Wednesday, February 1, 2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12522848


Gene Sharp: Author of the nonviolent revolution rulebook

Gene Sharp

In an old townhouse in East Boston an elderly stooped man is tending rare orchids in his shabby office. His Labrador Sally lies on the floor between stacks of academic papers watching him as he shuffles past.

This is Dr Gene Sharp the man now credited with the strategy behind the toppling of the Egyptian government.

Gene Sharp is the world's foremost expert on non-violent revolution. His work has been translated into more than 30 languages, his books slipped across borders and hidden from secret policemen all over the world.
 

Key Steps on the Path to Revolution

Gene Sharp book
  • Develop a strategy for winning freedom and a vision of the society you want
  • Overcome fear by small acts of resistance
  • Use colours and symbols to demonstrate unity of resistance
  • Learn from historical examples of the successes of non-violent movements
  • Use non-violent "weapons"
  • Identify the dictatorship's pillars of support and develop a strategy for undermining each
  • Use oppressive or brutal acts by the regime as a recruiting tool for your movement
  • Isolate or remove from the movement people who use or advocate violence
As Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine fell to the colour revolutions which swept across Eastern Europe, each of the democratic movements paid tribute to Sharp's contribution, yet he remained largely unknown to the public.

Despite these successes and a Nobel Peace Prize nomination in 2009 he has faced almost constant financial hardship and wild accusations of being a CIA front organisation. The Albert Einstein Institution based on the ground floor of his home is kept running by sheer force of personality and his fiercely loyal Executive Director, Jamila Raqib.

In 2009 I began filming a documentary following the impact of Sharp's work from his tranquil rooftop orchid house, across four continents and eventually to Tahrir square where I slept alongside protesters who read his work by torchlight in the shadow of tanks.

Gene Sharp is no Che Guevara but he may have had more influence than any other political theorist of his generation.

His central message is that the power of dictatorships comes from the willing obedience of the people they govern - and that if the people can develop techniques of withholding their consent, a regime will crumble.

For decades now, people living under authoritarian regimes have made a pilgrimage to Gene Sharp for advice. His writing has helped millions of people around the world achieve their freedom without violence. "As soon as you choose to fight with violence you're choosing to fight against your opponents best weapons and you have to be smarter than that," he insists.

"People might be a little surprised when they come here, I don't tell them what to do. They've got to learn how this non-violent struggle works so they can do it for themselves."
 
Catching fire
To do this Sharp provides in his books a list of 198 "non-violent weapons", ranging from the use of colours and symbols to mock funerals and boycotts.

Designed to be the direct equivalent of military weapons, they are techniques collated from a forensic study of defiance to tyranny throughout history.

"These non-violent weapons are very important because they give people an alternative," he says. "If people don't have these, if they can't see that they are very powerful, they will go back to violence and war every time."

After the Green uprising in Iran in 2009 many of the protesters were accused at their trials of using more than 100 of Sharp's 198 methods.

His most translated and distributed work, From Dictatorship to Democracy was written for the Burmese democratic movement in 1993, after the imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi.
 

Start Quote

It was important because some of the Gabonese were talking about a violent option - I was able to say: 'Hang on guys there's another option here'”
Supermodel Gloria Mika

Because he had no specialist knowledge of the country he wrote a guide to toppling a dictatorship which was entirely generic. But Sharp's weakness became the strength of the book allowing it to be easily translated and applicable in any country of the world across cultural and religious boundaries.

The book caught fire figuratively and literally.

From Burma word of mouth spread through Thailand to Indonesia where it was used against the military dictatorship there. Its success in helping to bring down Milosevic in Serbia in 2000 propelled it into use across Eastern Europe, South America and the Middle East.

When it reached Russia the intelligence services raided the print shop and the shops selling it mysteriously burned to the ground.

The Iranians became so worried they broadcast an animated propaganda film on state TV - of Gene Sharp plotting the overthrow of Iran from The White House.

President Hugo Chavez used his weekly television address to warn the country that Sharp was a threat to the national security of Venezuela.
 
Serbian connection
After recent allegations of vote rigging in her home country of Gabon, supermodel and activist Gloria Mika travelled to Boston to meet Sharp.

