HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES on Iraq - Ottawa

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES
OTTAWA, CANADA
October 1st, 2002

Iraq

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby-Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, could the minister
clarify two points for the House today and for Canadians who are very
concerned about the possibility of military strikes on the people of Iraq
who have already suffered such terrible anguish and pain as a result of
the
impact of economic sanctions?

First, will the minister very clearly state in the House why it is
that
he believes that a new resolution of the United Nations is needed at this
point when in fact the position that has been taken so far by the United
States and others is that Saddam Hussein has been in breach of existing
resolutions with respect to weapons inspection? Why is he is echoing the
call of George Bush for a new United Nations resolution instead of
insisting
on the observance of existing resolutions?

Second, why is our government not doing far more in terms of regional
justice in that area to insist on respect for security council resolutions
not just by Iraq but by Israel as well?

Hon. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make it clear in my remarks
that the reason for our support for the British and American initiative
to
have a new Security Council resolution is based in a history and an
understanding of what has taken place in the past.

I do not believe that we can go into this situation naively believing
that Saddam Hussein is somebody who intends necessarily to conform to
international legal norms. Our experience is the reverse.

It would be the triumph of hope over experience to expect that he
would
now allow the inspectors in without some clear indication from the United
Nations itself that his ability to put it off, to change it to move around
is at an end. I think it is in his interest, it is in the interes
t of
Iraqi
people at this time that the United Nations act clearly to indicate that
there is no wiggle room, if I may put it that way, for Saddam Hussein.

It is in his interests. It is in the interest of his country because
if
he believes that there is a chance that he could slip out he might try
and
do what he has done in the past and then force would be used. Then the
terrible consequences which I described in my speech are there.

The reason for clarity is twofold. Clarity gives us an opportunity
to
deal with someone who we recognize has been a menace to world order in
the
past and has a capacity to be so in the future. It also gives us an
opportunity to ensure that no force will be used outside of the
constraints
applied by the United Nations itself. That is why we seek the clarity
of
another resolution. We congratulate the parties who are proposing such
a
resolution on moving in this direction.

As for how resolutions should be obeyed in other parts of the Middle
East or in other parts of the world, indeed Canada has always urged that
the
resolutions of the United Nations be respected.

As the hon. member knows as a scholar of international law, there
are
times in the times of nations when in fact peace and war are at stake
and
adherence to certain resolutions is absolutely essential.

It is true that we are taking steps on this case which may be
different
than they are in the case of other resolutions. We will continue always
to
urge that all resolutions be obeyed by the United Nations. Let us not
lose
sight of the fact that we are facing the fact of a possible loss of peace
in
the world with escalation possibilities that are truly frightening when
we
conclude it.

Therefore, it is most important that these resolutions not only be
adhered to but obeyed.


* * *

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby-Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the
Minister of Foreign Affairs for this opportunity to debate one of the
most
im
portant issues that I believe will face this Parliament in many years.

I am probably the only member of the House who was present during
the
debates in 1990 and 1991 and also probably the only member of the House
who
has actually had the opportunity to travel to Iraq on three occasions:
initially in the fall of 1990 with my former colleagues Lloyd Axworthy
and
Bob Corbett, a Conservative member from New Brunswick; again with a
delegation in the early part of the year 2000; and most recently in May
of
this year, along with a number of British members of parliament.

It is very clear to me that what is at stake here in this debate and
in
the very critical decisions that will be made in the weeks and months
ahead
are the lives of literally tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens,
the
environment in that region and stability throughout the Middle East. It
is
desperately important that Canada speak out in the strongest possible
terms
against any possible unilateral military strike that would have disastrous
impact on the people of Iraq and on this region.

We have heard eloquent testimony before the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I see my colleague from Mercier and other colleagues also who are
members of this committee.

We have heard eloquent testimony before our committee from former
UN
humanitarian coordinators, Denis Halliday and Hans Van Sponeck, about
the
devastating impact of economic sanctions on the people of Iraq. We know
as
well that the impact on the environment has led to the very adverse
results
of depleted uranium on children and indeed huge increases in the level
of
congenital birth defects. I was in the south of Iraq. I visited the
hospitals in Basra and Baghdad and saw for myself those results.

