#srđa popović

[radiogornjigrad]

Srđa Popović: Srpsko društvo i ratni zločini

Posmatrač je tako naveden da, s onu stranu ličnih sklonosti, opazi jedno društvo pogođeno izvesnim mentalnim nedostacima. Bez sumnje nije mogućno preslikavati pojave koje se tiču realne psihologije individuuma, posebno mentalne bolesti i glupost, na društva; ali morali bismo biti kadri da govorimo, uz sav obzir, o socijalnom oponašanju mentalnih slabosti; primeri za to su dovoljno očiti. Robert…

[jgmail]

La evolución de los movimientos de protesta

Por Leonid Savin

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

 Las revoluciones de color y otras formas de interferencia externa en los asuntos estatales están cambiando. Esto es lógico y natural, ya que los organismos gubernamentales se adaptan al cambio, encuentran formas de contrarrestar las amenazas y conservan el derecho a usar la fuerza legítima, que, según Max Weber, es una de las características del Estado moderno. Pero tan pronto como los principales centros de interferencia y desestabilización del mundo comienzan a percibir nuevas vulnerabilidades en los sistemas estatales, se produce otro intento de golpe o un ataque a un sistema estatal. Este tipo de inestabilidad no es deseable para ningún país, ya que podría debilitar gradualmente la inmunidad de la soberanía. En consecuencia, la transformación de los movimientos de protesta debería ser de particular interés ya que, al comprender su desarrollo, será posible predecir el curso de acción de los manifestantes y alborotadores. Las protestas en Bielorrusia muestran que esto no es lo que sucedió allí, y las autoridades se vieron obligadas a responder rápidamente a la situación.

 Para una comprensión adecuada de las estrategias antigubernamentales, es necesario acudir, en primer lugar, a los métodos utilizados por quienes organizan las protestas y los golpes.

 En su artículo "Protestas y principios" (1), Srđa Popović, un conocido activista, organizador de revoluciones de color y director ejecutivo de CANVAS, escribe que los factores ideológicos y geopolíticos en los que se enfocan los medios de comunicación son insuficientes para comprender completamente lo que está sucediendo y evaluar las protestas. Sugiere prestar atención a las condiciones estructurales que difieren en los diferentes países, así como a los resultados de los movimientos. Popović concluye que las protestas de los últimos años han mostrado una cierta tendencia - “las formas tradicionales e institucionales de generar cambios - elecciones, sistemas legales y diálogo con las élites - son insuficientemente efectivas. Así que los manifestantes han decidido utilizar otra forma de poder para forzar un cambio constructivo".

 Más adelante pregunta: "Si la geografía y la ideología no determinan el éxito, ¿qué lo hace?" Describe cuatro principios clave. Uno: una visión clara del futuro. Dos: una oposición unida que debería comprender bien quiénes son sus aliados y quiénes son neutrales. El tercer pilar clave podrían ser los medios de comunicación, los sectores empresariales, las instituciones sociales y las agencias gubernamentales (en particular, las agencias de seguridad que podrían ser atraídas hacia la oposición). Cuatro: la atracción, que es un elemento común en muchos movimientos de protesta, ya que se posicionan como luchadores contra la injusticia.

 Al mismo tiempo, Popović admite que la ira (y por lo tanto también la violencia) es una herramienta eficaz para la movilización, pero debe combinarse con la esperanza, de lo contrario jugará un papel destructivo.

 Es con un suspiro de pesar que Popović escribe sobre las “revoluciones” fallidas en Hong Kong y Venezuela, de las que culpa parcialmente a la oposición. El problema con la primera fue la violencia ejercida contra la policía, y con la segunda fue que Juan Guaidó puso todo su empeño en conquistar a los militares y derrocar a Maduro con un golpe.

 En resumen, Srđa Popović sostiene que las condiciones iniciales y el contexto importan, pero las habilidades estratégicas importan aún más. Y es difícil no estar de acuerdo. Después de todo, se puede reprimir un destello inicial de protesta, se pueden liquidar las células activistas y se pueden dispersar las multitudes. Y si no hay un plan de acción definido sobre cómo actuar en una situación dada, entonces cualquier protesta, ya sea pacífica o violenta, será inútil.

 No hace falta decir que la información del artículo de Popović es para lectores ingenuos y está escrita con el mayor cuidado para descartar cualquier posible acusación de actividades antiestatales. Todos los consejos se dan desde el punto de vista de la protección de los valores democráticos. Por lo tanto, es necesario poder leer entre líneas y sacar las conclusiones de los golpes de Estado del pasado.

 Desde el Euromaidan en Ucrania en 2014, sabemos que la esperanza puede ser bastante engañosa y esquiva. Se mantiene a poca distancia durante las protestas y es un incentivo adicional, pero nunca se convierte en realidad. La desilusión y la frustración no llegan hasta que ya es demasiado tarde, momento en el que el poder ha caído en manos de quienes aprietan inmediatamente los tornillos y no tienen intención de discutir nada con la gente.

 CANVAS, sin embargo, es una organización que desarrolla planes de acción estratégicos para países particulares. A juzgar por su reciente academia de verano en línea (2), CANVAS participó activamente en el derrocamiento del presidente boliviano Evo Morales, apoyó protestas en Sudán, Zimbabwe y Brasil, y tiene estrechos vínculos con grupos de oposición en Malasia, Filipinas y Georgia.

 Peter Ackerman (3), ex presidente del consejo administrativo de Freedom House y miembro del consejo del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores y del Consejo Atlántico de la OTAN, comparte la opinión de Popović sobre la planificación estratégica de los golpes de Estado. Ackerman cree que "la ejecución talentosa de incluso las tácticas no violentas más simples puede alterar la psicología de una población y el comportamiento de un régimen". También cree que los esfuerzos consolidados de cientos de pequeñas organizaciones pueden tener un efecto acumulativo y hacer que parezca que hay una unidad de opinión y esfuerzo. Esto explica por qué, en Ucrania, Occidente apoyó activamente tanto a los nacionalistas radicales como a los liberales, que es básicamente como cruzar una culebra de collar con una víbora, dado que estos dos grupos tienen ideologías radicalmente diferentes. Una situación similar se puede ver en Bielorrusia, donde el músculo fue proporcionado por nacionalistas locales (el simbolismo asociado con los colaboradores nazis durante la guerra se utilizó abiertamente en las protestas), mientras que representantes de minorías sexuales fueron incluidos en varios consejos de oposición.

 El Centro Internacional sobre Conflictos No Violentos (4), que fue fundado por Ackerman y cuya sede se encuentra en Washington, realiza un trabajo similar al de CANVAS. En asociación con la Universidad de Rutgers (Nueva Jersey), el centro lleva a cabo cursos en línea para activistas desde el 2012. Estos no solo cubren la teoría de los movimientos de protesta y brindan ejemplos específicos, sino que también adaptan nuevas técnicas. Es notable que los desarrolladores de cursos estén buscando nuevas fronteras en los movimientos de resistencia: cómo explotar la cultura y la religión, o cómo apuntar a las corporaciones (dado que las corporaciones pueden ser de propiedad estatal, al centrarse en un problema relacionado con las actividades de la empresa, la atención puede luego repercutir en el propio gobierno).

 Las actividades de otra institución, el Instituto de la Paz de Estados Unidos, cubren 52 Estados (5) y, en varios países (como China e Irán), se llevan a cabo actividades de manera indirecta utilizando agentes locales y manipulando los hechos en su beneficio. Por lo tanto, un informe reciente sobre el interés de Rusia en las zonas de conflicto afirma que "las actividades de Rusia en las zonas de conflicto suelen ir directa o indirectamente en contra de los intereses occidentales" (6). La verdad, sin embargo, es que son las actividades de Occidente las que van en contra de los intereses de Rusia, que luego tiene que responder de alguna manera. Rusia no tiene bases militares en las Américas, mientras que hay bases de la OTAN y tropas estadounidenses en las fronteras de Rusia. Las tropas rusas están legítimamente en Siria, mientras que las tropas estadounidenses en el país son ocupantes.

El Instituto Tavistock (7) de Londres está realizando un trabajo bastante serio en el campo de la manipulación y la ingeniería social. Sus principales actividades se llevan a cabo bajo el ardid de apoyar la auto-organización y las relaciones humanas. Por lo tanto, el Instituto Tavistock comenzó a desarrollar la teoría de sistemas sociotécnicos en la década de 1950 y empezó a ponerla en práctica en la década de 1980 y todavía la sigue utilizando. La proliferación de pervertidos en todo el mundo bajo la cortina de humo de la tolerancia se debe en gran parte a esta organización (una agenda que se lleva a cabo bajo el disfraz políticamente neutral de “Relaciones de grupo”) (8).

 A partir de estos ejemplos se puede ver que el escenario de la sede de la protesta y de la destrucción sistemática de los cimientos de la identidad nacional es el mismo: Occidente, principalmente Estados Unidos.

 Junto con los intentos de mantener la flexibilidad táctica durante las protestas, a menudo se pueden ver ajustes que se realizan en respuesta a las circunstancias. Por lo tanto, el eslogan "Las flores son mejores que las balas" en los carteles de los grupos de oposición bielorrusos es solo una reelaboración del eslogan "Alimentos, no bombas" utilizado en la campaña descentralizada contra la guerra que se originó en los Estados Unidos en la década de 1980 antes de extenderse a Europa. Una rama de este movimiento apareció en Bielorrusia en 2005 con la ayuda de los anarquistas locales. Una característica del movimiento es la distribución de comida vegetariana a los pobres y las personas sin hogar. Dependiendo de quién esté detrás de la campaña, los matices políticos locales se superponen en varios países.

 Muchos movimientos de protesta se basan en la creatividad. Por ejemplo, el 14 de abril de 2020, las feministas polacas bloquearon el tráfico en una de las calles principales de Varsovia (9). Si bien la policía impuso cuantiosas multas (superiores a 6.000 €) a muchos de los activistas, nadie las va a pagar, y el bloqueo del tráfico se explicaba por las directrices de las propias autoridades de observar un distanciamiento social de dos metros debido a la pandemia. Al final, y con la ayuda de abogados, los proyectos de ley se pasaron al parlamento y se nombró una comisión especial para revisarlos. Así, las feministas mataron dos pájaros de un tiro: lograron trollear las medidas de cuarentena del gobierno y también realizaron una protesta que llamó más la atención sobre sus actividades (que están dirigidas contra los conservadores, promoviendo la legalización del aborto y el apoyo a las minorías sexuales).

