tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post3537045381873203255..comments2022-05-03T11:56:26.611+02:00Comments on The Daily Sketch: Reply to Al Giordano re "Toppling a Coup, Part I: Dilemmas for the Honduras Regime"David Sketchleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-85475400548130711592010-01-20T23:41:48.234+01:002010-01-20T23:41:48.234+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.George Salzmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17867696674509696247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-22123162596884591192010-01-10T17:05:55.930+01:002010-01-10T17:05:55.930+01:00Machetera also has a blog piece with a video from ...Machetera also has a blog piece with a video from 2007 "on Otpor and incidentally, Peter Ackerman:"<br /><br />http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/dais-not-so-invisible-puppet-show/David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-69320520979016564162010-01-10T16:28:48.397+01:002010-01-10T16:28:48.397+01:00Thanks Michael. Excellent piece.
Interesting too...Thanks Michael. Excellent piece.<br /><br /><br />Interesting too, to note what Eva Golinger wrote about USAID recently:<br /><br />"A high-level USAID official confirmed two weeks ago that the CIA uses USAID’s name to issue contracts and funding to third parties in order to provide cover for clandestine operations."<br />http://www.chavezcode.com/2009/12/cia-agents-assassinated-in-afghanistan.htmlDavid Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-1296184262551497102010-01-10T00:09:01.822+01:002010-01-10T00:09:01.822+01:00My recent Swans article "Failure of Progressi...My recent Swans article "Failure of Progressive Thought" (December 2009) draws upon some of the contents of this blog post. <br /><br />http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker38.html<br /><br />Best Wishes, Michael BarkerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-56895680396672436682009-09-14T06:32:39.011+02:002009-09-14T06:32:39.011+02:00Al Giordano called me a fuck up...he said the coup...Al Giordano called me a fuck up...he said the coup in Honduras had been officially declared a coup by the U.S gov on 8.28....<br /><br />He doesn't know anything about anything,<br /><br />He's very conservative, an Obama health care supporter, supports CIA influenced Daily Kos and on and on <br /><br />Here's a diary on it.<br /><br />http://www.pffugeecamp.com/diary/350/al-giordano-of-narco-news-owes-me-an-apologyStu Piddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16524964539838735855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-60277627875723262122009-08-22T14:26:11.198+02:002009-08-22T14:26:11.198+02:00To Windsor. Actions to dismember Yugoslavia began...To Windsor. Actions to dismember Yugoslavia began in the 1960's with German involvement (a renewal of where they were forced to leave off in 1945) and still in progress though largely completed for all intents and purposes especially once the NATO Anschlus is complete. Ivan Marinovich's ethnicity is neither here nor there. What matters is his intentions and those of his paymaster. Now, he gets a good press from many like Al and yourself and he probably is a great guy. I hope so. If he is all you say the Honduran popular movement is lucky to have his skills and we will all be very grateful if Micheletti is removed and real democracy is gained by the Honduran people. However, if Otpor is the recommendation it is a poor one. There is nothing to grateful for in Serbia/Yugoslavia. So, they got rid of Milosevic. Did they really? Or were they the barking dog that chases the bus up the road believing it was them that made the bus go away from their territory? It seems they were more the Western cat's paw than the voice of the people. And what is the legacy? Puppet states ruled by quislings willing to do the bidding of Washington's interests. Is this going to be the fate of Honduras too? Washington doesn't need or care about Micheletti. Anyone will do as long as they represent ruling class interests well. It really isn't personal. It is what happens after Micheletti goes that matters. The Otpor legacy is not one I would wish on any one. And the same miserable outcome can be seen in all the venues of the CIA and NED coups. <br /><br /> Daily Sketch has clearly referred to the two track policy used in the management of the popular resistance everywhere to prevent a real popular revolution. <br /><br />Windsor, no one is spreading lies about Ivan or Al or saying that they advocate "turning Honduras into a "dismembered bleeding corpse,"". It is just that Ivan has been presented as a proverbial Che Guevara figure of the Honduran popular resistance organisation on the basis of Otpor's 'success' in removing Milosevic (and delivering Serbia to NATO). Well, we know who paid Che and more importantly who did not but who paid to have him and his ideas killed. Why is every one so coy about Ivan's paymaster? I know it is gauche to talk about money in bourgeois circles but...Is it verboten to ask these questions? Why?