Mr. Chair, a number of things, one of which would be to take a leadership role, as Canada did related to Kosovo. We would talk with other countries and determine at what point should we enact this policy, which was correctly brought into the United Nations in terms of responsibility to protect.
The Prime Minister is not doing that. He is not taking leadership, meeting with other world leaders and saying, ”Something has to be done. We're willing to take some kind of action. Who else is going to join in?” He flew over there some months ago, wheels touched down literally long enough for some photo ops and he took off again without securing a commitment from the Khartoum regime to allow the military vehicles we were offering to go into that area. We would be showing leadership.
When I was at the United Nations as an opposition member several months ago, I approached the representative of the Khartoum regime. I asked him what he was doing about the crisis in Sudan. His response was, ”What crisis?” The Khartoum regime is in total denial that there is even a crisis. Thousands of people are being killed monthly.
We would be showing leadership. We would not be satisfied with a photo op in Khartoum and then lift the wheels and take off again. The government fails to show leadership.
He talked about the international policy statement. It is filled with inconsistencies. He talked about trade issues and other things that were talk about in the international policy statement. Nowhere in that international policy statement does it suggest what should be done in Sudan. Certainly nowhere does it suggest that we will stay out of Sudan as long as the African Union says we cannot go in. This is a new policy that has been articulated tonight.
We are bouncing around back and forth here, playing the proverbial game of parliamentary ping-pong. There cannot be any clear winner because he and I are alone in the debate at this point.
I still will maintain that there is no consistent policy. I have gone through the international policy statement from cover to cover and read it carefully. There is nothing that says at what point shall we enter Sudan.
The minister said that the government had diplomats there and that they were intervening. With all due respect to our diplomats, they are not standing in front of the machine guns and the helicopter gun ships that raid through the areas of the south and into Darfur, slaughtering and panicking entire villages. They are not standing in front of the riders on horseback of the Janjaweed warriors who come screaming into villages and small towns, literally raping and pillaging like the barbaric madmen they are.
Our diplomats, quite rightly, cannot stand in front of that, but Canada could be taking a stand, with other nations at the United Nations, in a vigorous way and saying that there must be some action we can take here, that there must be something we can do.
When the other African nations are suggesting that they do not want any involvement, that they want to let the slaughter continue, what is our response? Our response for instance with Ethiopia was to continue to send them money by the millions. When that country right now teeters on disaster and on crisis, $100 million is sent into that country with warnings from the NGO groups. They have said not to send it the regime.
In terms of foreign policy, which then is a guide to defence policy, this year we are giving more money government to government, more money to regimes proportionately and less to the NGOs. The NGOs are the non-government organizations on the ground in these countries where the suffering is. They know that if we let that money flow through the filter of the regimes precious little, if any, will get to the people most in need. The international policy statement does not address that. There are huge inconsistencies there.
Ours would be a coherent policy. I can say without any hesitation that when it comes to aid, and the member talked about aid going to people and countries in need, we would look very seriously at the amount of money that is going government to government and the amount of money that is going to regimes instead of the NGOs. There is nothing in the international policy statement that gives a reason or any kind of rationalization why proportionately this year less money in aid is going to the NGOs and more money is going government to government.
If we want to talk about military concerns, there is nothing in the international policy statement that explains why we continue to give dollars in aid to communist China. China has been one of the single largest recipients of foreign aid over the last 10 years. China has a huge, rapidly expanding economy. It is the third largest and most powerful military in the world. It has a space program. It just completed a $100 billion oil and gas deal with Iran. Iran has made a commitment to wipe Israel off the map and to kill all Jews. China, this huge economic force, this giant military force, lines up its 400 missiles along the straits of Taiwan because Taiwan is debating an issue about its future.
Over the last 10 years we have given China over $1 billion. I am using that example and the inconsistency related to intervention. Could the member explain giving $1 billion to China, one of the strongest nations in the world and one of the most aggressive, military nations?
The member opposite mentioned Zimbabwe. China has very close relations with Zimbabwe, which has a regime that is destroying its own country. It is ruining the economy and devastating the agriculture sector. China is drawing close linkages with it, which is its right to do, but we are helping it, maybe in a minor way. We are financing $1 billion. The member cannot give me an answer to that.
There is another $50 million in another program that was just announced two weeks ago, giving more money to China. I also would ask the member to explain that inconsistency.