Current-order Books

Singer and Wildavsky argue that for the first time in history the major world powers share a commitment to democracy. By working together, they eventually will encourage other nations toward democracy and, ultimately, peace.

The authors argue that the world's superpowers have mutual interests in the political and economic success of democracy worldwide. These countries should now undertake a democratic, multinational effort to draw other countries into this "zone of peace."

They suggest establishing a United Nations Democratic Caucus through which democratic nations can, by majority rule, agree on issues of international significance. The economic development opportunities that stem from this cooperation eventually will attract non-democratic nations, who currently reside in what the authors call "zones of turmoil."

Singer and Wildavsky also propose a substantial increase in foreign assistance (half reserved for humanitarian emergencies) and limits on arms transfers to non-democratic states.

In 1996, this book won the $150,000 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order, an international prize administered by the University of Louisville's Department of Political Science.

If everyone read Dorrien's works, everybody would be smart. It's just incredible how intelligent this man is. And I'm not just sucking up to him--he's no longer my prof, but I respect him. Ever heard of Rauschenbusch, Niebuhr, Tillich, Gutierrez, Moltmann? No? Then read this book, dammit!

This is a superb book setting out the development of the post-war international monetary system. It is full of insights on the negotiating positions etc. of the major countries involved, the US and UK. This book is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to gain a fuller appreciation of the work of Keynes etc.

In his book, Syria and the New World Order, Dr Quilliam offers a brilliant anaylsis of Syrian foreign policy using theories of international relations and political economy. He examines dometic, regional, and international factors as determinants of Syrian foreign policy, which, according to his anaylsis, is driven by realism. Using an 'omnibalancing model', he argues that Syria has been consistent in its search for a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He presents Syria's role in the Second Gulf War, and the peace process (of which he provides a succinct account until 1997) as two examples of Syria's adjustment to the changes in the international arena since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of the New World Order. The author's contribution lies in his sound understanding of theories of international relations which he applies skillfuly to the Syrian case in order to prove his argument.

I think it was the enticing cover which made me pick up Bennett's latest book, but then of course I got carried away and had to read it cover to cover. What is so impressive is Bennett's analysis of the value of the many very different contributions which the women she profiles have made to the goal of 'altering world order'. The research is impressive: some of the women featured are world famous and some are not, but all have struggled for peace, justice, and a better world. Gathered together their stories, work and speeches make an impressive whole, their true and deeply thoughful voices illuminating the critical issues of our time. Anyone interested in the progress of women in society should read this book, it is an inspiration.

I have heard about the Bilderbergers but never took it seriously. However, the stories that I heard before: One World Government , removal of the borders, one money, etc. were starting to become more clear by the day.
I decided to pay closer attention, and bought the book.
I was not disappointed. Pictures of these heads of states & countries, how can it be denied that "something" is going on and we, the People, are kept in the dark about it. You will never read or hear about it in the press.
Reading the book was very educational and most of all an eye opening experience.
I recommend the book highly.

Constance Hingert

Daniel Estukin does a spendid job of exposing the "secretive" Bilderberg Group. We should all take the time to read this book, as we are eventually all affected by their decisions. Kudos to Daniel Estulin...we need more writers like him...too bad newspapers didn't have even one reporter with a tenth of his ability.

Very eye opening! I've been hearing about the Elite and power people most of my life but I had no idea they encompassed such a large group of other non-Americans. Unfortunately I feel the deck is stacked against us. It's not about parties (Republican or Democrat) but who has the money and who is willing to sell their soul to be part of this group. I think the thing that hit me was it was all started by the Dutch Royalty and the English Royalty has always been involved, and soon after WWII. Picking up where the Nazi's left off? Makes one think even though we are all Democratic type governments the Royalty play a bigger roll than we may think. Why? It also seems David Rockefeller feels he is the royalty of the US. It's all very interesting. It makes one wonder if they will out maneuver themselves and go down with everyone else. Power is an addictive thing. I also felt the author is from Russia and now lives in Canada. Hum - could this be an individual that is trying to mess with our minds so we feel there is no one in the US that can be trusted? He certainly had everyone attending meetings, Past, present and future power people. If the meetings weren't secret maybe one wouldn't feel there was something to fear. Currently I no longer trust anyone in positions of power. Very sad commentary.

Daniel Estulin is a true patriot. His bravery and insight is as genius as it is daring. Bilderberg...Ask yourself why you have never heard this name before on Fox News or Time Magazine???

