America is the only and, apparently, the last superpower of today, with planetary interests. For the application of Washington produces a unique (in every situation) the strategy and tactics, which, in turn, consists of military and civilian methods of political action.* Given the rapid developments in international relations, overclock information, each operation contains both direct (violent methods) and indirect instruments to influence the object, we generalized the concept of "nonviolent resistance". A fundamental difference between the two approaches consists in the following: violence appeals to fear, the instinct of self-preservation, and non - violence to compassion and conscience.
The idea of non-violence accompany the civilization known to us since their inception, penetrating wisdom the most ancient cultures (not to mention European civilization), but are its practical expression only in XX century that, at least, three reasons:
I. the transformation of human consciousness, originating with the European bourgeois revolutions of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, generated by explosive population growth and capitalist production. The ideas of T. Hobbes and J. J. Rousseau on the social contract replaced the sovereignty of the Emperor the sovereignty of the people. Rousseau goes further than his English predecessor and puts forward a doctrine of popular sovereignty, calling the sovereign is nothing other than a collective being, formed of individuals, collectively named people (1, p. 23); the essence of national sovereignty - the sovereignty of the people in the state; the people as the only rightful and lawful sovereign (2, p. 18). Ie narutocentral (or Republic) replacing the theocentrism in which the legitimacy of the ruler depended on "divine Providence" that gave him the right to retain power over the Nations through violence. Like many other great figures of the Renaissance, Rousseau is far ahead of its time: a direct embodiment of his doctrine (influenced by L. N. Tolstoy and Gandhi) will become the universal Declaration of human rights adopted by the resolution 217 A (III) of the UNGA on 10 December 1948. Article No. 21 of the Declaration will lay down a principle on which to build their accusations against the authorities, all technologists nonviolent revolutions: "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government and find its expression in periodic and genuine elections by universal and equal suffrage and free voting" (3).
II. global urbanization and industrialization, literally pulled the man from the measured rural life; urbanization strengthens his reliance on such elements of urban infrastructure such as the electricity, communication channels and transportation. The loss of rural collectivism among the citizens is due to the communication through different kinds of roads (educational or professional) that allows them to gradually merge into a universal commonality. This circumstance favors the fact that non-violent action, blocking communication arteries of the city, better armed methods of struggle; from now on nonviolence can paralyze the activities of not only individual soldiers or police officers, but also of the state and its tangible and intangible sources of power.
III. the militarization of international relations, provoking violence in unstable regions of the planet. The bipolar confrontation of two nuclear superpowers (USSR and USA) only speeds up the implementation of the plans of national governments to increase the quantity and quality of weapons. America, given the superiority of their opponents (in Asia, Africa and Latin America) in manpower, relies on non-violent coups, cheaper and more effective methods of political struggle. From a strategic point of view, the advantage of nonviolent resistance is that it blocks the city communication (transport, telephone artery, mail, radio and television), not under the watchful supervision of the authorities. As a rule, government forces, carefully guarded public buildings, oblivious to the fact that without channels of communication they are unable to control the situation in the country. Let me quote the ancient Chinese philosopher sun Tzu, who always knew the weak spot of the enemy: "Attack and surely take it means to attack a place where he's not defensive; to defend and surely hold the means to defend place that he can't attack" (4). During the revolutions in Serbia and Libya, the government will not be able to recognize its weaknesses and prompt to defend: to capture television in Belgrade, the opposition will be enough of a bulldozer; but in Tripoli the government shut off Internet access only on the fourth day of protests when the conflict has moved into the burning phase.
1. Serbia 2000: first the bombing, then the "bulldozer revolution"
In this article we will focus on Serbia and Libya, countries where the government was overthrown mostly by force, in spite of active support among the population. S. Milosevic and Gaddafi are United not only by a commitment to leftist ideas, but that they led rich (from the point of view of raw material resources) States located at the nodal centers of southeastern Europe and northeastern Africa. The difference (in both cases) consists in the application of Administration to violent and non-violent methods. For example, from the outset, the revolution in Serbia was accompanied by violent acts of NATO (from 24 March to 10 June 1999): the bombing of Belgrade, aimed at the suppression of the Serbian resistance in Kosovo*. Then (in 2000) to join the activists of the revolutionary movement Otpor, supported by non-violent actions of opposition leader V. koštunica.
