FAIT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, October 1, 2003

º

1620

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

His Excellency Amre Moussa (Secretary-General, The Arab League)

º

1625

º

1630

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Amre Moussa

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Amre Moussa

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Amre Moussa

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Amre Moussa

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Amre Moussa

º

1640

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Amre Moussa

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Amre Moussa

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

º

1645

Mr. Amre Moussa

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Amre Moussa

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Amre Moussa

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC)

Mr. Amre Moussa

»

1700

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Amre Moussa

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

Mr. Amre Moussa

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ)

Mr. Amre Moussa

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Amre Moussa

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 048

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, October 1, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1620)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Welcome.

    We're continuing with relations with the Muslim countries. As a witness today we have Mr. Amre Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League. Mr. Moussa, welcome. It's a rare honour for me to welcome you to our committee. Among many accomplishments in a distinguished diplomatic career, let me note that Mr. Moussa served as Egypt's foreign minister for a decade, till his appointment as secretary-general in May 2001. He led his country's delegation to the Madrid Middle East peace process in the early 1990s, and prior to that he served as Egypt's ambassador to the United Nations.

    Your visit, sir, has come at a particularly timely moment in our deliberations. As you may know, the committee is presently pursuing a study of Canadian relations with the countries of the Muslim world. Members are planning to travel in several weeks time to key Muslim countries, with one group going to south and southeast Asia, while the others go to the Middle Eeast, including an important meeting in Cairo.

    Last Friday members of our committee had the privilege of hearing from the President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf. We were able to raise with him critical questions that are preoccupying the international community as a whole, controlling the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, notably nuclear proliferation, combatting terrorism and tackling it at its roots, reviving the Middle East peace process, addressing privacy, development, and governance challenges within the region. The aftermath of war in Iraq and the long road ahead towards democratic stability also raised questions about ensuring that the United Nations and regional multilateral organizations such as that of which you're head are able to play an effective and constructive role.

    I know what the secretary-general has to say will deepen our understanding of the perspective of the Arab world on these matters. I would also like to draw to your attention, sir, that our committee was able to meet in New York last May with Dr. Rima Khalaf Hunaidi, director of the UN Development Programme's regional bureau of the Arab states, which produced last year the landmark Arab Human Development Report, the first of its kind undertaken by Arabs themselves. We salute this initiative, and we are looking forward to benefiting from the findings of the second edition of the report, which I believe is due to be released in several weeks.

    I would like now to invite you, sir, to make an opening statement, after which we will go to questions from the members.

    His Excellency Amre Moussa (Secretary-General, The Arab League):

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks also go to the distinguished members of this committee.

    I'm very glad to be in Canada as the first secretary-general of the League of Arab States to officially visit this great country. I've had occasion to visit Canada before as a private citizen. This trip takes me from Ottawa to Toronto to Montreal, meeting with the Arab Canadians.

    We have a tall agenda in our region. In fact, I cannot deny that it is a highly-charged agenda, with the question of Palestine at its top, the question of Iraq, the question of the attacks against Islam, the question of development and the problems of development, the deficiencies our societies have to deal with.

    To take up first the Arab-Israeli conflict, the major problem in the region, I would say that it is facing a dead end at this juncture. We don't see any light at the end of any tunnel, and in all honesty, I believe this is due to the immunity given to the state of Israel and the impunity it enjoys in international relations. Therefore, a major imbalance is created between the two parties to any negotiations, the Israelis and the Palestinians, or the Israelis and the other Arabs. Unless you are accountable to international law, to the Security Council, like everybody else, you will not have any incentive to cooperate or to make a meaningful compromise. This is creating a wall that stops any endeavour, any initiative, any move towards a solution. Without fair treatment, a fair initiative, and a balanced approach, there will be no solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict. No amount of money given to one party, no amount of arms given to the same party, no amount of political support, no amount of protection will lead to an imposed peace in favour of one party against the other, because it will not last.

    There has to be a balanced approach, there has to be a fair settlement, and the ingredients of the settlement are there. We're not going to invent the wheel every couple of months or every year or every administration or every government in the Middle East. The ingredients are there, documents are there, initiatives are there, even agreements are there, but the lack of political will and the imbalance created by this bias towards one party and the current fluid international order, which does not really help solve the problems in a fair way, create a major dilemma in the Middle East and threaten peace, stability, and security in that region to the maximum.

