Debates of Oct. 1st, 2002

Iraq

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the few moments I have left it is probably too difficult to deal with all the questions that have been raised by the hon. member. Let us just say that we have an immediate problem in front of us and that problem must be resolved obviously through, I think, a wide range of means.

All of us here in all parties would agree that we would like to see Iraq return to the family of nations and we would like to see the people of that country enjoy all of the benefits of the international community.

This obviously goes far beyond. It raises many hypothetical questions about how that could be achieved and whether it could ever in fact be achieved under the current regime. Some of us here are very skeptical about that but I do not think we can answer all those questions today. I think the task before us is to make absolutely clear that we have some security objectives that must be attained if any of this is to move forward in a positive manner.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that it is important for the Bloc and for myself to indicate right at the onset of tonight's debate that any action or position that would entail anything but a diplomatic involvement in Irak would first have to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons.

Not only must we debate and vote if we are to take part in any military action, but even if we were to get involved under the aegis of the United Nations, we would still need to debate and vote on the issue.

Let me quote something Henri Bourassa said during the debate on Canada's involvement in the South African War and which is well worth its weight in gold. About a century ago, he said:

The government cannot levy a tax without the approval of the House of Commons. But is there a price higher than the blood of our children?

This is unquestionably a fundamental democratic requirement. People have the right to know why, when and who supports Canada's military or other involvement in a conflict like the one with Iraq. I would add that the government should remember that, by failing to have such a debate and a vote before making the decision to send troops in Afghanistan as part of a UN task force led by the Americans, it violated the laws of our country, which provide that a prisoner taken by a Canadian soldier cannot be transferred to a country where the death penalty is in effect. This is against Canadian laws. Canada paid the price for not having listened to the many people who spoke up at the time.

As members know, even in London there was a debate and a vote last week. Another debate and another vote will take place later on. Even though 54 members of the Prime Minister's party have already opposed his policy regarding Iraq, as soon as a decision is made by the security council regarding a possible intervention, British members of Parliament will have to meet and vote again.

I just got back, along with other members of this House, from the Council of Europe. We have had a most interesting, useful, strong and tough debate on the conflict involving Iraq.

I would like to read excerpts from the resolution, because it helps us understand what officials of all political stripes in these 44 countries, officials who know more than we do about wars and solutions to conflicts, have to say on this issue. This was immediately after Iraq accepted the unconditional return of inspectors. I am quoting the parliamentarians from the 44 countries:

The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly notes with satisfaction Iraq’s acceptance of the unconditional return of the UN disarmament inspectors, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1284.

The resolution passed by the 44 countries goes on to say:

This is an essential first step towards ensuring that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction. The Assembly notes, however, that Iraq has reneged on its commitments on several occasions in the past and expresses reservations about the intention of the Iraqi authorities to honour their promises.

Second, it states, and I quote:

The international community must continue to demand that the Iraqi authorities comply in full with the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions concerning the prohibition of Iraqi programs to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations inspectors and disarmament experts must be permitted to resume their on-site work immediately, with unlimited access and with guarantees, in order to be able to report to the security council on whether or not Iraq complied with these resolutions.

To digress a little, I was very surprised at the debate that has gone on here in the House, because everyone neglected to say that, today, an agreement was reached between Hans Blix, the UN inspection coordinator, and the Iraqi authorities. There has been agreement, and from what I saw on television, the inspectors were expecting to be back in Iraq within two weeks. There has been an agreement on unlimited and unconditional access to the sites. This is in place.

When I heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that he supported the approach of Great Britain and the United States, which are demanding a new resolution before inspectors return to Iraq, I wanted to ask him the following: is he not aware that instead of promoting peace, instead of letting inspectors do their job--which is to detect and destroy any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—such a resolution only sours the climate, delays deadlines and threatens to push the world closer to a war that is not necessary at this time?

However, allow me to continue with the resolution from the Council of Europe, which reads:

The Assembly emphasizes its conviction that any armed conflict must be avoided prior to examination of this report by the Security Council.

Once again, I refer to the resolution that the Minister of Foreign Affairs wants to support. If the first UN resolution contained something along the lines of “if it fails to conform to the aforementioned rules, appropriate actions will be taken”, thereby suggesting that there might then be military action, then it would no longer be up to the security council to make a unilateral decision to use force against a country that appears to be a threat to peace. It would be up to either the United States or to Great Britain, or both, or else to other countries, but not to the security council.

Let the inspectors get in there. Now that the co-ordinator has negotiated an agreement to his satisfaction, it seems to me that it would make sense to help advance peace, that there is a will to drive Saddam Hussein up against a wall.

The Assembly is deeply concerned at the rift that could open between the West and the Islamic world in the event of an armed conflict. In this respect the Assembly welcomes the stance taken by the Arab countries which have put pressure on the Iraqi authorities to accept the UN's demands.

Accordingly, the Assembly disapproves that the United States is indicating a willingness to move towards armed conflict without a mandate from the Security Council.

The proposed resolution continues as follows:

Such an attitude is in accordance neither with the principles of international law nor with the objectives of the Council of Europe, to which, as an Observer State, the United States is expected to subscribe. The Assembly encourages the continued efforts by members of the Security Council to secure the adoption of a new resolution on Iraq.

It goes on:

In the absence of explicit approval by the Security Council, any unilateral action by the United States, even where supported by other countries, would be likely to destabilise peace severely and deal a serious blow to the authority of the United Nations. A unilateral approach could also lead to divisions within the democratic countries and compromise the international community’s cohesion in the fight against terrorism.

I would remind the House that this resolution was adopted not just by parliamentarians from the left or the centre, but also from the right. The parliamentary assembly broadly supported this resolution.

I would merely add that the assembly also called on all Council of Europe member states to refrain from supporting any action not covered by a mandate of the United Nations Security Council. Many British colleagues are members of this assembly.