<br /><br />I am in contact with organisers in Honduras and I know people from Yugoslavia also. There is no love for Otpor and its aftermath from those I know in Yugoslavia and they fear for the people of Honduras (and Iran) if the same forces are going to be at work there. Al's articles on organising in Narco News are very good and I hope they get a wide audience. There is nothing wrong with providing information and a strategic framework to those who could use such information to possibly bring down the illegitimate oligarchy regime. Why aren't Ivan and Otpor in Serbia doing just that? They surely need it there. The progressive Latin American activists I know are also concerned about the activity of the NED and their fronts in the region including the Friedrich Naumann Foundation who has strong ties to the Honduran oligarchs and players http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56260.Deep Politics Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16814562197781005555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-16075714235242850612009-08-16T22:10:05.115+02:002009-08-16T22:10:05.115+02:00Deep Politics Forum seems to have history confuse...Deep Politics Forum seems to have history confused. The dismemberment of Yugoslavia took place back in the early 1990s. Otpor wasn't formed until the late 1990s and led the ouster of Milosevic in 2000. Ivan Marovic, like many Yugoslavians involved in Otpor, was of mixed Serbian and Croatian heritage and opposed the breakup of his country.<br /><br />Anyone who knows Ivan knows that nobody pulls his strings; he is an independent leftist thinker and activist.<br /><br />If any one has any evidence that Marovic or Giordano or anyone else who was at the workshop in Honduras were in any way advocating turning Honduras into a "dismembered bleeding corpse," please present it now. Otherwise, stop spreading such lies and instead take the time to talk with the progressive Honduran activists who actually were at the workshop, at least 90% of whom were highly favorable of the content and what they learned from it.windsor1https://www.blogger.com/profile/13138187145338679480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-81371320489053541522009-08-16T02:19:37.148+02:002009-08-16T02:19:37.148+02:00Daily Sketch, this is a cross posting from Machete...Daily Sketch, this is a cross posting from Machetera but I thought I would post here also as the same people are posting here. Magda<br /><br />I don’t see a problem with wanting to know the source of Ivan Marovich’s funding and who pulls his strings. If the future of Honduras is going to be that of the dismembered bleeding corpse of what little is left of Yugoslavia then they had better have a rethink about their direction. Washington’s doormats in each of the little Balkan statelets. I too have been a community worker and know plenty of peace activists from around the world. Where do we find all this string free money to do what we want? Where do I sign? No, really.<br /><br />“unfounded suspicion run amok” Please. The evidence is in Belgrade for one. And all the other places Otpor clones staged their fake revolutions. Of course the US has interest in the resistance to the coup. They have an interest in the coup and maintaining those power arrangements. With or with out Micheletti.Deep Politics Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16814562197781005555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-72012316592120568582009-08-16T01:02:14.667+02:002009-08-16T01:02:14.667+02:00Ackerman is rich. Ackerman uses some of his own fo...Ackerman is rich. Ackerman uses some of his own fortunes to help lower the costs of indigenous struggles, whether they are in opposition to friends or foes of the US government. I am happy to see him give up some of his wealth for this purpose. It is a Good Thing. Those of us who have been community organizers for impoverished peace and justice groups for decades occasionally come across a wealthy person who wants to help. That makes us happy, Mr. Sketchley. I have no idea if you are an organizer, a citizen intellectual, or just a blogger, but Ackerman is an organizer's help, and he is also a peace intellectual, so he comes with a strategic analysis. This makes him unwelcome in the blood-in-the-streets camp, since he says that most of that blood is avoidable, which is dire news to those who are committed to armed revolution.<br /><br />I have taken $thousands from a surgeon who liked my work as an organizer. Did he finesse my organizing or change our agenda? Nope, he helped it. I have taken $thousands more from the owner of a series of truck stops, of all the unlikely things. Did he micromanage or even try to steer how I organize or the goals I bring to the movements I am involved in? Nope, but his donations have moved ours forward faster.<br /><br />Get over it, please. Ackerman is a wealthy guy whose organization has worked to lower the costs of struggle and make the fruits of that struggle last longer with more freedoms for more people and more human rights for all. I am grateful for his work and for the work of ICNC.Tom H. Hastingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098260278363929190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-74893408689973789682009-08-16T00:31:52.281+02:002009-08-16T00:31:52.281+02:00Tom H Hastings.
