The Fanonite

Michael Barker on Pacifying Civil Society.

In recent times, capitalist interests have financially supported two types of revolution — helping fund the “neoliberal revolution” and supporting/hijacking popular revolutions (or in some cases manufactured “revolutions”) in countries of geo-strategic importance.

The neoliberal revolution has, naturally, been funded by right-wing philanthropists intent on neutralising progressive forces within society. However, the “democratic” revolutions (most notably the recent “colour revolutions” in Eastern Europe) are funded by an assortment of quasi-non-governmental organisations, like the US-Congress funded National Endowment for Democracy, and private institutions such as George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

However, the one revolution that these interests will not bankroll will be the revolution at home — here in our Western (low-intensity) democracies.

This point is forcefully argued in the US group INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence’s 2007 book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, which provides a useful overview for how capitalist elites and their liberal foundations actively work to coopt civil society in the US.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s guest editorial is the latest from regular Fanonite contributor Michael Barker. (A version of this was first published in State of Nature)

According to, the once progressive, now neo-conservative commentator, David Horowitz, Professor Stephen Zunes is a member of a select group of leftist activists that he refers to as The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (2006). Horowitz is infamous for co-founding the Center for the Study of Popular Culture –- which has been ominously renamed as the David Horowitz Freedom Center. More recently though, in 2005, this Center launched DiscoverTheNetworks, an online project that has been accurately referred to as “Horowitz’s Smear Portal”. The relevance of this background is found in the fact that I have also assessed Zunes’ connections to the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (where he chairs the board of academic advisors). While both I and Horowitz have criticised Zunes’ background and affiliations, needless to say Horowitz’s “Smear Portal” attacks Zunes for very different reasons than my own. [1] Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that DiscoverTheNetworks approach to investigating Zunes is very similar to my own, as it identifies the “individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it”. The crucial difference, between these two parallel analyses, however, is that I criticise the Left in an attempt to strengthen it by causing it to reflect on the elite manipulation and co-option of civil society, while DiscoverTheNetworks simply aims to undermine the Left. [2]

Unfortunately, my attempts to produce reflection did not bear fruit from Professor Zunes who, rather than addressing the substance of my criticisms, ‘responded’ with accusations of “absurd leaps of logic”, concluding that he “wonder[ed] whose side Barker is really on”. This was disappointing as the criticisms of Zunes’ connections with the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict had been explicit and my intention had been to promote this vital critical reflection amongst the Left, especially with regards to their reliance upon funding from The Power Elite. [3] Such funding questions are especially relevant with regards to the work of the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict, as their work is funded by Peter Ackerman and his wife Joanne Leedom-Ackerman, whose work has anti-democratic aspirations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s guest editorial from Michael Barker on Press Freedom in the Service of Polyarchy.

Especially since the advent of centralised systems of mass communication, mainstream media outlets -– dominated by their corporate backers -– have served a vital role for ruling elites by enabling them to manufacture mass consent for decidedly antidemocratic policies. Even more so than at any other point in recent history, the systems of democratic governance in the West are intimately entwined with those of increasingly powerful media conglomerates. In such an antidemocratic media climate, media watchdog groups –- like the US-based Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), and the British-based Medialens –- fulfil a vital democratic role by drawing public attention to the escalating democratic deficits of our current media institutions.

To date few academic studies have sought to cast a critical eye over the work of media watchdog groups. Instead, scholars have predominantly focused their attention on how ‘watchdogs’ openly aligned with pro-business interests have served to restrict democratic debate by engaging in flak production to deliberately discourage dissent – a subject that received notable attention in Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s (198 seminal book Manufacturing Consent. Herman and Chomsky outlined what they referred to as a Propaganda Model to describe how “money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public”. Flak production -– which they defined as “negative responses to a media statement or program” –- fulfilled a vital role in their Propaganda Model, and sat alongside the Model’s four other filters which included (1) the size, ownership and profit orientation of the media, (2) advertising, (3) sourcing, and (4) anti-communist ideology, which can be interpreted as keeping the discourse within the boundaries of elite interests.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a letter to the London Review of Books Slavoj Žižek dispels media myths about Tibet.

The media imposes certain stories on us, and the one about Tibet goes like this. The People’s Republic of China, which, back in 1949, illegally occupied Tibet, has for decades engaged in the brutal and systematic destruction not only of the Tibetan religion, but of the Tibetans themselves. Recently, the Tibetans’ protests against Chinese occupation were again crushed by military force. Since China is hosting the 2008 Olympics, it is the duty of all of us who love democracy and freedom to put pressure on China to give back to the Tibetans what it stole from them. A country with such a dismal human rights record cannot be allowed to use the noble Olympic spectacle to whitewash its image. What will our governments do? Will they, as usual, cede to economic pragmatism, or will they summon the strength to put ethical and political values above short-term economic interests?

There are complications in this story of ‘good guys versus bad guys’. It is not the case that Tibet was an independent country until 1949, when it was suddenly occupied by China. The history of relations between Tibet and China is a long and complex one, in which China has often played the role of a protective overlord: the anti-Communist Kuomintang also insisted on Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Before 1949, Tibet was no Shangri-la, but an extremely harsh feudal society, poor (life expectancy was barely over 30), corrupt and fractured by civil wars (the most recent one, between two monastic factions, took place in 1948, when the Red Army was already knocking at the door). Fearing social unrest and disintegration, the ruling elite prohibited industrial development, so that metal, for example, had to be imported from India.

Read the rest of this entry »

‘If a government wants to abuse human rights and rig elections, it needs to have the support of - or be - the western powers’, writes Seumas Milne.

