There are different levels at which imperialism, liberalism, and identity politics work together. One level is the level of discourse (in Foucauldian terms) and hegemony (in Gramscian terms):
The "spontaneous" consent given by the great masses of
the population to the general direction imposed on social
life by the dominant fundamental group [ie, through their
intellectuals who act as their agents or deputies]; this
consent is 'historically' caused by the prestige (and
consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys
because of its position and function in the world of production
("The Intellectuals," Selections from the Prison Notebooks, <http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/problems/intellectuals.htm>).
At this level, discourse of human rights, conceived ahistorically and applied selectively in doxa, works against national sovereignty and self-determination and facilitates imperialism. Hardt and Negri's Empire certainly touches on this question. Hardt and Negri wrote in that book:
What we are calling moral intervention is practiced today
by a variety of bodies, including the news media and
religious organizations, but the most important may be
some of the so-called non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), which, precisely because they are not run directly
by governments, are assumed to act on the basis of ethical
or moral imperatives. . . . Such humanitarian NGOs [e.g.,
Amnesty International, Oxfam, Medecins sans Frontieres,
and other orgs for relief work and human rights protection]
are in effect (even if this runs counter to the intentions of
the participants) some of the most powerful pacific weapons
of the new world order -- the charitable campaigns and the
mendicant orders of the Empire. (pp. 35-6)
Then, there is another level, the level of participation in the organizations that are seemingly "non-governmental" but are actually funded by or work closely with the US government or the government of one or another major power of the US-led multinational empire in the context of regime change campaigns and other imperialist interventions. I have argued against activists and intellectuals participating in or giving credibility to them in any capacity.
<http://montages.blogspot.com/2007/10/empire-of-ngos.html> An Empire of NGOs
On the question of Western "NGO"1 interventions in nations of the global South and their relations to the US-led multinational empire, there regrettably is no consensus on the broadly defined Left. The lack of consensus even among leftists makes it impossible to raise the consciousness of the Western public about the roles of "NGOs" in the empire's "regime change" campaigns, which negate the essence of democracy in the name of "democracy assistance."
Take a look at a recent series of exchanges over the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict2 in the Green Left Weekly:
* "Interview with Eva Golinger: US Continues Destabilisation
Push in Venezuela" (GLW 716, 28 June 2007)
* Jack DuVall (President, ICNC), "Gollinger Interview"
(Letter to the Editor, GLW 718, 22 July 2007)
* Michael Barker, "Promoting 'Democracy' through Civil
Disobedience" (GLW 722, 25 August 2007)
* Stephen Zunes, "Inaccurate and Unfair Attacks on the ICNC"
(GLW 723, 31 August 2007)
* Michael Barker, "An Accurate and Fair Critique of the
International Center on Nonviolent Conflict" (GLW 725,
22 September 2007)
I doubt that Eva Gollinger or Michael Barker has been able to persuade Stephen Zunes that leftists shouldn't be serving as "chair of the board of academic advisers" of the ICNC (Zunes, 31 August 2007) or otherwise supporting it or any other institution like it. Can anyone?
1 I put the term "Non-Governmental Organizations" between quotation marks, for some of the "NGOs" in question are wholly or largely funded by the United States government and other governments of the multinational empire. The Solidarity Center is a good example: "A well-kept secret about Solidarity Center is that it received 90% (nearly $30 million) of its annual revenue from the U.S. State Department and other government agencies of the Bush administration, but it got less than 2% ($600,000) from the AFL-CIO. These figures are from Solidarity Center's 2003-2004 Annual Report" (Harry Kelber, "How Sweeney Won Three Sham Re-elections; His Role in ULLICO Scandal and Elsewhere," Labor Educator -- downloadable in PDF at laboreducator.org/sweeneyres3.pdf).