A disapointing book. Instead of explaining how this totally new type of international political party - because that is precisely what the Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission are - came into being, and what are its policies, how are they implemented throughout the world, the author offers a sequence of very unconvincing and very low quality spy stories that look like pure fiction and certainly do not support any of his "arguments". And the rest of the narrative is mostly direct or hidden quotes from elsewhere. OK, the author and his helpers managed to catch a few glimpses and bits of conversations at highly secretive meetings of the leadership of a political party - so what? None of them is any substantial proof of any sophisticated conspiracy; it would be ridiculous to claim that they are. The "top secret" questions and comments by Bilderbergers that the author reproduces in the book rather strike me as naive and dilettante-style: exactly what I would expect from highflying politicians who never have the time to learn seriously about any specific subject matter that requires their urgent attention and rely instead on their "experts'" short briefings.
To summarize, the book looked to me like a collection of articles from a third rate popular magazine, not like a jem of investigative journalism. I feel sorry for the money I spent and can't reclaim from the author.

Short published articles by Noam, usually as South American pamphlets or leftist newspaper articles. Easy to read and to the point, quicker to get though than the comprehensive Understanding Power. A good short Chomsky to introduce his most important concepts. A good first Chomsky too see if you want more.

Chomsky's Profit Over People is an insighful and at times shocking analysis of the true motives and practices of multinational corporations and the governement economic policies they operate within. Chomsky spares no time in hammering his message against the concentration of power in the hands of the few through the use of several detailed case studies. As a student of economics and finance at Oklahoma State University, this book caused me to step back and question the very foundation of Smith's free market theory which has comprised my studies thus far. As a reader, I became disgusted by the prospect of private interests having the ability to manipulate the world economy, government policy, and the subposively "free" press to serve their own greed-driven interests while watching the masses suffer.

Although this book succeeded tremendously in causing me to question my own assumptions and encouraged me to stand for a change, it left me wondering how to go about doing so. I feel the book could be strengthened tremendously if Chomsky had included a true conclusion in which he provides a means for change to compliment his call to arms.

In this polemic Chomsky attacks `neo-liberalism' in international political economy. To that effect, he damns every supranational economic organisation and agreement that he can think of (the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation, NAFTA, MAI etc.), charging them with being the agents or instruments of US multinational corporations intent on pillaging the Third World, despoiling the environment, and various other sins. The book is not so much an argument as an expostulation; and it is undermined at almost every turn by extravagant rhetoric and weak reasoning.

International political economy is - like all economics - a discipline about trade-offs and the assessment of costs and benefits. There are various criticisms that can plausibly be levelled at all of the bodies or treaties that Chomsky fulminates against, but it is important in formulating them to have a mind to what these institutions or agreements are designed for. To put mildly, the targets Chomsky denounces are not the same thing and do not pursue the same ends. It serves no purpose and does violence to critical inquiry merely to denounce them all as agents of US big business and of free-market fanaticism. The IMF, for example - a prime villain in Chomsky's account - has received much criticism from the school of free market economists that Chomsky believes it represents. These economists (see, for example, Money and the Nation State, edited by Kevin Dowd & Richard Timberlake, and published by the libertarian Independent Institute in 1998) charge the IMF with creating `moral hazard' in international lending, and wish to see the institution abolished. A different view, which I hold, is that the IMF performs a valuable service in allowing troubled economies a breathing space to sort out their difficulties, as was clearly the case with the `tequila crisis' in Mexico in 1994-5, and in fact ought to be more active in its prescriptions than it has been - consider the case of Argentina's ruinous currency peg, which the IMF was highly sceptical of and ought to have stood out against. There is room for discussion and disagreement about how far the IMF should loosen conditionality for its loans (and I am something of a dove in this respect), but these are inevitable debates about how to make effective a necessary and valuable part of the global economy.

Similarly, the World Trade Organisation has nothing whatever to do with free-market fundamentalism or US big business: it is neither more nor less than a commercial court that tries to eliminate discrimination on grounds of nationality. It is a thoroughly progressive institution whose effectiveness is greatly in the interests of the developing world, as evidenced by its first major ruling when it upheld Venezuela's complaint against a US levy on foreign petroleum producers. The World Bank, which under its current management - much to my regret - has veered very far from the cause of globalisation, went to immense lengths to support Third World socialist projects (such as the `ujaama' projects of President Nyerere's Tanzania), with extremely bad results for the impoverished peoples of the countries concerned.