Planning a regime change in Serbia, with subsequent inclusion in the sphere of influence of the EU, Washington, wanted once and for all to overcome Serbian nationalism, to overthrow the symbol, which was S. Milosevic. From the geo-economic point of view, the fragmentation of Yugoslavia into a number of smaller States and those loyal to the government in Belgrade provide multiple benefits to American oil corporations: in the long term, they are interested in transportation of hydrocarbons from the South Caucasus and Central Asia to Western Europe.
In the operation of destabilization of Yugoslavia key links were made by the authorities of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the Albanian opposition in Kosovo, which added to anti-Serb propaganda specialists from the American Agency "Ruder-Finn Global Public Affairs". By shrewdly N. Chomsky, the entire information campaign was presented to the Western audience as a struggle of "good against evil": "the democratic West and his humanistic instincts" versus "barbaric cruelty of the Orthodox Serbs" (5, p. 63).
The United States has engaged its advocacy capacity; the whole state machine was aimed at the seizure of information space of the opponent for his subsequent removal from power. However, S. Milosevic turned out to be an inconvenient target: even after the systematic bombing of Belgrade of the late 1990s designed to accumulate fear, the regime enjoyed popular support.
The organizers of the coup in Serbia: the United States Agency for international development, the Soros Foundation, freedom house, national endowment for democracy, international Republican Institute*created the student movement "Otpor", in October 1998; on its basis in January 2000 created the Democratic opposition of Serbia (DOS), which becomes the lawyer of V. koštunica, the main opponent of Milosevic in the presidential elections.
According to S. G. Kara-Murza, an important task for the Americans was the unification of the fragmented forces of the right opposition in Serbia, which in 1999 was posticalis American officials during the mass demonstrations against the government. U.S. Secretary of state Madeleine Albright directly demanded from the opposition street demonstrations to overthrow the government if elections will be "unsatisfactory" (122 method Sharpe – literature and speeches calling for resistance). At the meeting in Banja Luka in spring 2000, Madeleine Albright expressed disappointment at the failure of past attempts to overthrow the Yugoslav government – she was hoping that "sanctions will force people to accuse Milosevic in their suffering". But then people this is still not "ripe" (6, p. 199).
Pressure on the country's leadership continued through all channels; a week before the election, the European Union publishes a "Message to the Serbian people" in which they promised to lift sanctions against Serbia only after the victory of V. koštunica.
Protest actions started immediately after the elections of 24 September 2000, the electoral Commission announced that no candidate received the required number of votes to win, and it is necessary to conduct a second round: Kostunica gained 48%, while Milosevic was 38.6%. However, Kostunica refuses to go to the second round that is due to the fact that the left opposition won 26 seats out of 40 in the Chamber of republics; the Communists obtained power in Parliament, making it impossible to implement the programme DOS, because under the Constitution the President's powers were limited by Parliament.
The opposition relies on non-violent coup.
Chronology of events: October 1, miners announce strike demanding the resignation of Milosevic (116 method – extending the strike). October 2 begins the General strike (117 method). On 5 October, prior to the date of the second round of voting, Otpor organizes a meeting in Belgrade with the transportation of people from the regions. Students and the gathered crowd burst into force the building of the Federal Assembly (Parliament), and then on radio and television of Serbia. After the capture of the television centre* broadcast by the state channel started broadcasting independent (italics mine – S. T.) broadcaster B-92 (180 method – alternative communication systems) (6, 204). The army and security forces hand over their leader: they entered into negotiations with opposition leaders and reach agreements with them on the observance of neutrality in exchange for the lack of hostile actions on the part of demonstrators (120 method is the rejection of loyalty to the authorities). S. Milosevic is deprived of the last space: on the evening of October 6, 2000, he resigned.
