Russia, being fearful of both an expanded European Community and the Chinese will ally itself with the United States. Other than that I agree with the analysis of how the world will split into various power blocks. Gwynne Dyer is hardly a rock hard conservative, he has been a passionate peace advocate for decades.

No offense to Dyer, but he is a moron. His obvious western bias in trying to interpret a situation far more complex and far beyond his comprehension is evident by his ease of clumping groups and their intentions into simple categories that are so off the mark that it is laughable. What the heck is an "Afghan Arab"? I suppose that is like an African American? The obvious omission of the role of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fact that the oil is the only thing the Americans have salvaged since capitalizing on the Taliban's expected attack (imagine, it all started with a couple of planes that destroyed the symbol of the American God - the World Trade Centre in the consumer capital of the world), and the obvservation that the US has a most terrifying inflated ego - no to Kyoto and even a blow to poor Paul Martin's ego when Bush laughed off any notion of a "L-21" coalition of nations to deal with world policies - they work alone and for the benefit of Goliath only. The Taliban may be hiding in Afghanistan because that is where they were put on guard for the Americans (the oil thing again) - they aren't Afghani but are mostly Arabs in a foreign land since the Muslims of Central Asia and those of Arab origin get along like Catholics and Protestants (but I guess to Dyer all terrorists are of the same creed - interestingly, all but the most obvious - that being of American origin). It is a symbiotic relationship - that much is for certain - without the Taliban, then the Americans essentially have no right to be terrorizing the middle east; and without the Americans, the Taliban don't have a common nemesis to point at and call loathers of Islam - since it looks terribly like the US has a dislike for all who are of that faith. However, seeing Osama as an "islamist" (is that his synonym for a terrorist? - not very diplomatic term at a time requiring bridging misunderstandings) is equally funny as he is the epitome of someone who would normally be regarded as a "heretic" - for both his binging on alcohol and gluttony - both no no's for pious Muslims. But I suppose an ignorant follower doesn't know he remains ignorant when following an ignorant leader (book not a recommended stocking stuffer) - how blissful.

No offense to shirin, but you're a moron.

Did you take offense?

There are probably many actions that could be taken by non-US citizens to begin a process of gently urging the US back to a semblance of multi-lateralist sanity. Russia may have begun taking one today when they announce that they were considering using the Euro instead of the USD as the currency of choice for their international dealings. Japan and China have made overtures in a not dissimilar direction regarding their holdings of USD. They started slowly selling some off a couple of weeks back. Ottawa's leaking of the possibility of a trade war instigated by US congressional recalcitrance on matters related to lumber and beef may well be another.

It's not beyond the realm.

An "Afghan Arab" is an Arab Islamist who fought alongside the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Russians...analogous to the International Brigades that fought for the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War. Please don't judge Dyer's thought by my summary of it. And if you read any of his earlier books and his many articles, you'll find he's among the more thoughtful and clearheaded western analysts of the situation in the Muslim world.

I should add that being a passionate peace advocate is an exceedingly conservative position. Nothing will overthrow existing institutions like a nice big war (just ask the Ottomans and the Hohenzollerns). Dyer is trying to defend the UN as an institution we have all grown up with, while Bush as a radical wants to cast it aside.

Dana, I personally think we are all morons - and no offense to anyone and everyone - simply because we keep figuring out ways to screw ourselves over - but that isn't the issue. I came to the conclusion of Dyer's utter lack of forsight about the concept of what the Middle East, as it stands today, represents to those who live there. I agree entirely with the premise that the US needs to be stopped, and it is its own arrogant unilateralism that will see it fall hard- but I think it both unfair and inhumane that it should be at the expense of all those who have been - and continue to be - victims of this senseless terrorism mediated by the mighty States. What I found most abhorrent is not the conclusions of Dyer's synopsis but its basis: "Dyer is deeply unimpressed by both Bush's arguments about weapons of mass destruction and those of his opponents who think it's all about oil. Nor is he overawed by Al Qaeda and other Islamists. They are "dangerous but not serious," he says, because their ultimate goal of a transnational Muslim community is impossible....Gwynne Dyer doesn't object to the Iraq War because war is a bad thing. He objects because it results from a change in American policy that will lead to far worse wars." - these assertions is what I find unpalatable - are Rumsfeld and Bush considered the epitome of Christianity in action? By referring to the Al Qaeda as "Islamists" - which I can only translate to one who is Muslim - is something of an insult to over a billion people who are of the faith but find less in common with the views of Osama than that shared between the two villains in the story - ie: Bush and Osama. How did he come to the conclusion that the aim of Osama and company is an "Uma"? Is that really the goal here? Does he not know that Osama is not killing "his own" in Afghanistan - but people who would be "foreigners" to him - in both religion (Shia vs Sunni) and ethnicity (Eurasian vs Arab) - there is no commune there. The war is wrong because it is a useless exercise in destruction of culture and life - but as long as the lives and future of people are not falling on Dyer's homefront - it's wrong simply because it will lead to a larger war that may end up on his doorstep.

