Search Posts Chronologically

Lessons from the Velvet Revolution

Huffington Post, November 9, 2009
The 20th anniversary of the 1989 Velvet Revolution that overthrew the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia was one of the most impressive civil insurrections in history. It was not the military might of NATO, but the power of nonviolent action by ordinary citizens which brought down the system. The popular uprising against the repressive system that had ruled their country for much of the previous four decades — along with comparable movements, which came to the fore that year in Poland, Hungary and East Germany — marks a great triumph of the human spirit. [source]

The Power of Nonviolent Action in Honduras

Yes! Magazine, November 8, 2009
The decision by Honduran coup leader Roberto Micheletti to renege on his October 30 agreement to allow democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya to return to power was a severe blow to pro-democracy forces who have been struggling against the illegitimate regime since it seized power four months ago. The disappointment has been compounded by the Obama administration’s apparent willingness—in a break with Latin American leaders and much of the rest of the international community—to recognize the forthcoming presidential elections being held under the de facto government’s repressive rule…

Bipartisan Attack on International Humanitarian Law

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies,
November 4, 2009
by Stephen Zunes; also at Alternet

In a stunning blow against international law and human rights, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution Tuesday attacking the report of the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict. The report was authored by the well-respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone and three other noted authorities on international humanitarian law, who had been widely praised for taking leadership in previous investigations of war crimes in Rwanda, Darfur, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. Since this report documented apparent war crimes by a key U.S. ally, however, Congress has taken the unprecedented action of passing a resolution condemning it… [source]

The Goldstone Report: Killing the Messenger

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies,
October 7, 2009
by Stephen Zunes; also at Alternet

On October 1, the Obama administration successfully pressured the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva to drop its proposal to recommend that the UN Security Council endorse the findings of the Goldstone Commission report. The report, authored by renowned South African jurist Richard Goldstone, detailed the results of the UNHRC’s fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict. These findings included the recommendation that both Hamas and the Israeli government bring to justice those responsible for war crimes during the three weeks of fighting in late December and early January. If they don’t, the report urges that the case be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for possible prosecution. [source]

Weapons of Mass Democracy

Yes! Magazine September 17, 2009
On the outskirts of a desert town in the Moroccan-occupied territory of Western Sahara, about a dozen young activists are gathered. They are involved in their country’s long struggle for freedom. A group of foreigners—veterans of protracted resistance movements—is conducting a training session in the optimal use of a “weapons system” that is increasingly deployed in struggles for freedom around the world. The workshop leaders pass out Arabic translations of writings on the theory and dynamics of revolutionary struggle and lead the participants in a series of exercises designed to enhance their strategic and tactical thinking.
These trainers are not veterans of guerrilla warfare, however, but of unarmed insurrections against repressive regimes…

Showdown in ‘Tegucigolpe’

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies, July 10, 2009
One of the hemisphere’s most critical struggles for democracy in 20 years is now unfolding in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa (nicknamed “Tegucigolpe” for its long history of military coup d’états, which are called golpes de estado, in Spanish). Despite censorship and repression, popular anger over the June 28 military overthrow of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya is growing. International condemnation has been near-unanimous, and the Organization of American States has suspended Honduras, the first time the hemisphere-wide body has taken so drastic an action since 1962… [source]

Iran’s Do-It-Yourself Revolution

Huffington Post, August 1, 2009; Updated May 25, 2011 by Stephen Zunes
Facing an unprecedented popular uprising against his autocratic rule and his apparently fraudulent re-election, Iran’s right-wing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has attempted to blame the United States. A surprising number of bloggers on the left have rushed to the defense of the right-wing fundamentalist leader. Citing presidential directives under the Bush administration, they argue that the uprising isn’t as much about a stolen election, the oppression of women, censorship, severe restrictions on political liberties, growing economic inequality, and other grievances, as it is about the result of U.S. interference.

A Response to Steve Weissman’s “Nonviolence 101”

Truthout June 28, 2009 and Baltimore Nonviolence Center,
Steve Weissman’s article “Iran: Nonviolence 101” was profoundly inaccurate and misleading, particularly in regard to the role of Peter Ackerman and the organization he co-founded, the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), for which I chair the committee of academic advisers. All of Weissman’s arguments against US government involvement in training and related support for nonviolent resistance movements in Iran, which he put forward in his article, would be quite valid – if they were true. They are not, however…