    Not only that, it creates tension and fears among the population of this region, approaching 300 million people. They are frustrated, angry, and therefore they reject the current situation as an imbalance and unfair. The frustration and anger always leads to violence, leads to confrontation. It is our responsibility, all of us, as members of the international community, to do something to rebuild a fair balance in order to move ahead with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

º  (1625)  

    We in the Arab world are ready to make peace, normalize relations, recognize the state of Israel, and turn the page, put the Arab-Israeli conflict behind us, provided that Israel has the same will and is ready to withdraw, ready to recognize a Palestinian state, ready to deal with any problems we have. Each and every problem has a solution if there is a balance of power between both.

    Iraq is an added problem, and it is still in a state of fluidity. Yesterday I listened to an intervention by one of the high officials in the American administration. He was painting a rosy picture that Iraq is on its way to function again, and very soon. Other Iraqis say exactly the opposite. We, the Arab countries, the Arab league, are ready to help. We're not going to discuss whether the war was right or wrong--it has happened. Now we need to know how to work together in order to save the situation in Iraq. I underline “work together”. It is not one country or one party that will solve that problem. If we want a solution, the international community has to cooperate, and the Security Council in its forthcoming resolution would be better to have it as a strategic resolution looking forward, how to bring everybody together, work together, and it should be clarified that we are moving to restore sovereignty to Iraq and put an end to this occupation, while maintaining good relations and the interests of all.

    There must be a timeline. Everybody should know what we are going to do for the next year or two years. We're not saying we are going to solve the problem in one day or America has to withdraw tomorrow, but the withdrawal and exit strategy will have to be agreed upon, restoring sovereignty to the country will have to be agreed upon, and the rebuilding of Iraq will have to be agreed upon in a parallel way, with the approval and cooperation of all and with the United Nations flag hoisted above all of us. Without this collective work, I believe tension will continue to prevail in Iraq.

    The problem with weapons of mass destruction in the region is one of the major items on this agenda, and the MPT, because all countries in the Middle East are members of the MPT, with the exception of Israel. If we want to establish a zone free from weapons of mass destruction, we cannot do that with the exception of Israel. That's why this is a major problem in this region. The Israeli nuclear situation will have to be tackled, together with any similar situation in the region or beyond, because it touches on the future security of the region, not only of certain small portions where Israel and its neighbours are, but the rest of the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and even Europe. This is a major problem. It is not only where we are situated, but affects the larger region that deals with this situation of weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction are not only in one country or in another. It is a problem that has to be honestly and openly addressed, and with no exception for any country. Why would there be an exception? Why would I treat country A differently from country B? If there is a nuclear situation or concentration of weapons of mass destruction, the whole region cannot be secured.

º  (1630)  

    The trip you referred to, Mr. Chairman, to some of the Muslim countries is a very important idea, especially at this juncture. Since President Musharraf of Pakistan has met with you, I don't need to elaborate. He is an able man and very eloquent in defending Islam and the positive relationship between Muslim nations and the west in general. But I have to say that maintaining this notion of a clash of civilizations with special reference to Islam is a destructive theory that will not end peacefully and will not lead to any stability all over the world. Islam is not the enemy of the west, as the west is not the enemy of Islam.

    If we talk about terrorism, at a certain stage some terrorists who belong to certain Muslim countries or the Muslim religion have committed heinous crimes, such as the one on September 11, 2001, but this is not the only major terrorist action or crime that has been committed. It is heinous, and I do sympathize with the people of New York and others who were victims of this crime, but it is also a very unfair accusation, to say the least, against Islam. We see war in Ireland between two Christian sects. Does Islam have anything to do with that? Or between Serbs and Croats? And before them, the Bader-Meinhof in Germany? What was it? Or the Red Brigade, or the Red Army? Those major terrorist organizations existed in all societies, democratic and autocratic, Muslim and Christian, so why attack Islam?

