Goff Phil: Debate on Iraq 
Goff Phil: Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:607;Page:4123] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Decisions have now been taken that portend events probably within 48 hours that will result in death and destruction. To say that it is a matter of regret that the process of achieving Iraqi disarmament has come to this understates the significance of the failure of the United Nations Security Council to achieve disarmament by other means. 
This has been a serious debate and I welcome that. But various speakers have made comments with which I strongly disagree. I strongly disagree with Mr Prebble’s statement that this Government’s position does not have support in this Parliament and around the country. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Put it to the test. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I believe we should and we will test that motion. That will demonstrate that overwhelmingly this Parliament supports the course this Labour-led Government has taken and it will demonstrate that what Parliament has done is in line with what the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders wanted it to do. 
For Mr Prebble to say that New Zealand is irrelevant is quite wrong. We would be irrelevant if we were simply the echo of the voice of another country or group of countries. I am proud of the fact that as a small but sovereign country we have been prepared to do what we believe is right and to take the stance that we have taken because of a sincerely and strongly held belief. I believe that Mr Prebble insults this House in saying that the Government is anti-American. I am probably unique in this House in having two nephews in the American army. This Government has never been anti-American. We have stood beside the Americans when it was appropriate to do so and when it was appropriate to differ we have differed. 
I disagree too with Mr Prebble’s comments about a lack of debate. If there was a lack of debate according to Mr Rufus Dawe it was within Mr Prebble’s own party. Mr Dawe condemned the ACT party for failing to consult its members on this issue. I deeply regret that the one war veteran at the ACT conference last weekend was booed and told to “Sit down you clown.” because he promoted the United Nations as the essential body where decisions about war and peace should be made. 
I regret also the comments made by Keith Locke. Once again the Greens have taken their arguments to extremes. I heard Mr Locke condemn President Bush as a war criminal. I waited for but I did not hear one word from Mr Locke about Saddam Hussein and the tragedy that that man has brought on so many people in his country. I heard nothing from Mr Locke on the fifteenth anniversary of Halabja about the 5000 men women and children in that town against whom Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons. I heard nothing about the 40000 people still suffering in Iran as a result of the chemical warfare attacks in the war waged by Iraq against Iran. While I respect Mr Locke’s right to hold his opinions he should try to bring a little more balance to them. 
I have a number of points that I want to make. The first is that this country has consistently promoted the need for Iraq to disarm and it has consistently emphasised that the onus was on Saddam Hussein to prove disarmament and to avert the prospect of war. I can say with my head held high that this country is one of the few countries taking part in the debate on Iraq that has been consistent in its statements on the wider need to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction. Past Labour Governments have given New Zealand a reputation for advocating the elimination of biological chemical and nuclear weapons of which New Zealanders as a whole are proud. 
I believe that it was possible to achieve disarmament by intense diplomatic pressure albeit backed by the credible threat of force. I have never doubted that the United Nations needs to have the ultimate sanction of force in order for its resolutions to be carried into effect. But the truth is after the 4-year absence of United Nations inspection teams from Iraq the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission had been readmitted and it had been there for less than 4 months. In the words of Hans Blix a person for whom I have great personal respect it was making progress. We had seen the inspections recommenced. We had heard the debate over the use of U2 flights won by the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission team. We had seen the al-Samoud missiles destroyed. We had seen the questioning of the scientists begin. 
None of those events went far enough. They were all achieved with great reluctance on the part of Iraq but those events were happening and there was still the prospect that that route could have been successful in achieving disarmament. The reason that route was stopped was not that there was any imminent or immediate threat from Iraq. As long as the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission team was there no threat was posed by that country. Threats would have been posed long term if that process had not been carried through. The tragedy is that the timetable we are working to is a timetable driven by the build-up of military forces in the region and the approach of summer. 
Why have we resisted the use of force at this time? We have resisted it as a Government and as a country because the other options have not been exhausted. We have resisted it because as Kofi Annan has said “War is always a catastrophe.” People suffer and people die not only as a result of bombs and bullets but as a result of the destruction of the infrastructure that takes away their shelter their food supply their water and their medicines. War should always be avoided while there are alternative ways of resolving problems. We believe that those alternatives still exist. 
Finally I say we have two priorities with regard to Iraq and the Middle East today. Our first and most important priority must be the protection of New Zealanders—some 2500 of whom still live in the region and including the 15 New Zealanders still in Iraq. Most of the latter are with the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission. Their evacuation from Iraq is the responsibility of the Secretary-General. I know that plans are already under way to pull out those forces and we will not be relaxed about that situation until they are safely out of that country. 
The second priority is to help to ensure that assistance is available to the Iraqi people in order to minimise the suffering and the deaths that will be the result of war. That means providing immediate humanitarian assistance for emergency relief through the United Nations and multilateral agencies. We will be committing support to a range of agencies including the high commission for refugees the Red Cross the United Nations Children’s Fund and other agencies in order to relieve the hurt the damage the loss of life and the suffering that will be caused to ordinary people. Additionally this Government will commit itself to the longer-term tasks of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq that will be better for its people in terms of social policy economic development and the creation of a democracy. We have a role to play in that. As a good international citizen we have never stepped back from meeting our responsibilities and we will not do so on this occasion.