A Tale Of Two Cities

Starring: Chris Sarandon, Alice Krige

The Dissident's Toolkit

Want To Topple An Autocrat? Street Demonstrations Are Just One Tool Among Many.

BY ERICA CHENOWETH

Research shows, in fact, that demonstrations are just one of many tools that civil resistance movements can use to effect change. 

Successful movements are those that use a wide array of methods to pressure their state opponents while keeping their activists safe. The demonstration tactic we're used to seeing is just one of many hundreds of tactics available to civilians seeking change -- and successful campaigns for change must use more than just a single tactic.

Maria Stephan and I conducted research on a related but broader question: "When does civil resistance work?" The results of our research show that opposition campaigns are successful when they manage to do three key things: 

(1) attract widespread and diverse participation; (2) develop a strategy that allows them to maneuver around repression; and (3) provoke defections, loyalty shifts, or disobedience among regime elites and/or security forces.

Attracting participation is perhaps the most important of these tasks, since the ability to provoke defections and outmaneuver opponents often depends on whether the movement enjoys large and broad-based support. The most important singular factor for a successful campaign is its participation rate. 

According to the NAVCO data set, which identifies the outcomes of over 300 nonviolent and violent campaigns worldwide from 1900-2006, none of the cases failed after achieving the active and sustained participation of just 3.5 percent of the population -- and some of them succeeded with far less than that. 

Of course, 3.5 percent is nothing to sneeze at. In the United States today, this constitutes over 11 million people. But how do movements get this large in the first place, especially in countries where overt participation in a mass movement is highly risky?

One way organizers can grow their movement is by including tactics that are safer and therefore more attractive to risk-averse participants. 

For example, instead of relying solely on demonstrations or protests, many movements will allow people to participate through "electricity strikes" where people shut off their electricity at a coordinated time of day, or by banging on pots and pans in the middle of the night to signal the power in numbers. 

Engaging in these types of actions may draw in more ambivalent people while also allowing them the opportunity to develop a sense of identity with the movement and its goals. 

In Chile under Pinochet, for example, outright demonstrations against the dictator were far too dangerous. In one instance, Pinochet was so threatened by the subtext of some popular songs that he banned public singing; it didn't take much. But when people began to bang on pots and pans, it let them demonstrate their defiance anonymously in the safety of their own homes. 

As the people's metallic clamor for change became louder and louder, anti-Pinochet organizers and their supporters became emboldened to press for more disruptive and overt action. 

A similar movement is underway in Egypt today, where the "Masmou" movement has led thousands of people to bang on pots and pans inside their homes at 9 p.m. each night to signal that there are viable alternatives to both the al-Sisi government and the Muslim Brotherhood. 

In highly repressive environments there is, indeed, safety in numbers. And actions like this can signal that one is not alone, while making it quite difficult for the government to crack down on participants.

Once people do begin to mobilize, the effects on the internal politics of a tyrannical regime can be intense. 

As Gene Sharp rightly argued, no regime is monolithic. Every leader is 100 percent dependent on the cooperation, obedience, and help of the people that form the regime's pillars of support: security forces, the state media, business or educational elites, religious authorities, and civilian bureaucrats. And when such people begin to reevaluate the regime's role in their long-term interests, they can actually be pulled away from supporting the leader. This is much more likely to happen the more people are mobilized against the opponent.

Why? Because no regime loyalists in any country live entirely isolated from the population itself. They have friends, they have family, and they have existing relationships that will bring with them in the long term, regardless of whether the leader stays or goes. 

As the literary critic Robert Inchausti is credited as saying, "Nonviolence is a wager -- not so much on the goodness of humanity as on its infinite complexity." 

Take an example from the so-called "Bulldozer Revolution," a Serbian people power revolution against Slobodan Milosevic that toppled him in October 2000. In this case, once it became clear that hundreds of thousands of Serbs were descending on Belgrade to demand that Milosevic leave office, policemen ignored the order to shoot on demonstrators. When asked why he did so, one of them said: "I knew my kids were in the crowd."

This policeman wasn't alone in Serbia or elsewhere. We find that, in general, security forces tend to defect much more often when they face nonviolent campaigns (as compared to armed uprisings), particularly as the numbers rise. 

Controlling for other factors, security forces are about 60 percent likely to defect when confronted with the largest nonviolent campaigns and over 30 percent likely with the average-sized nonviolent campaign. 

The defection of security forces occurred within the ranks of the Iranian armed forces during the anti-Shah resistance, within Filipino armed forces during the anti-Marcos uprising, and within the Israeli military during the first Palestinian Intifada, to name but a few examples. And these loyalty shifts can be crucial for the outcomes of these campaigns: They increase their chances of success by over 60 percent.

Of course, demonstrations -- and people power movements in general -- tend to fail as often as they succeed. But when we look at outright failures -- such as Tiananmen Square, the 1956 Hungarian uprising, or the 2007 Saffron Revolution in Burma -- a few patterns become evident:

The failed campaigns never spread to include vast proportions of the population, and failed to shift between highly risky tactics and safer ones. 

But they also failed to establish a long-term strategy to make the campaigns sustainable, which was especially important given the brutality of state repression. 

The average duration of a nonviolent campaign was between two-and-a-half and three years, but few of these campaigns had a long-term strategy, besides the wishful hope that tactical victories might make the regime comply with their demands.

Campaigns of civil resistance are underway in many countries around the world, movement planners must carefully analyze the political effects that tactics like demonstrations have. 

If these tactics fail to increase sympathy for the campaign at home or abroad, diversify the base of participants, and encourage defections among regime elites, then they are not helping the movement's chances of succeeding. 