A Nonviolent Life

  • Born January 1928 in Ohio
  • Jailed for nine months in 1953-4 for protesting against conscription of young men to fight in Korean War
  • Albert Einstein wrote the foreword to his first book - Gandhi Wields the Weapon of Moral Power: Three Case Histories - published in 1960
  • His 1968 Oxford University D Phil, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, formed the basis of a book with the same title, published in 1973
  • Professor (now emeritus professor) of political science at the University of Massachusetts since 1972, while simultaneously holding research positions at Harvard University
  • Founded the Albert Einstein Institution in 1983, a non-profit organisation advancing the use of non-violent action in conflict around the world
"I felt like I was going to meet the main man in terms of non-violent resistance in the world," she says. "It was important because some of the Gabonese were talking about a violent option. They were saying, let's go and kill some people and I was able to say: 'Hang on guys there's another option here.'"

The Serbs who had used his books as a theoretical base for their activities founded their own organisation called the Centre for Applied Non Violence (CANVAS), and alongside their own materials have carried out workshops using Sharp's work in dozens of other countries.

When I met Srdja Popovic the director of CANVAS in Belgrade in November he confirmed that they had been working with Egyptians. "That's the power of Sharp's work and this non-violent struggle," he says. "It doesn't matter who you are - black, white, Muslim, Christian, gay, straight or oppressed minority - it's useable. If they study it, anybody can do this."
 
Photocopies in Arabic
By the time I arrived in Tahrir square on 2 February many of those trained in Sharp's work were in detention. Others were under close observation by the intelligence services and journalists who visited them were detained for hours by the secret police. My own camera equipment was seized as soon as I landed.
 

Start Quote

This is an Egyptian revolution - we are not being told what to do by the Americans”
Mahmoud Tahrir Square protester

When I finally reached one of the organisers he refused to talk about Sharp on camera. He feared that wider knowledge of a US influence would destabilise the movement but confirmed that the work had been widely distributed in Arabic.

"One of the main points which we used was Sharp's idea of identifying a regime's pillars of support," he said. "If we could build a relationship with the army, Mubarak's biggest pillar of support, to get them on our side, then we knew he would quickly be finished."

That night as I settled down to sleep in a corner of Tahrir square some of the protesters came to show me text messages they said were from the army telling them that they wouldn't shoot. "We know them and we know they are on our side now," they said.

One of the protesters, Mahmoud, had been given photocopies of a handout containing the list of 198 methods but he was unaware of their origins. He proudly described how many of them had been used in Egypt but he had never heard of Gene Sharp.

When I pointed out that these non-violent weapons were the writings of an American academic he protested strongly. "This is an Egyptian revolution", he said. "We are not being told what to do by the Americans."

And of course that is exactly what Sharp would want.

Ruaridh Arrow's film, Gene Sharp: How to Start a Revolution, will be released in spring 2011

Comments posted on Indian Express website over Oped article:Tehran Test -

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Comments posted on Indian Express website over Oped article:Tehran Test - 

If US wants India to bend, the writer wants India to crawl. It is a pity that nobody with any spine stands up for India to have its own independent policies that not only impacts on its own interests, but in a wider sense, impact the world around us. If US and Israel's security interests, are centered on regime change in Iran, why India's own need for stability and peace in the region should not be openly and vociferously articulated by India in world forums and international media. Nobody wants war in our neighborhood and it would seem, US and Israel are bent to force their high-handed agenda of imposing their will on UN member countries through use of force. India must announce a blanket policy of ‘hands- off’ in such misadventures. People of India will overwhelmingly support their government’s peace initiatives. India does have support from China, Russia and other nations and its should use that influence to ward off all such evil designs of USA and Israel in this area. Let South East Asia be a zone of peace.

Ghulam Muhammed (Mumbai)
------

The Tehran test
Pranab Dhal Samanta : Wed Feb 01 2012, 23:40 hrs

The real problem for India, post sanctions, is political, not financial

On the face of it, India is facing a tough challenge squaring up its oil bill with Iran. The problem gets more complex when one realises that most options are geared towards paying up accumulated dues, while the current oil bill with Iran also continues to rise. The bottom line is that even this year supplies from Iran will be around 12 per cent of India’s total oil import. So when Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee says in the US that India will continue to import oil from Iran, he is actually underlining New Delhi’s compulsion, not taking a position or asserting a point of view.

A concise overview of the situation shows that largely five oil majors, four PSUs and one private company, are commercially exposed to Iran. The onset of UN sanctions led to the collapse of the earlier mode of payment through the Asian Clearing Union mechanism. The RBI then allowed entities to settle payments of legitimate transactions through any acceptable currency outside the ACU.