Dyer has a touching faith in the UN. One which the Oil for Food bribery scandal - 21 billion and counting - as well as the ongoing sexual harrassment/rape investigations/the near strike of senior bureaucrats/the abject failure in Rwanda....

But why go on. For Dyer the issue resolves in terms of whether or not a given action does or does not enhance the viability of the UN. I think the case can be made that the current invasion of Iraq might have done just that had the bribed French and self-interested Russians and Chinese not threatened to veto a full on resolution authorizing full force. However, as it is the UN has simply rendered itself a bystander to history.

which is, of course, what really drives DYer and his ilk mad. How can right thinking people like themselves be ignored so completely? How can the Americans, British, Poles, Australians...not bow to the authority of a world figure of Kofi Annan's stature? How can a soverign nation - albeit one ruled by a bloody despot - have its borders ignored, its status as soverign tossed in the ashcan of history by a bunch of neocons?

Which is not analysis but rather impotent rage at the lingering death of an institution which no longer reflects geo-political reality. Dyer's quasi-religious faith in the UN has been shaken to its core by Iraq. He has had to come face to face with the reality that the balance of power which midwived the formation of the United Nations no longer exists.

Conservatives are often criticized for romanticizing a world which never was which is exactly what Dyer is trying to do here.

Jay, Dyer's point is that with all of its faults the UN is better than what we had before. Arguing against the UN is like arguing against the concept of national government because of recurring scandals.

Before the UN were we without scandal? Were military invasions unheard of? Did the just triumph over evil?

When the UN is gone I'm sure there will be great meetings of world leaders where all the world's problems will be quickly sorted out and disease and poverty and war will be banished under the guidance of the USA. Or so conservatives would have us believe.

Frank, I love the idea of the UN - if it actually had any influence over rogue States such as the States from bombing whomever they damn well please. The UN was a diplomatic tool the US had used when convenient - but the world has to wake up and realize that the American gov't (at least the one in power now) have no intention of cooperating and mending its ways to fit with the concept of sustainability - let alone progress. It really is like trying to stop a runaway train with an ineffectual stop sign - the feeling I am getting is that we are simply now waiting for it to burnout of gas or crash. Even delusional Paul Martin realized all his "diplomatic charms" were utterly useless and scoffed at by Bush when he suggested a coalition of the "L21" nations to work together for global policy initiatives. Bush thought it was a laughable idea - just thinking of cooperating makes the man choke on his pretzels.

Shirin, the world has no need of "waking up", I'm sure they're well aware of how US policy affects them. But they can't just declare war on the US because it doesn't abide its obviously imperial efforts. The UN is not powerful enough to stand up to the US. If the US wants to act outside the UN there is little the world can do about it. Kind of like an international Al Capone.

The fact is, if the Canadian government had no police force it wouldn't have any power. Same with the UN, the only power it has is what nation-states voluntarily give it. If people don't like the fact the UN was unable to help in Rwanda then they can demand their nation-state make it more powerful by providing a police force for it to use in such situations. Just as Vancouver City Council discussions would be meaningless without the VPD.

Even if Bush nuked Canada tomorrow, what could the UN do? Nothing except sanctions and even those would fail. People who expect it to be able to do more haven't looked at it close enough.

But what the UN can do, it does pretty well because its the only instiution that can. Whether its UNICEF or WHO or the High Commision on Refugees or peacekeeping and rebuilding the UN actually does a good job in a lot of areas where it has built up its credibility and legitimacy over the last few decades. Even the fact it provides a forum for debate is better than if those debates and speeches never took place.

The UN is still a work very much in progress and it will continue to survive because most people know we need it to.

The old adage "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" could never be truer than when applied to the USA.

Jay, give us a better idea to replace the UN with and tell us how it how it will rally forces against the power of the US. In these times be grateful for small mercies, Kofi Annan's appointment of Stephen Lewis as a special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and the work going on there have far-reaching implications to the world. There are other wars to be fought on this planet that having nothing to do with bombs or weapons of mass destruction. And I know you don't like Clinton but I like crucifixions and Spanish-style "Kenneth Starr" inquisitions even less, and the UN was able to see past that and give Clinton a standing ovation for his efforts at peace in the middle east. In the end, maybe these kind of humanity-based choices by the UN will have more weight than what is now immediately evident.

The pluralism of the UN is its saving grace. The first step is to eliminate the veto power of a few exclusive nations.

Frankly, I don't give a damn if the US feels they are above international law. One day -- very soon according the economic picture -- this is all going to come crashing on their heads. I should hope that the people of Iraq will be able to bring forward their suit then, and the war criminals will be charged in international courts. Perhaps we shall even do this retroactively, so that people like Kissinger are also called to account.