2. Libya 2011: the protests that resulted in foreign intervention
In Libya it was the reverse: February 15, 2011 in Benghazi (by synchronizing the actions of the protesters through social networks) held a mass demonstration demanding the release of human rights activist F. Tarbela; 213 intellectuals maintenance Gaddafi, receiving foreign support of opposition factions, the National salvation front, the Libyan Islamic unification movement "Hulas" ("Freedom"), the Republican Union for democracy and social justice, human rights groups, the League of artists and writers; 17 February protests cover Bebido, Zentan, Rugby and Divot, the answer to which becomes a demonstration in support of Gaddafi in Tripoli, February 18, begins a full-scale civil war, after the interior Minister of Libya, General A. Younes betrayed Gaddafi and urged the army to side with protesters (120 method of nonviolent action – the rejection of loyalty to the authorities; 148 method - rebellion), street fighting in Benghazi turn out to be a defeat of the government forces; the government shut off the Internet only in the night of Saturday 19 February.
Despite the fact that non-violent action in Libya only cover the first few days, subsequent symbolic actions expressed in the creation of and broad support for the Transitional national Council of Libya (NTC), as well as the new hanging of the national flag talk about thorough tactical training. The mere existence and recognition by the NATO countries in Libya's TNC as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people corresponds to 198 method of nonviolent action proposed by Dr. J. Sharpe (198 method – dual sovereignty and parallel government). Global TV channels were showing the new flag of Libya, developing the occupied opposition buildings or in the hands of the soldiers (18 method – hanging of flags and symbolic colors; 19 method – wearing characters). By the end of August 2011 many of the embassies of Libya in the world raised the flag of the PNS, and on September 20 he was pointedly raised in the headquarters of the United Nations. For the entire period of operation, we also never heard comments or speeches by Pro-government institutions (as a rule, we passed only quotes from engaged in the conflict the media); their information was boycotted (143 method of blocking the transmission of commands and information; 126 method – the boycott of government departments, agencies and other bodies) (7).
The key reason for the transition of the opposition from nonviolent resistance to violent armed acts - support for Gaddafi from the broad masses of the population, satisfied with the socio-economic results of his long rule (since 1969). Let us list briefly some of them: GDP per capita - $ 14192.; for each member of the family, the state pays a year 1 thousand. grants; unemployment benefit - 730$.; salary nurse - 1 thous.; for each child is paid 7 thousand dollars.; newlyweds given away $ 64 thousand. to buy an apartment; opening a personal business is provided a lump-sum of 20 thousand USD; large taxes and requisitions are forbidden; education and medicine is free; chain stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs; part of pharmacies - with free dispensing of medicines; the rent-is absent; cost of electricity for the population is absent; loans to buy a car and apartment — non-interest bearing (8).
The US administration regularly encouraged the Libyan opposition, predicting the speedy collapse of M. Gaddafi. So, for example, President Obama has repeatedly said that Gaddafi "has no control over the situation in the country" and "should give up power." Even after his death, the American leader never ceased to support anti-government protests in the Arab-Muslim countries, calling the death of Gaddafi "a warning to all other authoritarian leaders" (9). Kept pace with Obama and the head of British diplomacy William Hague, disseminated February 21, 2011 via "Bi-bi-si" disinformation, according to which Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela (122 method – literature and speeches calling for resistance) (7).
The preparation of the military intervention in Libya is accompanied by treatment of global public opinion. The climax of the performance: February 20, 2011, the Qatari channel "al Jazeera" reports that the Libyan authorities shot a protest with machine guns, killing nearly 200 and injuring more than 800 people (19 April 2011, the British NGO "British Civilians For Peace in Libya", after an investigation, finds no evidence that the troops of Colonel Gaddafi attacked civilians in the Western part of the country; but it was too late).
Under the influence of this advocacy, the UN security Council adopts the March 17 resolution 1973, declaring the protection of civilians as the targets of intervention and giving the right to destroy any forces that threaten the rebels (only with air strikes). This action marked a first impressive triumph of the United Nations as a global regulator, which took place thanks to a broad coalition of international NGO ("human rights watch", World federalist movement, Institute of open society, MacArthur Foundation).
These institutions favored the promotion of the UN initiative "Responsibility to protect" (Responsibility to Protect), adopted in the outcome document of the world summit of 2005, According to the document, sovereignty is not a privilege but a duty; the sovereignty imposes on States a direct responsibility to protect the people living within the borders of those States. In those cases where a state is unable to protect the people or itself is involved in it, the international community, acting under UN auspices, is responsible to take measures to protect the population, despite the position of the national government (10).