 Tampoco hay que olvidar las actividades de personas destinadas a la desestabilización de varios gobiernos. Por lo general, lo hacen por creencias ideológicas, a menudo usando su propio dinero y trabajando con contactos internacionales. Uno de esos individuos es el filósofo neoliberal francés Bernard-Henri Lévy, quien apoyó activamente golpes de Estado en Yugoslavia y Ucrania, a terroristas en Libia y Siria, y actualmente está ayudando a la líder de la oposición bielorrusa Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, quien perdió en las recientes elecciones presidenciales del país.

 El hijo de George Soros, Alexander Soros (10), está llevando a cabo con diligencia el trabajo de su padre como vicepresidente de la Open Society Foundations. Recientemente, ha estado realizando visitas frecuentes a los Balcanes, donde se le ha visto en compañía de muchos políticos de alto nivel. Además de Europa, Alexander Soros visita a menudo Myanmar y participa en proyectos en varios países africanos.

 Las actividades de estas personas y organizaciones representan una red internacional a múltiples niveles con múltiples dimensiones de comunicación y estrategias ocultas preparadas con miras al futuro.

 Por lo tanto, para establecer un mecanismo de respuesta adecuado a los desafíos actuales y futuros, las actividades de estos grupos, individuos e instituciones deben ser monitoreadas a nivel sistemático, de manera constante, exhaustiva e integral.

 Notas:

 1. https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/the-power-of-protest/protests-and-principles/

2. https://canvasopedia.org/summeracademy/

3. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/resource/skills-conditions-key-factors-shape-success-failure-civil-resistance/

4. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/

5. https://www.usip.org/regions-countries

6. https://www.usip.org/publications/2020/07/understanding-russias-interest-conflict-zones

7. https://www.tavinstitute.org/

8. https://www.tavinstitute.org/projects/eliat-aram-tells-directing-three-day-group-relations-conference-new-york-city/

9. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/04/21/poles-find-creative-ways-to-protest-despite-the-pandemic/

10. https://twitter.com/alexandersoros

 Fuente: https://orientalreview.org/2020/08/29/the-evolution-of-protest-movements/

[gyrrakavian]

Venezuela Blackout Follows Regime Change Blueprint - #NewWorldNextWeek

Story #1: “Operation Northwoods” False Flag Plans Turn 57 This Week https://bit.ly/2THjfDq

"Here’s how investors can gauge Boeing’s stock tragectory following the Ethiopian Airline crash" https://bit.ly/2u3tJh7

Boeing 737 Max: Battle Brews over Who Should Analyze Black Boxes from Ethiopian Air Crash https://bit.ly/2HxPzkQ

False Flags Over Kashmir: Prelude to WWIII? https://bit.ly/2HxffOm

Netanyahu’s Chances of Evading Corruption Charges Waining, Opponents Teaming Up Against Him, So … It's Time For War https://bit.ly/2FaBwjl

Netanyahu Campaign Draws Accusations of Incitement https://bit.ly/2Hxe5lO

Netanyahu Is About To Be Indicted for Bribery In The Midst Of An Election https://bit.ly/2TQrtrK

Grand Jury Filing Over Use of Explosives on 9/11 “Names Names” of Who May Have Blown Up Towers https://bit.ly/2TG1qVj

 Story #2: US Regime Change Blueprint Proposed Venezuelan Electricity Blackouts as “Watershed Event” for “Galvanizing Public Unrest” https://bit.ly/2ChVvuA

CANVAS: “Analysis of the situation in Venezuela” (Sep. 23, 2010) https://bit.ly/2UzTNMp

CIA Backed Color Revolutions: The Dishonest Career of the Remarkable Srđa Popović https://bit.ly/2EGrZAN

Episode 338 – NGOs Are The Deep State’s Trojan Horses https://bit.ly/2VXsprW

Story #3: NEC Scans E-Y-E’S at SXSW https://bit.ly/2u3etkc

“The coolest thing about the #Oscars that you probably missed? The @CIA's live #tweets” https://bit.ly/2HiYBmg

CIA @ SXSW: “CIA Secrets to Creative Problem Solving” https://bit.ly/2XVDQCb

John Boehner at #SXSW2019 https://bit.ly/2HidnJV

Bill Nye Teams Up With AOC at SXSW https://bit.ly/2VWwxsf

 Report: 20 Major Airports May Get Face Recognition for International Travelers By 2021 https://bit.ly/2J7V8sq

[mentalnahigijena]