60-Second Expert: Democracy in the Middle East

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies
June 22, 2009, Noor Iqbal and Stephen Zunes
In Cairo last week, President Barack Obama addressed the Muslim world, calling for a “new beginning” in the search for peace and prosperity in the Middle East. What he failed to address in this widely anticipated speech, however, were the repressive and corrupt regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. While eloquently promoting democracy, religious freedom, and women’s rights, Obama ignored the human rights abuses that have become routine under the 28-year dictatorship of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. Similarly, on his visit to Saudi Arabia, the president refrained from publicly criticizing King Abdullah’s brutal theocracy.
    Surely, Obama could have taken a firmer stance against the Saudi and Egyptian governments. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are heavily tied to the United States both militarily and economically, giving Obama the necessary leverage to pressure their leaders into more tolerant, democratic practices. Yet Obama remains reluctant to criticize America’s Middle Eastern allies or label their rulers as “authoritarian.” In this respect, he continues in the footsteps of the Bush administration, which turned a blind eye to human rights in the interest of maintaining geopolitical alliances.
    Obama’s silence on this issue may prove to be more harmful than helpful. By alienating and inciting the anger of young, disenfranchised Arabs and Muslims — a group of people most likely to join the ranks of radical Islamists — America’s continued support for the dictatorial regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia places Americans at risk of another anti-American reaction. Perhaps it is not America’s role to enforce top-down transitions to democracy. But it should not actively hinder the growing grassroots movements towards democracy in the Middle East by propping up tyrannical regimes.

Serbia: 10 Years Later

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies, June 17, 2009
Since the end of the U.S.-led war against Serbia, the country is slowly emerging from the wars of the 1990s. Despite lingering problems, Serbs appear to be more optimistic about their country’s future than they have for decades. The United States deserves little credit for the positive developments, however, and a fair amount of blame for the country’s remaining problems. [source]

Why American Neo-Cons Wanted Ahmadinejad to Win

Huffington Post, July 18, 2009| Updated May 25, 2011
The only people happier than the Iranian elites over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s apparently stolen election win Friday, were the neoconservatives and other hawks eager to block any efforts by the Obama administration to moderate U.S. policy toward the Islamic republic. Since he was elected president in 2005, Ahmadinejad has filled a certain niche in the American psyche formerly filled by the likes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi as the Middle Eastern leader we most love to hate. It gives us a sense of righteous superiority to compare ourselves favorably to these seemingly irrational and fanatical foreign despots. Better yet, if these despots can be inflated into far greater threats than they actually are, these supposed threats can be used to justify the enormous financial and human costs of maintaining American armed forces in that volatile region… [source]

Iran’s Stolen Election Has Sparked an Uprising — What Should the U.S. Do?

Huffington Post, July 16, 2009, by Stephen Zunes [source]
As the fraudulent outcomes in the presidential races of 2000 in the United States and 2006 in Mexico demonstrate, elections can be stolen without the public rising up to successfully challenge the results. There have been cases, however, where such attempted thefts have been overturned through massive nonviolent resistance, as in the Philippines in 1985, Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, and Ukraine in 2005. It is unclear as of this writing how the people of Iran will react to what increasingly appears to be the theft of their presidential election. So far, protests have been scattered, lacking in discipline and therefore easily suppressed. A general strike is planned, however, and a more cohesive and strategic resistance movement may emerge.

How Clinton and the Democrats Made Possible Israel’s Settlements Expansion

Huffington Post July 16, 2009 by Stephen Zunes [source]
President Barack Obama has inherited a difficult challenge in pushing Israel to end the expansion of its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. With the right-wing Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejecting the idea of a freeze and with Democratic-controlled Congress ruling out using the billions of dollars of U.S. military aid to Israel as leverage, the situation remains deadlocked.

Biden’s Hawkish Record

Huffington Post July 13, 2009 by Stephen Zunes
When Barack Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate, he drew sharp criticism from his anti-war base because of Biden’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, his flagrantly false claims about the alleged Iraqi threat, and the abuse of his position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to suppress antiwar testimony before Congress prior to the invasion. A look at the senator’s 35-year record on Capitol Hill indicates that Iraq was not an isolated case and that Biden has frequently allied with more hawkish Democrats and Republicans. [source]

Will Democrats Finally End their Support for West Bank Settlements? (Part Two)

Huffington Post, July 10, 2009
(This is the second of a two part series: click here for part one)
Recent calls by President Barack Obama for the government of Israel to freeze the expansion of Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank marks a sharp reversal from Democratic Party policy toward the Israeli colonization of Palestinian land. Indeed, for the past 20 years, Democrats in Washington have largely supported such Israeli expansionism in which Israeli occupation forces confiscate Palestinian land in territories seized in the June 1967 war to build Jewish-only communities… [source]

How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies, June 8, 2009
President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo to the Muslim world marked a welcome departure from the Bush administration’s confrontational approach. Yet many Arabs and Muslims have expressed frustration that he failed to use this opportunity to call on the autocratic Saudi and Egyptian leaders with whom he had visited on his Middle Eastern trip to end their repression and open up their corrupt and tightly controlled political systems. [source]