Thanks for your reply and I wasn&...Tom H Hastings.<br /><br />Thanks for your reply and I wasn't referring to you about the ad hominems, and apologies if that was the impression given. In fact, your measured language and tone were conducive to me taking more notice of your arguments which I found to be informative, after all I am new to this topic.<br /><br />I have to disagree with you, however, in your analysis of what Prof Robinson wrote. You say he ascribes the word dupe "when he credits people like Ackerman with "grooming" some and marginalizing some after infiltrating an indigenous movement."<br /><br />Not at all, a closer inspection of what he actually wrote will reveal that he states categorically that "<b>the notion</b> that <b>masses of people who become swept up in movements</b> whose leaders may be agents of the intervention network <b>are themselves "dupes" or agents of U.S./transnational intervention</b>, which as <b>we know is generally not the case and not a helpful approach</b>".<br /><br />I also see no hint of a "let's you and him fight" stance" in his comments. Please provide an example.<br /><br />Rather he is saying "the interventionist apparatus" of which Ackerman is "a part of" and "integral to"..."is pursuing, as it always does, a two-track strategy. One is to support the Honduran business and political elite and the other is to penetrate the mass popular/resistance movement (e.g., through meetings, financing, grooming some leaders and marginalizing others, trying to shape the movement's discourse, etc.), in order to keep it from radicalizing out of control into a genuinely revolutionary movement able to threaten the whole elite order". <br /><br />After all he's part and parcel of that elite order.<br /><br />And why none of you will even consider this is extremely bafflng.<br /><br />No one doubts Zunes' credentials or Boaz' sweetness. DuVall and Ackerman I'm less sure of and that's what all this is about, not whether they're nice guys, which I'm sure they are.<br /><br />Many thanks for your kind invitation. I can't quite see myself ever returning to the US unless there is some serious, radical change there. And from what I see that's going to be a long time coming.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-30459885716088589602009-08-15T23:51:22.999+02:002009-08-15T23:51:22.999+02:00I'd like to commend you, Mr. Sketchley, on fin...I'd like to commend you, Mr. Sketchley, on finding so many ad hominem phrases and other descriptors left over from the bad old days of adversarial conflict. Of course, a cursory read of your work reveals similar, often rebound expressions. I apologize if I've thus participated. I suspect that conflict fatigue may strike all of us and we sometimes resort to less than constructive language. As I am a developer of the civil discourse initiative at my university, I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid responding with the uncivility my anger or irritation naturally accesses.<br /><br />I think another worrisome tendency is to ascribe the label dupe to anyone. That seems to be what Robinson does when he credits people like Ackerman with "grooming" some and marginalizing some after infiltrating an indigenous movement. It's a tempting analysis and I would assert that in fact it's usually the other way 'round, that the infiltration of the movements are usually done via provocateurs who urge more violence, not nonviolence. That was the case for us in Minneapolis when we faced down Honeywell corporation during the Vietnam War--they manufacturing the antipersonnel cluster bombs. We were doing well until 'we' started smashing windows, at which point the police smashed the movement and the movement forfeited public sympathy and thus lost both its recruitment ability and protection. Nonviolence is the way to sustain more gain with less pain, so when I see Robinson's website with its guns and Che Guevara t-shirts (was there ever a more romantic, sexy revolutionary with a worse theoretical analysis?), I worry that he makes it much more dangerous for indigenous movements on the ground by his apparent "let's you and him fight" stance. <br /><br />Unless I read too fast, you never replied to the information that ICNC has offered numerous trainings to all kinds of opponents of US hegemony. Why does this information--which I would assert obviates most of your case--not seem important enough to you to generate a response, or at least an acknowledgement? Perhaps you hinted at it by saying you were open to persuasion. I would think that you might find that information part of how your own thinking might evolve in a critical consideration of more information.<br /><br />Let's assume we are all people of good will. I've met Ackerman several times, I feel I know Jack DuVall fairly well and like him a lot, Cynthia Boaz is the ultimate combination of keen political scholarship and personal sweetness, and Stephen Zunes has an anti-imperialist set of street and academic credentials that go back even to his high school days.<br /><br />Now I have to go cook for students and other friends coming over for dinner and discussion. If you are ever in Portland, Oregon, join us where I live at Whitefeather Peace Community.Tom H. Hastingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098260278363929190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-83925350517122325212009-08-15T23:19:59.845+02:002009-08-15T23:19:59.845+02:00.../continued from previous post.