    Of course, in such an enlightened gathering, you do understand this, but by reading newspapers and listening to those accusations, simple people would believe that Islam is the cause of what's going on, and this creates feelings of animosity and confrontation that we have to deal with. So I believe that such a trip would work in favour of more understanding and dialogue, rather than confrontation, between us.

    I have two more brief points to add. We recognize in the Arab world I represent that we have major regional problems, as I mentioned, but we also have problems with how to develop and rebuild our societies and to link up with the 21st century. We know the deficiencies of our societies, and we are dealing with them, we have to deal with them, and here is where Canada can help a lot, as with the regional problems we have. I assure you, however, that we are very much aware of our duties as societies that need to rebuild themselves and deal with major problems of development and deficiencies, be they on the economic side or the social side.

º  (1635)  

    The second point concerns poverty. Of major priority on the international agenda, I submit, is not only terrorism, but also poverty. Both are highly important, highly sensitive, and they have to be dealt with on an equal footing. Indeed, we live in the Arab world, but we also live in Africa and Asia, and the problem societies meet. Bearing in mind the poverty considerations and the failure of society after society of millions of peoples, in Africa in particular, we cannot, and I believe Canada should not, ignore this. So if we have an agenda, I would put both terrorism and poverty on equal footing as number one.

    Those are my brief remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for listening.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now we'll go with questions and answers. I would like to ask my colleagues not to have a preamble, because there will not be that many questions. Mr. Moussa will be here just for a few minutes.

    Mr. Day.

    Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Though I am bursting with preamble, I will defer to the chair and ask two very specific questions.

    Sir, do you and your 22 member states recognize the legitimacy of Israel to exist as a Jewish state?

    Second, Canada has recently pledged $100 million in support of the rehabilitation of Lebanon and the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty over all parts of the country. What measures is the Arab League taking to encourage Syria to end its 27-year occupation of Lebanon?

    Mr. Amre Moussa: Thank you very much, distinguished member, for those two highly-charged questions.

    Yes indeed, we do, as 22 Arab countries, recognize the state of Israel as it is--

    Mr. Stockwell Day: As a Jewish state?

    Mr. Amre Moussa: --as a Jewish state. It's a Jewish state. We're not going to recognize them as a Christian state.

    This is the foreign affairs committee. You must have read the unanimous official initiative we adopted in Beirut in 2001. The summit meeting of the Arab League unanimously adopted and officially informed the Security Council of the United Nations that we thereby decided to recognize the state of Israel, normalize relations with it, and consider the Arab-Israeli conflict as having ended, provided that Israel honoured its commitment under resolution 242 and withdrew from the territories occupied in 1967, negotiated the question of refugees, and recognized the state of Palestine, in accordance with what Mr. Bush has said. So what else? What more than that?

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Did the declaration have the words “as a Jewish state”? I know some members don't understand and some people would see it as a secular state, but did the declaration you just quoted have the words “Jewish state” in it?

    Mr. Amre Moussa: My friend, the recognition goes to the state of Israel as is.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: No, I said as a Jewish state.

    Mr. Amre Moussa: Is it Jewish or not Jewish now?

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm just asking, sir--

    Mr. Amre Moussa: I'm telling you, it is a Jewish state. We recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Stockwell Day: But that declaration you quoted did not have those words in it.

    Mr. Amre Moussa: Have the Israelis recognized the right of Palestinians to have a state, Muslim or otherwise? Do you see the other side of the coin, distinguished member, or only one side of the coin? We are ready to recognize Israel as a state as it is, a non-Christian one, non-Muslim, a Jewish one, if they also recognize the right of the Palestinians to have a state and the right of others to live and exist honourably. If they don't, they will not have our recognition. They have to give recognition for recognition.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: And the second question?

