The Fanonite

Michael Barker continues his exchange with Stephen Zunes. Here he responds to Zunes on Gowans.

The progressive academic Professor Steven Zunes has recently entered into debate with Stephen Gowans – a Canadian-based political activist and writer.

• Zunes, “Nonviolent Action and Pro-Democracy Struggles”, Znet, February 17, 2008.

• Gowans, “Stephen Zunes and the Struggle for Overseas Profits”, What’s Left, February 17, 2008.

• Zunes, “A Reply to Stephen Gowans’ False Allegations against Stephen Zunes”, Znet, February 25, 2008.

• Gowans, “Zunes’ Compromising with Capitalism’s Sad Reality”, What’s Left, February 25, 2008.

This exchange is notable for Zunes’ declaration that Stephen Gowans’ response was “filled with demonstrably inaccurate and misleading statements about both me and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict” (ICNC). This use of language is akin to the language he utilized to criticize recent articles I have written exploring his links to the ICNC. An example of this similarity is seen in Zunes’ unsubstantiated assertion that I have made “serious factual errors and misleading comments”, and a “series of false accusations and major leaps of logic” in the critiques of the ICNC. It is with this history that I approach a consideration of Zunes “13-point refutation” of Gowans’ alleged “lies and misinformation”.

1. Zunes writes that Gowans’ accusation that he “defend[s] U.S. government meddling in the affairs of other countries” is a”complete lie”. He then proceeds to list his progressive credentials – which are unquestionable – as proof to Gowans lie. Yet the provision of credentials is an inadequate method of addressing the reality that Zunes does legitimize and defend the interests of US-funded agencies that are “meddling in the affairs of other countries”.
2. Zunes asserts that the ICNC “has not been ‘heavily involved in successful and ongoing regime change operations, including in Yugoslavia,’ nor was Yugoslavia an example of a revolution ‘Zunes and his colleagues assist[ed].’” On the first point Zunes is correct, as the ICNC did not exist at that time (it was founded in 2001). However, Gowans’ point here was in reference to “Ackerman’s Center.” This mention is, in all probability, referring to the Center that Ackerman was formerly affiliated to the Albert Einstein Institution. This conclusion is reached as, at the time of the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, both Ackerman and his wife were directors of the Albert Einstein Institution. Significantly, between 1993 and 1999 this Institution received funding from the Ford Foundation, the US Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the International Republican Institute (one of the NED’s core grantees), amongst many others. Thus considering the critical role played by the NED in the ousting of Milosevic, it is not a stretch to suggest that the Albert Einstein Institution was in some way linked to this ‘revolution,’ especially considering that with US Institute of Peace support they ‘made the movie’ to celebrate the ‘success’ of the revolution.Zunes observes that Gowans was incorrect to assert “that Serbia was a place that ‘ICNC considers to be the site of one of its most successful engagements.’” However, Gowans’ statement is not at all far from the truth. Ackerman, the chair of the ICNC, was a former director of the Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) and in its 2000 to 2004 Report on Activities, this Institution clearly publishes that:
   

   “Where conflict situations have become critical, AEI consultants have helped train members of nonviolent struggle movements. A major success story was the end of the Milosevic dictatorship in Serbia in 2000. After receiving training on how to plan a sound strategy, members of the pro-democracy [NED-backed] group OTPOR were able to mobilize the Serbian people in a nonviolent mass demonstration, forcing Slobodan Milosevic to step down.”

   Zunes further maintains that neither “did I or ICNC have any contact whatsoever with Georgians or Ukrainians before the popular nonviolent uprisings in those countries.” Yet Gowans did not make this allegation, he merely wrote: “How curious that the successful soft revolutions Zunes admires (Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine) have brought pro-U.S., pro-foreign investment governments to power.” And on this point, I agree with Gowans, as Zunes’ uncritical support for these NED-backed ‘revolutions’ is indeed curious.