As though it cynically sounded, the decision of the UN on Libya - a testing ground for global governance, in which even America is partially delegated their sovereignty. In General, social unrest in the Muslim world and humanitarian intervention, NATO was the result of changes in the world political system. Crisis dollars-centric financial order, the problems of global socio-economic and political development, and population explosion – all these factors sent into oblivion feudal concept of a sovereign state. On the proscenium of world history goes the turbo-capitalism, the economic system of a new type, driven by Informatization and globalization accelerates the historical process, which, in turn, frees capital from the constraints imposed by the national government (11, p. 230).
Before the revolutionary events of 2011 in the Arab-Muslim countries, the ruling circles of America and Europe engaged in the intensive care unit of the Western economy from the crisis, faced the choice: "return to national markets, that is, to protectionism and competitive devaluation, or create a legal framework for global scale – global management system" (12, p. 147).
As we can see, the bet was made on the model, which presupposes "the existence of a police force and a truly planetary justice, able to control and to punish any deviation from the rules" (12, p. 148). The influential theorist of the "new world order" Jacques Attali advocates for "the expansion of G-8 (group of eight) to G-24, and creation, based on G-24 and the UN security Council, one Council management with economic powers and carrying out legitimate political regulation". For Attali, the new body must take "full control of the IMF, the world Bank and other international financial institutions" (12, 165), and to reform the composition and voting procedure within them. Moreover, capable of global sovereignty, is able to balance the market and democracy is inextricably linked with the presence of "Parliament, government, applications to the universal Declaration of human rights, the realization of the ILO in labour law, Central Bank, common currency; the planetary system of taxation, of police and of justice" (12, p. 162).
In total, the above efforts to establish a new world order once again we return to the past. Unfortunately, the history does not know precedents of the formation of the world political system through non-violence, through non-violent struggle. Only in the last two world wars humankind has lost over a hundred million lives that could create his own family, give birth to children or to benefit their people in the civil field. The blame for what is happening we can consider the collective unconscious, hidden instincts of human nature that breeds violence and brutality. Comparative analysis of coups d'état in Serbia (2000) and Libya (2011) only confirms this. People are still very far from truly living the law of non-violence, called at L. N. Tolstoy and Gandhi love, absolute truth.
The list of references
1. Rousseau J.-J. the social contract. Treatises, Transl. with FR. - M.: KANON-press, 1998.
2. Levin I. D. Sovereignty. — SPb.: Legal center Press, 2003.
3. The universal Declaration of human rights http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/declhr.shtml.
4. Tzu, S. the Art of war. – M.: Feniks, 2002. http://militera.lib.ru/science/sun-tszy/01.html.
5. Chomsky N. Rogue States. Law in world politics. - M.: Logos, 2003.
6. Kara-Murza S. G. the Revolution for export. - M.: Eksmo, 2006.
7. Cm. Sharpe J. 198 methods of nonviolent action http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/scannedPDFs/The%20198%20Methods%20of%20Nonviolent%20Action%20-%20Russian%20.pdf.
8. Statistics the standard of living in Libya during the rule of Muammar Gaddafi http://www.lawinrussia.ru/node/43408.
9. Obama: Gaddafi death is warning to iron-fist rulers http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-libya-gaddafi-whitehouse-idUSTRE79J6WJ20111020.
10. The responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity // the Outcome document of the UN world summit 2005 http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/outcome2005_ch4.shtml#t6.
11. Tsaturyan, S. A., Humanitarian intervention: building a global sovereignty // of Twenty years of modern Russian foreign policy. - Prominent: Finist, 2011.
12. Attali, J. the Global economic crisis. What's next? – SPb.: Peter, 2009.
* Balance in the use of these two tools, in which power combines military force with the political propaganda referred to as "smart power" (smart power). This term was introduced into scientific use the American political scientist Dzh. Recruitment, group Chairman North America Trilateral Commission.
* Similar efforts were undertaken by NATO in 1995, in relation to the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
* According to official data, on elections of 2000 the Clinton Administration spent $ 55 million. And immediately after the elections, the US Congress allocated $ 105 million dollars for Yugoslav parties and media entities.
* It was during this episode scored L. djokić, on the bulldozer rammed the fence of the complex of the telecentre. This incident turned him into a symbol of revolution, called the Anglo-American media "bulldozer revolution".
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success