Aleksandar Vučić - novi Slobodan Milošević ALEKSANDAR VUČIĆ, predsjednik Republike Srbije, otkrio je prije par dana na omiljenoj Televiziji Pink da je BIA cijelu noć, uoči vojno-policijskog ustoličenja Joanikija Mićovića na Cetinju, obavještavala srpsko rukovodstvo o događanjima u Crnoj Gori. BIA je, ako niste upoznati, srpska SOA, tajna agencija, a ustoličenje Joanikijevo je, ako ni s tim niste upoznati, bio vojno-policijski spektakl s helikopterima, suzavcima, gumenim mecima i ostalim svjedočanstvima evanđeoske ljubavi kojim je crnogorska država odvratila svoje državljane od nakane da neposredno, ispred Cetinskog manastira, izraze stav o Joanikijevu preuzimanju Mitropolije crnogorsko-primorske. Vučić nije odgovorio što je srpska tajna policija radila u Crnoj Gori Dakle, BIA. Špijunski svijet i polusvijet - razlike često nema - rado vršlja kojekuda, pa i po tuđim državama, no ne događa se baš prečesto da predsjednici suverenih država javno priznaju da njihovi agenti noći provode špijunirajući po inozemstvu i prava je šteta što s druge strane nije bio samosvjesniji novinar ili novinarka da Vučića zaustavi s vrlo jednostavnim i kratkim - zašto? Ako je Srbija sekularna država, ako između nje i Srpske pravoslavne crkve ipak postoje stanovite razlike, onda ustoličenje istaknutih crkvenih ličnosti ne bi trebao biti posao koji mobilizira državne resurse i šalje ih u druge zemlje po obavještajne informacije. Ako je, pak, Srbija crkvena država ili ako je Srpska pravoslavna crkva njezina duhovna štaka, onda je Joanikijevo ustoličenje nekovrsna vojno-redarstvena operacija - da se poslužimo pripadajućom hrvatskom terminologijom. Vučićev odgovor na prostodušno "zašto?" bio bi utoliko interesantniji što je aktualna crnogorska vlast kadrovski i sadržajno prosrpska. Vladajuća koalicija sastavljena je na poticaj Srpske pravoslavne crkve, ogorčene nakanom partije vječnog crnogorskog vladara Mila Đukanovića da donese zakon koji se konfrontirao s njezinim imovinskim pretenzijama. O mjeri crkvene involviranosti u sastavljanje aktualne crnogorske vlasti svjedoči podatak da se pokojni mitropolit Amfilohije, ratni huškač i Joanikijev prethodnik, u rujnu prošle godine osobno angažirao u poticanju pregovora među članicama aktualne vladajuće koalicije. BIA, dakle, nije išla na teritorij gdje su Srbi na bilo kakav način ozbiljno ugroženi, nego u državu s izabranom prosrpskom vlašću. Njezina se akcija mogla opravdati nekakvim nacionalnim interesima. Crna Gora i Republika Srpska kao satisfakcija za Kosovo Racionalnih razloga nema. No, tamo gdje prestaje racionalno, počinje nacionalno. Vučiću, a i Srpskoj pravoslavnoj crkvi, Crna Gora i Republika Srpska u Bosni i Hercegovini dođu kao neka vrsta satisfakcije za Kosovo izgubljeno u eri Slobodana Miloševića. Mimo iluzija o Kosovu kao "zavjetu Srbije", kako je to formulirao patrijarh Porfirije, prvi čovjek SPC-a, ostaje sasvim hladna i racionalna činjenica da je to druga država, NATO-ova baza, ali i da u Srbiji nema dovoljno topovskog mesa spremnog napustiti ovozemaljski život da bi se kod Prizrena podigao nacionalni barjak. No, Republika Srpska u nestabilnoj Bosni i Hercegovini, s neurotičnim Miloradom Dodikom, i Crna Gora s crkvenom koalicijom predstavljaju utješni plijen u mjeri u kojoj to budu dopuštale međunarodne okolnosti. Formalno pripajanje zasad nije moguće, Crna Gora je i članica NATO-a, no od takozvanih međunarodnih faktora ne treba očekivati previše. Postoji detalj zgodan za ilustraciju ovog što tvrdimo. Porfirije, inače gorljivi verbalni borac za Kosovo, naumio je i u svibnju svečano se ustoličiti u Peći, "u drevnom sjedištu Srpske pravoslavne crkve", ali je krotko odustao zbog epidemioloških mjera "u južnoj srpskoj pokrajini", izvijestili su srpski mediji. U Crnoj Gori nije bilo odustajanja, tamo je vlast bila spremna gumenim mecima i suzavcima tjerati okupljene protivnike Joanikijina ustoličenja. Iz svega navedenog isijava sličnost između Vučića i Miloševića. Vučić je blizak SPC-u čak i više nego Milošević na početku vladarske karijere - SPC je kasnije nervirala Miloševićeva spremnost da potpiše i poneki mirovni sporazum, ali to je danas gotovo nevažno. Aktualni predsjednik Srbije u Porfiriju je našao srodnu dušu, navodno su povezani obiteljski, ali i duhovno: Vladar je, priča se, još u doba dok je bio potrčko ratnog zločinca Vojislava Šešelja u Srpskoj radikalnoj stranci, odlazio kod Porfirija liječiti dušu ispovijedanjem. Porfirije je Vučićev intimus Porfirije, pritom, kako se čini, nije čovjek sklon biranju stranaka, svojedobno je na prijedlog Demokratske stranke postao član, a kasnije i predsjednik Regulatornog tijela za elektroničke medije. Na tom je mjestu preživio i dolazak Vučićeve vlasti, otišao je tek kad je postao mitropolit zagrebačko-ljubljanski, negdje u svibnju 2014. godine. Vođenje SPC-a preuzeo je ove godine u veljači, nakon što se njegov prethodnik Irinej preselio kod poslodavca. Od posljedica covida-19. Kao što svojedobni srpski mitinzi po Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini nisu bili zamislivi bez Miloševićeve režije, tako ni cetinjski spektakl nije bio moguć bez Vučića. Pritom on neumorno manipulira, preuzima ulogu žrtve. Pokojni Srđa Popović, jedna od najumnijih i najčasnijih srpskih glava u novijoj povijesti, svojedobno je zapazio da je Milošević faktički istjerao Sloveniju iz Jugoslavije, koristeći takozvani dvostruki govor, odnosno optužujući je za separatizam. E to, samo u promijenjenim okolnosti, čini i Vučić. U Crnoj Gori su, dakle, bili njegovi tajni policajci, spominje se i prisustvo vojske. Sarajevski advokat i novinar Senad Pećanin upozorio je da je na službenoj stranici MUP-a Republike Srpske stajala obavijest da su i njihovi pripadnici na Cetinju. Svejedno, Vučić je problem uočio među Crnogorcima: "Oni su željeli mitropoliju odvojiti od majke SPC i prvo je proglasiti pravoslavnom crkvom u CG, a ne odmah crnogorskom, a koja bi bila i za Crnogorce i Srbe. Željeli su da se s vremenom Srbi asimiliraju i da nastane jasna dvotrećinska većina crnogorskog pravoslavnog naroda. To je bio politički plan koji su pokušali izgurati, a onda sam im kriv ja. Kriva im je Srbija jer smo prepoznali njihov plan i njihovu ideju i počeli o tome javno govoriti", izjavio je na Pinku srpski predsjednik. Dokazi? Što će vam, zar sumnjate u Njega? Vučić kaže da njegovu državu neće ponižavati država koju ponižava Srpski je predsjednik zatim dodao nekoliko kapi klasičnog samosažaljenja: "Zamislite da se to desilo kod nas i da sam ja to predvodio, pa bio bih obješen. Ne bi me objesio naš narod, nego Bruxelles, Washington... Jer je sve dozvoljeno protiv Srbije... Otud kampanja protiv SPC-a, kojoj se čak pridružio i Bakir Izetbegović, za kojega sam mislio da se razumije u šerijatsko pravo, ali nisam znao da se razumije i u pravoslavlje." Na koncu, Vučić je odlučno poručio: "I uvijek su iz Crne Gore dolazili napadi na Srbiju. I u vrijeme agresije NATO-a na našu zemlju Crna Gora je korištena kao politički poligon za napad na Srbiju, i svaki put se to dešavalo. I oni su navikli upravljati Srbijom, ne samo tržištem narkotika i ubijanjima po Beogradu, navikli su upravljati Srbijom. Ja vam sad kažem - mi nećemo upravljati Crnom Gorom, mi hoćemo bratske odnose s Crnom Gorom. Ali vam garantiram, dok sam živ, neću vam dati da Srbiju pokorite onako kako ste je pokoravali gotovo 30 godina! Dok sam živ, a vi znate što to znači i što trebate poduzeti." Vučić se, baš kao i Milošević, povremeno čini potpuno odvojen od stvarnosti Bilo bi vjerojatno previše pitati ga kako je Crna Gora, s manje stanovnika od Zagreba, od kojih se mnogi izjašnjavaju kao Srbi, pokorila državu koja je pokrenula ratove u Hrvatskoj, Bosni i Hercegovini i na Kosovu. Kako je to izvela taktički i logički? Jedino suvislo objašnjenje je u nesuvislosti - Vučić se, poput Miloševića, u javnim nastupima povremeno čini odvojenim od zbilje. Negdje na početku jugoslavenskih ratova po Miloševićevu su nalogu iz Beograda u kninski kraj stizali tipovi poput Franka Simatovića, aktualnog haškog osuđenika. Službeno, njihova je misija bila obavještajna, a u naravi se svodila na pripremanje Srba za rat. Simatović je radio za tadašnji Resor državne sigurnosti, prethodnicu Vučićeve BIA-e. Trideset godina kasnije Milošević leži u dvorištu obiteljske kuće u Požarevcu, Simatović sjedi u Haagu, a BIA, po Vučićevu nalogu, vršlja po Crnoj Gori. Službeno, bave se obavještajnim poslovima. Vučić se, kao i Milošević, poziva na zaštitu Srba Sve što je Milošević radio, a nije uradio ništa dobro, formalno je bilo nadahnuto zaštitom Srba. Po tom obrascu se ponaša i Vučić - kao što Plenković i Milanović u odnosu prema BiH oponašaju Tuđmana, čini se da Srbiju i Hrvatsku vode aveti zločinaca - s tim da on u sve ubaci i malo osobne patnje, spremnosti na stradanje. Eno ga gore poručuje Crnogorcima da mu preko njega živog neće ponižavati državu, i to nakon što je u njihovu državu istovario svoje špijune, možda i vojnike, pa to još i priznao. Glupo, zar ne? Ali pali. Prije malo više od godinu dana tjednik Vreme usporedio je Vučića i Miloševića. Njihov tekst bio je baziran na unutarnjopolitičkim sličnostima: Milošević je, primjerice, 1997. godine najavljivao "dvostruko veću stopu rasta od najviših stopa rasta u Europi" i govorio o negativnim pritiscima vanjskih faktora. Vučić se prošle godine podičio najvećim privrednim rastom u Europi, Milošević je najavljivao brze pruge, a Vučić obećavao da će se vlakom iz Beograda do Niša stizati za sat i 20 minuta. Povezuje ih i odnos prema medijima, opoziciji, tek što se Milošević rijetko pojavljivao u medijima. Neke razlike su u finesama. Miloševićeva je politika nominalno branila Jugoslaviju, a zapravo je pokušala skrojiti nove srpske granice, Vučićeva se, pak, bavi "srpskim svijetom", ravnom plohom položenom na četiri ocila, o čijem postojanju naročito rado svjedoči Aleksandar Vulin, Vučićev ministar za dizanje tenzija u susjednim državama. Nacionalni dernek u Beogradu s Vučićem, Dodikom i Porfirijem Imaju, konačno, sličan odnos prema slobodama. Od ove školske godine u srpskim je školama obavezno intoniranje državne himne. Učiteljicu iz Sandžaka, dijela Srbije s bošnjačkom većinom, koja je to odbila, privela je policija. A 15. rujna srpska Skupština trebala bi izglasati Zakon o zaštiti ćirilice. Tko je ugrožava, do trenutka objave ovog teksta nije utvrđeno, no to ionako spada u suvišna pitanja. Voljom Vladara, isti taj 15. rujna bit će proglašen Danom srpskog jedinstva. "Glavni cilj u pokušaju da utemeljimo ovaj praznik jest da motiviramo sve naše građane, gdje god živjeli, Srbe iz svih krajeva, da tog dana tamo gdje žive, na kuću ili zgradu, istaknu našu trobojku, zastavu koja je jedan od simbola Srba, gdje god živjeli", izjavio je Nikola Selaković, ministar vanjskih poslova. Predviđena je i proslava u Beogradu, dakako pored spomenika Stefanu Nemanji, a okupljenima će se obratiti Vučić, Dodik i Porfirije. Srpski predsjednik u društvu destabilizatora BiH i Crne Gore. U jedno možemo biti sigurni: neće im uputiti ni riječ prijekora. Nema zašto, na istoj su liniji. (INDEX)

[knjigeobradovic]

POSLEDNJA INSTANCA 1 - SRĐA POPOVIĆ

POSLEDNJA INSTANCA 1 – SRĐA POPOVIĆ

[korrektheiten]

Srđa Popović: Des Profi-Revolutionärs goldenes Regelwerk

Wochenblick: Die Zeiten werden härter und Österreich bewegt sich in Rekordgeschwindigkeit Richtung Corona-Diktatur. Aber Regierungen unterschätzen eines: „Die Macht der Menschen“. Für Widerstand liefert Popović – auch wenn er nicht unumstritten ist, da er und seine Organisationen oft als verlängerter Arm der US-Regierung gelten und auch Kontakte zu George Soros bestehen – nützliche Handlungsanweisungen. Gastbeitrag von […] Weiterlesen: Srđa Popović: Des Profi-Revolutionärs goldenes Regelwerk http://dlvr.it/S0kZFs

[balkantimes]

Milošević, Jović i Kadijević: Crna trojka koja je rasturila Jugoslaviju

BiH neće moći da opstane kao država, a bitka oko teritorija bez krvi je teško zamisliva, piše Borisav Jović u svom dnevniku 26. marta 1990.

Tomislav Marković 

Na pitanje koja republika se prva otcepila od Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije – mnogi bi odgovorili: naravno, Slovenija. I ne bi bili upravu. Istina je da se od SFRJ prva otcepila Srbija i to Ustavom koji je Slobodan Milošević doneo 28. septembra 1990. godine. Mnogo pre nego što su Slovenija, Hrvatska, Bosna i Hercegovina, Makedonija napustile Jugoslaviju, to je učinila Srbija, voljom Miloševića koji se, navodno, borio za očuvanje savezne države.

Ako neki datum treba obeležavati kao dan raspada SFRJ – to je 28. septembar. Mada termin raspad i nije baš najtačniji, jer on asocira na prirodan proces odumiranja, raspadanja i truljenja. SFRJ se nije rastočila prirodnim putem, već je njen nestanak usledio kao plod zakulisnog rada zavereničke grupe na čijem čelu je stajao Slobodan Milošević.

Ustavom iz 1990. godine Srbija je sebe definisala kao suverenu i nezavisnu državu, članom 72. u kojem stoji: "Republika Srbija uređuje i obezbeđuje: suverenost, nezavisnost i teritorijalnu celokupnost Republike Srbije i njen međunarodni položaj i odnose s drugim državama i međunarodnim organizacijama".

