October 13, 2021, Dragana Trifkovic and Ahmed Bensaada
Belgrade, the Serbian capital, is currently hosting a high-level meeting marking the 60th anniversary of the first conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
This meeting is marked by the participation of the Algerian Prime Minister, Aymen Benabderrahmane, representative of the President of the Republic Abdelmadjid Tebboune and coincides with the visit of the Chief of Staff of the ANP, Lieutenant General Saïd Chengriha in Belgrade to attend the inauguration ceremony of the 10th edition of the armaments event ”Partner-2021 ″.
The presence of the two Algerian officials in Belgrade is indicative of the historical ties between Algeria and Serbia. On this occasion, Algérie54 takes up the interview conducted by Serbian geopolitician Dragana Trifkovic with Algerian author and researcher Ahmed Bensaada, about the Color Revolutions, Ukraine and what has been deceptively called the Arab “spring”. This interview published by the Serbian magazine “Geopolitika” (March 2018) also deals with the role played by the Serbian Srđa Popović, one of the founders of Otpor and Canvas, organizations well known for their involvement in the Color Revolutions and the “Spring” Arab. As a reminder, Dragana Trifkovic is a journalist, politician, political analyst and director general of the Serbian Geostrategic Studies Center. Finally, it should be noted that this interview was published in March 2018, about a year before the start of the Hirak.
1. You have studied the methodology of the so-called nonviolent revolutions, which have caused many conflicts in the world. You wrote a book about it (“Arabesque $”). How did you get interested in this subject and how did you come to the first conclusions about it?
A.B .: I first became interested in this subject in 2009, during the huge protests that rocked Iran. But it was especially when I saw the Egyptian demonstrators in 2011 waving banners with clenched fists that I was convinced of the connection between the Color Revolutions and the revolts in the Middle East. Indeed, it was the fist of “Otpor”, the movement that succeeded in bringing down Serbian President Slobodan Milošević in 2000. And this was no mere coincidence: my subsequent research has shown it.
2. Who do you think created the methodology of color revolutions? And with what purpose?
A.B .: This methodology was devised by the American philosopher Gene Sharp, an expert on what he called “nonviolent methods of resistance in conflict”. The aim was, theoretically, to transform dictatorial regimes into democratic countries with non-military methods, based on non-violence. In fact, these methods have been used exclusively by the US administration to destabilize governments that were against US interests. It was Robert Helvey, a former US Army colonel, CIA special agent, and clandestine operations expert who initially took charge of the field application of “Sharpian” theories.
3. In Serbia, on October 5, 2000, one of the first modern color revolutions was organized, which brought about regime change. Why did this happen in Serbia and did Serbia later become the main model of Color Revolutions?
A.B .: In fact, the first time that the method of nonviolent resistance was practically used was in Burma. Between 1992 and 1998, Helvey undertook fifteen trips to Burma to teach Gene Sharp’s theory there. The latter, in person, entered it clandestinely to meet the Burmese revolutionaries. However, all efforts ended in failure. Helvey then met the Otpor activists in 2000 and offered them training and funding. By his own admission, he admitted that the United States had provided the Otpor activists with $ 25 million.
It is true that the “bulldozer” revolution, led by Otpor, was the first success of the Sharp-Helvey couple. It was the first time we had gone from theory to practice. The youth of the activists, the ardor of the demonstrators, the apparent spontaneity of the events, the intelligent choice of slogans, the judicious use of the media, in short the use to the letter of the principles of Gene Sharp’s theory, were at the origin of this brilliant success. Then the method was exported to other countries in the East, the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America.
4. During our meeting, we talked about Otpor. You are familiar with the activities of Srdja Popovic, who in one way or another has become very well known among activists in the Middle East. What can you tell us about the activities of CANVAS?
