Dunne Peter: Debate on Iraq 
Dunne Peter: Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:607;Page:4118] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 An awesome reality is descending upon the world at the moment although it is not obvious from the speech we have just heard. That reality is the failure of the diplomatic moves against Iraq on the one hand and on the other the inevitability of the fact that by the time the House adjourns this week war will probably have commenced. 
There are people who rightfully say—and I am one of them—that there can be few regimes in the world more oppressive more dictatorial more repugnant and more undesirable than the Hussein regime in Baghdad. There can be few regimes in the history of the world that have shown themselves so impervious to international criticism and rebuke as the Hussein regime in Baghdad. I am also one of those who says that the process of a multilateral approach highly desirable as it is has not succeeded in this case and that whatever our views about the best way of proceeding the reality we face right now is that the American President has given the Baghdad regime 48 hours to quit or face the consequences. 
There are some important lessons arising from this issue that we in this country should take account of. Historically we have placed our faith in the United Nations and an international rules-based system. Sadly it has been found to be unable to cope in this instance. I submit that part of the reason for that has been the ongoing existence of the veto in the Security Council. The ability to bring events to a conclusion to secure resolutions and support has been severely hampered by the protestations of various states over the last little while about how the veto might be used. The process itself has become redundant but that does not mean that we should abandon the notion of the United Nations and an international rules-based system for the future. The lesson we first have to learn is the need to reform that organisation lest it fall into the trap that the League of Nations did immediately before World War II. 
The second set of issues we need to focus upon in this country—given the inevitability of conflict now and with it the very high probability that within a short period of time Saddam Hussein and his cronies will be literally and figuratively no more—is the question of what happens next in Iraq. There is a general consensus amongst all of the nations that have an expressed interest in this conflict of the need to ensure the rebuilding of Iraq as a free democratic and viable society. I believe we ought to be taking a role in ensuring that in the rebuilding process we do not inflame and entrench the very attitudes that have given rise to the current conflict. There is a role for the United Nations in that restoration process. I acknowledge with interest the fact that the United States which for so long seemed to be saying that it would run the reconstruction is now acknowledging a role for the wider United Nations family. I think that is imperative if we are to get a genuinely free democratic and viable Iraq in place and not simply reinforce the fires of prejudice that have given rise to the awful current conflict. 
The next issue this House and this small country ought to pay some attention to is what role if any we can play in this situation. Even if we were willing to do so the time has passed to consider participation in the coalition of the willing. The reality is that it will be there by the time we could actually mobilise anything to get anywhere near Baghdad—even if we had the capability to do so. We have shown over the years that in places like Bosnia and East Timor where a reconstruction job is required and where peacemaking and peacekeeping is important a small nation like New Zealand can play a part. I would like to think that in the post-regime change environment there is an opportunity for this country to yet again play a part in the restoration of freedom and democracy to some other part of the world. 
There is another issue that automatically needs to be considered as part of this conflict and which this country as a small country should be prepared to take a role in. That issue is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. In many senses the more that conflict remains unresolved and the deeper the wounds become the more likelihood there is that other conflicts divisions and outrages will be perpetrated as a consequence. I was encouraged to hear President Bush say at the weekend—in the peculiar jargon that a Texan President possesses—that he was now prepared to release the road map for a Middle East solution. I welcome that as a positive step forward but I would hope that the United States supported by countries like New Zealand would be prepared to become as actively involved in seeking a fair resolution of those issues as it has portrayed itself to be in respect of the situation in Iraq. Until that conflict is brought to a peaceful conclusion we can have no ultimate confidence that another trouble spot might not occur somewhere else in the broad Middle East region—maybe not of the horrific magnitude of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq but potentially destabilising none the less and certainly anti-democratic and a challenge to the nations of the free and democratic world. I think that has to be the focus from here. 
I deplore those who say that unilateralism is the way to go. If we adopt that path unreservedly we will begin to see a new form of international anarchy. I have an equal contempt for those—like the speaker who preceded me—who seem to think that the nations of the world that stand for peace freedom and democracy have no role to play in terms of bringing rogue States to heel. That is an equally untenable proposition. The reality we face today is that conflict is inevitable. At best—and even if it had a mind to—New Zealand has a limited role to play in respect of that conflict. We need to be looking to the future both in terms of the international institutions we have historically placed our faith in and the role that this country can play in terms of contributing to a new dawn for Iraq the re-establishment of a form of peace and democracy there and also to the restoration of international peace. 
In 1945 Peter Fraser played a huge role in the development of the contemporary United Nations. Half a century later as the shortcomings of that institution have become manifest it is a challenge for the present New Zealand Government and those that will follow to play a similar role in making sure that our international institutions are capable of meeting the challenges that have been imposed upon them. Otherwise the resort that has become obvious in this case and the failure of diplomacy to stop unilateral action will become entrenched and that will be to the detriment of all of us.