moved:
That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, take note of the rotation of Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to have a debate before the government decides on yet another difficult position for Canada in terms of the deployment of its troops in the former Yugoslavia.
I would like to begin by drawing to the attention of the House the efforts of the international community to reach a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The world community has made significant efforts to resolve the conflict in the Balkans and has used various means to do so, including crisis diplomacy, the imposition of sanctions, the establishment of prohibited air zones and, of course, the deployment of UNPROFOR.
Currently UNPROFOR is made up of 38 national contingents or specialized units, totalling about 39,000 military personnel. There are about 5,300 civilians also assigned to the particular force, making it the largest peacekeeping mission ever put together by the United Nations. Eleven NATO countries are providing about 44 per cent of the total personnel and Canada is foremost among those countries.
UNPROFOR was created in February 1992 specifically to monitor the ceasefire between the Croatian and Krajina-Serb forces, to supervise this demilitarized UN protected area, and to try to bring some kind of semblance of normal life back to the people in the region.
As the situation deteriorated to the south in Bosnia-Hercegovina in September 1992, UNPROFOR's mandate was expanded to provide security for humanitarian relief efforts in the region. As we know, an UNPROFOR element was deployed to the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to help deter possible aggression.
In the brief time I have this evening I want to talk about the situation in Croatia because it is becoming much more relevant to Canada and the Canadian position in the former Yugoslavia.
The conflict between Croatia and the Krajina-Serbs, as I said, has been at an impasse since 1992. At the root of the impasse is Croatia's determination to regain sovereignty over about 30 per cent of the territory held by the Krajina-Serbs who are reticent to disarm in the process.
Talks have been held under the auspices of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia in November 1993. A three-part strategy was set out to help resolve the problem.
First, a ceasefire had to be established, then discussions held on economic issues and, finally, agreement reached on a form of political reconciliation. This strategy permitted some progress.
In December 1993, the Croatian government and representatives of the Serbs in the area reached an agreement on setting up a series of ceasefires. At the end of March 1994, a general ceasefire agreement had been signed between the Croatian government and the Krajina-Serb authorities. UNPROFOR succeeded in making sure the agreement held, one of its various achievements in Croatia.
At the same time, this agreement caused considerable concern among the Croatian population. These people were afraid they would be victims of a situation like that persisting in Cyprus and were concerned that the country would be permanently divided by UNPROFOR.
Nonetheless, the general ceasefire did raise expectations that an economic agreement and ultimately a political settlement were within reach. Efforts to reach a lasting settlement in Croatia were dealt a shocking blow on January 12, 1995 when the Croatian president, Dr. Franjo Tudjman, informed the UN secretary-general that his government would not renew the mandate of UNPROFOR in Croatia beyond March 31.
President Tudjman said that Croatia's experience over the past two years had led him to conclude: "Although UNPROFOR has played an important role in stopping violence and major conflicts in Croatia, it is an indisputable fact that the present character of the UNPROFOR mission does not provide conditions necessary for establishing lasting peace and order in the republic of Croatia".
Before looking at the events in Croatia and at the United Nations following the dramatic statement by Mr. Tudjman, I would like to consider the diplomatic situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The efforts that went into resolving the conflict there paralleled the war itself.
At the start of 1994, Muslims and Croatians in Bosnia reached an agreement resulting in a ceasefire and constituting a major step in establishing a federation encompassing the two groups.
This ceasefire continues to hold. It is monitored by UNPROFOR. In central Bosnia, CANBAT 2 has tasks related to monitoring this ceasefire. Of course we have our troops also in the Krajina region, CANBAT 1. We also have a group largely in the service area located in Split.
This three-part conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina has been stabilized to some degree. The international community has turned its attention to finding a solution to the conflict between the Bosnian muslims and the Bosnian Serbs.
As we know, to inject more life into this the contact group was established with Great Britain, France, the European Union, the United States and the Russian federation in April 1994. This group has worked particularly diligently in trying to get a solution.
Its first proposition was to redraw the map in a post-conflict Bosnia whereby the Bosnian muslims and Croats would receive about 51 per cent of the territory and the Bosnian Serbs about 49 per cent. The parties were also offered a number of incentives and disincentives to encourage their acceptance of the new plan.
Like previous international offers, the plan was rejected in a Bosnian-Serb referendum by more than 90 per cent of the voters. Despite these setbacks, the contact group and the warring parties have continued.
There was another development recently, before the year end. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with officials in both Sarajevo and Pale and succeeded in negotiating an agreement for a countrywide ceasefire in Bosnia-Hercegovina and the opening of negotiations for an end to hostilities by January 1, 1995.
On December 31, 1994 the Government of Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Bosnian Serbs signed a cessation of hostilities agreement to take effect along the lines of confrontation for a four month period ending in April 1995.