It's very n....../continued from previous post.<br /><br />It's very noticeable that no one has even tried to reply seriously, preferring instead to obfuscate the issue with such ad hominems and character assassination as: "whacky", "anal-retentive", "McCarthyist", "petit bourgeois", trying "to smear" the Honduran "social movement", "vicious", "boneheaded First Worlder", "buying into propaganda of the repressors", serving "the interests of brutal repressors", being (a) drunk ("Maybe you sobered up"), "cowardly", "you haven't a frickin' clue", "demonizing Serbs", "irresponsible", "dangerous". <br /><br />Pretty impressive collection considering all these insults come from 'non-violent' professionals.<br /><br />I do agree however with "amateurish" and I make no apologies. I'm just a concerned citizen after all, I'm not an intellectual or a journalist.<br /><br />I would at this stage like to quote Prof. William I. Robinson (http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/):<br /><br />"That Ackerman is a part of the U.S. foreign policy elite and integral to the new modalities of intervention under the rubric of "democracy promotion", etc., is beyond question. There is nothing controversial about that and anyone who believes otherwise is clearly seriously misinformed or just ignorant. Marovic too is part of the intervention network; that has been well documented. The only thing I can imagine that could have thrown Giordano off his own political good sense is the notion that masses of people who become swept up in movements whose leaders may be agents of the intervention network are themselves "dupes" or agents of U.S./transnational intervention, which as we know is generally not the case and not a helpful approach (although it did not seem that this is what you were arguing). Rather, the financial and political networks set up by the interventionist apparatus attempt to penetrate, manage, and reorient mass movements, with varying degrees of success. I do not know what Ackerman and the ICNC have done in Honduras but surely the interventionist apparatus is pursuing, as it always does, a two-track strategy. One is to support the Honduran business and political elite and the other is to penetrate the mass popular/resistance movement (e.g., through meetings, financing, grooming some leaders and marginalizing others, trying to shape the movement's discourse, etc.), in order to keep it from radicalizing out of control into a genuinely revolutionary movement able to threaten the whole elite order"<br />(E-mail to David Sketchley 15 Aug 2009)<br /><br />I'll leave you all to reflect on that.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-19673040206723398082009-08-15T23:19:11.400+02:002009-08-15T23:19:11.400+02:00By the way Al: you say that I "changed" ...By the way Al: you say that I "changed" my "own comment". This is a lie. The boss comment is still there and always has been. I didn't edit anything. Not losing it are you?<br /><br />To Prof. Boaz:<br /><br />"I want to note that I'm glad Mr. Sketchley is engaging all of these folks directly rather than posting scurrilous articles in obscure venues all over the web"<br /><br />Thanks Cynthia. Yes, it wouldn't do for this counter-insurgency to get out, would it? I would like to have had this discussion on The Field but I wasn't allowed to.<br /><br />I'm just a little curious though about your use of the word scurrilous. Which definition did you have in mind? <br /><br />Using or given to coarse language? Or vulgar and evil? Or was it: containing obscenities, abuse, or slander?<br /><br />You say "when I saw the reference to Peter Ackerman as my "boss", I knew we weren't having a serious discussion". Really? Why? You don't explain.<br /><br />Please forgive me for thinking that "the founding Chair" of a foundation could possibly be 'a person who exercises control or authority' over someone who just gives advice. Silly of me really, I don't know what I must have been thinking. The fact that you left your comment anyway shows that it is/was/always will be irrelevant.<br /><br />You also accuse me of "amateurish character assassinations against me or my associations". Really? Where? You don't explain or give examples so how am I supposed to reply? In fact, the character assassination is coming from Mr. Giordano, yourself and others and the target is your's truly.<br /><br /><br />You also say that I am making 'accusations' that the "courageous people" of Honduras "are simply puppets of some agency of the United States."<br /><br />This is entirely false. Where do I say any such thing?<br /><br />But we all know what the elephant in the room is. <br /><br /><b>Pete Ackerman and his elite financial and foreign policy connections.</b> <br /><br />Continues...David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-87261712571429441602009-08-15T21:35:36.338+02:002009-08-15T21:35:36.338+02:00Correction The last words in the previous post &qu...Correction The last words in the previous post "fighting for" should of course have read 'fighting against'.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-65762455646226857412009-08-15T21:32:50.414+02:002009-08-15T21:32:50.414+02:00Oh yes. I forgot one thing. You say that I make &q...Oh yes. I forgot one thing. You say that I make "a vague suggestion" that "the Honduran people are somehow...weak-minded".<br /><br />This is a vile comment apart from being blatantly false. You imply I am some sort of racist nazi.<br /><br />You continue, accusing me of being "upset that Honduran movements invited a Serb to talk with them because it screws with your script of demonizing Serbs."<br /><br />All this while, of course, you and Marovic and everyone else in fact, have been silent on Diane Johnstone's comment about " means and ends", and particularly the fact that those means "say nothing about the political quality of the ends pursued" and that "the Otpor generation...would rather blame their own government than give up their aspiration to belong to "the world" as reflected in American entertainment culture". <br /><br />What <b>you</b> imply is that it doesn't matter what the ends are, we must focus our attention on the means. And this is the core of our fundamental differences. The impression is that you couldn't give a damn about the ends as long as the means are non-violent.<br />This is exactly the reason I posted Gowan's comment ""If opponents of the coup act to destabilize the coup government with the aim of bringing it down, and Ivan Marovic wants to help them do it, I'm all for it. The question is, What are the ends to which the techniques the US taught Otpor being put? If they're used to seize power for progressive ends, great."<br /><br />'Progresive ends' Al. Otherwise it's all in vain. If its for the backdoor promotion of polyarchy, don't you think progressive Honduran organisations would want to know, especially if that's what they're fighting for?David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-84365970247025980592009-08-15T20:50:34.664+02:002009-08-15T20:50:34.664+02:00Al.