A.B .: Srdja Popovic is the public face of CANVAS, a Belgrade-based “budding revolutionaries” training center founded by former Otpor activists. He knows Helvey and Sharp in person. Helvey said of him, “As soon as I saw him, I knew this guy was one of the leaders.” He drew on Sharp’s work to write, along with his fellow Otpor colleagues, the textbook “The Nonviolent Struggle in 50 Points,” which mentions 199 methods of nonviolent action. This book has been translated into several languages. Each language gives an idea of the countries where it has been used.
Popovic gives numerous conferences around the world, advocating non-violent revolution and democratization “made in the USA”. It must be said that CANVAS is funded by American organizations specializing in the “exportation” of democracy: Freedom House, the Open Society Institute (OSI) of American billionaire George Soros, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Senator John McCain’s International Republican Institute (IRI).
It is thanks to CANVAS that the Color Revolutions spread to the former Soviet Republics: Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004) and Kyrgyzstan (2005). Drawing on their experience in destabilizing authoritarian regimes, their know-how has been used in the Middle East (Lebanon 2005, Iran 2009) and in what is commonly called the Arab “spring” (2011). Of course, the CANVAS “wave” has been used in other countries, especially those that are not at odds with the United States like Venezuela.
5. Two years ago CANVAS was recognized as a terrorist organization in the United Arab Emirates. Even though Srdja Popovic considers his activism to be normal, it is obvious that this is not everyone’s opinion. How can a state combat the actions of an organization and individuals who interfere directly in the internal affairs of sovereign countries?
A.B .: In 2011, Srdja Popovic publicly boasted that CANVAS “works” in 37 countries around the world. The list is probably longer today.
Of course, many countries are ruled by autocratic regimes and their citizens need more individual freedoms, democracy and improved socioeconomic conditions. However, CANVAS and Popovic do not realize that their organization only serves the interests of the organizations that fund them and the country that supports them. Relations between countries are not dictated by any kind of philanthropy, but by economic or political interests. The millions of dollars spent in promoting democracy must benefit the security and general well-being of the United States. Allan Weinstein, one of the founders of the NED, said that much of what the NED currently does was previously done secretly by the CIA.
On the other hand, if we look at the result of the colored revolutions in the former Eastern countries or what happened in the Arab countries during this badly called Arab “spring”, it is clear that it is happening. is a fiasco on all fronts. The activists and cyberactivists who led the protests against the governments have been swept from the political scene to make way for the political forces in place. These revolts are in fact just coups d’état which leave countries in chaos. Libya, Syria and Yemen are educational examples. These revolts are not “revolutions” because no ideological change underlies them. Foreign organizations have used the ardor and determination of the youth of the target countries by instilling in them virtuous slogans which no one can be against. The revolutionary romanticism of youth did the rest.
6. The Arab Spring is the term for a series of revolutions in the Middle East, which caused regime change, but also the deadly war in Syria. What do you think is the cause of these revolutions? Were they born spontaneously or were they planned? Who had an interest in destabilization in the Middle East?
A.B .: The Arab “spring” is a fallacious term with which Westerners have baptized the series of popular revolts which shook the Arab streets at the end of 2010, the beginning of 2011 and which still continues, with all the misfortunes that accompanied it.
The exact term should be Arabic “winter” or “chaos”. Never has the situation in Arab countries been so dire. Destroyed countries, hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees and billions of dollars in economic losses. Not to mention the psychological cost, inter-community animosities and the brain drain.
It is true that the Arab countries are fertile ground for revolts. Poorly distributed wealth, lack of freedoms, autocratic regimes, economic problems, etc.
But as explained above, this “spring” is not spontaneous. Syrian activists like Ausama Monajed have been in touch with Gene Sharp and funded by the same organizations that have supported Otpor. The Syrian Radwan Ziadeh, (member of the Syrian National Council – CNS – just like Monajed) was funded by the NED; Egyptian Mohamed Adel was trained by CANVAS in Belgrade in 2009. His training and that of other Egyptian cyber activists was paid for by Freedom House. These are just examples: in my book “Arabesque $” you will find more details on many other Arab cyber activists and their relationship with CANVAS.
