Mapp Wayne: Debate on Iraq 
Mapp Wayne: Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:607;Page:4122] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 History will judge that the United Nations failed to support its own Resolution 1441 of last year. Had the Security Council’s members stood together Iraq would have got the clear message to disarm voluntarily or face the consequences. The lack of unity of the United Nations has now inevitably led to the military action by a coalition of the willing led by the United States and Britain to enforce that resolution. 
Let me be clear that this action meets the test of international law. In November last year the Security Council unanimously declared that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security and that it was and is in material breach of its obligations. The Security Council also said that Iraq had one final opportunity to disarm. The reports by Hans Blix have demonstrated there has been at best only partial compliance with that. The United States Secretary of State Colin Powell proved decisively that Iraq has embarked on a pattern of deceit deception and lies. So Iraq is in breach of its most serious obligations to disarm. It has wilfully thrown away its very last chance to disarm peaceably. Even with 200000 troops on the border Saddam Hussein has refused to comply with the unanimous will of the United Nations. That is why the United States and Britain which are the countries that have committed their forces have had to make the decision to disarm Iraq by force. 
No one wants war and we are faced with what must be an agonising and a difficult decision. The course of war should always be a difficult decision for any political party or any Government to make because we know it results in innocent people being killed. The public are right to be worried about unforeseen consequences. But when faced with the worst dictator in the world disarming him and removing him by force is the only option. That applies to the worst dictators in the world. Everyone in this Parliament whom I have heard today is agreed that Saddam Hussein is the worst dictator in the world today. He has killed literally hundreds of thousands of people. He has started two major wars and he has used chemical weapons against civilians. He has developed biological weapons which must be a unique weapon of terror and he has lied to and deceived weapons inspectors for over a decade. 
That is why the National Party over the last several weeks has encouraged the New Zealand Government to support our traditional allies in their quest for a second resolution in the United Nations. We believed that was the best possible approach for a multilateral decision. Instead the Government chose to side with France Germany and Russia in opposing a second resolution. That decision will be marked as a decision that will damage the United Nations in the long term and it will also damage our own country. When we have the choice of supporting our traditional allies we should make that choice in favour of them. When we need them we can count on them. So when they need us they should be able to count on us. 
But there is no second resolution. That is due to French intransigence and Labour has supported that French obstructionism. That might be Labour’s way; it is not National’s. So we are faced today with now having to support the disarmament of Iraq by a coalition led by the United States and Britain using force because the United Nations has failed. More than that we support those countries because they are doing the right thing. The coalition is not acting alone. It is supported by Italy Spain the Netherlands Poland Hungary the Czech Republic Slovakia and most other Eastern European countries. Why is that? It is because those countries know to their cost the price of failure to stand up to dictatorship. We are faced with that test in this Parliament today. When the United Nations fails to support its own resolutions a coalition of the willing can enforce that law and indeed must enforce it. Coalitions of the willing are increasingly the way that international laws have had to be enforced in the last decade. The United Nations system simply is not up to the challenges of the modern era so the countries with military capability are the ones that have to make the decisions. Those countries that are most concerned about a regime cannot afford to be thwarted by those that have no direct or material interest in the situation. Those countries that can enforce the law have an obligation to do so. 
This issue lies deeper than just the Security Council the United Nations and Iraq. It is also about where New Zealand’s long-term interests and obligations lie. The Prime Minister over many years has always seen New Zealand as a European-style non-aligned social democracy much like Sweden. Of course we have to ask ourselves when any of those small European countries has ever done anything at all to assist New Zealand. In fact they are typically our antagonists on issues in international forums so by taking the line that we have on Iraq we have turned our back on our traditional allies. This crisis has revealed more clearly than ever before where the fault lines lie in international relations. Our history should tell us where we should be going. To be out of step with the two countries in the Pacific Basin that we are most closely aligned with cannot possibly be in New Zealand’s interests. 
So today I say this: to support the action led by the United States and Britain is the right course for New Zealand. We do so in National because in the first instance that ensures that international law is upheld even when the United Nations fails to act. But in the second instance our own interests should tell us to support our traditional friends and allies. Those relationships matter most on the tough issues and this is assuredly one of the toughest of them all. Our position as a nation will be remembered long after Iraq has a new Government and we will be judged accordingly. 
I conclude by saying that there are times in politics and in the life of a nation when clear decisions have to be made. This is one of those times. Our Government did have the opportunity—which it did not take—to make the right decision in which enforcing international law would have coincided with defending our national interests. That is the path of failure.