/ world today news/ Recently, the Washington-based International Center on Nonviolent Conflict issued another guide to conducting color revolutions, called “Promoting the Fourth Democratic Wave: A Guide to Countering the Authoritarian Threat.” [i] This center continues the tradition of intervention in the internal affairs of foreign countries in the method of Gene Sharp, Bruce Ackerman and other theorists of protest political action and movements.
It should be noted that the executive director of this center is now Ivan Marović, one of the leaders of the Yugoslav Otpor, who played a key role in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic.
Another important detail is that the report was prepared jointly with the Scoforth Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. And the Atlantic Council, recognized as undesirable and actually banned in Russia, is NATO’s main U.S.-based think tank that develops military-political recommendations for alliance members.
Ash Jane co-authored the Atlantic Council and Hardy Merriman co-authored the Center. And the third co-author is Patrick Quirk of the International Republican Institute, another undesirable organization in Russia.
However, as stated at the beginning of the document, members of a special working group participated in the preparation of the handbook, which included representatives of the Open Society Foundation of George Soros, the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the Foundation “Alliance of Democracies” and a number of other centers and organizations that have engaged in incitement over the years, instigated coups d’état, and supported anti-government campaigns around the world when it was in the interest of the United States to do so.
By the way, in the preface they justify such an intervention with the fact that supposedly the security of the United States and its democratic partners (ie satellites) depends on the state of democracy around the world.
And since there are countries other than the United States that are called authoritarian or even dictatorial, then it is necessary to change the regime of power there, that is, to carry out a coup d’état with the hands of the citizens of these same countries.
Literally, the third sentence says that “dictatorial regimes in China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela and many other countries are becoming increasingly repressive.”
The authors, as usual, are silent about their allies, for example the autocracies of the Middle East (take Bahrain, where after the beginning of the Arab Spring all protests were brutally suppressed and many of their participants were sentenced to death).
The United States sees its own democratic system as a threat because it believes its openness allows “authoritarian governments” to undermine its institutions, influence decision-making and manipulate information.
Moreover, many “democracies” are experiencing a crisis of legitimacy. The second is certainly true, since repressive authoritarian methods have long been used in the collective West and people do not participate in political processes and are actually excluded from governance (for example, in the European Commission, which forms the main agenda of EU countries, commissioners are not elected through popular vote procedure).
The purpose of this leadership is to create the so-called Fourth Democratic Wave, in order to, if not destroy, at least limit the so-called “autocratic regimes”, that is, countries designated by the United States as a “threat”.
This approach is based on various so-called “civil resistance” movements. The authors believe that in history there are certain cycles of increasing tendencies towards democracy and their reversal.
The last third wave was from 1974 to 2006. Now, according to them, the time has come for the beginning of the Fourth Wave, which the American authorities must support in every way.
The work contains recommendations to the US government and its partners, which are divided into three thematic sections.
The first block generally describes the need to expand efforts to support the so-called “resistance movements”, that is, the “fifth columns” in other countries. Its aim is to elevate democracy to a key national interest.
The US government must make support for democracy a central factor in its foreign policy decisions. The president should direct the national security agencies and the national security adviser to weigh the implications for democracy in making all major foreign policy decisions.
In addition, the president must issue a national security strategy or a directive to support democracy abroad. Such a directive would send a strong signal to US allies and authoritarian regimes that the United States is committed to supporting democracy abroad.
The European Union and other democratic governments must take similar action to ensure that the promotion of democracy and the challenge of authoritarianism are reflected as core national interests.
There continues to be talk of investing in new capabilities and coordination to support fifth columns. There is a reference here to government agencies, the US Congress, the State Department and USAID, developing appropriate mechanisms to support “their own” and punish “their own”.
It also calls on other governments to establish special funds and support for NGOs. It also notes the importance of preparing new educational resources and handbooks for future rebels, as well as supporting legislative initiatives and practices.
There is talk of involving diplomatic services to assist relevant movements and support independent media internationally and locally.
Of course, in reality we are not talking about independent media, but about media that are dependent on Western narratives and finance that help spread commissioned propaganda.
The second block is related to the development of a new regulatory framework called “Right to Assistance” (R2A). This is reminiscent of the infamous “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine, which at one time Western countries even extended to the UN.