But rather than abandoning the struggle because demonstrations stop working, movement leaders would do well to appreciate the many other nonviolent methods of protest and noncooperation they can bring to bear against their opponents. 

The campaigns that ultimately succeed will be the ones that fully embrace Sun Tzu's warning that "tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT PROTEST AND PERSUASION 

Formal Statements 
1. Public Speeches 
2. Letters of opposition or support 
3. Declarations by organizations and institutions 
4. Signed public statements 
5. Declarations of indictment and intention 
6. Group or mass petitions 

Communications with a Wider Audience 
7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols 
8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications 
9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books 
10. Newspapers and journals 
11. Records, radio, and television 
12. Skywriting and earthwriting 

Group Representations 
13. Deputations 
14. Mock awards 
15. Group lobbying 
16. Picketing 
17. Mock elections 

Symbolic Public Acts 
18. Displays of flags and symbolic colors 
19. Wearing of symbols 
20. Prayer and worship 
21. Delivering symbolic objects 
22. Protest disrobings 
23. Destruction of own property 
24. Symbolic lights 
25. Displays of portraits 
26. Paint as protest 
27. New signs and names 
28. Symbolic sounds 
29. Symbolic reclamations 
30. Rude gestures 

Pressures on Individuals 
31. "Haunting" officials 
32. Taunting officials 
33. Fraternization 
34. Vigils 

Drama and Music 
35. Humorous skits and pranks 
36. Performances of plays and music 
37. Singing 

Processions 
38. Marches 
39. Parades 
40. Religious processions 
41. Pilgrimages 
42. Motorcades 

Honoring the Dead 
43. Political mourning 
44. Mock funerals 
45. Demonstrative funerals 
46. Homage at burial places 

Public Assemblies 
47. Assemblies of protest or support 
48. Protest meetings 
49. Camouflaged meetings of protest 
50. Teach-ins 

Withdrawal and Renunciation 
51. Walk-outs 
52. Silence 
53. Renouncing honors 
54. Turning one's back 


THE METHODS OF SOCIAL NONCOOPERATION 

Ostracism of Persons 
55. Social boycott 
56. Selective social boycott 
57. Lysistratic nonaction 
58. Excommunication 
59. Interdict 

Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs, and Institutions 
60. Suspension of social and sports activities 
61. Boycott of social affairs 
62. Student strike 
63. Social disobedience 
64. Withdrawal from social institutions 

Withdrawal from the Social System 
65. Stay-at-home 
66. Total personal noncooperation 
67. "Flight" of workers 
68. Sanctuary 
69. Collective disappearance 
70. Protest emigration (hijrat) 


THE METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOPERATION: (1) ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS 

Actions by Consumers 
71. Consumers' boycott 
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods 
73. Policy of austerity 
74. Rent withholding 
75. Refusal to rent 
76. National consumers' boycott 
77. International consumers' boycott 

Action by Workers and Producers 
78. Workmen's boycott 
79. Producers' boycott 

Action by Middlemen 
80. Suppliers' and handlers' boycott 

Action by Owners and Management 
81. Traders' boycott 
82. Refusal to let or sell property 
83. Lockout 
84. Refusal of industrial assistance 
85. Merchants' "general strike" 

Action by Holders of Financial Resources 
86. Withdrawal of bank deposits 
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments 
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest 
89. Severance of funds and credit 
90. Revenue refusal 
91. Refusal of a government's money 

Action by Governments 
92. Domestic embargo 
93. Blacklisting of traders 
94. International sellers' embargo 
95. International buyers' embargo 
96. International trade embargo 


THE METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOPERATION: (2)THE STRIKE 

Symbolic Strikes 
97. Protest strike 
98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike) 

Agricultural Strikes 
99. Peasant strike 
100. Farm Workers' strike 

Strikes by Special Groups 
101. Refusal of impressed labor 
102. Prisoners' strike 
103. Craft strike 
104. Professional strike 

Ordinary Industrial Strikes 
105. Establishment strike 
106. Industry strike 
107. Sympathetic strike 

Restricted Strikes 
108. Detailed strike 
109. Bumper strike 
110. Slowdown strike 
111. Working-to-rule strike 
112. Reporting "sick" (sick-in) 
113. Strike by resignation 
114. Limited strike 
115. Selective strike 

Multi-Industry Strikes 
116. Generalized strike 
117. General strike 

Combination of Strikes and Economic Closures 
118. Hartal 
119. Economic shutdown 


THE METHODS OF POLITICAL NONCOOPERATION 

Rejection of Authority 
120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance 
121. Refusal of public support 
122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance 

Citizens' Noncooperation with Government 
123. Boycott of legislative bodies 
124. Boycott of elections 
125. Boycott of government employment and positions 
126. Boycott of government depts., agencies, and other bodies 
127. Withdrawal from government educational institutions 
128. Boycott of government-supported organizations 
129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents 
130. Removal of own signs and placemarks 
131. Refusal to accept appointed officials 
132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions 

Citizens' Alternatives to Obedience 
133. Reluctant and slow compliance 
134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision 
135. Popular nonobedience 
136. Disguised disobedience 
137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse 
138. Sitdown 
139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation 
140. Hiding, escape, and false identities 
141. Civil disobedience of "illegitimate" laws 

Action by Government Personnel 
142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides 
143. Blocking of lines of command and information 
144. Stalling and obstruction 
145. General administrative noncooperation 
146. Judicial noncooperation 
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents 
148. Mutiny 

Domestic Governmental Action 
149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays 
150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units 