    Mr. Amre Moussa: Lebanon is a sovereign state. There is a special relationship between it and Syria. This kind of relationship has been decided within the Arab family of nations for certain considerations. It is not to stay forever. The Lebanese, as a sovereign country, have their ambassador here, have their embassy, have their government, and if you ask them, they say they need the cooperation of Syria, but the current situation relates to the tension and the Israeli factor in their occupation of the lands of both Syria and Lebanon. So this is the thing that has to be tackled. It is not, as the Israelis used to say, just to shift the emphasis: okay, let us see what Syria is doing. What about the Israeli occupation itself of the Syrian land and the Lebanese land? This is the issue, not the relationship between two Arab countries. This is a different problem; you have nothing to do with it. You have to deal with violations of international law, with the issues that have been dealt with by the Security Council. That is the famous resolution 242 and many resolutions on the issue of the Israeli occupation. There is no resolution on the so-called occupation by Syria of Lebanon, there is nothing. Those are the claims of Israeli propaganda, but go to the United Nations and you'll find no resolution, go to any other organization and you'll find nothing about that, because it is a certain relationship between two Arab countries, acknowledged and recognized by everybody as a temporary thing and a necessity they have seen in the face of the Israeli occupation.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Secretary general, I would like to thank you for you very powerful remarks. I am going to ask you a few questions.

    First, I recognize that the imbalance of power explains why the serious problems between Israel and Palestine have not been resolved. Could the Arab League play a stronger role than it does right now? Could the Arab League be a stronger force than it is right now in order to help resolve this situation?

    Second, regarding the travel we will be undertaking, if I understood correctly, you are saying that we must not accept the Huntington concept of a clash of civilizations. Were you referring to the title of our study? What have you seen that makes you say that? Frankly, I myself do not believe in this clash of civilizations. So I would like to understand more clearly what you mean.

    Third, with respect to nuclearization in the Middle East, which you did not mention but is an important issue, do you believe that the solution would be for all Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, to comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

º  (1645)  

[English]

    Mr. Amre Moussa: To answer the last question, yes, of course, if Israel signs the MPT, it will mean major progress towards the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction across the board in the Middle East. That would help a lot the security situation in the Middle East, in north Africa, and in the Mediterranean. I believe this should be the case. It's not that we want to have a propaganda war against Israel, but we don't want Israel to have this nuclear thing as a threat to everybody over there. We need a solution on this, and joining the MPT would be the solution, because this would allow the IAEA and the international system to inspect, and we'll have the international community sure of the situation in Israel as far as nuclear arms are concerned.

    On your trip, I understand that it will be to visit some Muslim countries. We are very much aware of and concerned with the attacks against Islam, and this will be raised. So I welcome your visit from that point of view. The clash of civilizations is something that is talked about all over the world now, and it's had very serious and negative repercussions. That's why I say that this is very important trip. At least from a fact-finding angle, you will see how things are and the concern we all have for this.

    As for the role of the Arab League, it has been translated into the initiative I mentioned in answering the first question of the gentleman over there. The Arab League has said we are ready to coexist with Israel. The difference between us and Israel is not in denying their existence, but over their policy on the occupation. Here I wish to go back one moment to the gentleman's question about the Jewish state. Of course it's a Jewish state, but I hope you are aware that this should not mean the transfer of one-fifth of the population of Arab origin. Saying that their being a Jewish state gives them the right to deport millions of people is a serious thing. But we agree that it's a Jewish state.

    The Chair: Very briefly, Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: The initiative taken by the 22 Arab countries was very important in getting the peace negotiations underway again, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that these 22 Arab countries and the various observers could have more influence in the world than they do now. I think this is a fair observation, and I was asking you what you could do, given the oil that you control, the wealth you have and the population you represent, to have more influence in international institutions and the world.

[English]

    Mr. Amre Moussa: It is, as I said, a tall order. We have a very serious agenda, not only the questions of Arab-Israeli conflict, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the Iraqi problem, or the problems in Sudan, but serious developmental problems. We'll have to deal with them. I believe a pan-Arab plan for economic revival is important, and we are working on that now. We are working on reforming the whole system in order to have much stronger pan-Arab cooperation, with special emphasis on the economic, social, and cultural problems. I believe for the last 50 years or so the sole issue for the Arab League was Palestine. Of course, we'll keep the priority given to Palestine, but we also have other issues to cater to, how to develop and change and catch up with the international situation in the 21st century. The Arab League has a duty to do that. By doing that, if we succeed, we'll be immensely increasing the influence of the organization.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Mr. Eggleton.

    Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): Your Excellency, thank you very much for taking time to be with us today.