I once again sit on the side of the fence with the barking canine. I had taken part - when still an undergrad - in a "UN model". It is hard to believe the issue we were debating was the Iraq war. I had the dubious honour of representing Iraq had tried my darnest to use charm and diplomacy to bring an end to the sanctions that had starved my country for over a decade. It was at this time I came to understand the folly of the grandstanding "Veto"ers. I too think that that the US have fought for the right to bear arms to simply shoot themselves - from the bark of the mad dog to the ears of heaven's will....

Amazing how quickly the concerns about voter fraud in the States disappeared after the results of the Ukrainian election jumped up.

It's interesting to note how fast Bush rushed back to the UN after learning in Iraq that you have to do more than simply win the battle to win the peace. That the most despised nation on earth does not want to cooperate with an agency like the UN, unless it gets to call the shots, says volumes about the crisis we are in. What America appears to want is the sanctioned right to invade any country it deems hostile and a guarantee all of its military, its politicans or others making decisions are immune to the same set of rules the rest of the world must live by. Accept that and you've accepted totalitarianism. No thank you.

I do think that if American war crimes are finally addressed in the international courts and they are held accountable for the hell-hole that is now Iraq, it will be the best thing that has happened to this planet and the UN in a long time, and ironically the saving grace of america. Maybe, "life, liberty and freedom for all" might really mean something then...

I just realized it's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ..now that explains a lot.

Well, it seems that it is fear of not having power which is preventing us (as in the rest of the voiceless world that have not yet born the right to bear arms - largely because we can't afford such luxuries as bombs and missiles that will do us in) from actually even attempting the act of exercising our power of a united front against the United States - are they really more powerful than all of us combined? I don't think so. However, the US has ensured that there is no way we would ever come to such a consensus -either working on our greed (deprivation of american coorporate brands and businesses) or by instigated war between oil producing countries - divided we fall and lose all power. For such an ignorantly led nation, the plan has worked so far in favour of the arrogant rogue nation.

I just finished reading about the latest Roystan Tan film short "Cut" and how it targets the censors in Singapore. Apparently the fellow showed up in a bunny suit for the Bristol Brief Encounters Shorts Festival. Why? "If you kill one rabbit, they'll breed a thousand more."

That's the US all over for you right now. Up to its ass in bunnies and still trying to tackle the problem by killing them. I figure there will be a moment when the bunny population reaches critical mass ---

Lynn, actually I liked Clinton a lot and I thought Ken Starr and Henry Hyde were a very ugly reflection of a bitterly partisan America.

"I do think that if American war crimes are finally addressed in the international courts and they are held accountable for the hell-hole that is now Iraq,". Frankly this sort of remark is not useful. It is not in the least bit evident that "war crimes" have been committed. Moreover, what was Iraq before the invasion? Pace Michael Moore, it was not all little kids flying kites.

REplacing or radically reforming the United Nations to take account of the shift in geo-political reality from 1949 to 2004 would seem a sensible idea. Here are some possible reforms: 1) abolish the veto and create a system of graduated memberships with voting power allocated on the basis of actual economic and military power and, most importantly, contribution to the UN in terms of money and personel. 2) Alternatively, expand the number of veto wielding states by including India, Japan, Brazil, Egypt and, perhaps, three or four others as permenant members of the Security Council but require a two thirds majority to veto.3) Set up regional security councils which are charged with keeping the peace in their particular corner of the globe.

Silly americans.When u have a base of death cult stadiuum christians, with their leaders empowered by faith based initiatives, and a history of gutter politics what is going on is inevitable. This orgy of facistism in the usa will eventually bring them down. All we can do is try not to buy american and hence stop financing these wackos.

Well more interesting discussion in this forum as well. Ultimately, I believe, the Pax Americana is dying. As many political scientists have noted in multiple articles published in Foreign Affairs, Empires generaly fall in violent conflict. Either they are snuffed out relatively quickly, in conquest, or they fall over time with spasms of violence, as I hope is the case for the Pax Americana. As someone pointed out above me, economic signals of this fact are already very apparant. The international community should do whatever it can short of war to try and support the half of the American people who would have changed administrations in the last election. - - Note that the United States was split almost down the center of its electorate in the last election. Clearly half of it's eligable voters do not agree with the status quo and I know some of our southern neighbors who are barking mad about the outcome. As a quick but somewhat unrelated note I find it interesting to reflect upon Michael Moore's latest film work and how the majority of people in Canada seem to think he can say no wrong. I wonder however if his work was ultimately too effective in that by making such a strong attack on President Bush that he didn't actualy CAUSE more of his SUPPORTERS (who might not have voteed) to get out and vote simply in Bush's defense...but in any case I digress. - - I fall into the camp of UN supporter in this debate but I too believe it needs reform. I also took part in model United Nations. I was an organizer of a local conference and attended conferences across Canada and in the US, where I (ALMOST ;-) had the pants debated right off me by American students who clearly were being educated in the benefits of the UN. As a matter of fact, many schools in the US give scholastic credit for Model UN participation, at the high-school and college level. I would say this is evidence that there is still a great support for the United Nations in the halls of American scholarly pursuit. Atleast among the fifty percent of the electorate that voted against Bush!!! - - Judged under its original inspiration; to save the world from a third great-powers war the UN has been a remarkable success. The rate of occurrence of wars 'between states' in the UN era as compated to the same category during the era of the League of Nations and earlier proves that indeed. - - As the nature of global war has changed over the last fifty years, the UN has attempted to keep up with some success and some, admittedly stunning failures...Rawanda as one example. I am not an expert in UN reform but I would agree with Mr. Currie that eliminating the veto would be a good choice, and a system of graduated membership which provides voting power on substantive issues might be a good step but basing the vote on economic and military power would simply put a country like the US or more likely China in the future, right back into control of the forum as that country would be able to use is financial clout to sway the votes of other countries with external dealings. If however, voting rights were based solely on the level of compliance with international laws, the ratification of treaties and the enactment of domestic laws as proof of treaty compliance, then you would create a system where there is a reward for working as part of the international team. The more a country adopts international laws the greater the weight of their vote....or something along those lines. Our leaders would become those who were morally and legally the most committed to communal international laws. - - Under this framework if a country was breaking international laws, attacking it's own citizens etc, they would not have the ability to thwart actions voted on against them as they would have no voting rights with which to do so. Just a thought.

