Colour-Coded Revolutions:
The Origins of World War III:
Part 2
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
http://globalresearch.ca/, November
3, 2009
Introduction
Following US geo-strategy in what Brzezinski termed the "global
Balkans," the US government has worked closely with major
NGOs to "promote democracy" and "freedom"
in former Soviet republics, playing a role behind the scenes in
fomenting what are termed "colour revolutions," which
install US and Western-friendly puppet leaders to advance the
interests of the West, both economically and strategically.
Part 2 of this essay on "The Origins of World War III"
analyzes the colour revolutions as being a key stratagem in imposing
the US-led New World Order. The "colour revolution"
or "soft" revolution strategy is a covert political
tactic of expanding NATO and US influence to the borders of Russia
and even China; following in line with one of the primary aims
of US strategy in the New World Order: to contain China and Russia
and prevent the rise of any challenge to US power in the region.
These revolutions are portrayed in the western media as popular
democratic revolutions, in which the people of these respective
nations demand democratic accountability and governance from their
despotic leaders and archaic political systems. However, the reality
is far from what this utopian imagery suggests. Western NGOs and
media heavily finance and organize opposition groups and protest
movements, and in the midst of an election, create a public perception
of vote fraud in order to mobilize the mass protest movements
to demand "their" candidate be put into power. It just
so happens that "their" candidate is always the Western
US-favoured candidate, whose campaign is often heavily financed
by Washington; and who proposes US-friendly policies and neoliberal
economic conditions. In the end, it is the people who lose out,
as their genuine hope for change and accountability is denied
by the influence the US wields over their political leaders.
The soft revolutions also have the effect of antagonizing China
and Russia, specifically, as it places US protectorates on their
borders, and drives many of the former Warsaw Pact nations to
seek closer political, economic and military cooperation. This
then exacerbates tensions between the west and China and Russia;
which ultimately leads the world closer to a potential conflict
between the two blocs.
Serbia
Serbia experienced its "colour revolution" in October
of 2000, which led to the overthrow of Serbian leader Slobodan
Milosevic. As the Washington Post reported in December of 2000,
from 1999 on, the US undertook a major "electoral strategy"
to oust Milosevic, as "U.S.-funded consultants played a crucial
role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic
drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition
activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel
vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint
used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on
walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan
"He's Finished," which became the revolution's catchphrase."
Further, according to Michael Dobbs,writing in the Washington
Post, some "20 opposition leaders accepted an invitation
from the Washington-based National Democratic Institute (NDI)
in October 1999 to a seminar at the Marriott Hotel in Budapest."
Interestingly, "Some Americans involved in the anti-Milosevic
effort said they were aware of CIA activity at the fringes of
the campaign, but had trouble finding out what the agency was
up to. Whatever it was, they concluded it was not particularly
effective. The lead role was taken by the State Department and
the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government's
foreign assistance agency, which channeled the funds through commercial
contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican
counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI)."
__The NDI (National Democratic Institute), "worked closely
with Serbian opposition parties, IRI focused its attention on
Otpor, which served as the revolution's ideological and organizational
backbone. In March, IRI paid for two dozen Otpor leaders to attend
a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the Hilton Hotel in Budapest."
At the seminar, "the Serbian students received training in
such matters as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with
symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine the authority
of a dictatorial regime."[1]
As the New York Times revealed, Otpor, the major student opposition
group, had a steady flow of money coming from the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED), a Congress-funded "democracy promoting"
organization. The United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) gave money to Otpor, as did the International Republican
Institute, "another nongovernmental Washington group financed
partly by A.I.D."[2]
Georgia
In 2003, Georgia went through its "Rose Revolution,"
which led to the overthrow of president Eduard Shevardnadze, replacing
him with Mikhail Saakashvili after the 2004 elections. In a November
2003 article in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that a US
based foundation "began laying the brickwork for the toppling
of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze," as funds from
his non-profit organization "sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist
named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor
(Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations
to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Then, in the summer,"
the "foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor
activists, who ran three-day courses teaching more than 1,000
students how to stage a peaceful revolution."
This US-based foundation "also funded a popular opposition
television station that was crucial in mobilizing support for
[the] 'velvet revolution,' and [it] reportedly gave financial
support to a youth group that led the street protests." The
owner of the foundation "has a warm relationship with Mr.
Shevardnadze's chief opponent, Mikhail Saakashvili, a New York-educated
lawyer who is expected to win the presidency in an election scheduled
for Jan. 4."
