Debates of April 27th, 1999

Supply

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, the motion launched today reminds us that, with the end of the cold war, peace based on the status quo, which lasted for almost half a century, has ended and we are having an historical step backward, an historical anachronism, the revival of ethnic conflicts of the sort we had at the end of the 19th century and up to the war of 1914. It is one of the paradoxes that the cold war ends and a new period of ethnic strife which simply revives quarrels that existed before begins.

Getting to the substance of the debate, we are a member of a military alliance, for better or for worse, which was designed to end the cold war and which worked very well, so much so that after the Korean war there were no direct clashes between the two superpowers or their rival blocs. The alliance is there. The alliance called for this particular action. As a member of the alliance, we accepted the obligations.

However, that does not mean that our continuing foreign policy has been put to one side. The emphasis of Canada has always been on quiet diplomacy rather than headline diplomacy. It remains our effort to operate through international authority, through the United Nations to which all regional security organizations are subjected and legally subordinate.

The efforts are continuing. They are continuing through quiet diplomacy. We must move in the first instance through the security council while the possibility remains of getting unanimous action there. These efforts are being pursued. The foreign minister is going to Moscow later this week.

If the security council should be blocked, then the opportunity remains on the uniting for peace precedent, referred to in the House by the hon. member for Halifax West and others, to proceed through the general assembly. It is worth going that extra mile and going to Moscow. That step is being taken. The foreign minister on his return from Moscow will call in on Athens.

In the last 25 years, and more particularly in the last several years, Canada has had a special interest in promoting peaceful solutions in the Balkans. We have been in continuing negotiations with sometimes a breakthrough or a window of opportunity seeming to emerge and then, no doubt for temporary reasons, disappearing.

We have been negotiating an end to the Cyprus conflict on a basis of one country and perhaps two regional parliaments or otherwise within it. Nevertheless, we have been negotiating for a solution. It is in that context that the foreign minister will be discussing with the Greek prime minister the ambitious plan that Mr. Simitis has launched.

There are merits in the Simitis plan that were not present in the German or other plans. It takes note of what perhaps only a member of the Balkan community can really be fully aware of, that there are very rarely absolute rights and wrongs, and that the capacity to demonize an opposition are not as readily present in the Balkans at the end of the 20th century as it may have been in the 19th century or in some other period.

In January, Mr. Pangalos, the Greek foreign minister at the time, referred to an initiative that had been taken by the Balkan neighbour countries to solve the then crisis in Albania, the near civil war situation. It was solved by two Balkan countries, Greece and Italy, Italy being a neighbour to the Balkan countries, but regional countries going into Albania at the invitation of the Albanian government and bringing peace and a consensus under which that country now operates.

It is a precedent that can be expanded. If one operates within the United Nations there is nothing to prevent the United Nations from designating NATO as a peacekeeping force in Kosovo if and when hostilities have ceased, but it would be under the authority of the United Nations. There is nothing to prevent a designation of a larger group which would include the addition to NATO of Russia or other countries, but it could also be an all-Balkan force and limited, conceivably—and this suggestion has been made—to non-combatant countries in the present situation. There are members of the NATO alliance that have not been engaged in combatant activity.

I know the hon. members for Halifax and Halifax West would join with me in saying that these are valuable initiatives, that each new proposal should be considered and that they can be pursued through the United Nations.

Reference has been made to international law. At certain periods I wondered whether the legal advisor had been fully consulted. In my professional career, I have often cited the example of President Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis when law and power operated together. When the president, as commander in chief, consulted the legal advisor and said “Can we do it”, he had been advised to bomb the Russian missiles in Cuba. However, he rejected it on the advice of the legal advisor. The solution, as we know, was a masterpiece of peaceful diplomacy in resolving a dispute which eventually the adversaries on both sides accepted gracefully.

Reference has been made to the naval blockade. I would remind members that this is an example of policies in evolution. The advice under international law, which was given to President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis, is that a pacific blockade can only be used to interdict access of the country that is being blockaded. Third parties cannot be reached. President Kennedy accepted that advice.

If members have been following the statements of our Minister of National Defence which have been communicated to NATO, and the opinion that President Chirac has expressed, which is in line with the advice given to President Kennedy, in a pacific blockade we cannot exclude third countries by forceful means. This advice seems to have been taken.

This is an occasion in which a debate in the House has been presented constructively without the desire to make newspaper headlines. Let us solve this problem. Let us get on track and in line with Canadian initiatives through the United Nations. Let us go the extra mile, talk to the Russians and persuade our allies and associates that this is the right way to go. This process is in operation now. It has not been trumpeted in national headlines but it is going on.

I would like to assure the House that we are trying to work through the United Nations. We will explore all opportunities for peace. After a peaceful solution it should be international.

I will put to rest the fears of many Serbian Canadians. It is not part of Canadian foreign policy or internal policy to demonize any members of our community. It is very clear that reconstruction in the Balkans after the present operations must also include Yugoslavia. We do not want to create a power vacuum which was the situation in Germany after the hostilities ended in 1945. If we create a vacuum any sort of dangerous forces move in. Peace and stability demand an inclusive and co-operative effort through the United Nations.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could respond to the types of letters I mentioned in my earlier intervention.

I have another letter from Ken Timewell who is very interested in this particular issue. Mr. Timewell does not support the aggressive military action by NATO nor does he see how it can possibly bring anything but added instability to the region. He goes on to say that it is a tragedy that the Serbian military has killed thousands of ethnic Albanians and forced hundreds of thousands more to flee their homes. He also finds it tragic how western governments have escalated the crisis with their support of NATO while shunning the United Nations, having multiplied the number of refugees and produced civilian casualties of their own. Mr. Timewell asks us how we can justify supporting the illegal bombing by NATO forces.

How would the hon. member respond to one of his constituents who wrote that sort of letter to him?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am receiving hundreds of well written and thoughtful letters from my constituents. There are deep, emotional wounds on all sides in this situation. People are writing and asking what to do.