3. Zunes emphasizes that he has “absolutely no interest in supporting… Washington’s agenda to ‘oust governments that pursue economically nationalist or socialist policies.’” While this may be true, it is erroneous of Zunes to allege that Gowans’ statement concerning former AEI president, (retired Colonel) Robert Helvey, and the frequency he could be found “holding seminars on nonviolent direct action: in Belarus, in Zimbabwe, in Iraq (before the U.S. invasion) and in Iran” was a “complete lie.” Indeed, Gowans provides a reference to the aforementioned AEI report which observes that they have undertaken “[c]onsultations about strategic nonviolent struggle… for movements in Serbia, Venezuela, Belarus, and Tibet”. [1] Indeed it also notes:
   

   “In March-April 2000, AEI consultant Robert Helvey held a workshop on strategic nonviolent struggle in Budapest, Hungary for several members of OTPOR. The workshop was sponsored by the International Republican Institute.”

   The report also explains that in “February 2002, AEI consultants Robert Helvey and Joshua Paulson met with Zimbabwean opposition groups”, including the ‘democratically’ funded Movement for Democratic Change, with sponsorship for the event again provided by the International Republican Institute. Then later in the year, “Helvey conducted a seminar for representatives of several Iraqi exile organizations at The Hague in September 2002, at the initiative of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.” While the following year: “In response to a request by a donor within the Iranian exile community, AEI consultant Robert Helvey conducted a week-long course on nonviolent struggle for a group of Iranians in March 2003,” which again in all likelihood was sponsored by the International Republican Institute. [2] Thus it is clear that Gowans did not completely lie. Rather, he was overambitious in linking Zunes to Helvey’s polyarchal consultations, as he wrote that “Helvey (and perhaps Zunes as well)” were involved in such presentations. Gowans provides no evidence that Helvey and Zunes work together, or that Zunes participates in such presentations, but it is apparent their work is very similar.

4. Gowans writes that: “Zunes would be a more credible anti-imperialist were he organizing seminars on how to use nonviolent direct action to overthrow the blatantly imperialist U.S. and British governments.” Yet, as Zunes makes clear in his response, he has been training US activists “for more than thirty years”. He then adds that his “background in strategic nonviolent action is rooted in my involvement in the late 1970s in Movement for a New Society, a revolutionary cadre decidedly anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist in orientation”. Taking this background into account it begs the question: “why does Zunes lend his support to the ICNC?”
5. Zunes correctly points out that “Gowans is completely wrong to claim that ‘the governments Zunes really seems to be concerned about (Zimbabwe, Iran, Belarus and Myanmar) are hostile to the idea of opening their doors to unrestricted U.S. investment and exports.’” Here, Gowans is confusing Zunes’ work with that undertaken by the primary democracy manipulators like the AFL-CIO, the National Democratic Institute, and the NED: a mistake that I can only assume eventuated because of Zunes’ defence of the ICNC.Moreover, Zunes observes that the ongoing US attempts to subvert the Zimbabwean government, “which focus[es] upon an institution-building advancement of the U.S. agenda – are very real and I oppose them”. Yet he then clouds the issue by noting that such destabilization efforts are “very different… from the solidarity work provided by independent progressive non-profit groups in foreign countries to independent progressive movements in Zimbabwe and elsewhere”. I say this, because an integral part of the democracy manipulators work is to work through ostensibly progressive groups to manipulate civil society (even in the US through internationally orientated groups like Human Rights Watch). Furthermore, such work will always be fraught with trouble (and manipulated by capitalist funders), especially when people like Zunes fail to address the imperial connections of the groups they choose to work in solidarity with.
6. Zunes further maintains that “Gowans is also completely inaccurate and misleading in claiming that the ‘revolutions Zunes admires (Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine) have brought pro-U.S., pro-foreign investment governments to power.’” I agree with Zunes here. Gowans incorrectly conflates Zunes’ views with those of the imperialist democracy manipulating community (even if he is associated with them). However, it is concerning that Zunes is adamant that “[t]he 1999 NATO bombing campaign of Serbia… was completely unrelated to the overthrow of Milosevic”. Of course it would be silly to suggest that the student-led movements that ousted Milosevic had any say in the decision to bomb Serbia, but the bombing certainly did help pave the way for their success.
7. In writing that, it is “simply untrue” for Gowans to claim that what “Ackerman, the ICNC and Stephen Zunes are all about” is “nonviolent direct activism in the service of US foreign policy goals,” Zunes overstates his case. As demonstrated earlier, there is credible evidence that Ackerman’s work is intimately linked to US foreign policy goals – and Zunes indirectly works to promote these goals (albeit unintentionally) by his desire to defend them from critical inquiry. Of course Zunes is not the ICNC, and as opposed to the ICNC he actually has a progressive background. However, although I am not familiar with all the examples Zunes gives regarding his overseas activism, I would suggest that there might be some problems with his “support of Egyptians struggling against the U.S.-backed Mubarak regime”.
   