"Who Really Rules the World?" at http://www.watchtower.org/library/t22/who_rules.htm

Sorry I missed this one.

I have a love-hate relationship with Gwynn, who despite his name and his frazzled leather jacket, is really just too, too frat boy for me, generally, That said, he does manage once in awhile, despite his puffed up self, to have some actual insights-, when he agrees with me. :-)

Largely here though, I agree with Shirin. He is just to simplistic and formulistic by half. And while I agree with those who don't see what else there is right now, besides the UN, to fail to see that it is currently falling all over itself, trying to stay out of the way and avoid being crushed by the U.S Empirists, itself rapidly rushing towards scarcely disguised fascism, that the UN has largely become a eunuchized tool of Weatern Imperialism generally, is just too naive and childishly idealistic. It's simply that no one anywhere knows what the hell to do about it in current circumstances, like no one knows what to about out of control capitalism generally in its decent into moral and material corruption and decline. The failure of the UN started early, of course, with the assisting of that same "dominant" imperialiszm, when it sanctioned Europe's and increasingly the USAs desire to solve the postwar "Jewish Problem" by dumping it off onto Palestine and the Arabs-, where the subsequent Israel with Western and Soviet support became useful in other regards over time, to rising US ambition particularly, in the end, that is.

From that post WW2 starting point, through "enabling" every US militarist war move and adventure, from Korea through Grenada, Latin America and Cuba, Vietnam, Lebanon, ongoing support for Israel against the Palestinians, and now Iraq, the UN has become so conditioned to its role, even though it evidences that it knows it should, it can't and doesn't know how to stop. Which holds true for just about every part of the world actually, including Canada.

Which condition will go on for so long, I think, as "western" capitalism continues to reign as the dominant global system. Of which there are significant signs of cracks emerging in, particularly, the global economic system, and signs of reconfigured intra-capitalist competition and rivalry for resources and influence, entirely capable in my view, of all breaking down into world war; which eliminates all bets and throws everything open for unexpected possibilities and risks.

Gwynn is right about one very important point however, in everybody's objective interest: the need for the US to lose this one in Iraq. The US is scarcely sufferable now. A triumphalist USA in Iraq and Afghanistan (not yet over in my view) will be a complete menace to one and all-, even more than it already is.

And loud and clear, I agree entirely with Lynn. The US has war crimes and an illegal war of aggression, contrary to the UN Charter, to answer for. Without that, and the legal sanctioning of the US and its leaders, it will be clear that we have still not arrived at a place of equitable international justice, that any but the likes of apologist Jay Currie can understand or accept.

It's way past time to move beyond The Conqueror's Justice system favoured by US imperialism ,its cronies and sychophants. These latter of which are found typically in capitals like Ottawa.

I, too think eliminating the veto is needed and I like New Guy's suggestion of linking the weight of the vote to a country's "demonstrated" compliance and committment to communal international law. I can't see linking it to economic and military power as the ballgame will continue to be monopolized by the super powers, whoever they be. Jay, I apologize if I was mistaken about your view of Clinton but I do remember you referring to him as "Slick Willy and his ilk" but sometimes the tone of comments or context is hard to determine so I probably took it the wrong way.

Not changing my mind on US war crimes though, this has been an illegal war of aggression, Iraq, Abu Ghraib... much to answer for and very few questions answered. The US is constantly putting out feelers, mumbling now about Iran, what is the next country the US will blow apart in the name of world security, the next evil despot to be eliminated, the next country to kneel in mercy so "the new century" can proceed according to plan ...their people and their historical antiquities decimated. As Coyote says "the US is scarcely sufferable now." It's government self-righteous and above all accountability it seems. Historically familiar signs that precede a fall.

