The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

SRI 4 ri RX ah DA HAL HARADA } Editorial Comment United Nations The United Nations celebrated a birthday this month. Founded a generation ago, it rose from the ashes of World War Two, its Charter glowing with idealism, optimism and the notion that the nation- states of the globe can live in peace and harmony. Almost from its inception, the United Nations has travelled a rocky road, to the point where many today consider it to be nothing more than an expensive debating club, with little power over events in the international community, . That may very well be. But the fact that the United Nations has survived as an institution, despite all its weaknesses and shortcomings, is cause enough for some small measure of celebration. It has not disintegrated, and unlike its hapless predecessor, the League of Nations, the UN can take a small amount of the credit in preventing global conflict in the last 30 years. With some 150 member states, the United Nations at least provides a forum for dialogue. While many of the paper resolutions of he General Assembly go unheeded by the members, and the Security Council is often strangled by the power of veto, a lot of valuable work in the international community is carried on by its affiliate organizations. With the emphasis shifted from east-west matters to north-south problems, the UN offers Third World nations a legitimate forum to air their views and express their problems. And while the public rhetoric often becomes overbearing and highly politicized, many potential international trouble areas are quietly resolved through private negotiation. The United Nations is still serving a useful function, despite its imperfections. One can only hope that it lives to celebrate more birthdays through the difficult years ahead. The Economy Taxpayers in this country currently earning between $6,000 and $15,000 annually are going to get a bit of a break in the first two months of 1978. ~ChatterBox -------- RE a It is the autumn of the year; a time when the leaves have turned and are now being buffeted to the ground by north winds that have more than just a hint of the sting of winter. Late October is a tough time for most Canadians. They find themselves casting longing looks back at the golden days of summer, knowing at the same time that the ice and snow and cold of another winter will soon have them by the throats. At this time of year when the land and its people are in the eye of the storm, Canadians seem to need something to warm their inner spirits, a diversion of sorts to add a little 'brightness and sparkle to the national psyche. : And last week they got it. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip made a Royal Visit to the Dominion, and it was indeed a time' for glitter, for pomp and ceremony. for colourful pageantry. . The presence of the Royal Couple could not have been more timely. For in this late autumn of 1977, the once fair ship of state known as Canada is riding low on a stormy sea. Plagued with unemployment, inflation and a sinking dollar, Canada is also drifting dangerous- ly close to that rocky coastline of separation. . It is little wonder then, that wherever the Royal Couple went during their visit to the Capital, large crowds of ordinary citizens turned out to greet them. Television cameras recorded their official functions, including the reading by Her Majesty of the speech from the Throne to open a session of Parliament. One need not be an ardent Monarchist to take some measure of satisfaction from the presence of the Queen. Indeed, even Rene Levesque, made a point of . attending a luncheon at the Prime Minister's summer home in the Gatineau Hills north of Ottawa. And Levesque is on record as saying 'that if Quebec becomes an independent state, the possibility of joining the Commonwealth should not be ruled out. The Queen was magnificent. She has a unique blend of dignity and charm. Whether she was reading a formal speech from the Throne, or simply stopping for a moment to talk to a young Canadian, she radiated. that unmistakeable Royal presence. And she looked by. : The Royal Family is enjoying something of an upswing in popularity. It was not long ago that many in this country were calling for the abolition of the Monarchy; that it is meaningless in a orld plagued by war, hunger 'and disease, and that cost of maintaining the Royal Family is a luxury nobody can afford, - reinforce this reversal in attitude. smashing, seemingly more photogenic as the years go and any one of a dozen current fads, Elizabeth as a by John McClelland as Ro Well, at one time not too many years ago, I probably would have agreed with the above arguments. But I've changed my thinking about the Monarchy, and watching the Queen on television last week served to In the first place, while abolishing the Monarchy might save a few dollars, the