One question which troubles me too kept coming up during the debates. Can anyone tell me why Saddam Hussein suddenly became such a threat to world peace a few weeks ago? With respect to the fight against terrorism, we all said that it would require a broad coalition and the pooling of many resources. Ideologically, it would require trust and a change in mentalities, the use of all means of intelligence and defence. This fight against terrorism was the priority and, in this regard, we were going to have to try to bring all countries on side if possible. How is it that this priority has suddenly been replaced by the need to attack Saddam Hussein?

I say “attack” because I was extremely disappointed to see that, after his big speech to the United Nations, President Bush seemed nonplussed when Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of UN inspectors. It was as though this was not what he wanted and he later clarified. It was not what he wanted. What he wanted was a change of regime.

However, what is desirable in order to achieve peace? Which leads me to the following question: Why Saddam Hussein? Is it because he is a dictator? Yes, he is a dictator. How many are there in the world? Let us look at the issue from a different angle. Out of 191 countries, how many are democracies? Not the majority, as we know. There are numerous dictators. Do many of them have the means to flex their muscles? Yes.

Let me remind the House that Mr. Musharraf, who took over from a democratic government, was considered a threat because he had access to nuclear weapons. When he showed that he could help us in the war in Afghanistan, he became our ally and our friend. At such a time, nuclear weapons are quite useful. Part of his armed forces support the conflict in Kashmir, but he is still our friend.

Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, indeed. He has done awful things. He gassed at least 5,000 Kurds, and this has been documented. While he was doing that, the United States supported him in his war against Iran. They provided him with very useful information and with much more, according to some sources. At that time, there was no rush to act.

That dictator could very well have weapons of mass destruction. However, not everyone is on agreement on this. Just a couple of weeks ago, a CIA senior official said “We do not know”. The role of the inspectors is precisely to find out. What is the inspectors' job all about? They are not only to find out, but also to destroy.

I am very pleased that this agreement has been reached between Hans Blix and the Iraqi authorities. I am, however, very concerned when I read in Le Monde and hear on the news that the Americans have indicated that they would try to block the return of the UN disarmament inspectors if this were to be carried out without a new resolution from the security council. They have said, “We will take action to block this return until a new resolution is passed” according to an unidentified high ranking State Department official who spoke to the press. His response to a question as to how the U.S. might go about this was to say, “We have a certain influence in the security council”.

This worries me. I would like to remind hon. members, since statements to the contrary have been made on at least two occasions here in the House, that, when the inspectors left in 1998, it was not because the Iraqis chased them out, as has been said. When Scott Ritter, who was chief inspector from 1991 to 1998, appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, he said that they had left was simply because the U.S. government given them orders to do so, the day before a planned unilateral military strike that had been mounted using intelligence gathered by the inspectors.

What lies behind the fear shared by many members of the public is, I believe—as hon. members are aware, the people of Quebec have been telling us that war is not necessary—is this new concept of unilateral pre-emptive strikes.

In a document released last Friday, a new strategic doctrine, the United States has developed a program that has certain very positive aspects, but others that are a source of ongoing concern.

In closing, I would like to say that this notion of preventive strikes, which goes far beyond what is allowed in international law, which permits self-defence if there is imminent danger, this notion of pre-emptive strikes takes us well back into the 19th century, when states acknowledged the right to wage war. This was a century marked by terrible wars.

Then World War I led to the creation of an international institution, with a sizeable contribution by the American Thomas Woodrow Wilson, although it proved not to be up to the task.

In 1928, the Briand-Kellogg pact—the first the French minister of foreign affairs, the other American—was signed by all countries, acknowledging that the countries would no longer use war to accomplish national objectives.

Finally, we had World War II with, this time, the UN charter, which was signed by everyone. This set of institutions was just completed with the international criminal court.

A debate will have to take place. Clear positions will have to be defined. Some courageous people will have to stand up and say that we cannot go back to the 19th century. We are on the way to peace through diplomatic means, through means that are all related to the UN.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Mercier. She and I frequently go to the venue she described, the Council of Europe. I am sure all of us benefited from her having been at the recent session wherein it was discussed.

However, it is very important to reinforce what the minister has said. There is no intent whatsoever on the part of the Government of Canada to support pre-emptive strikes but to operate through the very venerable institution she too applauds, and that is the United Nations.

We look back through history as she mentioned and indeed we see what the 19th century was with respect to pre-emptive strikes. It had another name at that time. We need to look back as well to 1938, to Chamberlain in Munich and to appeasement. There has to be consequences.

The minister has made it clear how we seek to make those consequences known to Mr. Hussein. That is through the United Nations. It is very important not to be selective in what historical precedents we reach for.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this provides me with the opportunity to say that, even at the Council of Europe, in the text that I wrote, I was pleased with what the minister said about pre-emptive strikes. However, I want to repeat that by supporting a new UN security council resolution providing that, should Iraq fail to comply, action will be taken, the minister is allowing those who might want to do so to say “This should not be done”.

I think that he is doing himself, and the positions that he has taken, a lot of harm. This is the first point.

Second, as regards Chamberlain and 1938, a comparison is not possible. While Saddam Hussein may be a despicable dictator—and the idea is not to make comparisons—the situation is not at all the same. Saddam Hussein is the leader of a country with a population of 25 million. This country has been under an embargo for 12 years, and we know that its military capabilities are extremely limited. As regards pre-emptive strikes, I read everything I could. There are possibilities and capabilities, but that is all.

When one compares this to everything that is going on elsewhere, all the other dictators, all those other countries that have means that they could provide terrorists with, why is there such a rush now and why use this type of pre-emptive strike that would thrust us back into another era?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like all members in this place, I agree that the decision to use military force should not be taken lightly. War is serious. If we engage in one, we must understand in advance that no matter how many precautions we take, innocent lives will be lost. Canadian soldiers may be killed. We owe it to ourselves to try to make the peace process work. We also owe it to ourselves to stand up against tyranny in the world. It is not an easy balance.