If we go on to the positive side, I think all parties within parliament are trying to internationalize the effort, to revive the United Nations role and to make sure that the reconstruction which will follow, whether it is a completely diplomatic solution or something less than that, will be in a spirit of comprehension and understanding. I certainly think it is never a part of Canadian policy to devastate a defeated enemy, if it is a defeated enemy. There has to be a place for reconciliation. This will be done.

We also recognize that the refugee situation, which is what started it, was the prime argument for NATO's involvement and it remains as part of the solution.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us today is a good one. I commend the hon. member for Halifax for introducing it. Her motion forces us to consider a number of important issues that are now orbiting around the conflict in the southern Balkans.

The first aspect of her motion is a call for a “diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo”. I fully endorse this position and have done so from the very beginning of this latest crisis in the federal republic of Yugoslavia. In the House on April 12 I stated that the only durable solution for this conflict was a negotiated one. I have heard nothing that has changed my mind on this point.

The civil war in Kosovo is a confusing mixture of historical, ethnic and current political problems. To understand what we are confronting we must move beyond the rhetoric that comes so easily to public figures.

The fighting today is not solely the result of Slobodan Milosevic's policies. However, for 10 years his regime has done nothing but inflame longstanding ethnic distrusts. Nor does the answer lie, in my opinion, in the endorsement of an independent Kosovo.

A resolution of the current fighting must try to address the very real concerns for the security and safety of all people, both Serbs and Albanian Kosovars, who have traditionally called Kosovo their home. A dictated settlement that appears to favour one side over the other will do nothing but sow the seeds of yet another war some time in the future.

No war is ever inevitable. We can easily encourage future wars if we try to impose a peace that one or the other side finds unacceptable. That should not be the legacy of the current intervention. I have always regarded the demand that Belgrade accept the Rambouillet peace plan as an initial step toward a more conclusive negotiated peace. The best solution to me seems to be the substantial autonomy of Kosovo within the federal republic of Yugoslavia, along with ironclad guarantees for ethnic minorities. That autonomy must be understood as not challenging in any way the sovereignty of Yugoslavia in Kosovo.

We must ensure that NATO does not fight to advance the most radical Kosovar agenda. We cannot support the creation of an independent and militant Kosovo, which would be the source of instability to its neighbours for many years in the future. On the contrary, NATO's actions must create a long term peaceful settlement.

I am not involved in making policy for resolving the conflict of Kosovo. That is the government's responsibility. However we must make clear that the sole purpose of the current air campaign is and must be to create the conditions for a negotiated settlement. The idea of a war for war's sake is pointless. We must therefore repeatedly ask the government to reassure the House and the Canadian people that our participation in military operations in Yugoslavia is consistent with the achievement of the goal of a negotiated peace.

I am not convinced that the government is terribly concerned about giving such assurances. The Prime Minister's comments last week that we would simply follow along with whatever NATO decided to do is extremely unsettling. It raises questions about whether we even have an independent foreign policy. His refusal to permit a free vote on this issue shows a lack of interest in involving parliament in the prosecution of this war.

The second aspect of the motion today concerns the role of Russia. Everyone in the House will agree that we cannot build a new European security system without the active participation of Russia.

It is true that Russia can no longer project its military power with the same effectiveness that it did during the cold war. It is true that Russia is dependent upon western economic aid and that Moscow recognizes this dependence. However the conditions that prevail today will not always exist. Russia is never as strong as it wants to be, but we must remember it is never as weak as it looks. We must not act today in a fashion that would undermine Russia's willingness to help preserve European stability in the future. However, to some degree that is what we have already done.

For the past five years Moscow openly opposed NATO enlargement. Nevertheless we enlarged the alliance. That was not a mistake, but we must recognize that Moscow viewed our decision with concern.

For the past year Moscow has consistently advised NATO against intervention in Kosovo. It argued that the situation is more complicated than some western leaders would have us believe. Nevertheless we have intervened and it is possible that the war might still escalate.

For its part Russia has given every indication that it wants a peaceful resolution of the conflict. President Yeltsin has publicly stated that Russia will not get involved. He has refused Belgrade's request for weapons. He has ignored the more radical demands by radical members of the Duma. He has made no effort to alter the status of the two Russian battalions now serving with SFOR in Bosnia.

Some members might believe that Russia is not really relevant to the quest for a solution in Kosovo. I believe exactly the opposite. As a result of NATO's actions, Russia is the only remaining great European power that Belgrade can trust to protect its interests. We must therefore work with Moscow as much as possible. We must listen to what it says about Kosovo and the Balkans, a region it knows better than any of the rest of us.

Yesterday the Russian foreign minister stated that he would not be a relay station to transmit new demands from either NATO or Belgrade. He said that Russia was very willing to foster dialogue and encourage negotiations. I think we should take him up on that offer. The Chernomyrdin mission suggests that President Milosevic might be prepared to negotiate. We should not let this opportunity pass. Indeed we should encourage the Russians in their efforts.

Listening to Belgrade does not mean that we have to accept what is said. Nor does it require that we make unacceptable compromises. So long as we do not abandon the basic moral and political objectives of this war, we should always be prepared to listen. In this light I hope the foreign minister is successful when he travels to Moscow later this week.

The third aspect of the motion is to “urge NATO not to take actions to expand the conflict”. I think we can also agree with this sentiment. Indeed I feel certain that NATO would agree with that, from looking at what happened this past weekend. However the fear that NATO's actions might expand the conflict is misplaced.

It is curious that the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, a colleague of the mover of the motion, was the very first member to advocate the commitment of ground troops. Indeed he did so both stridently and aggressively. A few weeks ago in committee he loudly demanded a ground invasion of Kosovo now. I am afraid that type of action would inevitably lead to an expansion of the conflict. In fact, it might radically change the nature and purpose of the war. Therefore we must be very careful in using such rhetoric or in moving in that direction.