During a press conference a week before his resignation, Mr. Shevardnadze
said that the US foundation "is set against the President
of Georgia." Moreover, "Mr. Bokeria, whose Liberty Institute
received money from both [the financier's foundation] and the
U.S. government-backed Eurasia Institute, says three other organizations
played key roles in Mr. Shevardnadze's downfall: Mr. Saakashvili's
National Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station and
Kmara! (Georgian for Enough!), a youth group that declared war
on Mr. Shevardnadze [in] April and began a poster and graffiti
campaign attacking government corruption." [3]
The day following the publication of the previously quoted article,
the author published another article in the Globe and Mail explaining
that the "bloodless revolution" in Georgia "smells
more like another victory for the United States over Russia in
the post-Cold War international chess game." The author,
Mark MacKinnon, explained that Eduard Shevardnadze's downfall
lied "in the oil under the Caspian Sea, one of the world's
few great remaining, relatively unexploited, sources of oil,"
as "Georgia and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which borders the
Caspian, quickly came to be seen not just as newly independent
countries, but as part of an 'energy corridor'." Plans were
drawn up for a massive "pipeline that would run through Georgia
to Turkey and the Mediterranean." It is worth quoting MacKinnon
at length:
When these plans were made, Mr. Shevardnadze was seen as an asset
by both Western investors and the U.S. government. His reputation
as the man who helped end the Cold War gave investors a sense
of confidence in the country, and his stated intention to move
Georgia out of Russia's orbit and into Western institutions such
as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union
played well at the U.S. State Department.
The United States quickly moved to embrace Georgia, opening a
military base in the country [in 2001] to give Georgian soldiers
"anti-terrorist" training. They were the first U.S.
troops to set up in a former Soviet republic.
But somewhere along the line, Mr. Shevardnadze reversed course
and decided to once more embrace Russia. This summer, Georgia
signed a secret 25-year deal to make the Russian energy giant
Gazprom its sole supplier of gas. Then it effectively sold the
electricity grid to another Russian firm, cutting out AES, the
company that the U.S. administration had backed to win the deal.
Mr. Shevardnadze attacked AES as "liars and cheats."
Both deals dramatically increased Russian influence in Tbilisi.
Following the elections in Georgia, the US-backed and educated
Mikhail Saakashvili ascended to the Presidency and "won the
day."[4] This is again an example of the intimate relationship
between oil geopolitics and US foreign policy. The colour revolution
was vital in pressing US and NATO interests forward in the region;
gaining control over Central Asia's gas reserves and keeping Russia
from expanding its influence. This follows directly in line with
the US-NATO imperial strategy for the new world order, following
the collapse of the USSR. [This strategy is outlined in detail
in Part 1 of this essay: An Imperial Strategy for a New World
Order: The Origins of World War III].
Ukraine
In 2004, Ukraine went through its "Orange Revolution,"
in which opposition and pro-Western leader Viktor Yushchenko became
President, defeating Viktor Yanukovych. As the Guardian revealed
in 2004, that following the disputed elections (as happens in
every "colour revolution"), "the democracy guerrillas
of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a
famous victory - whatever the outcome of the dangerous stand-off
in Kiev," however, "the campaign is an American creation,
a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western
branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years,
has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury
regimes."
The author, Ian Traynor, explained that, "Funded and organised
by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats,
the two big American parties and US non-government organisations,
the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat
Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box." Further, "The
Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican
party's International Republican Institute, the US state department
and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns
as well as the Freedom House NGO" and the same billionaire
financier involved in Georgia's Rose Revolution. In implementing
the regime-change strategy, "The usually fractious oppositions
have to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be
any chance of unseating the regime. That leader is selected on
pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American."
__Traynor continues:
Freedom House and the Democratic party's NDI helped fund and organise
the "largest civil regional election monitoring effort"
in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They
also organised exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr
Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what
has followed.
The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative
in the propaganda battle with the regime, invariably appearing
first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on the
authorities to respond.
The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when
the incumbent tries to steal a lost election.
[. . . ] In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities
initially tried to cling to power, the advice was to stay cool
but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience,
which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into
violent suppression.[5]
As an article in the Guardian by Jonathan Steele explained, the
opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, who disputed the election
results, "served as prime minister under the outgoing president,
Leonid Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the
brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine's post-Soviet
privatization." He further explained that election rigging
is mainly irrelevant, as "The decision to protest appears
to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or
the incumbent are considered more 'pro-western' or 'pro-market'."
In other words, those who support a neoliberal economic agenda
will have the support of the US-NATO, as neoliberalism is their
established international economic order and advances their interests
in the region.