The Iraqi government has a long history of subverting our good intentions and we cannot allow this to happen again. Less than a week after agreeing to the return of the weapons inspectors, Iraq sent signals to the contrary. The member talked about the weapons inspectors. They were not kicked out; they left. Exactly the opposite is happening now.

To expect the world will be a more secure place by appeasing Iraq by continuing to spin in diplomatic circles and by allowing Iraq to make a mockery of the UN security resolutions is just not plausible. We have to stand up to Iraq. At some point in time we have to say that enough is enough.

Does the member not agree that at some point we have to stand up to defend the people and join with our allies and that we may have to go to war? We cannot pretend that we can reach into a magic bottle and that peace will happen. If it is not there and Iraq continues to make a mockery of the UN, does she not agree that we should then stand with our allies?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a number of questions together. I would start by reminding him that the people of Iraq have suffered enormously since 1990. The member is certainly aware of the UNICEF studies from several years ago already that estimated the death toll there at more than one million.

It really is an extremely serious situation. True, we must not let people ignore UN resolutions. However, Saddam Hussein is not the first to do so. Undeniably, he did not comply with all of the resolutions in the past, and it is important to point this out because our committee heard testimony to that effect. And indeed, there were spies in UNSCOM, this was so evident that they changed the structure of the committee of inspectors, who are now all hired by the UN and report to the UN since 1998. However, they have yet to get in. Now they have the opportunity to get in if they are let in. We must not prevent them from going in through a new resolution.

And now, dear colleagues, Saddam Hussein will have to comply. The agreement is that these inspectors have the right to go everywhere, unconditionally. Let them go in. If they are stopped, they will come back to the security council. Then, there will be another debate under completely different circumstances.

However, right now there is no evidence. Let the inspectors go in now, without trying to prevent them, as some are trying to do.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I am very pleased this evening to participate in this important debate on Iraq, focusing specifically on the crucial role which Canada can and must play in avoiding any possible disastrous war in Iraq.

I am greatly relieved that this debate is taking place on the very day that an agreement has been reached assuring the return of the UN weapons inspection team into Iraq. This resumption of inspections to detect and destroy any illegal nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in full compliance with existing UN Security Council rules is a critically important step toward easing the terrifying tension that has been escalating between Iraq and the U.S., tensions which potentially could threaten to destabilize all the Middle East.

Members are aware that the foreign affairs committee met recently at the urging of both the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québecois to encourage our own federal government to play a more proactive role in facilitating re-entry of the weapons inspectors into Iraq. With the exception of the Alliance always more interested in supporting the Bush administration's sabre rattling, all MPs participating on that foreign affairs committee were of one accord about the importance of Canada being more proactive in helping to facilitate the return of the weapons inspectors to Iraq and averting any war in Iraq.

The agreement reached today to ensure resumption of inspections for any weapons of mass destruction has been welcomed by the entire international community with the exception sadly, but predictably, of the United States. Instead of applauding this important step on the path to peace, what did we hear from White House officials this afternoon? We heard more talk threatening pre-emptive military strikes and unprecedented measures to force regime change in defiance of international law and even in defiance of its own 1976 directive forbidding assassination as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy.

Happily these dangerous provocations by the U.S. administration have not been mimicked on this occasion by the British prime minister. It was a relief for all of those who have been working to diffuse U.S.-Iraqi tensions to learn that Prime Minister Tony Blair had supported a labour party resolution at its annual convention in Blackpool yesterday declaring that British troops would participate in any action against Iraq only “after the exhaustion of all other political and diplomatic measures”.

We should welcome that moderation on the part of the British prime minister, and at the same time congratulate those within his own party and within Great Britain who have worked very hard to try to persuade the British prime minister not to act in accordance with George Bush in the kind of sabre rattling toward Iraq that we have seen all too frequently in recent weeks and months.

That brings me to Canada's current position. The New Democratic Party on several occasions has congratulated the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for their strong assertions and strong declarations urging multilateralism, insisting upon international law. It was reassuring earlier this evening to hear the foreign affairs minister give assurances that he would continue to advocate international law and multilateralism in our efforts to avert war in Iraq. However it is worrisome that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in every other statement on alternate days it seems, sound far more like errand boys for the Bush administration as it continues to ratchet up its war threats.

Members will remember that just a couple of years ago very proudly in this Parliament, Canada conferred upon Nelson Mandela the award of honourary Canadian citizen. It was a proud moment.

We would do well on this occasion to heed the recent warnings of Nelson Mandela that the U.S. threats to attack Iraq are “introducing chaos in international affairs”. We can be sure that Nelson Mandela did not choose those words lightly when he described the United States as a threat to world peace for its campaign to overthrow the government of Iraq. For him to have said so clearly that it must be condemned in the strongest possible terms is something that we need to take very seriously.

Perhaps not quite as dramatic in his assertions, UN secretary general Kofi Annan has similarly warned for any state large or small choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience.

This past week I was in Washington D.C. There is serious and mounting opposition in that American capital and throughout the United States to the advocacies of the U.S. president to act outside of international law. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, much respected for her courageous opposition to the American war in Afghanistan, continues to speak out. She said:

Our nation is today on the verge of going to war against Iraq. In a rush to launch a first strike, we risk destabilizing the Middle East and setting an international precedent that could come back to haunt us all. President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption violates international law, the charter of the United Nations and our own long-term security interests. It forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried to pursue them.

Senator Ted Kennedy is another of those who has been questioning the Bush approach to solving international crises, reminding us “There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war”. He went on to say:

A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support--could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts.

Surely these warnings should be sufficient for Canada to ensure that the weapons inspection agreement reached today proceeds without putting that agreement at risk by introducing another Security Council resolution. It is worth reminding ourselves that in 1998, when the previous American administration called off UN weapons inspections in Iraq, 90% to 95% of Iraqi weapons and their production facilities had been destroyed.

With the United Nations inspections now resuming, providing solid hope that war can be averted, it is more important than ever that our own government get its act together. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, his Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have been delivering different messages to different audiences on different occasions.