I must add that I believe at this point that NATO's decision to impose a naval blockade on Yugoslavia is ill timed and we do not have enough information about that mission. I do not understand the reasoning behind a decision that will almost certainly antagonize Moscow.

It is no secret that I have many concerns about this war. I raised many of them in the House on the day the hostilities commenced. I repeated many of those concerns on April 12 and have done so again today.

I believe that NATO's use of force to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo is a legitimate policy. I also believe, as I have made clear today, that we must continue the quest for a negotiated peace settlement. This is not a case of wanting it both ways. This is simply the reality of the international system.

Diplomacy must often be backed up by the threat of military force. I hope the foreign minister has learned his lesson. Soft spoken words in the ears of foreign leaders do not yield influence. In simple terms, soft power without hard power is intellectually bankrupt and politically worthless.

In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the motion before us. On another day I might have quibbled about some of the anti-NATO sentiments. However, we must rise above these disputes for the greater purpose of seeking a swift and successful conclusion to the current military operations under way.

I join the hon. member in urging the government to seek the assistance of Russia in order to fashion a negotiated settlement that is consistent with our moral values and regional interests.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the support of the member for Red Deer for the motion, but I did not want to let this opportunity pass without correcting one very grave misrepresentation by the hon. member during the course of his comments this morning.

The hon. member indicated that I as a spokesperson for the New Democratic Party had called at a meeting of the foreign affairs committee on March 31 for immediate use of ground troops in Kosovo.

The hon. member knows that is absolute nonsense. In fact, the hon. member will be aware of the fact that the position taken by the New Democratic Party then is the position that we take today and that my leader enunciated very clearly today. We must use every possible opportunity to arrive at a negotiated peaceful solution to this tragic conflict. We must accelerate our efforts to do so within the United Nations, within the OSCE and elsewhere.

Of course it will be necessary for there to be a peacekeeping force on the ground with the ability to protect Kosovar Albanians who are returning to their villages, to their homes.

We indicated as well that should diplomatic efforts fail, and I emphasize that, should the kinds of efforts that have been suggested including the importance of the Russian peace proposal fail, should the ethnic cleansing and the atrocities on the ground continue, then and only then there is a possibility we might look at some form of safe haven.

I remind the member that was the position taken then but that our fundamental objective is to stop the bombing, to stop the atrocities on the ground, to get back to the negotiating table under the auspices of the United Nations, to arrive at a diplomatic solution and to arrive at a solution that will allow the fundamental objective to be achieved, which is the return of Kosovar Albanians to their homes, to their villages, to be able to live in dignity, peace and security.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly I think all of us in committee and in the House have been disgusted, upset and have wanted to respond to what we have seen on television and have read in our newspapers about ethnic cleansing.

The initial response of let us bomb them to the negotiating table was the correct one. I believe all five parties supported it and said let us get on with it as soon as possible.

However, as that sunk in and as we thought about what it would be like to go to war in the former Yugoslavia, whether we look at the history from the Ottoman days or whether we talk about the second world war and what happened or the first world war, all of us realize now just how great it was.

Canada has not sent troops into a war for 46 years. That is a long time. None of us here were part of those decisions. Maybe a few members were who have been here a long time, but most of us were not. As it sunk in I believe we realized just how we needed to examine the whole thing and how many questions we needed to ask.

We had to know about the mandate. We had to know about an exit strategy. We had to know about how many people we might lose and all those things.

I have felt that way from the beginning. I think the member has heard me speak about that. I thank him for his intervention. I felt he was strongly supporting and urging an end to ethnic cleansing by using ground troops, by air or by whatever it took. That is what I heard.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to propose to my colleague the position of the Bloc Quebecois, which has always favoured a diplomatic solution in order to protect the Kosovars and to do all within our power to enable the Kosovars to return home as soon as possible.

Does he not think that, in view of the way it started, with Mr. Milosevic trying to get rid the Kosovar people, he will continue so long as there are diplomatic relations? In other words, does he not think that diplomacy encourages Mr. Milosevic in his efforts at ethnic cleansing?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, all of us are disgusted by the ethnic cleansing which has gone on. If we look at the history of that area, we will find that ethnic cleansing has been going on for an awful long time by one group or another.

I do not believe it is fair to demonize just one side in this case. There are many issues here and we do not have time to discuss all of them. We need to find out how to get those sides together. We have the same aims as everybody else, to get the Kosovars back to Kosovo and find some way of making that work.

Ethnic cleansing is not acceptable, but as I mentioned in a speech a few weeks ago, it is going on in 21 countries as far as I can determine.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I must tell our NDP colleagues how much the Bloc Quebecois appreciates this further opportunity they are giving the House to debate and discuss the Kosovo issue.

This House will not have too many opportunities to voice its opinion, allowing each party to give its point of view on this serious crisis, which is not only threatening peace and security in the Balkans, but is also threatening or could threaten even more international peace and security.

The Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party are of a same mind with regard to favouring a diplomatic approach, a diplomatic solution to the crisis which has been going on for too long in Kosovo and in this particularly hard hit area of the Balkans.

We should all want to see this conflict settled through diplomatic means, especially as we as a country and member of the United Nations are committed to settle conflicts through diplomatic means.

I would like to read for the record one of the purposes of the United Nations, the organization the New Democratic Party is referring to in today's motion. The first paragraph, article I of its charter states:

The purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

We should always keep in mind this important purpose, the fundamental goal of the United Nations, and its Charter, which should guide our collective actions in this area.

This is the reason why the Bloc Quebecois must support this motion from the New Democratic Party. As the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas often mentioned in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and in this House, and as his leader pointed out, it is a diplomatic solution that will put an end to a conflict that has already cost too many lives, including civilian lives. Any war, including non-international armed conflicts, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs likes to point out, results in deaths, mostly among the civilian population.

