Why the CIA Funds Nonviolence Training
by Stuart Jeanne Bramhall / March 13th, 2012

One important aspect of the debate over “diversity of tactics” (i.e. the decision whether to be exclusively nonviolent) in the Occupy movement relates to mounting evidence of the role CIA and Pentagon-funded foundations and think tanks play in funding and promoting nonviolent resistance training. The two major US foundations promoting nonviolence, both overseas and domestically, are the Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) and the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC). Both receive major corporate and/or government funding, mostly via CIA “pass through” foundations. While the ICNC is funded mainly by the private fortune of hedge fund billionaire (junk bond king Michael Milken’s second in command) Peter Ackerman, the AEI has received funding from the Rand Corporation and the Department of Defense, as well as various “pass-through” foundations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the US Institute of Peace and the Ford Foundation (see The Ford Foundation and the CIA),which all have a long history of collaborating with the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA in destabilizing governments unfriendly to US interests.

This is a strategy Frances Stonor Saunders outlines in her pivotal Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. According to Sanders, right wing corporate-backed foundations and the CIA have been funding the non-communist left since the late sixties, in the hope of drowning out and marginalizing the voice of more militant leftists. It’s also noteworthy that the governing and advisory board of both AEI and ICNC have been consistently dominated by individuals with either a military/intelligence background or a history of prior involvement with CIA “pass-through” foundations, such as NED and USAID.

Gene Sharp, the Fervent Anticommunist

Much of this debate focuses around America’s godfather of nonviolent resistance, Gene Sharp, the founder and director of the Albert Einstein Institution. Sharp’s handbooks on nonviolent protest were widely disseminated in the Eastern Europe color revolutions, in the Arab spring revolutions and in the Occupy movement in the US (see Nonviolence in the Service of Imperialism). Unfortunately Sharp has become a decoy in this debate, deflecting attention from the larger question of whether the US government is actively financing and promoting the work of the AEI, the ICIC and other high profile organizations that promote nonviolent civil disobedience. The question is extremely important, in my view, because it possibly explains the rigid and dogmatic attitude in the US progressive movement regarding nonviolent civil disobedience. In other words, I think it explains the knee-jerk rejection of more militant tactics, such as smashing windows and other property damage that don’t involve physical violence towards human beings.

Is Military-Intelligence Funding Compatible with Progressive Politics?

The institutional nonviolence clique has cleverly refocused the debate on whether Sharp, who is 83, is a CIA agent and whether he actively participated in US-funded destabilization efforts in Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran and elsewhere that resulted in so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions. The obvious answer to both questions is no. For me the more important question is why the alternative media and “official” progressive movement embrace Sharp unconditionally as a fellow progressive without a careful look at his past or his ideological beliefs. Sharp has never made any secret of his fervent anticommunist (and antisocialist – he shares the US State Department’s animosity towards Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez) views.

Sharp makes no secret of the funding he has received from the Defense Department; the Rand Corporation; CIA-linked foundations, such as NED, the IRI and the US Institute of Peace; and George Soros’s Open Society Institute. All this information is readily available from the AEI website. Sharp himself states, “I have been arguing for years that governments and defense departments – as well as other groups – should finance and conduct research into alternatives to violence in politics and especially as a possible basis for a defense policy by prepared nonviolent resistance as a substitute for war.” (See The living library: some theoretical approaches to a strategy for activating human rights and peace, George Garbutt, 2008, Southern Cross University).

Less well known is the role military and intelligence figures have played in helping Sharp set up and run the AEI. I think most progressives would be extremely disturbed by the major role played by the military-intelligence establishment in funding and running the AEI. I think they would find it even more troubling that progressives who refer to any of this on so called “independent” or “alternative” media websites and blogs have their posts removed.

To be continued.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/03/why-the-cia-funds-nonviolence-training/

Dunno if there is another part to this but will try to continue with this theme which we've touched on before.

Critique of Nonviolent Politics
From Mahatma Gandhi to the Anti-Nuclear Movement
by Howard Ryan (hryan2211@gmail.com)
Preface 2
Part I Problems of Nonviolent Theory
1 Nonviolent Philosophy 6
2 Moral View: Violence Itself Is Wrong 9
3 Practical View: Violence Begets Violence 13
4 Nonviolent Theory of Power 21
5 Voluntary Suffering 24
6 Common Nonviolent Arguments 34
7 A Class Perspective 49
Part II Gandhi: A Critical History
8 Father of Nonviolence 56
9 Satyagraha in South Africa 59
10 Textile Strike 66
11 Noncooperation Movement 1919-22 70
12 Religious Conflicts 80
13 Salt Satyagraha 87
14 Congress Ministries 97
15 The War Years 101
16 Independence and Bloodshed 111
Part III Nonviolence in the Anti-Nuclear Movement
17 Nonviolent Direct Action 120
18 Consensus Decision Making 123
19 Open, Friendly, and Respectful 136
20 Civil Disobedience 142
Epilogue 151
Notes 154
©2002 by Howard Ryan. All rights reserved. Readers have my permission to use and
distribute for non-profit and educational purposes.

