Should The Tail Wag the Dog (US/UN)?

Around the world, President George Bush and his administration have been criticized for entering Iraq unilaterally. Well, yes, Britain was with him, but few other nations. Still, not that many. Around the world, the cry went up that the US President should have waited for the United Nations to act - that in spite of the fact that the world had waited ten years for the UN to make up its mind about Iraq! France, Germany and other European nations would have eventually come on side, many argued. Listen, if you examine history, you'll have to conclude that France would never have come on side. Up to now, she has not been able to get over the downfall of Emperor Napoleon and her place at the centre of mankind's universe. Imagine, England, originally a backwater island nation, upstaging France so that now most of the world's commerce and education is done in English. In addition, English has emerged as the lingua franca of the whole world on the Internet. Anything of note is almost always published in English if English is not its original language of publication. Scores of nations have English as their second language in their school system. These developments gall France to the core!

The question remains, did President Bush and Prime Minister Blair act wisely in going into Iraq with their armies?

I've asked myself this question over and over again. Certainly the coalition of the US and Britain and some other countries did a first class job in winning the war in Iraq. The UN has no armies. How could it have contained Iraq without the support of the US? To say that the US should have waited until the UN gave permission for such military action in Iraq is like saying the tail should wag the dog. As a Canadian, I was ashamed that our government made the decision for us not to go into Iraq with the Americans. The US is our closest ally and friend and most important trading partner. I've been so thankful that not too great a US retaliation took place because of the Chretien government's decision. Surely this shows the kindness of America to a friend. No doubt our lumber and cattle disputes with the US were in no way helped through such an anti-American policy in this country. Thank God our new Prime Minister, Paul Martin, is an experienced diplomat and values our friendship with the United States highly.

Let's look at other places where we waited for the UN to act. Ruwanda is one notable example. While the UN had their debates in the General Assembly (which seems to be at least 75 % anti-American), innocent people were slaughtered by the thousands (over 800,000 to be exact). In Kosovo, if NATO had not gone in, ethnic cleansing would continued to have gone on apace. NATO helped the UN in its pacification of Bosnia and Serbia. Honestly, the UN reminds me of a toothless tiger (no armies, no money, no resolve). If it were not for the UN system of governance with a Security Council which is functionally more important than the General Assembly, the UN would have been relegated to the archives of history long ago. Often the only thing that saves the UN is the ability of member states like the US and Britain to act unilaterally when necessary for the peace of the world. I think Kofi Annan was ill-advised to rebuke President Bush and the US recently about going into Iraq - it smacked of a pathetic effort to influence the American presidential election.

As a Christian, I am painfully aware as I look out ono the world that no human being can solve our problems anyway. They are simply too great! On a coming day when "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever" (Revelation 11:15) - that is when the world will be delivered from despots, corrupt leaders, selfish industrialists, and cruel sadists who keep their people in bondage. I, for one, wait for that day. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!