The Bloc Quebecois has always maintained that a diplomatic solution is to be favoured. We supported the negotiations and actions that took place within the contact group. We supported the Rambouillet negotiations. We asked this government on numerous occasions whether it was supportive of the will expressed by both sides to reach, through these negotiations, an agreement that would prevent the use of armed force.

We also insisted that the Government of Canada attach some importance to the peace plan proposed by the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, because for us, and for other parties and individuals, including many Quebeckers and Canadians, the ultimate solution to achieve peace is a diplomatic solution.

Today, the Bloc Quebecois is glad to see that efforts to negotiate a diplomatic solution are being stepped up. Today, American deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott is negotiating with Russian special envoy Mr. Chernomyrdin. These negotiations could pave the way to a diplomatic solution.

Members of the European Union and, in particular, representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany, who will be chairing the Union for the next six months, have also focused on a negotiated and diplomatic solution, an approach that has had our whole-hearted approval.

We are also fully aware of the important role that the Minister of Foreign Affairs could play in the discussions in which he will take part on Thursday with the Russian president's special envoy and his foreign affairs minister. We wish him all the best in this worthy endeavour. It deserves the support of this House. We believe that, coupled with the other negotiations taking place, it could culminate in a proposal that could be put before the UN security council, because that is the body where the issue of how to restore peace to Kosovo must again be debated.

The security council was always the forum where a solution to this international dispute should have been negotiated. It is unfortunate that the council had to be left out of the loop, and not consulted on important decisions regarding a peaceful resolution of the dispute in Kosovo.

In our view, the solution will lie in negotiations to bring about a settlement and give the Kosovars, who have suffered too much during this conflict, a say in their own future, which was what the Rambouillet agreement set out to do.

The Serbs and their representatives will see that a people's call for autonomy cannot be ignored, that these demands must be dealt with, and not be considered inappropriate.

This was the focus of the Rambouillet negotiations, and must be the focus of negotiations at this time as well.

Moreover, our party has always believed that the use of less peaceful means to reach a peaceful and negotiated solution ought not to be excluded. We have supported the air strikes, and continue to do so, for one reason and one alone, albeit a vital one. When it is a matter of putting an end to ethnic cleansing, of preventing genocide—and we may learn in the coming weeks that there was genocide in Kosovo, although we are not in a position to know that today—and of putting an end to such crimes against humanity, the use of force cannot be excluded.

Needless to say, this use of force is not the most appropriate means of settling differences, and I trust that all the negotiations currently under way will attain this much desired settlement.

I join with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas in supporting a motion focusing on this aspect and also inviting Russia to take part in an international military force to ensure peace in Kosovo.

I will close with a quote from Montesquieu. I like to quote great authors on peace, war and power. In The Spirit of Laws , Montesquieu speaks of power as “an eternal experiment, and one any man with power is tempted to abuse. Power will grow until such time as it is curbed. Even virtue needs limits. If power is not to be abused, the world must be so organized that power puts a stop to power”.

In this case, political power and persuasion must put a stop to Milosevic, and freedom must be restored to the Kosovars.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will go on a special mission to Moscow toward the end of the week and that he will later meet with the Prime Minister of Greece. The government wants the circle of concerned parties to be widened. That circle must definitely go beyond NATO.

I wonder if the hon. member had an opportunity to look at the Simitis plan, proposed yesterday by the Prime Minister of Greece. That proposal has the benefit of emphasizing the role of Kosovo's neighbouring countries. We all remember the Greek and Italian mission to Albania, last year.

Will the hon. member give his support and the support of his party to the Simitis plan?

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for his question.

I notice that several peace plans are pointing in the same direction. Under these proposals, the UN would play a determining role in Kosovo, during the post-crisis period. Our party supports the idea that the UN should be at the core of the solution to this crisis and that we should call on UN representatives when the time comes to establish a military force.

Also, we must not rule out the possibility of NATO member countries, and people from these countries, taking part in a UN force, or in a joint force, unless the objections raised by Russia are critical to the point that such a force must absolutely be under the control of the United Nations.

Russia must be involved in the decision that will be made. It must, because the Serbian forces and President Milosevic will have no choice but to accept a force in which Russia has agreed to take part.

But the solution to this conflict truly lies in the UN getting involved again, in a decision being made by the security council, and in a force that will act during a set period to put an end to ethnic cleansing, allow Kosovars to return to Kosovo, and ensure that the Balkans can again find peace.

There is also a German peace proposal to restore stability in the Balkans that deserves the serious consideration and the support of all the states.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, we do not have a lot of time, but I would like to thank the New Democratic Party for allowing this House, once again, to continue its debate on the events in Kosovo. Once again, this is an opposition initiative.

This motion and the proposed amendment make significant reference to the blockade or embargo that NATO and the European countries have decided to decree. The New Democrats do not support a blockade or embargo. In essence, the reason is to avoid upsetting or angering Russia. Russia has been cropping up in discussions since the start of this conflict.

However, I would remind my New Democrat colleagues that we started bombing Yugoslavia and Kosovo without giving a whole lot of thought to Russia. Furthermore, I would point out that it was not an embargo or blockade that was proposed, but a check, control, at the borders, including those of Montenegro.

We read in this morning's paper, in statements by our own Minister of National Defence and a German general, that no ships will be stopped by force. Requests will be made to board ships delivering cargo to Yugoslavia, including oil.

They said in their statement that there would not be too much of a push. They are afraid of the reaction of the Russians. The Minister of National Defence went even further, saying that Russian oil exports to Yugoslavia would not be stopped.

There is a war of words. In addition to a real war, there is a war of words that, in my opinion, is really not credible. Why? Because, from the beginning, Yugoslavia was told that it would be bombed but no ground troops would be sent. Now, it is being told that there will be an embargo, but that no ships will be stopped and Russia will be allowed to continue exporting its oil.