To subsume these differing institutions, aims and approaches into a catch-all damnation of the machinations of big business is neither a profound nor a reliable guide to the modern global economy. Quite how Chomsky reaches his conclusions is of some interest, however, for it indicates quite a lot about the economic reasoning of the anti-globalisation movement. In short, Chomsky just hasn't acquainted himself with the normative arguments and positive findings of those he attacks; this is just not good enough in a book that aims to scrutinise the global economic order, for economics is a rigorously technical and empirical discipline, and not a matter of opinion. I give just two instances if the book's deficiencies in this respect, but they could be multiplied at great length.

Chomsky attacks the advocates of NAFTA, the North America Free Trade Agreement, for supposedly claiming the it would create jobs. In this, Chomsky has just not understood the point - a very fundamental one - about trade. The basic Ricardian argument for trade does not depend on its effect on aggregate employment (which is virtually unaffected by trade: what matters in the short run is the level of aggregate demand, and in the long run is the so-called NAIRU, or Non-Accelerating-Inflation Rate of Unemployment); trade raises not employment but living standards. The chronic poverty that has afflicted Third World nations like Tanzania under a policy of 'self-reliance' demonstrates the point.

My second instance of the weakness of this book's treatment of economics is Chomsky's throwaway reference to William Greider's anti-globalisation polemic One World, Ready or Not. The Greider thesis that Chomsky has latched on to is that there is excess supply in the global economy owing to workers' not receiving enough to buy the goods capitalism produces. This claim is absolutely untenable in theory and in practice: wages are not set abstractly, but are pinned to the marginal product of labour. To put it simply, an additional dollar of output must represent an additional dollar of income to someone. The only way the `excess supply' nostrum could hold is if you claim that the additional dollar of income goes to someone with a higher marginal propensity to save - and that conclusion requires a study of the facts. This book doesn't trouble with the facts, which are that savings rates in most industrial economies have been falling for years, while in the developing countries they have been growing less quickly than investment demand.

Enough already. Chomsky is not an international economist, and his book is depressingly short on empirical research and economic logic. Indeed the book is almost a logical fallacy itself, for it exemplifies the anthropomorphic fallacy that one may attribute personality - in this case a wicked and grasping avarice - to an abstraction, namely the `capitalist system'. At any rate, it is a poor book that does nothing to enhance its author's reputation in his chosen personal interest - far from his specialist field - of politics and economics.

1) Open book; 2) the U.S. is the root cause of all bad things in the world; 3) repeat #2 until it's permanently imprinted on your brain; 4) close book. There, I've just saved you $11.

Excellent read, the author never fails to open ones eyes in his books.
Recommended highly.

Martin wrote this book over 12 years ago. We live in a totally different time today, yet, to understand where we are today geopolitically, this book would make a great addition to any research library.

Martin was awaiting the pope to rise to take back the church from its sense of slumber. He hoped that until his death.

This book was a real symbol of the cold war just before its end. To understand some of the machinations of the cold war, the alliances, the ideologies and the world that the pope came out of and the church that he was placed in charge of at a critical juncture, you need to read this book in that perspective.

If the church continues to make an impact on geopolitics, if the USA continues as the only superpower, if Russia regains its former prowess and desire for world conquest, well this book will be as timely as ever, only the names of individuals will have changed.

Yet with United Europe on the scene, the church will have other issues to attend to. Martin addresses some of that in his Novel, Windswept House.

Written in 1990, this book shows its age, especially in its now-obsolete emphasis on Mikhail Gorbachev and traditional Leninist Communism. Perhaps its most useful content concerns the Third Secret of Fatima, specifically that part which many experts say has still not been made public. The author, a priest who worked deeply within the Vatican during the pontificate of John XXIII, has claimed in interviews that he was present for the reading of the secret; and hence, the book's comments on this topic, though presented in speculatory form to avoid violating the author's oath of silence, may have particular weight.

This book is a masterful analysis of modern geopolitics. It is different from other books on the subject in that it adds a vertical or spiritual ingredient to the often horizontal only analysis of history. This allows the author to delve deeper into the meaning and consequences of world politics as they exist today. It also provides plausible explanations to modern world events. Malachi Martin rightly contends that unless one takes into account the fact that there is a spiritual warfare going on at the same time, modern history and geopolitics make no sense.

The book seeks to look at history through the eyes of John Paul II, a pope and a master in geopolitics. John Paul II, Martin contends, was a man singularly prepared for his time through life experience, nationality, culture and education, much like St. Paul was the best man to christianize the world through his combination of Jewishness, Roman citizenship and Greek education. John Paul II was aware of his role and place, and once Martin explains the centrality of the history of Poland and the identity this provides to John Paul II, his fixation with geopolitics as his battle field for man's soul becomes a lot clearer and many a question is answered regarging John Paul II's papacy.

In the book, Martin identifies the two main players vying for world domination in the spiritual sphere today and thus lays the ground for his historical analysis: materialism with the East and West in their communism and capitalism, which Martin places on one side together -- and the Catholic Church, the only truly geopolitical spiritual organization in existence today. One of the two sides must win, for they cannot coexist. Either materialism coopts or conquers the Church or the Church ends materialism and Christianizes man again. Martin treats his subject always with this Christian spiritual dimension and point of view in mind, therefore you will read modern history through the eyes of the papacy as it stood with John Paul II, taking into account the message of Fatima, the role of Poland in Christianity and several other often neglected aspects of history that cleary show the "hand of Providence" and how God is truly the Lord of History. The book is a great resource for students of Church history, modern events and the Catholic Church. It is also a great resource for those non Christian or non believers seeking to understand John Paul II better and why the Catholic Church reacts(ed) as it does(did) in modern times. Martin has a masterful section on the silenced history of Poland, its central role in Christian history, how it was the first republic and example to Europe and a wonderful analysis of the Messages of Fatima and what they may mean in today's world.

Malachi Martin was a gifted author (died in 1999), priest (ex-Jesuit), Vatican insider and exorcist. He claimed, and substantiated his claims in his writings, to know the inside story. Much of what he wrote about has come true (for example, Martin wrote about the homosexual priest problem within the Catholic Church long before any reporter in the media knew about it) and his analysis is logical and intelligent. In the "Keys of this Blood" Martin weaves into the context of modern history the Catholic Church's claim to be Christ's true Church (hence the Keys of Christ's Blood) with the papacy at its head and its central role in modern politics, whether modern man wants it or not. It is a must read for anyone seeking to understand the modern world and the forces shaping it.

Mega tons of information, but very technical and sometimes meandering in content but overall a very good read.

Malachi Martin's work is a veritable "tour de force." With authority (he was one of the world's foremost Vatican Scholars), skill and erudtion he meticulously traces the geopolitical ambitions of Rome from beginning, i.e. Christ's alleged comments to Peter that upon him the church would be built, to end where the Vatican winds up in charge of the One World Government. Martin posits that anyone who was under the age of 70 at the time this book was written would be alive to see the day when the nation-state, as we know it, would cease to exist.

What will be most surprising to most readers is how intimately involved the Papacy is in world politics, all for the purpose of establishing the Catholic Church as the One World Government. (See Revelation 13, 17).

Whether or not Pope John Paul II turns out to be the eventual ruler of the One World Order is irrelevant. Dr. Martin's book goes into exhaustive detail how this Pope, more than any of his predecessors in this century, has worked feverishly to keep the Vatican on the world stage as a major player. Karol Woytila has had a clear-eyed view of what the church's role should be in world affairs dating back to the time when he was a priest during the Second World War working undercover for the US Government. He learned well at the feet of the master in this regard; Stephen Cardinal Wysinzski took the young cleric under his wing during the formative years of his priesthood, and the account of his tutelage of Woytila is spellbinding.

Readers will be fascinated to learn just how much the Vatican was behind the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, and just how closely the US and Vatican work on foreign policy issues.

This book could very well be subtitled "Prophecy Made Clear by Modern Events." John Paul II is the "Servant of the Grand Design;" papal hegemonist ambitions are in plain view. A blockbuster!!

....

The first 100 pages or so of Dyer's book discusses, briefly, a variety of explanations why the U.S> invaded Iraq. These include oil (unlikely in Dyer's veiw), the neo-conservative desire to crush an important enemy of Israel (Sniegoski in his "The Transparant Cabal" provides a much more detailed analysis of this hypothesis), the need to attack a state in order to show the world that the U.S. in on top of the world, to "eliminate" a terrorist threat (Dyer considers this preposterous) and the desire to "establish" democracy in the middle east (another ridiculous expalanation in Dyer's view), amongst others. The book is not particularly strong here.

Where the book is strong, however, is the remaining 80 or so pages. Here Dyer makes the argument that the U.S. , by invading Iraq unilateally, has set a preecedent that undermines the underpinnings of international relations since the end of the second world war. That is, a nation only has the right to fight another (attack another nation) in self-defense within the framework of the U.N. Dyer argues that the U.S., by setting this precedent, may have established a justification for a pattern of behavior that legitimizes unilateral military action and hence forces upon the worl the need for a multi-polar set of alliances that increase the odds of a major war in the future. Only by acting quickly to reverse this precedent , Dyer believes , can the legitimization of unilateral military action and the alliance system it will lead to be stopped.

