The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Engdahl has summarized the situation thusly:
In short, virtually every regime which has been the target of a US-backed soft
coup in the past twenty years has involved Gene Sharp and, his associate,
Col. Robert Helvey. Notably, Sharp was in Beijing two weeks before student
demonstrations at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The Pentagon and US intelligence
have refined the art of such soft coups to a fine level. RAND planners call it
swarming, referring to the swarms of youth...who can be mobilized on command
to destabilize a target regime.34
It was a reviewed thesis, so I suppose they did a better job than they did for von and zu Guttenburg.
Due to the fact that these movements have been triggered by outside interests rather
than inspired from within the countries permanent change has been elusive. The Gene
Sharp inspired street protests and regime changes have not resulted in the expected stable
democracies. For instance, Orange Revolution supporters were discontented in August,
2004 when pro-Western Yushchenko was forced to back his arch-rival, Yanukovych,
as prime minister.
Since these regime changes have resulted in power changes that favor the wishes
of the United States, it can be argued that Gene Sharp's theory on nonviolence has ended
up serving the goals of imperialism and been masked in the promotion of democracy.
The concert-master of the tactics of Saffron monk-led non-violence regime change is Gene Sharp, founder of the deceptively-named Albert Einstein Institution in Cambridge Massachusetts, a group funded by an arm of the NED to foster US-friendly regime change in key spots around the world. Sharp's institute has been active in Burma since 1989, just after the regime massacred some 3000 protestors to silence the opposition. CIA special operative and former US Military Attache in Rangoon, Col. Robert Helvey, an expert in clandestine operations, introduced Sharp to Burma in 1989 to train the opposition there in non-violent strategy. Interestingly, Sharp was also in China two weeks before the dramatic events at Tiananmen Square.
It contains little in the way of evidence other than vague association of ideas. To take the example you quote, presumably approvingly:
Meyssan also asserted that the Albert Einstein Institution is backed financially by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and that in September, 2002, Sharp trained members of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Council to return to Iraq, and that Sharp organized the leaders of Sumate to demonstrate against Hugo Chavez after the failed CIA coup in April of 2002. Not ready to accept Meyssan's thesis and his notes, I searched for additional conclusions. Although Meyssan might be discredited by some due to his questionable 9/11 conspiracy-theories, it has become increasingly clear that more mainstream reports have accepted Meyssan's reservations about how Sharp's theories and his organization, the AEI, are being used to further western control and interests. In a recent Counterpunch article, Paul Craig Roberts, discussing the fact that the Foundation for Democracy announced funding for the "promotion of democracy and internationally -recognized standards of human rights in Iran" adds, "By now we all know what that means. It means that the US finances a "velvet" or some "color revolution" in order to install a US puppet. Mark MacKinnon, twice-winner of Canada's top reporting prize, recently published (both in the US and Canada) his book on the subject that also describes "the links between these democratic revolutions and the forces that are quietly reshaping the post Cold-War world."
As an example of "more mainstream reports", we have the single instance of Paul Craig Roberts in Counterpunch making a general point about the "color revolutions" and specifically tying it to
Paul Craig Roberts: A Religion Divided Against Itself
neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman, head of the Foundation for Democracy, which describes itself as "a private, non-profit organization established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to promote democracy and internationally-recognized standards of human rights in Iran."
Paul Craig Roberts does not mention Gene Sharp, though the writer of this paper insinuates that is what he is talking about. "Research" providing "evidence", not.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
But he "argues" like typical conspiracy nuts: someone authoritatative, Prof "Angry Arab" in this case, has alleged this. Refute that because, despite his academic qualifications, he gets simple things wrong about what was actually said in the NYT report he criticises, and you get accused of racism. There's no acknowledgment of any error.
Then further junk is added, refute that, they move on to other allegations, smears, etc. Refute them, they dig up an obscure paper of little merit and quote selectively from that. Show the inadequacies of that - no admission - they will move on in the next few days.
Then they go back to the original source, etc. Round and round. Chomsky wisely pointed out that he doesn't get into debating conspiracy theories like 9/11 was a gov job, obviously ludicrous, but you can get sucked into debating at what temperarture metal melts etc. As Chomsky says, having people get into these arcane debates about patently absurd ideas suits those in power very well. But it was fun :-) and I agree with Progressive Mag's editor that Gene Sharp is an international treasure and worth defending.
Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Chomsky wisely pointed out that he doesn't get into debating conspiracy theories like 9/11 was a gov job, obviously ludicrous, but you can get sucked into debating at what temperarture metal melts etc. As Chomsky says, having people get into these arcane debates about patently absurd ideas suits those in power very well.
Not getting into such debates is written into ET's guidelines:
European Tribune - ET Editorial Guidelines
Users are free to write diaries on any subject they want, as long as these are not personally offensive, defamatory, do not blatantly falsify scientific or historical facts or advocate theories involving pervasive high-level conspiracies and to comment on contributions by other users. You are free to write whatever you want - from whatever perspective you choose, as long as what you write is not offensive, defamatory, blatantly false scientifically and/or historically or propounding a conspiracy theory.
Users are free to write diaries on any subject they want, as long as these are not personally offensive, defamatory, do not blatantly falsify scientific or historical facts or advocate theories involving pervasive high-level conspiracies and to comment on contributions by other users.
You are free to write whatever you want - from whatever perspective you choose, as long as what you write is not offensive, defamatory, blatantly false scientifically and/or historically or propounding a conspiracy theory.
Just a reminder.
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 65 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 303 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2712 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1365 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 449 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - May 29 comments
by gmoke - May 1
by Oui - Apr 30271 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 886 comments
by Oui - Mar 19143 comments