International Governmental Action 
151. Changes in diplomatic and other representations 
152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events 
153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition 
154. Severance of diplomatic relations 
155. Withdrawal from international organizations 
156. Refusal of membership in international bodies 
157. Expulsion from international organizations 


THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT INTERVENTION 

Psychological Intervention 
158. Self-exposure to the elements 
159. The fast 
a) Fast of moral pressure 
b) Hunger strike
c) Satyagrahic fast 
160. Reverse trial 
161. Nonviolent harassment 

Physical Intervention 
162. Sit-in 
163. Stand-in 
164. Ride-in 
165. Wade-in 
166. Mill-in 
167. Pray-in 
168. Nonviolent raids 
169. Nonviolent air raids 
170. Nonviolent invasion 
171. Nonviolent interjection 
172. Nonviolent obstruction 
173. Nonviolent occupation 

Social Intervention 
174. Establishing new social patterns 
175. Overloading of facilities 
176. Stall-in 
177. Speak-in 
178. Guerrilla theater 
179. Alternative social institutions 
180. Alternative communication system 

Economic Intervention 
181. Reverse strike 
182. Stay-in strike 
183. Nonviolent land seizure 
184. Defiance of blockades 
185. Politically motivated counterfeiting 
186. Preclusive purchasing 
187. Seizure of assets 
188. Dumping 
189. Selective patronage 
190. Alternative markets 
191. Alternative transportation systems 
192. Alternative economic institutions 

Political Intervention 
193. Overloading of administrative systems 
194. Disclosing identities of secret agents 
195. Seeking imprisonment 
196. Civil disobedience of "neutral" laws 
197. Work-on without collaboration 
198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government 

Colored Revolutions: A New Form Of Regime Change

Made In The USA

By Eva Golinger
October 14, 2011
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

In 1983, the strategy of overthrowing inconvenient governments and calling it “democracy promotion” was born.


Through the creation of a series of quasi-private “foundations”, such as Albert Einstein Institute (AEI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House and later the International Center for Non-Violent Conflict (ICNC), Washington began to filter funding and strategic aid to political parties and groups abroad that promoted US agenda in nations with insubordinate governments.

Behind all these “foundations” and “institutes” is the US Agency for Inter- national Development (USAID), the financial branch of the Department of State. Today, USAID has become a critical part of the security, intelligence and defense axis in Washington. In 2009, the Interagency Counterinsurgency Initiative became official doctrine in the US. Now, USAID is the principal entity that promotes the economic and strategic interests of the US across the globe as part of counterinsurgency operations. Its departments dedicated to transition initiatives, reconstruction, conflict management, economic development, governance and democracy are the main venues through which millions of dollars are filtered from Washington to political parties, NGOs, student organizations and movements that promote US agenda worldwide. Wherever a coup d’etat, a colored revolution or a regime change favorable to US interests occurs, USAID and its flow of dollars is there.

How Does A Colored Revolution Work?

The recipe is always the same. Student and youth movements lead the way with a fresh face, attracting others to join in as though it were the fashion, the cool thing to do. There’s always a logo, a color, a marketing strategy. In Serbia, the group OTPOR, which led the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, hit the streets with t-shirts, posters and flags boasting a fist in black and white, their symbol of resistance. In Ukraine, the logo remained the same, but the color changed to orange. In Georgia, it was a rose-colored fist, and in Venezuela, instead of the closed fist, the hands are open, in black and white, to add a little variety.

Colored revolutions always occur in a nation with strategic, natural resources: gas, oil, military bases and geopolitical interests. And they also always take place in countries with socialist-leaning, anti-imperialist governments. The movements promoted by US agencies in those countries are generally anti-communist, anti-socialist, pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist.

Protests and destabilization actions are always planned around an electoral campaign and process, to raise tensions and questions of potential fraud, and to discredit the elections in the case of a loss for the opposition, which is generally the case. The same agencies are always present, funding, training and advising: USAID, NED, IRI, NDI, Freedom House, AEI and ICNC. The latter two pride themselves on the expert training and capacitation of youth movements to encourage “non violent” change.

The strategy seeks to debilitate and disorganize the pillars of State power, neutralizing security forces and creating a sensation of chaos and instability. Colonel Robert Helvey, one of the founders of this strategy and a director at AEI, explained that the objective is not to destroy the armed forces and police, but rather “convert them” — convince them to leave the present government and “make them understand that there is a place for them in the government of tomorrow”. Youth are used to try and debilitate security forces and make it more difficult for them to engage in repression during public protests. Srdja Popovic, founder of OTPOR, revealed that Helvey taught them “. . . how to select people in the system, such as police officers, and send them the message that we are all victims, them and us, because it’s not the job of a police officer to arrest a 13-year old protestor, for example. . . .”

It’s a well-planned strategy directed towards the security forces, public officials and the public in general, with a psychological warfare component and a street presence that give the impression of a nation on the verge of popular insurrection.

Venezuela

In 2003, AEI touched ground in Venezuela. Colonel Helvey himself gave a 9-day intensive course to the Venezuelan opposition on how to “restore democracy” in the country. According to AEI’s annual report, opposition political parties, NGOs, activists and labor unions participated in the workshop, learning the techniques of how to “overthrow a dictator”. This was a year after the failed coup d’etat — led by those same groups — against President Chavez. What came right after the AEI intervention was a year of street violence, constant destabilization attempts and a recall referendum against Chavez. The opposition lost 60-40, but cried fraud. Their claims were pointless. Hundreds of international observers, including the Carter Center and the OAS, certified the process as transparent, legitimate and fraud-free.

