As the nations of the world agonized through two world wars, thoughtful politicians and statesmen dreamed of a world without war, strife, and oppression. World War 1 was called the “war to end all wars.” But it didn’t. Heroic figures like Winston Churchill, who had played such an important role in both wars, but especially in World War 2, put strenuous efforts into the formation of the United Nations. The object of these exertions was to create a world body that would—by uniting the interests of all nations—obviate the perceived need of some nations to enforce their demands at the expense of others that had their own deeply-felt resentments and slights. Its secondary object was to create an organization large enough and cohesive enough to dissuade any would-be world-conquering dictator from even striking the first blow. If only it had succeeded. The second half of the last century had its share of “little wars in far-off places,” and UN forces—with one or two exceptions—have been ineffective in shaming bully nations into consistently peaceful relations with their neighbours.

The goals of those who forged the United Nations were noble, but the character of its principal players was changeable and the results sadly disappointing. Disappointing for an obvious reason: nations—whatever their history, whatever their condition—are made up of men and women, each with their own unique sets of biases, personal baggage, egos, and weaknesses. In short, the human beings enlisted to eliminate war are themselves subject to selfishness and pride, greed and fear. The human condition is that one generally wants to make a name for oneself or to accomplish something noteworthy. There is an innate tendency to promote and favour one’s own city, district or country. As long as the basic rules of human decency and fairness are followed, loyalty to a cause or a nation is not a bad thing. But when the advancement of a district or a group to which one belongs involves injustice, unfair bias or outright deception, the whole is tainted and every stated goal becomes suspect, either for motive or method.

The United Nations of today is not the body envisioned by Churchill. Speaking in Holland in May, 1946, Churchill said this: “The duty . . . of the large powers of the modern world is to see that those rights of every nation are jealously and strictly protected. The purpose of the United Nations Organisation is to give them [those rights] the sanction of international law and . . . to make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force.”

Noble sentiments. Over the decades since its official inception on October 24, 1945, UN Peacekeepers have certainly slowed or prevented some international conflicts, but the list of its failures clearly shows that it has not lived up to its mandate or the sanguine expectations of its founders. The list of its most obvious blunders is growing and includes Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, Syria, and Sri Lanka. Sometimes, even with UN blue helmets on the ground, millions of people have died in conflict. While the UN building has stood in New York City, nuclear arms have spread to countries like Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea. UN Peacekeepers themselves have even been identified in egregious instances of rape in areas where they were meant to be protecting the innocent.

Why bring this up? Not to disparage the efforts of those well-meaning souls who have struggled to keep the UN relevant and to equip its blue helmet soldiers with the moral authority to quench conflict. We simply must come to grips with the fact that the project has failed. Like many governing bodies, the UN has grown almost beyond recognition and many of its organizational substructures have taken on lives of their own, far removed from the original purposes and intents of those who simply sought a cooperative body to restrain the selfish tendencies of nations to war and to plunder.

Today, the UN seeks to impose its will—determined by the machinations of countless committees and largely unelected national representatives—on the nations of the world. Permanent members of the UN Security Council (including China and Russia) exert veto power over the decisions of other less-tyrannical nations. Decisions are made about so-called global warming and carbon emission targets without consulting the citizens of the nations affected. Nations may be chided for their failure to abide by UN edicts or simply because they are outnumbered. The concept of national sovereignty on important issues has been diminished . . . except for the powerful bully-nations seated at the table.

The make-up of one subset of member nations recently caught my attention: the UN Human Rights Council. In 2022, less than 1/3 of its members are considered “free” countries. Of its 47 members, 16 belong to the Organization of Islamic States, Muslim-majority countries that consistently target Israel for human rights violations . . . but not some of their own countries where women are beaten and men are beheaded for conversion to Christianity. How can nations that don’t respect human rights be expected to protect human rights? Among others holding membership in the Council are:

• Russia: the home of Stalin’s gulags and Putin’s expansions.
• China: with its organ harvesting and its persecution of Muslims, Christians and Falun Gong.
• Cuba: with its political prisoners, hunger and persecution.
• Sudan: where churches full of people and entire villages have been burned in ethnic attacks.
• Venezuela: with its brutal socialist dictatorship and rampant starvation.

Any time Canada can contribute to a better world, any time Canada can contribute wisdom to debates about social issues and sound economics . . . she should. But Canada is not currently a member of the UN Human Rights Council! Normally, I would complain. I would lament the exclusion of Canada when countries with such savage and brutal records are members. But when I think of how our current Canadian government is ignoring human rights, free speech, a free press, the right to move freely, to work, and to assemble for worship, then I think it’s time we begin reviewing our own human rights record and calling our own elected leaders to account. Charity begins at home and so do human rights. As for the UN Human Rights Council? They have nothing to teach us about human rights and no moral authority over our beloved Canada. We need to return to our historical roots. As it says in the Charter: “Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” If we would follow those principles, human rights violations would cease and Canada could once again be a light to the nations of the world.

CHP Canada has consistently exposed Canada’s failing record on human rights, beginning with the rights of the pre-born. It’s time to return to the godly principles our nation was founded on. It’s time to restore the culture that protects our inherent rights and freedoms. Join CHP Canada today!