Soft Power, or Regime Change à l'américaine (by CP)

 One commenter on this comittee recently remarked the following:

"Ukraine had an NGO driven bloodless coup (kind of). This coup was clearly the doing of the U.S. ... The CIA appears to have a record of incredible incompetence"

That is not so, not quite, and that deserves some elaboration.

♦ The CIA just doesn’t do coups anymore

Of course, Bush 43 authorised the CIA do do destabilisation missions in Iran to achieve regime change, so take that with a grain of salt. But today, regime change is largely run out of the State Department. In the 70s, the CIA's history of coups and regime change caught up with it and was met with a public backlash that culminated in the climatic Church comittee hearings.

The politicians who wanted to keep doing these things irrespective of that moved the programs out of sight, and shipped staff and shop over to other organisations and found new sources of funding.

Lest these programs be again interrupted through pesky "oversight" by elected representatives, the new venue needed to be outside the bodies of the executive branch. The solution was government funded NGOs in the mold of Germany's Parteinahe Stiftungen.

♦ Regime change à l'américaine is a group effort now

Today, to the extent they concern 'soft power', such activities are run by the State Department through surrogates - semi official (USAID, NED, NDI, IRI, CIPE and ACILS), contractors and public relations firms or (congenially) entirely private (Soros' Open Society Foundation) and professional activists (OTPOR veterans). This is being supported by sympathetic journalists (providing friendly coverage or joining the fight) and pundits, lobbies (especially the transatlantic ones - Marshal Fund, Atlantic Society etc.) and think tanks (think Freedom House etc).

The semi-independent 'NGO' character of USAID, NED, NDI, IRI, CIPE and ACILS guarantees continuity in the democratising mission even with changes in government. The diverse ideological thrust of each organisation also addresses different different segments in the society of "to be developed" countries. It also provides plausible deniability. Also, these programs may be run by genuine idealists, who are not serving the US government, let alone the CIA, and will not think of themselves that way.

A lot of US support to Poland's Solidarity movement during the Cold war went trough the AFL-CIO linked ACILS, who apparently were far better connected than the CIA.

In a nutshell, these bodies run their various programs autonomosly in a decentralised fashion. In the absence of intervention, they do so on auto-pilot in accordance with the bipartisan consensus (on regime change in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela etc pp), much like on tram lines - and they may not get every memo.

A perfect example for that is the recent case of USAID vs. Cuba in which USAID sponsored a free twitter-ish program to organise resistance to overthrow the Castros - while the US administration at the same time pursued normalisation with Castro's Cuba.

♦ Soft Power Projection at work

That is not to say that the efforts of these NGOs are entirely without merit. But it becomes problematic when they conflate legitimate political work with taking sides in another country's domestic politics.

It is interesting to read the narrative of someone sympathetic to such programs. The author concludes:

"While Vladimir Putin wants to see the dark hand of American spymasters manipulating protesters in Tahrir Square and the Maidan—and triumphalist American accounts of the end of the Cold War have promoted a similar narrative—a close review of the past shows that the U.S. government lacked mechanisms for any direct political control over revolutionary movements in Eastern Europe. The United States did not call the shots. Washington was actually quite chaos averse itself, choosing to promote stable, evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary clean sweep. Over the long term, if Putin wants to keep power he should worry about maintaining his domestic legitimacy, not the actions of outside powers."

The extent to which NGO activities are funded by or coordinate with the US government is a point the author doesn't see when he writes that Putin ought to just mind "maintaining his domestic legitimacy".

♦ The fine line between meddling and legitimate NGO action

Point is, the US, and US semi-governmental NGOs, are not hesitant at all to decide who's legitimate and who isn't. This is where problems arise, after all the flipside of sovereignty is that other countries do not meddle in another country's internal affairs. In such cases, when NGOs support or directly fund groups that make that argument, these NGOs are seen taking sides.

The problem is exacerbated when the US government then im- or explicitly endorses that view. For instance, the US has explicitly called Yanukovych 'illegitimate' during the Maidan protests, urging the protesters to carry on and eshew compromise.

When McFaul, the then fresh US ambassador to Russia, invited opposition to the embassy, iirc even before the first meeting with the Russian president (then Medvediev), what point does he make? Very much in line with that approach, Joe Biden apparently went to Russia before Putin ran for office after his break, informing him that the US felt he shouldn't run for office again. Not subtle. 

In light of that general picture, Putin likely couldn't care less through what specific alphabet soup group the US choose to launder money for a given NGO or program, or whether privateer Soros is at it again. On the receiving end it is largely a distinction without a difference. The projection of soft power is power projection no less.