Move the UN headquarters to a remote West Coast island like the one I'm looking at tonight, a shade off a full moon, dark inlet and firs, dusted with silver-gold. Who'd be crazy enough to throw this all away?

lynn - don't advertise your haven too loudly - you may not be willing to throw it all away, but that doesn't mean someone won't snatch what little tranquility there is left in this world (and you know our "Liberals" will auction it off to the highest bidder). I had watched a CBC story coverage of a young business man who had started a successful beverage company in Fallujah prior to the onset of the US invasion. A CBC reporter had kept in touch with him as a local contact - and the last scene they showed of him was his returning back to Fallujah to try to find his family with whom he had lost contact since the US raid. They stopped by his factory warehouse - and it was completely destroyed - the windows and machinery were smashed. The US army had thought that the small white pellets in the bags found in his warehouse could be some kind of chemical for making bombs etc - but they were simply bags of plastic for making the beverage bottles. The change in composure from the first time we had been introduced to him - to his present state was both heartbreaking and demoralizing. He looked broken and hopeless at best. Imagine thousands of people similarly broken because of this illegal war. The reporter asked him wasn't he glad that Saddam was gone - he said he didn't like Hussein, but he hated this destruction and anarchy more than anything. The US needs to be held accountable, as Lynn and Coyote mentioned above, and they should be made to pay for the rebuilding and restocking of all that they had destroyed - and not by their own companies - but by Iraqis and those that the Iraqis wish to employ. No American should be able to profit from this tragedy. That would be the least that could be done to restore justice. In regards to the eradication of the UN veto rights (brings to mind how some pigs are more equal than others) - this is surely not a new concept to those diplomats running the voiceless organization - what has prevented them from making the requisite reforms at the first indication of their lack of sustainability under their current paradigm? Another dimension that should be considered - since the Just West is so keen on democracy - is the aspect of population per area given an equal voice. This would make a lot of people (including left-leaning individuals) a bit weezy - because it would mean current big wigs with small populations would have their influence dwindle in comparison to areas such as India and China when it comes to veto rights and having a say on how the world is run. Kind of makes democracy seem unfair, hm? But throwing in the compliance issue may even out the playing field. If the US wants to talk democracy, they need to do more than talk the talk and do the walk.

The desperate need to either abolish or radically reform the UN is outlined at Belmont Club:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/11/united-nations-un-p eacekeeping.html

Lynn, I live on the island you may be looking at. I would dearly love to have a sense that a well run, uncorrupt organization was in the business of keeping this island and the rest of the world safe. The UN is not that organization.

This is not the place to debate the question of US war crimes in invading Iraq. However, if you are interested in a pretty solid legal discussion of the question you could do worse than going to Let it Bleed:

http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2004/11/its_an_interest.html

"If the US wants to talk democracy, they need to do more than talk the talk and do the walk."

To which there need be a loud, "Amen, to that!"

I, on the other hand, am looking out at snow covered peaks and a winter wonderland. It takes my breath away, like a coldly beautiful woman. :-) (Which is as far as I will go, with this metaphor.)

You guys all have better views than me, I'm surrounded by houses and have big trucks rumbling by on a constant basis :) Thanks Coyote for going no further with that metaphor :)

I think too many people wish to concentrate on things the UN has failed at rather than look at its enormous number of successes. Dismantling the UN is not an option. If "reform" centres around nothing more than weighting the vote of the security council based on some formula, its the same as saying the UN works since that is a very small change.

However, just like you aren't going to change the constitution of Canada if Quebec doesn't like the proposal, you aren't going to "fix" the UN unless the US agrees. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. The US will not willingly hand over any of its freedom to operate as it chooses no matter what the UN looks like. That doesn't mean we scrap the UN.

However, I'm dismayed at the number of people who think the UN is a failure based on US propaganda that tries to convice its own people that the UN is funded by the US and yet does nothing right.

Any glance at what the UN does will show it has done more than any other country for the world since WW2, including the US.

In addition to what I've mentioned above regarding UNICEF and refugees, how about feeding the starving, treating Third World diseases, pressing for an end to child labour and slave labour, monitoring elections in emerging democracies, helping to avert international outbreaks of nasty infections, monitoring the proliferation of WMDs, helping to measure and predict worldwide weather patterns and trying to protect habitat and heritage sites.

Quick list of peacekeeping operations :

UNMOGIP, UNTSO, UNOGIL, UNEFI,UNRDS,UNIPOM, DOMREP, UNFICYP, UNYOM, UNSF, ONUC, UNIFIL, UNDUF, UNEFII, ONUCA, UNTAG, UNAVEMI, UNIIMOG,UNGUMAA, UNIKOM, UNAVEMII, ONUSAL, MINURSO, UNAMIC, UNPROFOR, UNTAC, UNOSOMI, ONUMOZ, UNOSOMII, UNOMUR, UNOMIG,UNOMIL, UNMIH, UNAMIR, UNASOG,UNMOT, UNAVEMIII, UNCRO, UNPREDEP, UNMIBH, UNTAES, UNMOP, UNSMIH, MINUGUA, MONUA, UNTMIH, MIOP, MIPONUH, UNCPSG, MINURCA, UNOMSIL, UNMIK, UNAMSIL, UNTAET, MONUC, ONUB, MINUSTAH, UNOCI, UNMIL, UNMISET,UNMEE.

