English Bill: Debate on Iraq 
English Bill: Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:607;Page:4112] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting a coalition of the willing. We believe that it is in the interests of global peace and the long-term interests of New Zealand to see Saddam decisively disarmed. National has supported the United Nations process up until the time that it has failed. Along with the Government we supported Resolution 1441. More recently we supported the moves by the United Kingdom Australia the US and others to bring forward a second resolution to the United Nations. We did so not in the belief that war could necessarily be averted but in the belief that if there was a war it should have the broad support of the international community. There is now no second resolution and we believe that in the absence of such a resolution it is the correct choice for New Zealand to support the coalition of the willing which includes our traditional allies the United Kingdom the United States and Australia. 
I want to say to those who say they oppose the war and looked for a United Nations resolution that they have the luxury now of knowing there will be a war. They have the luxury now of knowing that Saddam will be disarmed and that what threat he offered to the world will be removed. They have the luxury now of knowing that the US is determined to retain its credibility as world policeman and will do so and will be called on again to exercise that role. 
Our hearts go out to the Iraqi people who face fear and suffering that they do not deserve. In particular I want to note the anxiety of those Iraqis who are resident here in New Zealand. It could have been different and we hope against hope that in the final 48 hours it will be different if Saddam Hussein meets the ultimatum of the President of the United States. We should remember that Saddam could have chosen peace at any time in the last several months but did not do so. He could have disarmed himself of weapons that he said he was not using. Instead as a dictator he continued to mislead the United Nations. He has a record of vicious oppression reckless military adventure and 12 years of defiance of the international community after the defeat in the Gulf War. It is our view that the proposal for another 30 days is but wishful thinking. Resolution 1441 supported by New Zealand included a deadline of 30 days which expired some 60 or 70 days ago. 
A surprising amount of agreement on the circumstances around this war exists between myself and the Prime Minister in the remarks she has just made. There is agreement that Saddam is dangerous and must be disarmed and there is agreement that we can understand why the US is acting as it is. The Prime Minister has refrained from criticising our allies. New Zealand has made a contribution to the war on terror a significant contribution that sees hundreds of our military personnel poised on the edge of the war zone in the Gulf with two frigates—the majority of our Navy—and a number of aircraft from our Air Force. There is agreement that the progress on disarmament that has been made has occurred only because of the credible threat of military force and also agreement that the United Nations has the right to invoke force in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. The disagreement is simply around the proposal that Saddam and diplomacy should have had more time. 
I want to consider the role the US has played and will play to help explain why we are supporting a coalition for the willing. I shall put it simply. Not to do so will entertain practical effects that are simply untenable. At this stage when there is no UN resolution not to support a coalition for the willing has practical effects that are simply untenable. I say to those who take a different view that if they believe there should not be a war as the Government does the next logical step is that the US should then be told that it should withdraw its troops. There can be only one result of that and that is that Saddam Hussein wins. Now that the diplomacy is over now that we are dealing with the raw calculus of military might there can be only one winner and it is only honest to back the coalition for the willing for that reason. 
For a decade the US has been called on to deal with collapsing States to stop genocide and to prevent suffering. Even today it is expected to deal with the task of North Korea and the risks it poses while powerful nations such as China Japan and South Korea take a second-row seat. The US is expected to solve the problems of Israel and Palestine. No one pretends that anyone else can. In recent years the US has stepped into genocide in Bosnia Kosovo and Serbia. It has played the role of the global policeman—a role that it will be called on to play again. Those who take the luxury of saying that this war should not and must not happen have not taken up that burden. In particular I refer to the French position which I find difficult to understand. France is the one nation that has initiated State-sponsored terrorism against New Zealand. 
I ask those who are opposed to the war to consider the practical effects of the US saying that it will not go into Iraq that it will withdraw its troops and of the world then facing the bizarre situation where Saddam Hussein has faced down the US and has won. That would be a ridiculous result. 
I cannot help thinking that decisions on this may have been made months ago. I cannot help thinking that we have been dragged to a choice that we certainly would not have sought. I cannot help thinking that we have only the choice in so far as views in New Zealand make a difference between bad and worse options. We have no eagerness for war. We have no eagerness for the suffering that might come with it. But in the long term our interests lie with those of the United States the United Kingdom and Australia. Along with the Prime Minister I urge anyone in Iraq who can to take the steps outlined by President Bush so that war may be averted. We seek assurance from the New Zealand Government today that it is taking all efforts to protect New Zealand citizens and also the assurance that the Government will participate in a post-war rebuilding of Iraq. We have an obligation to do so. 
Finally on the role of the UN we have a new kind of threat and an old set of rules. In fact over the last 10 years the UN has often been unable to take practical measures where those were required. At different times the US and NATO have stepped in and earned UN support later for their actions. The United Nations and its procedures need updating and I would hope that the New Zealand Government will play a role in urging change in the rules that the United Nations follow. Saddam Hussein has had many opportunities to disarm. The UN passed a resolution that threatened serious consequences if he did not. He has not and those serious consequences are bound to follow.