No other country is positioned as uniquely as Canada to pressure the U.S. to back off from further demanding new more militant Security Council resolutions threatening military aggression against Iraq if it fails to comply with existing Security Council resolutions. We are after all the largest trading partner and closest neighbour of the United States. While we took part in the gulf war, Canada continues to enjoy the respect of Iraq and, astonishingly perhaps, its seal of approval for the role of diplomatic intermediary. This is a unique opportunity for Canada and for our Prime Minister to step up their efforts to get the world on a path of lasting peace.

Critics who have forgotten our recent contribution on the world court in the international landmines treaty will cynically argue that negotiations are ongoing at the UN and members of its Security Council are currently already negotiating the contents of the next resolution on Iraq. Canada, after all, does not have the power to persuade the U.S. or others that the U.S. has pushed in supporting more militant, strident Security Council resolutions.

Canada should not bury its head in the sand and leave the difficult diplomatic work to other nations. We have a moral obligation to assert ourselves internationally in this debate in an even more aggressive way than we have done to date. We have a rich legacy of made in Canada solutions to challenges facing the global community and thousands of innocent Iraqis, already suffering from a decade of economic strangulation, are depending upon Canada to try to persuade the U.S. to seize the opportunity that has opened up for weapons inspections to resume. It is not naive. It is a fact that if we assume the very worst of any citizen or of any nation of the world, then we are likely to bring on the very worst.

As we participate in this evening's debate, the question has shifted dramatically to whether there is a need for another UN Security Council resolution. This is what we know. As we debate the issue in the House tonight the world is reacting with relief to the news that Iraq accepts all rights of inspections provided for in all existing relevant Security Council resolutions.

For years Canada joined the world in demanding that Iraq agree to the resumption of weapons inspections and that it meet all of the conditions outlined in the current Security Council resolutions. Today Iraq has officially complied. How does Canada react? It signals its support for another UN Security Council resolution.

I am astounded at the position of members of the official opposition. I do not know why I am astounded. Nothing should surprise us any more. Their gung ho approach to attacking Iraq, circumventing the legitimate role of the United Nations and the absolute necessity for a multilateral approach is downright scary. They seem prepared for the U.S., in fact they seem to want the U.S., flanked by Canada and the U.K., guns ablazing, to go right on in and attack Iraq. How absolutely irresponsible and absolutely insulting to all those nations that have worked so hard on the diplomatic front to bring about a non-violent solution. They probably regard the Bush administration's new foreign policy doctrine as too mild.

What we as a nation should be debating is what it is that Canada can do on the diplomatic front to ensure that Iraq does meet its obligations. That is the window of opportunity that has opened up to the world.

Tonight the New Democratic Party suggests that instead of the counterproductive approach of another UN security resolution, the global community offers the more positive reward of a return to the global community and the removal of economic sanctions that have strangled the Iraq population for over a decade. Let Canada live up to our proud diplomatic tradition. Let us live up to what the international community believes that we can achieve by staying the course for peace.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have just a comment really. The member alluded to the fact that the unilateral actions taken in Iraq may prompt a terrorist response. I think she makes a very important point because the consequences of an attack on Iraq will not be confined to the Middle East. What it will do is legitimize a terrorist response all across the world and anywhere in the world may be a target.

Anyone that is perceived as having taken part in an illegal attack on Iraq will be seen as entitled to an illegal response or a response that is outside the norm. This is precisely what we are seeing in Israel and Palestine. The more one retaliates against suicide bombings, the more it legitimizes suicide bombing as a method of terrorist attack, of reprisal.

I think we should all hesitate and consider very carefully that a multilateral approach, a UN approach, is the appropriate way to go. If we do become a party of a unilateral approach, we will very much be a party of the retaliation that is likely to come not from Iraq but from the people like those in al-Qaeda that sympathize with, I should not say a terrorist regime, but the type of regime that exists in Iraq.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member's comments. I have to say in the same way that moderation has been urged upon the British prime minister by backbenchers who understand the situation and the horrors of unilateral action, it would be very much welcomed. I want to congratulate those members on the government benches who have also been trying to counsel and persuade their own government not to go down that path of unilateralism.

One of the things that was very important that happened in May as it relates to the stability of the Middle East is that the Council of the Arab League worked very hard to reach out and bring Iraq back into the council and into the international community. Clearly the fact that today an agreement was reached between Iraq and the United Nations inspectors is a very promising, hopeful sign.

I hope that all members of the House will understand how important it is that we make that breakthrough. It is an important breakthrough. It is what we have all been working toward. We should make sure we reinforce it by not going off on a tangent to introduce a new, more militant, stringent Security Council resolution. It will put at risk the important agreement reached today and the fact that we are finally launched on that path toward resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq.

It will not take very much, and we know this to be true, to possibly tear that agreement to shreds by assuming that we cannot count on the Iraqi government to comply with the agreement reached today. We do not want to let that happen.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really am astounded by the ability of the member to allow her ideology to triumph over reason, common sense and historical experience. I do not know where she has been for the past decade.

She said that the technical agreement on modalities today somehow represents a historic breakthrough and that Iraq has now officially complied with the UN resolutions. There are no inspectors testing Iraq's willingness to comply. It was a promise to comply, the same promise which the world has heard time and time again and which has been broken time and time again. What gives the member reason to believe that has changed? Does she not agree that only the very clear threat of military action has once again brought Iraq back to the table?

Further, in terms of her absolute blind belief in the ability of the United Nations to solve problems, would she not agree that sometimes responsible democratic countries must take action to save lives and to protect the peace and international order when international institutions fail to do so? Would she not agree that the international community would have been responsible to have intervened in Rwanda to save the 800,000 civilians who were slaughtered and who were not protected because of UN inaction?