A VERY short list of other works :

UNTAG - Rresponsible for the peaceful transition of Namibia to full independnce 1989-90. This being successful without violence, the force was withdrawn.

UNMEE - currently minotiring the ceasefire between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Since deployment, hostilities have ceased.

UNMOT - set up to monitor a peace agreement between the Tajik Government and the United Tajik Opposition. Withdrawn after making a success of the agreements' implementation.

UNAMIC/ UNTAC - sticking Cambodia back together again on both civil and military fronts. There are problems with the UN as there are with every governing structure. I'm sure the city council even of little Prince George isn't perfect. The biggest problem is clearly the setup of the Security Council where we would all like to see reform. But the UN is a great organization and the failures of the security council should reflect more on those individual countries than the UN itself.

Gray, and rainy today, shirin, so that should keep those Campbell casinos away! I'll admit I was a little taken with the beautiful night.

Important point made by Frank of the US propaganda used to downplay the real significance and achievements of the UN. As shirin noted somewhere above, we may have more power than we believe against the US but have been convinced or pressured otherwise out of US self-interest. From the long list Frank has provided we have to ask where would the world be now if the United Nations had not existed?

I know the pain and pleasure of west coast living, Lynn (the bike ride today was a duathalon being part swim) - but our greatest stakes for this province are the next elections (all my pencils are already sharpened). I don't want to give the impression that I don't appreciate or acknowledge the invaluable work the UN has done - and continues to do - around the globe that has made huge differences in bettering the lives of people. I am closely associated with an NGO that has worked right along side the UN in places such as Tajik, Afghanistan, South East Asia and Africa - so I have an intimate appreciation of the significance of the UN. My main argument was for us to ensure that the UN does not continue to be so blatantly undermined by the US - and we, as the United Nations, should admit publicly (ie: to the ears of the Americans) that their influence within our organization (ie in terms of having veto privileges etc) cannot be continued in light of the constant unilateral breach of confidence the States have exhibited. It should be acknowledged that they are in fact bringing anarchy and destabilization to world peace and order. Admitting the problem is half the battle. Once the problem is defined, we can then move forward to come up with solutions and compromises to ammend it.

Shirin, I think you're onto something regarding the UN and America's dominance over or within it. There is only one reason GW Bush is coming to Canada next week and that is because he knows his bluffs to press us into Iraq didn't work. Infact it pissed us all off, although somewhat less then he has since with all the killing and lies in Iraq. The Americans may talk the talk, but they are just as sensitive to criticisms from the rest of the world as anyone else. I'll bet if the UN got firm with the U.S. and began to isolate it somewhat, we'd see a change pretty fast. You might say that's a bit risky , but I'd suggest a hell of a lot less risky than the mess he has the world in right now.

Alan, I don't think it is risky - maybe a tad bit belated - it can hardly get worse - no peace, polluted environment and global corporate dictatorship. What do we have to lose? Our soft wood lumber debate? I found it amusing that Bush and Co. are scared they may be "bullied" by inhospitable Canadian protesting on Parliament Hill - so they will make a chicken detour as far east as they can go without falling off the country - poor Halifax - what did they do to be exposed to such pollution? They can run - but they can't hide! Obviously, the fact that they aren't appreciated around the globe - or even at their best friend's house - says something - at least "unofficially".

I suspect the choice of Halifax as a venue has to do with the presence of military than anything symbolic.

Just watch "poor Halifax" in the next couple of days...we are outraged here on the east coast that W thinks he can use this city as a sleazy photo op and podium for a pretense that Canada loves him now. Yes, there's a military tradition here, but Halifax is also the only Canadian city which has ever felt the direct impact of modern warfare (December 1917, and perhaps because of that tragedy we have a vibrant peace movement here. Bush will be charged with war crimes tomorrow night, convicted (great jury!) and marched off to the American embassy for departation. Unfortunately he intends to sneak back in by helicopter the next day to make his smarmy selfserving speech at Pier 21, the site where so many immigrants have been welcomed. He is not welcome. Since he couldn't face protesters in Ottawa he will certainly not exit on the side of the building where we will be waiting to indict him. He will be lifted on high, ascending into heaven to further his image as god's chosen oracle for our times, soaring far above the rabble. It's sickening. But we will do what we can to show whoever is watching that Nova Scotians do not embrace this mass murderer and defiler of international law. If any of you westerners want to join us at the Grand Parade 10 a.m. Wednesday morning, YOU WILL be welcome!

I saw Dyer years ago at UBC arguing that NATO should be dissolved as a threat to peace. He had great observations and his conclusions were exactly wrong. Not too much has changed I see. The UN does great work coordinating relief efforts and monitoring agreements but it has lost the plot as far as ensuring security, former Yugoslavia & Rwanda are a pretty damning trend.