Indian trade with Iran was being settled through euros. Even later, Delhi continued to make these payments through eurozone banks until bank after bank began to close their Iran account for fear of sanctions. At present, India is making its payments through the Halkbank, Turkey, which too is beginning to feel the pressure.

These knotty details apart, the real problem is political, not financial. For far too long the issue has remained in the realm of the entities themselves, the petroleum ministry or, at the most, the finance ministry, while it was all along a strategic question — an issue of international politics, requiring a more political approach.

It was only a matter of time before the West would target Iran’s petroleum business. The Obama administration has made its first move in an election year after indications of Iran developing a nuclear weapon — although there is still no clinching proof. The EU has followed suit.

Before moving further, it’s important to understand what the US, as lead actor, has actually done. Barack Obama has signed into law this month a fresh set of sanctions on Iran, after due Congressional approval, under the National Defence Authorisation Act. This targets Iran’s proceeds from petroleum exports, which have internationally been allowed to continue because oil is an essential commodity.

Without getting into the tricky affair of placing an embargo on Iranian oil, the US law states that foreign financial institutions which conduct any “significant financial transaction” with Iran for petroleum products will be barred from transaction in the US. This provision becomes effective from March 1.

There’s a second provision, which targets state financial institutions and even foreign central banks, which conduct transaction with Iran on petroleum products. This will kick in six months later. The only pre-condition for these sanctions to become effective is a determination by Obama that the international market position is such that there’s adequate fuel to keep oil prices at a reasonable level.

The US seems to have worked this out with OPEC, which has calculated that removing Iranian oil from the market would result in a loss of about 10 billion barrels per day. It’s reliably learnt Saudi Arabia has officially agreed and, in fact, made a commitment to OPEC for an additional 30 billion barrels a day, in case Iranian oil doesn’t reach the market. This commitment is bound to strengthen Obama’s hand to make such a determination, which could be vital for him in this election year.

Where does all this leave India? There are two routes — an exemption or a waiver, and both, in a sense, are mutually exclusive. The US law states the president can exempt a foreign financial entity for conducting business with Iran provided the country of primary jurisdiction has reduced import of Iranian petroleum products. This would essentially mean Indo-Iran oil trade has to show a declining trend to escape sanctions on Indian financial institutions. However, an exemption would be time-bound and up for periodic review.

As for the waiver, it can only be considered once sanctions have been enforced. This would mean that first an Indian entity must face sanctions, only then can the US consider a waiver which has a lifespan of 120 days, during which the president has to send a report on the country’s compliance with the sanctions.

All this is not a sudden development. That’s why other big economies like China, Japan and South Korea made their own bilateral arrangements with Iran, almost a year ago, to ensure no disruption to their oil supplies. They entered into a barter system of sorts, offsetting oil purchases through increased exports in other goods. The Japanese also drove home the advantage of a fully convertible yen, a currency Iran is happy to hold.

India, on the other hand, has very few exports and the rupee, partially convertible, does not make much sense for Iran. Yet, Tehran has agreed to settle at least 30 per cent (figure could go higher) through the rupee. There’s also the option of project exports by undertaking infrastructure contracts in Iran; re-exporting goods Iran requires from a third country; or high-seas sales and payment, outside either country’s territorial limits. All these measures are under consideration. But they are, at best, innovative responses to a crisis, not a credible solution.

Even at this late stage, India has to work towards a political resolution, else Indian entities will be under constant threat of sanctions. Put simply, India has to build a case for an exemption package and, internally, ensure entities dealing with Iran have minimal or no exposure to the US financial system. To build a case for an India-specific exemption will require political heavy-lifting in Washington because Delhi is likely to want more favourable terms than those laid out in the exemption provision within the law.

This will test the tenacity of the Indo-US strategic partnership and that’s why Delhi will have to broaden the conversation on Iran. For instance, bringing to the table the consequences of India’s gradual disengagement with Iran on the Af-Pak scenario — the US has failed to make Pakistan agree on transit for India, which means Iran remains the best access point for India. Does the US want India’s role to diminish in Afghanistan? Also, targeting Indian entities would pass on the advantage to China, making it almost indispensable to Iran — is that a desirable strategic outcome for the US?

There are many more such connected questions, but for all of this India needs a more focused bilateral dialogue with the US on Iran — giving it the necessary political impetus and aiming for a solution, knowing well this is not about oil alone. The US recognising India’s unique situation and Delhi committing to look at other petroleum sources could be a good starting point.