By
Bob Orrick
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien says that Canada will not be part of a U.S.-led coalition of like-minded countries in a war against Iraq, unless the United Nations authorises military action. Canadians over the age of 20 years have heard those words spoken by another Canadian prime minister. On 30 June 1950, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, speaking in the House of Commons and addressing the 'Korean question,' stated that Canada did not intend to declare war on any country. He added, however, that if Canada were to become involved in Korea, "It would be as a member of the United Nations fulfilling her obligations under the Charter." [It did and was the third-largest force after the U.S. and UK.
Media reports suggest that millions of citizens world-wide took to the streets recently and marched in defiance of U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to attack Iraq unless it fulfils the UN resolution that it destroy all its weapons of mass destruction forthwith and at the same time allow UN inspectors to confirm Iraq's compliance with the resolution. Back in the summer of 1950, few Canadians were aware of Iraq and even fewer had heard of Korea. World War Two was recent history and Canadians were rebuilding after six years of supplying the Allies with material and manpower. How times have changed; today, Iraq is front and centre with North Korea not far behind as members of the U.S. described 'axis of evil.'
Two differences are worth noting. In 1950, the United Nations was a fledging youngster organisation. Today, it is a much-discredited shell of its former self. Back then, the UN was peopled with countries that were determined to ensure that another world war did not envelop the globe. Today, the UN is split along pro-American and anti-American lines with the antis in the majority. The UN has been unable to control its members in several African countries where millions [according to media reports] have been slaughtered; all the while, the UN stood by, neutered and mute. In 1950, when South Korea appealed to the UN for assistance to remove North Korea from within the southern neighbour, the UN acted, swiftly. Shortly after a U.S. resolution was put before the Security Council, it voted in favour of lending military aid to South Korea [Republic of Korea]. The vote carried, primarily, because the USSR representative was absent having walked out in a snit because its communist ally, The People's Republic of China [Red China], was not granted membership in the UN.
A similarity between the 1950 UN resolution to remove North Korea from South Korea and the 1990/91 UN resolution to remove Iraq from Kuwait is striking; both resolutions involved military action and both demanded that the belligerent nation be removed - by force if necessary - from its neighbour. In Korea and in Kuwait, the UN was successful.
Another point worth consideration is the League of Nations' inability to curtail Adolph Hitler. After his Munich beer hall rant in 1933, the League of Nations ought to have sat up and took notice of the nutcase who was rallying support against all and sundry but especially against the Jews of Germany. Nor did the League stop Benito Mussolini - he who saw himself as the reincarnation of Caesar - when Italy attacked a defenceless Ethiopia. The Italians had modern weapons including the German Stuka dive-bomber while the Ethiopians countered with primitive weapons such as spears. The United Nations of today much resembles the League of Nations of yesterday.
The American president has presented a pretty convincing argument that Saddam Hussein is flaunting the UN's directives, is developing and planning to use weapons of mass destruction, all the while continuing to murder his own people. Time is quickly running out on Iraq; the United States will not wait until hell freezes over before taking unilateral action to remove a despot of the ilk of Hitler from the surface of the Earth.
The United Nations has to get a grip on itself and begin to understand its mandate. As it is, the UN seems to have become a toothless tiger that is merely cluttering up space and absorbing a heck of a lot of money. In a word, the UN has become an irrelevant sideshow. The sensible nations of the world will move on to leave the toothless tiger to wallow in its own excrement. Will Canada stay or will it move on?
Canada should stand up to Iraq and stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the United States of America. Together, along with Britain and Australia, Canada should push forward and remove for all time the scourge of Baghdad. If not, the United Nations will soon become the League of Nations - ineffective and on its deathbed.
There is one striking difference between Canada's prime minister of today and its prime minister [Uncle Louie] of 1950; then the PM was a man of substance, a man of honour who did not sully the office and a man who understood clearly the mood of the people and acted within the rules of engagement. Today, Canadians see little of that; probably they see none of that.
Bob Orrick is a private tutor of English grammar, literature, poetry and Canadian history to off-shore youngsters. His pupils hail from such places as Taiwan, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Venezuela. He was previously in international marketing, was a ministerial assistant to a provincial cabinet minister, spent a few years as a reporter then editor of a community newspaper and enjoyed a career in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Advertising Information 