Does she not agree that it was responsible for NATO and Canada to intervene in Kosovo and protect innocent Kosovars in the face of UN inaction because of a Russian veto? Would she not learn from the historical experience of the League of Nations in the 1930s and its failure to act to preserve the international peace where international institutions failed to do so?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have two brief responses to the question put by the Alliance member. One is to remind him that it was his party tonight that interfered with the kind of free flow and exchange that could have happened here when the foreign affairs minister agreed to extend the time to allow more of an exchange. The member's party does not really seem interested in a full airing of the options for finding a peaceful solution to the situation in Iraq.

The member wants to know what gives me the right, or whatever the words were that he flung at me, to cite today's agreement between Iraq and the UN inspection team as being of important significance. Well I will tell you, Madam Speaker, what gives me the basis for doing that. It is that Hans Blix himself has said that the Iraqi representatives have accepted all the rights of inspections that have been laid down in previous resolutions authorizing UN inspections.

The basis for the U.S. warmongering toward Iraq has been that it has insisted Iraq would not agree to comply with the Security Council resolutions. Today through the United Nations weapons inspection team head, it has agreed to that. Let us build on that. Let us move toward a path of peace for which the world is desperately searching, and let Canada be part of achieving that peace.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party on her speech, which parallels my views. Given her broad political experience, I would like her to explain to me why Canada is headed in this direction. I think that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is sincere when he talks about multilateral action. However, it must be emphasized that the Canadian government feels that it has to follow the United States in its rush toward war, which the member so eloquently described.

Given her political experience and her perception, what does she think has driven the Canadian government to this point?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, far be it from me to try to explain the actions of the foreign affairs minister or the ambivalence that is demonstrated all too often in the Prime Minister's assertions, or the Deputy Prime Minister's assertions, toward Iraq.

I want to give the benefit of the doubt here. What I will say is that the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister have been correct in this respect to be supportive of recent U.S. actions. When we saw President Bush go to the United Nations to engage a round, seeking a solution in Iraq, if I understand correctly, the position of the Canadian government was to applaud that and try to reinforce it. That is not something with which I or my party disagree. We all agree that it was exceedingly important for President Bush to go to the United Nations. We want to do anything we can possibly do to reinforce the possibility of the United States acting within the rule of international law and acting in the spirit of multilateralism.

What is very disappointing is to see that there is not a kind of wholesale embracing by the government of the important opportunity that has opened up here in terms of making sure that the weapons inspection goes ahead undeterred, uninterrupted by new sabre rattling by the U.S., because we know that weapons inspections are not an end in themselves. Weapons inspections are about determining if in fact there are any weapons of mass destruction.

Let us be very clear here that the way to deal with that problem surely is not to unleash any possible illegal weapons that Iraq may have on the rest of the world. The objective is to make sure that those weapons of mass destruction, if they exist, are in fact destroyed to make the world a safer place.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time in recent weeks that the House of Commons has addressed issues relating to Iraq. The first, as mentioned by my colleague from Halifax, was at a meeting of the standing committee several days ago. In both cases, that meeting and tonight, it is fair to say that the initiative was taken by Parliament rather than by the government.

I commend the members of the committee and the House leaders of all parties, in particular my own who I think wrote the letter that was critical in this case, for taking that initiative. However, I want to recommend to the government that it become much more proactive in providing information to Parliament, and through Parliament to the public.

These are very difficult times, not at all ordinary. Canadians are increasingly uneasy about the prospects of terror or of attack or war. Canadians are aware that our country may have to make very difficult, literally life and death decisions. People in this country do not shrink from those decisions but they would take them more easily if they were involved and informed.

During the gulf war, which I acknowledge was a very different time, after the conflict had begun, the government in which I served as foreign affairs minister began the practice of regular public meetings with a committee of Parliament. Those meetings were televised live so citizens could see and learn. Ministers attended regularly as did senior officials. It is fair to say that those meetings were not adversarial; they were not particularly partisan as committee meetings sometimes are, but they did involve the exchange of information as well as the exchange of opinions.

The government will undoubtedly benefit from the views expressed this evening by members of the House. However, we all know how easy it is to ignore take-note debates.

What would really be helpful would be for the government to make a determined effort to make information available, not only on this issue but on some of the issues relating to al-Qaeda. I continue to be shocked by the answer given by the Solicitor General some months ago when I asked about information on the al-Qaeda network. I was told that it would breach national security if the House were advised. Later that day I read on the website of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom the very information I had sought.

We need to know what evidence the Government of Canada has of any connection the Iraqi regime has to al-Qaeda or to other terrorist organizations. It would be very useful to know the most up to date information the minister and his officials have of the possibility of a nuclear capacity in Iraq.

We would be very much interested in knowing in some detail what it is that Canada is doing, not only diplomatically and not only in the United Nations but elsewhere in the world. There are a range of other questions on which it would be very helpful to have the government regularly inform parliament and be available for questioning. It would be in everybody's interest. I think it would help develop consensus in the country as to what the real issues are and what our options are.

My party and I very much welcome the decision by President Bush to go back to the United Nations. There was great concern that might not happen. I hope that the Government of Canada will do everything it can to encourage the Americans to continue to work through the United Nations system.

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke he said that there was no need for mediation because Iraq was itself a member of the United Nations and that it had its own ways of determining its own interests and information.

We may not disagree on that but I want to make a point to him very strongly, again borne out of experience in a similar situation. There is an immense amount that Canada can do in terms of seeking to bring our influence to bear on countries and perhaps organizations or individuals who may have influence that we do not on the regime in Iraq.

There is no doubt that Russia is a critical player in terms of the attitude that the Saddam Hussein regime will ultimately take. There are extensive connections between the governments. They remain active. We should be using our influence with Russia. We should be doing the same with Iran. We should be doing the same with Turkey. There are other countries which the minister could identify.