In March 2005, the Venezuelan opposition and AEI joined forces again, but this time the old political parties and leaders were replaced by a select group of students and young Venezuelans. Two former leaders of OTPOR came from Belgrade, Slobodan Dinovic and Ivan Marovic, to train the Venezuelan students on how to build a movement to overthrow their president. Simultaneously, USAID and NED funding to groups in Venezuela skyrocketed to around $9 million USD. Freedom House set up shop in Venezuela for the first time ever, working hand in hand with USAID and NED to help consolidate the opposition and prepare it for the 2006 presidential elections. ICNC, led by former Freedom House president Peter Ackerman, also began to train the youth opposition movement, providing intensive courses and seminars in regime change techniques.

That year, the newly-trained students launched their movement. The goal was to impede the electoral process and create a scenario of fraud, but they failed. Chavez won the elections with 64% of the vote, a landslide victory. In 2007, the movement was relaunched in reaction to the government’s decision to not renew the broadcasting license of a private television station, RCTV, a voice of the opposition. The students took to the streets with their logo in hand and along with the aid of mainstream media, garnered international attention.

Several were selected by US agencies and sent to train again in Belgrade in October 2007. Student leader Yon Goicochea was awarded $500,000 USD from the right-wing Washington think tank, Cato Institute, to set up a training center for opposition youth inside Venezuela.

Today, those same students are the faces of the opposition political parties, evidencing not only their clear connection with the politics of the past, but also the deceit of their own movement. The colored revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine are fading. Citizens of those nations have become disenchanted with those that took power through an apparent “autonomous” movement and have begun to see they were fooled.

The colored revolutions are nothing more than the red, white and blue of US agencies, finding new and innovative ways to try and impose Empire’s agenda.

Eva Golinger is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  


Global Research Articles by Eva Golinger

Non-Violent Revolution Works Best

By Gwynne Dyer
SPECIAL TO QMI AGENCY
Last Updated: June 16, 2011 9:41am
Courtesy Of "The London Free Press"

The "Prague Spring" of 1968 was a gallant attempt at a non-violent democratic revolution, but it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Eighteen years later, in the Philippines, the first "people-power" revolution succeeded, and since 1986 non-violent revolutions have driven a great many dictators from power. The most recent was in Egypt, in February --but there never was a guarantee that these revolutions would turn out well.

The revolution in the Philippines succeeded because by the late '80s, everything was happening in real time on global television. Oppressive regimes that had never had much compunction about killing people who challenged them didn't feel confident about doing it before a global audience. They no longer felt free to use massive force unless the protesters gave them an excuse by resorting to violence themselves.

The Marcos regime that was overthrown in the Philippines in 1986 was a mere kleptocracy with little ideology beyond a vague "anticommunism."

When the infection spread to China in 1989, the outcome was different, because a disciplined Communist dictatorship was willing to kill large numbers of its own people in front of the television cameras. It understood that if it failed that test, it would not survive.

Less ruthless Communist dictatorships in Europe, longer in power and ideologically exhausted, did fail the test.

The non-violent revolutions that began in East Germany in November 1989, and ended Communist rule in the old Soviet Union itself by late 1991, could have been stopped if the local Communist regimes had been willing to follow the Chinese example.

None of them had the stomach for killing on that scale.

Around the same time, there was a peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa, but then there's a long gap. An attempted non-violent revolution in Iran in 2009 was mercilessly crushed, and some people worried that repressive regimes might have finally figured out how to counter non-violent revolution. And then along came the "Arab spring."

The technique is still alive after all, and it worked in Tunisia and in Egypt.

On the other hand, it has been stamped out in Bahrain, whose fate resembles that of Prague in 1968. And while the revolt in Yemen has probably displaced the old regime, it has been very violent, and the new regime may be no more democratic than the old.

Same goes for Syria, and of course for Libya. There are no one-size-fits-all techniques for revolution or for anything else.

But the desire for democracy, equality and fairness survives everywhere, and the least bad technique for trying to achieve those things is still non-violence.

Even if sometimes the revolution succeeds but the aftermath doesn't.

The original "people power" revolution in the Philippines was followed by two decades of political turbulence. Yugoslavia splintered into half a dozen warring fragments. Russia, though it escaped mass violence, is not exactly a model democracy.

On the other hand, South Korea, Indonesia and South Africa are now all democracies. So are Poland, Romania and Taiwan.

The aftermath may not be what most people hoped for in Egypt, and it probably won't be in the case of Syria.

But non-violent revolution works often enough, and its results are positive often enough, that it is still the most hopeful political development of the past quarter-century.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries

Iran: The Next Domino?

By Dr. K R Bolton
February 22, 2011
Courtesy Of "The Foreign Policy Journal"

“Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the street. But it’s the result of months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If it is carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks.” — Ivan Marovic, ex-instructor, Center for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies, Serbia.[1]

With the staging of a second[2] attempt at a “green revolution” in Iran in the wake of the overthrow of the regimes in Tunisia[3] and Egypt[4] by groups primarily sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, Open Society Institute, Freedom House, USAID and a myriad of their fronts; the question might arise as to whether the turmoil inflicted on Egypt and Tunisia was intended as a prelude to the major target: Iran.

Iraq, Iran and Syria were targeted years ago as priorities for “regime change.” The now well-known letter addressed to President George W. Bush by the Project for a New American Century should be recounted. PNAC outlined a plan of action that was put into affect, starting with the elimination of Saddam Hussein. Iran and Syria were next marked for elimination under the pretext of the “war on terrorism”:

We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.[5]

Among the numerous political and foreign policy luminaries who were signatories to the PNAC letter was Frank Gaffney who, as stated below, is on the Advisory Board of The Foundation for Democracy in Iran.