Our esteemed correspondent David Habbakkuk put it just perfectly when he wrote:

And it seems to me likely that in both places, and in others, it will be taken by those most hostile to the U.S. as proof that the 'conspiracy' rather than 'cock-up' view of American policy not just towards the Middle East but in other areas has been conclusively vindicated. Moreover, those with more sanguine views are likely to be, as it were, placed on the back foot.

In using USAID, NED, NDI, IRI, CIPE and ACILS for 'soft power' projection and regime change the US is discrediting NGO activities in general by charging domestic political activity in foreign countries with foreign policy.

♦ The president in full control of US policy?

All that makes me wonder about the extent of control the US president has on foreign policy in face of such actors, and in face of so many independent actors. Take the strange case of John McCain:

When John McCain ran his private foreign policy during the early Obama years, just as if he didn't notice having lost the US elections to Obama, he did so as president of IRI, the International Republican Institute. In that function he went to photo ops in Syria, on the Maidan, to Libya, where he egged the protesters on to keep going, because their government was 'illegitimate'.

As a private citizen heading an NGO, and as a mere US Senator and head of the Senate Armed Services Comitee he naturally does not represent the US administration and what he sais naturally does not reflect their views. Really?

Obama is facing in this permanent foreign policy establishment with its burrowed members in the bureaucracy (think Nuland) a force that needs to be reckoned with. To overcome them will require political will. Will he expend the political capital needed?

♦ The ideological Cold War never ended

Not only did the US not reduce their forces after the end oft he first Cold War, they also didn’t reduce the accompanying ideological warfare establishment. Worse, the narrative that the US won the cold war has led to a general feeling of ideological vindication in the US.

USAID, NED, NDI, IRI, CIPE and ACILS were formed to fight the ideological cold war. They still do that. The end of the Cold War and the democratisation of the East initially gave them plenty of work doing 'democratisation' that resulted in considerable influence and access in these countries, reinforced by these countries entering NATO. But then, there was no mission beyond that.

What would be closer than to expand on the achievements and 'enter new markets', closer to the Russian heartland? That is IMO what we are seeing today.

♦ Freedom™ or bust!

Foreign policy in the US is today being run by ideologues of the neo-liberal, R2P or neocon persuasions. They are simply utterly tone deaf to the reality that Russia would predictably object to them spreading their influence at Russia's expense.

In Ukraine, the US offer was to choose between either the US or Russia. The aim was cearly prying loose Ukraine, irrespective of the sizeable ethnic Russian population in Ukraine, from Russian influence and draw it into the US orbit as a new satellite. And they thought Russia, distracted by Sochi, could be steamrolled if presented with a fait accompli in Kiev?

At the same time the US pursue their low key efforts to unseat Russia's elected government in favour of something different. What are the Russians to conclude from that?

What the US apparently think is that, if not for Putin, that devil, Russia would be pro-US, just as it was when everything was swell and Americans practically ran the Kremlin (and in the process ruthlessly betrayed Russia) under an incapacitated Jelzin.

No matter! There today is just one legitimate sphere of influence and that is that of the Free World, i.e. of those who share the Washington Consensus (with an emphasis on Washington) and are thus invited to the in-crowd's G-meetings.

This blind ambition for expansion coupled with vain self-righteousness just may get us all into an escalation towards war between NATO and Russian.

Links

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Institute_for_International_Affairs
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Republican_Institute
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_International_Private_Enterprise
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_Center (American Center for International Labor Solidarity)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations

Comments

[MS2]

Would you say this template fits what happened after the first Gulf War with the encouraged-then-abandoned Iraqi resistance, in that the "encouragers" were overruled near-freelancers? Could you recommend any info on that subject?

[confusedponderer]

MS2,
there are others here who are better qualified to respond to that question.

[turcopolier]

CP and MS2

What you have descried is the functioning of part of what I have described as "The Borg." There are government parts of the collective as well but much of it is made you as you describe it. In Iraq, the "encouragers" of Sunni tribal resistance to AQI arose in the field among Green Berets and marines in the field. When it became aware of that The Borg abandoned their efforts in favor of their theory of sovereign state construction on a social basis that would encourage revolution across the ME. pl

[ex-PFC Chuck]

"Obama is facing in this prmanent foreign policy establishment with its burrowed members in the bureaucracy (think Nuland) a force that is to be reckoned with. To overcome them will require political will. Will he expend the political capital needed?"

He has no intention of overcoming them. He is one of them.