Gwynne Dyer used to be a Senior Lecturer at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. In this fascinating book, he warns that the biggest threat to world peace is the US state's current project of worldwide intervention.

He argues that this project is about asserting that the USA rules, without reference to international law, relying on force in international affairs. This ruthless strategy promises security, but produces only endless wars. The Iraq war was a demonstration of the project; it was not about Iraq or terrorism.

In the project, religion plays its usual reactionary role - US tele-evangelist Jim Robison opened a Republican National Convention by saying, "There will be no peace until Jesus comes. Any preaching of peace prior to this return is heresy. It is against the word of God. It is anti-Christ." This is a mirror-image of bin Laden's rhetoric.

Dyer writes that the Iraq war is lost. He points out, "In anti-colonial guerrilla wars, the locals always win." The Indonesians beat the Dutch, the Vietnamese and Algerians beat the French, the Kenyans and Cypriots beat the British, the Angolans and Mozambicans beat the Portuguese, and the Iraqis will beat the Americans.

He notes that mad Wolfowitz said, with no sense of irony, "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq." (In his world, foreigners are always non-Americans.)

Dyer also explores the parallel Islamist project. Bin Laden aimed to provoke Bush into invading Muslim nations, and Bush played right into his hands. But Al Qaeda is not a threat like Nazi Germany. As Dyer writes, its threat `has been deliberately and grotesquely exaggerated' because it is needed as cover for the US project.

But both projects are going badly wrong, and both are doomed to fail. Yet the British ruling class has swayed the EU into backing the US project, threatening our liberty and security.

Weak states prefer international accords because they constrain the actions of powerful states. Powerful states dislike them for the same reason. This has been true at least since the emergence of nation-states in the 14th century.

Dyer professes surprise and disappointment that the United States is acting almost unilaterally in Iraq, scorning and disregarding the United Nations in the process.

The only real surprise is that the United States doesn't go its own way more often. In fact, what's even more surprising is the key historical role the US played in founding the UN in the first place. The peace and stability the UN has enabled, and the prosperity that's followed in its wake, have certainly been good for the United States; but you'd be hard-pressed to find examples of other powerful states in history with enough vision to trade off some of their own short-term ability to act in favor of long-term stability. Dyer, moreover, would probably endorse the idea that the US role in the creation of the UN was far-sighted and visionary.

When a great power feels its interests threatened, it will respond as it sees fit. The UN Charter explicitly recognizes this by giving the permanent members of the Security Council - the great powers of their day - veto rights. You can argue as Dyer does that the veto doesn't extend to unsanctioned attacks on other states, but you're fooling yourself if you think the great powers will pay any more than lip service to UN principles when they perceive their core interests at risk.

Dyer's premise is that the United States is not the "indispensable nation," nor a "beacon on the hill," and is no longer the powerhouse of the world economy. Indeed, he postulates, the US has reached its zenith and is on its way down, and needs help finding a soft landing. The United States, in other words, is no longer - or will not remain for much longer - a great power.

If you accept that starting point, the rest of his argument is neither controversial nor particularly interesting. Middle powers can't play by great power rules; and the sooner they wake up to their changed status, the less havoc they wreck on the way down. Think Britain after WWII.

If Dyer's premise is wrong, though, the rest of his arguments disintegrate into typical weak-state hand-wringing about the lawless and self-interested great powers. This, too, is neither controversial nor interesting.

Viewed from this perspective, the absence of support for Dyer's premise about the decline of the United States is puzzling and disappointing. About the only hard evidence he presents is the fact that the US share of the global economy has fallen from 45% after WWII to 20% today. Most historians believe that the 45% figure was an anomaly that reflected the destruction of much of Europe's industrial base, and that the shrinkage of that share back down to 20% is much more in line with historical averages stretching back to the beginning of the 20th century.

Most serious observers, moreover, don't base their analysis of the rise and fall of great powers solely on relative economic size. You have to consider military capability, both quantitative (how many guns) and qualitative (how effective are they); cultural influence; moral example; ability to innovate; advances in science, engineering and technology; the list goes on. Now, one can have a robust debate about what the 21st century holds for the United States measured against any or all of those axes - but Dyer isn't interested in any of that, instead treating this as axiomatic and confining his statements in this area to a few sentences here and there.

He does say in a couple of places that countries like Russia, India and China are finding "their own rough way" to democracy and need neither assistance nor a working example from the United States. Really? Does Dyer honestly think that the whole history of the Cold War, culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union, has had no effect on the evolution of democracy in India and Russia? Did the United States play no role in Tiananmen Square? Have Bill Clinton's comments about the Chinese Communists being on the "wrong side of history" had no effect on the evolution of politics in China? One can again imagine a robust debate on these topics - but you won't get it from Dyer.

