Separatism of the Day

I just searched Google News for "Tibet" and "Darfur": 90,444 results for Tibet and 17,442 for Darfur. Tibet is apparently now the most powerful red herring of the PMC "human rights" set. Before them it was Kosovo. Kosovo's Google News results are 13,616 today, though, gaining on Darfur. That unfinished business may come back into fashion if Russia acts up. The West loves separatism (except separatists of their own nations or their client states): "Small Is Beautiful" as far as it is concerned.

Desperately Seeking a Really Cold War

Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison say we should be afraid, very afraid, of "a new Cold War between the United States and Russia":

The planned 'missile defense' system in the Czech Republic and Poland will, if implemented, further increase the danger to human and all other forms of life that nuclear weapons pose, significantly expand U.S. military power, and contribute to a new Cold War between the United States and Russia. But it can be stopped. Its dangers are obvious and easy to demonstrate, and it is deeply unpopular among the citizens of the 'host' countries. Stopping it will, however, require action by American peace organizations, to strengthen our friends in the Czech Republic and Poland, to pressure our elected representatives, and to educate public opinion in this country. ("Pushing Missile Defense in Europe," Foreign Policy in Focus, 22 February 2008)

Any thinking person who cares about the Iranian people, however, should welcome a really cold war between Russia and the USA. It is Moscow's distrust of the US intentions, as well as the Chinese need for Iranian oil for its industrialization project, that has so far helped mitigate US-led efforts to economically sanction Iran and helped protect Iranians from the worst military threat from the US-EU-Japan axis of evil.

What can doom Iran is a warm friendship between Russia and the USA.

The silly US attempt to install a "missile defense" system (which, by the way, doesn't work and is just a big waste of money) in Eastern Europe, as well as its support for the independence of Kosovo, "color revolutions" in Russia's periphery, and media propaganda against Russia itself, is a godsend as far as Iranians are concerned, for it prevents Russia from becoming a partner in the US-led multinational empire.

Critical Montages in Iran

BTW, have I mentioned that, according to Alexa, 23.1% of the Critical Montages readers (as of 28 November 2007) come from Iran?

A surprising proportion comes from (what is left of) Yugoslavia.

An Empire of NGOs

On the question of Western "NGO"¹ interventions in nations of the global South and their relations to the US-led multinational empire, there regrettably is no consensus on the broadly defined Left. The lack of consensus even among leftists makes it impossible to raise the consciousness of the Western public about the roles of "NGOs" in the empire's "regime change" campaigns, which negate the essence of democracy in the name of "democracy assistance."

Take a look at a recent series of exchanges over the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict² in the Green Left Weekly:

• "Interview with Eva Golinger: US Continues Destabilisation Push in Venezuela" (GLW 716, 28 June 2007)


• Jack DuVall (President, ICNC), "Gollinger Interview" (Letter to the Editor, GLW 718, 22 July 2007)


• Michael Barker, "Promoting 'Democracy' through Civil Disobedience" (GLW 722, 25 August 2007)


• Stephen Zunes, "Inaccurate and Unfair Attacks on the ICNC" (GLW 723, 31 August 2007)


• Michael Barker, "An Accurate and Fair Critique of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict" (GLW 725, 22 September 2007)

I doubt that Eva Gollinger or Michael Barker has been able to persuade Stephen Zunes that leftists shouldn't be serving as "chair of the board of academic advisers" of the ICNC (Zunes, 31 August 2007) or otherwise supporting it or any other institution like it. Can anyone?

1 I put the term "Non-Governmental Organizations" between quotation marks, for some of the "NGOs" in question are wholly or largely funded by the United States government and other governments of the multinational empire. The Solidarity Center is a good example: "A well-kept secret about Solidarity Center is that it received 90% (nearly $30 million) of its annual revenue from the U.S. State Department and other government agencies of the Bush administration, but it got less than 2% ($600,000) from the AFL-CIO. These figures are from Solidarity Center’s 2003-2004 Annual Report" (Harry Kelber, "How Sweeney Won Three Sham Re-elections; His Role in ULLICO Scandal and Elsewhere," Labor Educator -- downloadable in PDF at laboreducator.org/sweeneyres3.pdf).

2 For information about the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, see, also, Tom Barry, "The New Politics of Political Aid in Venezuela," Right Web Analysis (Silver City, NM: International Relations Center, July 18, 2007), though all you need to know is probably that it lists Freedom House as one of the "Related Organizations" on the ICNF Web site's "Resources" page. As for its method, get it from the horse's mouth -- check out the "Discussion Guide" that accompanies Bringing Down a Dictator, a film that functions as a how-to manual that teaches you to pull off a "regime change" with the support of the government of the United States and other "democracies." The executive producer of the film is Peter Ackerman, Founding Chair of the ICNC and Chairman of Freedom House, and "Special Thanks" in the film's credit go to the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and the United States Institute of Peace. The guide encourages the film's audience to debate intriguing questions such as the following:

• A number of factors contributed to the overthrow of Milosevic, especially financial assistance and training from the United States. Based on information in the film, discuss the role of each of the following in bringing down the Milosevic regime:

  Aid from the United States and European countries
  The NATO bombing
  Elections
  Street marches and protests
  The strike at the Kolubara Coal Mine (p. 6)

