One leg of the so-called Axis of Evil is crippled. Thankfully, so is the United Nations. The death of Saddam Hussein's regime harkens with some irony the final nail in the coffin of a dream that world order can be decided by committee. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, or taking on Nazi Germany.

Since then it's record has been dismal.

Communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Empire disintegrated under the might of NATO, not the U.N. The security council failed to stop the Balkan wars despite Milosevic's aggressions.

It took another coalition of the willing to stop the atrocities in Bosnia. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo never gained U.N. security council approval.

The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands. And then there was Vietnam.

So what good is a United Nations Security Council that cannot ensure order and save us from ruthless aggression

U.N. support or otherwise has always just been a fig-leaf for action or inaction.

Remember that the next time you see a poll showing that Canadians would support the war against Iraq if the United Nations gave it's appoval.

There is another peculiarity about the United Nations that does not get very much attention.

Of the 191 nations that are members of this world body, most are political dictatorships a few are kingdoms and a few are theocracies.

Most of the U.N. ambassadors represent governments that were not elected in any way. Many of them represent leaders who had gunned their way into power, or been born into power, or were the children of those who had gained power by force.

This brings to question the legitimacy of any decision by the United Nations.

Most of the U.N. ambassadors who vote represent regimes that do not have the consent of whom they govern.

As a result 'consent from the governed' is ultimately absent in any majority vote at the U.N. So how can any U.N. decision be called democratic

What is particularly galling is the chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions.

Take for instance the 64 resolutions flouted by Israel that seldom get mentioned in the United Nations let alone the mainstream media.

The idea that the ultimate moral authority for military decisions lies in the hands of few, including the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia and China, is downright dangerous.

It is not right that a decision won at the security council can be vetoed by a communist nation whose rule of law we do not condone or some tin-pot dictatorship that can easily be bought.

The ineffectiveness of the United Nations has now given rise to the Coalition of the Willing.

Some call it a hawkish threat led by a global sheriff who has cobbled a posse with bribes and aid. That may be so.

But this coalition, which is willing to take the fight to the safe havens of terrorists and despots to ensure world order will be by far, better than any U.N. Security Council resolution.

Canada's decision not to be part of the coalition may be popular locally but it has more to do with the souring relationship between Jean Chretien and George Bush rather than world order.

It is a wrong decision that was taken for all the wrong reasons.

History has shown us U.N. resolutions do not work. They are simply ignored by those who need to be curtailed.

Our hope for world peace in this new century with its new challenges can only be achieved by effectively confronting those who threaten to destroy it.

That is the only alternative to the anarchy caused by the abject failure of the Eunuch-ted Nations.