I know from some experience that in an earlier situation with Saddam Hussein we literally did everything we could. We literally called everyone we could think of to try to bring some influence to bear on that regime. I will not pretend it worked but I do believe it was worth the effort because there are few other countries in the world that have the capacity of Canada to do that kind of thing.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the position that Canada took during the gulf war. I want to make a couple of things clear to the House. One was that we became part of a coalition then in the United Nations but it was a coalition that was marked by its breadth and by its diversity. Its strength was that it was broad and that it was diverse. That is what made that coalition work.

The circumstances are very different now. Canadians in particular should not pretend that the extent of the coalition now is the same as it was before.

We were, as the Leader of the Opposition said, prepared to use force. We were prepared, however, to use force in the context of the United Nations. In case there is any misunderstanding, I simply want to make the record of Canada very clear, at that time we also used every diplomatic instrument we could find. We resorted to force as a last resort. That should be the practice that is followed I believe now by Canada.

We need of course to know and to contain the danger posed by the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. He is an extremely dangerous man. It is an extremely dangerous regime. I do not think anyone disputes that.

We have to be very clear as to what our goal is here. I can do no better than quote the Foreign Minister of Sweden, Anna Lindh, who said a few days ago “Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator, but it is not the objective of the United Nations to get rid of him. The objective of the United Nations is to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction”.

I think that is very much worth our bearing in mind as Canadians. I share the satisfaction I think throughout the House that Hans Blix believes that he now has an agreement that will allow the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. However it is very important to note that it is an agreement. There have been agreements before. It is not done yet. We must find every instrument at our disposal to ensure that the agreement announced today by Hans Blix is in fact given effect.

Personally, I think it is probably helpful in these circumstances that countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia are indicating that there are options other than just the United Nations option that they would want to follow. That is their decision. I think it is not unhelpful in terms of trying to ensure that Saddam Hussein understands the seriousness of the position the world has taken.

In our circumstances, the position of Canada, at least at this time, is far better and more effectively exercised trying to make the authority of the United Nations as respected as possible. Whatever the Americans and the British do on their side, and whatever countries who have such credentials in the United Nations as we do, those avenues should be pursued.

I and I think others in the House are concerned that with the recent preoccupation with Iraq there has been less attention given to the danger of terror and to the al-Qaeda network and the al-Qaeda connection.

We have to bear in mind that one of the grave dangers of any unilateral action taken outside the United Nations, or indeed an agitation for that kind of action, is that it will weaken the coalition that fights terror. We simply cannot afford to have that happen. We also must, as others in this debate have made clear, be conscious of the high tensions in the Arab and the Islamic world. We have to take great care not to trigger violence and disorder there. There has long been tension in the streets of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and of course in the Palestinian authority. It is a very delicate and dangerous time and we have to be careful that inadvertent actions are not taken that may have the consequences of lighting fires that are in tinder dry situations.

I want to make a couple of separate observations about the United Nations and about the United States of America. I will start with the U.S.A.

The Americans of course are a superpower. It is a country of confidence and accomplishment. They do not bother me as much as they bother my colleague from Halifax. It is a country, and this is the point I want to make, that I think is both unusually angered and threatened by the terrorist attacks of a year ago. Those attacks struck us too. They took Canadian lives. They shocked us out of our complacency. However, for better or for worse, those attacks gave even deeper offence to the United States. That is a factor that we cannot ignore as we consider how Canada can best contribute to both the campaign against terror and the urgent question of Iraq.

I believe the current Canadian government has mishandled its relations with the Bush administration. We can discuss that another time. The point I want to make tonight is that the bonds between these two North American democracies are deep enough to overcome tensions between administrations.

The bottom line is that we are still the country with the greatest capacity to influence the opinion of U.S. decision makers.

Again, in very different circumstances, my experience has been that Canada can influence Washington even though we disagree on serious issues. One reason for that is that although we have similar roots we see the world differently. The United States is a superpower and we are not. It understands that we sometimes see things, hear things and understand things that it does not.

As was the case in the gulf war, we should be doing everything possible to encourage the Americans to continue, as I said before, to work within the context of the United Nations but there are other things we should be doing with them.

It is very important for the Government of Canada at whatever level to be making the case to the United States of how contagious and dangerous the idea of regime change can be. If one starts with Iraq, where does one stop? Does one then go to North Korea? Does one go to Burma? Does one go to Zimbabwe? Does one go to Cuba? It is a very dangerous precedent and it is very important for a country like Canada to use our influence with the United States and make that case calmly but emphatically and consistently.

With our interest in international development and our roots around the world, I think Canada has a heavy obligation to make the case about just how difficult it is to rebuild societies once they have become destabilized. The experience in Afghanistan is not encouraging. The experience in other places where regimes have been displaced is not encouraging. That is not, of course, to express support for the regime of Saddam Hussein. On the contrary, it is to say that no one should assume that society building is simple. When one computes the costs, and the costs here are immense, not simply the financial costs but the costs in terms of potential violence and the cost in human lives, we must recognize that it is not at all simple to reconstruct societies that come undone.

I thought it might be appropriate tonight to say something about the United Nations. I think that in some quarters the UN is seen as just a talk shop. There is no doubt that caution, delay and compromise are part of the UN culture. In a sense that is natural. It reflects the diverse and difficult world in which the UN functions. However what we need to remember is that the United Nations is the organization that always gets the tough jobs and which, quite often, despite its failures, gets those jobs done.

Countries do not take easy issues to the United Nations. The easy issues get settled at home. The UN is called in when normal procedures fail. What is unique about the United Nations is that it can confer a legitimacy on actions which would otherwise be unpopular, extremely dangerous or indeed impossible.

Most people think of the United Nations, I think, in humanitarian terms. Of course it does wonderful humanitarian work , but it was not set up for humanitarian purposes. It was set up for political purposes, political in the best sense of that word: to resolve disputes peacefully, to encourage order and to try to make hard decisions.