    I have two questions. One is a follow up to your comments about Israel and nuclear weapons. I wonder if you would comment on the threat you see from Iran pursuing a nuclear path and what the Arab League proposes in that regard.

    Second, with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, what is the league doing to persuade and put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to end the terrorist attacks by Hamas and other terrorist organizations, the suicide bombings, which are a key part of the reason there isn't a peace agreement being pursued? Back in the latter days of Bill Clinton's administration he called both Arafat and the Israeli prime minister at the time, Barak, to Camp David. Barak put a proposal on the table far exceeding anything an Israeli prime minister had to that point in time. It may not have been enough for Arafat--it obviously wasn't, he rejected it--but the response that came was the intifada and a deterioration of the situation. I've been to the Middle East, both to the Palestinian area and the Israeli towns and cities, on many occasions, and I've seen a very deep deterioration in the last couple of years. Part of it is that security situation, the suicide bombings, the terrorist attacks. What can the Arab League do? The Palestinian Authority has enough force, police, paramilitary, to rein in the terrorists, but it hasn't done that. So how about the Arab League putting the pressure on the Palestinian Authority to do that?

    Mr. Amre Moussa: The first question was about Iran and the nuclear situation. We are for controlling the whole nuclear situation in the region, including Iran, but not excluding Israel. I believe now the international community is working toward convincing Iran to join the additional protocol. This would be a step forward, and a necessary one, but we in the region do not consider the problem in Iran to be the only problem concerning nuclear armaments. Israel will have to be also put under control. There is no amount of effort that could convince the countries of the region to accept the supremacy of Israel in having nuclear weapons, and for the rest, they have to be under control and under inspection. Why shouldn't we have this? Iran has to, because it is a member of the MPT, so it is only normal for Iran to abide by the rules of the MPT. At the same time, Israel will have to join the MPT.

    Second, you are asking for pressure from Arabs on the Palestinians to do their utmost to control the security situation. I would, first of all, state that we are all against killing children and attacking civilians. This should not happen, and after all, the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is very clear about the protection of civilians in time of war. But this goes to both. It goes first of all to the occupation authorities, who are responsible before international law, before the Geneva Convention of 1949, for protecting the lives of those people under occupation. We all agree that civilians should be protected, whether they are Israelis or Arabs, on an equal footing, with the same degree of importance given to them.

    The characterization of the problem in the Middle East as a problem of security alone is a gross misrepresentation. It is a problem of foreign occupation, which is there with tanks in front of every house, which is encircling villages, closing routes with barracades, so that nobody can move. Such frustration causes reaction. The reaction is resistance in the occupied territories themselves. Israel has a responsibility to do something to ease the tension in the occupied territories. Indeed we can, and we should, put an end to such actions as blowing up buses or Pizza Huts or whatever, we have this responsibility, but equally, Israel has a responsibility to behave in the occupied territories not as an army that is going around killing people and destroying houses and whoever is there. You have to see the other side of the coin.

    So I agree with your concern about the civilians in Israel, but please agree with me in having concern about the innocent lives that are being lost in the occupied territories, the children of Palestine, the children of the Arab side too. It is at least a moral obligation. We cannot agree that on one side this should not be done and keep silent on the other side, where the daily killings are going on, with hit lists approved by the Government of Israel itself.

    As for the third one--

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: I'm afraid there's no time.

    Mr. Casey.

    Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thank you.

    Certainly, it's a pleasure and an honour to ask these questions. I'm going to ask you for help on two questions.

    A year ago you added your support to a proposal that would bring Palestinian parliamentarians and Israeli parliamentarians to Canada to meet Canadian parliamentarians. In fact, you intervened on that personally. I just wondered if you still support that concept. It has not happened yet. We have tried, we have come very close, but for one reason or another, it hasn't happened. If you still support it, would you help us make it happen?