   I say this because from May 20-24, 2007, Zunes led a seminar in Egypt on nonviolent civic strategies at the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, a group that is part of the NED-initiated World Movement for Democracy’s “Network of Democracy Research Institutes”. Moreover, the chair of the Ibn Khaldun Center’s board of trustees, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, has excellent democracy manipulating credentials as he serves on the international advisory board of the NED’s Journal of Democracy, is on Transparency International’s council on governance, and acts as a director of the Canadian version of the NED, a group called Rights & Democracy.

8. Contrary to Gowans assertion that the ICNC is a “Wall Street-connected organization,” Zunes writes that: “There has never been any coordination, meetings, dialogue or any other connections between ICNC and any Wall Street company or organization.” Yet, according to the ICNC’s latest IRS 990 forms, the Center receives all its funding from just two people, Peter Ackerman and his wife Joanne Leedom-Ackerman (in 2005 they gave the ICNC a massive $1.8 million each). In 1992 Business Week wrote:
   

   “[Peter] Ackerman, a specialist in leveraged buyouts, was the highest-paid of all of Michael R. Milken’s minions. In Wall Street history, only Milken ever made more than the $165 million salary Ackerman got in 1988, largely in recognition of his leadership in arranging financing for the $26 billion buyout of RJR Nabisco Inc. But unlike Milken, who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for securities fraud, Ackerman not only has hung on to his freedom but to the bulk of his fortune, which approximates $500 million… Ackerman, 45, is a visiting fellow at the well-regarded International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, to which he beat a fortuitously timed retreat just before Drexel collapsed into bankruptcy in February, 1990. His other principal affiliation is with the Albert Einstein Institution, a think tank in Cambridge, Mass., devoted to the support of nonviolent political struggle. Both Ackerman and his wife, the novelist Joanne Leedom-Ackerman, sit on its board.” [3]

   Zunes may be correct that Wall Street does not coordinate the ICNC, but there is no doubt that the Center owes its existence to Ackerman’s Wall Street exploits.