So, are you Cynthia Boaz' spokesperson n...Al. <br /><br />So, are you Cynthia Boaz' spokesperson now? Particularly amusing when you accused me of "trying to imply" that "the professor doesn't think for herself?"<br /><br />Prof. Boaz has the right of reply here (unlike myself, who was refused the right to reply to vicious ad hominem attacks by you on your very own website!) You have the right of reply here even though those replies are laden with insults and ad hominem attacks. <br /><br />You see Al, I'm just an ordinary guy, who's out there trying to make sense of this crazy world. I look to people like you to give me an insight. But what people like me don't like is being lectured to by pompous, cynical arseholes with so little humility their claims of moral superiority fail to convince, who insult with sweeping generalisations and provide no evidence of their own to back up their arguments. <br /><br />Why aren't you trying to convince me with argument and evidence instead of trying to bludgeon me with insult and ad hominem attacks? I'm more than willing to be persuaded if the arguments and evidence are sound. I do not have a closed mind. But to date you have provided neither.<br /><br />Particularly enlightening were Marovic's attempts at trolling and his very amusing accusation of: "Typical western conditionality! "We will give you aid if you privatize your industry first." "I will like you if you sleep with me first." Can't you just admit that you like me?"<br /><br />I say amusing because his previous comment had been just that. <br />"Blogger Ivan Marovic said...<br /><br />First you have to admit that you like me.<br /><br />13/8/09 19:03"<br /><br />What is the comment "First you have to admit that you like me" but 'conditionality'! I have to admit I had a good chuckle at that one, I can assure you. <br /><br />I will give you credit though Al, far be it from me to refuse credit where it's due, you're a past master at the art of straw men.<br /><br />You say "In this exchange you've taken an argument written against the war in Iraq and cherry-picked a single sentence from it to imply - falsely and maliciously - that it's authors were somehow pro-war."<br /><br />No I haven't 'cherry-picked' and no I didn't 'imply'. I said "they accepted US positions on Iraq as legitimate," specificially the positions that Saddam Hussein "sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction that would never be useful to him inside Iraq" and that "President Bush is right to call him an international threat."<br /><br />Both these positions were well known at the time to be false. Or do you now want to tell me that you bought into them as well? It seems you don't even accept this was propaganda! Remember it was Prof. Boaz who accused me of "buying into propaganda".<br /><br />Regarding 'boss' and 'colleague', this proves nothing but that I am someone willing to correct mistakes when they are made.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-80514980605772937842009-08-15T20:10:09.964+02:002009-08-15T20:10:09.964+02:00For the record, I want to note that I'm glad M...For the record, I want to note that I'm glad Mr. Sketchley is engaging all of these folks directly rather than posting scurrilous articles in obscure venues all over the web. <br /><br />To address some of Al's remarks about Mr. Sketchley's comments to me: when I saw the reference to Peter Ackerman as my "boss", I knew we weren't having a serious discussion. And then the reference to my "echoing" of Stephen was equally ridiculous. If my intention was to sound like Stephen without actually *being* Stephen, I would have been more careful than to quote him directly. <br /><br />I am, for the most part, unconcerned about the amateurish character assassinations against me or my associations- I adhere to Gandhi's observation that "even if you're a minority of one, the truth is the truth." However, my larger concern is for the people of these various struggles who come across the kinds of accusations being made here and elsewhere by people like Gowans, Barker, and Weissman, all of which tell these courageous people that they are simply puppets of some agency of the United States. I find that willful attempt at disempowerment irresponsible and probably far more dangerous than whatever it is we (advocates and supporters of nonviolent expressions of people power and civil resistance) are accused of doing. <br /><br />-Cynthia BoazCynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04364362914526483353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-72250635310325831032009-08-15T15:28:41.007+02:002009-08-15T15:28:41.007+02:00Seriously, here's what I see as McCarthyism in...Seriously, here's what I see as McCarthyism in your arguments, Sketchley.<br /><br />In this exchange you've taken an argument written against the war in Iraq and cherry-picked a single sentence from it to imply - falsely and maliciously - that it's authors were somehow pro-war.<br /><br />And in your exchange with professor Boaz, even you knew you over-shot because you went back and changed your own comment (without offering the ethical disclosure that you were correcting a gross untruth originally forwarded on your part).<br /><br />The part of your comment that still says, to Boaz, "I note from your bio that you are 'an academic advisor to the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict' and not surprisingly therefore, you're discourse closely echoes that of your colleague Stephen Zunes," what is it that you're trying to imply? That the professor doesn't think for herself? That she gets marching orders from someone else? That's the implication, because otherwise your words make no sense at all.<br /><br />In your original version - edited by you - you referred, in the conversation with Boaz, to Peter Ackerman as "your boss." Maybe you sobered up and later removed it, but I thought it was revealing of your McCarthyist mindset. After all, someone that is on a board is actually the boss in the hierarchy over an officer of that entity. You had it bass-ackwards.<br /><br />It's indicative of your cloudy thinking on this entire subject. So this, when you say:<br /><br />"What some of us are concerned about is an attempt to co-opt that movement."<br /><br />The use of the phrase "some of us" is cowardly. You're hiding behind the skirt of an unnamed group of people. (If that group is the likes of Gowan and Barker, why don't you just say that you've joined them out on that lonely limb of conspiracy ranting?)<br /><br />But you never have said what you mean by "co-opt." What exactly do you think anybody could do to "co-opt" the people's movement of Honduras? Be specific, because it's at the center of your fears and fantasies regarding your entire argument here.<br /><br /> It's a vague suggestion on your part, as if the Honduran people are somehow too weak-minded to resist some unstated scenario of co-optation. That you don't even suggest what that could look like says to us readers that you haven't a frickin' clue - that you're more upset that Honduran movements invited a Serb to talk with them because it screws with your script of demonizing Serbs. It says to me that you care nothing about whether Honduras wins or loses its struggle against the coup, that your real concern is that they not do it in any way that bothers your ideological prejudices and constructs.<br /><br />That sir, indeed, is counter-insurgency, and you're practicing it. Thanks for hanging yourself out to dry with your own words here.Al Giordanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759593923898028834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-8827418112687300892009-08-14T18:30:14.647+02:002009-08-14T18:30:14.647+02:00I've come in onto this discussion late, but I&...I've come in onto this discussion late, but I'm not sure why Mr. Sketchley is so opposed to Ivan Marovic having done a workshop for pro-democratic Zelaya supporters hoping to overthrow the right-wing junta. Does he really think it is wrong to provide information and a strategic framework to those who could use such information to possibly bring down that illegitimate regime? <br /><br />I have seen Ivan at work, most recently when he co-led a workshop for progressive immigrants rights activists at the Chavez Center here in California, and I can attest he is one of the best progressive trainers and activists around.<br /><br />Remember that there were a lot of leftists like Marovic involved in Otpor who recognized how Milosevic had betrayed socialism in Yugoslavia. That Otpor received some funding from Congressionally-funded agencies does not mean they were puppets of Washington any more than my friends who receive Congressional funding to support their health clinic for migrant workers here in Santa Cruz County are puppets of Washington. Like Marovic, they are leftists and anti-imperialists.<br /><br />I would be suspect of any government funding for training for strategic nonviolent action, but I see nothing wrong with ICNC or any other private independent foundation supporting such work. They have supported workshops for Palestinians resisting the US-backed Israeli occupation, Western Saharans resisting the US-backed Moroccan occupation, West Papuans resisting the US-backed Indonesian occupation, as well as pro-democracy activists struggling against U.S.-backed regimes in Egypt, Guinea, Azaerbaijan, and other countries.<br /><br />As a result, it's confusing as to why one would think that ICNC is part of some imperialist intrigue. Fabrications by such sectarians like Michael Barker have long since been repudiated. <br /><br />It's time to support those fighting for freedom and against imperialism in Honduras and stop attacking individuals and organizations who are active in supporting such a just struggle.windsor1https://www.blogger.com/profile/13138187145338679480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-32371183226707682009-08-14T17:47:52.712+02:002009-08-14T17:47:52.712+02:00Who cares which organization supplied bumpersticke...Who cares which organization supplied bumperstickers, which government, or which grassroots collection of activist donors or wealthy ones with enough of a conscience to do so? People in the streets who are trying to gain some freedom using nonviolence deserve support from any quarter willing to give it. <br /><br />Each and every one of my battles over the past 45 years has been with the US government and except for the disgusting invasion of Iraq (which DuVall and Ackerman tried to stop with their piece in Sojourners). I teach literally hundreds of students annually at a university and a community college from exactly that standpoint. <br /><br />I am so grateful for Peter Ackerman, Jack DuVall, Gene Sharp, Stephen Zunes and Steve York. They help me and plenty others create a whole new generation of American students who know FAR better than I did when I was their age how to stand up with strong nonviolent organizing to the policies of our government that hurt so many others. Some of the soldiers in my classes are truly transformed by the knowledge of how to gain and use strategic liberatory nonviolence and they feel like they can approach conflict in a whole new way. <br /><br />The thing that this whole debate misses is that the crosscutting lines are not left or right, but they come down on methods of conflict management. I strongly dislike much of what my own government does, but from very interesting and illuminating conversations I've had with people as diverse as Daniel Serwer and Amory Lovins, I know there are pockets of great people with some resources in various levels and cul-de-sacs of our massive fed government. If they do something right, like support Otpur with the functional equivalent of less than half a minute of what the US spends on the military, good on 'em. <br /><br />Mr. Sketchley, you sound like a very nice guy--when you aren't prosecuting womderful folks like Ivan--so why not be happy that, whether it's an odd Chinese manufacturer, a unique NGO like ICNC, or even some relative outlier members of some government with their mitts on some money, someone comes through with a few resources once in a while to support the bootstrapping struggles of people who just want to be free or just want a world without violence? <br /><br />As someone who has spent ungodly amounts of time in the streets, in organizing meetings, in jails and in prisons over the decades, I say thank you to whomever helps the nonviolent civil society movements that topple dictators. I have far less concern about getting coopted--I see who sacrifices and who has integrity and only the uninvolved can carp about such things in seriousness. <br /><br />There are three major paths for these movements confronting brutality: armed resistance, nonviolent resistance or retreat. I hope we can agree that retreat is sadly necessary sometimes but that access to some desperately needed resources can change that picture and that's a Good Thing. <br /><br />I don't expect we necessarily agree on the preference for nonviolence, but that is all I'm interested in and I find ICNC gives us access to the tools we need. I was first acquainted with all these theories and histories via Gene Sharp and his amazing work long before Peter's doctoral work or his first book. <br /><br />When Peter and Jack wrote A Force More Powerful and constructed a teaching website and Steve York produced the six-episode film, they gave the world usable tools and we will never put them down, whether the oppressor is a friend of the US, the US itself, or an enemy of the US. <br /><br />Jodi Williams calls us the new superpower and ICNC is our friend and teacher. I've NEVER been told by them who to support, they know my politics, and they've helped and helped. They are the wrong target if you wish to work for more freedom with less bloodshed.Tom H. Hastingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098260278363929190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-5591783189422213132009-08-14T17:07:59.941+02:002009-08-14T17:07:59.941+02:00Prof Boaz.
Thanks for your comment.
You say &qu...Prof Boaz.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. <br /><br />You say "To claim that resistance on the scale we've witnessed in the countries above (and elsewhere) can be manufactured abroad is to grossly overestimate the influence of US agents and agencies."<br /><br />Unfortunately, this a straw man. I have never claimed that resistance is "manufactured abroad". However,why can't you accept the simple idea that US Agencies go into a country which already has a lot of discontent?<br /><br />And I see you talk about "buying into propaganda of the repressors". <br /><br />Another straw man unless you're accusing Stephen Gowans and Michael James Barker of being 'repressors' or their propagandists. Perhaps you'd care to reflect on what your colleagues at the ICNC, Ackerman and DuVall, wrote in Sojourners Magazine in the Sep-Oct 2002 edition: "Saddam Hussein has brutalized and repressed the Iraqi people for more than 20 years and more recently has sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction that would never be useful to him inside Iraq. So President Bush is right to call him an international threat."<br />http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0209&article=020910<br /><br />It certainly appears to me that they accepted US positions on Iraq as legitimate, when most of us who are anti-war knew from the start that they were in fact illegitimate. Talk about "buying into propaganda of the repressors"!<br /><br />I note from your bio that you are "an academic advisor to the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict" and not surprisingly therefore, you're discourse closely echoes that of your colleague Stephen Zunes, specifically when it comes to accusing people of gullibly falling prey to conspiracy theories.<br />(see http://fanonite.org/2008/01/16/people-power-or-political-puppetry/)<br /><br />I agree with Barker when he wrote "The conspiracy charge is of course a tactic that is commonly used to deflect critical inquiry", a view incidentally supported by Noam Chomsky, as I mentioned above.<br /><br />"I firmly believe that anyone who claims an affinity for democracy, rights, and people power owes it to the courageous people of these countries to recognize their resistance as their own. To question a movement's ownership of their struggle serves the interests of brutal repressors and risks undermining the morale of individuals participating in those movements."<br /><br />Is this some kind of Stalinist doctrine: we mustn't question those who know better? Again no one is saying that there isn't a home grown movement in Honduras, it would quite simply fly in the face of the evidence.<br /><br />What some of us are concerned about is an attempt to co-opt that movement. Considering the connections of your boss Ackerman, I truly believe I am entitled to formulate those questions, and those, like you, who lend their impeccable credentials to Ackerman should do the same.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-65039689506391163762009-08-14T08:08:27.109+02:002009-08-14T08:08:27.109+02:00As Stephen Gowans puts it:
"If opponents of ...As Stephen Gowans puts it:<br /><br />"If opponents of the coup act to destabilize the coup government with the aim of bringing it down, and Ivan Marovic wants to help them do it, I'm all for it. The question is, What are the ends to which the techniques the US taught Otpor being put? If they're used to seize power for progressive ends, great."<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is not always so, as the historical record shows.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-39094689035053846642009-08-14T06:21:13.864+02:002009-08-14T06:21:13.864+02:00How surreal- the very folks who should be most enc...How surreal- the very folks who should be most encouraged by mass displays of civilian resistance to tyranny keep buying into propaganda of the repressors- whether it's coming from Serbia, Burma, Iran, or Honduras. <br /><br />The persistence of these conspiracies reflects some degree of naivete about how nonviolent struggle works. To claim that resistance on the scale we've witnessed in the countries above (and elsewhere) can be manufactured abroad is to grossly overestimate the influence of US agents and agencies. <br /><br />Maybe the biggest shame is that most of those disseminating these theories are not paranoid fringe radicals, but well-meaning individuals harboring legitimate -if misplaced- concerns. A decade of neoconservative "democracy promotion" understandably has turned otherwise rational people skeptical. But to quote my friend Stephen Zunes, "the beauty of strategic nonviolent action is that it cannot succeed in threatening any government's rule unless the regime has lost its legitimacy with the people and the opposition has widespread popular support." In other words, Albright's personal campaign against Milosevic was irrelevant because nothing Otpor or any other group could have done would have been productive had the resistance not been truly indigenous. The strategizing, the implementation of tactics, and most importantly the will to resist have always been (and must always be, if the struggle is to succeed) at the volition of the Serbian/Burmese/Iranian/Honduran people.<br /><br />I firmly believe that anyone who claims an affinity for democracy, rights, and people power owes it to the courageous people of these countries to recognize their resistance as their own. To question a movement's ownership of their struggle serves the interests of brutal repressors and risks undermining the morale of individuals participating in those movements. <br /><br />-Cynthia BoazCynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04364362914526483353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-39532105645045991012009-08-14T05:36:07.974+02:002009-08-14T05:36:07.974+02:00Frankly, I wish folks would look at the capacity a...Frankly, I wish folks would look at the capacity and will of the people on the ground, at their integrity and willingness to risk harm without threatening physical harm. Who cares which organization supplied bumperstickers, which government, or which grassroots collection of activist donors or wealthy ones with enough of a conscience to do so? People in the streets who are trying to gain some freedom using nonviolence deserve support from any quarter willing to give it. Each and every one of my battles over the past 45 years has been with the US government and except for the disgusting invasion of Iraq, I've been on the winning side, ultimately. I've been convicted of two felonies (Plowshares actions at US nuclear bases) and spent time in three prisons. I've been one of the many organizers of many anti-imperialist campaigns and I teach literally hundreds of students annually at a university and a community college from exactly that standpoint. I help turn US military members toward the right thing--opposition to US wars--and I've housed AWOL service members (at least a couple of them quite 'hot') and I am so grateful for Peter Ackerman, Jack DuVall, Gene Sharp, Stephen Zunes and Steve York. They help me and plenty others create a whole new generation of American students who know FAR better than I did when I was their age how to stand up with strong nonviolent organizing to the policies of our government that hurt so many others. Some of the soldiers in my classes are truly transformed by the knowledge of how to gain and use strategic liberatory nonviolence and they feel like they can approach conflict in a whole new way. The thing that this whole debate misses is that the crosscutting lines are not left or right, but they come down on methods of conflict management. I strongly dislike most of what my own government does, but from very interesting and illuminating conversations I've had with people as diverse as Daniel Serwer and Amory Lovins, I know there are pockets of great people with some resources in various levels and cul-de-sacs of our massive fed government. If they do something right, like support Otpur with the functional equivalent of less than half a minute of what the US spends on the military, good on 'em. Mr. Sketchley, you sound like a very nice guy--when you aren't prosecuting womderful folks like Ivan--so why not be happy that, whether it's an odd Chinese manufacturer, a unique NGO like ICNC, or even some relative outlier members of some government with their mitts on some money, someone comes through with a few resources once in a while to support the bootstrapping struggles of people who just want to be free or just want a world without violence? As someone who has spent ungodly amounts of time in the streets, in organizing meetings, in jails and in prisons over the decades, I say thank you to whomever helps the nonviolent civil society movements that topple dictators. There are three major paths for these movements confronting brutality: armed resistance, nonviolent resistance or retreat. I hope we can agree that retreat is sadly necessary sometimes but that access to some desperately needed resources can change that picture and that's a Good Thing. I don't expect we necessarily agree on the preference for nonviolence, but that is all I'm interested in and I find ICNC gives us access to the tools we need. I was first acquainted with all these theories and histories via Gene Sharp and his amazing work long before Peter's doctoral work or his first book. When Peter and Jack wrote A Force More Powerful and constructed a teaching website and Steve York produced the six-episode film, they gave the world usable tools and we will never put them down, whether the oppressor is a friend of the US, the US itself, or an enemy of the US. Jodi Williams calls us the new superpower and ICNC is our friend and teacher. I've NEVER been told by them who to support, they know my politics, and they've helped and helped. They are the wrong target if you wish to work for more freedom with less bloodshed.Tom H. Hastingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17098260278363929190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-24156404625535726132009-08-14T03:40:22.200+02:002009-08-14T03:40:22.200+02:00Counter-insurgency - whether by governments, mass ...Counter-insurgency - whether by governments, mass media, or a lone blogger - tries to smear a social movement (Honduras' civil resistance to the coup, in this case) by implying something is somehow wrong with it or who it is associated with, and it is especially vicious in your case because you don't ever come out and say what it is you are so "concerned" about.<br /><br />Are you "concerned" that Mr. Marovich was giving bad advice to the Hondurans who asked for his counsel?<br /><br />Are you "concerned" that if his advice was bad (you can read many quotes from his advice that we've published) that Honduran resistance leaders and organizers would be dumb enough to take bad advice?<br /><br />Just what is it that you are trying to get at here? What possible relevance does it have to the attention the Honduran anti-coup movement needs to wage a clean fight against the golpistas?<br /><br />You never say it aloud.<br /><br />So god knows what you're thinking!<br /><br />Throwing up clouds of smoke over a movement that needs sunlight is indeed counter-insurgency, whether intentional or - more likely in your case - just a boneheaded First Worlder's attitude that you know better than the people on the ground risking life and limb for their country.Al Giordanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759593923898028834noreply@blogger.com