As a USian ("America" includes such as Canda and Mexico), I agree with all the criticisms of my country. You may not realize how alien so many of us feel in our own country. Many millions here are terrified -- not of the ME "terrorists" (who can tell? liar Bush?), but of the terrorists who bullied and stole their way into control of the US gov't. One correction which needs to be made internationally about the US: there is no _individual_ "right to bear arms" protected by the US Constitution; that is a lie perpetrated by the arms-industry funded NRA. It is true that the Framers of the Bill of Rights, and that which became the Second Amendment, did discuss a draft of it which included an "individual right". But that "individual right" was, in recognition of those "religiously scrupulous of bearing arms" (their words) to _NOT_ bear arms. I.e., it was a clause which would have established "conscientious objection" against participation in hte "Well regulated militia" -- which latter is the actual subject of the Amendment. As said, many millions of USians are terrified of "our" gov't; we don't know what to do, or what will happen next from this lunatic War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory. Some of us recognize that they will lead the country to a crash, and they will fall hard. We have no problem with their fall -- but we do fear everyone else "in the room" will also be injured. Many millions of us suffer for the Iraqi people who did not ask for Abu Ghraib and Falluja. And did not ask for the US support of Saddam during the 1980s, before, during, and after he allegedly "gassed his own people". The axis which provided that support? "Conservatives" Reagan, Bush, Sr., and Rumsfeld. And I am old enough to want to call Kissinger to account. And Nixon, even if we have to dig him up to do it.

If only I could throw the Far East a net to catch the disease vector. May the force be with you....

Gray, that was the debate between Dyer and Doug Ross?

I think WW1 and WW2 were a damning trend too.

Hi Frank I think so. You'll note that the League of Nations was unable to provide security and prevent WW2. The UN seems to headed down that path as well.

The thing is, the US, among many others, wasn't in the League of Nations either. It was irrelevant to them I guess. There's a world of difference between the League and the UN.

The point can also be made that WW1 and WW2 are two parts of the same war. Sort of like the way we might view the Thirty Years War or the Hundred Years War from here.

The UN will be as relevant as countries want it to be. As I said above, you can't replace the UN. You can change the name, you can reform the security council, you can do whatever, but without the backing of the nations involved the UN will fail like the League did or like anything else "created" here.

I think that one point that gets missed in alot of political talk is how the US economy is seriously on the brink. With the erosion of their industrial base, out-of-control spending, and imperial over-stretch it's time to realize how truly the US has become a paper tiger. The fighting between Democrats and Republicans is no more of consequence than re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. In the end no one notes the ocean rising. As Canadians we out to prepare for the inevitable day of reckoning - work on diversifying our trade relations so the US becomes a "nice to have" economy, not a "need to have" one.

http://slate.com/id/2110205/

Good link there... I guess given how things are there, it won't be long before they turn into "Weimar Amerika" ... we'll be living the high life, getting billions of greenbacks for our loonies... Life will be a Cabaret! :D

Far east, give him hell for all of us.***Joseph Nagarya, I sympathize with your fears and want to assure you they are a normal emotion pretty much globally as this Canadian-based site will attest. You might do yourself and others some good by redirecting some of that stress and fear into speaking out, help lobby, stage a rally, protest or whatever you can to stop this madness. You are a citizen of the only country in the world that George Bush and Dick Cheney will listen to. Looking for inspiration? Then check out current events in the Ukraine.

Peter C. Newman is considering writing a book about how the world is going to devolve into city-states. I can support this notion, which renders all of the above somewhat meaningless, except as short-term manoeuvring by doomed superpowers. But the carnage will be (practically) unimaginable before this notion is achieved.

I am not sure how Dyer rationalizes the UN as being responsible for world peace for the last 50 years in the multi-lateral world. Has he not noticed the brutal wars in Africa and elsewhere where the UN was incapable of acting to stop them-hint Rwanda et al. It was not the UN who ended the cold war. American power ended the cold war peacefully meaning millions did not have to die in Eastern Europe and Soviet tanks and nuclear warheads did not destroy Central Europe. It was American diplomacy that ended the civil wars in Central America. The American withdrawal from Vietnam because of a lack of support meant millions of South Vietenames where forced to live in a police state and millions of Cambodians died from the cruel tyranny of the Khmer Rouge. I for one am happy to have the USA willing to go up againsts bullies and it was they who saved our bacon in WWII- a war they had to be dragged into. If Islamic militants obtain nuclear warheads, which is almost certain to happen then Mr. Dyer's dismissal of them as a threat shows he again has missed the real issues confronting the world today be it the West or in the Middle East itself.

N. Alexander, Ron Erwin, and Chevy sound like the same character.

It wasn't the UN who failed, it was the nations of the world, including the US.

The US didn't end the cold war, it was Gorbachev after the USSR lost the war in Afghanistan.