This agreement is being supervised and monitored by UNPROFOR, including our troops. The agreement calls for a separation of the forces, full freedom of movement, the opening of the Sarajevo airport, restoration of utilities, exchanges of prisoners of war and the withdrawal of all foreign troops.
Throughout the first two months of 1995 the agreement held with only minor violations. By late February violations had increased and most observers do not expect a ceasefire to last beyond the next few weeks. We hope that common ground may be found between the parties whereby an agreement may be extended. One can only hope that these negotiations begin very quickly.
On the current diplomatic situation on the UN mandate, it is useful to set the tone. This is the backdrop by which we will perhaps redeploy our troops starting next week.
President Tudjman, after considerable pressure, very courageously decided to re-evaluate his original thinking. He agreed to a continuation of an albeit smaller UN reformulated presence, a different kind of mandate. It is more along the traditional peacekeeping lines that Canada participated in during our years in Cyprus whereby we work the line between two hostile factions.
President Tudjman envisages a new independent force to be established. This new mission should help to implement the ceasefire agreement and it should assist in the implementation of the economic agreement, the one I mentioned earlier. It should also put in place elements of the existing UN peacekeeping plan for Croatia. That continues to be accepted by both parties, including the maintenance of UN presence on international borders as well as confidence building and humanitarian measures such as assistance to refugees and displaced persons, protection of ethnic minorities, mine clearance, convoy assistance and the like.
As the current UNPROFOR mandate expires in two days, the UN must reach some kind of agreement on the renewal of its presence. The United Nations is now working very closely with all the parties involved to reach a workable agreement on this continued UN presence. Canada has been a party to many of these discussions.
The UN secretary-general has proposed three distinct missions in the region to meet the unique circumstances in Croatia, Bosnia and the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.
Canada's position is that we say to Canadians we know their feelings of pride in Canada in trying to assist in this very difficult situation in the heart of Europe. Canadians have been quite happy to do their part with their continued presence in both Croatia and Bosnia. We also understand that Canadians are becoming a little bit concerned that this deployment not be open ended and that we not continue ad infinitum.
I think we were in Cyprus for about 29 years. We do not plan to be in Bosnia and Croatia for 29 years. We on the government's part are obviously re-evaluating our commitment to the region. We do not want to walk out on our allies, on the UN. We have all been in this together. We believe there can be a negotiated settlement.
From a Canadian point of view, we hope that we can start to reduce our presence in the region somewhat but at the same time try to continue the good work we have been involved in. In other words, we believe that perhaps with a reformulated mandate in Croatia and a heightened Canadian presence there, we may be able to more effectively contribute in that area. That would be for the UN to decide whether or not it wants us to continue in both theatres, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia, or whether or not it wants us to concentrate our efforts in Croatia.
These are the questions with which we are grappling at this time. Canada certainly is willing to continue to do its part in the region. We feel it is incumbent upon the government to listen to the views of members of Parliament.
As I said, two battalions of the Royal 22nd Regiment are ready to deploy. We have about 2,100 people in Bosnia-Hercegovina and in Croatia. We have another 400 to 500 in the area generally, the UN observers, the people with Operation Sharp Guard on our ships, and the people who have been involved in the airlift operation of supplies to Sarajevo. We have quite a commitment in the region.
Before I conclude, I want to underscore Canada's willingness to be flexible in helping the UN address the concerns. I also want to underscore the fact that Canada's commitment in this particular operation cannot last indefinitely.
We believe Canadians want us to review our participation. They welcome the views of parliamentarians to see whether we should continue with this particular rotation for another six months and perhaps talk about scaling down in the fall after we have further discussions. Perhaps the Croatian force itself, the idea of it, will become a bit more mature and well defined.
Perhaps the best posture for us to take is to continue with this rotation. As I said in the House the other day, we do have flexibility. We could decide not to rotate. We could keep some of our troops there for a number of weeks while alternate arrangements are made. Obviously, getting so close to the wire with a number of scenarios unfolding, especially with the new force in Croatia, we feel that may be very difficult to do from the point of view of the UN. We do not want to let the UN down.
However, we do believe we are coming very close to the point when Canada has to make some significant changes in its commitment in the region. We welcome any ideas the UN may have for continued Canadian presence which will demonstrate to Canadians that we are just not there indefinitely performing the same valuable functions, but that we are making progress
toward a peaceful settlement and that Canadian participation is helping to move in that direction.
I will be very interested to hear the views of members opposite. Unfortunately I will not be able to stay for the entire debate. My parliamentary secretary is here, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who will be taking notes and taking part in the debate.
I want to assure hon. members that once we have the views of the members this evening, they certainly will be taken into account. The government will address the views expressed in the debate tomorrow morning. We will have something more to say on the matter of the deployment at some point tomorrow.
