COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND GEOPOLITICS

“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. 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 in organizing creative non-violent resistance.

“These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution(2004), in Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution(2005), in Kuwait’s Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq’s Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989), but failed in Iran’s Green Revolution (2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.”

What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding, and at least any notion that color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception.

It’s a fact that 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.

Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks.

GENE SHARP: A FOUNT OF CONTROVERSY FOR THE LEFT

The mastermind of these sleazy “revolutions,” the mild looking Gene Sharp, has been curiously defended by some heavyweights on the left, including Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Daniel Ellsberg. This is extremely surprising,  given the evidence, and it casts serious doubt on their political judgement. The open letter in defense of Gene Sharp originated with Stephen Zunes, a professor at the University of San Francisco. 

Gene Sharp has been accused of having strong links with a variety of US institutions including the CIA, the Pentagon and Republican-related institutions, i.e. International Republican Institute and RAND Corporation, National Endowment for Democracy.[19] The Voltaire Network has accused Sharp and his Albert Einstein Institution (sic) of just promoting destabilization on countries disaligned with USA interests.[43] On the other hand, there has been debate around Sharp’s works influencing the Arab Spring,[44] with a Wikileaks cable citing his work in a US embassy in Damascus[45] while other media rejected such claims.[46] Gene Sharp has consistently denied these claims and after a period of these sustained attacks in June 2008 notable left wing writers Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn among others defended Gene Sharp in a signed a letter which was circulated by U.S. and internationally based scholars and activists. An extract from this letter reads as follows:

“Rather than being a tool of imperialism, Dr. Sharp’s research and writings have inspired generations of progressive peace, labor, feminist, human rights, environmental, and social justice activists in the United States and around the world. The Albert Einstein Institution has never received any money from any government or government-funded entity. Nor does Dr. Sharp or the Albert Einstein Institution collaborate with the CIA, the NED, or any U.S. government or government-funded agencies; nor has Dr. Sharp or the Albert Einstein Institution ever provided financial or logistical support to any opposition groups in any country; nor has Dr. Sharp or the Albert Einstein Institution ever taken sides in political conflicts or engaged in strategic planning with any group. The Albert Einstein Institution operates with a very minimal budget out of Dr. Sharp’s home with a staff consisting of two people – Dr. Sharp and a young administrator – and is quite incapable of carrying out the foreign intrigues of which it has been falsely accused.” [47] GENE SHARP, WIKIPEDIA [/learn_more]

The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive, so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often–or in what context–they have fallen prey.

Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last ten years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.

But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by that we mean desire, and all that drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.

Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences’ intellect, the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.

Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.

It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations.

Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of theirchoosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.

Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.

Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.

And this is where we come in: to help deconstruct the deception.

But we will not just cover color revolutions here, as color revolutions are bound up in the larger geopolitical universe. A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy–only a tool–the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ. It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive) is necessary to understanding the purpose of the color revolution.

Toward that end, we will discuss and analyze relationships of global power in great detail. We will highlight specific institutions of power; identify what their power rests upon; draw attention to the individuals that finance and direct their activities; speculate upon some of their motives; and get to know the broad range of tools they use to achieve them, tools which include the color revolution.

As in-depth studies into the color revolution are far too rare, and as the issue itself is far too obscure, we hope to draw more attention to it; to spark discussion and even debate.

It is an issue that takes time and patience. And it is for those that are willing to provide this time and patience that we offer this site.

“Never utter these words: ‘I do not know this, therefore it is false.’ One must study to know; know to understand; understand to judge.” –Apothegm of Narada

ABOUT ERIC POTTENGER
Senior Editor of COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND GEOPOLITICS
I’m a 36 year old male, living in Portland, Oregon, gainfully employed, earning little, caring even less. I have a BA in History from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

My interests are solitary pursuits normally, lots of book reading, movie watching, writing, listening to music, hanging out with small groups of friends.

Friedrich Nietzsche is probably my favorite writer at the moment, which should indicate a little of how I think. His approach to morals and ethics from within the framework of human survival is a revolutionary concept, a solid foundation to build upon.

I have one published book so far, a narrative/photographic memoir (with Tim Klempay) documenting our trip to Cuba in 2007, entitled, “Cuba’s Threshold: Culture, Streets, and Tourism After Castro.” For purchasing inquiries, please either email me, or contact the publisher (Gallo Crow Publishing–address found on web)

http://colorrevolutionsandgeopolitics.blogspot.com