2 For information about the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, see, also, Tom Barry, "The New Politics of Political Aid in Venezuela," Right Web Analysis (Silver City, NM: International Relations Center, July 18, 2007), though all you need to know is probably that it lists Freedom House as one of the "Related Organizations" on the ICNF Web site's "Resources" page. As for its method, get it from the horse's mouth -- check out the "Discussion Guide" that accompanies Bringing Down a Dictator, a film that functions as a how-to manual that teaches you to pull off a "regime change" with the support of the government of the United States and other "democracies." The executive producer of the film is Peter Ackerman, Founding Chair of the ICNC and Chairman of Freedom House, and "Special Thanks" in the film's credit go to the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and the United States Institute of Peace. The guide encourages the film's audience to debate intriguing questions such as the following:
* A number of factors contributed to the overthrow of
Milosevic, especially financial assistance and training
from the United States. Based on information in the film,
discuss the role of each of the following in bringing down
the Milosevic regime:
Aid from the United States and European countries
The NATO bombing
Elections
Street marches and protests
The strike at the Kolubara Coal Mine (p. 6)
* The United States government gave over $25 million
dollars in aid to Otpor and other opposition groups during
the movement against Milosevic. Some of these groups
declared themselves to be anti-American. What is the
purpose of the US funding of anti-American groups
overseas? Does accepting US funds weaken a group's
anti-American stance? If a group is fighting for justice,
does that automatically mean that the group is a good
group? Do the methods they use in their fight have any
effect on whether the group is "good" or not? Explain your
answers to the last three questions. (p. 10)
The film is "available on DVD in both the NTSC and PAL television systems," in "Arabic, Burmese, English, Farsi, French, Indonesian, Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish." Very thorough -- all relevant languages for the most urgent US "regime change" campaigns are covered. Needless to say, the ICNC, as well as other members of the empire of NGOs, is working on Iran:
In choosing Freedom House as the venue for a foreign policy
address this week, President George W. Bush has stepped
into an intense debate among democracy activists in the US
and Iran on how US dollars should be used to carry out the
administration's policy of promoting freedom in the Islamic
republic.
Few in the Washington audience on Wednesday realised
that Freedom House, an independent institution founded
more than 60 years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, the former
first lady, is one of several organisations selected by the
State Department to receive funding for clandestine activities
inside Iran.
Peter Ackerman, chairman of the board of trustees, who
introduced Mr Bush, is also the founder of a separate
organisation that promotes non-violent civic disobedience
as a form of resistance to repressive regimes. His International
Center on Non-Violent Conflict has organised discreet
"workshops" in the Gulf emirate of Dubai to teach Iranians
the lessons learned from east European movements.
A separate organisation, the Iran Human Rights Documentation
Centre based in New Haven, Connecticut, has also received
US funding and organised a Dubai "workshop" for Iranians last
year that was not made public.
Mr Ackerman, who is very wealthy from an earlier career as
a financier, says he does not accept government money.
Questioned by the FT, Freedom House confirmed it had
received funding from the State Department for activities in
Iran. It declined to give details but said it was not involved in
Mr Ackerman's work in Dubai.
Freedom House also disclosed that it received $100,000
(€83,873, £57,500) from Mr Ackerman last year and a further
$100,000 from his organisation.
In a research study, with Mr Ackerman acting as chief adviser,
Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more often than
is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based,
non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as
boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience
to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of
support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders." (Guy
Dinmore, "Bush Enters Iran 'Freedom' Debate," Financial Times,
31 March 2006)
It should be noted that Mr. Jack DuVall himself visited this blog to defend the ICNC, merely because I cited the same Financial Times article in an entry whose focus was Freedom House, not the ICNC: "Queering Freedom House," Critical Montages, 24 September 2007 (be sure to read his comment). It looks like opinions of leftists are a sensitive spot for the organization.
<http://montages.blogspot.com/2007/09/queering-freedom-house.html> Monday, September 24, 2007 Queering Freedom House
Arsham Parsi, Executive Director of the IRanian Queer Organization (IRQO, formerly Persian Gay & Lesbian Organization [PGLO]), thanks Gozaar: "To begin with, I would like to thank Gozaar -- A Journal on Democracy and Human Rights in Iran -- and its editor Sasan Ghahreman for inviting the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) here today so we could be with you" ("Arsham Parsi Speaks at Gozar Panel, Silenced Voices, Toronto," IRQO.net, 16 September 2007).
Scrawl down to the bottom of Gozaar's homepage, and you'll see that it unabashedly features the logo of its sponsor Freedom House.1 Getting associated with Freedom House, an organization that is among the best known elements of Washington's regime change campaign in Iran, is the surest way to turn all thinking Iranians against your organization and set back your cause.2 Evidently, for Parsi and IRQO, welfare of the constituency he claims to represent, GLBTQ individuals in Iran, is far less important than serving the empire.
