Mr. Speaker, late last month the House was informed by the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister that Canadian forces aircraft were involved in the operation in Kosovo. There was no debate. There was no motion. There was no vote. Again we had a take note debate. We really wonder who actually listens to take not debates.
The interest of this great country demanded that I put aside all the reservations I might have had about that air involvement, and my party and I supported it. Three weeks later here we are again discussing a possible commitment of Canadian forces without a votable motion.
I express my profound disappointment at the government's refusal yet again to take the high road and bring forth a motion to allow parliament to sit in committee of the whole and listen to expert witnesses, then allow parliament to debate that issue and finally end with a vote. That is what democracy is all about. That is what the Canadian people deserve when it comes to an issue of war. I am insulted and Canadians across the country should be outraged at the government's failure to respect simple democratic principles. We sell democracy around the world. Yet we fail to practise it in the House.
As of March 24 I supported the current mission. Having said that I too believe that the only resolution for the many problems of the Balkans is through negotiation. I concur with so much that has been said in the House this evening and this afternoon that involvement of the Russians is critical in settling the issue. Often in history one must go back to diplomacy, but usually one finds that diplomacy must be backed up with military power.
Once NATO committed itself to the solution of the Kosovar civil war and once it got into the Rambouillet peace talks, its credibility was put on the line. President Milosevic underestimated the resolve of the western alliance. As each day passes he increasingly desires a way out of the current confrontation with NATO. We will eventually be able to negotiate a settlement by keeping the pressure on. The best hope for long term peace in the region is to stay the course.
We should continue with air strikes to degrade the Yugoslavian military capabilities. Reports today say that is in fact happening, that it is running short of fuel, that it is running short of ammunition. That is good news for all of us and for the people of Kosovo.
To convince Belgrade of the wisdom of negotiation will be the diplomacy that is involved. Milosevic must be convinced that there is a real opportunity to negotiate and that he must be sincere if he returns to the negotiation table.
At this point in time and without further information I am not in favour of committing Canadian forces to a ground campaign in Kosovo. Canadians clearly want something to be done. The images of ethnic cleansing demand a response, but Canadians are also aware of the limitations of military capability.
There are many issues that the government and NATO need to address. I want to know what the actual objectives of such a campaign are and what the likely exit strategy would be if we were to go in with ground forces. I want to have some idea of the resistance the military is expected to face. I want to have a complete briefing on the potential casualties that we might suffer. I also want a strongly worded, sincere and public assurance that the Canadian forces are adequately equipped to do the job.
The auditor general and military experts have repeatedly pointed out the serious equipment problems faced by our land forces. These issues should be seriously and honestly addressed by both the defence minister and the chief of defence staff.
We are proud of our troops. We are proud of what they do, but I too, like some others in the House, have seen them in operation and feel sorry for them as they try to do their job with equipment that is less than adequate.
Most important of all, I want the government to clarify why we are in Kosovo. Why have we chosen Kosovo when there are 30 other places where ethnic cleansing is occurring?
I want to be able to look the Canadian people in the eye and say with total sincerity that I thought Canada's vital interests were best served by engaging in a ground war. I want to be able to tell Canadians that if some of their sons and daughters do not come back from such a mission the sacrifice was worthwhile.
To date I do not have answers to any of these questions. The government has not made a case for such an effort. It is the government's job to make such a case. From the Prime Minister on down the government seems indifferent and fails to deal with these very serious considerations.
The entire Kosovo effort is also somewhat unsettling in another perspective. In 1949 the country took an active role in creating the North Atlantic Alliance. At the end of this month we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of that alliance, but it is unclear to me exactly what we will be celebrating in less than three weeks' time.
The NATO engagement in operations over Yugoslavia does not seem to be the defensive alliance that we helped to create in 1949. Throughout the cold war the issues were admittedly much easier to understand. Things are not as clear in the post cold war era and nowhere is that perhaps more confusing than in the Balkans. Therefore, we should be hesitant about jumping too quickly into conflicts that are so very complex.
I am also concerned that NATO's actions today are damaging our long term relations with Russia. We cannot construct a new security order in Europe without the participation of a friendly and satisfied Russia. Russian involvement will allow Mr. Milosevic to allow an international force in Kosovo. Russian involvement will allow NATO to stop bombing and to say that the problem has been solved and an international force can take over.
I see Russia's involvement as being critical in this whole issue. It seems clear that NATO's actions are not perceived as being defensive by Moscow. In fact, they are seen as being very threatening.
We can dismiss as posturing much of the rhetoric now coming from Moscow. However, we must also look to the future and the day when Russia is much stronger. It will remember the disregard to its views that we are showing today.