[turcopolier]

ex-PFC Chuck

IMO Obama wishes to retain his integration into The Borg. The post 2016 benefits of doing so will be enormous. pl

[kao_hsien_chih]

There is an interesting analogue to this, on the opposite side of the globe. A close friend of mine is an American academic based in Taiwan, and he has been disillusioned about the American myth of "soft power" after having seen the PRC soft power in action there. Because the economic and other opportunities for being on good side of Beijing is so great, among the political and business elites in Taiwan, any view that may be seen as unpleasant by the powers-that-be on the mainland side is quietly but thoroughly muffled and suppressed, not by overt repression necessarily, but subtly, unofficially, and "softly." It is not necessarily through Beijing's direct involvement that these voices are being suppressed, but by deliberate choice by the Taiwanese who want to be friends of PRC (i.e. who may not even be Beijing's allies...yet).

One might wonder about how the American soft power is being projected in various parts of the world: yes, there are many who wish to be Washington's friends. Washington is full of self-righteous kool aid drinkers who know what the "right answer" to everything in the universe are, and in many cases, willing to fund and support those who are willing to kowtow to their views and apply them everywhere in the world. So we have many scoundrels, crooks, and opportunists who take Washington's dime to muffle their conveniently anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-evirnonment, anti-women, or anti-Gay (or whatever else that flies in the face of Western morality) enemies. With so many different independent actors on the American political scene with resources to become involved (e.g. Boehner and the Congressional Republicans showing up the White House by inviting Netanyahu), the opportunities for foreign self-proclaimed do-gooders are enormous.

This strikes me as far worse than an actual well-organized conspiracy. It ensures that U.S. will decidedly lose the means to strategically influence what actually does take place in its name, on its resources, in foreign lands, at considerable detriment to the overall U.S. interests.

[turcopolier]

All

The Church Commission and the post 9/11 IC reforms have reduced CIA to an agency that has no authority in the rest of the IC. DoD in the environment of war (under an AUMF) simply ignores CIA most of the time. CIA continues to theoretically operate drone attacks in places not covered by AUMFs. In fact, USAF actually operates the drones in these areas as well under CIA legal cover. In the area of clandestine HUMINT CIIA is now far surpassed by DIA Defense HUMINT which continues to operate effectively in spite of CIA efforts to block that in Congress. We don't need CIA. It is surprising how many journalists continue to believe CIA PR. pl

[mike]

@CP - "just may get us all into an escalation towards war between NATO and Russian."

Would there be any unity in a NATO that drifts towards war???

http://nosint.blogspot.com/2015/06/nato-solidarity-lacks-public-support.html

[oofda]

Well said. In addition, the State Department conducts a great percentage of the USG's open source- as well as closed source- collection and research on foreign governments. It is its job to know what is going on in other countries and who the potential leaders are and what are their positions on issues.

[confusedponderer]

France and Germany are less than thrilled, but the eastern states rally scared around the US, with the Brits following the US lead.

I wouldn't call that unity, but there may develop be momentum that may pull or drag France and Germany along.

I view the appointment of a pathological russophobe like Shaakashvili as governor of Odessa with concern. What an odd story by the way: Shaakashvili by accepting forefeited his Georgian citizenship to the delight of his old party there. Also, he was apparently seen a week ago or so riding bicycle in Brooklyn. Anyway, IMO the idea is to have him there to cause trouble for Russia and Russians.

I heard Stephen F. Cohen recount the impression of a Russian acquaintance from Odessa that for Russians the city starts to feel like Ukrainian occupied.

[JONST]

Generational Wealth Creation I think it is called these days. See the The Clintons. It won't stop--the billions gained-- the First Lady from giving speech after speech about how 'yo man, I'm from the Hood too!..and how bad do they treat us, but we keep steppin forward!'

New meaning to "keep your eye on the prize."

[turcopolier]

oofda

Let's not exaggerate. DIA also relies on a lot of open source material in analysis. pl

[b]

@CP good piece. You missed a few "unofficial" or "international" NGOs that are part of the game. The NATO lobby Atlantic Council is very much engaged in the Ukraine issue and it has deep connection into various European media. Amnesty International Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders are also part of the club. There is a revolving door between those organizations and the State Department. See for example here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/06/09/human-rights-watchs-revolving-door
http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/08/amnesty-for-occupation

[ex-PFC Chuck]

I couldn't agree more. See entry under "Bill Clinton."

[gemini33]

It can't be ignored that hedge funds (sometimes run by western oligarchs) and industries played a big role in the Yeltsin era too. It's not just ideologues. In at least some cases, the ideology is just a mask.

[LeaNder]

Congratulations, cp, that was perfect.

