Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Who is Gene Sharp?

by geezer in Paris Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 07:55:26 AM EST

He's an old man, a contemporary of Stephane Hessel and Noam Chomsky, a student of Ghandi, an Oxford scholar, writer and political theorist who is almost totally unknown in the world of Western European and American political literature.

He also may be one of the most important men alive today.


                                                     W
From Robert Kuttner, at The American Prospect,Ghandi in East Boston

There is something truly wonderful about the fact than an obscure, 83-year-old American disciple of Gandhi helped inspire and facilitate the Egyptian revolution. When one sentence, buried well down in a New York Times story on Monday quoted a protester recounting that Egyptian activists had studied the work of an American, Gene Sharp, editors everywhere drew blanks and turned to Google. Even most progressives didn't recognize the name.
Sharp turns out to be an Oxford Ph.D, who has spent his life working on the theory and practical strategy of nonviolent resistance. You might think of him as a cross between Gandhi, pacifist A.J. Muste, and the legendary organizer Saul Alinsky.

From the Voice of America site.

The growing demands for political change in the Middle East are focusing new attention on Gene Sharp, a scholar in Boston, Massachusetts, who has spent his life researching non-violent protest and publishing how-to guides for people hoping to move their governments toward democracy. Eighty-three-year-old scholar's works are widely recognized as the inspiration for dissidents in many nations.

Gene Sharp has authored a number of publications, some circulated on his institution's website, including "From Dictatorship to Democracy," which is available in 24 languages. Sharp believes there were two important factors leading to the end of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's rule. The first, he says, was that the people lost their fear. Next, he says, they respected the need for peaceful assembly.


OK, somebody noticed. So he wrote a less aggressive book to complement Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".

But has anyone tried his stuff out in the streets?
This bit from the New York Times somehow found it's way in among the usual spineless cheerleading:

Gene Sharp

When Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement was struggling to recover from a failed effort in 2005, its leaders tossed around "crazy ideas" about bringing down the government, said Ahmed Maher, a leading strategist. They stumbled on Mr. Sharp while examining the Serbian movement Otpor, which he had influenced.

When the nonpartisan International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, which trains democracy activists, slipped into Cairo several years ago to conduct a workshop, among the papers it distributed was Mr. Sharp's "198 Methods of Nonviolent Action," a list of tactics that range from hunger strikes to "protest disrobing" to "disclosing identities of secret agents."

Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian blogger and activist who attended the workshop and later organized similar sessions on her own, said trainees were active in both the Tunisia and Egypt revolts. She said that some activists translated excerpts of Mr. Sharp's work into Arabic, and that his message of "attacking weaknesses of dictators" stuck with them.

This, plus Bob Kuttner (whom I admire and read) got my attention, so I went to his web site, and cruised around.

The Albert Einstein Institute

 It's eclectic, unassuming, and happily avoids flash for content.
It's a treasure trove for anyone who wants to read rational analysis of what works to change the world today.
That's us, folks. -right? Of course.
So I downloaded a couple things, and read them. It was a pleasure.
He writes in a clear, jargon-free style, his analysis is pragmatic as well as deeply historically literate. After a day of reading around there, I'm surprised that he appeared on the VOA.
 It appears to me that, once again, a catalytic thinker has been successfully embargoed in the US, ---but has leaked through, and happily infected a large number of the dispossessed and angry around the world. It is also interesting to note that Amazon.fr does not have his latest book, and has no apparent plans to get it. His new book sells, in the US, for---are you ready for this?--= $445.00 at Amazon.com, in the US.
Sharp largely avoids the code words and syntax of the university elite, as well as the traditional forms of writing in which it is assumed that the more obscure and inaccessible your style, the deeper your thought. But he's not writing for tenure, or for the accolades of his university peers. Gene is writing a How-To book. And we sure could use a few.

One thing that emerges after a while is that his strategies, at their heart, rely on the same assumptions that Ghandi made- that the innate  resistance of the human species to slaughter their fellow men, plus whatever component of civilization they posses, will, in the end, emerge as a more powerful influence on actions than the equally innate tendency to do slaughter, with gusto.  
Many here will have a solidly fixed opinion of which of those facets of the human psyche (I would say "soul", but it might be misunderstood) is more dominant. But before you allow old ideas to command your perception, I would ask you to read his stuff for a while.

Gene Sharp, like Saul Alinsky, is a deep-down, stone hard revolutionary. And clearly an effective one.

Gene Sharp bases his advice to the streets on the belief that he and Ghandi and King and Nelson Mandela all shared. In the end, the central human need to get- and to give-  compassion, coupled with the power of an effectively aroused world opinion, is a workable strategy to dump dictators.
He does NOT say it's a safe one. You may die. But, in the end, you will win.
Is he right? And is anybody really listening?

Here's a snippet from The Daily Beast, which is doing better and better things these days:

Gene Sharp, the 83-Year-Old Who Toppled Egypt

by Samuel P. Jacobs
The young lions of Tahrir Square found inspiration in the writings of an 83-year-old American. Samuel P. Jacobs talks to Gene Sharp about why his calls for nonviolent revolt are catching fire.

There are many roots of the Egyptian revolution. But one of the most unlikely goes back to an East Boston rowhouse, where an 83-year-old named Gene Sharp runs a shoestring operation called the Albert Einstein Institute--and arguably just changed the course of history.
For the last half century, Sharp has been writing about nonviolent protest, and trying to make his ideas accessible to dissidents the world over. No mean feat, given that his signature work, The Politics of Non-Violent Action, weighs in at 900 pages and was published in 1973. But it's working. Thanks in part to a distillation of his ideas entitled From Dictatorships to Democracy, which can be downloaded from Sharp's website in dozens of languages, his gospel of upheaval has apparently become essential reading for budding revolutionaries in Cairo and parts beyond.

Ahmed Maher, a 28-year-old construction engineer, was one of the young Web-savvy upstarts who helped set in motion the protests that last week ended Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule. Maher, of the April 6 Movement, looked to Serbia's democratic movements for inspiration. There, he found Otpor, a protest group which helped take down strongman Slobodan Milosevic. From Otpor, the young Egyptians discovered the teachings of Sharp, who urges nonviolent resistance as the most efficient way to topple dictatorships.

Sharp says he hasn't been directly in touch with anyone in Egypt since the uprising began late last month. But he says he is happy to know that his ideas may have had some influence.

"I'm very pleased," he says. "I've been studying this question of dictatorships for many decades. It is a lonely struggle. To get this kind of recognition is very important."

Yes! Now there is a rare bird.
The Beast may be a bit hyperbolic to credit Sharp singlehandedly-- but they often begin with hyperbole, and then do some good reporting.
Something from his many books might be a fitting companion on your shelf, next to Stephane Hessel, Howard Zinn, Chomsky, and many others.

And another sweet note in my discovery of this man is that he is once again evidence that---

Geezers Rule!

Old guys can still be relevant, and that the young, the old, the brave ones who will risk their lives, and sometimes lose them, can read, listen, learn useful thing.

And then act.

Display:
Then the poor guy gets attacked not only by fearful foreign governments but also by some on the left:

Gene Sharp, an 80-year-old scholar of strategic nonviolent action and veteran of radical pacifist causes, is under attack by a number of foreign governments that claim that he and his small research institute are key players in a Bush administration plot against them.

Though there is no truth to these charges, several leftist web sites and publications have been repeating such claims as fact. This raises disturbing questions regarding the ability of progressives challenging Bush foreign policy to distinguish between the very real manifestations of U.S. imperialism and conspiratorial fantasies.
...
The office of the Albert Einstein Institution - which supposedly plays such a "central role" in American imperialism -is actually a tiny, cluttered space in the downstairs of Gene Sharp's home, located in a small row house in a working class neighborhood in East Boston. The staff consists of just two employees, Sharp and a young administrator.

Rather than receiving lucrative financial support from the U.S. government or wealthy financiers, the Albert Einstein Institution is almost exclusively funded by individual small donors and foundation grants. It operates on a budget of less than $160,000 annually.

...
Nor have these critics ever presented any evidence that Sharp or the Albert Einstein Institution has ever been requested, encouraged, advised, or received suggestions by any branch of the US government to do or not do any research, analysis, policy studies, or educational activity, much less engage in active subversion of foreign governments. And, given the lack of respect the U.S. government has traditionally had for nonviolence or for the power of popular movements to create change, it is not surprising that these critics haven't found any.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/sharp_attack_unwarranted

A letter was circulated defending him, signed by H. Zinn, N. Chomsky and 136 others:


We therefore call upon people of conscience to reject the false allegations leveled against Gene Sharp, the Albert Einstein Institute and other groups promoting strategic nonviolent action; to continue to struggle against U.S. imperialism in all of its manifestations; and, to support popular democratic movements engaging in nonviolent action in the cause of human rights and social justice in the United States and throughout the world.

http://www.aeinstein.org/Open%20Letter_Academics_Zunes.pdf



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 08:29:14 AM EST
An old but shabby tactic to discredit the "enemy". Look at the recent campaign by the Chamber of commerce to discredit a whole host of "enemies", for a more current version of same.
In a way, it's an honor to be attacked by some, and a singular honor to be defended by a list of people like that.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:13:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I noticed the following headline of conservative commentary favorable to Gene Sharp:

Pacificism Is Immoral, but Non-Violence Can Work

The conservative taste of morality...

Anyway, will the democratization progress in Egypt be very different from Iraq's?

by das monde on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you suggesting the Egyptian revolt was orchastrated by the CIA?

Because others (notably Angry Arab) thought was out of the CIA's playbook was when the Egyptian regime brought out the plainclothes police on camelback.

So, was the CIA behind both sides, behind none, or in our heads?

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 05:03:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I rather imagine that the process will be taken over soon. Other sides have have much weaker long-term strategies or tactical experience.
by das monde on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:56:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's noticeable that the books that discuss practical methods appear sold out or much more expensive at the sites ive looked at. either revolutionaries have been buying them, or governments to keep them out of the revolutionaries hands

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:12:23 AM EST
Yeah. I noticed that.
$445.00 for his latest, from Amazon, for pete's sake.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is it out of print? The publisher suggests that it can still be ordered (but not online) for $19.95.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:27:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See below.
Which book are you referring to?
The one on Amazon for such an amazing price was:

"Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice, 21st Century potential" for 29.00 on his web site
and $442.79 in paperback on Amazon.com.

"Hey, dud- nobody can say we refused to sell it--"

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:34:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
First two entries on my link:

Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential, Gene Sharp     0-87558-161-7    cloth    $29.95   

Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential, Gene Sharp     0-87558-162-5    paper    $19.95   

I hope that Amazon price is for the hardcover....
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:08:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good reason to publish with a small publisher, who does publish-on-demand, and sells direct.
Look at the prices for his books on his web site, and how many can be downloaded.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:21:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Angry Arab had a few comments about Gene Sharp, and would be livid if he read this diary.

I tend to agree-  there is no way he can take credit for "toppling" Mubarak.  Sorry, but people giving credit to anyone who didn't put their lives on the line the way the Egyptian protesters did gets me angry too.

by stevesim on Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 12:37:42 PM EST
Why "get angry" just because someone gives SOME credit to Gene Sharp for the fact that his IDEAS had some influence - which is not to claim that they were decisive. People who put their lives on the line do so for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways and they may draw on a variety of sources for ideas - including how to function most effectively in such a situation based on historical precedents. It seems that some of the people involved in the revolution in Egypt, especially those who seem to have played an important organisational role, clearly did draw on his ideas and valued them:

When the nonpartisan International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, which trains democracy activists, slipped into Cairo several years ago to conduct a workshop, among the papers it distributed was Mr. Sharp's "198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,"a list of tactics that range from hunger strikes to "protest disrobing" to "disclosing identities of secret agents."

Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian blogger and activist who attended the workshop and later organized similar sessions on her own, said trainees were active in both the Tunisia and Egypt revolts. She said that some activists translated excerpts of Mr. Sharp's work into Arabic, and that his message of "attacking weaknesses of dictators" stuck with them.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/gene_sharp/index.html



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 05:01:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From Angry Arab:

It seems that Sharp now wants to claim credit for the uprisings simply because his book was translated by an AMERICAN foundation into Arabic.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/02/gene-sharp-new-york-times-story-of.html

This is rubbish, from the NYT story he's apparently referring to:

Mr. Sharp, hard-nosed yet exceedingly shy, has been careful not to take credit. He is more thinker than revolutionary, though as a young man he participated in lunch-counter sit-ins and spent nine months in a federal prison in Danbury, Conn., as a conscientious objector during the Korean War. He has had no contact with the Egyptian protesters, he said, although he recently learned that the Muslim Brotherhood had "From Dictatorship to Democracy" posted on its Web site.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/gene_sharp/index.html



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 05:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I tend to be on the side of Prof Abu Khalil on this one.  Few in the Arab world would have heard or have read of Gene Sharp.

Just another case of the white man trying to claim moral superiority, in my opinion.

by stevesim on Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 06:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Just another case of the white man trying to claim moral superiority, in my opinion."

I don't find such racist statements acceptable, nor intelligent; I assume you would avoid making statements about "the black man".

You might also try to supporting this - if you must endorse it - rather than simply repeating it.

I don't suppose most Egyptians know the names of the small group of Egyptians who organised the revolution - so what ?

... as the Egyptian government has sought to splinter their movement by claiming that officials were negotiating with some of its leaders, they have stepped forward publicly for the first time to describe their hidden role.

There were only about 15 of them, including Wael Ghonim, a Google executive who was detained for 12 days but emerged this week as the movement's most potent spokesman.

Yet they brought a sophistication and professionalism to their cause -- exploiting the anonymity of the Internet to elude the secret police, planting false rumors to fool police spies, staging "field tests" in Cairo slums before laying out their battle plans, then planning a weekly protest schedule to save their firepower -- that helps explain the surprising resilience of the uprising they began.
...
Most of the group are liberals or leftists, and all, including the Brotherhood members among them, say they aspire to a Western-style constitutional democracy where civic institutions are stronger than individuals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/world/middleeast/10youth.html

 The organisers included the Muslim brotherhood which "had (Gene Sharp's) "From Dictatorship to Democracy" posted on its Web site." So they knew about him and they have been an important oppositional force. But anyway, ideas usually filter down slowly and can be effective long before most people are conscious of them:


"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

 John Maynard Keynes



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 07:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
racist?  what's racist is assuming that Egyptians have to import their revolutionary ideas.
by stevesim on Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 07:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nor was Nelson Mandela, or MLK.

Steve, I just think you're being a little bit too race-conscious here. I don't see a race issue here at all.

I don't find anything extraordinary about "importing" ideas from people of different nations or different races (I'm neither nationalist nor racist).

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 07:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Steve, I just think you might be concern trolling here.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Feb 20th, 2011 at 11:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
no, it isn't because others, who are more knowledgeable, have also expressed the same opinion.

I think you don't accept criticism of your ideas very well.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:59:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be sad if they were so racist or xenophobic as to refuse to benefit from the ideas of an excellent thinker just because he was not Egyptian, or was white.
Clearly, that's not the case.
Good for them.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry, but that makes no sense.  just because someone is not known in your culture does not make that a xenophobic culture or act...
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:03:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More racist that claiming they relied on Facebook and Google, both of which come from America?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:54:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody's "assuming" they have to import their revolutionary ideas, reference is being made to what some some Egyptians, ones central to the organisation of the revolution, have said or done, e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood publishing one of Sharp's books on their site, as I've already pointed out. Intelligent people learn from a variety of sources and ideas cross national and cultural boundaries all the time. Angry Arab himself draws on European ideas when it suits him, he describes himself as a "former Marxist-Leninist",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As'ad_AbuKhalil

cf:

AbuKhalil is suspicious of all religious movements, whether Islamic, Jewish or otherwise. "During the French revolution, the Jacobins wanted to erect a statue to reason in place of a statue to religion," he said. "That's an attitude that would be useful today, especially with all the religious fervor and fanaticism we are seeing."

http://harpers.org/archive/2006/07/sb-a-statue-to-reason-1152745267



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 05:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry.  still not convinced.

Islam has a long history of non-violence among believers, for example.  As I recall, that is what was being shouted in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria and Suez -  violence is non-Islamic.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 05:20:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
stevesim:
Islam has a long history of non-violence among believers

Are you serious? I would rather say that Islam, like Christianity, has a long history of violence among believers.

"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet

by Melanchthon on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 09:53:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I disagree.  One of the central tenets(?) of Islam is non-violence against believers.

Against non-believers, it's a different story.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That doesn't mean it doesn't get violated with abandon or hasn't been throughout history.

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One of the central tenets of all the Abrahamaic faiths is "Thou shalt not kill".

Can we laugh hysterically now?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and 99% of people abide by it.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:58:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In modern Hebrew "thou shalt not murder". In biblical Hebrew, I suspect the closest is "thou shalt not commit manslaughter". But that just makes Judaism a little less hypocritical than the others.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean, seriously, it's a fucking religion. They find the justification they need for the violence they want to commit.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:50:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
hmm.  Level of violence varies with religion even within a country like the USA, so I tend to disagree.  
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:57:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the US, the relationship is the other way around: More religious areas have elevated levels of violent crime, substance abuse and a couple of other things generally considered dysfunctional. But religion (at least as it is measured in these surveys) correlates with poverty and poor education, which are known risk factors for all these things. I am not aware of any body of studies that has stripped out those confounders, nor established which way(s) the cause-and-effect relationship runs between an excess of piety and a lack of wealth and education.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 05:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You may disagree, but it would be better if you substantiated your claim.

One of the central rules of Christianity is non-violence against anybody, believer or not (remember "turn the other cheek"?). That didn't prevent them to kill numerous Christians as well as non-Christians...

As for Islam, it started with the assassination of caliph Uthman in 656, shortly followed by the Battle of Bassorah, the Battle of Siffin and the Battle of Nahrawan, where tens of thousands of Muslims were killed by other Muslims...

Do you want me to list all the killings of believers by believers?

"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet

by Melanchthon on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's a sweet little snippet from one of his small books that helps to illustrate how ideas well presented can go viral: "From Dictatorship to Democracy":

Although no efforts were made to promote the publication for use in other countries, translations and distribution of the publication began to spread on their own. A copy of the English language edition was seen on display in the window of a bookstore in Bangkok by a student from Indonesia, was purchased, and taken back home. There, it was translated into Indonesian, and published in 1997 by a major Indonesian publisher with an introduction by Abdurrahman Wahid. He was then head of Nadhlatul Ulama, the largest Muslim organization in the world with thirty-five million members, and later President of Indonesia.

During this time, at my office at the Albert Einstein Institution we only had a handful of photocopies from the Bangkok English language booklet. For a few years we had to make copies of it when we had enquiries for which it was relevant. Later, Marek Zelaskiewz, from California, took one of those copies to Belgrade during Milosovic's time and gave it to the organization Civic Initiatives. They translated it into Serbian and published it.

When we visited Serbia after the collapse of the Milosevic regime we were told that the booklet had been quite influential in the opposition movement. Also important had been the workshop on nonviolent struggle that Robert Helvey, a retired US Army colonel, had given in Budapest, Hungary, for about twenty Serbian young people on the nature and potential of nonviolent struggle. Helvey also gave them copies of the complete The Politics of Nonviolent Action. These were the people who became the Otpor organization that led the nonviolent struggle that brought down Milosevic.

We usually do not know how awareness of this publication has spread from country to country. Its availability on our web site in recent years has been important, but clearly that is not the only factor. Tracing these connections would be a major research project. "From Dictatorship to Democracy" is a heavy analysis and is not easy reading. Yet it has been deemed to be important enough for at least twenty-eight translations (as of January 2008) to be prepared, although they required major work and expense.

Dowenload the original HERE

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:37:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You might find it interesting to read the links. Or at least the blockquotes. He took no credit but that which was offered, and that was taken with grace. Even humility.
Sharp says he hasn't been directly in touch with anyone in Egypt since the uprising began late last month. But he says he is happy to know that his ideas may have had some influence.

"I'm very pleased," he says. "I've been studying this question of dictatorships for many decades. It is a lonely struggle. To get this kind of recognition is very important."

His influence in Egypt and Tunisia has been referenced not by him, but by the participants and organizers themselves.
The quotes I did are a sample of many similar.

There is, among the deeply self-important, a powerful tendency to piss on anything done by a competing authority or competitor in an often self-perceived game of influence.
To suggest that an 83-year old has no right to admiration because he only supplied the ideas and
none of the blood is, it seems to me, quite unfair.


Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:47:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If only it were that simple.

Debate on the Albert Einstein Institution and its Involvement in Venezuela

Venezuelans opposed to Chávez met with Gene Sharp and other AEI staff to talk about the deteriorating political situation in their country. They also discussed options for opposition groups to further their cause effectively without violence. These visits led to an in-country consultation in April 2003. The nine-day consultation was held by consultants Robert Helvey and Chris Miller in Caracas for members of the Venezuelan democratic opposition. The objective of the consultation was to provide them with the capacity to develop a nonviolent strategy to restore democracy to Venezuela. Participants included members of political parties and unions, nongovernmental organization leaders, and unaffiliated activists. Helvey presented a course of instruction on the theory, applications and planning for a strategic nonviolent struggle. Through this, the participants realized the importance of strategic planning to overcome existing shortcomings in the opposition's campaign against Chávez. Ofensiva Ciudadana, a pro-democracy group in Venezuela, requested and organized the workshop. This workshop has led to continued contact with Venezuelans and renewed requests for additional consultations (AEI Annual Report, 2000-2004, pp. 20-21).

Lest we fail to realize who attended the consultation, the meeting was also covered by Reuters on April 30th 2003, in an article noting that it took place in the utmost secrecy at an elite private Venezuelan university in eastern Caracas, with a sign on the door reading only "Seminar on Strategic Marketing." The article continues: "The attendees included representatives of Venezuela's broad-based but fragmented opposition, who are struggling to regroup after failing to force Chavez from office in an anti-government strike in December and January." And, we could add, a murderous and anti-democratic (if botched) coup.

Anyone familiar with recent Venezuelan history will immediately spot a number of politically-motivated distortions of history, most egregiously the claim of Chávez's authoritarianism, the claim of waning popularity, the claim that the government was responsible for the violence of April 11th 2002 (when it has been decisively demonstrated that it was the very same opposition supported by the "nonviolent" AEI that massacred dozens on that day), the revealing absence of any mention of the subsequent anti-democratic coup whatsoever, and the claim that far-right opposition group Ofensiva Ciudadana (whose members were associated with that coup) is "pro-democracy."

Could there remain any doubt that the AEI indeed has taken a political position on Venezuela, and that Sharp's claim to be "neither pro-Chávez nor anti-Chávez" is utterly farcical? On the surface, perhaps, but a more subtle view would see how the vague nature of AEI's consultation policy allows the institution to follow a more winding and sinister path: from nominal neutrality through tacit judgment, through fake history, and on to the very reversal of reality. And once we reach this point, all traces of the "distribution of rights and wrongs" that would favor the Venezuelan left have been erased. We don't need to explain the circularity of this path: the AEI's intervention is justified by the history it re-writes.

More links at the end of that article.

And more debate here.

For those who don't want to wade through the back and forth, the counter-argument is that the AEI's (why the grandiose name?) history seems to be ambiguous at best, and its support of non-violence may not be as non-partisan as it pretends to be.

It's SOP for US rhetoric to promote non-violent Democracy Lite™ - a bit of voting, a bit of a middle class handout, but as little policy access and business disruption as possible - as a fall-back position when favoured tyrants are deposed.

Suspicion is natural. Gene Evans may not be trying to co-opt the Egyptian revolution - but he doesn't need to, when the US media seem to be trying so hard to do it for him.

And worryingly, some people associated with the AEI do seem to have a somewhat relaxed approach to basic honesty.

Meanwhile - how non-violent can a revolution be when there's such a significant body count?

The proof will be the shape of future political culture in Egypt and Tunisia, and whether or not the non-violent protestors who were injured are significantly better off a year or two from now than they are today.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL, when I saw "AEI" disapprovingly mentioned by Angry Arab I immediately thought it was the American Enterprise Institute...
"According to an analysis published by Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor), Venezuelan student leaders traveled to Belgrade in 2005 to meet representatives of the AEI-trained opposition movement OTPOR-CANVAS, before later traveling to Boston to consult directly with Gene Sharp himself. When these allegedly non-partisan students hit the streets in 2007, their logo was exactly the same as that used by OTPOR and which appears in AEI literature.  Nowhere does Sharp bother contesting these facts regarding AEI's role in Venezuela."  Now, to believe that Sharp or OTPOR had anything to do with the eruption of the Egyptian uprising is to give credit to Bush for latest scientific discoveries. (thanks William)


Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:59:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

;)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 08:06:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For those who don't want to wade through the back and forth,---

Please. Everyone,  Wade. It's an education of value, in disinformation, calmly deconstructed by VA.
I find it incredible that you could post this link,- quite a good one- then cherry-pick it to present a position utterly at odds with it's intent.
It is a tribute to Venezuela Analysis that they will print crap from well-known and widely disliked  propagandists like Golinger. If you read VA often, you must be familiar with her stuff. I'd rather quote Donald Rumsfeld as an expert on humanitarianism than Golinger on anything at all.

Why the Einstein name?
Some things ARE really simple.
Because Einstein wrote the introduction to one of his books.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Einstein is well-known for being an advocate of nonviolence.

He even refused to become Israel's second President. Albert Einstein's political views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a 1938 speech, "Our Debt to Zionism", he said: "I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain--especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. ... If external necessity should after all compel us to assume this burden, let us bear it with tact and patience."


Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Einstein was wrong about a lot of things as I recall so do we get to call him inaccurate too? ;-)
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with this:
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: Search results for gene sharp
That story is still bothering me (see yesterday).  I have received many links and articles from colleagues and people in Latin America in particular about the role of Gene Sharp or AEI or the Einstein Foundation.  But all this is so irrelevant.  Even if US foundations brought youths from Egypt and even if they distributed translated works about non-violence, and even if some attended workshops all this affect a dozen or so of those youths.  This is a movement by hundreds of thousands of people and would not have succeeded if people who are NOT facebook or twitter generation did not join in.

Or rather, I tend to view a revolution as a consequence of a lot of factors. In Egypt we have as fundamental factors at least demographical change, a US-backed brutal dictatorship, food prices driven up by environmental destruction and liquidity booms, IMF-induced poverty and labor conflicts. Adding up, you have a lot of desperate people.

We also have local factors relating to the particular uprising, like the revolution in Tunisia, innovative leadership to get that first big group onto Tahrir, the unwillingness of the tank commanders at Tahrir to commit massmurder, Mubarak's inability to understand what was going on, and a bunch more that might emerge in the aftermath.

The factors I call fundamental explains why there was a potential for uprising, the local are why it succeeds or fails.

Since western press can hardly start to write any of the fundamental factors, except possibly demographics (as in lots of youths), they have to focus on local factors. Essentially doing liberal history, focusing on the few individuals that are supposed to run the world. This is the standard narrative of the Western press all the time anyway. And these individuals tend to have very little pigmentation and have a Y chromosome.

A history could be written about the woman who - inspired by islamic teachings on non-violence - convinced his husband not to fire, thus saving the crowd and the revolution (has to be at least one). Or any other individual whos actions added up to a succesfull revolution. But that is more likely to be featured on Oprah. Any single-person analysis is going to leave most of the history aside to shoehorn it into the liberal tradition of history-writing.

So without an opinion about Sharp, I understand the frustration at the narrative.

("Liberal history" as a technical term among historians, should be seen in contrast with the conservative history it challenged were history was a morality play run by God, and the Marxist tradition that eventually mostly displaced the liberal one. Liberal history was a huge advance at its time, but is by now seen as hopelessly reductionist.)

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:07:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Links to recent articles about Sharp's work.

Albert Einstein Institution in the News (Off-site links)
The New York Times - "Shy U.S. Intellectual Created Playbook Used in a Revolution" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, February 16, 2011.

The Daily Beast - Profile of Gene Sharp by Samuel P. Jacobs, February 14, 2011.

New York Times - "Dual Uprisings Show Potent New Threats to Arab States" by David D. Kirkpatrick and David E. Sanger, February 14, 2011

Scientific American - "Egypt's revolution vindicates Gene Sharp's theory of nonviolent activism" by John Horgan, February 11, 2011

National Catholic Reporter - Interview with Gene Sharp by Claire Schaeffer-Duffy, February 4, 2011

CounterPunch - "Blind Faith and American Militarism" by Michael True, February 2, 2011

Jane's Intelligence Review - "Generation of '88, Kyaw Kyaw, NCUB director" - an interview with a member of the pro-democracy group in Burma, Oct 8, 2010

Pacific Daily News (Guam) - "People must know they have power" by A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, October 6, 2010

Associated Press - "Egypt's youth build new opposition Movement" by Sarah El Deeb, September 16, 2010

The New Yorker - "After the Crackdown, Talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--and the opposition--about Iran today" by Jon Lee Anderson, August 16, 2010

Utne Reader - "Lessons from the Godfather: Interview with Gene Sharp" by Jeff Severns Guntzel, July 2010

ScientificAmerican.com - "How George W. Bush rejected my 'Sharp' idea for countering terrorism" by John Horgan, July 19, 2010

Jewish Herald-Voice - "How to get rid of a dictatorship" by Aaron Howard, Jan 14, 2010

Georgian Daily - "Georgia: Looking Back At The Rose Revolution" by Alex van Oss, December 31, 2009

The Spectrum & Daily News" - "Harvard academic's ideas reach Iran" by Tad Trueblood, December 31, 2009

The Christian Science Monitor - "Iran protesters: the Harvard professor behind their tactics" by Scott Peterson, December 29, 2009

The Boston Globe - "Revolution of the Mind" by Farah Stockman, December 20, 2009

The Daily Star - "Beware of a brittle Iran" December 10, 2009

Slovo (Slovakia) - "Studená vojna novej generácie: farebné revolúcie" by Leopold Moravčík, December 4, 2009 (Off-site link; Google automated translation)

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - "Gene Sharp: Theoretician Of Velvet Revolution" by Michael Hirshman, November 27, 2009

The Rushford Report - "An Inconvenient Man" by Greg Rushford, September 21, 2009

YES! Magaine - "Weapons of Mass Democracy: Nonviolent Resistance Is the Most Powerful Tactic Against Oppressive Regimes" by Stephen Zunes, September 16, 2009

The Associated Press - "Iran: new audience for US scholar's protest guide" by Sebastian Abbot and Katarina Kratovac, June 26, 2009

The Wall Street Journal - "American Revolutionary: Quiet Boston Scholar Inspires Rebels Around the World" by Philip Shishkin, September 13, 2008

The Financial Times - "Defiance undeterred: Burmese activists seek ways to oust the junta" by Amy Kazmin, December 6, 2007

The Phoenix (Boston) - "The Dictator Slayer" by Adam Reilly, December 5, 2007

Ohio State University Alumni Magazine - "The Most Influential Man You Don't Know" by Charlie Euchner, November-December, 2007
More...

Most are quite recent.
It would seem the word is leaking out--now, it's a big leak.
Even my old alumni,(one of them) Ohio State University, was grudgingly admiring, while slipping in the obligatory waffles and CYA phrases, and that's saying a lot.
 

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:07:22 AM EST
you forgot the Angry Arab, who also has some opinions on the subject.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:01:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
here is a sample.

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:05:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
thanks.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:48:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We like to link to sources...

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:00:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ok.

but I just read the Wikipedia entry for Gene Sharp, which links to a NY Times article about his supposed influence in the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings.  We all know how reliable the NYT is.  

You know, I am wondering if this is how accepted history was written -   an incorrect but opinionated source used as a reference throughout recorded time.  It's a little bit depressing, to say the least.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:19:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"but I just read the Wikipedia entry for Gene Sharp, which links to a NY Times article about his supposed influence in the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings."

I'd already linked to this, it's a pity you don't actually bother to read what's being discussed.

 Informed history isn't written by people who dismiss things based on generalised claims such as "We all know how reliable the NYT is." You need to do the somewhat more demanding work of justifying the claim that this particular article is wrong or misleading - and not by the pathetic repetition that Angry Arab says so - I've already shown that he can't even report an article accurately.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:14:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia:

Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, formerly of the New York Times in Washington D.C. Her coverage of Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion garnered much controversy.[1] A number of stories she wrote while working for the New York Times later turned out to be inaccurate or completely false.

Miller was later involved in disclosing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. She spent three months in jail for claiming reporter's privilege and refusing to reveal her sources in the CIA leak. Miller retired from her job at the New York Times in November 2005. Later she was a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank. On December 29, 2010, numerous media outlets reported that she had signed on as a contributing writer to the conservative magazine Newsmax. [2][3]

I believe Bradblog may also have commented in passing on a few other minor terminological inexactitudes at the NYT over the years.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm well aware of that - and that the NYT admitted this and apologised for it and is likely to be more careful. So what ? This does not mean that everything in the NYT can be dismissed.  Has anyone else, besides Angry Arab, who can't read, disputed the NYT article? Have any of the people referred to as the leaders and some of whom referred to Sharp, disputed the NYT account ?  

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no doubt that people in the middle of a revolution can't possibly think of anything more pressing than writing LTEs to a foreign newspaper they don't even read.

But clearly you'd rather believe any old nonsense from the NYT - with its proven track record of dishonesty - than someone with this bio:

As'ad AbuKhalil, born March 16, 1960. From Tyre, Lebanon, grew up in Beirut. Received his BA and MA from American University of Beirut in pol sc. Came to US in 1983 and received his PhD in comparative government from Georgetown University. Taught at Tufts University, Georgetown University, George Washington University, Colorado College, and Randolph-Macon Woman's College. Served as a Scholar-in-Residence at Middle East Institute in Washington DC. He served as free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News, an experience that only served to increase his disdain for maintream US media. He is now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley.

Now - how on Earth could an individual with that background possibly offer an informed opinion about the Middle East?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
any old nonsense from the NYT

So you consider that in this instance (whatever its record, and we surely agree on that) the NYT is talking "any old nonsense"? Care to back that up with particulars?

As for the Angry Arab's credentials, sure. Does that make him an indisputable authority in every case?

As always, reports or opinions we are looking at should be judged on their merits. What we know of the source and how seriously we take it obviously enters into that judgement. But blanket dismissal or blanket approval shouldn't.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:46:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"But clearly you'd rather believe any old nonsense from the NYT - with its proven track record of dishonesty - than someone with this bio"

There's no evidence yet that it is nonsense, or reason to suppose that a report on the successful overthrow of a long-time ally of the US gov is significantly mistaken. As to Angry Arab I don't care about his credentials so much as what he says and as I've pointed out several times already he gets basic things wrong in commenting on the NYT article.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:43:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed on everything but the first sentence. While the NYT has apologized it has hardly mended its ways. See this for example.
by generic on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:41:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Although I'm not happy with your offhand remark that the Angry Arab can't read.
by generic on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:56:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
he's a professor, for crying out loud, at a reputable university.  better academic credentials than many that you cite.

also, saying he can't read can be construed as a really racist statement.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 08:07:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would help if you noted what had already been said - do I have to keep repeating myself too ? I've already pointed out that he: 1) he claims that Sharp is claiming credit when the NYT article he's commenting on explicitly says Sharp is not doing this and is a modest, retiring guy. 2) He claims "nobody" in Egypt knows Gene Sharp, but in the same article organisers of the revolution refer to him and the Muslim Brotherhood have published one of his books online.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
so Sharp is modest.  He founded an institute, for crying out loud.  how "modest" can he be?

that is also a subjective opinion, and hardly worthy of debate.

so, a few people seem to know his name.  that hardly proves anything.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is ridiculous.
In the original diary I quoted three very different sources with three different takes on the world in general. I did this for the obvious reason. These sources quoted a lot of Arabs who WERE on the street saying the man was influential, even seminal in places.
When it became clear that not a lot of the critics here either knew or intended to know much about Gene Sharp (the whole point of the diary), I laid down enough google food, from such a wide array of sources, that only a stone, someone totally disinterested or an ossified ideologue could fail to have an informed opinion.
And still we read references to sources so discretedited that they are laughable, and angry arguments from people who have not even read the post well, or the early links, let alone any of the work of Gene Sharp.
WSow. This is a low point around here.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quoting a source is not necessarily proof, you realize.  For example, someone just removed a line from the Wikipedia entry for Gene Sharp.  

And the NY Times with its neo-con agenda and dubious think tanks seem to have more validity here than left wing angry academics.  

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You quoted the NYT, Prospect and Voice of America.

You didn't quote any original Arabic sources.

And does this mean you're saying that Sharp has no links whatsoever to organisations like the ICNC? Or that you're saying the VA reports are simply lies?

Because if so, that's a hell of a stretch given the evidence trail - especially the ICNC link.

You know, it's not actually all that difficult to check Ackerman's history and connections.

I'll take the point about Einstein, but it still seems hi-falutin for someone who claims to be modest.

I'm not much bothered about Zunes' letter of support, because I'd rather look at the facts - and the facts really aren't as simple as you're claiming at all.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and I did quote an Arabic source.

but it got poohpoohed because some people here don't like him.

this doesn't seem to be a very rational method of evaluating the Truth.

it must be a new low in the history of this site.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I had to do your linking of Angry Arab for you, lazy as you are.

This must be a new low in your short history with this site.

Get off your high horse already.

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
IIRC, the commencement speaker at CSU-Stanislaus this year  was the noted scholar and intellectual Sarah Palin.
by greatferm (greatferm-at-email.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 01:58:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When I saw Angry Arab's email address was @CSUstan I couldn't stop laughing...

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Coincidentally, that was my reaction to the uncritical adulation here for the original NYT piece.

Also, this.

AbuKhalil loves Cal State Stanislaus and its students and would not consider trading it -- even for the more highly regarded UC Berkeley, where he is a visiting professor each spring.

"You know how shallow some Lebanese are about designer names, designer shoes, designer human beings, designer universities, excessive elegance?" he asked. "When I first came to Stanislaus, my mother was like, 'When are you going to leave? When are you going to leave?' She is a very well-educated person, very Francophile and very status obsessed. I had to tell her, 'You know, if you really want my happiness, you have to end this conversation. You have to accept that your son is happy at a non-prestigious university.' "

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wasn't laughing at the prestige of the campus, but at the Afghanistan, Pakistan, CSUstan...

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:49:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
the uncritical adulation here for the original NYT piece.

Do you really believe what you're writing? Or are you just dishonest?

"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet

by Melanchthon on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:09:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't consider being told that my post was a "new low for ET" when I questioned the facts and the tone of the NYT piece to be either.

YMMV.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 07:22:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your post?

Take a look at who Migeru said that to.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 07:57:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you mean you didn't appreciate what stevesim said to you... I don't know, maybe you understand what he's saying. My mileage varies.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 08:00:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, now! How many Arabic scholars can there be in the greater Stanislaus metro area? Oh, the joys of a career in academia.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 at 01:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
your opinion is just that - an opinion, not a fact.

he is also much more informed about the region than the NYTimes.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:42:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Angry Arab News Service
Comrade Talal sent me this (I cite with his permission): "I have to say that Tony Shadid made a huge difference to the coverage by the NYT of the recent Arab revolt. At his worst he was good, and at his best outstanding. The other NYT correspondents did not come close, and I am sure he would have been even better if the infamous NYT editors had let him loose." 

So - despite the "infamous NYT editors" (a judgement I agree with) - Angry Arab is passing on the word there can at least be some respectable material on the NYT.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
because the correspondent is Arabic.

he makes fun of Thomas Friedman a lot because of his level of Arab language comprehension, among other things.

The reason I quote Prof Abu Khalil so much is that he is one of the few Arabic bloggers around.  There are many who blog about the Middle East but they are American or Jewish and have a biased opinion which does not reflect that of the majority of the population.

He also reads a lot of the area's media, gets a lot of e-mail from various sources, and knows the culture.

IF the NYT had correspondents like this more often, and removed their Zionist slant, perhaps they could be considered credible in the far future.

But come on, their editorials by Cohen over the revolt in Egypt had "Israel, Israel, Israel" all over them.  Who can take that seriously?  Seriously.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:38:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I said I agreed with the opinion: "infamous NYT editors".

My point, that you have eluded, was that the Angry Arab is himself (by passing on the point of view of somebody he respects) accepting the notion that even the NYT can contain some decent material.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:50:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
perhaps, but I know people in NYC that say that they can't even get the local news right -  they talk about brownstones on the street where an accident occurred when  there are none on that street, for example.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 08:08:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh. I thought the Angry Arab was an authority. Never mind.

As for the anecdotes, if you can't link or make a proper reference, they're hearsay.

And I continue to agree the NYT is a lousy, biased paper. But that is not enough to blanket dismiss anything it publishes.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 08:52:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This isn't about the NYT, it's about whether or not the US is capable of, and interested in, running a PR campaign to promote its interests.

Reading around it's clear that the mythology of the Heroic Peace Activist doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If it stood out on its own, with no context, it might be plausible.

But let's be realistic here.

US foreign policy has a long history of installing, financing, arming and backing dictatorial regimes which back its imperial policies and interests as long as they retain control over their people.

In the past, Republican and Democratic presidents worked closely for over 30 years with the Trujillo dictatorship in the Dominican Republic; installed the autocratic Diem regime in pre-revolutionary Vietnam in the 1950’s; collaborated with two generations of Somoza family terror regimes in Nicaragua; financed and promoted the military coup in Cuba 1952, Brazil 1964, Chile in 1973, and in Argentina in 1976 and the subsequent repressive regimes. When popular upheavals challenged these US backed dictatorships, and a social as well as political revolution appeared likely to succeed, Washington responded with a three track policy: publicly criticizing the human rights violations and advocating democratic reforms; privately signaling continued support to the ruler; and thirdly, seeking an elite alternative which could substitute for the incumbent and preserve the state apparatus, the economic system and support US strategic imperial interests.

For the US there are no strategic relationships only permanent imperial interests, name preservation of the client state. The dictatorships assume that their relationships with Washington is strategic: hence the shock and dismay when they are sacrificed to save the state apparatus. Fearing revolution, Washington has had reluctant client despots, unwilling to move on, assassinated (Trujillo and Diem). Some are provided sanctuaries abroad (Somoza, Batista),others are pressured into power-sharing (Pinochet) or appointed as visiting scholars to Harvard, Georgetown or some other "prestigious" academic posting.

The Washington calculus on when to reshuffle the regime is based on an estimate of the capacity of the dictator to weather the political uprising, the strength and loyalty of the armed forces and the availability of a pliable replacement. The risk of waiting too long, of sticking with the dictator, is that the uprising radicalizes: the ensuing change sweeps away both the regime and the state apparatus, turning a political uprising into a social revolution. Just such a `miscalculation' occurred in 1959 in the run-up to the Cuban revolution, when Washing stood by Batista and was not able to present a viable pro US alternative coalition linked to the old state apparatus. A similar miscalculation occurred in Nicaragua, when President Carter, while criticizing Somoza, stayed the course, and stood passively by as the regime was overthrown and the revolutionary forces destroyed the US and Israeli trained military, secret police and intelligence apparatus, and went on to nationalize US property and develop an independent foreign policy.

Washington moved with greater initiative, in Latin America in the 1980's.It promoted negotiated electoral transitions which replaced dictators with pliable neo-liberal electoral politicians, who pledged to preserve the existing state apparatus, defend the privileged foreign and domestic elites and back US regional and international policies.

So that's the background. And we're supposed to believe that suddenly the NYT and almost every other media outlet of note have simultaneously discovered an ageing intellectual who just happened to write some books that just happened to find their way to the revolutionaries and just happened to inspire them towards an irresistibly non-violent rush to democracy?

And who is paying for this?

On February 9, Al Jazeera aired an episode in its People and Power series entitled "Egypt: Seeds of Change." The programme offers a revealing behind the scenes look at a core group of activists from the April 6 Youth Movement who played a crucial role in Egypt's nonviolent revolution.

"This is not a spontaneous uprising," reporter Elizabeth Jones stressed. "The revolution has been in the making for three years." The key to its success, we learn, was the instruction April 6 leaders received from veterans of groups like Otpor, the student movement that brought down Serbian president Slododan Milosevic.

Srdja Popovic, a leader of that revolution, we are told, "shared his firsthand experience with April 6." Mohamed Adel, one of the April 6 leaders, describes his training in Serbia in the tactics of nonviolent resistance, including "how to organise and get people out on the streets." He brought back videos and teaching aids to help train the other leaders, who are shown "directing the uprising from the start."

Since the ouster of Milosevic in 2000, Popovic has been busy spreading the gospel of nonviolent warfare. In 2003, he founded the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) in Belgrade. By spring 2010, the globe-trotting Serb reportedly had "five revolutions already under his belt." In a Mother Jones puff piece, Nicholas Schmidle writes: "CANVAS got off to an impressive start, training the pro-democracy campaigners in Georgia, Ukraine, and Lebanon who went on to lead the Rose, Orange, and Cedar revolutions, respectively."

But who funds it all? Schmidle, a fellow at the Soros-linked New America Foundation, cites Popovic: "CANVAS is '100 percent independent from any government' and funded entirely by private donors." Yet an LA Times profile of Nini Gogiberidze, a Georgian employee of CANVAS, says the group is funded in part by the near-governmental organisation Freedom House. "Gogiberidze," the Times adds, "is among Georgia's 'velvet' revolutionaries, a group of Western and local activists who make up a robust pro-democracy corps in this Caucasus country--so much of it funded by American philanthropist George Soros that one analyst calls the nation Sorosistan."

CANVAS works closely with the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), with which it has shared a number of staff members--including Dr. Stephen Zunes, who has collaborated with CANVAS in training Egyptian activists. Founded in 2002, the ICNC is funded entirely by Peter Ackerman, its founding chair. Ackerman, who chaired the board of Freedom House from September 2005 until January 2009, also indirectly funds CANVAS.

Ackerman's wealth derives mainly from his time at Drexel Burnham Lambert, the Wall Street investment bank that was forced into bankruptcy in February 1990 due to its involvement in illegal activities in the junk bond market. As special projects aide to junk bond king Michael Milken, Ackerman cleaned up. In 1988 alone, he took home a salary of $165 million for his critical role in financing Kohlberg Kravis Roberts's $26 billion leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco. But four months before Drexel collapsed into bankruptcy, Ackerman "beat a fortuitously timed retreat" to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. While the "king" was sentenced to 10 years for securities fraud, "the highest-paid of all of Michael R. Milken's minions" emerged as "the big winner" with a fortune of approximately $500 million--prompting one of his former colleagues to complain: "Peter Ackerman is a real Teflon guy."

Having successfully escaped "the stench of Drexel," Ackerman completed what BusinessWeek called "an improbable transformation from junk-bond promoter back to scholar." Prior to his financial exploits, he had written his doctoral thesis under the guidance of Gene Sharp, the Harvard academic whose theories of nonviolent struggle had inspired the velvet revolutionaries. In fact, while he was still working for Milken, Ackerman had been funding Sharp's Albert Einstein Institution. According to the Wall Street Journal, "A large part of ICNC's and Canvas's theoretical arsenal is drawn from Mr. Sharp's writings."

As part of his own contribution to worldwide revolution, Ackerman has helped produce two documentaries on nonviolent conflict and even a regime change video game.

So at the very least the home-grown revolution turns into a deliberately trained one.

But it's deliberately trained in non-violent conflict - as opposed to the more explosive conflict which might lead to social transformation.

This isn't a difficult jigsaw to piece together.

As for the NYT - if it hadn't been quite so obvious in its praise of Sharp, I doubt anyone would have noticed. As it was, from a PR point of view, when you see the same point of view being repeated from multiple sources during a period of heightened emotion you can be damn sure you're being gamed.

Because that's pretty much the textbook definition of a PR campaign. We're not talking about one little story in an obscure journal - we're talking about significant air time for this modest, hitherto undiscovered meek intellectual who just happens not to mention that a former military operative was president of his institute, and that he's funded by an apparently frictionless investment banker who spent significant time at the very non-violent International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Goodness me - what interesting company Mr Sharp keeps.

Meanwhile we still don't know why and how the Muslim Brotherhood were reading Sharp. Supposedly they just happened to find his work online - which is a fine story, and is perfectly believable if you ignore the obvious support efforts the US has been making for the last few years.

(Is the story even true? Where was it sourced originally?)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 09:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
excellent post!

I had completely forgotten about Soros and his links to "revolutions" which ended up installing American and in the case of Georgia, Israeli puppets in the name of "democracy".

Also, your research is excellent!

Well done!

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:06:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But who would be the target of this campaign? If we were talking about ElBaradei or the Google guy then I'd see the point of a hype campaign, but what is the nefarious plot behind claiming that some of the protesters read some book by an American?
I'd rather suspect that the western press is desperate to write about the Egyptian revolution without knowing much about it. They are just happy to find anything that seems relevant.
by generic on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in my opinion, it's to deflect the anger of the Egyptian people at Americans for repressing them for so long in order to maintain the peace with Israel, i.e. to make Americans look like good guys and not the self-serving repressive SOB's we are.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 11:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it's a ham-fisted attempt at that, but also - since most US foreign policy is for domestic consumption - to wave the "hey, we're the good guys!' flag at home.

It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to pretend that after 50 years of instituting and supporting some of the most odious, violent and repressive regimes on the planet that the US has any interest at all in peace or democracy.

Clearly, it has none at all. But it's very useful to pretend that it does.

Now that Sharp has been identified as the - reluctant - saviour of Egyptian democracy, no one needs to ask who sponsored Mubarak, who trained his secret police, who supplied military aid, or who kept the country impoverished in the first place.

For many avid readers, the narrative is now full of hope that the rioting African savages can be civilised into modernity after all - but only when gently guided by the wise and mature counsel of a more serious and established intellectual tradition.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh of course, referring to this one guy is all a cunning capitalist plot to excuse the US government's support for dictators for decades. What rubbish.

It was young Egyptians who mentioned him:

When Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement was struggling to recover from a failed effort in 2005, its leaders tossed around "crazy ideas" about bringing down the government, said Ahmed Maher, a leading strategist. They stumbled on Mr. Sharp while examining the Serbian movement Otpor, which he had influenced.
...

Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian blogger and activist ... said that some activists translated excerpts of Mr. Sharp's work into Arabic, and that his message of "attacking weaknesses of dictators" stuck with them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17sharp.html

The fact that some of them said they found some of his ideas useful hardly makes him a "saviour of Egyptian democracy" - except in your cartoon world. Another NYT article makes it clear that the organisers were bright, informed people who used net skills to help organise things, but they themselves pay tribute to the majority who risked their lives:


"When I looked around me and I saw all these unfamiliar faces in the protests, and they were more brave than us -- I knew that this was it for the regime," Mr. Maher said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html

And some already had experience of confronting police:

"The youth of the Muslim Brotherhood played a really big role," Mr. Maher said. "But actually so did the soccer fans" of Egypt's two leading teams. "These are always used to having confrontations with police at the stadiums," he said.

ibid

Also noted is Egyptian pride in their own level of civilisation:

"Eighty-five million people live in Egypt, and less than 1,000 people died in this revolution -- most of them killed by the police," said Mr. Ghonim, the Google executive. "It shows how civilized the Egyptian people are." He added, "Now our nightmare is over. Now it is time to dream."

ibid

Not quite the caricature you try to pass off.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:05:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
is this like Thomas Friedman's quoting of a taxi driver?
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that supposed to be an intelligent response ?

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ah, the ad hominem attacks commence!

yes, how do I know this woman exists and that the NYT is telling the truth about what she said?

they've lied before and are not above inventing comments from people to support their stories, à la Tom Friedman.

you dismissed my source, and I have a very valid argument to dismiss yours.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Couldn't you do some elementary checking for yourself - try using Google (if that's not too "white man" for you):

http://daliaziada.blogspot.com/

The NYT is at least not stupid enough to just invent Egyptians and comments by them which could be revealed as inventions.

I didn't just dismiss your source, I showed where he had got things wrong - stupid of him since it's easy to check what the NYT did actually say.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
wow.  you are really on a roll.

they are stupid enough to invent people.  they have done it before.  

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think ONE of their reporters was stupid enough to do this, and so was fired.  The fact remains that you could have checked one of the named bloggers and had you done so you'd see she exists.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:12:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This isn't about the NYT, it's about whether or not the US is capable of, and interested in, running a PR campaign to promote its interests.

Who is supposed to be denying that the US is capable running a PR campaign to support it's interests? Nobody here I think.  We were discussing allegations against Gene Sharp after the NYT report.

The rest is is worthy of McCarthy, guilt by association: "Goodness me - what interesting company Mr Sharp keeps."

"who just happens not to mention that a former military operative was president of his institute"

1) that's false, of course Sharp has "mentioned" him:

Sharp's ties to Helvey raise one more important point. Perhaps, if the major proponent of Sharp's work had been an impeccably credentialed lefty rather than a former military man, Sharp's harshest critics wouldn't find him quite so spooky. But his collaboration with Helvey bolsters Sharp's own contention that nonviolent struggle isn't just a feel-good hobby for idealists and pacifists (he's not one himself). It is, instead, an intensely practical way to affect massive political change. "You don't have to be a saint; you don't have to be a mahatma," he tells me. "Ordinary people have done these things."

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/52417-dictator-slayer/

2) The guy beaten up while peacefully demonstrating at a speech by Clinton the other day is also a "former military operative" and even a CIA analyst, but is now part of Veterans for Peace - clearly must still be a covert CIA guy.

These allegations about Sharp ignore his bio, more telling than Angry Arab's academic record:

 the portrayal of Sharp as a crypto-imperialist just doesn't jibe with his own biography. After getting bachelor's and master's degrees from Ohio State, for example, he refused to serve in the Korean War, and did a prison stint in Connecticut as a result. After getting out, he spent a year and a half as an assistant to A.J. Muste, the pacifist labor and anti-war activist. And, notes USF's Zunes, a number of former Sharp protégés have become vocal critics of America's conduct abroad. "If it weren't for the fact that some people actually believe it," says Zunes of the notion that Sharp is a surrogate for the US government, "it'd be laughable."

ibid

It also ignores the open letter rejecting such allegations against Sharp, signed by such long-time and respected anti-imperialists as Chomsky and Zinn:


A charge made against Sharp by the Iranian government and Hugo Chavez--and echoed by some in this country--is that he acts in cahoots with U.S. officialdom in subverting anti-American governments. This is absurd, since Sharp's work has played a significant role in movements against Israel and Mubarak's Egypt, the two most pro-American countries in the Middle East.

"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," stated a 2008 open letter signed by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, among many others.

Gene Sharp is a global treasure who deserves much more recognition here at home.

Amitabh Pal, the managing editor of The Progressive magazine

http://www.progressive.org/ap021711.html

 



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 11:38:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
This isn't about the NYT, it's about whether or not the US is capable of, and interested in, running a PR campaign to promote its interests.

Shifting goalposts, some. My comments were clearly about the value of sources and our attitude to them, so, sorry, but for me it was about the NYT. (Or the Angry Arab or any other source). And you don't need to convert me on American PR. Or the NYT's role in it.

I did ask you to support your claim that the NYT wrote "any old nonsense" about Sharp, so thanks for providing some backing. I'm not sure it's conclusive, (there seem to be counter-arguments), but then, I'm not in this discussion to attack or defend Gene Sharp, rather to insist on standards we usually apply round here.

afew:

reports or opinions we are looking at should be judged on their merits. What we know of the source and how seriously we take it obviously enters into that judgement. But blanket dismissal or blanket approval shouldn't.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Considering that you've just dismissed all my sources your point is - what, exactly?

And no, this is not about the NYT as a paper - this is about the NYT is being used (again) to craft a useful but misleading narrative.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have dismissed all your sources? What are you on about?

And what I was saying, to which you replied, was about the NYT as a source, whether you like it or not.

My point is perfectly clear. Just read.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in this back-and-forth is that most of us are reading European media, in a variety of languages, and wouldn't dream of taking the NYT, or any other US media, as a reference on the Middle East. We're keenly aware of the "Israel" filter through which US media view the Middle East. This is a specifically US phenomenon.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 08:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
it's more than the NYT.  It's all of American and English culture and media.  They really think they are superior and having something to each others, when in fact, their history and culture is short and very soaked in blood and would have much to learn if they descended off their high horse and listened to people from other cultures.  

They mould history and "Western" culture according to their preferences, and I really don't like it.

The French are no better.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 08:23:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So whoever is "Western" is tarred with the same brush?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 08:55:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
we Westerners have to admit that is how we built our civilization and wealth.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 09:00:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And when we do, are we allowed to have an opinion on world affairs beyond the West?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 09:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
my philosophy is:

do whatever you want.  your choice will reflect your nature.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 09:37:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is the most phenomenally bullshit response I think I've seen on this blog. Congratulations!
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you mean apart from what you spew?
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This thread has passed the "more heat than light" threshold.

Considering you consistently fail to substantiate your claims or link to sources, you might want to consider toning down a bit, too.

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ok
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:50:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My comment at least contained a hint of humour.

No congratulations on your reply to it.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you call that humour?  here's some free advice - keep your day job. ;-)
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have formulated this authoritative opinion based on extensive readings of French media coverage of the Middle East, I imagine?

I'm just trying to point out that there is a whole range of information sources between the NYT and Angry Arab. And some of them are quite good. There are, for example, a fair number of French journalists that speak Arabic; and a fair number of Arab journalists that speak French. There is, in fact, significant cultural interpenetration between France and North Africa, due to a long (and blood-soaked) colonial history. (There is also a high degree of cultural interpenetration with Israel, but it is not all-pervasive in the media).

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 09:29:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
mais oui.  Je lisais Le Monde et Marianne à chacune de leurs parutions mais j'ai commencé à douter de leur appartenance à la gauche pendant les guerres d'Irak et d'Afghanistan. Et surtout que l'ancien ambassadeur d'Israel écrit régulièrement pour Marianne - pas trop biasé, non?

comment dit-on "droit d'ingérence" en anglais?

Le Nouvel Ob et Libé ne sont guère meilleurs.

voilà!

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 09:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I never considered that Marianne was on the left... Le Monde ceased to be so, progressivement, over the past couple of decades. Liberation is hardly any better, and fairly lightweight on foreign policy, so barely worth reading.

I have no problem with the Israeli ambassador having a regular column in a publication -- journalisme d'opinion is great, everything is transparent.
What I object to is having his opinions relayed by a supposedly objective journalist.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 09:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Marianne is supposed to reflect the Republican ideals of France -  liberté, égalité, fraternité

it does a pretty good job, except with regards to Israel

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:49:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is usually how the common version of history is written, yes. Gives something for future historians to deconstruct.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's another sample showing that "angry" may be an accurate description but "accurate" isn't; he just repeats his old "nobody in Egypt knows him" line, which I've already answered above - key organisers DO know of him and have read him and the Muslim Brotherhood published one of his books online.


Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:45:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody in The West™ knows him either, and that proves what, exactly?

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe you could now deal with what I said.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that seems to be a very subjective point.  
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:34:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it's not.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:48:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
key organisers DO know of him and have read him and the Muslim Brotherhood published one of his books online.

Maybe it just got lost in the confusion here, but what, precisely, is our reason to believe that these people were, in fact, "key organisers?" Are we going on an American newsie's say-so here, or do we have some sort of verifiable primary source for that claim?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:32:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We could hardly forget when you keep citing him, despite the fact that his "arguments" are more angry than intelligent, e.g. that Sharp was taking credit for the Egyptian revolution, specifically denied in the NYT article  AA himself refers to ( as I already pointed out) and he's not the only Arab who's referred to Sharp, and the others were ones centrally involved in Egypt, not just yelling angrily from the US.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:07:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I keep citing him because he cites many, many sources from the Arab world.

In this case, I really don't trust any American or even English news agencies' stories about the region because:

  •  they don't speak the language
  •  the don't understand the history or the culture
  •  they have an agenda, which can or cannot be unconscious, but still exists.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 Unsubstantiated assertions:

You don't know that they don't speak the language - none of their correspondents ? !

You don't know that they don't know the history and culture

Does Angry Arab have an "agenda" ? What matters is what's claimed and whether there is any evidence for it, not dismissing things because of even unconscious agendas.

Again you rely on generalised, uninformed dismissals rather than any actual evidence about specific examples which might support your allegations.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:32:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
even Robert Fisk, who has lived in Lebanon for over 20 years, doesn't speak Arabic

Thomas Friedman claims to, but confuses 17 with 70

Cohen from the NYT seems to have a good command of the language

but various Arab bloggers post about the language skills of the foreign correspondents assigned to their country and it is often repeated "doesn't speak Arabic"

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So, for ONE of your assertions you have one example - and Friedman made  a mistake, then an example against your assertion (Cohen)  and some Arab bloggers say SOME foreign correspondents don't speak Arabic.

Is that it ?

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And your substantiated assertion is that the Egyptian revolutionary cadres are avid readers of the NYT? That while their compatriots were being slaughtered they were taking breaks to debate Brooks, Dowd, and the Moustache of Understanding?

Your compelling evidence for this is where, exactly?

I'm sure that Angry Arab will be delighted to know that his own biography doesn't count as evidence of achievement.

Still - I expect he can console himself with the thought that if he was writing for the NYT you'd believe everything he said, based on its proven expertise, impeccable track record, and convincing contrition when caught lying.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:53:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I asked if ANYONE had questioned the NYT's reports of what some of the people in the revolution had said in interviews.

They are very net-savvy young people so even they, especially since Mubarak left, are quite likely to read the NYT stuff on their revolution online.

Re the NYT, as afew pointed out:


The Angry Arab News Service


Comrade Talal sent me this (I cite with his permission): "I have to say that Tony Shadid made a huge difference to the coverage by the NYT of the recent Arab revolt. At his worst he was good, and at his best outstanding. The other NYT correspondents did not come close, and I am sure he would have been even better if the infamous NYT editors had let him loose."

So - despite the "infamous NYT editors" (a judgement I agree with) - Angry Arab is passing on the word there can at least be some respectable material on the NYT.


I'm sure that Angry Arab will be delighted to know that his own biography doesn't count as evidence of achievement.

I'm sure you'll continue to ignore relevant evidence such as Sharp's bio that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.


Still - I expect he can console himself with the thought that if he was writing for the NYT you'd believe everything he said, based on its proven expertise, impeccable track record, and convincing contrition when caught lying.

If you don't have any arguments resort to caricature again. No, I don't believe everything that's in the NYT, but then I don't adopt the stupid position of rejecting everything that's in it either. You haven't shown that the NYT has got anything wrong in this case, so again you just caricature what it says.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that's so funny.  the NYT filters their comments like a Brita water filter.

even if they had read the article in the NYT and disagreed with it, that is assuming they  even exist, are you sure willing to grant the NYT the benefit of the doubt that they would post such comments.

LOL

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't say it had to be in the NYT, does your mate Angry Arab or any Egyptian blogger question what they said ?  Anyway of course they do include comments critical of them. If they refuse them people post elsewhere, note that the NYT censored them and they look even worse.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sadly, that logic only applies to outlets that a) are not anointed with institutional credibility by being Serious, and b) have a non-negligible share of readers who might happen across such indictments. Neither is true for NYT.

Which is not to say that they systematically memory-hole comments contradicting their news and views. I really can't say one way or the other. I have never been sufficiently motivated to wade through the crazy in their comments long enough to learn anything interesting about their comment policy.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:58:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the entire area is "angry".  why should he be any different, and what better harbinger that he reflects the mood of the populace?
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because he's angry too he must be accurate ? - now you go beyond parody :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:33:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
accurate?  you mean like a Swiss watch?

or does he reflect the mood, the Zeitgeist if you will, of his people?

on the second point, a definite "yes"

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:43:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To this point, the most interesting aspect to the response to my diary is that no one except perhaps Ted seems to have bothered to READ the man.
If I'm wrong, tell me.

WHO HERE HAS BOTHERED TO READ SOMETHING THAT GENE SHARP HAS WRITTEN?

--Some small part of the body of work that so impressed Chomsky, Zinn and so many other luminaries of the thoughtful left?

The lack of any real support for your angry arguments, stevesim, is obvious. If you had any real ammo, you'd have fired it off. Nothing in your many comments supports your angry assertions, and I've read them all at least twice.

TBG, your gratuitous and unnecessary history lesson has so little to do with the question "So who pays for all this"? My head swims searching for any connection with Sharp Unless you're asserting that, as a taxpayer, he's as screwed as the rest of us. I'll grant that point. As well, it's equally hard to find a logical frame for the rest of your slashing attack other than a cynical refusal to accept the possibility that there might be good, honorable men out there, and some of them might even be Americans. That's a problem I've encountered before with your comments, but I set it aside because I respect your intellect.

But this time it's tough.
You treat us to a revelatory journey into arcane organizational trivia, and eventually reveal that-- Shazam! One of his donors has a bio that suggests a crooked financial history.
That's --it?
Jeez. Shades of Gene McCarthy. Sounds a lot like J. Edgar Hoover's elaborate decades-long search for evil in MLK's heart (or pants), turning up a used condom and a doubtful merit badge. Or all the years of frothing over Clinton's blow job- we all know such things rot your brain. Don't they? (Drool).

But, now that you put it all together for me,-- jeez. I should have tumbled to the plot right off. Stupid me. Somewhere under that single room in his small home, guarded faithfully by his single female assistant lies the headquarters of a vast, well-funded intercontinental PR plot, supported by dough from a crook who just barely escaped the slammer for securities fraud. Of course. Just the sort of thing Mr. Teflon would do.
A PR --or more properly, a psywar operation, an evil  Media Medusa that has used once again all the compliant, servile major media, but also has sucked in international leftist media from 15 countries (that I can count, from his site) and has flimflammed an incredible list of high-powered thinkers alive and dead.
Jeez. If the evil empire is this slick, this powerful, ---what can us miserable ordinaries do?

Think I'll just suck off the gas water heater.


Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is a good article on your Gene Sharp and his CIA links.  It explains what a wonderful man he is!

Coups d'État soft
L'Albert Einstein Institution : la non-violence version CIA
par Thierry Meyssan*   

[Article publié le 4 janvier 2005.]

Inconnu du grand public, le philosophe Gene Sharp a élaboré une théorie de la non-violence comme arme politique. Pour le compte de l'OTAN, puis de la CIA, il a formé les leaders des coups d'État soft des quinze dernières années.

Dans les années cinquante, Gene Sharp a étudié la théorie de la désobéissance civile d'Henry D. Thoreau et de Mohandas K. Gandhi. Pour ces auteurs, l'obéissance et la désobéissance sont des questions morales ou religieuses avant d'être politiques. Ils opposent une loi supérieure à un ordre civil. Cependant la mise en pratique de leurs convictions eut des conséquences politiques, de sorte que ce qu'ils considéraient comme une fin en soi peut être appréhendé comme un moyen. La désobéissance civile peut alors être considérée comme une technique d'action politique, voire militaire.

En 1983, Gene Sharp créé le Programme sur les sanctions non-violentes au Centre des affaires internationales de l'université d'Harvard. Il y développe des recherches en sciences sociales sur l'usage possible de la désobéissance civile par la population ouest-européenne pour faire face à une éventuelle invasion par les troupes du Pacte de Varsovie. Simultanément, il fonde à Boston l'Albert Einstein Institution avec pour double mission de financer ses recherches universitaires et d'appliquer ses modèles à des situations concrètes. En 1985, il publie un ouvrage sur la manière de Rendre l'Europe impossible à conquérir [1] dont l'édition états-unienne est préfacée par l'ambassadeur George F. Kennan, père de la Guerre froide. En 1987, l'association bénéficie de subventions de l'Institut des États-Unis pour la paix (U.S. Institute for Peace). Elle organise des séminaires pour former les Alliés à la défense par la désobéissance civile face à un occupant communiste. Ainsi le général Georges Fricaud-Chagnaud introduit le concept de « dissuasion civile » à la Fondation des études de la défense nationale [2].
L'Institut est intégré dans le dispositif du réseau stay-behind d'ingérence états-unienne dans les États alliés par le général Edward B. Atkeson, alors détaché par l'US Army auprès du directeur de la CIA [3].

La focalisation sur la moralité des moyens d'action permet d'évacuer tout débat sur la légitimité de l'action. La non-violence, admise comme bonne en elle-même et assimilée à la démocratie, favorise le blanchiment des actions secrètes, intrinséquement non-démocratiques.

Gene Sharp
C'est en 1989 que l'Albert Einstein Institution prend son essort. Gene Sharp prodigue ses conseils à des mouvements anti-communistes. Il participe à la mise en place de l'Alliance démocratique de Birmanie, une coalition de notables anti-communistes qui parvient bientôt à entrer dans le gouvernement militaire ; et du Parti progressiste démocratique de Taiwan qui milite pour l'indépendance de l'île par rapport à la Chine communiste alors qu'officiellement les États-Unis s'y opposent ; ou encore, il rassemble les divers groupes d'opposition tibétains autour du Dalaï Lama. Il tente aussi de former un groupe de dissidents au sein de l'OLP, qui pourrait conduire les nationalistes palestiniens à renoncer au terrorisme [4]. Il leur dispense secrètement une formation dans les locaux de l'ambassade des États-Unis à Tel-Aviv en liaison avec le colonel Reuven Gal [5], directeur de l'Action psychologique au sein des Forces armées israéliennes.

Réalisant le potentiel de l'Albert Einstein Institution, la CIA y délégue un spécialiste de l'action clandestine, le colonel Robert Helvey, alors doyen de l'École de formation des attachés militaires d'ambassade. « Bob » introduit Gene Sharp en Birmanie pour qu'il forme idéologiquement l'opposition : contester de manière non-violente la junte militaire la plus sanglante du monde, c'est-à-dire en critiquer l'étroitesse, sans remettre en cause le système. Helvey trie ainsi les « bons » et les « mauvais » opposants dans un moment critique pour Washington : l'opposition véritable, conduite par Mme Suu Kyi, ne cesse de marquer des points et menace le régime pro-US. « Bob » le fait avec d'autant plus de facilité qu'il connaît personnellement tout les protagonistes, ayant été attaché militaire à Rangoon de 1983 à 1985 et ayant participé à la structuration de la dictature. Jouant un double jeu, le colonel Helvey dirige simultanément une action de soutien militaire classique à la résistance Karen : Washington veut en effet se garder un moyen de pression sur la junte en armant et en contrôlant une guérilla limitée.

Désormais toujours présent là où les intérêts états-uniens sont en jeu, Gene Sharp et son assistant Bruce Jenkins arrivent à Pékin en juin 1989, deux semaines avant les évènements de Tien-an-men. Ils seront rapidement expulsés par les autorités chinoises.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article15870.html

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:03:02 PM EST
and also helping Iraqi traitors coming back to Iraq after the US invasion:

En septembre 2002, Gene Sharp est à La Haye pour former les membres de l'Iraqi National Council qui s'apprêtent à entrer en Irak dans les bagages de l'US Army.

En septembre 2003, c'est encore l'Albert Einstein Institution qui conseille à l'opposition de contester le résultat des élections et manifester jusqu'à la démission d'Edouard Chevardnadze [9], lors de la « révolution » des roses en Géorgie

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
forgot the link

http://www.voltairenet.org/article15870.html

it is the venerable voltairenet.org that is hosting this article.

Gene Sharp is not who he seems to be!

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup. I told you- it's all under that bedroom floor.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, yes, this is a very reliable source!

Voltaire Network

The Voltaire Network was especially vocal after the attacks on the World Trade Center of the 11th of September 2001, Meyssan claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.
...
In a widely mediatised book, 9/11 The Big Lie, Thierry Meyssan, president of the network, claimed that the 11th of September 2001 was due to an internal plot within the US administration. The Network broadcast this declaration widely.


"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet
by Melanchthon on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
SEriously? this guy?


In 2002, he published the controversial work on the September 11 terrorist attacks--9/11: The Big Lie--in which Meyssan argues that such attacks were organized by a faction of what he calls "the US military industrial complex" in order to impose a military regime. The book was translated into 28 languages;[3] it was followed by Le Pentagate, a book arguing that the attack against the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but a missile.

The central thesis of Le Pentagate, that a Boeing 757 did not hit The Pentagon, has been heavily criticised by other prominent 9/11 conspiracists such as Jim Hoffman.[4][5][6]

He started a campaign at the United Nations to initiate an international investigation commission to revisit the general consensus regarding the 9/11 attacks, but he was not able to reach his objective. There was little support, except from the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Stop digging.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
same comment about Einstein writing the introduction to his book.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
so it turns out that the US and Germany had sent operatives to Tunisia to try to channel the revolution and control it in the direction they wished it to go:

Simultanément, des experts états-uniens (mais aussi serbes et allemands) sont envoyés en Tunisie pour canaliser l'insurrection. Ce sont eux qui, surfant sur les émotions collectives, tentent d'imposer des slogans dans les manifestations. Selon la technique des prétendues « révolutions » colorées, élaborée par l'Albert Einstein Institution de Gene Sharp [5], ils focalisent l'attention sur le dictateur pour éviter tout débat sur l'avenir politique du pays. C'est le mot d'ordre « Ben Ali dégage ! » [6].

http://www.noslibertes.org/dotclear/index.php?tag/Moyen%20Orient

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:04:15 PM EST
so I guess that is what the people quoted by the NYT meant when they said that Gene Sharp had influenced them?  the CIA gave them Sharp's books and told some of them what to do?

when will you guys ever learn?  

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If all the background information on Sharp is correct, he specializes in shadowy operations, organizing spontaneous uprisings without anybody getting a clue that the U.S. was involved. If he really was behind the Egypt uprisings, surely the U.S., rather than wanting to advertise the fact (and thus ruin the whole thing) would want to keep his involvement a secret. This means that the NYT, rather than being part of the conspiracy, actually spoilt it all, presumably out of incompetence.

If the U.S. really wants to influence the revolution, there's a much easier way. Emphasize the Facebook/Google people's role (who are likely, like many technical people, to have neolib instincts) and ignore the role of the trade unions. Come to think of it, that's just what the western media seem to be doing.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 05:33:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, if Gene Sharp becomes a NY Times bestseller, should we expect a grassroots revolt in the US within 5 years?

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 05:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's happening already. It's known as the Tea Party. Sorry....
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just some examples from the NYT:

By KAREEM FAHIM and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: February 9, 2011

CAIRO -- Labor strikes and worker protests that flared across Egypt on Wednesday affected post offices, textile factories and even the government's flagship newspaper, providing a burst of momentum to protesters demanding the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, even as his government pushed back with greater force against the opponents' demands.
...
More than 2,000 workers from the Sigma pharmaceutical company in Quesna began a strike while about 5,000 unemployed youths stormed a government building in Aswan, demanding the dismissal of the governor.

Postal workers protested in shifts, Ms. Refaat said. In Cairo, sanitation workers demonstrated outside their headquarters.

In Al Ahram's lobby, journalists called their protest a microcosm of the Egyptian uprising, with young journalists leading demands for better working conditions and less biased coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/world/middleeast/10egypt.html

Freed by Egypt's Revolt, Workers Press Demands

By KAREEM FAHIM
Published: February 16, 2011

CAIRO -- Egyptian workers and the country's military chiefs squared off again on Wednesday as strikes and labor protests spread to the Cairo airport and the nation's largest textile factory, despite pleas by the military for people to get back to work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17labor.html

Suez Canal Workers Join Broad Strikes in Egypt

By ANTHONY SHADID
Published: February 17, 2011

CAIRO -- Hundreds of workers went on strike on Thursday along the Suez Canal, one of the world's strategic waterways, joining others across Egypt pressing demands for better wages and conditions. The protests have sent the economy reeling and defied the military's attempt to restore a veneer of the ordinary after President Hosni Mubarak's fall last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/middleeast/18egypt.html



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 05:51:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks. But notice the standard MSM framing, giving the impression that this is the result of the success of the Facebook uprising, rather that a continuation of a labour uprising that has been going on for the last few years, in parallel to, but obviously linked to, the other uprising.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:02:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You should have tried reading them - after I did the work you might have done before making your claims. Your little media conspiracy theory collapses :-)


But they also seem to underscore the growing confidence of workers whose activism in recent years -- despite a ban on strikes and the formation of independent unions -- served as a critical root of the revolution. The workers' role grew in the days before Mr. Mubarak stepped down, as strikes involving thousands of workers spread across the country.

...
The recent strikes build on what labor organizers contend was their critical role in the uprising that toppled Mr. Mubarak: a grass-roots mobilization that seemed to find its own steam without the help of Facebook or Twitter or any kind of a national labor network.

One labor organizer and 20 of his colleagues, using cellphones, spread the word of a strike to a textile mill in Alexandria and a chemical factory in Aswan. The health technicians' union reached out to steelworkers. Fliers were distributed all over the country last week by organizations like the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt and Ms. Refaat's group.

One flier said: "Three hundred young people have paid with their lives as a price for our freedom. The path is open for all of us."

That labor leaders could organize strikes on the spur of the moment should come as no surprise, they say. They developed tight bonds over "many years of meetings and joint struggle for our rights," said Muhammad Abdelsalam al-Barbari of the Coordinating Committee for Labor Freedoms and Rights. "It was natural during the protests to ask around about what labor action is being taken here and there."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17labor.html



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:43:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, but I've read plenty of similar stories in the early days of the uprising without this information, which I learnt from other sources (you should have quoted the key parts). I wasn't claiming conspiracy, just standard ignorance and laziness. It looks like the NYT has finally figured out what was going on - they usually do, eventually (though I would still be curious to know what fraction of the coverage this represents).
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:53:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

First the unions are "ignored", refute that and it's "They don't deal with it in the right way", refute that and it's "It's too late and not enough" - just keep setting the barriers higher and you'll be "right" in the end without having to do any research yourself - what was that about "laziness" ?

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 08:21:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not so much laziness, as finding other things a lot more interesting. For example, more details about the trade unions, their internal politics, and so on. If anybody has detailed information, it would be interesting to discuss it here: I've managed to find very little (I've tried the Egyptian press using Google translate, but I don't know where to even begin to search). After following them for the first week or so I have absolutely no interest in watching the  MSM catch up with the facts.

But as for the MSM, with, I admit, very superficial knowledge of what they've been writing for the past week or so, your sarcastic "too late and not enough" actually contains some truth. Too late, since most people form their opinions from the initial coverage. Not enough: where are the background stories on the individuals involved? (This time I'm serious - if the NYTimes has such stories I really would like to see them). How many people even here are aware of the scale of things? Close to a third (I seem to recall 28%) of the workforce unionized. Literally thousands of labour protests over the past few years. The quotes you give don't really give a feel of the scale (I apologize if this is elsewhere in the article - not laziness this time, but the lack of a login and password....). It just struck me that the amount of time wasted on a unclear conspiracy theory concerning Gene Sharp (not the discussion of the institute itself which is very interesting, but the specific accusations in the case of Egypt) was completely out of proportion compared to the more important issues.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 09:33:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As predicted, while accepting that while it's true that  the unions were not "ignored", as alleged, nor were they necessarily presented as less significant than the facebook people, you DO now add to the requirements: "Too late, since most people form their opinions from the initial coverage. Not enough", oh and not quite the right "feel" for you.

Well I didn't research this exhaustively, but the earliest one of those I cited, Published Feb 9th, before Mubarak left, has this, but I'm sure this isn't enough and it could have been even earlier, even fuller, a better "feel", etc. But then the NYT IS MSM and not in the business of fulfilling the most exacting requirements of those of us on the left;  


Even protests that were not directly against Mr. Mubarak centered on the types of government neglect that have driven the call for him to leave power.

Protesters in Port Said, a city of 600,000 at the mouth of the Suez Canal, set fire to a government building, saying local officials had ignored their requests for better housing. And in one of the most potentially significant labor actions, thousands of workers for the Suez Canal Authority continued a sit-in on Wednesday, though there were no immediate suggestions of disruptions of shipping in the canal, a vital international waterway.
...

Increasingly, the political clamor for Mr. Mubarak's ouster seemed to be complemented by strikes nationwide. While many strikes seemed to focus on specific grievances related to working conditions, labor leaders suggested they were energized by protests against Mr. Mubarak.

Rahma Refaat, a lawyer at the Center for Trade Union and Worker Services, said, "Most of those on strike say that we have discovered that the resources of our country have been stolen by the regime."

The protest against the Suez Canal Authority began Tuesday night and was staged by about 6,000 workers. In Helwan, 6,000 workers at the Misr Helwan Spinning and Weaving Company went on strike, Ms. Refaat said.

More than 2,000 workers from the Sigma pharmaceutical company in Quesna began a strike while about 5,000 unemployed youths stormed a government building in Aswan, demanding the dismissal of the governor.

Postal workers protested in shifts, Ms. Refaat said. In Cairo, sanitation workers demonstrated outside their headquarters.

In Al Ahram's lobby, journalists called their protest a microcosm of the Egyptian uprising, with young journalists leading demands for better working conditions and less biased coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/world/middleeast/10egypt.html




Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 05:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
why don't you check the facts yourself, including the thing about the book and Einstein's death?
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:33:52 PM EST
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry, I did not explain myself well.

I am paraphrasing the author in the post above because I couldn't do a cut and paste.  Here is the integrality of the passage.

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.11 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."12

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 04:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
also from the same source:

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

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 05:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
hmm.  this student has investigated Meyssan's claims and seems to be saying the same thing about Sharp.

It was a reviewed thesis, so I suppose they did a better job than they did for von and zu Guttenburg.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 05:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The benign empire? Nonviolent imperialism

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.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 05:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry, also a quote from the dissertation.
by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 05:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
another citation:

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.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 05:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
here is the quote from Engdahl in its original context:

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.

http://oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Myanmar/myanmar.html

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 05:16:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have read every comment, every link. This link is a good example.
The description of events here and of the evil "Concertmaster" is a travesty of honest reporting, and is typical of the links you have posted.
oilgeopolitics offers not a shred of proof, but only a lurid soap opera of manipulation and deception.
It's believable only because the tactics of the United States have for so long been, indeed, manipulation and deception.
We all know that.
 But to use this fact as a club to beat someone, without a shred of evidence but more self-referential screed, to sink to the level of guilt by association masquerading as reporting is below the standards of honest inquiry.
Endless repetition is not evidence, but the tired tool of a propagandist.
I'd like to think we can do better than that, here.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 05:25:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where do you get that this was a "doctoral thesis" and "reviewed"? It was a paper for a conference at Illinois State. As for review, the conference seems to have voted on the many papers presented. This one, "Making the Pipelines Conquerable", didn't make it to the top three undergrad or grad papers. It has not been otherwise published, being available only as an MSWord document.

It contains little in the way of evidence other than vague association of ideas. To take the example you quote, presumably approvingly:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com etc...

Meyssan also asserted that the Albert Einstein Institution is backed financially by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)[10] 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.[11]   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."[12]

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.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 09:03:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, while the "colour revolutions," taken as a whole, stink to high heaven, there is no reason that they have to be connected, or even that they all have to be outside operations. There is no immediately obvious reason why Declan Ganley and Michail Saakashvili should be part of the same operation, or why the Ukrainian oligarchs that revolted against the other faction of Ukrainian oligarchs should have needed outside help to do so.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 10:09:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I will post more in the next few days, but they are connected, and so in Gene Sharp, via his colleagues in his institute.
by stevesim on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
afew - stevesim is a complete waste of time, I was tired yesterday and needed some adrenaline so launched into the fray :-) and I enjoy checking things out.

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.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought it was worth investigating the "reviewed doctoral thesis", and I note that stevesim avoided recognizing the facts. It's from the rulebook: when your specious "evidence" is debunked, talk about something else.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 at 01:39:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ted Welch:
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.

Just a reminder.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 at 04:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 Now on Gene Sharp. My friend Amer reminded me that back in 2005, an American foundation had contacted me to hire me to review the quality of an Arabic translation of a book by Gene Sharp.  I thought the task (and book) to be boring and I passed and I suggested that my friend, Amer,  can do the job.  He too thought it was boring.  It seems that Sharp now wants to claim credit for the uprisings simply because his book was translated by an AMERICAN foundation into Arabic.  Let us be clear: no one knows who he is, except those who were assigned to read it and peddle it.  Why does the White Man insist on taking credit for everything good the natives do?   As for the organization Otpor, I am told it has strong outside connections but its links to Tunisia and Egypt are non-existent or superficial and focusing on a few individuals who "were made available" to the NYT to talk to.  I expect that the US, now that its puppet has fallen, wants to plant stories to try to fabricate an American links to the uprisings.  Be vigilant: the propaganda and counter-propaganda have just begun.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/02/gene-sharp-new-york-times-story-of.html

by stevesim on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:02:55 PM EST
And if they do take credit (which is unlikely to impress anybody outside the U.S.) what harm exactly does it do? A more serious type of propaganda might be that described by Cihan Tugal
It is striking that as Egypt turns a new page in history, voices as diverse as Financial Times, Le Monde and the New York Times want it to follow the Turkish model. But is the process in Turkey really repeatable? And who would stand to gain if it were taken as a model?

[...]

Even though there is frequent talk of a Turkish model for these countries, the new regime in that country is a mixed blessing. It appears that Turkey, under its conservative Justice and Development Party government, has been able to bring Islam and democracy together. It is also true that military control has diminished in Turkey over the last eight years, but this has been coupled by intensified police control and concentration of power in the executive. The separation of powers has been crippled as well. Moreover, structural adjustment has become even more aggressive, dramatically bringing down wages and boosting unemployment and poverty. While the Turkish security forces have been more restrained in comparison to those of other regimes in the region, there is no question that anti-"structural adjustment" protests will not be tolerated. A recent referendum (in September 2010) was celebrated worldwide because it further weakened the Turkish military. Yet, after September, the Turkish police have become more violent against protests that call pro-free-market reforms into question.

The likeliness of the Turkish scenario in Egypt is quite questionable. The actors of the Turkish process were pro-business Islamists, conservatives, (neo)liberals and right-wing nationalists. The major players in the Egyptian protests, by contrast, are leftists, (pro-labor) Islamists, and along with them liberals and left-wing nationalists. These groups are still gathering together, despite the dictator's downfall, and working on their demands. While the higher Brotherhood leadership called for an end to the recent strikes, the mentioned coalition has not only supported the strikes, but also demanded higher wages and a wider social safety net for all Egyptians! I dread to think what techniques bequeathed from the old regime would have to be put in use to make all these strikers and young people remain silent when faced with a Turkish-style neoliberal semi-democratic rule.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Antiwar activists will find no ideological soul mates in Ackerman, Helvey and Sharp, who are conditionally against the use of violence, not out of moral principle, but because they believe violence is often an ineffective method of achieving what political violence is normally intended to achieve: the seizure of power. As New Republic writer Franklin Foer points out, "Ackerman's affection for nonviolence has nothing to do with the tactic's moral superiority. Movements that make a strategic decision to eschew violence, he argues, have a far better record of" success. [27]

The destabilizers represent a faction within the U.S. ruling class that pushes for a nonmilitary means of achieving a goal all ruling class factions agree on: regime change in countries that resist integration into the U.S. imperial orbit. Ackerman, for example, argues that "It is not true that the only way to `take out' (axis of evil regimes) is through U.S. military action." [28] He opposes the faction led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, which favors a robustly militaristic imperialism, based on the overwhelming use of force. In the lead-up to the 2003 U.S. and British invasion of Iraq, Ackerman and DuVall wrote an article in Sojourner's Magazine arguing that "anyone who opposes U.S. military action to dethrone (Saddam Hussein) has a responsibility to suggest how he might otherwise be ushered out the backdoor of Baghdad." (Notice Ackerman and DuVall implicitly removed the option of leaving Saddam Hussein's fate to Iraqis, to decide for themselves, without outside interference.) The answer, they contended, was to "use a panoply of forceful sanctions - strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, disrupting the functions of government, even nonviolent sabotage..." [29]

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/overthrow-inc-peter-ackerman%E2%80%99s-quest-to-do-what-the-c ia-used-to-so-and-make-it-seem-progressive/

by stevesim on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:35:54 PM EST
Is Gene Sharp Superman?

Posted in Egypt, Non-Violent Direct Action by gowans on February 16, 2011
By Stephen Gowans

Samuel P. Jacobs' Valentine's Day article in The Daily Beast has a catchy title: "Gene Sharp, the 83 year old who toppled Egypt." Sharp is a scholar who has spent much of his life developing ideas on how to overthrow authoritarian governments using nonviolence.

While Jacobs' title is eye-catching, it's also nonsense. Attributing the toppling of Mubarak to Sharp is like attributing the toppling of the Tsar to Karl Marx. Sure, their ideas may have inspired some of the people who sought the downfall of tyrants, but the connection stops there.

Did an octagenarian nonviolence scholar remotely mobilize millions of Egyptians to bring down Mubarak? If he did we've been misled about Clark Kent. He isn't Superman. Gene Sharp is.
A more realistic description of the nonviolence advocate is provided in the headline of a September 13, 2008 Wall Street Journal article: "Quiet Boston Scholar Inspires Rebels Around the World." But even this goes too far. Sharp's techniques of nonviolent direct action may inspire rebels to choose nonviolence, but not to rebel.

The confusion around Sharp is a confusion of means and ends. Sharp and the scholars who work to develop and disseminate his ideas are concerned with means: How to challenge and seize state power. True, the Boston scholar and many other nonviolence advocates appear to embrace liberal democracy as their ideal system, but their work isn't about singing the praises of regular multi-party elections, the rule of law, and civil and political liberties. Instead, it's about how to move challenges to the state off a playing field the state has an enormous advantage on: the use of violence.

True, too, the advocates of Sharp's ideas--and Sharp himself-are often involved in imparting the scholar's techniques to rebels who are working to bring down governments Washington opposes. And the same rebels often receive generous aid from the US government to facilitate the application of Sharp's techniques. Still, his ideas are as accessible to Marxists and anarchists looking to overthrow capitalist governments as they are to US-backed street rebels.

Whether Sharp's ideas played a decisive role in the Tahrir Square uprising, however, is an open question. These days it's practically impossible for anyone who is seriously interested in challenging the state not to have at least a passing acquaintance with Sharp's work. It's just out there. If some people who were active in trying to organize the uprising were Sharp-literate, we shouldn't be greatly surprised. But what role did they play in shaping the uprising's actions?

Protestors did not hew strictly to the nonviolent line (they battled violently with police and Mubarak's thugs when attacked) and the otherwise peaceful nature of the uprising may have had little to do with any conscious commitment to model tactics on Sharp's advice and more with self-survival. After all, who's going to storm parliament or the president's office with the army deployed nearby?

http://gowans.wordpress.com/

by stevesim on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:41:31 PM EST
your idolization of Gene Sharp is quite misplaced, I am afraid to say.
by stevesim on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
is frankly embarassing. Ciao.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:02:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... considered good form to enclose quotes in blockquote tags.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wondering how is ideas are being covered in Egypt itself, I went to news.google.com.eg, typed in "جين شارب" (which I hope means Gene Sharp) and looked at the first few hits. One, which seemed to be from Iran, defeated my attempts to decipher Google's idea of English. Otherwise, all I found was one local attack on him, several quotes from the NYT, and a translation of an article from Yediot. So based on this small sample, I don't think we need worry about Egyptians falling for this story. If anybody has the patience to look further, at least you know know where to look.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:55:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wish I could say the same about the people here.  They seem to have swallowed the story hook, line and sinker.

The CIA sometimes does good work, it seems.

by stevesim on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

That is now enough of serious insults towards members here. No one has swallowed anything hook, line, and sinker, and the notion that the CIA has managed to persuade anyone here of anything is as insulting as it is risible.

Tone the ad hominems down.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:34:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder why the ad hominems against me are allowed?

Is there a double standard here?

I only repeat the things that people say against me and yet I am troll rated.  Why is that?

by stevesim on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

Don't argue.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can comment from the distance of not having participated in this discussion, not analyzing various components of a long thread.

Your tone and manner puts me off. There is both a sensibility and a method of discussion here, which of course, one gets over time; can't be expected to absorb all at once.

We've probably all crossed the line on occasion, but here you keep it up, and ignore suggestions.

One sign humans might progress is that they recognize that others may hold divergent views without being CIA stooges.

Please don't upset your case officer.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, fellow geezer!  Because of you, I made a donation to the Albert Einstein Institute.

Beats the heck out of feeling helpless.

Karen in Bischofswiesen

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher

by Wife of Bath (kareninaustin at g mail dot com) on Thu Feb 24th, 2011 at 03:35:36 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]