We have heard evidence before the foreign affairs committee and
certainly I have had to respond personally to the anguished plea of an
Iraqi
mother in a children's hospital in Baghdad
that was desperately short of
the
most basic supplies. She asked "Why do you feel you we must kill
their
children". I could not answer that question.

I was very proud of the fact that the foreign affairs committee stood
and spoke with one strong, powerful and eloquent voice. I might add that
the
chair of that committee at the time this decision made was the Minister
of
Foreign Affairs, the hon. member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale. I want to
remind members of the House what that committee unanimously called for.
The
committee called for an end to the economic sanctions, the delinking of
economic and military sanctions and a rapid lifting of economic sanctions
and a contribution to the overall goal of regional disarmament, a Canadian
diplomatic presence and so on.

It is in that context, a context in which hundreds of thousands of
innocent children have died, in which a nation's infrastructure in terms
of
clean water and sewage has been paralyzed, that we are now told by George
Bush that there is a concern about weapons of mass destruction, that we
must
pass a new resolution and obviously that there must be some sort of firm
military action to enforce United Nations resolutions.

To accept Bush's insistence that we move in this way is a recipe for
disaster. It is also fundamentally dishonest and ignores the history of
that
region. In fact, members of the House must know that according to the
former
chief UN weapons inspector, Rolf Ekeus of Sweden, the United States and
other Security Council members were manipulating UN inspection teams for
their own political ends. I do not have the time to go into that at
length,
but certainly both Rolf Ekeus and Scott Ritter made it very clear that
was
the case. In fact Scott Ritter said that far from Iraq kicking out the
weapons inspectors in December of 1998 that:

It wasn't Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government who gave the
boot to weapons inspectors from...(UNSCOM). Rather it was the United
States.

In the person of former President Bill Clinton...
It pushed them out so they could bomb in December 1998.

One might ask who Scott Ritter is. Here is how Scott Ritter describes
himself:

I need to say right out front I'm a card-carrying Republican in
the conservative-moderate range who voted for George W. Bush for
President.
I'm not here with a political agenda. I'm not here to slam Republicans.
I
am
one.
This is the source about information about the presence currently
of
weapons of mass destruction. Ritter said, and he said it clearly and
unequivocally to our committee, a committee of this Parliament, that no
one
had substantiated the allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction or was attempting to acquire weapons of mass destructions.
Scott
Ritter said:

This is not about the security of the United States. This is
about domestic American politics. The national security of the United
States
of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are
using
their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven
political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we
have
failed collectively as a nation.
For God's sake, surely our nation, Canada, must be speaking out
strongly
and clearly to reinforce that message.

Today we received good news. Hans Blix, the chief of the United
Nations,
UNMOVIC, the monitoring and enforcement inspection commission, has said
about Iraq that "On the question of access, is clarified that all
sites
are
subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access". What
more
can
we ask for? Each time they comply, the bar is raised higher and higher.

The spokesperson for the Alliance says that we cannot trust them.
Surely
we must recognize that when the inspectors go in, they have unfettered
access and if there is any suggestion of obstruction of those inspectors,
obviously Blix will be in a position to report back quickly to the Uni
ted
Nations, which is where this question belongs.

The hypocrisy in this area is breathtaking. I have heard from a number
of my colleagues on this issue already. The silence in March 1988 from
the
then American government included a number of key administration officials
now, about the gassing of Halabja. There was not a word nor a peep. In
fact
it obstructed the United Nations Security Council efforts to condemn them.
Why? Because then Saddam Hussein was our guy.

As well, we have to be honest and recognize that if we are seriously
concerned about respect from United Nations resolutions and Security
Council
resolutions in the Middle East, what country has violated over and over
again UN Security Council resolutions with the support, often alone, of
the
United States? Israel. Yet there is not a word on that. It is the only
country in the region that we know for certain possesses over 200 weapons
of
mass destruction. I remind members of the House that Israel has refused
to
sign the non-proliferation treaty. It is hypocrisy.

Which country just last year blatantly refused to sign onto United
Nations protocol on developing, producing or stockpiling biological or
toxic
weapons? The United States of America.

I want to once again appeal to the government and to the minister
to
recognize that it is within the framework of both international law and
the
United Nations that this must be resolved. It must be resolved with
consistency and equity. It must be resolved in a manner that respects
the
lives of innocent Iraqi people who have suffered already too much.

