<html>
<head>
<meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8">
<title>MR. GRAHAM - ADDRESS TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE - OTTAWA, ONTARIO</title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0">
<p><font face="Arial" size="+1"></font><font face="Arial" size="+1"></font><font face="Arial" size="+1"><u>CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY</u></font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial" size="+1">NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY</font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial" size="+1">THE HONOURABLE BILL GRAHAM,</font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial" size="+1">MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,</font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial" size="+1">TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE </font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial" size="+1">ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="+1">OTTAWA, Ontario</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="+1">October 31, 2002</font></p>
<p>I am pleased to be here today to talk about Iraq. Earlier this month, there was a take-note debate in the House, and I sent a
follow-up letter to members that I hope you found useful. My senior officials have also made appearances before this
Committee. Our discussion today is another important opportunity to contribute to Parliament's consideration of this issue.</p>
<p>I will keep my opening remarks brief in order to reserve as much time as possible for questions. Let me begin by offering
my views on the origins of the present crisis. I will then discuss Canada's efforts to promote a peaceful resolution to this
crisis. I will outline the state of the current UN discussions and then, with you, look ahead. After that I will be pleased to
hear your views and answer your questions.</p>
<p>As I told the House in our recent debate, the origins of the current crisis lie in Iraq's persistent and deliberate
non-compliance with its obligations to the United Nations. If Saddam Hussein had adhered to the letter and the spirit of the
Security Council resolutions and to the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War in 1991, today Iraq would be free of
sanctions and a full member of the international community.</p>
<p>Some have argued that Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs were largely or completely dismantled
through the previous inspections, and that therefore Iraq no longer poses a serious threat to other states. In my view,
however, it would be irresponsible to accept these opinions as the final word. The onus is on Iraq to show that it is not a
threat to international security.</p>
<p>Colleagues, I recognize that among us we have differing views about Saddam Hussein's capacity and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, but surely we cannot afford to be naive about this. The final report of the last UN inspection
team in Iraq stresses that inspectors had left without being able to finish the job assigned to them by the Security Council.
This report spelled out the areas where the team's questions were left unanswered, and where its investigations had been
blocked by Iraq.</p>
<p>Iraq's refusal to cooperate with United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors after 1998 has made it
even more difficult to determine what has since been going on there.</p>
<p>We cannot ignore Iraq's demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction to retain power at home and to
dominate its neighbours.</p>
<p>For over a decade, the world tried to compel Iraq to live up to its obligations to the Security Council. The United States in
particular has grown frustrated with the lack of progress, threatening to resort to force without the approval of the United
Nations, and urging regime change as the solution to the problems in Iraq.</p>
<p>Let me be clear that Canada shares the world's concern about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We have consistently
advocated the return of UN weapons inspectors to ensure Iraq's full compliance with its obligations to the UN Security
Council. Publicly and privately, we have made our position clear. We believe that a clear resolution is the best way to
secure Iraqi compliance and thus to avoid war. This is the position I have advocated repeatedly in discussions with my
counterparts, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Russian Foreign Minister
Igor Ivanov, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and others. I have done so from my many meetings at the UN
General Assembly in September, through to our discussions at APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum] last
week, and at my meetings Monday with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.</p>
<p>We are very much aware of the impact that a new conflict in Iraq could have on the Middle East region. My officials and I
have been in regular contact with our counterparts in the states of this region. We understand both their concern at the
prospect of war and their recognition of the threat that Iraq now poses to regional stability. But we are equally aware that
doing nothing about Iraqi defiance also poses grave risks.</p>
<p>Our objective is to see the Iraqi regime disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction, and we believe that the appropriate
means to this end is for the Security Council to assume its responsibility to enforce its resolutions. We see this as a critical
challenge for the UN. We will work with others to ensure that the Security Council emerges from this crisis strengthened,
not diminished; unified, not divided. This is why Canada supports a strong and clear Security Council resolution that will
achieve two vital purposes: first, to provide Iraq with a final opportunity to comply with effective UN inspections; and,
second, to set out clearly the consequences if it does not.</p>
<p>As for the current status of the resolution, let me bring you up-to-date on the Security Council's discussions. For the past
six weeks or more, Iraq has been the main issue before the Security Council. After protracted negotiations and discussions
with other permanent members of the Security Council, the United States on Monday tabled a draft resolution for debate.
The U.S. resolution presumes that military action will follow any future breach by Iraq of its current obligations, or any new
ones imposed. We are informed that proposals by France and Russia address what would constitute a breach, and how such
a determination would be made.</p>
<p>These discussions have raised a series of vital questions: How serious would a breach need to be in order to warrant
military action? Would the Council have to meet again to decide whether a breach had occurred? If that were so decided,
would the Council have to subsequently authorize action? At this time, we do not know where the Council will come out
on these questions, and we will continue to follow the debate closely.</p>
<p>In the days and weeks ahead, Canada may indeed be faced with difficult choices. In the event of an ambiguous resolution or
a divided Security Council, we may very well be called upon to chart a course based upon the circumstances and conditions
at hand, which takes into consideration global security interests, questions of regional stability and, of course, Canada's
own interests. Speculation at this time, therefore, about any such hypothetical circumstances is not helpful to our diplomatic
efforts to obtain a peaceful resolution to this crisis.</p>
<p>Our position is that inspections must be given a final opportunity to succeed. If they do succeed, there will be no need for
military action. If they do not, we may well have every reason to assume that Iraq does indeed pose a grave threat to the
peace and security of our world, and therefore action will be taken as authorized.</p>
<p>Thank you. I will now take your questions.</p>
</body>
</html>