The principal questions still remain unanswered. What is NATO becoming? Is it being transformed, first by the peace support operation in Bosnia and now by its mission in Kosovo?
The 1991 strategic concept declares explicitly:
The alliance is purely defensive in purpose: None of its weapons will ever be used except in self-defence, and it does not consider itself to be anyone's adversary.
I do not think that anyone in this House today would argue that the civil war in Kosovo directly threatened any NATO member. If we accept the need to engage in this type of peacemaking, peace enforcement or humanitarian mission, where do we draw the line? In what region or in what conflict will we not intervene? What will be the priority list that we set?
I have a list of over 30 countries that have recently experienced ethnic cleansing in one form or another. We have turned a blind eye to almost all of them. In Chechnya nearly 100,000 people were killed. Should NATO have responded? In Sudan a war has been raging for 43 years and over one million people have been killed. Should NATO have responded? This past weekend in East Timor scores of people died. Will we ever forget the image in Indonesia last year of 2,000 Chinese businessmen and their families who were put inside automobiles and torched? Should NATO have been involved?
We cannot expect that NATO should try to solve all of the problems of the world. We really need to know what the limits of NATO's activities will be. I do not believe that Canadians want to support an alliance that repeatedly finds itself mired in local and regional conflicts. That is not the NATO we joined in 1949. I do not believe that such an alliance is sustainable in the long term. In my opinion we just do not have the human or economic resources to sustain such an effort.
Let me be perfectly clear. It is in Canada's vital interest to have a strong North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, but that alliance will only be seen to be legitimate if it is defensive. I do not see our people supporting NATO as a global policeman. As NATO intervenes it risks becoming a part of the problem.
The situation in Kosovo is a case in point. By linking NATO credibility to the peace settlement in Kosovo we have become a combatant in a regional conflict. It is a conflict the complexity of which I am not convinced the Liberal government fully understands.
One can only begin to understand the issue by becoming familiar with the history of the area. I am not at all certain that this is being done. Today we are being overwhelmed by images of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, but these atrocities have occurred on all sides. We are angered and disgusted when we see these things, but we have to understand that this is nationalism, that it is 1,500 years old, that it is part of something much bigger than what we see simply on the surface. We seem to be creating a NATO protectorate and that may not be in the best interests of regional stability or in NATO's best interests. A protectorate over Kosovo might demand that we remain there for a long time.
Even if we resolve the current war, I feel that there are long term problems that we should be discussing. The question of the ethnic Albanian population in the southern Balkans is one we will likely have to confront in the future. The highest birth rate in any part of the world is in that area.
Given that this war has likely raised national consciousness, can we really expect that the ethnic Albanians will not one day want to live together in a single state? That aim will pose a serious challenge for existing borders. If this were to happen Kosovo would only be a small part of what would become a very major problem. The issue would embrace not only Kosovo, but Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania and so on.
I mention these issues only to show how incredibly interconnected ethnicity, politics and geography are in the southern Balkans. When I was there I visited nine classrooms. I visited bars, hospitals and restaurants. I talked to the people. Only then did I understand just how complex this problem really is.
I have raised all of these questions for two purposes. First, I want the Canadian people to know what I believe the Kosovo crisis really involves. There is the humanitarian dimension of trying to end the ethnic cleansing in that province, something we are all disgusted with, and of seeking a solution to the long simmering ethnic problems in the region. However, the stakes of our involvement are far broader. It is also about the very purpose of NATO itself in the post-cold war period.
Second, I raised these questions to indicate how this government and in particular this foreign affairs minister have let Canadians down. I suspect that we do not have a votable motion before us today because the government does not want to confront many of these issues. It wants a blank cheque to cover its own failings. The government does not wish to talk about these issues because it knows that Canada no longer has as much influence in the world as it once had. Soft power has alienated us from our NATO allies who no longer think of us as serious international actors.
Thirty years of disregard and disdain for the armed forces has left us without a credible voice at NATO military headquarters. I have learned these facts by talking to Canadians, academics and many foreign officials.
It is true that we still sit on the North Atlantic Council since all members do, but our words just do not carry the weight they once did. Our opinions are no longer as respected as they once were. The legacy of effective Canadian diplomacy which led to NATO's creation has been squandered by governments in the last 50 years. We are now marginalized. We are not part of the contact group and there is a reason for that. Soft power has brought us that.
It is often remarked that crisis focuses the mind. I hope that the ongoing crisis over Kosovo has that effect on all members and all parties in this House. The stakes involved are very great, be they the lives of Canadian forces personnel or the vital interests of this country. It is for this House to calmly and deliberately contemplate the consequences of the actions now being discussed. We must remember that each one of us as members of parliament might have to stand in front of parents or grandparents who will ask “What did my son or daughter die for in the mud in Kosovo?”