There is no question that the struggle over land and power in Zimbabwe has brought the country to a grim pass. Nearly a decade after the takeover of white-owned farms and the rupture with the west, economic breakdown, hyperinflation, sanctions and Aids have taken a heavy toll. With the expectation now that a second round of elections, mired in claims of fraud, may after all keep President Mugabe in power, the prospect must be of continued economic punishment and crisis.

On a different scale, there’s also no doubt that in Tibet — the other central international focus of western concern in the past month — deep-seated popular discontent fuelled last month’s anti-government protests and attacks on Han Chinese, which were met with a violent crackdown by the Chinese authorities. Certainly, given the intensity of the US and European response, from chancellors and foreign ministers to Hollywood stars and blanket media coverage, you’d be left in little doubt that these two confrontations were the most serious facing their continents, if not the world.

Read the rest of this entry »

From Pinochet to ‘Human Rights’ in China. Michael Barker on the Regime-Change Industry, its humanitarian pretenses and its nexus with the Israel lobby.

When the twentieth century becomes history it will be seen as distinctive, I believe, for three developments in liberal Western societies: the growth of democracy; the rise of huge concentrations of economic power, known as corporations; and the professionalizing and institutionalizing of propaganda, especially as a means for safe-guarding the power of free-enterprise corporations against democracy.” (Alex Carey, 1987) [1]

Most regular readers of alternative media will be acutely aware of the US government’s antidemocratic history. Indeed, according to William Blum and Dr Danielle Ganser, since 1945 this much neglected history has seen the US government attempt to “overthrow more than 40 foreign governments”, “crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements” and provide support to right-wing terrorist (stay behind) armies in every European country. Unfortunately as most members of the public rely upon the corporate media – for the most part unaware that a useful and democratic alternative media exists – they are for the most part unaware of the extent of this antidemocratic foreign policy (and perhaps more importantly still they are unaware that they can do something to change it).

Read the rest of this entry »

Richard M Bennett on the new great game. For background also check out Fanonite contributor Michael Barker’s ‘“Democratic Imperialism”: Tibet, China, and the National Endowment for Democracy‘. (thanks Dave, Mike)

Given the historical context of the unrest in Tibet, there is reason to believe Beijing was caught on the hop with the recent demonstrations for the simple reason that their planning took place outside of Tibet and that the direction of the protesters is similarly in the hands of anti-Chinese organizers safely out of reach in Nepal and northern India.

Similarly, the funding and overall control of the unrest has also been linked to Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, and by inference to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) because of his close cooperation with US intelligence for over 50 years.

Indeed, with the CIA’s deep involvement with the Free Tibet Movement and its funding of the suspiciously well-informed Radio Free Asia, it would seem somewhat unlikely that any revolt could have been planned or occurred without the prior knowledge, and even perhaps the agreement, of the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) at CIA headquarters in Langley.

Read the rest of this entry »

Another important contribution from Michael Barker. Here he highlights key passages from a classic Bernstein article from the ‘77.

Writing for Rolling Stone magazine in 1977, Carl Berstein penned the classic article “The CIA and the Media” (October 20, 1977). Recently this entire 25,000 word article has been posted online on Bernstein’s website. This article is as relevant today as it was in 1977, so I have provided a selection of quotes covering the key points of the article. Following this I have provided a list of other relevant resources dealing with the CIA’s ‘work’.The CIA and the Media

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Read the rest of this entry »

A revision to Michael Barker’s earlier article.

On March 8, 2008, I wrote that Professor Stephen Zunes was correct to point out that Stephen Gowans was mistaken 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” (Point 5).

My statement was incorrect, because in Zunes’ first article “Nonviolent Action and Pro-Democracy Struggles”, it is very clear that he is primarily concerned with four counties in particular, that is, Zimbabwe, Iran, Belarus and Myanmar. These are all countries in which the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its democracy manipulating cohorts are highly active. Moreover, judging by NED’s project database, over the past five years the NED has funnelled over $13 million to the following groups working within (and also outside of) these four countries.

• Zimbabwe ($1.5 million in 2004, 2005 and 2006 only; in 2006 groups obtained $1 million) Groups funded include: American Center for International Labor Solidarity, Centre for Policy Studies, Crisis Coalition, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, Federation of African Media Women – Zimbabwe (FAMWZ), International Republican Institute, Mass Public Opinion Institute (MPOI), Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-ZIM), National Constitution Assembly, National Democratic Institute, Zimbabwe Community Development Trust (ZCDT), Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, and ZimRights.

• Iran ($1.4 million) Groups funded include: Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, American Center for International Labor Solidarity, Center for the International Private Enterprise, Civic Education and Human Rights, Institute of World Affairs, International Republican Institute, Iran Teachers’ Association, National Iranian-American Council, Vital Voices Global Partnership, and the Women’s Learning Partnership. For further discussion of the NED’s work in Iran, see here.

• Belarus ($2.9 million in 2004 and 2005 only) Groups receiving funding are not listed. For further discussion of the NED’s work in Belarus, see here.

• Myanmar ($7.7 million – in 2004, 2005, and 2006 only) Groups receiving funding are not listed. For further discussion of the NED’s work in Myanmar, see here.

Needless to say these NED grants represent the tip of the iceberg of the ‘democratic’ monies following into these counties, as their grants topped up by better funded ‘aid’ agencies, like the US Agency for International Development: indeed, total official overseas development aid provided by the United States for 2005 came to $27.6 billion.

Michael Barker is a British citizen based in Australia. Most of his other articles can be found here.

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”. Read the rest of this entry »