U članu 135. Ustava Srbija se izuzela iz pravnog poretka Jugoslavije, navodeći da će poštovati zakone savezne države samo kad proceni da joj je to u interesu, dakle – kad joj se prohte. Pored toga, Srbija je uvela carinu na robu iz drugih jugoslovenskih republika, preuzela je na sebe obezbeđivanje narodne odbrane i državne bezbednosti, kao i uređenje međunarodnih odnosa sa drugim državama u svetu. Ukratko – Srbija je pre skoro 30 godina postala nezavisna država.

Optužnica Srđe Popovića

O svemu ovome je pisao advokat Srđa Popović davne 2003. godine u dnevnom listu Danas, u opširnom feljtonu u kojem je izveo svojevrstan misaoni eksperiment. Popović se zapitao šta bi bilo da Milošević i njegovi pobočnici nisu uspeli u razaranju Jugoslavije, da je njihov opaki naum sprečila, recimo, pravovremena međunarodna intervencija. U tom slučaju njima bi se sudilo za veleizdaju pred domaćim sudom i to po ondašnjim jugoslovenskim zakonima. Zato Popović svom tekstu daje formu prave sudske optužnice, sa svim obligatnim pravničkim elementima.

Pred sudom bi se našli: "Slobodan Milošević, u svojstvu Predsednika Predsedništva Centralnog komiteta Saveza komunista Srbije (do 16. jula 1990), Predsednika Socijalističke Partije Srbije (od 16. jula 1990), i Predsednika Republike Srbije (od 9. decembra 1990), Borisav Jović, u svojstvu Predsednika Predsedništva SFRJ (od 15. maja 1989) i Potpredsednika Socijalističke partije Srbije (od 16. jula 1990), i Veljko Kadijević, u svojstvu Saveznog sekretara za narodnu odbranu". Zaveri su se kasnije pridružili i mnogi drugi: Radovan Karadžić, Momčilo Krajišnik, Blagoje Adžić, Momir Bulatović, Nikola Koljević, Ratko Mladić, Milan Martić itd, ali Popović se zadržao na pomenutoj trojci prvoboraca apokalipse.

Crnu trojku Popović optužuje da su u vremenu od 15. maja 1989. godine do 8. oktobra 1992. godine stvorili zaveru zloupotrebom svojih političkih ovlašćenja. Zaveru su skovali da: "(1) protivustavno i nezakonito izmene nacionalnu strukturu JNA, stave je pod svoju efektivnu kontrolu i upotrebe za sledeće ciljeve: (2) nasilno svrgnu organe vlasti u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji; (3) vojnim udarom nasilno svrgnu najviše savezne organe vlasti, SIV i Predsedništvo; (4) silom ili protivustavnim putem izmene granice SFRJ tako što bi protivustavnom odlukom Predsedništva isključili Republiku Sloveniju i Republiku Hrvatsku iz SFRJ; (5) silom ili protivustavnim putem izmene granice Republike Hrvatske, podsticanjem i političkim i vojnim organizovanjem oružane pobune u Hrvatskoj".

Planovi za agresiju na Hrvatsku i BiH

Popović izlaže opsežan dokazni materijal koji, gle ironije, najvećim delom potiče od samih optuženika. Dnevničke beleške Borisava Jovića objavljene u knjizi Poslednji dani SFRJ i memoari Veljka Kadijevića Moje viđenje raspada – vojska bez države sadrže obilje dokaza koji terete i njih dvojicu i njihovog nezvaničnog šefa Miloševića. Oni uopšte ne kriju šta su uradili, naprotiv, hvale se svojim zlodelom, što je u neku ruku i razumljivo. Kad si već uspeo da rasturiš onakvu državu, samoljublje ti ne dozvoljava da svoje životno delo ostaviš u tami, već te nagoni da ga podeliš sa drugima, da se javno pohvališ svetu koliki si zločinac.

Napomena o autorskim pravima

Preuzimanje dijela (maksimalno trećine) ili kompletnog teksta moguće je u skladu sa članom 14 Kodeksa za štampu i online medija Bosne i Hercegovine: "Značajna upotreba ili reprodukcija cijelog materijala zaštićenog autorskim pravima zahtijeva izričitu dozvolu nositelja autorskog prava, osim ako takva dozvola nije navedena u samom materijalu."

Ako neki drugi medij želi preuzeti dio autorskog teksta, dužan je kao izvor navesti Al Jazeeru Balkans i objaviti link pod kojim je objavljen naš tekst.

Ako neki drugi medij želi preuzeti kompletan autorski tekst, to može učiniti 24 sata nakon njegove objave, uz dozvolu uredništva portala Al Jazeere Balkans, te je dužan objaviti link pod kojim je objavljen naš tekst.

Svašta može da se pročita kod Jovića i Kadijevića. Evo, recimo, Jovićeve dnevničke beleške od 26. marta 1990. godine: "Sastanak koordinacije – u SR Srbiji. Učestvuju svi čelni funkcioneri. Naš cilj je da izbegnemo krvoproliće, da uspostavimo granicu unutar koje se neće ratovati. Van te granice se ne može izbeći, jer Bosna i Hercegovina neće moći da opstane kao država, a bitka oko teritorija bez krvi je teško zamisliva". Dakle, zaverenici su rat u BiH isplanirali još početkom 1990. godine, što je jedan od njih sam priznao. Toliko o tome šta je bio uzrok agresije na BiH, to je bio samo deo Miloševićevog projekta za širenje i učvršćivanje vlasti na što većoj teritoriji i nad što većim brojem ljudi. To je bio osnovni motiv za pokretanje ratova, za razaranje Jugoslavije, za izazivanje nemerljive ljudske patnje.  

Iste godine, 27. juna, Jović piše: "Kažem Veljku da bih ih ja najradije isterao silom iz Jugoslavije, jednostavnim presecanjem granice i proglašavanjem da su se svojim odlukama sami doveli u tu situaciju, ali ne znam šta da radimo sa Srbima u Hrvatskoj. (...) da se pre konačnog isterivanja održi referendum na osnovu koga bi se odlučilo gde izvršiti razgraničenje. Veljko se slaže." Toliko o borbi za očuvanje Jugoslavije, nikog to nije zanimalo u ovoj zavereničkoj grupi, oni su se borili isključivo za političku moć.

Kontrola nad JNA

Da bi sačuvao vlast i moć Miloševiću je bilo neophodno uspostavljanje kontrole nad JNA koja se nalazila pod zapovedništvom Predsedništva SFRJ. Zato Milošević, zajedno sa svojim zaverenicima, preuzima kontrolu nad Predsedništvom, rušeći autonomiju Vojvodine i Kosova, te instalirajući lojalne ljude u Crnoj Gori. Tako stiže do četiri glasa od osam u Predsedništvu, pa mu ostaje samo da izbaci Sloveniju iz SFRJ i osvoji većinu. Nakon toga JNA je pod Miloševićevom apsolutnom kontrolom i polako se pretvara u srpsku vojsku, mada i dalje zadržava staro ime, kamuflaže radi. Pritom, komandovanje nad JNA uopšte se ne odvija u samom Predsedništvu, već vojskom komanduje neformalna "grupa šestorice" koju, pored Miloševića, Jovića i Kadijevića, sačinjavaju još i Blagoje Adžić, Branko Kostić i Momir Bulatović.

Popović naširoko citira Borisava Jovića koji je pisao o čemu je ova zaverenička šestorka na svojim sastancima razgovarala i odlučivala: o "spremanju vojske za rat", o tome da "rat mora biti ofanzivan i visokog intenziteta", o potrebi "usklađenosti politike i propagande, osobito u odnosu na ljude koji idu u rat", o tome da li je "nama" (Šestorici) "cilj da vojskom branimo nove granice naroda koji žele da ostanu u Jugoslaviji, ili da srušimo hrvatsku vlast", o "neophodnosti mobilizacije", o tome da je "još uvek veliki broj Hrvata u vojsci", o potrebi da "Srbija i Crna Gora proglase vojsku svojom", o nužnosti da se "učvrste dostignute linije" i da se "popune jedinice dobrovoljcima", "da se moraju srediti jedinice srpskih ustanika i utvrditi položaji za odbranu dostignutih linija"… Toliko o tome ko je organizovao, planirao i vodio ratove diljem Jugoslavije: centar odlučivanja sve vreme je bio u Beogradu, u prestonici udruženog zločinačkog poduhvata.

Upad u monetarni sistem Jugoslavije

Iako se Srbija faktički otcepila od Jugoslavije Ustavom iz 1990. godine, u istom tom Ustavu zadržala je stav 1. člana 135. koji glasi: "Prava i dužnosti koje Republika Srbija, koja je u sastavu Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije, ima po ovom ustavu, a koja se prema saveznom ustavu ostvaruju u federaciji, ostvarivaće se u skladu sa saveznim ustavom".

Popović objašnjava zašto je ovde Milošević sačuvao privid poštovanja savezne države. "Smisao ove odredbe je u tome što nezavisna Srbija, koja nema nikakvih dužnosti prema federaciji, želi da zadrži prava koja joj je nekada, kao članu federacije, davao taj ustav. Najvažnije od tih prava (kojih se Srbija u stvari svojom nezavisnošću pravno odrekla) su (1) da učestvuje u radu Predsedništva države kojoj više ne pripada, (b) da preko njega zadrži svoju kontrolu nad vojskom, (3) da se krije iza imena Jugoslavije i ‘zalaže za teritorijalni integritet Jugoslavije’, i (4) da polaže ‘pravo’ na deo savezne kase", piše Srđa Popović.

Sve to Miloševiću nije bilo dovoljno, već je u decembru 1990. odlučio da opljačka saveznu državu, od koje se netom otcepio. Veće udruženog rada Skupštine Srbije donelo je dva propisa koji su nosili oznake "strogo poverljivo" i "službena tajna", na osnovu kojih je Srbija upala u monetarni sistem SFRJ i iz Narodne banke Jugoslavije uzela 1,4 milijardi dolara. Kad je to izašlo na videlo, funkcioneri iz drugih republika tražili su da se odgovorni za pljačku pohapse, to je podržao i savezni premijer Ante Marković, ali od toga ništa nije bilo, jer je Miloševićeva moć već u to vreme bila prevelika.