There have been references to the League of Nations and its failures. We should remember some history of how the United Nations came into being. We should remember the chaos and international disorder that engulfed the globe in two world wars. The men and women who designed the United Nations were not idealists in the weak or pejorative sense of that word. They were realists, worn by war, steeped in suffering. They had seen in that very League of Nations the futility of rules without a capacity to enforce them. They knew that, as in societies everywhere, rules will only be obeyed if they are enforced and if they are not enforced, then the rules become meaningless and societies themselves cease to be peaceful for anyone. So they built into the charter of the United Nations the right and the capacity to deter aggression and to reverse it by force if necessary when it occurred.

There is often talk of soft power. The United Nations can be hard power, capable of exercising both physical force and moral force. I make this point to emphasize that the United Nations option is not an option of either weakness or inaction.It is an option of strong action based on rules, action with the weight of international legitimacy. In this case it is the capacity to identify and deal with deadly weapons of mass destruction and to do that in a way which might prevent widespread movements of mass protest that could themselves have violent, unpredictable and uncontainable consequences.

I am pleased that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in the House tonight. I would hope that he might make this debate tonight a beginning of a much more open relationship between Parliament and the government on this issue.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for my right hon. colleague and former Prime Minister, and for the purposes of this debate, former Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time of the Gulf War.

First, as a decision maker of one of the coalition partners in that Gulf War can he tell the House, given that this is an important conversation looking back and looking ahead, whether or not he thinks it was a mistake for the coalition forces not to have gone up the road to Baghdad, taken out the republican guard and taken care of Saddam Hussein then? My second question reflects the debate beyond the House right now about whether or not the United Nations requires another resolution to authorize force. UN inspectors are on their way and if those UN inspectors are not allowed full and unfettered access to all the sites that they seek, should Canada consider that a violation, not of a UN resolution but a violation of a ceasefire agreement, and therefore in itself authorizes the use of force?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know there are age differences in the House. I think I heard the hon. member say that he thought I was minister of external affairs only 10 years ago or whatever it was. He truly is a youthful member of the House. Sic transit gloria , if I may say so to the minister.

I am not sure there is much point in going back to whether that decision was a mistake or not. Going up the road to Baghdad was not as easy as it might seem in retrospect.

On the other issue, I am quite worried that the existing resolutions are limited in the scope that the inspectors can undertake. It is important, particularly dealing with a regime like that of Saddam Hussein, to find some way in which that mandate can be extended. I would not however want to put at risk the accomplishment today reported by Hans Blix. We take these things a step at a time.

The first step obviously is that we do everything we can to ensure that the Iraqis comply with the agreement that they have made. If they do, then we have to look at other means, whatever they are, to try to widen the mandate of the inspectors in Iraq.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party touched on something which, to my knowledge, has not been raised so far. He referred to the absence of information regarding Iraq's collaboration with terrorist groups. This continues to be an important point. He is right about this, because what is new with respect to the situation since 1998 is largely what happened on September 11 of last year and the declaration of war against the terrorists.

I would like to give him an opportunity to expand a bit on this. It is true that relatively confidential or secret situations may be involved. But still, before launching into action as far-reaching as the United States is proposing in connection with Iraq, we are entitled to wonder just how far we may go in the search for information or evidence regarding the existence of Iraq's collaboration with terrorist organizations.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, I believe that the U.S. Director of National Security has stated that there is clearly a link between al-Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein. From what I understand, the U.S. is concerned about two threats: the terrorist threat and the threat coming from the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What I want to point out tonight is that it is very important for us to continue to pursue both these objectives. Al-Qaeda is very important. Al-Qaeda and other similar networks have gone after not only the United States, but also our fellow citizens. They are a threat.

The issue of Iraq can be dealt with according to its own merit. There are encouraging signs. Hans Blix thinks that an agreement might have been reached today to resume the inspections under the aegis of the United Nations.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the right hon. member for his comment about the readiness for us to have an exchange. I hope that the presence of all of us here tonight in the House indicates that these debates are take note debates precisely because we have an honest desire to exchange with one another our best experiences.

To the right hon. member I say that while we may not always agree on policy, we do respect his experience and respect what he brings to the House in terms of that experience. We respect the positions of all members and the experiences they bring to the House.

I would be particularly interested if the right hon. member could expand somewhat on his comments about the need to assure an international order governed by international law going back to his experience. This for many of us is the most troubling dimension of what we are doing here. It seems to me that this is what we are troubled by.

I listened attentively to the Leader of the Opposition and he was very careful to frame it in saying that we do not wish to rush off and create disequilibrium in the world order. However there is a trade off here. If we act precipitously or if we act without the United Nations, we risk destabilizing the world order and creating a situation where others will do the same. It has been indicated to me for example that already Russia is putting pressure on Georgia using terminology very similar to what the United States is using in respect of Iraq. Others may well start to use the same language in similar circumstances justifying the same way.

Any words from the right hon. member about what we can do to assure a guarantee of the world order as we go ahead will be helpful for all of us.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to quote fairly precisely the minister's colleague, the Minister of National Defence, who speaking as an economist talked about the interest that Canada has in order because we are a smaller country. I believe that was his argument.

We have a particular interest in an orderly world. Put against that the historic reality that among the most persuasive proponents of organizations achieving international order in the last 60 or 70 years has been the United States of America. It is important for us to make the point that when we speak of the American tradition, building international regimes that are rules based is also very much a part of the American tradition.

When it looks at questions of regime change and thinks of consecrating that with congressional authority, it would be well to remind the Americans of the reasons that led them to encourage international arrangements not only in trade, not only in the commercial side, but again very much even in the establishment of the United Nations, certainly in the establishment of NATO and other multilateral organizations. There is a strong multilateralist tradition in the United States that those of us in other countries which share that tradition should emphasize perhaps more than we do.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was beginning to wonder if you forgot me being down this side.

I recall the debate that took place back in 1988. I was just elected. We had come to the House and the government of the day took us into war with Iraq. At that time there was clear evidence that Iraq had invaded Kuwait. Iraq was acting in a manner which required a drastic response by the nations of the world. However, there is a difference at this time.