America’s post-Cold War doctrine for world hegemony was outlined in a comprehensive PNAC document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses.[6] The post-Cold Warriors outlined their plan for a new “Cold War” or “clash of civilizations” that involves not only Islam but all regimes, cultures, religions, traditions and ideologies that do not fit into “a new American century.” The aim was stated unequivocally:

Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[7]

Egypt since then became a problem, despite the cliché-ridden ballyhoo about Mubarak being Washington’s man. Perhaps the clincher that marked him for destruction was the geopolitical problem that he was presenting to the USA in the Sudan:

On Nov. 3, 2009 Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit stated that within the previous five years Egypt had invested more than $87 million into projects in southern Sudan, including hospitals, schools and power stations, “in hope of convincing the people of southern Sudan to choose unity over secession.” Towards the end of the Bush regime the U.S. Defense Department established the Africa Command (AFRICOM),[8] a primary concern of this new US regional command being the establishment of a massive military base in southern Sudan.[9] It was in US interests that southern Sudan should secede. Keith Harmon Snow, writing on Africom’s agenda for the Sudan, states:

In Darfur, Sudan, the U.S. government agenda is to win control of natural resources and leverage the Arab government into a corner and, at last, establish a more ‘friendly’ government that will suit the corporate interests of the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and Israel.[10]

Snow named some of the organizations involved in subverting Sudan, which include those that have been involved with subverting Egypt, Tunisia, Iran…

Several major think tanks — read: propaganda, lobbying and pressure — behind the destabilization of Sudan include the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, Center for American Progress, Center for Security Policy, International Rescue Committee and International Crises Group. Individuals from seemingly diverse positions of the political and ideological spectrum run these organizations, which are ultra-nationalist capitalist[11] organizations bent on global military-economic domination.

Now Egypt is well on course to becoming as subordinate as all the other states that have undergone “color revolutions” and “regime change” courtesy of NED, Soros, IRI, et al. Presently, the new Egyptian constitution is being drafted by those with the necessary globalist credentials to ensure that Egypt can enter the world commonwealth of nations as a lickspittle to the USA. Hisham al-Bastawisy, a leading Egyptian judicial official and oppositionist, now heading the Constitutional Amendment Committee, states that a new Constitution should be ready in a month, and that “civil society groups” — a euphemism for subversive organizations funded by NED, Soros, et al, — have prepared several drafts. These organizations include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, and the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.[12]

Soros’ Open Society Institute funds the Arabic Network for Human Rights.[13]ANHR works in alliance with similar organizations particular in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. NED funds The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.[14]

Meanwhile, the National Democratic Institute is training Egypt’s future political class to ensure that the country gets a Western-style democracy where citizens will have the opportunity to vote for tweedledum or tweedledee as the “left” and “right” wings of an American imposed political consensus, as in other countries “liberated” by “regime change.” Leslie Campbell, the National Democratic Institute’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, states that NDI, which has been in Egypt since 2005,[15] “is stepping up its long-standing efforts to train political parties and domestic election monitors in Egypt ahead of the transitional campaign and elections.”[16]

While the Gulf States can be mopped up, what remains is Syria, Libya and Iran.

Wikileaks US Cable on Iran

While liberaldom in conjunction with the neocons is getting bellicose towards those few who are suggesting that the “people’s revolutions” are not much more than the excrescences of US based plutocracy and globalism, the revelation of aWikileaks cable provides hard evidence for the cynical view.

A cable from the US Embassy in London, sent to US Secretary of State Clinton, and embassies in Ankara, Turkmenistan (Ashgabat), Baghdad, Baku, Berlin, Bern, Kabul, Paris, Vienna, Dubai, Istanbul, and the US Mission to the UN, provides some important leads on the troubles that soon emerged in Iran.[17]

The cable states the US Embassy “supports and approves” of the funding of six proposals submitted by Iranian contacts in the UK that also involved those taking part in workshops at Durham University. Among the recommendations supported by the Embassy is the funding of a group of Iranian students in London with contacts in Iran. The US Embassy cable then provides commentary on the workshops being held at Durham University through which it is proposed to fund the Iranian dissidents. The recommendations are:

• …$75,000 funding (six months in duration), under the auspices of Durham University’s School of Governmental Affairs… for a workshop, entitled “Forum to Discuss Iranian NGOs Concerning Women Advocacy.” The workshop’s purpose would be to build links between NGOs inside Iran and their UK-U.S. counterparts for training, networking, knowledge-sharing and increased public awareness, with a goal of joint cooperation between Iran and U.S. universities and NGOs working to empower women.
• An ambitious project at Durham University, entitled “Iran-U.S. Civil Society Engagement” (lasting 12 months, asking $123,050 in funding) which aims at bridging “the communicative gap between influential Iranian individuals affiliated with strategic research centers” and their U.S. counterparts…

This program includes discussing Iranian ethnic relations, and the use of social media including YouTube and Radio Fardo. Radio Fardo is part of a US Government propaganda network, being the Iranian branch of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,[18] based in Prague, the Czech Republic; a state that was one of the early results of a “velvet revolution.”

