Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by Andrew Gavin Marshall: An
Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War
III

This is Part 2 of the Series, "The Origins of World War III"
Part
1: An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World
War III

Introduction

Following
US geo-strategy in what Brzezinski termed the u201Cglobal Balkans,u201D
the US government has worked closely with major NGOs to u201Cpromote
democracyu201D and u201Cfreedomu201D in former Soviet republics, playing a role
behind the scenes in fomenting what are termed u201Ccolour revolutions,u201D
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 u201CThe Origins of World War IIIu201D analyzes the colour
revolutions as being a key stratagem in imposing the US-led New
World Order. The u201Ccolour revolutionu201D or u201Csoftu201D 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
u201Ctheiru201D candidate be put into power. It just so happens that u201Ctheiru201D
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 u201Ccolour revolutionu201D 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 u201Celectoral strategyu201D to oust Milosevic, as u201CU.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.u201D
Further, according to Michael Dobbs, writing in the Washington
Post, some u201C20 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.u201D

 

Interestingly,
u201CSome 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).u201D

The NDI (National Democratic Institute), u201Cworked 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.u201D At the
seminar, u201Cthe 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.u201D[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 u201Cdemocracy promotingu201D organization.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave
money to Otpor, as did the International Republican Institute, u201Canother
nongovernmental Washington group financed partly by A.I.D.u201D[2]

 

Georgia

 

In
2003, Georgia went through its u201CRose Revolution,u201D 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
u201Cbegan laying the brickwork for the toppling of Georgian President
Eduard Shevardnadze,u201D as funds from his non-profit organization
u201Csent 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,u201D the u201Cfoundation 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.u201D

 

This
US-based foundation u201Calso funded a popular opposition television
station that was crucial in mobilizing support for [the] u2018velvet
revolution,' and [it] reportedly gave financial support to a youth
group that led the street protests.u201D The owner of the foundation
u201Chas 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.u201D

 

During
a press conference a week before his resignation, Mr. Shevardnadze
said that the US foundation u201Cis set against the President
of Georgia.u201D Moreover, u201CMr. 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.u201D [3]

 

The
day following the publication of the previously quoted article,
the author published another article in the Globe and Mail explaining
that the u201Cbloodless revolutionu201D in Georgia u201Csmells more like another
victory for the United States over Russia in the post-Cold War international
chess game.u201D The author, Mark MacKinnon, explained that Eduard Shevardnadze's
downfall lied u201Cin the oil under the Caspian Sea, one of the world’s
few great remaining, relatively unexploited, sources of oil,u201D as
u201CGeorgia and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which borders the Caspian,
quickly came to be seen not just as newly independent countries,
but as part of an u2018energy corridor'.u201D Plans were drawn up for a
massive u201Cpipeline that would run through Georgia to Turkey and the
Mediterranean.u201D 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 u201Cwon the day.u201D[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 u201COrange Revolution,u201D 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 u201Ccolour revolutionu201D),
u201Cthe 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,u201D however, u201Cthe 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.u201D

 

The
author, Ian Traynor, explained that, u201CFunded 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.u201D Further, u201CThe 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 NGOu201D and the same billionaire financier involved
in Georgia's Rose Revolution. In implementing the regime-change
strategy, u201CThe 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.u201D

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, u201Cserved
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.u201D He further
explained that election rigging is mainly irrelevant, as u201CThe decision
to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the
challengers or the incumbent are considered more u2018pro-western' or
u2018pro-market'.u201D 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,
u201CIn 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.u201D This is emblematic
of the strategic importance of the Ukraine to the United States,
u201Cwhich refuses to abandon its cold war policy of encircling Russia
and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic to its side.u201D[6]

 

One
Guardian commentator pointed out the hypocrisy of western media
coverage:  u201CTwo 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 u2018the people',
while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions
are discounted as instruments of oppression.u201D It was also explained
that, u201CEnormous 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 u2018bussed 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.u201D[7]

 

In
2004, the Associated Press reported that, u201CThe 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.u201D The
money, they state, u201Cwas 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.u201D However, even government
officials u201Cacknowledge that some of the money helped train groups
and individuals opposed to the Russian-backed government candidate.u201D

 

The
report stated that some major international foundations funded the
exit polls, which according to the incumbent leader were u201Cskewed.u201D
These foundations included u201CThe 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,u201D 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. u201COther countries involved included
Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden
and Denmark.u201D 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 u201CPeople Power,u201D
describing it in relation to the situation that was then breaking
in the Ukraine, and stated that, u201CThe 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.u201D

 

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, u201CPeople 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.u201D[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 u201Cpeople power democracyu201D movement. As MacKinnon
noted, u201CThe 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.u201D However,
u201CThe 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.u201D
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, u201Cbegan
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.u201D Canada further u201Cinvested
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.u201D Once the new, pro-Western
government was in, it u201Cannounced its intention to reverse the flow
of the Odessa-Brody pipeline.u201D[10]

 

Again,
this follows the example of Georgia, where several US and NATO interests
are met through the success of the u201Ccolour revolutionu201D; 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, u201CFor 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.u201D He elaborated, writing,
u201Cthe 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.u201D

 

Roman
Bessmertny, Yushchenko’s campaign manager, two years prior to the
2004 elections, u201Cput 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.u201D Ultimately, it was an intricately well-planned public
relations media-savvy campaign, orchestrated through heavy financing.
Hardly the sporadic u201Cpeople poweru201D notion applied to the u201Cpeaceful
coupu201D in the western media.[11]

 

The
u201CTulip Revolutionu201D in Kyrgyzstan

 

In
2005, Kyrgyzstan underwent its u201CTulip Revolutionu201D in which the incumbent
was replaced by the pro-Western candidate through another u201Cpopular
revolution.u201D As the New York Times reported in March of 2005, shortly
before the March elections, u201Can 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.u201D However, this u201Cnewspaper 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 u2018a clear voice for democracy and freedom
around the world'.u201D

 

Moreover,
other countries that have u201Chelped underwrite programs to develop
democracy and civil societyu201D in Kyrgyzstan were Britain, the Netherlands
and Norway. These countries collectively u201Cplayed a crucial role
in preparing the ground for the popular uprising that swept opposition
politicians to power.u201D Money mostly flowed from the United States,
in particular, through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
as well as through u201Cthe Freedom House printing press or Kyrgyz-language
service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster.u201D
The National Democratic Institute also played a major financing
role, for which one of the chief beneficiaries of their financial
aid said, u201CIt would have been absolutely impossible for this to
have happened without that help.u201D

 

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 u201Cwho 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.u201D Other u201Cindependentu201D 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 u201Cindependentu201D 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, u201CTo 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.u201D

 

As
the Journal further reported, Kyrgyzstan u201Coccupies 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.u201D

 

In
the country, a main opposition NGO, the Coalition for Democracy
and Civil Rights, gets its funding u201Cfrom the National Democratic
Institute for International Affairs, a Washington-based nonprofit
funded by the U.S. government, and from USAID.u201D 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 u201Cthird forceu201D gaining
power in his country. The term was borrowed from one of the most
prominent US think tanks, as u201Cthird forceu201D 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
u201Csoft revolutionu201D 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 u201Ccolour revolutionsu201D 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 u201Ccolour revolutionsu201D 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 u201CA New World War for a New World Order.u201D

 

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

This originally
appeared on Global Research.

November
10, 2009

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.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare