Gwynne Dyer's Point Of View

[Riverwind]

You have not once given any 'facts' that support that Afghanistan could never have a democracy besides the infinitely simplistic rationale that they never had one before.

Part of the problem is we have lost track of the original argument. My point was that Afghanistan elections were a sham because most of the country is still run by warlords and there is no sign that is going to change anytime soon. Nothing you have said addresses that point (bizarre comparisons between provincial premiers and warlords don't count).

That said, I do recognize the Afghanistan could become a true democracy in the future once they figure out a way to deal with the warlords and I also recognize that Canadian soliders are doing some good helping people in Afghanistan. I will even do so far and agree that democracy will come sooner with Canadian soldiers there than without. But we are talking about a 20 or 30 year project here and I don't think it is in the interest of Canada to invest that much money and blood into a single part of the world if that means we have to ignore the rest of the world while we are doing it.

[killjoy]

My point was that Afghanistan elections were a sham because most of the country is still run by warlords and there is no sign that is going to change anytime soon.

K. Fine.

That said, I do recognize the Afghanistan could become a true democracy in the future once they figure out a way to deal with the warlords and I also recognize that Canadian soliders are doing some good helping people in Afghanistan. I will even do so far and agree that democracy will come sooner with Canadian soldiers there than without. But we are talking about a 20 or 30 year prohect here and I don't think it is in the interest of Canada to invest that much money and blood into a single part of the world if that means we have to ignore the rest of the world while we are doing it.

I'll apologize/take back everything mean I ever said about you. This is more than I ever wanted. A simple acknowledgement that's it's not impossible. My opinion: not anywhere near impossible, but whatever.

And the Premiers wasn’t supposed to be a direct 1-to1 connection. The point was that we say warlord, warlord, warlord, over and over again and we don’t realize that this is their foundation of regional authority to central. They are very independent, but also nationalistic.

I don't feel people are stupid for having doubts. That would be stupid. But Afghanistan isn't going to change over night (unless it's for the worse :-( ) I think we can agree with that? I mean it just isn't going to look like ours for a while, if at all, right? Well I don’t mind that personally. In fact I don't even care if it doesn't suit the West as Dyer points out. I do however believe it will be on it's way to something better. Even if it did become another 'Pakistan' or 'Iran', they would still be better off and on their way and there is a society you can deal/bargain with.

After all, making it like ours would be democracy at gunpoint, non?

.

[Riverwind]

And the Premiers wasn’t supposed to be a direct 1-to1 connection. The point was that we say warlord, warlord, warlord, over and over again and we don’t realize that this is their foundation of regional authority to central. They are very independent, but also nationalistic.

The term 'clan chieftain' is probably more accurate, however, the whatever we call these guys the problem is many are not democrats and many are involved in the illegal drug trade and use violence to keep control of their drug distribution channels. This means that some of these guys will not like the idea of giving up power to a democratically elected parliament that wants to shut down the drug trade.

The drug trade will be a big issue in Afghanistan until it builds an alternative economy that replaces the income. That is a tough thing to do at the best of times. Doing it with the Taliban lurking in the shadows is even more difficult.

[Charles Anthony]

the problem is many are not democrats and many are involved in the illegal drug trade and use violence to keep control of their drug distribution channels. This means that some of these guys will not like the idea of giving up power to a democratically elected parliament that wants to shut down the drug trade.

Why must we project our morals and standards on other societies?

The drug trade will be a big issue in Afghanistan until it builds an alternative economy that replaces the income.

Alternative economy?

Do we even know who currently does commerce with Afghanistan druglords??

[August1991]

I'm going to file this here because it's another facile Gwynne Dyer analysis/prediction:

Last month, taking their lead from Ignatieff, the Quebec branch of the Liberal Party adopted a resolution calling for the party to recognise "the Quebec nation within Canada," and to "officialise this historical and social reality." Then the separatist Quebec Party in the federal Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois, seized on that to introduce a bill demanding "that this House recognise that Quebecers form a nation."

...

But a third attempt at finding a constitutional formula that will satisfy both nationalist Quebecois and the English-speaking majority in the other nine provinces is almost certainly doomed to failure for the same reasons as the first two: there is no such formula.

Prime Minister Harper bears a good deal of blame for this train-wreck with his too-clever resolution declaring the Quebecois to be a nation "within a united Canada," but the true responsibility lies with Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian-born academic and journalist who had lived abroad for 27 consecutive years before he arrived in Canada from Harvard University last year to offer the Liberal Party and the country his leadership.

Link from Bourque

First, it's facile to blame Ignatieff for this state of affairs. Who has been going on about Nation this and National that for the past 10 years or so? This didn't start with Ignatieff.

Second, it's also facile (or Rick Mercer simplistic) to call Harper's motion "too-clever". Harper had no choice, and given the circumstances, his motion was very good from an English-Canadian perspective.