Moreover, "In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the western nod, and
floods of money poured in to groups which support him, ranging
from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites.
More provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for
exit polls." This is emblematic of the strategic importance
of the Ukraine to the United States, "which refuses to abandon
its cold war policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every
former Soviet republic to its side."[6]
One Guardian commentator pointed out the hypocrisy of western
media coverage: "Two million anti-war demonstrators can stream
though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a
few tens of thousands in central Kiev are proclaimed to be 'the
people', while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions
are discounted as instruments of oppression." It was also
explained that, "Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev
in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, but they
are not shown on our TV screens: if their existence is admitted,
Yanukovich supporters are denigrated as having been 'bussed in'.
The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser lights,
plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents
to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily
dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous."[7]
In 2004, the Associated Press reported that, "The Bush administration
has spent more than $65 million in the past two years to aid political
organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor
Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite an exit
poll indicating he won last month's disputed runoff election."
The money, they state, "was funneled through organizations
such as the Eurasia Foundation or through groups aligned with
Republicans and Democrats that organized election training, with
human rights forums or with independent news outlets." However,
even government officials "acknowledge that some of the money
helped train groups and individuals opposed to the Russian-backed
government candidate."
The report stated that some major international foundations funded
the exit polls, which according to the incumbent leader were "skewed."
These foundations included "The National Endowment for Democracy,
which receives its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation,
which receives money from the State Department, and the Renaissance
Foundation," which receives money from the same billionaire
financier as well as the US State Department. Since the State
Department is involved, that implies that this funding is quite
directly enmeshed in US foreign policy strategy. "Other countries
involved included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland,
Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark." Also involved in funding
certain groups and activities in the Ukraine was the International
Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, which
was chaired by former Secretary of States Madeline Albright at
the time.[8]
Mark Almond wrote for the Guardian in 2004 of the advent of "People
Power," describing it in relation to the situation that was
then breaking in the Ukraine, and stated that, "The upheaval
in Ukraine is presented as a battle between the people and Soviet-era
power structures. The role of western cold war-era agencies is
taboo. Poke your nose into the funding of the lavish carnival
in Kiev, and the shrieks of rage show that you have touched a
neuralgic point of the New World Order."
Almond elaborated:
"Throughout the 1980s, in the build-up to 1989's velvet revolutions,
a small army of volunteers - and, let's be frank, spies - co-operated
to promote what became People Power. A network of interlocking
foundations and charities mushroomed to organise the logistics
of transferring millions of dollars to dissidents. The money came
overwhelmingly from Nato states and covert allies such as "neutral"
Sweden.
[ ...] The hangover from People Power is shock therapy. Each successive
crowd is sold a multimedia vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity
by western-funded "independent" media to get them on
the streets. No one dwells on the mass unemployment, rampant insider
dealing, growth of organised crime, prostitution and soaring death
rates in successful People Power states.
As Almond delicately put it, "People Power is, it turns out,
more about closing things than creating an open society. It shuts
factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free
market in everything - except opinion. The current ideology of
New World Order ideologues, many of whom are renegade communists,
is Market-Leninism - that combination of a dogmatic economic model
with Machiavellian methods to grasp the levers of power."[9]
As Mark MacKinnon reported for the Globe and Mail, Canada, too,
supported the efforts of the youth activist group, Pora, in the
Ukraine, providing funding for the "people power democracy"
movement. As MacKinnon noted, "The Bush administration was
particularly keen to see a pro-Western figure as president to
ensure control over a key pipeline running from Odessa on the
Black Sea to Brody on the Polish border." However, "The
outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, had recently reversed the flow
so the pipeline carried Russian crude south instead of helping
U.S. producers in the Caspian Sea region ship their product to
Europe." As MacKinnon analyzes, the initial funding from
western nations came from Canada, although this was eventually
far surpassed in amount by the United States.
Andrew Robinson, Canada's ambassador to Ukraine at the time, in
2004, "began to organize secret monthly meetings of Western
ambassadors, presiding over what he called "donor co-ordination"
sessions among 28 countries interested in seeing Mr. Yushchenko
succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's spokesman and became
a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media
control." Canada further "invested in a controversial
exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre
and other groups, that contradicted the official results showing
Mr. Yanukovich had won." Once the new, pro-Western government
was in, it "announced its intention to reverse the flow of
the Odessa-Brody pipeline."[10]
Again, this follows the example of Georgia, where several US and
NATO interests are met through the success of the "colour
revolution"; simultaneously preventing Russian expansion
and influence from spreading in the region as well as advancing
US and NATO control and influence over the major resources and
transport corridors of the region.
