians killed in such cowardly fashion.
Some might wonder if it was absolutely necessary to go to war. Was it absolutely necessary to resort to military action against Yugoslavia?
First, it is illusory to think we could simply have relied on the good will of the Belgrade regime, considering that even NATO's bombings cannot undermine its grim determination to literally eradicate Kosovo's Albanian population, by whatever means are necessary.
Remembering Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia should be enough to convince us that military action was absolutely necessary. Neither must we forget that the government of Milosevic knowingly, deliberately turning its back, violated a number of the resolutions passed by the United Nations on the internal situation, resolutions 1199 and 1203, and the October 1998 agreements between the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO and the former Yugoslavia.
The international community criticized Milosevic on several occasions, but he decided to turn a deaf ear to the appeals of the international community. How could we, under the circumstances, remain indifferent, not act, do nothing?
My colleague for Terrebonne—Blainville recalled a number of relevant precedents earlier. We must remember that the international community remained silent, did nothing and watched impassively as Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. A few years later, it was definitely silent and impassive as Austria was annexed. It was silent, I might even say it was an accomplice, in the breakup of Czechoslovakia with the infamous Munich agreements that France and England signed.
When Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to London, the man who would later become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, said:
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war”.
He said “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
I think we should remember the lessons from these words of Winston Churchill. You can of course say the situation is different today, that one involved aggression against foreign countries, although in the case of the remilitarization of the Rhineland, it was a bit different, it involved the annexation of foreign countries, so it was not an internal matter.
Any aggression against a foreign country violates international law. NATO's action would therefore be illegal, except that there is a growing conviction that there is an obligation, not to say a duty, under international law to intervene on humanitarian grounds.
To draw a parallel with domestic law, standing idly by and watching what is happening in Kosovo without taking some sort of action in spite of the humanitarian duty to do so would be tantamount to doing nothing to help a person in danger.
The international community had a duty to intervene. Because of how it operates, and because of the Russian and Chinese vetoes, the UN was not in a position to intervene. The international community turned to NATO.
We should also be glad that NATO decided to provide a form of humanitarian assistance to the civilian populations forced to flee to neighbouring countries, in addition to its military intervention.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Liberal government to put the question of any future intervention by ground troops to a vote following a debate in the House. It is only right in a democratic country such as Canada that something as fundamental as sending ground troops abroad be approved by members of the House.