Astonishingly, Dyer's depiction of the US role in the creation of the United Nations belies his core premise that the US is not the "indispensable nation." He points out that the creation of the UN was far-sighted and visionary, and that the American leaders of the day were patient and thoughtful people who knew a global conflict with the Soviets was coming but were willing to fight it by setting in place the whole post-war edifice of economic stability and military alliance. Dispensable? Ask yourself what great power in history would have perceived its interests in such depth and as being so intertwined with the rest of humanity, or gone to such subtle lengths to contain and discredit an enemy rather than just attacking it. Britain? Spain? The Ottomans? The Romans?

Even Dyer's recounting of the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent guerrilla insurgency comes across as poorly-researched and naive. More thorough, interesting (and damning) works abound, including Assassin's Gate, Fiasco, and Imperial Life in the Emerald City - all written, it's worth noting in passing, by Americans.

For a much more insightful account of why the US "really" invaded Iraq, and what's really going on with the violence there, have a look at America's Secret War by George Friedman. The founder of Strategic Forecasting argues - convincingly, with a fair amount of evidence - that the REAL point of invading Iraq was to pressure the Saudis to halt their own domestic financial support for Al Qaeda. The Sunni insurgency was planned and put in place by Saddam Hussein well before the invasion, and the Shia uprisings are orchestrated and directed in detail by Iran whenever it feels the US is trying to renege on deals made regarding the future government of Iraq. All very cold-blooded - and all very believable behavior from a great power concerned, correctly or not, about its survival.

You'll come away from Secret War, and the other books mentioned above, with a much clearer sense of how the United States perceives the world post-9/11, what it's doing about it, and how it's succeeding - and failing. You'll also be much better equipped to condemn or criticize the US, and perhaps even more inclined to do so after you understand the real failures and self-deceptions the United States has encountered in the past six years.

I have always been a fan of Dyer's columns in our newspaper that we get on the weekend (our little town doesn't even carry decent columnists, so we have to get our "real" news from a bigger newspaper from a bigger town an hour away from us). I have been reading Dyer since I was a young girl. My dad and husband are fans of his writings too. In fact, my dad lent us this book and throughout this entire book, I kept telling my husband that he really really needs to read this.

Just recently, Bush announces his intentions in keeping a military base in Iraq. Dyer mentioned this in this book written three years ago. Just recently, there are a series of actions and speeches that was "predicted" in this book three years ago. It is eerie to read something that resonates in today's series of events and realize that Dyer had foreseen some of this years ago. I am not making Dyer out to be a prophet or anything like that ~~ but he seems to be the most clear-sighted journalist out there right now (especially more so since Molly Ivins have passed on). When I read this book, there was a lot of "a ha!" moments that I very rarely get while reading about current affairs. Usually, I end up feeling more confused than I did when I first read a book. Not this time.

Dyer explains a lot in this little book that is just chock-full of information, quotes, instances and ideologies. First, he explains what Islamist is and how similar it is to the Fundamentalists in Christianity ~~ except Muslims don't have the same word for Fundamentalists that we have in our language. He then explains the Islamist viewpoint (which most Muslims do not share). He explains bin Laden's goals. He explains the neo-conservatives' goals. He goes over the history of the world in the last 60 years. He explains briefly the history of civilization of the last 6,000+ years and how it changed the course of the world.

Like a lot of the reviewers, I had a hard time buying the neoconservatives' explanations for attacking Iraq. I thought at first maybe it was for the oil, but it just didn't jive with everything else. I knew it wasn't going after Saddam because of "what he said about my daddy" ~~ it was too juvenile. (Then again, anything can go nowadays, I guess.) When Dyer explains the Reagan administration, the first Bush administration and the current administration ~~ it all started to make sense. Combine that with the history of the previous world wars and the United Nations formation ~~ it is all starting to make sense.

I am not sure why this book isn't touted more in the public view. Dyer isn't writing like a madman spouting off things ~~ in fact, his book is very reasonable. He writes with precision and with a world view that not necessarily is anti-American, but just with a much different perspective and a much clearer foresight than we Americans are getting from our own media and government. I didn't get the impression that the world thinks we're dumb Americans ~~ there is just a perplexed viewpoint of why we're heading down this path and why the rest of us aren't seeing it. It's also a dangerous path we're on and finally, after four years, other people are starting to raise the alarm.

Just don't forget, Dyer was one of the first ones to sound the alarm when he wrote this book.

