Template Colour Revolutions The role of US NGOs in marketing U.S. regime change in Eastern Europe
Color revolution(s) is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000s. Some observers have called the events a revolutionary wave.
Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change.
[Similar regime change focused uprising have been reported in the Middle East, Africa, and South America - where there has been a notable marketing and propaganda component that seems characteristic of foreign government intervention to promote regime change. Possibly the coordinated "marketing" of ISIS might also be included in these movements, where prominent branding and media promotion, is strongly suggestive of foreign influence.]
These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly student activists
Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership in a guerrilla warfare PsyOps propaganda fashion - fostering, promoting and supporting uprisings and/or civil war against socialist regimes that do not allow corporate raiding by US, UK and other global Corporate elites.
The principal institutional actors in U.S. democracy promotion
consist of the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Endowment for Democracy. NED was created in 1983 as a nominally private, Congressionally funded organization that would assume some of the regime change functions, but with more flexible and transparent means, as those used by the then discredited CIA.
One of NED's founders told the Washington Post that A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA
Relative openness was seen as a better formulation for pursuing U.S. national interests (Ignatius 1991). Democracy promotion in Central and Eastern Europe, starting with Poland and East Germany, became one of central tropes in a renewed U.S. effort by the Reagan administration to roll back the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact alliance.
This paper looks at the intervention of the Western powers, particularly the United States, in the ‘colour revolutions’ (a brand name drawn from oppositionist party emblems) of Eastern Europe (Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine in their chronological order).The Paper discusses how a set of pretested, modular techniques and technologies have been employed as part of a template for fostering regime change.
Although the government and media of the United States loosely used the terms ‘dictatorship’ and ‘revolution’ to describe conditions in these countries, neither was a fair depiction. More accurately, they were and remain semi-authoritarian. And, as some have argued, even if the more militant groups intended more radical outcomes, they ended up being ‘failed revolutions’ (Beissinger 2006) and in some instances, failed states.For ‘well-functioning markets’ to occur in Eastern Europe, a neoliberal governance structure would be a prerequisite, as would Western style electioneering that would facilitate its assumption of power.
The challenge for the United States was discovering reliable ‘leadership’ that was prepared to abandon state ownership and social program residues of the socialist era. Overthrowing incumbent governments would require mobilisation of political dissidents around a single pro-Western political candidate, close poll supervision, and sophisticated campaign propaganda techniques.
One such effort, led by IRI, convinced Bulgaria's pro-Western parties in 1996 to rally behind a single politician, Petar Stoyanov. Together with NDI, IRI pursued the same approach in Romania (1997) and Croatia (1999), and in the case of Slovakia (1998), it required backing an anti-government coalition (MacKinnon 2007, 30-33). These successful interventions paved the way for the spate of ‘colour revolutions’ that followed in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere.Branding Revolution
In reporting on Eastern Europe, Western media have fetishised the colour revolutions, helping to boost shock therapy
in opposition to socialist and economic nationalism in a heroic iconography of dissident political actions (Klein 2007). Much of the colour revolution symbolism bears echoes of the American non-violent civil rights struggles and ‘flower power’ resistance to U.S. imperialism.
Anti-government protest in the United States, however, never drew a comparable level of U.S. media sympathy, not to mention foreign intervention. Indeed, whereas the massive protests in the United States in the 1960s were home-grown (despite the FBI’s failed efforts to prove their Soviet origin), uprisings in Eastern Europe were never fully organic, nor were they, despite their portrayal, simply expressions of ‘people power’. They were in fact foreign aided and to a significant extent foreign instigated. The authors found nothing in mainstream U.S. news reports that discussed this double standard.
Focusing on ‘democracy promotion’, the authors deconstruct it as a term of propaganda in the employ of key state interests of the United States and the European Union -- which include:
1. transnational economic integration,
2. control over regional energy production and distribution,
3. NATO membership and security initiatives, and
4. the isolation of Russia.
While Democrats and Republicans offer the appearance of conflict in domestic politics, their international wings align very closely in efforts to break down political resistance to neoliberal restructuring in Eastern Europe and other countries undergoing ‘transition’. Both sections of organized state power in the United States form parts of the ‘Washington consensus’ that an elitist, polyarchic, pro-Western political order is the appropriate corollary and necessary pre-condition for economic restructuring.
In this detailed article, the authors surveyed four types of foreign intervention, and find reason to be skeptical about the U.S. ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘freedom agenda’ and the legitimacy of the immediate political outcomes of the ‘colour revolutions’. Four types of foreign assistance in regime change "Colour Revolutions" that were studied:
1. The political template
2. Financing regime change
3. Training - professionalizing dissent
4. Marketing (propaganda) the revolution.
This is an important and relevant article. Read it full here. 👇🏼http://colorrevolutionsandgeopolitics.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/template-revolutions-marketing-us.htmlhttp://colorrevolutionsandgeopolitics.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/template-revolutions-marketing-us.html