Over 100 prominent Canadians, Québécois et Québécoises, Canadiens
et
Canadiennes from everywhere in Canada, Anton Kuerti, Margaret Atwood,
Pierre
Burton, David Suzuki, and many more have signed a statement calling on
our
government to endorse the principle of a peaceful resolution of this
conflict. They have said it is time to move beyond war, il n'y a pas que
la
guerre. I urge the
minister to heed the eloquent words of these Canadians.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want
to thank the hon. colleague across the way for speaking so eloquently
and
so
passionately. However, I would like to point out to him some of us on
this
side were in the House in 1988-89 and also spoke on that issue.

Could the hon. member, in his own words, give us an impression of
or
characterize George Bush and Saddam Hussein and could he differentiate
between the two? As well could he try to give us an idea of the difference
between what Turkey is doing in Kurdistan to the Kurds and what Saddam
Hussein is doing to the Kurds?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we have to be very clear. Saddam
Hussein is a ruthless and brutal dictator who has gassed his own people,
the
Kurds in Halabja, and who has suppressed in the most violent and bloody
manner the civil liberties of his own people. I said that in May of this
year in Baghdad in the presence of Tariq Aziz. I made that very clear
that
those who are responsible for terrible war crimes whether the killings
at
Sabra and Shatila or the gassing of Kurds at Halabja, must be brought
to
justice.

I look forward to the day when the brave people of Iraq are able to
live
in a democratic society that respects the fundamental human rights of
all
of
its citizens.

This is a ruthless and tyrannical dictator. However why on earth would
we punish the people of Iraq in the way that is suggested by Bush? Nelson
Mandela said that they think they are the only power in the world.
Americans
are not and they are following a dangerous policy. One country wants to
bully the world. We must not allow that.

The member asksed me what this was about. In March of this year Colin
Powell said about the U.S. policy that regardless of what the inspectors
did, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off
with a different regime in Baghdad. This is about fulfilling
what his
father
did not finish. It is about regime change. It is about oil. It is about
mid-term elections and we in Canada must not be a party to that violence
and
that brutality.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I
would like to ask the member, since he attributes every motive possible
to
the American government's desire to enforce UN resolutions, could he
perhaps
speculate on or ascribe motives to the Labour Party in the United Kingdom
and why its members in their conference this weekend endorsed essentially
the position taken by my party? What nefarious Oedipus complex does he
choose to apply to Prime Minister Blair and his attempt to ensure that
international law and the integrity of the United Nations is respected
by
enforcement of the resolutions?

Further, does my hon. colleague not understand that in terms of the
weapons inspection regime, we would be sending yet once again roughly
100
inspectors into a country roughly the size of British Columbia? Clearly
the
Iraqi regime has now created mobile weapons plants and mobile scud
missiles,
which can be moved from locale to locale and quickly and easily hidden
from
weapons inspectors. Is he not aware that previous weapons inspectors have
raised this concern?

Finally, while the member quoted Nelson Mandela, is he not aware that
Vaclav Havel, one of the great moral heroes of the world today, has called
for the world to act together, if necessary using military force to ensure
that the integrity of the UN resolution is respected?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, if I have to choose for my facts
between an extreme right wing member of the Canadian Alliance and an
extreme
right wing Republican who was actually on the ground in Iraq for seven
years, who was the deputy chief weapons inspector and who has said
unequivocally, and I repeat again, that no one has substantiated the
allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is
attempti
ng
to acquire weapons of mass destruction, with great respect to my friend
from
Calgary, I think I will go with Scott Ritter on this one in terms of the
actual facts on the ground.

We want to get the inspectors back in there absolutely. Hans Blix
has
arrived at an agreement today to do that. I suggest that we allow that
to
work.

Just a couple of weeks ago the foreign affairs committee took the
same
position. I want to pay tribute to the member for Mercier and to my own
leader, the member for Halifax, for ensuring that the foreign affairs
committee had an opportunity to speak out on that very important question.

In terms of the Labour Party, perhaps my colleague is not aware of
the
fact that the Labour Party motion that was passed in fact just yesterday
made it very clear that both international law and the United Nations
must
be fully respected in any response on weapons of mass destruction.