• $91,700 to inculcate Iranian seminarians with Western ideas on theology. The project proposal is entitled “Forum To Discuss Iranian Seminary Students and Their Impact on Reform In Iran,” and would emphasize themes of human rights, democracy, accountability and rule of law. This attempt to subvert and use Iranian Shiite theologians is considered of particular importance, in conjunction with recruiting secular youth of the type that has been at the forefront of other “color revolutions’ around the world. The cable states:

There has been only limited western interaction with the clerical sector, portions of which have in recent decades provided intellectual and political resistance both to the former Pahlavi regime as well as to the current regime’s ideology of “Velayet e Faqih” (rule of Islamic jurists), which, though based on the writings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, is nevertheless theologically repugnant to many Shiite thinkers and believers; such ferment is centered in Iran’s seminaries.  Outreach to Iranian Shiite seminarians could complement USG and Western interaction with the more secular, Western-oriented elements of Iran’s political class.

• $75,00 for a program to train journalists for opposing the regime. This would comprise a five-day workshop at Durham University involving ten Iranian journalists. Additionally another program of $75,000 to create dissident media.
• A further program at Durham was to be the cultivating of Iranian local officials such as those from municipal councils. These, it was suggested, might provide the US with valuable contacts for what can only be regarded as spying.
• There is a request of a $48,400 grant for a one-day conference of students to form a united front to organize cultural and education exchanges.

Durham University

When Wikileaks published the cable in February 2011, Durham University issued a brief statement only responding that the university received money from a “broad range” of funders but remained true to its principles of “independent academic discovery.”[19] The student newspaper commented:

The cable suggests that the University was offered and may have accepted over $400,000 from the U.S. State Department for running a series of seminars “under the auspices of Durham University’s School of Governmental Affairs”. The cable dates from April 2008 and emphasizes the usefulness of Durham’s ties with high-ranking Iranian officials as “political cover” for the projects.[20]

Funding Subversive Programs

The latest report (2009) for the National Endowment for Democracy funding in Iran is vague but alludes to grants totaling $674,506.

The International Republican Institute’s chairman, Sen. John McCain, speaking at a NED conference lauded NED’s annual Democracy Award going in 2010 to “Iran’s Green Movement.” The honor was gained by Iranians having rioted in an abortive “Green Revolution” in 2009, when they spat the dummy after President Ahmadinejad was re-elected. Presumably only certain electoral outcomes are accepted as “democratic” by the globalists. If an electorate chooses by majority not to pursue that path then it is not truly “democratic” and other means must be found to introduce the correct form of democracy. McCain declared:

My friends:  If there were ever any doubt, the birth of the Green Movement over the past year should convince us that Iran will have a democratic future.  That future may be delayed for awhile, but it will not be denied.  And now is the time for the United States to position ourselves squarely on the right side of Iranian history – on the side of courageous Iranian reformers like Shiva Nazar Ahari.[21]

The riots in the aftermath of President Ahmadinejad’s re-election in 2009 would have been about as “spontaneous” (sic) as the “color revolutions” in Eastern European, Central Asia, Egypt, and Tunisia. A report run by USA Today in 2009 stated of these covert programs:

The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which reports to the secretary of state, has for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to “promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran,” according to documents on the agency’s website. The final deadline for grant applications is June 30.[22]

NED funding for previous years is easier to identify. In 2005 NED gave grants totalling $4,898,000. The recipients included the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, mentioned below, and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity of $185,000. The latter program included training Iranian labor leaders. It should be recalled that ACILS works closely with free market globalists.[23] Institute of World Affairs (IWA) $45,800, to train jurists on how to bastardise Sharia law via Western liberal jurisprudence. International Republican Institute $110,000, for the purpose of linking Iranian oppositionists with international networks. National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) $64,000, to link Iranian groups with international organizations, and to assist with the English translation of Farsi materials.[24]

Going ahead to NEDs 2008 reporting on Iran, the recipients included: Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, $140,000. Association for Civic Society in Iran (ACSI) $80,000, Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)$141,793, which fosters free market capitalism on a global scale in solidarity with their comrades in the American Center for International Labor Solidarity.[25] Research Initiative for Contemporary Iran (RICI), $87,000.

While Soros’ Open Society Foundations claim they have not operated in Iran since 2007, this is disingenuous. The Soros networks fund a colossal number of fronts and allied organizations, including those with a presence in Iran. The conference of the Digital Youth of Central Asia, which is funded by Soros but which does not seem to be a Soros front per se, includes Iranian youth activists whose presence was mentioned at the Digital Youth December 2010 conference held in Tajikistan.[26]

Iran Moves Against Globalists

In January 2010 Iran blacklisted numerous organizations regarded as subversive, including:

1. Soros Foundation — Open Society

2. Woodrow Wilson Center

3. Freedom House [27]

4. National Endowment for Democracy (NED)[28]

5. National Democratic Institute (NDI)[29]

6. International Republican Institute (IRI)[30]

7. Institute for Democracy in East Europe (EEDI)[31]

8. Democracy Center in East Europe (CDEE)

9. Ford Foundation

10. Rockefeller Brothers Foundation

11. Hoover Institute at Stanford Foundation

12. Hivos Foundation, Netherlands

13. Menas, U.K.

14. United Nations Association (USA)

15. Carnegie Foundation

16. Wilton Park, U.K.

17. Search for Common Ground (SFCG)

18. Population Council

19. Washington Institute for Near East Policy

20. Aspen Institute

21. American Enterprise Institute

22. New America Foundation

23. Smith Richardson Foundation

24. German Marshal Fund (US, Germany and Belgium)

25. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict

26. Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation at Yale University

27. Meridian Center

28. Foundation for Democracy in Iran

29. American Initiative Institute

30. Private Trade International Center

31. American Center for International Labor Solidarity[32]

32. International Center for Democracy Transfer

33. Albert Einstein Institute

34. World Movement for Democracy[33]

35. The Democratic Youth Network

36. Democracy Information and Communication Technology Group

37. International Parliamentarian Movement for Democracy

38. RIGA Institute

39. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School

40. Council on Foreign Relations

41. Foreign Policy Society, Germany

42. MEMRI

43. Centre for Democracy Studies, U.K.

44. Yale University and all its affiliates

45. National Defense University, U.S.

46. Iran Human Rights Documents Center

47. American Center FLENA

48. Brookings Institution Saban Center

49. Human Rights Watch

50. New America Foundation[34]

The nature and extent of the Iranian blacklist indicates just how aware the Iranian administration is as to the character of world globalist subversion. Every nation that aims to maintain its sovereignty could do well in consulting the Iranians.