Borisav Jović u svom dnevniku govori o ovoj operaciji: "Razgovor sa Stankom Radmilovićem (Predsednikom srpske vlade) u SPS… Malo ga kritikujem šta to sve rade sa emisijom i sa prihodima koji pripadaju federaciji. Objašnjava da bi bez toga sigurno izgubili izbore, jer više od pola republike ne bi primalo plate i penzije. Ante (Marković) se čudio i krstio kako to da nismo ‘bankrotirali’, a mi smo ga nadmudrili. To je suština." I onda se ovakvi kokošari - željni samo vlasti, sile, para i moći - predstavljaju kao branitelji nekakvih nacionalnih interesa, patriote, pravi Srbi i zaštitnici Jugoslavije. Da bi razuman čovek u tako nešto poverovao, neophodno je da mu prethodno hirurškim putem odstrane mozak, a potom ga, radi svake sigurnosti, podvrgnu višegodišnjem tretmanu miloševićevskih medijskih falangi.

Vjerujte svojim herojima i patriotama

Dokazi za postojanje zavere su nesumnjivi, Popović ih navodi na desetine i desetine u narečenom feljtonu, kasnije preštampanom u njegovoj knjizi One gorke suze posle koja je dostupna na stranici Peščanika. Popović u zaključku veli: "Ova trojica bila su suočena sa tipičnom dilemom svih zaverenika-prevratnika: ako ne uspemo bićemo zločinci, ako uspemo, neće biti nikoga da naš zločin kazni. Uspeli su. I zato za svoj osnovni zločin nisu nikada odgovarali pred domaćim sudom po zakonima koji su vladali tempore cirimini (u doba izvršenja)." Da nisu uspeli, odgovarali bi "za teška krivična dela protiv bezbednosti i ustavnog poretka SFRJ" i bili osuđeni na smrtnu kaznu.

Slobodan Milošević, Borisav Jović, Veljko Kadijević i njihovi saradnici ne samo da su uspeli da razbiju Jugoslaviju, već su uspeli masovnom, višedecenijskom propagandom da u srpskom društvu ustale uverenje da su se borili za očuvanje SFRJ. Ta propagandna matrica i dan-danas besprekorno funkcioniše, uprkos priznanju zločina koje su ostavili Kadijević i Jović u svojim knjigama, objavljenim još 1993. i 1996. godine.

Zato bi većinskoj Srbiji, žrtvi Miloševićeve propagande, valjalo poručiti: čitajte knjige i svedočanstva vaših patriota i heroja. Razumljivo je što ne verujete nama, izdajnicima i autošovinistima, ali nema razloga da ne verujete najvećim sinovima srpskog naroda, onima koji su se borili za te vaše ljubljene nacionalne interese. Ako su zločinci već javno priznali svoj krimen i još se hvastaju minulim radom koji se meri stravičnim zločinima i neizmernom ljudskom nesrećom, red je bar da im odate priznanje za počinjena nedela.

Milošević i Kadijević su odavno mrtvi, ali Jović je još tu negde, među nama, skrajnut i zaboravljen od svih, iako je bio jedan od glavnih arhitekata ove divne realnosti u kojoj živite. Obavestite se šta je taj simpatični starčić koji je prevalio devedesetu uradio za vas, ulepšajte mu mirne penzionerske dane.    

Stavovi izraženi u ovom tekstu autorovi su i ne odražavaju nužno uredničku politiku Al Jazeere.

Izvor

[lindsaynsmith]

Tracing the Tactics of 21st-Century Youth Protest

Tracing the Tactics of 21st-Century Youth Protest https://ift.tt/2OYKYvR

This story appears in VICE Magazine's Power and Privilege Issue. Click HERE to subscribe.

The future of 21st-century political youth movements was shaped by a barrel and a baseball bat. In 1998, the Serbian parliament passed the University Act—a law that undermined the autonomy of universities and replaced academic staff with Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević’s own allies. The move was part of a broader effort to stomp out dissent and free expression in Serbia. In response, a handful of students at the University of Belgrade founded the civic protest group Otpor (translation: Resistance!) on two strategies: grassroots opposition and mockery. One of their most infamous pranks riffed on the government’s “Dinar for Sowing” campaign, which set up collection boxes in public places to raise funds for farmers. For their own “Dinar for Retirement” campaign, Otpor painted Milošević’s face on an oil barrel and left it in the middle of Belgrade’s largest shopping district. A sign offered passersby the opportunity to insert a coin in exchange for the privilege of whacking the barrel with a bat, which they’d left conveniently next to it.

The students sat in a nearby cafe and watched as shoppers queued up to express their feelings toward the president, leaving the authorities in an impossible position. To do nothing would look weak, but to intervene and drag the barrel away would look ridiculous. The next day, opposition TV broadcast photographs of the police “arresting” the barrel and loading it into a van, and Otpor became a household name. What started as a tiny civic protest snowballed into a 70,000-strong popular movement in the space of just two years, and the group’s strategic use of nonviolence, humor, and pop culture savviness led the fight against Milošević, who lost the 2000 election he called prematurely, eventually earning himself a one-way ticket to The Hague.

Taking inspiration from a combination of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Gene Sharp (the father of strategic nonviolence), and the liberation movements of 1989, Otpor overhauled the image of political activism to appeal to Generation X’s young and disaffected. Turning away from violence, they aimed instead for a revolution of the mind. In place of weapons, they fought with logos, slogans, and street theater. They used laughter to make resistance enjoyable, corporate-marketing tactics (a bold logo, a memorable slogan) to make it attractive, and technology to disseminate information and organize. Simply put: They made it fun. They disrupted the status quo to stay one step ahead of a regime desperate to maintain it through force—and they won.

Otpor had a ripple effect not just through neighboring countries in the former Soviet Union at the time, but through the spirit of anti-authoritarian activism pretty much everywhere. They provided a blueprint for youth movements in their wake to adopt or adapt, which is exactly what’s been happening over the past two decades, with varying degrees of success.

After receiving training from the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS)—a nonprofit NGO established by the founding Otpor members Srđa Popović and Slobodan --Đinović with the aim of transferring their knowledge to other pro-democracy activists—the civic youth resistance movement Kmara (Enough!) helped bring about a peaceful change of power in Georgia in 2003, while Pora (It’s Time!) coordinated young people’s opposition to authoritarian rule in Ukraine in 2004–2005. CANVAS’ training and methodology also helped usher in regime change in Lebanon in 2005 and the Maldives in 2008. Their manual—“Nonviolent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points”—was downloaded 17,000 times in Iran during the presidential election protests of 2009. A year and a half before the Arab Spring uprising began, a group of young Egyptian bloggers and activists called the April 6 Youth Movement attended a CANVAS training session in Belgrade, and would become integral to the anti-Mubarak protests in 2011. In homage, Otpor’s strong and easily replicated logo—a stylized clenched fist lampooning the WWII Serb Partisans’ symbol—has become the go-to logo for resistance, raised high from Zuccotti Park to Tahrir Square.

The majority of people attending CANVAS training sessions, Popović tells me, are young. “Young people very often spearhead social changes for several reasons,” he says. “When you’re in your 20s you think you have the right to a bright future—as I did when I was an activist at that age. Young people have more time to invest into social change because outside of studying they don’t have the economic or time constraints of careers, kids, or family. They’re also braver because they don’t have a lot to lose. It’s very easy to blackmail someone whose family depends on their salary, but it’s very difficult to blackmail someone by just saying ‘I’ll expel you from studies,’ because they’ll just say ‘I don’t give a shit, I believe in this too strongly.’”

"Otpor had a ripple effect not just through neighboring countries in the former Soviet Union at the time, but through the spirit of anti-authoritarian activism pretty much everywhere. They provided a blueprint for youth movements in their wake to adopt or adapt, which is exactly what’s been happening over the past two decades, with varying degrees of success."

Though their ends may be different, the origins and means of youth movements are often similar. In his 2007 book, The Time of the Rebels, Matthew Collin defines the democratic revolutions of the late 90s and early 00s as “a tiny faction of disaffected students which grew into a subversive network spanning the entire country.” Despite these modest beginnings, the success of any revolution relies on numbers. “To really have a successful movement you need young people,” Bryan Farrell, a journalist, activist, and the editor of the website Waging Nonviolence, says. “You need their energy to make it a fun, enjoyable experience. You need to make your campaign the place to be, essentially.” What Otpor did, and other youth groups have done since, is innovate to wrangle them in.

Since they didn’t have the numbers initially, Otpor steered clear of traditional forms of opposition like marches and rallies out of necessity, opting instead to attract people to their revolution by making it cool. “Our product is a lifestyle,” founding member Ivan Marovic´explained to Foreign Policy in 2011. “The movement isn’t about the issues. It’s about my identity. We’re trying to make politics sexy.”

So, for Otpor, witty logos, slogans, and dilemma actions were more than just methods of protest, they were branding strategies���designed to bring large numbers of people into a movement in order to make more traditional action like strikes and boycotts more effective.

“A nonviolent movement, especially now, needs to know how to brand itself and how to make itself popular. It’s not all about the content of the political campaigns anymore but about how they present themselves to the public,” says the author Janjira Sombatpoonsiri. For her PhD research on nonviolent resistance movements, Sombatpoonsiri investigates why young people in particular were attracted to Otpor’s brand of activism. “They joined the movement because they didn’t have a job and they thought that Milošević was the cause of all troubles in their lives,” she explains. “And although they did have a very clear idea about what kind of change they wanted to bring about, back then they also joined the movement because it was fun.”

Social media has massively reinvented the way youth movements operate, with hashtag campaigns making dissent easy to access and impossible to ignore. The April 6 Youth Movement began as a Facebook group encouraging support for a workers’ strike; supporters of Hong Kong’s 2014 Umbrella Movement in mainland China were able to swerve around web censorship by posting images instead of words; and platforms like Twitter mean demonstrators are able to take control of their own narratives and broadcast them internationally even if regional media is subject to corruption or blackouts. Social media enables a movement to grow significantly and quickly, but it also needs a tangible direction. This could partly explain the recent rise in occupations.