9. Another argument Zunes presents is that the ICNC “does not ‘promote nonviolent activism in the service of destabilizing foreign governments.’” Instead, he says, they simply provide “generic information and educational forums… for indigenous struggles and NGOs”. Strictly speaking this may be correct, but this does not mean that these services serve an apolitical function. In many ways this example is similar to Human Rights Watch’s claim that they are an “independent, nongovernmental organization” “dedicated to protecting the human rights”, as there is convincing evidence suggesting the contrary. (For a critique of their most recent work, see The Failure of Human Rights Watch in Venezuela and Haiti.) Either way, it is certainly true that the ICNC is just one small but vital part of the democracy manipulating establishment, and other groups that are not “prohibit[ed]… from initiating actions relative to any country” that work alongside them, include the Albert Einstein Institution and the NED, to name just two of many.
10. Disputed by Zunes is Gowans’ claim that his “rhetoric is reminiscent of Bush’s”, and Gowans observation that Zunes “says nonviolent activists are pursuing ‘freedom and democracy’ (in the same way, apparently, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a project in bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East).” No progressive likes to be compared to Bush, but Zunes’ resolute belief that progressive nonviolent activists cannot be manipulated by elite interests facilitates Bush’s agenda of spreading ‘democracy’ (rather: polyarchy) globally.
11. Zunes, without irony, says that he has “no associations with ‘dodgy U.S. ruling class foundations that hide the pursuit of U.S. foreign policy objectives behind a high-sounding commitment to peace.’” This statement of course flies in the face of plausible evidence presented by John Bellamy Foster, Gowans and myself.Zunes proceeds to acknowledge that “most non-profit organizations… depend at least in part on donations from wealthy individuals and from foundations which get their money from wealthy individuals”. However, he argues that: “Just because the ultimate source of funding for various non-profit groups is from members of the ruling class, however, does not mean that ruling class interests therefore set the agenda for every such non-profit group; they certainly do in some cases, but not in many other cases, including that of ICNC.” Zunes conviction that the ICNC is exempt from ruling class influence is remarkable. While, it is overly simplistic to argue that ruling elites control the agendas of all the groups they support, it is accurate to state that they simply choose which groups can survive (with their support), and which will fail (without their support). There are exceptions to this but the majority of groups that make up “civil society” are reliant, as Zunes rightly notes, on the support they obtain from leading capitalists. Thus it should be fairly uncontroversial to point out that, in the West at least, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded . Similarly it should not be argued that all of the US Institute of Peace’s work is antidemocratic; as any self-professed peace organization should be wise enough to support at least some genuine peace research, if only to help legitimize their other military sanctioned ‘peace’ work. Thus progressive activists (e.g. Zunes) should think twice before taking grants from democracy manipulating groups, and they should think long and hard before they defend such organizations from criticism.

    Finally, Zunes says that “despite Gowans’ claim to the contrary, ICNC president Jack DuVall has had no personal connection whatsoever to USIP [US Institute of Peace], except for speaking there as part of a couple of public panel discussions”. Yet the US Institute of Peace’s website notes that Jack Duvall – “a veteran writer and former political speechwriter and counterintelligence officer” – was Executive Producer of the PBS series A Force More Powerful, which as mentioned earlier also obtained funding from the US Institute of Peace.

12. Gowans’ writes that the son of ICNC’s founding director, Peter Ackerman, used “bombs and bullets, not nonviolent activism, to change Iraq’s regime”. However, Zunes points out that in fact “Ackerman’s son, a U.S. Marine, did not take part in the U.S. invasion of Iraq”. On this point, it seems that Gowans goes too far, as what Ackerman’s son does, or does not do, is not relevant to his argument.Ackerman and his ICNC colleagues agree that “regime change… should come through nonviolent struggle by the subjected peoples themselves, not from foreign invaders”, but surely foreign invaders includes manipulative funders (e.g. the NED, the CIA, and liberal philanthropists more generally), not just military invaders.
    
    
13. Zunes considers criticisms, including my own, that examine “guilt-by-association” problematic, and says that “Gowans wants readers to think that these degrees of separation are somehow a more significant indication of where I come from than” his progressive activism.

    Zunes’ need to deny any difficulties arising from his association is understandable but his ties to the ICNC are very problematic, and whether he is a willing party to the imperialistic aims surrounding their work or not, his very presence chairing their academic advisory board lends an air of legitimacy to their work (as does the presence of fellow progressive academic Cynthia Anne Marie Boaz on the same board). Zunes correctly observes that Gowans provides a “highly-selective summary” of Jack DuVall’s career by noting that he was a “former air force officer”. This is correct but I would suggest that Gowans was only using this point to illustrate the close ties that exist between democracy promoters and the military. For example, writing in 1990, Richard Hatch and Sara Diamond described the US Institute of Peace as a “stomping ground for professional war-makers” with a board of directors that “looked like a who’s who of right-wing ideologues from academia and the Pentagon”.

    Finally, Zunes says that he did not know about Robert Helvey’s 2003 trip to Venezuela (to train opposition activists) until “last week”. However, as the Albert Einstein Institution, which coordinated Helvey’s trip to Venezuela, has only published five annual reports of their work, I now call on Zunes to familiarize himself with their activities. Once he has done this he will understand the criticisms that have been levelled against him to date.

Michael Barker is based in Australia. Most of Michael’s other articles can be found here.

– Notes –