The US was responsible for the civil wars in Central America, mining Nicaragua's harbours and sponsoring the Contras.

As for Vietnam, the South was no paradise when the US was there either. Perhaps the US could have avoided the whole problem by working with Ho Chi Minh from the beginning when he approached a US agent during WW2. Vietnam was not the only case where America confused nationalism with communism and driving the nationalists into the arms of the other side.

As for WW2, who is "we"? Are you Canadian? America saved our bacon? Why is it the right-wingers on this board are so ignorant of basic history, among other things?

As for Dyer, if his critics are so knowledgeable I'm sure their next book will be well received.

Frank, I couldn't have said it better. Especially your final comment.

Lynn, don't you dare move the UN to Vancouver Island. We don't want it. All those career "diplomats" with their immunity from ordinary civil law, bringing their bratty kids (we can raise our own bratty kids), all those UN interpreters who have to be fully skilled in at least eight languages to get the job..we are barely able to use the English language here and we like it that way, see... I feel leery about the proposed changes to the veto...what has been suggested, so far, seems likely to simply mean more have's being able to continue to dominate the have nots...I would like the veto erased completely and more credibility given to consensus...the Amerikkkan empire is stoney broke, financially and morally...the engorged ticks like Haliburton et al have bled Amerikka to a state of anaemia...what I find interesting and very sad is that so many Iraqi people refer to the occupation troops as "crusaders". Sad because I agree with that view and it breaks my heart to think we haven't made much progress past the mentality which led to and supported the original Crusades. I think the Sunni and Shia will each decide "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and come together , prepared to resist for as long as it takes...I don't pretend to 'understand' muslim 'mentality' but I am convinced every grandma in Iraq feels for her grandchildren what I feel for mine, and if some superpower were to blow any one of my grandchildren to sodden bits my fury would be unlimited . The Tigris-Euphrates valley is supposed to be where the Garden of Eden was situated...how pathetic that those who prate about God and Christ and rah rah rah are bombing the Garden of Eden...Yes, the UN has been a step forward but might I suggest it has been of no use in controlling the many scandals around the World Bank and the bancrupting of small nations through "foreign aid" and... capitalism has run amok and unchallenged by the UN. It is better than nothing but it needs a good house cleaning. What Amerikkka has done in South America, alone, is disgusting and the UN has done nothing..for years the US did not pay it's dues to the UN and nothing was done...the list of UN initiatives the US has refused to support is long and no sanctions were ever suggested..when you're the biggest bully in town the toothless bulldog is no threat...I wish you all peace...

in WWII deos anyone think Rawanda was affected and how do you think genocide is still going on? if so please send mail to

Now here's the answer: The Iraq war is weirdly similar to the Vietnam War, although few like to admit it. This has got to be deja vu all over again. I remember standing in front of the UBC library in 1967 yelling the same arguments at a group of engineers who were trying to throw us peaceniks into the library pool. The American government, in that case, LBJ and staff, lied about what they were doing there and the war continued until too many people had friends and family in body bags. The main difference between the two wars is that there was absolutely no rational for the Vietnam War. The Americans slaughtered 58,000 of their own kids and 2 or 3 million Vietnamese FOR NOTHING.(Did anybody really believe the domino theory) This is not to mention bombing Laos, Cambodia and supplying the Khymer Rouge with the pretense to empty the cities and begin their reign of terror. Okay, here are the answers to Dyer's claims, 10 being the highest grade: War for oil, 3. War for democracy 0. War to avenge Bush the Elder 3. War to protect Israel 5. War to protect America from WMD 0. War because "Iraq" wasn't dangerous 2.(don't bet on it, the Americans are capable of attacking a strong country; they have to have stronger lies, though, or real reasons)War as embodiment of "New American Century" 7.War for Industrial Complex (read Haliburton and friends)6. War as raison d'etre for weak President, 6. Negatives: slaughter of innocents, as usual and destruction of infrastructure of Irag. Irag emerges as centre for Global Islamic fundamentalism and Arab nationalism. Positives. It is just possible that the U.S. and other like-minded powers and super-powers will finally learn the limitations of overwhelming conventional military force. China-Taiwan, for example. But I doubt it. End of Iraq War: When Americans notice that Bush has single-handedly destroyed their economy with the largest general deficit in U.S. history, not to mention the largest trade deficit and the largest debt. If there is any redemption in the current debacle it is that Americans are almost evenly split about it and a major discrediting of the War and Bush's rational for it might result in a major political shift in the United States, and an early diminishing of the power of neo-conservatism. The Americans might do two Vietnams, but I can't see them doing three.

"The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible"? May i suggest this man go live in Iran or North Korea or Iraq just 2 years ago, and say something aoubt 1% as derogatory towards the governments there? The main organization in the entire world helping people get and stay free is the United States of America. I've written on this subject h ere.

Daniel: be embarrassed, for god's sake. What a crock.

hardest new book to get hold of EVER!!!

printed in 2004, not even his own site links a seller.

wtf! i want this book.