Over the past decade, Otpor’s tactics, which were street theater and pranks (pop-up actions, almost) to disrupt the social hegemony and galvanize people, have shaped modern social movements, for whom holding physical space has become central to nonviolent resistance. Whether it’s Occupy settling on a location in New York City that represents injustice, Tahrir Square becoming the focal point of the Arab Spring, or the occupation of districts and schools that brought Hong Kong to a standstill for 79 days, youth movements increasingly hinge on the taking and holding of space. It’s a natural outgrowth of Otpor’s strategy of forcing moral questions into the public, making the simple question “Which side are you on?” impossible to ignore.

“A nonviolent movement, especially now, needs to know how to brand itself and how to make itself popular. It’s not all about the content of the political campaigns anymore but about how they present themselves to the public,” says the author Janjira Sombatpoonsiri.

Historical research has shown that campaigns of nonviolent resistance are more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts. In their 2012 book Why Civil Resistance Works, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan studied campaigns between 1900 and 2006 and found that nonviolence leads to higher levels of participation because “the barriers to participation are lower.” This leads to enhanced resilience and a greater chance of achieving a more stable democracy in the long run. They also found that no campaigns failed once they’d achieved the active and sustained involvement of just 3.5 percent of the population, but those that did surpass the 3.5 percent threshold were all nonviolent. Using Otpor’s model to gain that support, then, is a guaranteed route to success. “When campaigns are able to prepare, train, and remain resilient, they often succeed regardless of whether the government uses violence against them,” Chenoweth writes.

Many nonviolent resistance actions in recent years have been unsuccessful because the protests weren’t significant enough (as with Belarus’ Denim Revolution in 2006) or their central organization fell apart (as with the Arab Spring). The April 6 Youth Movement splintered into two groups, both of which were banned in Egypt in 2014 following accusations of espionage and defamation of the state. The government held fast through Hong Kong’s Umbrella Revolution and the protests didn’t dent the economy in the way they’d hoped, and the students who led them were jailed until democracy activists won an appeal to have their sentences overturned in February 2018. The student-led protests at Maidan Square in Ukraine in 2013 against government corruption under president Viktor Yanukovych began much in the spirit of the successful 2004–2005 revolution—with music, speakers, and performance art. But, despite beginning as the largest peaceful protests since Pora’s previous efforts almost a decade prior, the Euromaidan Revolution, as it became known, turned incredibly violent. Government snipers, police officers, and mercenary agents killed more than 100 protesters and injured thousands more. There was indeed an overhaul in parliament after Yanukovych fled the country, but some positions of power were given to members of far right parties—not exactly the change demonstrators had in mind.

Nonviolent tactics can be applied to reactionary movements, too. In Moscow, the pro-Kremlin youth group Nashi (“our guys”) was set up to counter Pora’s influence in Ukraine, although they mostly did community work in exchange for the promise of a future career in leadership. Arguably the most definitive political movement of this generation is the “alt-right,” whose use of disruption, tech-savviness, and branding (think: Pepe, the flag of “Kekistan,” calling everyone they disagree with a cuck) isn’t that dissimilar to how any of the aforementioned left-leaning groups started either. But, while there may be some tactical overlap, the alt-right’s organizing is ultimately geared toward the intimation of and physical manifestation of violence.

“The thing is, [the nonviolent model] is an open-source book,” Popović tells me. “And you can use it for any goal that isn’t too extreme. If your goal is extreme then the nonviolent model of mobilizing numbers toward the mainstream doesn’t really work, but if your idea can be sold to the middle of the political battlefield then unfortunately even the people you disagree with can use this model.”

But this is mainly an issue affecting democratic societies, as we’ve seen play out across Europe and the United States over the past decade. “In democracy you have options and referendums,” Popović continues. “In autocracies it’s the government exercising control and misusing the pillars of the state to stay in power. Suppressing people, controlling media, preventing opposition from running in elections—it’s a different game.”

Youth groups tend to be short-lived, but their influence lasts a lifetime. The most recent example of potential sustainable change was spearheaded by a politician. On April 13, people took to the streets of the Armenian capital of Yerevan to protest Serzh Sargsyan becoming prime minister after serving two terms as president (just as the government’s structure had shifted to give the prime minister more power than the president). The opposition leader, Nikol Pashinyan, called for a 14-day march from the municipal community of Gyumri to Yerevan’s Liberty Square, and when the demonstrators reached the capital thousands more were there to greet them, united under the slogan “Reject Serzh.” The protest movement snowballed into a nationwide campaign of civil resistance, with citizens going on labor strike, blocking roads, and shutting down public transport. Those who were unable to leave their homes mobilized in other ways, like banging pots and pans together between 11 and 11:15 every night.

“In democracy you have options and referendums,” Popović continues. “In autocracies it’s the government exercising control and misusing the pillars of the state to stay in power. Suppressing people, controlling media, preventing opposition from running in elections—it’s a different game.”

Designed to disrupt basic services and provoke an over-the-top response, the peaceful campaign has its roots in the Otpor school of thought. This time, although students played their typically large role, the original impetus came from an opposition party. It was a rallying cry against corruption—something Popović calls a “bread-and-butter nonpolitical issue.” If somebody from the government is misusing taxpayers’ money, the majority of people feel more personally about it than they would about fighting for a less tangible issue like democracy or human rights. Still, it was coordinated nonviolent action with a clear goal. The movement captured the spirit of the nation and accomplished what several former Soviet Union states have done in the past: the peaceful removal of a long-sitting leader. On the eleventh day of the protests, Sargsyan resigned. What the movement hasn’t been able to do yet, however, is bring about real systemic change. As is the case with Egypt and Syria in the wake of the Arab Spring, they may have removed the head of the Hydra, but the beast isn’t dead.

In 2018, a time when political divisions have never been greater or more apparent, effecting change rests just as heavily on youth involvement as ever. Whether it’s high school students in Florida organizing the Never Again movement to advocate for gun control in the wake of the Parkland shooting, or the indigenous-youth-driven protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, nonviolent civil resistance—in the US, at least—feels deeply personal and visibly young right now. But Popović says it’s important to understand that this new generation isn’t standing alone.

“When Otpor was created, the first branch after the student branch and the high school branch was the so-called ‘resistance mothers,’” Popović tells me. “These are the mothers of the activists, who were supporting events, standing in front of the police and baking cakes—all that kind of stuff. Student protesters have never brought political change alone, not even in [the protests of] 1968. To have a successful movement you need diversity. You need to build across the constituencies. Your goals, your objectives, and your tactics should be ones that take the movement from the minority into the larger majority—from the extreme into the mainstream.”

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

via VICE https://ift.tt/1fnaWnB October 15, 2018 at 10:31AM

[arsnovaperu]

Global 3000 - El magacín de la Globalización | Todos los contenidos | DW | 26.12.2017

Global 3000 - El magacín de la Globalización | Todos los contenidos | DW | 26.12.2017: ¿Cuál es el estado de la democracia en el mundo? Global 3000 se reúne con la activista serbia Srđa Popović. Su protesta pacífica fue determinante en la caída del autócrata serbio Slobodan Milošević. via Blogger http://ift.tt/2Cni9TO

[thelibertybeaconproject-blog]

The Dishonest Career of the Remarkable Srđa Popović, CIA Regime Change Operative

The Dishonest Career of the Remarkable Srđa Popović, CIA Regime Change Operative

The Dishonest Career of the Remarkable Srđa Popović F. WILLIAM ENGDAHL Many readers likely never heard the name of the remarkable Serbia-born political operator named Srđa Popović. Yet he and his organization, CANVAS, have played a lead role in most every CIA-backed Color Revolution since he led the toppling of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, at least fifty according to last count.…

[yung-megs]

Stājoties Pretim Lielākajam no Ļaunumiem

Dante Alegjeri savā darbā “Dievišķā komēdija” atsaucas: “Elles tumšākie nostūri ir atvēlēti tiem, kuri saglabā neitralitāti morālas krīzes laikā.”

Bruņojies ar apņēmību stāties pretim lielākajam no ļaunumiem, Documenta 14 mākslinieciskais vadītājs Adam Szymczyk, vienam no vērienīgākajiem šī gada mākslas pasaules notikumiem, piešķīris īpašu tēmu- mācoties no Atēnām. Ambiciozo nosaukumu papildina vēl iespaidīgāks izpildījums- pirmo reizi izstādes 62 gadu pastāvēšanas vēsturē prožektoru gaismas nav pievērstas Kasselei vien, tām tiekot dalītām starp izstādes vēsturisko atrašanās vietu un Atēnām.

Kā galvenais ierocis cīņai pret pasivitāti documenta 14 retorikā ir politisks aktīvisms- Szymczyk min: “Pastāv milzīgs neizmantots potenciāls situācijai, kad apmeklētāji sanāk kopā vērot izstādi- politisks potenciāls.” Neuzbāzīga (ar retiem izņēmumiem) skatītāja emociju kutināšana par instrumentiem izmantojot indivīda stāstus un pieredzi ļauj saskatīt aprises šim kuratora minētajam potenciālam. Atsakoties no klajas vardarbības attēlošanas kā provocējošā faktora, izstādes kuratori to ir padarījuši cilvēcīgu un viegli baudāmu, procesā nenometot nevienu no daudzslāņainās tēmas aspektiem.

Izstādes centrā pozicionējot tēzi “mācoties no Atēnām” kuratoru komanda akcentē Documenta misionāro lomu laikmetīgās mākslas pasaulē. Rezonējot mākslinieciskā vadītāja vārdos, iespējams, ir nepieciešams atkāpties no lomu sadalījuma, kas Rietumeiropas un Austrumeiropas vispārinājumus, proti, Kasseli un Atēnas, nostādījis aizdevēja un lūdzēja lomās, tā vietā atskatoties pagātnē un mācoties no Atēnām kā no demokrātijas un, sekojoši, indivīda spēka idejas karognesēja Rietumeiropā.

Šis motīvs caurvij virkni no Documeta 14 izstādītajiem darbiem, kas kopīgi risina politiskā aktīvisma un pilsoniskās sabiedrības līdzdalības tēmu, piedāvājot skatītājam iespēju pašrocīgi veikt ceļu no problēmas apzināšanās līdz piedāvāto risinājumu izvērtējumam un sevis kā sabiedrības locekļa apzināšanās.

Spāņu mākslinieks Roger Bernat, darbā “The Place of the Thing” (2017), pievēršas arheoloģisku priekšmetu spējai iemesot virkni daudznozīmīgu kulturālu, politisku vai pat reliģisku simbolu cilvēku prātos.