The Arab “Spring” has also shown that when “non-violent” methods fail to achieve their goal quickly, Western powers (and in particular the United States) switch to conventional methods by instigating civil wars with dire consequences. This is what happened in Libya, Yemen and even today in Syria.
As for the destabilization of the Middle East, it is part of the American project of the “Greater Middle East”. Originally designed by Oded Yinon (in 1982), an Israeli official, it was taken over by American neoconservative hawks. First with the senior Bush administration, then his son’s. Since then, several plans for dividing up the Arab world have been proposed by American officials. According to Oded Yinon, his plan aims to “defeat all existing Arab states and reorganize the entire region into small, fragile entities that are more malleable and incapable of confronting the Israelis.” We are currently seeing this plan at work in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria and it is far too late for Sudan.
7. Let us also talk about the subject of Ukraine, since there too a coup d’etat was staged, followed by an armed conflict. Who is responsible for Maidan and who needed conflict in Ukraine?
A.B .: I have devoted a few articles to Euromaidan where I have shown that what happened in Ukraine in 2013-2014 was only an extension of the “orange” revolution. As explained before, it was the Serbs in Otpor and the overwhelming support of US democracy exporters that helped Ukrainian dissidents to “revolutionize.” Indeed, in 2004, the revolt succeeded in placing pro-American leaders at the head of the Ukrainian state: Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko. But when the pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, won the 2010 elections by a large margin, it aroused the ire of Western countries, so fond of electoral democracy. As non-violent methods did not work, as they did in 2004, with the expected result, we quickly moved on to violent methods as in Libya, Syria or Yemen. During Euromaidan, it was Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups that were used, armed, financed and “protected” by the “mainstream” media. Western interference during these events was obscene and unworthy of all the values touted and celebrated in the West. Everything has been done to ensure that the coup against Yanukovych succeeds so that Ukraine turns politically to the West and that NATO military bases flourish on the Ukrainian-Russian border. A situation that no country in the West would have accepted, especially the United States. Who does not remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?
8. The United States accuses Russia of aggressive behavior and considers Russia to be a danger to Europe. When you look at the world map, you can see that Russia is surrounded by US and NATO bases, which does not support these claims. What do you think of Russia’s foreign affairs policy?
A.B .: Contrary to what is trumpeted by the Western media, in the cases of Ukraine and Syria, the aggressive behavior is to be blamed on the United States and European countries.
While Russia had provided substantial aid to Ukraine before Euromaidan, the Western powers offered nothing but trifles to the country.
If Ukraine is far from joining the European Union and the Western defenders of its “revolution” do not put their hands in their pockets, everything seems to indicate that this country is only a “horse of Troy ”to embarrass Russia, which takes too much space and a lot of ease in international issues, like its role in the Syrian conflict. One way like any other to start a new era of cold war.
In the Syrian case, Russia is on the side of international law and effectively combats jihadist terrorism. And who funded and armed (directly or indirectly) the Syrian dissidents and jihadists? Westerners and their vassals, which are the Gulf countries, of course. Without Russian intervention, Syria would now be a dismembered country, ruled by bloodthirsty hordes from another time.
9. Donald Trump said during the election campaign that the United States should look to itself and that it should not interfere in the politics of other countries. However, after a while, it can be seen that America continues to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, as well as in the relations between other countries. What do you think of US policy since Trump took over as President of the United States? Do you see any changes in US foreign affairs policy, or a continuity from the previous government of Barack Obama?
A.B .: It is a delusion to believe that American foreign policy changes drastically with the change of presidents. This came to light with the advent of President Obama after the dramatic double term of President Bush Jr.. Obama’s policies have been as bloody as that of his predecessor, if not worse. The Obama-Clinton couple were behind the disaster known as the Arab “Spring” and the Obama-Kerry couple supported the Euromaidan coup. What to expect with President Trump? Such a belligerent policy – if not more – towards countries that do not collaborate with Uncle Sam, in the continuation of the tenants who have occupied the White House for decades. Besides, isn’t Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again”?
This interview was also published by:
Translated by jazairhope.