    The second question is a specific one. We have a Canadian citizen in a Syrian jail under really strange circumstances. A year ago he flew from Zurich, Switzerland, to New York. The United States detained him, and then they decided to deport him. They didn't send him back to Switzerland, they sent him to Jordan. He was held there for a couple of weeks, and then he was moved again to Syria. As far as I know, no charges have ever been laid, no accusations have ever been made public about any activities he's ever done, and Canadians are really concerned about this. This man has been in jail in Syria. Is it possible for you to add your support or at least inquire about it? I noticed that you're interested in the creation of an Arab court of justice; I don't know if that would apply here. This is a Canadian citizen in jail in Syria, and he may come to trial any day or not, we don't know. He's almost incommunicado, and we're really concerned about it. That, along with some other Canadians who have been dealt with in a way we don't understand in some Arab countries, is of concern to us. Is there anything the Arab League can do to help us find out what happened to Maher Arar and why he can't be released?

    Mr. Amre Moussa: On the first question, yes indeed, I still maintain my original position that if you can get Palestinian parliamentarians and Israeli parliamentarians to meet with your parliamentarians, that would be an important step for them, so they can talk together. Perhaps they can succeed in building something. I always supported dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, especially in the heyday of the peace movement on both sides. I was among the original sponsors. We need to coexist with Israel, but they should feel the same, that they want to coexist with us. This is a must, and there has to be a balance in moving towards each other. This would be one of the important steps that I would support.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Bill Casey: Can you help us?

    Mr. Amre Moussa: I can, if you wish. You could let me know what's in your mind and who might be the guests.

    As for this Canadian citizen in Syria, I was approached by your foreign minister on this point. I'm going to convey what I have heard. Also, I have to know what happened from the Syrian side. But I will certainly take up the matter as a result of the talks here, telling them what Mr. Graham told me. He told me he met with the foreign minister of Syria also and conveyed that to him. I will exchange views with the foreign minister of Syria on what I have heard and what he has to tell me.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'll go to Mr. Harvard for one question, and then Mr. Cotler right away. Then we'll go to Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Harvard, quickly please.

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you for coming.

    My question relates to another personal case. I'm sure you've heard of the case of William Sampson, who has been tortured in a Saudi Arabian jail while he was in custody. I'm just wondering whether the Arab League is indifferent to that case, whether you take an interest in that case. Canadians are outraged by it, and it certainly doesn't reflect well on the Saudi authorities. Perhaps it doesn't even reflect that well on the Arab League, particularly if it doesn't take an interest in the case. What's your position, if anything, on the Sampson case?

    The Chair: Mr. Cotler, ask your question now, please.

    Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Very briefly, I just want to underscore the comments made by my colleague Bill Casey and ask you to use your good offices to facilitate the return of Maher Arar to Canada. He has been held virtually incommunicado for a year now without charge, without access to counsel, with reliable reports that he has been tortured. This would already, as you appreciate, as a lawyer, prejudice the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trail. That is why we would like to have him returned to Canada.

    The second point has to do with your legal framework and the Arab court of justice. I just came from a meeting of the consultative assembly of parliamentarians for an international criminal court. The two decisions we have reaffirmed were to promote universal ratification of the treaty for an international criminal court and to secure equitable representation from all regions of state parties. Could you, in your capacity as secretary-general of the Arab League, promote the ratification of the ICC treaty among your participants?

    Mr. Amre Moussa: On the question of Mr. Sampson, the same answer goes as for Mr. Arar in Syria. The first time I heard about that was when I came here. The Arab League was not formally informed of this issue as an organization. Now I have been approached to follow this issue, and I am going to do the same, I'm going to convey that and listen to the authorities in Saudi Arabia and in Syria. Now I've heard this point of view, I have to hear also from the other side, but I will pursue this matter. Of course, we'll have to do something; there is nothing that would prevent us from doing so. I appreciated what I heard from Bill Graham this afternoon. It's not that nothing has been done. Your government has already contacted the government concerned in this. I will add my efforts to see what exactly is the case and how to help solve it the best way for both sides.

    As for the criminal court, we follow this question and need to have more information about the meeting that was held today. One Arab country has already ratified this, Jordan, and others will follow suit. But you need also to have your neighbours ratify this. Both of us will have to do our jobs. We're on the same side anyway.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Moussa.

    Mr. Martin, one question, and the same with Mr. Bergeron--no preamble, just go to the question, please.

    Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for being here.

    It's all very well to be critical of the U.S. and Iraq, but where was the Arab League during the murder of Marsh Arabs and the Kurds? So my question is simply this. Will you ask your member states to support with money and personnel a multinational peacekeeping force under the UN banner that will enable the Americans to get the exit strategy they require?