Daniel Wolf wrote for the Guardian that, "For most of the
people gathered in Kiev's Independence Square, the demonstration
felt spontaneous. They had every reason to want to stop the government
candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, from coming to power, and they took
the chance that was offered to them. But walking through the encampment
last December, it was hard to ignore the evidence of meticulous
preparation - the soup kitchens and tents for the demonstrators,
the slickness of the concert, the professionalism of the TV coverage,
the proliferation of the sickly orange logo wherever you looked."
He elaborated, writing, "the events in the square were the
result of careful, secret planning by Yushchenko's inner circle
over a period of years. The true story of the orange revolution
is far more interesting than the fable that has been widely accepted."
Roman Bessmertny, Yushchenko's campaign manager, two years prior
to the 2004 elections, "put as many as 150,000 people through
training courses, seminars, practical tuition conducted by legal
and media specialists. Some attending these courses were members
of election committees at local, regional and national level;
others were election monitors, who were not only taught what to
watch out for but given camcorders to record it on video. More
than 10,000 cameras were distributed, with the aim of recording
events at every third polling station." Ultimately, it was
an intricately well-planned public relations media-savvy campaign,
orchestrated through heavy financing. Hardly the sporadic "people
power" notion applied to the "peaceful coup" in
the western media.[11]
The "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan
In 2005, Kyrgyzstan underwent its "Tulip Revolution"
in which the incumbent was replaced by the pro-Western candidate
through another "popular revolution." As the New York
Times reported in March of 2005, shortly before the March elections,
"an opposition newspaper ran photographs of a palatial home
under construction for the country's deeply unpopular president,
Askar Akayev, helping set off widespread outrage and a popular
revolt." However, this "newspaper was the recipient
of United States government grants and was printed on an American
government-financed printing press operated by Freedom House,
an American organization that describes itself as 'a clear voice
for democracy and freedom around the world'."
Moreover, other countries that have "helped underwrite programs
to develop democracy and civil society" in Kyrgyzstan were
Britain, the Netherlands and Norway. These countries collectively
"played a crucial role in preparing the ground for the popular
uprising that swept opposition politicians to power." Money
mostly flowed from the United States, in particular, through the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as well as through "the
Freedom House printing press or Kyrgyz-language service of Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster."
The National Democratic Institute also played a major financing
role, for which one of the chief beneficiaries of their financial
aid said, "It would have been absolutely impossible for this
to have happened without that help."
The Times further reported that:
"American money helps finance civil society centers around
the country where activists and citizens can meet, receive training,
read independent newspapers and even watch CNN or surf the Internet
in some. The N.D.I. [National Democratic Institute] alone operates
20 centers that provide news summaries in Russian, Kyrgyz and
Uzbek.
The United States sponsors the American University in Kyrgyzstan,
whose stated mission is, in part, to promote the development of
civil society, and pays for exchange programs that send students
and non-governmental organization leaders to the United States.
Kyrgyzstan's new prime minister, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, was one.
All of that money and manpower gave the coalescing Kyrgyz opposition
financing and moral support in recent years, as well as the infrastructure
that allowed it to communicate its ideas to the Kyrgyz people."
As for those "who did not read Russian or have access to
the newspaper listened to summaries of its articles on Kyrgyz-language
Radio Azattyk, the local United States-government financed franchise
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty." Other "independent"
media was paid for courtesy of the US State Department.[12]
As the Wall Street Journal revealed prior to the elections, opposition
groups, NGOs and "independent" media in Kyrgyzstan were
getting financial assistance from Freedom House in the US, as
well as the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The
Journal reported that, "To avoid provoking Russia and violating
diplomatic norms, the U.S. can't directly back opposition political
parties. But it underwrites a web of influential NGOs whose support
of press freedom, the rule of law and clean elections almost inevitably
pits them against the entrenched interests of the old autocratic
regimes."
As the Journal further reported, Kyrgyzstan "occupies a strategic
location. The U.S. and Russia both have military bases here. The
country's five million citizens, mostly Muslim, are sandwiched
in a tumultuous neighborhood among oil-rich Kazakhstan, whose
regime tolerates little political dissent; dictatorial Uzbekistan,
which has clamped down on foreign aid groups and destitute Tajikistan."