There is a credibility problem in this war, no clear plan of action. All eyes are on Russia. Our minister is to hold meetings; it is worth mentioning and worthy of our appreciation. After this visit, Russia will probably put a resolution before the security council. The council will say that, in the event of a ceasefire—not peace, because negotiating peace is a long, drawn-out affair—in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia, Russia should lead a force under the UN. We will quickly see this in the security council in the days and weeks ahead.

And all to the good, if it will end the war. Increasingly, we are seeing cracks and divisions beginning to develop in the Yugoslavian bloc, just as they are developing in this House. We are starting to qualify our initial reactions, our initial statements, our initial press releases. Divisions are becoming apparent in Parliament.

It is clear that the House is divided, just as the Yugoslavian parliament is divided. The Yugoslav deputy prime minister—who may or may not be credible—is becoming open to the idea of a unilateral ceasefire, on condition that troops are withdrawn from Kosovo. There is no talk of peace. That will require negotiation, and a signed agreement. But at least there is talk of a ceasefire.

This is good news because President Milosevic has been called so many names, and accused of war crimes and of crimes against humanity. It was difficult, therefore, for NATO to find someone with whom it could eventually sign a peace accord. It would appear there is now a breach in the Serb bloc, which could lead to a peaceful settlement.

We are seeing the same thing here. During the first two weeks of fighting, opposition parties, especially the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois, had rather harsh positions and were talking about genocide in Kosovo and deploying ground troops there. The NDP member corrected our Reform colleague but I too remember that we were talking rather tough. The media were reporting that several opposition parties were calling for the deployment of ground troops. Today the situation has changed. We are talking diplomacy. Of course it is important, we have been saying it all along.

But we should restrain NATO's eagerness. Let us not forget the war in Kosovo is been conducted under NATO's auspices. In the end what the amendment from the New Democratic Party is saying is that NATO should maintain its current position and not do more. What a nice message for Milosevic. It is as if we were saying to him “Don't worry, we will not deploy ground troops, we will not prevent you from buying oil or food”. This is not the kind of message we ought to be sending. The initial message was loud and clear. Are we going to stick to it or not? If not, let us get out of there real quick.

I do not believe anything will come of this idea of a blockade or embargo, because at any rate right here in Canada, in Germany and elsewhere in the world people are saying it is not a real blockade, a real embargo.

We are now seeing Canada multiplying diplomatic initiatives, which is good. But what did Canada do before the war? On one of the occasions when the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, I asked him what efforts and actions Canada had taken in the 9 to 12 months prior to this war. The minister is supposed to be providing us with that information. What action did Canada take to try to prevent this war? What efforts did it make on the diplomatic front?

At this time we are at war, and the diplomatic process is being stepped up, as indeed it should be. But what was done in the past? We do not know. What was Canada's role before the war? The government has kept very quiet so far. We are still waiting for the documents. This is not very credible, unless we are given evidence to the contrary. We are still waiting for the information.

Much emphasis has been put on Russia, and Canada also wants to play an important role. Canada is an aggressor in Kosovo. It is, therefore, certain that a third party will have to step in, before an end to this conflict can be reached, hopefully.

Yesterday, the President of Libya was putting in his two cents worth. Canada can play an important diplomatic role, but not with the Serbs. This is impossible. We are one of the aggressors in Kosovo, so a third party needs to be called in, and that third party is Russia.

We also need to wonder what sort of ceasefire there will be, in the near future, or so I hope. What sort of peace treaty will there be? There are many differing opinions here in this House, as well as on the international scene. Will there be a protectorate? Will the be an accord similar to the Rambouillet accord? In the schedule appended to the Rambouillet agreement, it was set out that three years after its signing, the Kosovars would be asked about their future. Would they opt for independence, autonomy or a protectorate? The Serbs refused, because they consider Kosovo part of Yugoslavia, and they would never let it go. Autonomy within Yugoslavia is one thing. Independence, never.

The Rambouillet agreement contained an important element, which, rightly or wrongly, offended the Serbs, and which was the fact that three years later a referendum would be held and the Kosovars would decide their future. This may be a fine thing in the Canadian context, it is very democratic, but, in the Balkan context, it is another matter.

The whole picture needs reassessing. There is a lot of improvisation going on. Everyone recognizes that a tragedy is unfolding in Kosovo. As the conflict continues, peace plans are being proposed. Measures that are not really applicable are being advanced. There is talk of ground troops and then there is talk that there will not be any. There is a significant lack of planning.

We hope that things will be resolved very quickly. Here in Ottawa, today, the weather is fine, the sun is shining. In Kosovo and in Yugoslavia the roads, bridges, houses, water supply and electrical systems are all destroyed. If the war lasts another two or three months, what will happen to the 750,000 Kosovar refugees in Albania? Winter will come. Will they spend winter in little tents? The country is destroyed.

We need to find a peace agreement very soon. We must propose effective means and be credible in our proposals.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I followed intensely the comments made by the hon. member, who sits on the the foreign affairs committee with me.

Almost a decade ago the Berlin wall collapsed and the Warsaw treaty was no longer in force. NATO is now the only military alliance in Europe.

Let us think forward and assume that the Kosovo issue is resolved. Because the Warsaw pact is no longer in force to counter NATO and the UN, what kind of changes does the hon. member envision for NATO that would prevent its members from acting differently than they would have 10 years ago when the Warsaw pact was in place? Does he have any suggestions to make with respect to revamping NATO and the UN so that we can go forward into the 21st century with new institutions and without the cold war?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, since we are in the middle of a conflict, we are not talking about revamping a system or an organization. In fact, there was not really any discussion of major changes at the Washington summit. Why? People are waiting to see what reaction there will be to NATO's involvement in the conflict in Kosovo. Then there will be a debriefing as to whether or not NATO did the right thing. The analysis can come later.