Looking at several of the blacklisted organizations, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, “receives approximately 50% of its support from private U.S. Foundations, 34% of its support from private European foundations, and 16% of its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)…”[35]

The Foundation for Democracy in Iran was founded in 1995 with grants from NED. The Governing Board includes: FDI Chairman, Nader Afshar, who “has worked extensively with the United States Information Agency and the Voice of America Farsi Service;” and Secretary-Treasurer, William Nojay, who has worked in Ukraine and Afghanistan for the International Republican Institute.

FDI Board Member Herbert I London, is president of the Hudson Instituted, is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The FDI Advisory Board includes: Menashe Amir, Persian language broadcaster for Israel Radio International; Pooya Dayanim, president of the Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee; Frank Gaffney, former Reagan appointee and NATO advisor, founder of the Center for Security Policy, a neocon think tank whose slogan is “peace through strength;” Amil Imani, director of Former Muslims United, and founder of Arabs for Israel; Reza Kahlili, a CIA agent who had worked in Iran for more than 20 years; R. James Woolsey, U.S. Director of the CIA 1993–1995.

FDI Founding Board Members: Joshua Muravchik, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Trustee, Freedom House[36]; Peter W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; Dr. Mehdi Rouhani, “spiritual leader” of Shiites in Europe.[37]

A major oversight of the Iranian blacklist seems to be the Center for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), headquartered in Serbia, and having their origins in the Optor (“Resistance”) movement that helped toppled Milosevic. Having screwed up Serbia for the benefit of international big business, the fine young idealists who were at the forefront of the “color revolution” thought it would be a noble idea to impart their experiences to those in other countries who might want their nations subservient to US foreign policy, their economies wracked by debt and privatization and their traditional cultures replaced for the culture of the global shopping mall, American sit-coms and MTV. They provided the training for Kmara in Georgia, which led the revolt or “Rose Revolution” against Shevardnadze in 2003 after he had the temerity to win the presidential election. “It was followed by the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, where former Otpor activists spent months advising the Pora (“It’s Time”) youth movement.”[38] While Rosenberg claims that Optor now gives Washington “a wide berth” after many felt betrayed when it was found that the organization had been funded by the USA, despite denials, CANVAS nonetheless continues to receive funding from Freedom House, and the International Republican Institute,[39] so denials about Washington funding are quite disingenuous.

CANVAS provided training for the Egyptian youth of the April 6th Movement that provided the impetus for the Egyptian revolt, Mohamed Adel, travelling to Serbia in 2009 for instruction. Tina Rosenberg enthuses:

They have worked with democracy advocates from more than 50 countries. They have advised groups of young people on how to take on some of the worst governments in the world — and in Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, the Maldives, and now Egypt, those young people won.[40]

Another CANVAS ally is The Albert Einstein Institute, one of the organizations blacklisted by Iran, founded in 1983 by Gene Sharp, the ideological and strategic guru of the “color revolutions,” who apparently got his start as the intellectual mentor of “velvet revolutions” when his first revolutionary manual, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973) was funded by the Pentagon via the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Sharp is stated by the Iranian Government to be the primary inspiration for the “Green movement.” A US press report states:

In a mass trial of some 100 key reformist figures this past August, Iranian prosecutors charged that postelection protests were “completely planned in advance and proceeded according to a timetable and the stages of a velvet coup [such] that more than 100 of the 198 events were executed in accordance with the instructions of Gene Sharp.”[41]

The AEI receives funding for the publication and translations of their revolutionary manuals; especially Sharp’s seminal From Dictatorship to Democracy,[42] from Soros’ omnipresent Open Society Institute. Sharp writes:

The Albert Einstein Institution (then in Cambridge, and later in Boston, Massachusetts, USA) solicited funds from the Open Society Institute that made possible the translation and publication of From Dictatorship to Democracy into four of the ethnic languages of Burma: Mon, Karen, Jing Paw, and Chin.

Translations of this publication in print or on a web site include the following languages: Khmer (Cambodia), Farsi (Iran), Mandarin (China), Russian, Vietnamese, Amharic (Ethiopia), Spanish, Belarusian, Dhivehi (Maldives), Nepali, Tibetan, Tigrinia (Eritrea), Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Arabic, Indonesian, and Azeri (Azerbaijan). Several others are in preparation. [43]

“We Are All Ahmadinejads Now!”

President Ahmadinejad has been one of the few statesmen in the world to stand up to both Zionism and plutocracy. His blacklisting of a host of nefarious subversives shows great insight into the workings of the globalist web of subversion. Iran remains a roadblock in the culmination of the new world disorder. To coin a catchy slogan for the current times: “We Are All Ahmadinejads Now!”

Notes

[1] Tina Rosenberg, “What Egypt Learned from the Students who Overthrew Milosovec,” Foreign Policy, (not to be confused with the venerable Foreign Policy Journal) February 16, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/16/revolution_u?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full

[2] The first “Green Revolution,” prompted by a sour-grapes loss by the oppositionists in the 2009 elections, was abortive.