6-10-07

I've been a big fan of Mr. Dyer since his documentary days on CBC, so this book is pretty self-recommending. The only question is, why did it take me so long to get around to it? Perhaps it has something to do with no American publisher having the brains, or the guts, to bring it out over here?

At this point there's nothing I can add to the reviews below about why you should read this book, so let me enter a few caveats.

I was most struck by Mr. Dyer's bizarre handling of the whole "9/11 conspiracy" issue, or rather his rather revealing non-handling. Dyer believes that "neo-conservatives in the administration deliberately and consciously hijack[ed] the national panic over the 9/11 attacks in order to impose their own quire different agenda on US foreign policy, starting with the invasion of Iraq." [p. 169] He then sees that he has to distance himself from two more radical views, that "the neo-conservatives who dominated the Bush administration ...must have either (a) planned it or (b) deliberately ignored prior knowledge about it." [ibid].

These are what others have called MIHOP (make it happen on purpose) and LIHOP (let it happen on purpose). Mr. Dyer's entire response to MIHOP is: Muslims believe it, so it must be false, and it is "frequently buttressed by the outright lie...that Jews working in the Twin Towers were warned not to go to work" [and therefore, must be some kind of anti-Semitic slur]. That's it, quite literally: two, completely irrelevant sentences! Read it yourself: last paragraph of page 169.

LIHOP is then dealt with for two page, 170-71, and initially dismissed as "a myth [like] the conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination," by which I assume he does not mean, "will eventually be endorsed by the Congressional committee investigating it decades from now," as the "Kennedy conspiracy" was. After some more blather, his argument is given, again in two sentences, on page 171: the odds are "approximately zero" that a conspiracy so vast could keep quiet, and the odds that any senior office would risk the death penalty for treason are "absolutely zero." Case closed.

Mr. Dyer is so concerned to prevent any association with these kooks that he even turns his back on his Canadian heritage, and endorses the death penalty! Apparently, the threat of a death sentence makes the risk of a crime being committed "absolutely zero"! And what a ringing endorsement of our American government officials, no one of whom could possibly commit treason!

Mr. Dyer's case is so weak that even he can't keep it up: on page 213, he blithely asserts that "the United States went to the trouble of manufacturing a fake North Vietnamese naval attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin before starting the bombing of North Vietnam." Well, I guess that one did get out, but where are the treason trials? After all, this fake attack resulted in far more American deaths than 9/11 and Iraq combined.

This is not the place to argue the case for either MIHOP or LIHOP, so I would refer you to any number of books with a rather more nuanced idea of how things happen in the world of moles, patsies, dupes, such as Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror or David Griffin's Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, which does an especially good job exploding the myths that government conspiracies don`t exist, or not in America, or at least not against our own people.
.
One thing you will notice, however, is that both books are just filled with references and notes, like most books on 9/11. Mr. Dyer, however, has given us a book with no notes, no index and no bibliography. Apparently we are to just take everything on his say-so. Ask yourself, which kind of book is more likely to be myth, and which scholarship?

The whole thing is so shoddily done, that one can only assume that Mr. Dyer is simply trying to keep on the good side of the establishment. Perhaps he is worried about what happens to those who let on in public what they know?

Again, Mr. Dyer is eager to maintain his establishment credentials by distinguishing the "good" intervention in Bosnia from the "bad" intervention in Iraq. So he presents the myth of Milosevic, the "vicious sponsor of ethnic cleansing and mass murder," [p. 225] although in the next paragraph he is already backtracking, where Milosevic give only "tacit approval" (eliminating that pesky need to actually prove evidence of intent). Unfortunately, Mr. Dyer's record of lying about Bosnia is preserved on the web for all to see: http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m051503.html

On page 153, Mr. Dyer, after appropriating material, in that non-footnoting way of his, from Rise of the Vulcans, perpetuates the myth that the Vulcans pressed Cheney on Bush. Actually, Mr. Cheney nominated himself, unaided, as documented by John Nicols essential book, Dick.

Finally, Mr. Dyer likes to cozy up to America, or at least hedge his bets for the future, by making a show of acknowledging that America, after all, did "invent" democracy [p. 151 and elsewhere]. The idea that America was, or was even intended to be, a democracy is an absurd and outdated myth needs to be put to rest, perhaps by a reading of Daniel Lazare's Velvet Revolution, which though dealing with the Bush Coup, gives along the way a concise version of his earlier book, The Frozen Republic.

Despite these flaws, Mr. Dyer's book is probably the best one out there for getting an understanding of the mess we're in today, and where we're likely to go (hint: it's not pretty).