I remind the House that NATO was not created to do what it is now doing in Kosovo. It took a unilateral decision, without any real negotiations or discussion, to play an offensive role. It may be right, but the fact remains that a small group made this decision without any real negotiations or discussion.

People are asking what role NATO should play. It is no longer the same organization that it was 50 years ago. It has changed completely. In fact, the various types of international organizations should be reviewed.

Will NATO become an organization for ensuring the military protection of Europe, as seems to be happening, in which case there will be military forces on every continent to ensure a certain stability? Maybe so, and maybe not.

Thought is being given to revamping NATO. The organization has undergone a rapid metamorphosis over the past year. Should NATO revert to its original role, or stay as it is? That is perhaps the real question.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened with intent to the hon. member's discourse. He expressed some concern about the NDP position on this issue. The NDP's position has been consistent from day one. We want peace. We are simply by this motion calling on the government to intensify and accelerate diplomatic efforts to bring about this peace.

The hon. member also expressed concern, and quite rightly so, about the devastation and destruction that is taking place in Yugoslavia.

The hon. member asked what kind of message we are giving to Milosevic. Does the member feel that the message we are putting forth, a strong desire for peace and a desire to use every diplomatic effort to obtain peace and end the destruction is wrong?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, the problem is what kind of message we want to send Milosevic.

At the beginning of the conflict, everyone agreed on a tough stand. Today, members are questioning the decisions of NATO and the European Community regarding an embargo or a naval blockade. Through its amendment, one party in the House is questioning those decisions, rightly or wrongly, it does not matter.

What message are we sending today? NATO has decided to impose an embargo or a blockade, not a very stringent one, but still it has decided to announce one and Europe supports it. We are saying that this is not the way to go. There should be no naval blockade or other intervention, including ground troops. What message are we sending with respect to the seriousness of past, present and future military intervention in Kosovo?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

It is with great sadness that I rise in this House today to express my thoughts on the action that Canada must take in light of the critical situation that currently prevails in Kosovo.

The NDP is raising this issue today because thousands of Kosovars are deprived and without shelter, security and recourse as a result of the unthinkable actions of their own government.

This is a complex issue and the decisions that face us are among the most difficult that our country has ever had to make.

Since the beginning of this crisis, the NDP has been advocating a diplomatic solution. But, tragically, initial efforts failed. Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic refused to participate in a constructive dialogue or to make compromises. Instead, he continued his reign of terror in Kosovo.

We are currently witnessing a serious humanitarian crisis. The Milosevic government embarked on an ethnic cleansing campaign, in an effort to scare away Kosovars from Albanian origin. Villages are in flames; men, women and children are being killed; women are being raped. Milosevic seems to have succeeded in scaring away terrified Albanian Kosovars.

We remember the atrocities committed in Bosnia by Milosevic, where over 200,000 people died. Can we allow ourselves to let Milosevic continue his rampage?

As this human tragedy worsened daily, the NDP acknowledged that there are times when the world community must react to human rights violations with actions, not just words. This is why the NDP has acknowledged the importance of responding with military strikes. Milosevic had to be shown that such atrocities would not be tolerated by the international community.

Before the NATO air strikes, 250,000 Albanian Kosovars saw their houses burned before their very eyes. If the western powers had not intervened after so many final warnings to Milosevic, they would have been sending a message to the Serbian leader and to other tyrants that it was acceptable to terrorize people and to violate human rights, without facing any consequences.

The decision to use air strikes is certainly not an easy one, but were we supposed to do nothing in response to Milosevic's attacks against humanity?

I would like to quote what Tommy Douglas said at the time of the Second World War:

—when a group of anarchists sets itself to destroying the fabric of law and order on which human civilization is based, then it is my duty to intervene—

But the success of the air strikes is now being questioned. Ethnic cleansing has been stepped up, and there has been a dramatic increase in the number of refugees.

We have a duty to put an end to this human suffering and to come to the aid of the hundreds of thousands of Kosovars who have lived with this terror for too long.

This is why the NDP is proposing, after 35 days of strikes, a solution based on five elements.

The first is the immediate cessation of NATO air strikes on the condition that the Serb government agree to resume negotiations and put an immediate end to hostilities against the Albanian Kosovars.

The second is the holding of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations with Russia's participation.

The third is that the Canadian government should request a special meeting of the UN general assembly to debate the Kosovo crisis.

The fourth is that no Canadian military contingent is to be sent without a special debate in the House with the members voting on the matter.

And the fifth is that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is to continue to help refugees in Macedonia and Albania.

I will use as an example my years of experience in negotiations between unions and employers, where there is a labour conflict. This boils down to pretty much the same thing, because conflict is also involved here. Conflicts are always resolved at the negotiating table. It may take a week, two weeks, a month, or three months, but in the end, the parties must return to the negotiating table. It is there that conflict is resolved.

This is why the NDP is saying that the negotiating table is where these conflicts will be resolved, sometimes with a change in position. I have an example. On the day of the strike, we are in a strong position and that is what we want. The employer too is in a strong position and that is what he wants. If no one is prepared to shift their position, the strike will go on. This is why no one can have an absolute position. You have to always be ready to change.

The five elements I mentioned earlier underscore the importance of a diplomatic solution. Following our interventions here in the House, the government finally recognized the importance of diplomatic efforts by sending the Minister of Foreign Affairs to Russia later this week.

We must focus all our efforts to bring an end to this conflict. This is why we are asking the government to intensify and speed up efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo by ensuring that Russia and the United Nations are involved.

Once again, I draw on my union example. Sometimes it is necessary to appeal to mediators to help the parties find a solution. Russia must be seen as a mediator and be able to intervene and propose solutions to this conflict.

NATO must also be encouraged not to take actions that would extend the conflict and hamper the search for a diplomatic solution.

I come back to my example of a union. When workers are on strike or in a lockout situation and solutions are being sought, if one party resorts to extreme measures, this will sometimes make matters worse. We then think “If only they would calm down and go back to the bargaining table”. Even the government agrees. This is why we must put these things into place today.