Indications from a wide variety of sources have stated that Iraq's military infrastructure has not recovered from the devastating punishment it suffered during the Gulf War. The allegations by the American government that Iraq has been developing nuclear and biological weapons capable of mass destruction has not been substantiated by any valid sources. The latest allegation that somehow Iraq was behind--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener--Waterloo.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that it is a very interesting night listening to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and a former minister of external affairs and former prime minister debate the issue of Iraq.

When we talk about Iraq we are talking about a regime that is ruled by a brutal dictator. There is no question about that. He has victimized his people for all too many years. He is not alone in the world, unfortunately. There are quite a few of them. We can find them in North Korea and Libya. There can be questionable regimes in Syria and all over the world.

If that became the reason why we could take unilateral action against any member state, then the whole rationale for the United Nations would be undone. I agree with the position of our government that we want the legitimacy of the United Nations in taking any action against Iraq. Any unilateral action or action by just a couple of nations could be quite destructive to world order and quite destructive to the future.

It was about a year ago that we in the House debated the events of 9/11, which really shook everybody on the North American continent, particularly our friends in the United States. One of the remarkable things to come out of 9/11 was an unprecedented coalition that came together to fight terrorism.

It seems to me that by beating the drums of war Saddam Hussein replaces Osama bin Laden as world enemy number one. The more there is talk about the Americans taking unilateral action, the more the coalition, which has really been unprecedented, has been squandered.

Not until very recently have we seen the debate in the United States starting to take shape at the political level in the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate. Questions are being raised about the wisdom of pursuing the policy of “either you are with us or you are against us.” I, for one, like many of my constituents, am very concerned that we have to make a black and white choice.

Unfortunately the world is not that simple. There are conditions that create people like Saddam Hussein. There are conditions that create people like Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein was a former ally of the United States in its war against Iran. Osama bin Laden was armed with weapons by the United States in terms of having him fight Soviet aggressions in Afghanistan.

The point I am making is that the United States took unilateral action in those cases. It made those decisions, but in the long term that did not serve their own security or our collective security very well.

When President George Bush Sr. engaged in Desert Storm, he did so with a coalition, and the former prime minister mentioned that. When I look at the present leadership in the United States, it is ironic that it is Colin Powell, the man with the military experience, the man who was a professional soldier, who is the one who is calling for multilateral action. He is calling for caution.

One of the issues that has disturbed many people in this modern warfare and the way we fight it is the incredible damage done to civilians. It is almost like war has become antiseptic. We fight from 50,000 feet up in the sky. Unfortunately the vast majority of victims are women and children. It was almost like when we were in the war in Kosovo. President Clinton stated, and it was his policy, that he could not stand to have any of the soldiers coming back in body bags the way that tens of thousands of body bags came back from Vietnam. It made it necessary that they could accept great losses on the ground but they could not accept significant losses of the military.

The people of Iraq have suffered greatly since Desert Storm. We all know that Saddam Hussein is not hurt by the sanctions. The people who are hurt by the sanctions are the women, the children, the people, the civilian population of Iraq. I think that is important to keep in mind.

I will go back to the Kosovo example. We could have reduced the amount of civilian casualties if we had been willing to engage the enemy on the ground, if we had been willing to roll in the tanks. We found the prospects of losses to the military totally unacceptable.

As we engage in peacekeeping, in peacemaking, now and in the future, I think we will have to place some value on the lives that are destroyed by the new age of antiseptic war that has been waged.

It is important for us as a country. We are a soft power. We are not like the Americans, who are very powerful. I think the Minister of National Defence put it very well when he said that unilateral power is a power-based system, whereas a multilateral, rules-based system is for those countries that are collectively, not individually, strong.

As we face the challenge before us, we have to look down the road and take note. How do we conduct a regime change so we do not unsettle a whole region? One way to do it is to make sure that the people of the region are onside, that the other countries of the region are onside. I submit that we have a much better chance of doing that if we look to a multilateral resolution versus unilateral, trilateral or bilateral action on this issue.

I hope that the debate going on in the United States right now is going to lead to a multilateral approach under the umbrella and the legitimacy of the United Nations.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, this member's speech and some of those of his colleagues sets my mind back to last September when we debated in this place the tragic events of September 11 last year. I was quite astonished that night to hear, repeatedly, comments directed not so much at the threat posed by international terrorist networks but rather at the concern about the American response to international terrorism. There were all sorts of dire predictions about the unleashed American military monster that was going to create international havoc and invade Afghanistan without international support and so on. Of course none of this came to pass. An international coalition led by the United States removed the tyrannical regime there and I think all of us, particularly the people of Afghanistan, are glad that it did.

My question for the member is this. When he speaks about multilateralism does he not accept that from time to time cumbersome multilateral institutions such as the United Nations do not function? Apparently his government believes this was the case in Kosovo when, for instance, one country, Russia, arguably for its own domestic political purposes, vetoed UN joint action to protect the citizens of Kosovo and consequently a different non-UN coalition of democracies had to intervene, as they did in that instance. Would he not agree with me, at least theoretically, that should the United Nations not live up to its promise and fail to act jointly other responsible democratic nations could work jointly together to ensure that international law in the form of UN resolutions is enforced, that international order and peace are kept and that weapons of mass destruction stay out the hands of this dangerous dictator?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I spoke in the House on Afghanistan. I spoke on what we were doing in Afghanistan and why we had to fight there. I was one of the first people to speak in terms of engaging in Kosovo and being part of that, but if ultimately we are going to create the kind of world where we have multilateral force, we have to move in the direction of the legitimacy of the United Nations. Because one thing is clear: If we are going to fight terror and terrorism we can only fight it if it is broadly based. So to the extent that we can engage under that umbrella, and I think we can, then we are going to be successful.

Also, it is not good enough. Now we can look at Afghanistan and see how difficult it is to establish a working regime and how unstable that particular part of the world is. It does not come easily. We cannot go in there and wipe out and destroy a country and expect to have it functioning in a civilized fashion in short order. It will take a long time.