"the answer lies in providing states with internal organizational structure and, above all, with a culture that enables strong leaders and government institutions to enforce capitalist and free-market values. Since he sees the "international community" represented by the United Nations as a myth because it lacks a military, the mantle of leadership must be worn by the U.S., at great risk to itself."

Frankly I haven't read the book, but after reading this comment in the editorial review I'm not adding it to my list. It suggests the author understands neither institutions or cultures. There are serious scholars who have studied these issues for years. Fukuyama seems to claim expertise based on a narrow sampling of the literature.

Let's offer Fukuyama a chance to prove his theory by sending him off to, say, Nigeria. We'll look forward to a postive report in, say, about 2 generations?

Francis Fukuyama, in an important slender volume, sees nation building as the process of helping to ". . .create self-sustaining democratic political institutions and robust market-oriented economies. . . ." He draws a critical distinction between "nation building" and "state building." The former refers to ". . .creating or repairing all the cultural, social, and historical ties that bind people together as a nation." The latter, in contrast, aims at ". . .creating or strengthening such government institutions as armies, police forces, judiciaries, central banks, tax-collection agencies, health and education systems, and the like." The two are not the same--but are interdependent one upon the other.

Fukuyama argues that the process must proceed in two stages: first, the country must be stabilized, with the provision of humanitarian assistance, rebuilding of infrastructure, disaster relief, and economic development. Only then, second, comes the building of self-sustaining political and economic institutions that can support competent democratic governance and economic growth. Thus, nation building involves stabilization of ties that bind a people together as well as supporting the construction of government institutions.

This is a real challenge and not one that can be done easily, without much effort and care. In short, eny effort at democratic nation building must be done with patience and making sure that prerequisites are in place before trying to introduce the full regalia of democracy.

One of the main contributions of this book is the underappreciated distinction between state-building and nation-building. Anyone interested in democractic nation-building ought to consider reading this volume. A clear analysis with obvious implications for American policy in places like Iraq. This is part of an increasing body of work on nation building that, collectively taken together, provides a good handle on the difficulties in creating democracy where previously there was none (and see the work of Paris, Dobbins, Somit, etc.)

Weak or failed states like Somalia and Afghanistan are quietly causing some of the world's most pressing problems and will continue to do so, according to political analyst Francis Fukuyama. In this elegant, sobering critique based on his 2003 Messenger Lectures at Cornell University, Fukuyama uses a simple, two-dimensional model of "stateness" to analyze why states fail. He focuses on what countries can do, rather than using some theoretical model of what they ought to do. Fukuyama describes the supply of and demand for government institutions, why states often don't deliver what their "customers" want and the organizational pathologies that prevent developing nations from "getting to Denmark," development theory parlance for achieving an efficient, transparent and legitimate government. Overall, the book is a mixed bag, mostly filled with solid diagnoses, but sometimes merely providing gooey think tank truisms. Nevertheless, we recommend this brief, skeptical examination to anyone who wants to understand one of the huge challenges of twenty-first century statecraft: how to prevent weak states from exacerbating such problems as AIDS, famine, poverty, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

This book seems like an introductory political science book but its language is simple enough for a general audience to understand. Everyone who has an interest in the political background and details of the current World events can find a lot of interesting discussions.

The author often tends to schematize some ambiguous concepts and ideas very successfully, e.g. the graphs of "strength of state vs. scope of state functions" and "specificity vs. transaction volume" are some outstanding cases. He argues some political events and concepts belonging to WW-2 and post-WW-2 era and makes very lucid and sensible connections with the current events.

He is known to be one of the major theorists of the American neo-conservative political movement, but it seems like he apologetically and implicitly admits the colossal mistakes and their current consequences. This should not be the standpoint of a well-known political scientist. One day, he vehemently supports some certain political ideas and actions, he admits his fault the next day, which is a huge inconsistency on his part. How are people supposed to believe and trust him, when he comes up with new theories?

He argues that weak states create black holes of political (and also economic) instabilities and chaos, and powerful states (like the US) has a right to intervene their affairs, if they feel they pose a threat. Saving human lives could be a very strong legitimate reason for these actions (e.g. Bosnia, Kosovo etc.), but if the powerful states renounce all the international laws, UN resolutions and most importantly the sense of "justice", it could also lead to very unpleasant, festering and chaotic situations (e.g. Iraq).

Although there are many points that I do not agree with him, he also makes some very sound and reasonable comments. I must also say he wrote a thorough and well-researched book, with a lot of citations from other resources, namely it is well-written from a scientific perspective, but different people will, naturally, have different opinions about the ideas he proposed.