Page 30 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am sure that the Prime Minister agrees with me that there ought to be an immediate cease-fire and a negotiated settlement of the Gulf crisis. I also believe that Australian interests generally are not served well by pursuing a war policy. I would like to make it clear for the record here and now that I oppose the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait because it was a monstrous act of aggression.
Mr Humphries: But you will not do anything about it, will you?
MR BERRY: I hear Mr Humphries saying that I will not do anything about it. Well, I did not see him in front of the Iraqi Embassy when I was there. One monstrosity is not made right by a second one. I think it is fair to recognise that it is simply not good enough just to oppose wars but that it is necessary to deal with the problem of why wars occur. This war itself is undermining the potential for a lasting settlement in the Middle East because of the human and environmental damage which is going to happen and, of course, the destabilisation that it is causing.
I believe that a regional peace plan which deals with a range of Middle East conflicts should be one plank in the lasting settlement of that Gulf crisis. It is simply not good enough to say that the war is a good thing and we have to thrash this nation into submission so that we can achieve a result that we think is right. I think that what should be supported is a wider and more positive role for the United Nations in the settlement of regional disputes and in preventing international aggression. But such a role has to be based on implementing all UN resolutions for the region, not just selected ones. That is the difficulty I face in approaching this issue.
I think we have to recognise the political complexities of the area and I think we also have to recognise that a Middle East peace plan should include, firstly, the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait - there is no doubt about that; a regional security plan involving phased disarmament and continuous monitoring of military capacity; a separate peace conference to ensure Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state; secure borders to guarantee the continuing security of Israel; and UN adjudication of the original border and oil disputes after Iraqi withdrawal.
The problem with this motion is that it leaves out all of those solutions. All it tends to do is to support the attack and the aggression in the Gulf and its continuance; it does not go far enough. It is a poorly thought out motion which has been put on the record for cheap political aims. It shows the absence of any wisdom in relation to international peace initiatives. It is about war. What I am about is peace.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .