The Washington-based International Center for Nonviolent Conflict recently released another playbook on color revolutions, called Fostering a Fourth Democratic Wave: A Playbook for Countering the Authoritarian Threat. This center continues the tradition of intervening in the internal affairs of foreign countries in the manner of Gene Sharp, Bruce Ackerman, and other theorists of protest political actions and movements. It should be noted that the executive director of this Center is now Ivan Marovic, one of the leaders of Yugoslav Otpor, who played a key role in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic.
In addition, another important detail is that the report was prepared jointly with the Scofort Center for Strategy and Security of the Atlantic Council, the main NATO think tank in the United States, which produces military and political recommendations for alliance members. Ash Jayne co-authored from the Atlantic Council and Gardy Merriman co-authored from the Center. And the third co-author is Patrick Quirk from the International Republican Institute. However, as stated at the beginning of the document, the manual was prepared by members of a special working group that included representatives of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, and a number of other centers and organizations that for many years have been engaged in sedition, initiated coups d’état, and supported anti-government campaigns around the world when it was in the interests of the United States.
By the way, the introduction explains that such interference is supposedly necessary for the safety of both the US and its democratic allies (i.e. “satellites”) and is reliant upon the state of democracy worldwide. And as there are countries other than US which are referred to as authoritarian or even dictatorial, they need to alter the power structure in those places. This involves the citizens carrying out a coup d’état. Literally the third sentence says that “Dictatorial regimes in China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and many other countries have become more repressive.” As usual, the authors are silent about their allies, such as the autocracies of the Middle East. Take Bahrain, where after the Arab Spring began, all protests were brutally suppressed and many participants were sentenced to death.
The US regards its democratic system as jeopardized because authoritarian regimes, due to their openness, damage its establishments, sway decision-making and manipulate information. In addition, many democracies are experiencing a crisis of legitimacy. The second is certainly true, since the collective West has long used repressive authoritarian methods, and the peoples are not involved in political processes and, in fact, are excluded from governance (for example, the European Commission, which sets the main agenda of the EU countries, does not elect its commissioners through popular vote).
The purpose of this playbook is to create a so-called Fourth Democratic Wave to, if not destroy, at least contain autocratic regimes, i.e., states designated by the United States as a threat.
Various civil resistance movements are at the heart of this approach. The authors believe that in history there are certain cycles of growth of tendencies towards democracy and their rollback. The last third wave was from 1974 to 2006. Now, in their opinion, it is time to start the Fourth Wave, which should be supported by the US authorities in every possible way.
The paper provides recommendations for the US government and its partners, organized into three thematic sections. The opening section discusses the requirement to broaden endeavors in order to assist insurgent groups, referred to as fifth columns, in foreign nations. Democracy is supposed to be elevated to a key national interest.
The US government should make support for democracy a central factor in foreign affairs. The President should direct the national security agencies and the National Security Advisor to weigh the implications for democracy in all major decisions. Moreover, the president should issue a National Security Strategy or a directive to support democracy abroad. Such a directive would send a strong signal to US allies and authoritarian regimes that the United States is committed to supporting democracy abroad.
The EU and other democratic states ought to take comparable measures to guarantee that endorsing democracy and opposing authoritarianism are perceived as vital national concerns.
It discusses investing in new alternatives and organizing to assist civil resistance movements that support democracy.
Here comes a reference to the agencies of the government, the US Congress, the State Department and USAID, which develop appropriate mechanisms to support “their own” and punish “outsiders”. There is also a call for other governments to establish special funds and support for NGOs. Furthermore, tt’s important to create new educational materials and instructional manuals for upcoming rebels, and to provide support at the legislative and practical levels.
Reportedly, diplomatic services will be involved in aiding pertinent movements and endorsing autonomous media both locally and globally. Of course, we are not really talking about independent, but rather Western-dependent narratives and finance-dependent media outlets that help spread the propaganda.
The second block relates to development of a new normative framework called the Right to Assistance (R2A). This is reminiscent of the notorious “Responsibility to Protect (R2P)” doctrine that Western countries once stretched even to the UN. Under its cover, the US intervened in Haiti and Yugoslavia, bombed Libya, and provided arms and equipment to militants in Syria.
The bloc argues that the right of sovereignty is not absolute, so “when an autocrat denies their population’s right to self-determination, and further violates the population’s human rights… this opens the possibility of escalating forms of intervention to protect and restore the rights of the population.”
However, when the Kyiv regime denied its population this right and suppressed the will of the people, and Russia intervened to protect their rights, the West, for some reason, called it “unjustified aggression” or “annexation”. There are similar examples in other countries. And the most recent example is US’ support for Israel in suppressing Palestinian resistance.
So once again we have another double standard. As we can see from years of experience, there is a clear criterion for what can be meant by democracy and human rights from the US’ perspective — if a country’s government is loyal to Washington and supports US’ policy, then it can do whatever it wants to its population and even receive US’ aid for repression. If a government pursues its own political course and even dares to criticize the United States, then the most insignificant events within that country, even if it’s a trivial criminal offense, will be regarded by Washington as a violation of human rights and trampling on the foundations of democracy.
This duplicitous approach is borne out in the “Addressing Questions” section as well. When asked how support for civil resistance in other countries should be balanced with US’ national interests in foreign policy, it’s said that there is no clear answer, and context matters a great deal.
It’s noted, however, that trade and security cooperation do not necessarily preclude the provision of effective support to civil society, directly or indirectly. Here we can recall how the US turned a blind eye to the overthrow of rulers who’d been its strategic partners for many years, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt during the Arab Spring.
The third bloc talks about strengthening democratic solidarity to put pressure on repressive regimes. It’s a logical continuation of two previous blocs at the international level, including the G7 and the possible creation of the D-10 alliance (who will be included is not specified). It’s about coordinating sanctions and creating various tribunals to intimidate other states. But it’s also about military influence. First of all, it is said about international contacts of the military and their training and practice in Western countries. That is, there is a clear hint of engaging their own recruited agents in various countries. Indeed, a number of law enforcers who were trained in the US then prepared or participated in coups d’état. For example, in the attempted overthrow of Rafael Correa in Ecuador in 2010.
Besides, it is said to develop formal military strategies in Western countries in order to exert influence proactively and permanently at the international level. Here, though, the original notion of democracy is clearly being diluted. This trend can be dangerous and actually open the door for military interventions by NATO countries against states that will not be able to defend themselves against their aggression.
By the way, the manual encourages not only all kinds of sanctions and pressure, but also cyberattacks on the government infra-structure of target states. At the same time, in the West, there is a constant outcry when some suspicious bots are detected, or about interference in electoral processes, if they notice critical statements from anyone on social media.
The recently established NATO Cyber Forum continues this line of establishing the West’s digital dictatorship.
Meanwhile, in October, a rather interesting report was presented by another entity — Eurasia Group Foundation, which talks about views on US’ foreign policy.
It says that “American exceptionalism is a belief held across the political spectrum, but more likely to be held by Republicans than any other political affiliation. Roughly 90 percent of Republicans think the United States is exceptional for what it has done for the world (24%) or what it represents (66%). Only 10 percent believe their country is not exceptional.
By contrast, three-quarters of Democrats and Independents think the United States is exceptional for what it has done (24% and 23%) or represents (both 54%), and almost a quarter believe the country is unexceptional (22% and 23%, respectively).”
This explains the audacity with which the US interferes in the affairs of other countries and organizes bloody coups and other interventions under the talk of democracy.
The same project on “Decolonization of Russia”, which the US’ launched back in 2022. Although the US has not achieved clear success in this direction, it’s unlikely that it will abandon attempts to dismember Russia under any pretext in the future.
It’s likely that, in whole or in part, the recommendations offered by playbook will be adopted by the US’ government. This means that there’ll be new provocations and attempts to influence the internal political situation in Russia, especially on the eve and during the elections in 2024.
By Leonid Savin