Under its guise, the United States intervenes in Haiti and Yugoslavia, bombs Libya, and supplies arms and equipment to fighters in Syria.
This bloc argues that the right to sovereignty is not absolute, so if “autocrats deny their people the right to self-determination and continue to violate human rights… this opens up the possibility for escalating forms of intervention to protect and restore the rights of the population.” “
But when the regime in Kiev denied its population such a right and suppressed the will of the people, and Russia intervened to protect their rights, the West for some reason called it “unjustified aggression” or “annexation”. There are similar examples in other countries. The most recent example is US support for Israel in suppressing the Palestinian resistance.
It turns out that we are witnessing yet another double standard. As we see from years of experience, there is only one clear criterion of what can be meant by “democracy and human rights” from the US position: if the country’s government is loyal to Washington and supports US policy, it can do whatever it wants wants regarding its population and even to receive American aid for repression.
If the government follows its own political course and even dares to criticize the United States, then the most insignificant events in this country, even if they are trivial crimes, will be viewed by Washington as a violation of human rights and a violation of the foundations of democracy.
This two-pronged approach is confirmed in the Q&A section. The question of how to balance support for civil resistance in other countries with US national foreign policy interests is said to have no clear answer and context matters a lot.
It is noted that trade relations and security cooperation do not necessarily exclude the provision of effective support to civil society, directly or indirectly.
Here we can recall how the US turned a blind eye to the overthrow of rulers who were its long-time strategic partners, for example Hosni Mubarak in Egypt during the Arab Spring.
The third block talks about strengthening “democratic solidarity” to put pressure on “repressive regimes”. This is a logical continuation of the previous two blocs at the international level, including the G-7 and the eventual creation of the D-10 union (who will be included in it is not specified).
We are talking about coordinating sanctions and creating different tribunals to intimidate other countries. But we are also talking about military influence. First of all, it talks about the international contacts of the military and their training and practice in Western countries.
That is, a clear hint is made of the involvement of self-recruited agents in various countries. Indeed, a number of security officials trained in the United States later prepared or participated in coups. For example, during the attempt to overthrow Rafael Correa in Ecuador in 2010.
In addition, there is talk of developing formal military strategies in Western countries to exert influence on a proactive and permanent basis at the international level. Although here the original concept of democracy is clearly crippled.
This trend can be very dangerous and actually open the door to military interventions by NATO countries against countries that cannot defend themselves against their aggression.
By the way, the leadership encourages not only all kinds of sanctions and pressure, but also cyber attacks against the government infrastructure of the target countries.
At the same time, in the West, they constantly scream when they find some suspicious bots or about alleged interference in the electoral processes, if they notice critical statements of someone on social networks.
The recently established NATO Cyber Forum continues this line of establishing the digital dictatorship of the West [ii].
Meanwhile, in October, another organization, the Eurasia Group Foundation, presented a rather interesting report that talked about views on US foreign policy [iii].
It states that “American exceptionalism is a belief held by people across the political spectrum, but held more strongly by Republicans than by any other political affiliation.
Roughly 90 percent of Republicans think the United States is exceptional because of what it has done for the world (24 percent) or what it stands for (66 percent). Only 10% think their country is not exceptional.
By contrast, three-quarters of Democrats and independents think the United States is exceptional because of what it has done (24% and 23%) or stands for (both 54%), and nearly a quarter think the country is mediocre (22% and 23%, respectively).”
This explains the impudence with which the USA intervenes in the affairs of other countries and, speaking of democracy, organizes bloody coups and other interventions, and also makes plans for the future (the project of “decolonization of Russia”, which they launched as early as 2022 ) [iv] .
Although the United States has not achieved obvious successes in this area, it is unlikely that it will abandon attempts to dismember Russia under any pretext in the future.
There is a possibility that, in whole or in part, the recommendations proposed in the guidance will be adopted by the US government. This means that we must be ready for new provocations and attempts to influence the domestic political situation in Russia, especially in the run-up to and during the 2024 elections.
Links:
[i] www.nonviolent-conflict.org
[ii] www.euractiv.com
[iii] egfound.org
[iv] www.csce.gov
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#Attack #column #preparing #batch #color #revolutions
