![]()
Printed from www.thesudburystar.com web
site Saturday, March 22, 2003 - � 2003 The Sudbury Star
Backwards
to war
Our opinion
Saturday, March 22,
2003 - 11:00
Editorial - In the autumn of 1938, British prime minister Neville
Chamberlain effectively signed away most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, preceding
his historic speech in Westminster: “I believe it is peace for our time.” At
the time, 10 million Britons had signed a so-called peace ballot that simply
pronounced that Britons were “for peace,” and “against war and fascism.” For
his efforts, Chamberlain was cheered as hero, and was even considered a
candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
At the time, Europe was understandably eager for peace, and looked to the
League of Nations, the precursor for the United Nations, to negotiate a lasting
truce — even in the face of Hitler’s naked ambitions. But the League, like the
UN today, had no army, navy or air force of its own. It was powerless to stop
Hitler and, later, Mussolini, and unable to enforce the collective security
Europe so desired.
Within months of Chamberlain’s negotiated truce, Hitler walked in and conquered
the parts of Czechoslovakia he had not already duped out of the allies. Months
later, Hitler marched on the rest of the Europe, plunging it into war. The
French and other countries eventually “successfully” negotiated their own
surrender and occupation.
History, we are often warned, repeats itself if we ignore it. It is impossible
not to draw comparisons between the present day war in Iraq and well-documented
build up to war in Europe. There are numerous similarities and differences, but
more importantly, there are lessons.
On the surface, Saddam and Hitler have little in common except madness and
ambition. Hitler commanded the most fearsome mechanized army and air force the
world had yet seen, while Saddam possesses only those weapons he is able to
hide from the world. Hitler was a menace to global peace, while Saddam strives
to be. Following Sept. 11, 2001, however, the world has grown acutely aware of
the fact that mechanized military strength is no longer needed to successfully
terrorize the planet.
And that is what makes ignoring Saddam so difficult. After 12 years of
diplomatic negotiations through the UN, and four months after the unanimous
passage of Resolution 1441, Saddam is still not complying. This has been going
on since 1991.
Faced at the time with total defeat and the fall of Baghdad at the hands of a
global military coalition in response to his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Saddam
agreed to terms he obviously never intended to fulfil. He has obstructed and
breached his obligations every step of the way. For this, Saddam continues to
receive support from once reputable members of the international community such
as France and Germany, who insist negotiation is the only way forward.
Neither international law, nor sanctions, nor diplomacy, nor the threat of
imminent military conflict has moved Saddam to full compliance. Nothing short
of war is working.
Canada’s efforts to strike a compromise resolution may have been effective in
creating Saddam’s last clear chance, and there is credit due in that regard.
But Saddam is not responding — his ambitions are predictably unchanged.
Sometimes, unburying our heads and accepting the weaknesses of the negotiations
process is the only way to achieve real and lasting peace for our time. We
ought to stand with our friends in accepting what must be.
What do you think? Send us your opinion in a Letter to the Editor at 33
MacKenzie St., Sudbury, P3C 4Y1, or fax it to 674-6834 or email it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID- 26570
� 2003 , OSPREY MEDIA GROUP Inc. All Rights
Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed.