[3] K R Bolton, “Tunisian Revolt: Another NED/Soros Jackup?,” Foreign Policy Journal, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/18/tunisian-revolt-another-sorosned-jack-up/

[4] K R Bolton, “What’s Behind the Tumult in Egypt?,” Foreign Policy Journal,February 1, 2011

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/01/whats-behind-the-tumult-in-egypt

[5] Project for a New American Century, “Toward a Comprehensive Strategy

Project for the New American Century,” September 20, 2001.

[6] Project for a New American Century, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and resources for a New Century,” September 2000, http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[7] Project for a New American Century, ibid., p. 2.

[8] US Africa Command, “FAQ,” http://www.africom.mil/AfricomFAQs.asp

[9] Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa Al-Omrani, Jan./Feb. 2011, “Sudan Set to Split, Despite Egyptian moves,” The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs: http://www.washington-report.org/component/content/article/363/10285-sudan-set-to-split-despite-egyptian-moves-.html

[10] Keith Harmon Snow, “Africom’s Covert War in Sudan,” Dissident Voice, March 6, 2009, http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/03/africoms-covert-war-in-sudan/

[11] Snow errs here. “Ultra-nationalist capitalist” is a misnomer.” In former centuries the nation-sates served capitalism, as did the age of empires. These eras have gone, and the concepts of both empire and nation-state are inimical to the globalization process of capitalism. For those of a Leftist-bent, Marx wrote of this current globalization process of capitalism in The Communist Manifesto.

[12] Yasmine Saleh, “Rewrite Egyptian Constitution form Scratch, say critics,” Reuters, February 16, 21011,http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE71F0N620110216

[13] Arabic Network for Human Rights, http://www.anhri.net/en/reports/net2004/thank.shtml

[14] National Endowment for Democracy, “Egypt,” http://www.ned.org/publications/annual-reports/2005-annual-report/middle-east-and-north-africa/description-of-2005-gra-2

[15] It seems that the “tyrant” Mubarak was altogether too tolerant of these nests of vipers.

[16] Ernesto Londoo, “Egypt Starts Overhauling Constitution,” Washington Post, February 17, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021606943.html

[17]Maura Connelly, Political Minister Counselor, US Embassy, London, “Iran: Democracy Small Grants Proposals Recommended for Funding,” February 15, 2011.  http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/04/08LONDON1163.html

[18] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “Radio Fardo Fast Facts,” http://www.rferl.org/info/Iran/186.html

[19] Daniel Johnson and Jack Battersby, Palantinate: The Official University Student Newspaper, February 8 2011, http://www.palatinate.org.uk/?p=10679

[20] Ibid.

[21] International Republican Institute, “Remarks at the National Endowment for Democracy Conference One Year Later: Prospects for a Democratic Transition in Iran U.S. Senator John McCain,” IRI Chairman, June 10, 2010, http://www.iri.org/news-events-press-center/news/iri-chairman-speaks-ned-conference-honoring-irans-green-movement

[22] Ken Dilanian, “US grants support to Iranian dissidents,” USA Today, June 28, 2009, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-25-iran-money_N.htm

[23] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 7, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/all/1

[24] National Endowment for Democracy, “Iran,” http://www.ned.org/publications/annual-reports/2005-annual-report/middle-east-and-north-africa/description-of-2005-gra-3

[25] National Endowment for Democracy, “Iran,” http://www.ned.org/publications/annual-reports/2008-annual-report/middle-east-and-northern-africa/2008-grants/iran

[26] Digital Youth of Central Asia, “Going Digital In Central Asia,” December 7, 2010, http://blog.soros.org/2010/12/going-digital-in-central-asia/

[27] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” op. cit.

[28] K R Bolton, ibid.

[29] K R Bolton, ibid. National Democratic Institute’s program in Iran is centered on the “Supporting Democratic Initiatives” project to provide resources for Iranian oppositionists.

[30] K R Bolton, ibid.

[31] K R Bolton, ibid.

[32] K R Bolton, ibid.

[33] K R Bolton, ibid.

[34] Laura Rozen, “Blacklist: Who’s on Iran Intel Ministry’s List?,” Politico, January 5, 2010, http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0110/Blacklist_Whos_on_Iran_intel_ministrys_list_.html

[35] Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, “About the Foundation,” http://www.iranrights.org/english/foundation.php

[36] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” op. cit.

[37] Foundation for Democracy in Iran, http://www.iran.org/about.htm

[38] Tina Rosenberg, op. cit..

[39] CANVAS, “Co-operation and Partnerships,” http://www.canvasopedia.org/canvas-cooperation-and-partnerships.php

[40] Tina Rosenberg, Foreign Policy, (not FPJ)op. cit.

[41] Scott Peterson, “Iran protesters: the Harvard professor behind their tactics,” Christian Science Monitor, December 29, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1229/Iran-protesters-the-Harvard-professor-behind-their-tactics

[42] Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy, (AEI, 1993, 1994, etc). The book was originally written as a manual for the abortive “Saffron Revolution” in Myanmar. G Sharp, “A Short History of “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD_history.pdf

[43] G Sharp, ibid.

K R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research, and an assistant editor of the peer reviewed journal Ab Aeterno. Recent publications include 'Trotskyism and the Anti-Family Agenda,' CKR website, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University (October 2009); 'Rivalry over water resources as a potential cause of conflict in Asia,' Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies, and Russia and China: an approaching conflict?, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2010; Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009. Read more articles byDr. K R Bolton.