The context seems increasingly favourable to a diplomatic solution. We must help make things happen and create a situation where Russia and the United Nations can play a leading role in resolving this conflict.

That is why we are so categorically opposed to a naval embargo. Such an embargo would only increase tensions and adversely affect efforts to find a diplomatic solution.

Canada can provide meaningful leadership in the search for diplomatic solutions to this conflict. We should immediately focus our efforts on this type of solution. These must also focus on the assistance we can provide to the tens of thousands of refugees.

These people often find themselves separated from their families, after witnessing the killing of loved ones in some cases. In the safety of our homes here in Canada, it is hard for us to imagine a situation where people are deprived of everything and have no way out. We must therefore do our utmost to put an end to this suffering.

I would like to congratulate the thousands of Canadians for their efforts to contribute goods and money to help the Kosovar refugees. They have demonstrated once again that Canadian generosity can always be counted on in times of hardship.

I also want to mention the efforts of all the humanitarian groups that bring direct and indirect support to the refugees. It is through their efforts that we hope to be able to alleviate the devastating impact of Milosevic's actions.

Finally, we must turn our attention to the Canadian military personnel participating with courage and integrity in these operations. They are the ones making the greatest sacrifice and we are grateful for that. We also thank their families for being so understanding under the circumstances.

We all hope that this conflict will be settled as soon as possible, so that the members of our Canadian forces can come home safe and sound.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the member's speech. He asked how we can stop the human suffering. He made the point that he felt we should get back to the negotiating table to solve the problems. He wanted a diplomatic approach. Then he also said that he wants no further action by NATO.

We already know that unless Milosevic is confronted with force, he will not go back to that table. He has already proven that. The actions by the NATO forces right now have basically stopped the fuel supply to his army so his tanks cannot move. We have taken out bridges so they cannot cross rivers. Does the member really think if NATO withdrew at this point in time that Milosevic would go back to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith? Does the member think that?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have never said that we should withdraw. I have said that we should not increase it.

If we put an embargo on the fuel going to Kosovo, another country may get involved in this issue. Instead we would want that country to go there and negotiate peace. That is what is important.

I want to make it clear that what we have said is not to remove. If we remove ourselves from it, we want everybody to stop. We want Milosevic to stop the killing he is doing in Kosovo. At the same time, let us stop the hitting and go to the negotiating table. If that does not happen, we are not saying that we should remove ourselves, but that we should not increase it. That is what is important. I want that to be clear.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciated the comments by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

I remind him that in 1755 the Brits deported the Acadians. In those days, the situation was non negotiable. The Brits had total control over the situation, so much so that those who would have offered to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the conflict would never have been heard. The Brits succeeded in their endeavour because they had the power and determination to do so.

The way the situation is evolving in Kosovo is a bit like that. We might talk about and wish for a negotiated settlement to the conflict, but is it feasible? As my colleague said earlier, Milosevic is a barbarian. He has terrorized Kosovo. He has violated the rights of a whole population. We know he has exterminated, killed thousands of people. We may get more accurate figures once the conflict is over.

It seems rather obvious that while we want a negotiated settlement to this conflict, we must realize that Milosevic has no intention of negotiating.

His goal is to rid Kosovo of its population to seize one half, one quarter or a third of the territory. Of course, he would like to have all of it. In the end, there is only one solution, and that is to keep up the pressure against this barbarian, to force him back to the negotiating table. Wishful thinking will settle nothing.

Does the member not believe this situation is very similar to or worse than what the Acadians went through in 1755?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke of the Acadians of 1755. I wanted to speak of them in my remarks, but have chosen not to. I would never want it to happen again, because the people at home, although our ancestors left, still talk about 1755, the year the Acadians were sent away from their country and arrived here in Canada by boat.

Is the solution to say that there is no limit and that everything will be destroyed? That is the issue. There are strikes at the moment, but how many are we prepared to do? Is success achieved through destroying another people? I agree with my colleague that Milosevic is wicked, but are we going to destroy his people? Are the people wicked or is it he? This is where we have to use our good judgement and ask ourselves whether we are doing enough.

Negotiations, however, could help, and I think that is—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must unfortunately interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wish to say a few words in the debate this morning, basically to underline the importance of a serious diplomatic thrust to try to bring an end to this very unfortunate conflict. Hopefully the initiatives being taken now by the foreign affairs minister, by the Russians and by others will bear fruit. We should put a real emphasis on trying to accelerate the diplomatic efforts of finding peaceful solutions to what is happening in Yugoslavia, what is happening in Kosovo.

It need only be said in passing that we oppose what Milosevic is doing. It is abhorrent. It is barbaric. Something has to be done to stop what he is doing to the people in Kosovo. I also believe that we should try to escalate the presence of the United Nations in terms of it taking an initiative to do what it can to bring about a very peaceful solution. Right now people are suffering in that part of the world. People are being bombed. People are being killed. People are being exterminated. That has to end and end as soon as possible.

I want to try to bring a bit of human face to this situation if I possibly can. In 1968 I had the opportunity to go into the middle of a very vicious civil war in Nigeria, into the breakaway province of Biafra. This morning I dug up a comment in a speech I made in the House on November 26, 1968, a little over 30 years ago. I was only 12 years old; I was elected at the age of 11 or thereabouts to the House.

I spent two weeks over there. I spent one week on the Nigerian side and I spent one week in the war zone on the Biafran side. I had an experience which changed my life forever in terms of what humanity is all about. I literally saw people dying after being bombed. I saw people dying of starvation in huge sick bays in refugee camps.

At that particular time I travelled there with a Liberal member of parliament by the name of Ralph Stewart. Before us a couple of other MPs had gone, a Conservative named David MacDonald and a New Democratic named Andrew Brewin. We went there to try to bring attention to the suffering and the need for some humanitarian help.