• The United States government gave over $25 million dollars in aid to Otpor and other opposition groups during the movement against Milosevic. Some of these groups declared themselves to be anti-American. What is the purpose of the US funding of anti-American groups overseas? Does accepting US funds weaken a group's anti-American stance? If a group is fighting for justice, does that automatically mean that the group is a good group? Do the methods they use in their fight have any effect on whether the group is "good" or not? Explain your answers to the last three questions. (p. 10)

The film is "available on DVD in both the NTSC and PAL television systems," in "Arabic, Burmese, English, Farsi, French, Indonesian, Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish." Very thorough -- all relevant languages for the most urgent US "regime change" campaigns are covered. Needless to say, the ICNC, as well as other members of the empire of NGOs, is working on Iran:

In choosing Freedom House as the venue for a foreign policy address this week, President George W. Bush has stepped into an intense debate among democracy activists in the US and Iran on how US dollars should be used to carry out the administration's policy of promoting freedom in the Islamic republic.

Few in the Washington audience on Wednesday realised that Freedom House, an independent institution founded more than 60 years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, the former first lady, is one of several organisations selected by the State Department to receive funding for clandestine activities inside Iran.

Peter Ackerman, chairman of the board of trustees, who introduced Mr Bush, is also the founder of a separate organisation that promotes non-violent civic disobedience as a form of resistance to repressive regimes. His International Center on Non-Violent Conflict has organised discreet "workshops" in the Gulf emirate of Dubai to teach Iranians the lessons learned from east European movements.

A separate organisation, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre based in New Haven, Connecticut, has also received US funding and organised a Dubai "workshop" for Iranians last year that was not made public.

Mr Ackerman, who is very wealthy from an earlier career as a financier, says he does not accept government money. Questioned by the FT, Freedom House confirmed it had received funding from the State Department for activities in Iran. It declined to give details but said it was not involved in Mr Ackerman's work in Dubai.

Freedom House also disclosed that it received $100,000 (€83,873, £57,500) from Mr Ackerman last year and a further $100,000 from his organisation.

In a research study, with Mr Ackerman acting as chief adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders." (Guy Dinmore, "Bush Enters Iran 'Freedom' Debate," Financial Times, 31 March 2006)

It should be noted that Mr. Jack DuVall himself visited this blog to defend the ICNC, merely because I cited the same Financial Times article in an entry whose focus was Freedom House, not the ICNC: "Queering Freedom House," Critical Montages, 24 September 2007 (be sure to read his comment). It looks like opinions of leftists are a sensitive spot for the organization.

Humanitarian Imperialism

Phil Gasper, a professor of philosophy, notes:

The same day that Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia, so did Berdimuhammedow, President of Turkmenistan, an event that received zero coverage in the mainstream media. Turkmenistan is a one-party state with a human rights record that makes Iran look like almost a liberal democracy by comparison. But Turkmesistan is also a US ally, so Bollinger remained silent in this case.

Selectively highlighting and exaggerating human rights violations in Iran while ignoring or downplaying comparable or even far worse cases committed by US allies and the USA itself is, of course, designed to soften up liberals and leftists for humanitarian imperialism. This strategy worked for Yugoslavia. Will it work for Iran?

The United States and "Regime Change" in Iran

Stephen Zunes claims in "The United States and 'Regime Change' in Iran" (Right Web, 7 August 2007)

In an effort to head off such a popular uprising and discredit pro-democracy leaders and their supporters, Iran's reactionary leadership has been making false claims, aired in detail in a series of television broadcasts during the third week of July, that certain Western nongovernmental organizations that have given workshops and offered seminars for Iranian pro-democracy activists on the theory and history of strategic nonviolent struggle are actually plotting with the Bush administration in offering specific instructions on how to overthrow the regime.

Just which "Western nongovernmental organizations" does he have in mind, though? And what television broadcasts? Zunes doesn't spell them out, but since he confidently says that "Iran's reactionary leadership has been making false claims" about them, the impression left in the reader's mind is that the nameless Western NGOs are doing either good things or at least harmless things, not at all linked to the US government.

But doesn't Zunes actually mean the NGOs named in In the Name of Democracy, featuring Haleh Esfandiari, Kian Tajbaksh, and Ramin Jahanbaglou, which was indeed aired on Iranian Channel 1 on 18-19 July according to Western media reports? Like the Soros Foundation? Now, Zunes suggests that those who object to the activities of the Soros Foundation and the like are only doing so because they "have actually bought into these claims by Iran's hardline clerics" ("The United States and 'Regime Change' in Iran," 7 August 2007). That is not the case, however. An increasingly prominent role played by Western NGOs such as the Soros Foundation^* in the "soft power" varieties of regime change campaigns first came to light regarding Central and Eastern Europe, especially Yugoslavia, and, needless to say, leftists' concerns about them long predate any claim made by any Iranian official and have nothing to do with any Iranian broadcast that few here watched anyway.

* Read, for instance, Gerald Sussman, "The Myths of 'Democracy Assistance': U.S. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe," Monthly Review 58.7, December 2006:

Today, the U.S. government relies less on the CIA in most cases and more on the relatively transparent initiatives undertaken by such public and private organizations as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Freedom House, George Soros's Open Society, and a network of other well-financed globetrotting public and private professional political organizations, primarily American, operating in the service of the state's parallel neoliberal economic and political objectives.