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good afternoon, Your Excellency, and thank you for being here with us.

    We know that the Arab League is subject to both unifying and divisive forces, and that one of the main unifying elements in the Arab League is the terrible treatment of the Palestinian people. However, one of the divisive aspects within the Arab League is the role played by the United States, as we recently saw in the spectacular incident between Mr. Khadafi and the Saudi crown prince. Given that our challenge is to position Canada's foreign policy with respect to American foreign policy and given that we are currently studying Canada's relations with the Arab-Muslim world, I would like to know how you see the role of the United States as a divisive factor in the Arab League.

[English]

    Mr. Amre Moussa: For the first question, where was everybody? Why didn't anybody speak at that time, western hemisphere as well as eastern hemisphere? Why ask me? I would ask you too. We all committed mistakes, and those who supported Saddam Hussein and sold him all the arms he wanted, sophisticated as they were, also bear responsibility for what happened. Yes indeed, you are responsible. We committed mistakes, but by saying “we”, I mean all of us.

    As for the multinational force, first of all, it is not useful now to attack American policy or criticize. Of course, we disagree on certain aspects, but we have to help them get the exit strategy, if they have indeed an exit strategy. A multinational force should have the approval of the Iraqis if we want to be within the framework of the main initiative. The initial philosophy of the peacekeeping missions was Canadian. You were the movers, the initiators of the peacekeeping missions. I don't think what is going on now or this request go well with the framework that has been set by the Canadians in their quest to establish this peacekeeping.

    The first thing is for the governments concerned to accept that they're not going to double the occupation. The Security Council alone is not enough. Who decides for Iraq? Why send 100,000 or 200,000 troops? To do what? To further occupy Iraq? This is not a simple question. Yes, the situation there needs our joint efforts, but we have to decide that, all of us. It is not a unilateral decision, with the rest following. We are ready to help the United States, but we are ready to help Iraq also, and the Arab countries are in no position to send troops under present circumstances. Canada is not ready to do so, Egypt is not ready to do so, France is not ready, Germany is not ready, in Latin America the major countries are not ready. Why are they not ready? Because there is no mandate, and the mandate has to be a correct one and the purpose has to be clear. Why do you want me to go there? Why do you want me to send my troops there? To do what? To protect whom? Is it in the best interest of Iraq? The Iraqis have the so-called provisional council. Has it declared its position on this, requested us?

    So we're not going to participate in occupying Iraq, but we are ready to help with the same force, but under the proper conditions, with the consent of the Iraqis, the Iraqi government, Iraqi authority, and the permission of the Security Council. Under those two conditions we are ready.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Then there's the question of Monsieur Bergeron.

    Mr. Amre Moussa: Yes, I was moving to the next question. I believe it relates to the U.S. role as a divisive force in the Arab League.

    Indeed, we have to deal with this. The divisive policies in the Arab world have gone too far, but there is a growing awareness that the interests of the region have to be decided by us. We cannot keep serving the interests of others, and some of us at least are not among those who serve the interests of others anyway. Mutual interest, yes, common interest, I'm ready to cooperate, but to have the Arab League explode, or implode, is something we should not allow. That's why we had a unanimous resolution to invite the provisional council to occupy the seat of Iraq, despite our doubts about the case in general, the representativeness. But we said, okay, Iraq has an empty seat, Iraq has not been expelled, we will decide. It is our decision for Arab considerations. We do not need to please anybody, we did not succumb to the pressure from anybody. It happened that it coincided with the policies of some other countries, but had we seen that it would be harmful to our goals, we wouldn't have accepted that at all.

    For example, there are pressures all over not to deal with Arafat. This cannot cross the door of the Arab League. Arafat will remain the President of Palestine as long as he is elected President of Palestine. No amount of pressure will work.

    But your question is correct: it carries a message more than a question to be answered.

    The Chair: Mr. Moussa, thank you very much for appearing before the foreign affairs committee this afternoon. I must also say thank you to Dr. Houssein Hassouna, who is the ambassador of the League of Arab States in Washington. Thank you, both of you. It was very interesting.

    La séance est levée.