I can remember flying into what was then known as Biafra. At that time the Nigerian armies had encircled the province of Biafra. There was a form of genocide going on where hundreds of thousands of people were dying. We flew in under the cover of darkness on a church plane bringing drugs and landed on a small jungle air strip. I spent seven horrifying days actually seeing what happens when there is war.

I remember being caught in a bombing raid and having bombs drop literally a few metres away. We thought we were going to die because these bombs were coming out of the darkness of a jungle night. People were screaming. Some people were saying the rosary. Other people were crying and running and being scattered.

The terror is hard to put into words. I reread the speech I made in the House back on November 26, 1968 describing the trip. The then minister of external affairs was Mitchell Sharp, and he spoke right after me.

One of the things we saw was a Catholic hospital that had just been bombed. Another was a Red Cross hospital that had just been bombed, both of them by mistake, I am sure, according to the military authorities at the time.

We also went to many refugee camps and what they called feeding centres and sick bays. They would feed people at five o'clock in the morning just before dawn, before sunrise, because if the bombers came over and saw a huge crowd of people in a jungle opening there was a chance that there could be an attack.

One of things I referred to in my speech, and I remember it to this day, was going to a feeding bay where they had 3,500 pregnant and nursing women coming for their daily iron pills and a bit of fish stock that was provided because of the protein in fish.

To go through this experience, to get caught in a bombing raid, to hear the airplanes doing the strafing, to go up to a war front and see wounded soldiers, and to be close enough to hear the rat-a-tat-tat of machines guns in the darkness of a jungle night, it certainly had an impression on me. I did not think I would come back many times during that one week. It had an impression on me of how uncivilized human beings are at times to one another. Everything has to be done to bring an end to that kind of torture and torment. I just wanted to relate some of those comments to try to make this situation a little more real.

The brunt of the situation now is being borne by the Kosovars who are in huge refugee camps. Some are in Macedonia and some in Albania. Many of the Kosovars are still trapped behind the lines in their native province, the part of Serbia they come from and have lived for many years. Many of these people are dying of starvation. Many of these people are being shot. They are being executed.

I remember when I was in Biafra, for example, at a hospital or a church when a worker came out of the jungle with a child in his arms who might have been four or five years old. The child was basically just the skeleton of someone who was barely clinging to life. In my life I have never seen a person as emaciated or skinny as that little child was.

That kind of thing is happening now. It is happening in Yugoslavia and it is happening because of a madman named Milosevic. It is also happening because there are NATO bombs being dropped in Yugoslavia.

When I was in these little jungle villages and lying there with bombs dropping, I realized one thing. A bomb does not discriminate between a very poor black African peasant and a white politician from the western world. It does not discriminate at all. If one did not believe that going into that situation, it becomes a reality extremely quickly when a bomb is dropping out of the sky. We all have the same kinds of fears.

Those people are going through hell on earth and there is no better way of putting it than that. It is an absolute hell on earth. We should do what is being initiated today. We should do whatever we can to escalate the diplomatic offensive by bringing in Russia, the United Nations and other countries like Canada that are highly respected in the international forum and building up the diplomatic offensive to try to bring an end to the killing, the torture, the bloodshed and the hell on earth that is occurring in that part of the world. That is what we have to do.

At the same time we should signal as a country that we do not want to escalate the conflict by being part of a naval blockade. I do not think we should be doing that. It just leads into the possibility of making the situation more of a tinderbox. It brings in the possibility of a conflict with Russia.

The oil that goes into Yugoslavia comes primarily from Libya and from Russia. As the President of France, Jacques Chirac, said a few days ago, if one stops a ship bringing oil to that part of the world it is basically an act of war. We know the situation now in Russia where there is basically no government. It is a situation that is almost analogous to anarchy. There are ultranationalists, communists, unrest and economic chaos. It would not take much to push that country into a situation where this conflict could escalate beyond control of the world.

We should do everything we can, absolutely everything we can, to bring a diplomatic end to this kind of a crisis. Those people are suffering. Those people are dying.

As we talk today there is a child dying. There is somebody being shot, someone being mutilated. Thousands of people are hungry. People have lost their families. People are crying. People do not know where their homes are. Their homes have been destroyed. This is real and genuine human suffering.

We stand here in a parliament well dressed, well fed, well nourished and with shelters over our heads. It is difficult to imagine the suffering these human beings are going through. They are like us. They are human beings. They are being deprived of their loved ones. They are human beings that suffer pain and death and see their families being killed.

This kind of thing is very dangerous and could escalate. We have a fine reputation around the world, going back to the days of Lester Pearson and before, where we are the peacemakers. We are respected. We have diplomatic clout and diplomatic power. We should do all we can to escalate that and emphasize that in the hours and days that remain in the next week or so.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on his intervention. I have two points.

Would he not agree that after the initial statements from NATO on a naval blockade, the commentaries made by the Minister of National Defence are very close to those used by President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis where a similar situation existed in the naval terms, which were fully compatible with international law? The Government of Canada is very clear on its commitment to international law and its commitment to the United Nations.

Would he not agree also that after fulfilling our obligations to NATO, we are bending our efforts in the last few days and the last few weeks to getting the issue back to the United Nations?

That is the explanation of the mission to Moscow of the foreign minister, the mission to Greece, the discussion of the Simitis plan for a more inclusive international force which must certainly be there when peace is restored.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree and I think that is what I said at the beginning of my remarks.

I am pleased there are some initiatives on the diplomatic front. I am pleased our Minister of Foreign Affairs will be involved in these diplomatic initiatives. I am pleased the Secretary General of the United Nations is now trying to involve himself and the United Nations in seeking a diplomatic solution to what is happening in Yugoslavia and Kosovo.

I fully agree with what the member has said. I am sorry I was not here for question period yesterday. I have no idea what the Minister of National Defence said either inside or outside the House.