Funding for this project of Freedom House is "provided mainly by The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under its Human Rights and Democracy programs," says Gozaar. As the empire is multinational, so is its regime change campaign, but this is an aspect of imperialism that leftists have yet to investigate in depth.
1 What is Freedom House?
While touting itself as having a "bipartisan character,"
Freedom House is often associated with hawkish and
neoconservative factions within both major U.S. parties,
a fact made clear by many of its current and past
supporters and board members, which have included
former CIA Director James Woolsey, ex-Reagan
administration official Kenneth Adelman, the late UN
Amb. Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former member of the
Committee on the Present Danger, Max Kampelman.
Other board members have included the conservative
Rolling Stone writer P.J. O'Rourke; Samuel Huntington,
a Harvard professor who says the post-Cold War period
will be dominated by a "clash of civilizations" between
the Muslim and Christian worlds; Ruth Wedgwood,
a right-leaning human rights lawyer; and Arthur Waldron,
a longtime foreign policy hawk who has been a leading
advocate for a hardline China policy. Many of these
individuals have also supported the work of a number of
other conservative organizations, including the Project for
the New American Century, the Center for Security Policy,
and the American Enterprise Institute. Other Freedom
House supporters and scholars have included Mark
Falcoff, the late Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, and Daniel
Pipes. ("Freedom House," Right Web, 26 July 2007)
What is it doing in Iran?
In choosing Freedom House as the venue for a foreign policy
address this week, President George W. Bush has stepped
into an intense debate among democracy activists in the US
and Iran on how US dollars should be used to carry out the
administration's policy of promoting freedom in the Islamic
republic.
Few in the Washington audience on Wednesday realised
that Freedom House, an independent institution founded more
than 60 years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, the former first lady,
is one of several organisations selected by the State
Department to receive funding for clandestine activities inside
Iran.
Peter Ackerman, chairman of the board of trustees, who
introduced Mr Bush, is also the founder of a separate
organisation that promotes non-violent civic disobedience
as a form of resistance to repressive regimes. His
International Center on Non-Violent Conflict has organised
discreet "workshops" in the Gulf emirate of Dubai to teach
Iranians the lessons learned from east European movements.
A separate organisation, the Iran Human Rights Documentation
Centre based in New Haven, Connecticut, has also received
US funding and organised a Dubai "workshop" for Iranians
last year that was not made public.
Mr Ackerman, who is very wealthy from an earlier career as
a financier, says he does not accept government money.
Questioned by the FT, Freedom House confirmed it had
received funding from the State Department for activities in
Iran. It declined to give details but said it was not involved in
Mr Ackerman's work in Dubai.
Freedom House also disclosed that it received $100,000
(€83,873, £57,500) from Mr Ackerman last year and a
further $100,000 from his organisation.
In a research study, with Mr Ackerman acting as chief
adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more
often than is generally understood, the change agent is
broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs
tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes
and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers
and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of
their armed defenders." (Guy Dinmore, "Bush Enters Iran
'Freedom' Debate," Financial Times, 31 March 2006)
2 On a related issue of how Gozaar damaged the "One Million Signatures" campaign, see Hossein Derakhshan, "Beware Gozaar," Editor: Myself, 26 January 2007.
On 10/9/07, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> Marvin Gandall wrote:
> >...I think if the Ahmadinejad regime took conspicuous steps to
> >loosen rather than tighten controls on its domestic opponents, it
> >would contribute to the further isolation of the war hawks in
> >Washington at this critical juncture....
>
> I'm afraid that if Ahmedi-nejad tried any such thing the "regime"--
> meaning the security services, the Council of Guardians, the Council
> of Experts, and Supreme Leader Khamenei--would just roll over him
> and go on its bloody way, leaving him sputtering in the dust alongside
> his unfortunate predecessor Khatemi. Look what happened when he
> advanced the liberal notion that women should be permitted
> (segregatedly of course) to attend football matches!
Indeed. Those who think that Ahmadinejad is the most conservative man in Iran are not aware of the actual range of political opinions in Iran, and those who hold the President chiefly responsible for domestic repression either do not know the political structure of Iran's government or let the Leader Ali Khamenei -- to whom all forces of internal and external security, including the police and judiciary, answer -- off the hook. -- Yoshie