Dante Alegjeri savā darbā “Dievišķā komēdija” atsaucas: “Elles tumšākie nostūri ir atvēlēti tiem, kuri saglabā neitralitāti morālas krīzes laikā.”

Bruņojies ar apņēmību stāties pretim lielākajam no ļaunumiem, Documenta 14 mākslinieciskais vadītājs Adam Szymczyk, vienam no vērienīgākajiem šī gada mākslas pasaules notikumiem, piešķīris īpašu tēmu- mācoties no Atēnām. Ambiciozo nosaukumu papildina vēl iespaidīgāks izpildījums- pirmo reizi izstādes 62 gadu pastāvēšanas vēsturē prožektoru gaismas nav pievērstas Kasselei vien, tām tiekot dalītām starp izstādes vēsturisko atrašanās vietu un Atēnām.

Kā galvenais ierocis cīņai pret pasivitāti documenta 14 retorikā ir politisks aktīvisms- Szymczyk min: “Pastāv milzīgs neizmantots potenciāls situācijai, kad apmeklētāji sanāk kopā vērot izstādi- politisks potenciāls.” Neuzbāzīga (ar retiem izņēmumiem) skatītāja emociju kutināšana par instrumentiem izmantojot indivīda stāstus un pieredzi ļauj saskatīt aprises šim kuratora minētajam potenciālam. Atsakoties no klajas vardarbības attēlošanas kā provocējošā faktora, izstādes kuratori to ir padarījuši cilvēcīgu un viegli baudāmu, procesā nenometot nevienu no daudzslāņainās tēmas aspektiem.

Izstādes centrā pozicionējot tēzi “mācoties no Atēnām” kuratoru komanda akcentē Documenta misionāro lomu laikmetīgās mākslas pasaulē. Rezonējot mākslinieciskā vadītāja vārdos, iespējams, ir nepieciešams atkāpties no lomu sadalījuma, kas Rietumeiropas un Austrumeiropas vispārinājumus, proti, Kasseli un Atēnas, nostādījis aizdevēja un lūdzēja lomās, tā vietā atskatoties pagātnē un mācoties no Atēnām kā no demokrātijas un, sekojoši, indivīda spēka idejas karognesēja Rietumeiropā.

Šis motīvs caurvij virkni no Documeta 14 izstādītajiem darbiem, kas kopīgi risina politiskā aktīvisma un pilsoniskās sabiedrības līdzdalības tēmu, piedāvājot skatītājam iespēju pašrocīgi veikt ceļu no problēmas apzināšanās līdz piedāvāto risinājumu izvērtējumam un sevis kā sabiedrības locekļa apzināšanās.

Spāņu mākslinieks Roger Bernat, darbā “The Place of the Thing” (2017), pievēršas arheoloģisku priekšmetu spējai iemesot virkni daudznozīmīgu kulturālu, politisku vai pat reliģisku simbolu cilvēku prātos.

Dokumentējot Thingspiel ceļu no Atēnām uz Kasseli, simboliskais akmens tiek novietots dažādos vides uzstādījumos, tiekot pakļauts attiecīgā konteksta uzpiestajai interpretācijai. Thingspiel ceļa dokumentācija tiek izstādīta Kasseles Neue Neue Galerie (Neue Hauptpost), kam blakus novietota kaste, kurā, kā minēts aprakstā, atrodams arī Thingspiel. Skatītājā neapzināti rodas bijības sajūta pret telpas vidū esošo priekšmetu un tajā, iespējams, mītošo vēsturisko liecību, kas, rezonējot ar Damien Hirst Venēcijā apspriesto tēmu, liek apšaubīt elku ietekmes izcelsmi un reizē kalpo kā dzirkstele Szymczyk uzsvērtajam “unlearning” procesam. Caur viegli ironisku prizmu, darbs ļauj skatītājam atkāpties no aklas objektu pielūgsmes, ļaujoties diskusijai par institūcijām, kuras līdzīgi kā Thingspiel pakļautas nepamatotai un vēsturiski, iespējams, falsificētai apbrīnai.   

Sekojot šaubām, skatītājs ir aicināts aizpildīt radušos informācijas vakuumu ar jauniem naratīviem, starp kuriem izceļas Ben Russell piedāvātā video instalācija “Good Luck” (2017). Prasmīgam kuratora darbam mijoties ar unikālu stāstu skatītājs tiek vests neaizmirstamā sajūtu ceļojumā, attopoties Fridericanum izstāžu zāles pagrabos. Starp vēsajām mūra sienām sastopami Serbijā un Surinames raktuvēs strādājošo stāsti, kas caur varoņu sadzīviskajiem sarunām apraksta strādnieku smago ikdienu. Darbs pievēršas cilvēka lomas izpētei ekonomiskās izaugsmes un kapitālisma kontekstā. Mākslinieks ar dažādu izteiksmes līdzekļu palīdzību rosina skatītājos empātiju un aicina saskatīt ražošanas ķēdes cilvēcisko aspektu. 

Šis darbs līdzīgi kā Mounira Al Solh “Nassib's Bakery” (2017), Michel Auder “The Course of the Empire” (2017) un citi, visspilgtāk iekrāso izstādes politizēto dabu, kas, kuratoru izpildījumā, ber sāli sabiedrības brūcēs, aicinot atklāti runāt par mūsdienu politiskās un ekonomiskās vides strukturālajiem trūkumiem. 

Izstādes sāls un politiskā aktīvisma motīva noslēdzošais posms slēpjas risinājumu piedāvāšanā. Sekojot skatītāja ticību sistēmas apšaubīšanai un problēmu kontūru apzināšanai, skatītājam tiek piedāvāts ieskats sistemizētā aktīvisma konstruēšanas mehānikā. Darbā “Seductive Exacting Realism” (2015-2017) tumšā telpā tiek atskaņota serbu mākslinieces Irena Haiduk saruna ar serbu politisko aktīvistu, Srđa Popović,  bijušo serbu studentu kustības Otpor! vadītāju, kas spēlēja nozīmīgu lomu serbu diktatora Slobodan Milošević gāšanā 2000. gadā. Popović ir veicis unikālu ceļu, sistematizējot un teoretizējot Otpor! sasniegto, padarot to par replicējamu nevardarbīgu akciju mehānismu.  Srđa konsultē dažādus pro-demokrātisku grupējumus, kļūstot par netiešu simbolu politisku pārmaiņu provocēšanā. Pārvaldot revolūcijas mehāniku serbu aktīvists dalās savās zināšanās par komponentēm, kas nepieciešamas veiksmīgas politiskas kustības izveidē, ar darba klausītājiem, noslēdzot politiskā aktīvisma ievadkursu ar visiem pieejamu instrumentu kopumu.  

Iespējams, ne visas Documenta 14 mākslinieciskās komandas ieceres skatītājam ir skaidri izprotamas un viegli nolasāmas, daļai pazūdot ceļā no Atēnam uz Kaseli, taču, par spīti izstādes epizodiskajai aritmijai, skatītāja acu priekšā prasmīgi tiek attīstīta politiskā aktīvisma tēma. Tā vietā, lai bezmērķīgi provocētu, izstādes veidotāji ir vēlējušies skatītāju izglītot, precīzāk, ļaut tam mācīties un definēt savu lomu sabiedrībā, esot bruņojušamies ar kuratoru piedāvāto informāciju. Neraugoties uz apmeklētāju vēlmi atsaukties mākslinieciskā vadītāja aicinājumam atmest neitralitāti, Documenta 14 atstāj neaizmirstamu pēcgaršu, liekot noslaucīt putekļus no pazīstamā Atēnu koncepta “demokrātija”. 

[nataliehegert]

Waiting is important for this work.

Please, have a seat. Make yourself comfortable. While you wait I will tell you a story.

Two old sisters who lived in a small house by the sea looked out over the calm waves one day and saw a ship approaching. There was no wind, and the sea was like glass. Barely a ripple moving over its surface. The sisters watched the ship as it ever so slowly came closer to the shore.

“Look!” said one, “How it sparkles! It shines like gold!”

“Yes!” said the other, “This ship must be heavy with riches!”

All day they leaned out of the windows of their small house, keeping their eyes on the ship.

“With these doldrums, it may take hours for it to reach us,” said the one. They watched for hours, studying the silhouette of the vessel as the sun slowly dipped behind it.

A moonless night settled over the little house by the sea, but the ship still shone bright like gold glinting in the sun. The old women did not sleep. They leaned out of the windows of their small house, mesmerized by its bright light.

The next day the ship was closer to the shore, and the old women could see all the treasure aboard: money, jewels, high fashion couture, sports cars, LV handbags, Apple watches.

The women smiled and embraced each other, they waited for the ship to come ashore. The ship, however, while always coming closer, never seemed to arrive. Days they waited and watched the ship draw nearer, so slowly. Their smiles faded. They did not again embrace. They waited for sleep the way they waited for the ship, their minds beset with the image of it and all its contents.

Years passed, with the ship still approaching, still gleaming in the sunlight, still lighting up the night. Years passed, and the sisters kept their sleepless watch.

Some days they walked along the shore. Finally, one day, one looked to her sister and cried, “I don’t want what’s on that ship. All I want now is sleep. But I cannot tear the vision of that thing from my eyes.”

But her cries were met with only a blank stare, her sister’s eyes glassy, like the calm, reflective sea. “Yes, but don’t you see?” she said, “I think it’s a little closer today. It will be any day now that it comes ashore.”

The one sister then reached for a sharp stone and, taking one last look at the golden ship, ablaze with light as the sun set behind it, she tore out her eyes.

Hope is the greatest whore.

* Irena Haiduk’s Seductive Exacting Realism (SER), presented concurrently The Renaissance Society in Chicago and the 14th Istanbul Biennale, seeks to blind its audience. “What this work provides is not a Western image,” Haiduk says, “It takes time, it has to strain attention.” It is a work that is impossible to consume quickly. It involves the abdication of the sense of sight, opening up our tactile and aural sensibilities. Viewers first stay in a waiting room before being allowed to enter. And in Istanbul, the work is only open when the seas are calm.

What is revolutionary art? This question was posed to the Chicago/Belgrade-based artist recently, and prompted the development of this work. “It hit a nerve,” Haiduk told me, “because I think the word revolution is as political as wedding planning.” But the person who came to mind as she considered this question is not an artist at all, but rather a political activist and consultant.

The centerpiece of SER is imageless, comprised instead of an audio track, a dialogue between Haiduk and Srđa Popović, former leader of Otpor!, the non-violent student uprising that helped depose Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević, and the current executive director of CANVAS (the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies), a branding consultancy for political demonstrations and regime change that has advised resistance movements in fifty countries, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Ukraine. Their conversation, recreated by voice actors in a melodic dialogue, issues from speakers in the nave of the Renaissance Society, and in a “dead dark” room at the Italian School in Istanbul, like a song of sirens, arousing the senses.

“All these revolutions fail on their own terms,” Haiduk remarks, speaking of the CANVAS-assisted political movements, “what follows is destabilization, privatization, waiting, waiting for the benefits of democracy and capitalism that never come. What CANVAS leaves behind is a permanent futureless present.” Whether in Ukraine, or Egypt, or Turkey, these popular uprisings, branded with logos and led by Twitter feeds, watch as their explosive energy leads to interminable transition periods. “All CANVAS touches is left to waste away, like sailors in the arms of sirens.”

“But something does arrive,” Haiduk says, “New markets for the first world,” primed and ready for the consumption of Western images and commodities. In 2011, Wikileaks revealed that Popović colluded with the global intelligence firm Stratfor, demonstrating the structural complicity between Western markets and revolutionary action. This, as Haiduk shows, is likewise a regular feature of Western art institutions. “It really got me how similar Srdja and I are,” she points out, “His source of funding and mine are the same; most of the art institutions in the first world are funded by corporations that use Stratfor and companies like Stratfor. But Srdja does something I cannot do, he creates global socio-economic change.”

With Seductive Exacting Realism, it is not Haiduk’s attempt to indict or criticize; rather, she is “trying to feel the features of CANVAS.” At The Renaissance Society, long-legged Eastern European models wearing Apple watches, a dedicated SER logo, the voice of the Asian Siri, high-street boutique trappings, the music—the complete branded experience—seduce the viewer, enticing them into an environment where the image is withheld, where it becomes instead an oral image. Where they must feel around in the dark, blind, with only their hands and feet and ears to rely on, where all things—object, human, corporation—become equal in the dark. “The Western art institution dreams of revolution,” she says, “Perhaps it’s a nightmare—enlightenment cannot be at ease in the dark.” Haiduk wants you to submit to the song of the sirens.

Feel the hairs on the ears, as Goethe said, fear comes through the ear.

Seductive Exacting Realism at The Renaissance Society is on view through October 8, 2015.

Feature Posted on 9/17/15, Printed in THE SEEN, Issue 01, September 2015.

[herretes]

En más de una ocasión, líderes y simpatizantes de la dictadura venezolana han expresado su temor por las revoluciones de colores. Hugo Chávez y Elías Jaua  aseguraron que las revoluciones de colores son “golpes suaves”. Según estos políticos, las revoluciones de colores implican la interferencia extranjera en asuntos nacionales. De igual manera, propagandistas chavistas como Mario Silva y Eva Golinger afirman que las élites internacionales están detrás de estas revoluciones y consideran que en Venezuela se gesta una. Medios vinculados con el régimen ruso y la dictadura cubana, aliados de la dictadura venezolana, suelen criticar también estos movimientos. En el PanAm Post le contamos qué son las revoluciones de colores y porqué Venezuela podría necesitar una.

¿Qué son las revoluciones de colores?

Las revoluciones de colores son movimientos civiles pacíficos que han luchado en contra de dictaduras y regímenes corruptos en el mundo. Intelectuales, activistas y organizaciones internacionales han apoyado a estas organizaciones civiles en la creación de estos movimientos. Se llaman “de colores” porque los organizadores han elegido un color como distintivo para aglutinar a los enemigos de la dictadura.

El  filósofo Gene Sharp es uno de los principales impulsores de las revoluciones de colores. La obra de Gene Sharp está inspirada en ideas de Mahatma Gandhi y Albert Einstein. Sharp ha escrito libros como “De la dictadura a la democracia” y “Cómo funciona la lucha no-violenta”. Sus obras han sido traducidas y publicadas en varios idiomas.

Albert Einstein Institution es una organización fundada por Sharp y sus colaboradores. En su sitio web, esta institución permite descargar de forma gratuita algunos de los libros de Sharp en español. Esta organización civil también ha producido documentales dedicados a enseñar cómo luchar pacíficamente contra las dictaduras. Los libros de Sharp también tratan de cómo evitar el ascenso de un régimen tiránico. En “De la dictadura a la democracia” (obra que está disponible en el Albert Einstein Institution y que se abrirá al hacer click sobre el título del libro en azul) Sharp incluye 198 métodos de lucha no-violenta contra las tiranías. Debido a su obra, Sharp ha sido nominado al Nobel de Paz.

¿Dónde han ocurrido revoluciones de colores?

Las revoluciones de colores han ido sucedido en muchos lugares del mundo donde existían tiranías. Yugoslavia es uno de los casos más exitosos donde movimientos civiles fueron capaces de confrontar pacíficamente a las dictaduras. El movimiento ciudadano Otpor (resistencia en serbio) lideró una resistencia civil pacífica contra el dictator Slobodan Milošević. “El carnicero de los Balcanes”, como se conoce a Milošević persiguió con mano de hierro a la oposición serbia. Pero también llevó a Yugoslavia a la desintegración debido a su promoción del nacionalismo serbio y al odio étnico.

Durante la criminal dictadura de Milošević, Otpor puso en práctica métodos de acción política no violenta inspiradas en Sharp. Otpor utilizó símbolos, canciones, humor y otras técnicas de no violencia para combatir al régimen yugoslavo. Para el año 2000, luego de que el régimen yugoslavo perdiera las elecciones, Otpor activó una serie de estrategias pacíficas para derrotar a la dictadura. Gracias a la actividad de Otpor, el régimen de Milošević cae.

Líderes de Otpor como el abogado Srđa Popović crearon el Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS). El propósito de CANVAS es apoyar a víctimas de dictaduras en el mundo a organizar la resistencia no violenta. CANVAS produce videos como éste:

Otros casos de revoluciones de colores exitosas son la Revolución de las rosas de Georgia, la Revolución de los Tulipanes en Kirguistán (2005) o la Revolución de los Jazmines en Túnez. No obstante, otras revoluciones de colores han fracasado debido al poder absoluto de las dictaduras. Estos fueron los casos de la Revolución Azafrán en Myanmar (2007) o la Revolución Verde de Irán (2009).

La Revolución Naranja de Ucrania en 2004 (Wikimedia)

¿Por qué la dictadura venezolana desprecia las revoluciones de colores?

Las revoluciones de colores implican varios elementos políticos y económicos que la dictadura venezolana desprecia. En primer lugar, las revoluciones de colores están dirigidas por movimientos civiles e independientes. Dada la ideología estatista del chavismo, la independencia de la sociedad civil con respecto a la ideología oficial está mal vista.

En segundo lugar, las revoluciones de colores han promovido la democracia liberal y a la economía de mercado. El chavismo considera que tanto la democracia liberal como la economía de mercado son elementos políticos “impuestos” por Occidente, y que países como Venezuela deben “inventar o errar”. Ese “inventar o errar” ha terminado por conducir al país al desabastecimiento, el autoritarismo y al colapso social y económico.

Finalmente, las revoluciones de colores promueven un rechazo a otros regímenes autoritarios. La política exterior chavista ha convertido a Venezuela en un aliado de regímenes como la dictadura marxista cubana, la cruel dictadura siria, la teocracia iraní y el régimen ruso.

¿Por qué Venezuela puede necesitar una revolución de colores?

Venezuela está siendo gobernada por un régimen tiránico que ha encarcelado opositores y pisotea el Estado de derecho. El régimen de Maduro ha impedido que los venezolanos acudan a las urnas para decidir sobre la continuidad del régimen. La dictadura venezolana ha intentado abolir el poder legislativo porque representaba un contrapeso al todopoderoso ejecutivo bolivariano.

La dictadura de Maduro invierte importantes recursos en desfiles militares y maniobras militares, así como también compra la lealtad diplomática de diversos países. Mientras la dictadura derrocha así el dinero de los venezolanos, los ciudadanos tienen dificultades para comprar medicinas y alimentos.

Es deber de todo ciudadano venezolano que busque un cambio de sistema por medios pacíficos terminar toda colaboración con el régimen. Continuar dialogando con un régimen que le ha mentido a los venezolanos sólo servirá para perpetuar el chavismo en Venezuela. Una revolución de colores que exija el respeto al derecho constitucional de los venezolanos de realizar una revocatoria del mandato así como la implementación de elecciones libres puede ser la antesala de una nueva Venezuela. Los libros y documentales de Gene Sharp, la Albert Einstein Institution, Srđa Popović y CANVAS pueden ser útiles para los venezolanos.

Angelo Florez de Andrade

panampost.com

La entrada ¿Qué son las Revoluciones de colores y por qué Venezuela necesita una? aparece primero en Noticias Diarias de Venezuela.

[kopi9-blog]

Mihiz je jednom rekao za Srbe, a mislim da bi se to moglo primeniti i na druge, da smo mi sami sebe okupirali. Jer lako je Česima koje su okupirali Rusi, oni će jednog dana da izađu, ali šta mi da radimo.

Srđa Popović

[walk-away]

Važno je znati i ugledati se, studentkinjo prava.

[proglas]

PREMINUO SRĐA POPOVIĆ: Upamćen kao branilac proganjanij i obespravljenih - http://www.proglas.ba/preminuo-srda-popovic-upamcen-kao-branilac-proganjanij-i-obespravljenih/ - Advokat i borac za ljudska prava Srđa Popović preminuo je u 76. godini života, poslije kraće i teške bolesti u Beogradu. Oglasi: Popović je rođen u Beogradu, Pravni fakultet je završio 1961. i postao partner u porodičnoj advokatskoj kancelariji koju je 1933. osnovao njegov otac Miodrag. Ubr...