[gemini33]

I noticed that Vice News is running a piece where Ostrovsky says he collaborated with the Atlantic Council and bellingcat. I guess this could fall into the category of "sympathetic journalists (providing friendly coverage or joining the fight)" that cp mentions in this excellent post. Are they just sympathetic? There are recent examples of newly hatched western billionaires buying into the media business.

The explanation of ideologues and politicians using soft power via NGOs makes a lot of sense and a lot has been written about it in recent months (but not in the mainstream media, that I know of) but most of what I've read isn't as good as this post. What puzzles me is this -- how can we not notice that what happened in Russia in the 90s looked exactly like what corporate raiders did (and still do) to American companies with hostile takeovers and asset stripping? Instead of corporate raiding, what happened in Russia (and apparently in progress in Ukraine) looks like country raiding by the same people who amassed enormous wealth doing corporate raiding. That kind of greed for power and money is insatiable.

It's perfectly logical that they'd start with smaller companies, move on to very large companies, and then larger conquests. Entire countries, especially those that have a lot of public/shared assets, currencies. A massive challenge with a massive payoff and it seems logical that there would be a whole host of players, public and private, who would be interested and could benefit, at the expense of potentially millions of people who have no idea what's going on, are distracted by the complexity, the propaganda, cover stories and by the sheer chaos that takes over their lives. And now these country raiding challenges have ascended to such a level that the entire US, hell the whole planet, is at risk.

[Ursa Maior]

Sir,

which eastern states? The medium power aspirant poles, the turncoat rumanians? Ah I almost forgot our baltic relatives who, on the other hand really have EVERYTHIng to lose. Czech, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria are more than reluctant to 'goad the bear'.

No Sir, the recent radical liberal twist of the Obama administration gives us the chill. My country is not especially anti-gay,or anti semitic or whatever but Hungary started a couple of rebellions against major powers to defend its own values and interests. We were not afraid of the soviets, neither are we afraid from the US or the eurocrats. See ex Budapest Ambassador clearly over blown claims (Madame Ambassador by Eleni Koulanakis).

[Amir]

Conspiracy Theorist: USG supported both sides, creating chaos and striving to maintain a situation of "creative destruction". Instead of using "disruptive technology" (fashionable lingo in tech and med work) they used disruptive Jihad: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq . This happens both in soft power world as well.

[Richard Armstrong]

Bush 43 does sound rather Borg-ish, doesn't it.

[ex-PFC Chuck]

Gemini33: "What puzzles me is this -- how can we not notice that what happened in Russia in the 90s looked exactly like what corporate raiders did (and still do) to American companies with hostile takeovers and asset stripping?"

Economic historian Michael Hudson, now affiliated with the University of Missouri - Kansas City*, has addressed this issue in some of his writings, for example in his book "Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance." You can find his current writings at the New Economic Perspectives website.
http://www.amazon.com/Super-Imperialism-Origin-Fundamentals-Dominance/dp/0745319890/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433962922&sr=1-1&keywords=Super+Imperialism%3A+The+Origin+and+Fundamentals+of+U.S.+World+Dominance
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/category/michael-hudson

[mbrenner]

Among the many flaws in the prevailing American philosophy about exercising power is the excessive confidence that it places in kinetic action - i.e. military force. That is most clearly evident in the several fronts of the GWOT where our approach invariably has been futile or counter-productive. Most have involved the use of force in one form or other to achieve regime change: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and implicitly Iran.

The stated motive all these years has been to destroy al-Qaeda and to prevent the emergence of hospitable hosts for similar terrorist organizations. We have failed on all counts except for chasing classic al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Let's consider an analogous case. China experiences a 9/11 type incident by a group of Uighurs based in Peru who have been welcomed by the Shining Path Group. Then try to imagine hundreds of thousands of PLA troops spending the next fifteen years rampaging around the Andes in hot pursuit, invading Chavez's Venezuela, bombing groups in Bolivia and Equator and spending a couple of trillion in the process. Imagine an elite team of Chinese Dolphins 6 criss-crossing Latin America cutting throats - and adopting as their signature weapon a Tang dynasty crossbow. Ridiculous? Well, let's look in the mirror

[gnv233]

Sir,

how a-propos, a hungarian talking about romanians. Trianon, always Trianon, now 95 years later.

Yes the "cordon sanitaire" seems necessary regardless of the issues "du jour"

[Babak Makkinejad]

And on top of that, Chinese would designate France - a core state of the European civilization - as the enemy of all things Oriental and in sore need of regime change - with the French Republic replaced by a People's Republic....

[Babak Makkinejad]

CP:

Outside of supplying emergency medical help and search for survivors, I do not see any need for NGOs.

I am not including PEN, Goethe Institute etc. which aim to introduce a host country to this or that country's culture.