---

Dyer seems like many so-called analysts in foreign embassies who pick up the local gossip and then put it together in coherent fashion to send back in a cable to their capital. Before the Internet, diplomats and foreign correspondents could justify entire careers this way. No longer.

[Black Dog]

I'm going to file this here because it's another facile Gwynne Dyer analysis/prediction:

You give Dyer a lot harder time than you do the theatre critic.

[Riverwind]

But a third attempt at finding a constitutional formula that will satisfy both nationalist Quebecois and the English-speaking majority in the other nine provinces is almost certainly doomed to failure for the same reasons as the first two: there is no such formula.

August, I think Dyer may be right. I have just finished reading about Charest making that absurd assertion that first nations belong to the 'Quebecois' nation (whether they like it or not is the implication). I knew there was going to a disconnect between the meaning of Quebecois in English Canada and the Francophone definition but I expected that both sides would be polite enough to let it rest. Unfortunately we are now on a collision course and that will make the row over distinct society seem down right civil. English Canadians unequivocally reject the notion that Quebec the 'province' represents a nation although many English Canadians do accept that French Canadians/Quebecois are a nation. Any French politician that demands that English Canadians accept Quebec the Province as a nation is going to be disappointed. After reading Charest's words I wonder if he is really a separatist or if he is simply the dumbest politician on the planet.

[White Doors]

But a third attempt at finding a constitutional formula that will satisfy both nationalist Quebecois and the English-speaking majority in the other nine provinces is almost certainly doomed to failure for the same reasons as the first two: there is no such formula.

August, I think Dyer may be right. I have just finished reading about Charest making that absurd assertion that first nations belong to the 'Quebecois' nation (whether they like it or not is the implication). I knew there was going to a disconnect between the meaning of Quebecois in English Canada and the Francophone definition but I expected that both sides would be polite enough to let it rest. Unfortunately we are now on a collision course and that will make the row over distinct society seem down right civil. English Canadians unequivocally reject the notion that Quebec the 'province' represents a nation although many English Canadians do accept that French Canadians/Quebecois are a nation. Any French politician that demands that English Canadians accept Quebec the Province as a nation is going to be disappointed. After reading Charest's words I wonder if he is really a separatist or if he is simply the dumbest politician on the planet.

Well that's good. The first nation and the quebec nation at each other throats? The social democrat elite left will be tripping over each other to see who they support while trying to support both at the same time. Can't wait!

[August1991]

Part of the problem is we have lost track of the original argument. My point was that Afghanistan elections were a sham because most of the country is still run by warlords and there is no sign that is going to change anytime soon. Nothing you have said addresses that point (bizarre comparisons between provincial premiers and warlords don't count).

Sham?

For the first time in a long time, the Afghan government is worried about losing power. To me, that defines "democracy". (Riverwind, you have an idealistic definition of "democracy". I define democracy as the transfer of State power without death and without violence.)

As to Dyer's predictions, he's wrong on two and we're only waiting for 2009 to see that he's wrong on three.

August, I think Dyer may be right. I have just finished reading about Charest making that absurd assertion that first nations belong to the 'Quebecois' nation (whether they like it or not is the implication).

Riverwind, that's a dumb statement and your interpretation of Harper's motion (Charest, first nations etc.) is just as dumb as Dyer's. It misses the point. (Why did Charest say what he said then? Does anyone care now? Does Charest talk about it now?) If Dyer gets Canadian stuff wrong, God knows what he does to Afghan stuff.

IMHO, before the Internet, diplomatic staff and people like Dyer made a career of gossip. They picked up the latest story, repeated it and then they appeared to be "informed" when their report was repeated. These people aren't analysts; they're gossip mongers.

IOW, in a world of the Internet, why do we have foreign journalists? Why do we pay taxes to have diplomats abroad?

I have nothing against Gwynne Dyer. I've never met the man. But I'm tired of these facile international writers (diplomats included) who manage to make a living by insinuating themselves. They're like Brad Pitt or Cameron Diaz. True, somebody has to do the job. But what happens when technology changes how we can judge those who do the job? What happens when modern technology shows that Cameron Diaz has a skin condition?

Or, what happens when modern technology holds Gwynne Dyer to account for his predictions?

Edited December 29, 2007 by August1991

[Higgly]

I think Dyer is pretty good. He has the handicap of always seeming to report from somewhere else (usually London), but, hey. the guy was banned from the Jerusalem Post by Barbara Amiel so at least you know he's got balls and speaks a truth somebody doesn't want to hear.

One of his best things was the invention of the "Politique du pire" concept (with relation to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict). "Politique du pire" is a strategy where you continuously goad the other party until they finally commit some outrageous act that can be reported in a newspaper of record as a big bad thing. I thought it described what is going on in Israel/Palestine perfectly.