saving would be but a minute fraction of what governments, including this one, spend on weapons each year. When one thinks of all the idiotic ways our elected politicians fritter money down the pipe, the few millions required to maintain the Monarchy don't, amount to very much. And I firmly believe that if one wanted to get very mercenary about the money invol- ved, a detailed cost-benefit analysis would indicate i that the Royal Family attracts enough tourists and 7; visitors each year to more than pay for itself, 7 Secondly, while there is no denying that war, hunger #: and disease still threaten most of the world's peoples, doing away with the Monarchy is not going to alleviate these problems. The Queen is not to blame for the problems in Ulster, or the balance of terror in the Middle East, or the horror story in Uganda, Likewise the Queen is not to blame for Canada's internal politi- cal divisions, or our massive unemployment, or our' hopelessly depressed dollar. Abolishing the Monarchy would do absolutely nothing to solve these kinds of problems. But when things are going bad, some people seem to want to use the Monarchy for a kind of all-purpose whipping boy, and the cry goes out to do away with it. That's a straw-man argument if there ever was one. Lastly, I have a kind of gut feeling about the Monarchy. It is purely subjective, and like all ideas that spring from the heart rather than the head, it is impossible to properly define. Oh, sure, I kind of like the idea of an enduring symbol that represents unbroken continuity. Republics around the world rise and fall like the tides, the sun has set forever on the British Empire, there is a coup d'etat her, a revolution there, a civil war someplace else. But the Monarchy continues to live, and that is good. But it is not the whole reason why I've come to support the Queen, I happen to like Elizabeth. I like her style, I like the way she does things. I appreciate the problems and difficulties she has to face. I admire her courage. In a society that increasingly panders to the banal, the mundane, the grotesque, the obscene, the frivolous SRNnNaIa 2 SE SR public figure stands head and shoulders above the rest. is silly world we live in could use a few more just Finance Minister Jean Chretien told the House of Commons last Thursday night that people in this income bracket will receive an extra $50 per month in their take-home pay for January and February. The total amount involved across the country is estimated at $700 million, with the intent of cours being to stimulate consumer spending. Now nobody should scoff at $100, even in these inflationary times when a dollar just. isn't a dollar anymore. But one must question whether this stimulus will have any measureable impact on a depressed economy. ' In the first place, it is likely that many families will take that $100 and spend it on imports such as children's winter clothing from Taiwan, Hong Kong or the Philippines. Others may put their $100 towards a new TV set, radio, or some other appliance, of which the vast majority are manufactured outside Canada. ~~ In short, it is not likely that a $100 tax break is going to provide the stimulus for low and middle income wage earners to go out and make a major purchase that will create new jobs in the Canadian manufacturing sector. At best, it may help to deplete manufactureres existing inventories. In the same breath, Mr. Chretien announced that $150 million will be spent between now and the end of March on make-work projects. And the previously allocated $450 million will be extended through 1978.79. : This will amount to close to $1 billion and it seems like a staggering amount of money. But it is really only a continuation of the band-aid approach to the national economy that federal governments have applied in successive years. It is just a bigger band-aid that adds to the federal deficit now estimated at $7.3 billion, almost double the deficit of a year ago. The Canadian economy muddles onward and downward. ' International Nickle On the very day that Finance Minister Jeah Chretien was announcing his formula fo stimulate the economy, International Nickel said it would lay 'off some 2,800 workers in Sudbury and Thompgon, Manitoba. ; What is particularly distressing about the lay-offs is the fact that Inco apparently used profits from the exploitation of Canadian resources to set up mining operations in countries like' Guatemala and the Philippines. These foreign mines, Where labour Is cheap, are producing ore in direct competition to the Canadian mines, contributing to the world over-supply of certain metals at this time. And now; 'Canadian workers, whose labour helped create 'those Inco profits, are given the pink slip. : It is a classic case of take the money and run. With a corporate friend like Inco, the; Canadian economy and the workers of this land sure don't need any enemies. »