In the country, a main opposition NGO, the Coalition for Democracy
and Civil Rights, gets its funding "from the National Democratic
Institute for International Affairs, a Washington-based nonprofit
funded by the U.S. government, and from USAID." Other agencies
reported to be involved, either through funding or ideological-technical
promotion (see: propaganda), are the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), the Albert Einstein Institute, Freedom House, and the US
State Department.[13]
President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan had referred to a "third
force" gaining power in his country. The term was borrowed
from one of the most prominent US think tanks, as "third
force" is:
"... which details how western-backed non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) can promote regime and policy change all over the world.
The formulaic repetition of a third "people power" revolution
in the former Soviet Union in just over one year - after the similar
events in Georgia in November 2003 and in Ukraine last Christmas
- means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America
in the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated
that country's control over the western hemisphere."
As the Guardian reported:
"Many of the same US government operatives in Latin America
have plied their trade in eastern Europe under George Bush, most
notably Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, who boasted
in these pages in 2001 that he was doing in Belarus exactly what
he had been doing in Nicaragua: "supporting democracy".
Further:
"The case of Freedom House is particularly arresting. Chaired
by the former CIA director James Woolsey, Freedom House was a
major sponsor of the orange revolution in Ukraine. It set up a
printing press in Bishkek in November 2003, which prints 60 opposition
journals. Although it is described as an "independent"
press, the body that officially owns it is chaired by the bellicose
Republican senator John McCain, while the former national security
adviser Anthony Lake sits on the board. The US also supports opposition
radio and TV."[14]
So again, the same formula was followed in the Central Asian Republics
of the former Soviet Union. This US foreign-policy strategy of
promoting "soft revolution" is managed through a network
of American and international NGOs and think tanks. It advances
NATO and, in particular, US interests in the region.
Conclusion
The soft revolutions or "colour revolutions" are a key
stratagem in the New World Order; advancing, through deceptions
and manipulation, the key strategy of containing Russia and controlling
key resources. This strategy is critical to understanding the
imperialistic nature of the New World Order, especially when it
comes to identifying when this strategy is repeated; specifically
in relation to the Iranian elections of 2009.
Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for
entering the New World Order, following the break-up of the Soviet
Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia
and China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US
was to act as the imperial hegemon, serving international financial
interests in imposing the New World Order. Part 2 outlined the
US imperial strategy of using "colour revolutions" to
advance its interests in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, following
along the overall policy outlined in Part 1, of containing Russia
and China from expanding influence and gaining access to key natural
resources.
The third and final part to this essay analyzes the nature of
the imperial strategy to construct a New World Order, focusing
on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin
America, Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts
have for starting a new world war with China and Russia. In particular,
its focus is within the past few years, and emphasizes the increasing
nature of conflict and war in the New World Order. Part 3 looks
at the potential for "A New World War for a New World Order."
Endnotes
[1] Michael Dobbs, U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition. The
Washington Post: December 11, 2000: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18395-2000Dec3?language=printer
[2] Roger Cohen, Who Really Brought Down Milosevic? The New York
Times: November 26, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/magazine/who-really-brought-down-milosevic.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
[3] Mark MacKinnon, Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros. The
Globe and Mail: November 23, 2003: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_georgia3.html
[4] Mark MacKinnon, Politics, pipelines converge in Georgia. The
Globe and Mail: November 24, 2003: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_georgia2.html
[5] Ian Traynor, US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev. The Guardian:
November 26, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
[6] Jonathan Steele, Ukraine's postmodern coup d'etat. The Guardian:
November 26, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.comment
[7] John Laughland, The revolution televised. The Guardian: November
27, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/nov/27/pressandpublishing.comment
[8] Matt Kelley, U.S. money has helped opposition in Ukraine.
Associated Press: December 11, 2004: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041211/news_1n11usaid.html
[9] Mark Almond, The price of People Power. The Guardian: December
7, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/07/ukraine.comment
[10] Mark MacKinnon, Agent orange: Our secret role in Ukraine.
The Globe and Mail: April 14, 2007: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_ukraine4.html
[11] Daniel Wolf, A 21st century revolt. The Guardian: May 13,
2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/13/ukraine.features11
[12] Craig S. Smith, U.S. Helped to Prepare the Way for Kyrgyzstan's
Uprising. The New York Times: March 30, 2005: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4D9123FF933A05750C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
[13] Philip Shishkin, In Putin's Backyard, Democracy Stirs --
With U.S. Help. The Wall Street Journal: February 25, 2005: http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2005/2005-02-25-News-WSJ.asp
[14] John Laughland, The mythology of people power. The Guardian:
April 1, 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/01/usa.russia
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre
for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying
Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.
New World Order page
Home Page