Preface (2002)
Critique of Nonviolent Politics may be the only comprehensive critique of nonviolent
theory that has been written. I wrote it between 1980 and 1984, while living in Berkeley,
California. Since 1977, I had been active in the movement against nuclear power and
weapons which, in California, focused its protests at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant
near San Luis Obispo, and at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore Labs
where nuclear weapons are designed. Nonviolence was the prevailing political theory in
the movement, especially in the "direct action" wing which organized mass blockades
and occupations at nuclear facilities. Nonviolence informed our tactics and strategies, our
group processes, and our general ethos and outlook.
As I engaged in the movement, I was drawn to nonviolent theory and became an avid
student. In early 1980, I began a writing project--a positive explanation of nonviolent
theory to serve as a guide for anti-nuclear activists. The project would also help to clarify
my own developing political philosophy. My working draft was soon challenged by a
politically astute friend, who introduced me to Marxism. While grappling with these
ideas, I remained active as an anti-nuke activist but became critical of various movement
practices that were influenced by nonviolent theory. I also encountered books by Indian
historians who pointed out the elite biases in Gandhi's thought and practice. A year after
embarking on my positive nonviolence guide, I was writing instead a full-scale critique
of nonviolence. By 1984, when I set the project aside, I had written a book-length
treatment. In 1996, I extracted the document from very old computer disks and did some
editing. I dropped a concluding chapter on anti-nuclear strategy, adding in its place a new
epilogue. But the document remains largely as originally written.
Preface (1984)
Nonviolence is a model of social change rooted in religious pacifist teachings and
fashioned into a mass protest technique by leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin
Luther King, Jr., and A.J. Muste. Today, the tradition is carried by anti-nuclear groups
committed to nonviolent direct action. Tens of thousands of protesters have applied the
Gandhian technique of mass civil disobedience at nuclear facilities and military bases in
Europe, Australia, the U.S., and Canada. Most of these protests are guided by
nonviolence codes of conduct and a nonviolent philosophy.

My own introduction to nonviolence came in 1977 when I joined the anti-nuclear
movement in Southern California. After a period of fascination and learning, I became a
doubter and finally a firm critic of nonviolent philosophy. The reasons for my change
were twofold:


Critique of Nonviolent Politics 3
1) I discovered that Mahatma Gandhi, the father of modern nonviolence, was not the
progressive leader hailed by nonviolent advocates. Rather, Gandhi closely
controlled the movements he led, opposed independent movements of workers
and peasants, and sought to counter the revolutionary potentials in India. Gandhi's
nonviolent doctrine was integrally tied to these aims.
2) I began to recognize problems in the anti-nuclear movement's processes and
strategies which hindered its mass organizing efforts. I traced many of these
problems to the influence of nonviolent theory.
It became clear to me that there is a need for critical discussion of nonviolence as a
model for social change, and I decided to write this book as a contribution to that
discussion.
Nonviolence is an attractive philosophy for people dedicated to social justice, and
especially so for peace activists working to stop the violence of the military machine and
its nuclear buildup. Longstanding pacifist groups such as the War Resisters League and
the American Friends Service Committee have for decades provided support and
leadership to peace and disarmament efforts, draft resisters, conscientious objectors, and
civil rights strugglers. There is much in their history and present work in which
nonviolent activists can, and do, take pride.
At the same time, there are problems in nonviolent political theory which can hinder the
work of activists. Nonviolent proponents have misread and distorted history, exaggerated
the accomplishments of nonviolence, and been slow to recognize the problems
nonviolent theory has posed for people's movements. The drawbacks of the nonviolent
model of change are suggested most dramatically in the campaigns led by Mahatma
Gandhi, and seen also in today's anti-nuclear movement. While the scope of this book is
limited to these two cases, future studies might apply a critical eye to other movements
guided by nonviolent philosophy such as the U.S. civil rights movement.

I hope this book's critique will be a helpful, provocative challenge to the nonviolent
community, while contributing to the progress of the anti-nuclear movement. Part I
examines major problems in nonviolent political theory. Part II explores the political
history of Mahatma Gandhi, the century's most influential practitioner of nonviolence.
Part III looks at the impact of nonviolent philosophy in the direct action/civil
disobedience wing of the anti-nuclear movement.

Certain groups and individuals figure large in my critique of nonviolent theory, whether
because of their influence or because of their many writings on the subject. The first is
Movement for a New Society (MNS), a nonviolent training network with a small press,
New Society Publishers, based in Philadelphia. MNS, along with the Quaker-connected
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), has played a particularly large role in
bringing nonviolent theory and consensus decision making to the U.S. anti-nuclear
movement. The War Resisters League (WRL) is one of America's largest pacifist
organizations, has been active in anti-militarist movements since its founding in 1923,


Critique of Nonviolent Politics 4
and is currently active in campaigns against nuclear weapons. Gene Sharp, a fellow of
Harvard's Center for International Affairs, is probably today's leading theorist of
nonviolence. He has written several systematic studies, of which his three-volume
Politics of Nonviolent Action is most notable, and he is widely cited in the nonviolent
literature. Of course, Mahatma Gandhi is an important reference throughout my book as
both a theorist and activist.


Critique of Nonviolent Politics 5
* * * * *
There were two "Reigns of Terror" if we would but remember it
and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in
heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other lasted a
thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons,
the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the
"horrors" of the minor terror, the momentary terror, so to speak;
whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared
with lifelong death from hunger, cold insult, cruelty, and
heartbreak? What is swift death by lightning compared with slow
death by fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the
coffins filled by the brief Terror which we have all been so
diligently taught to shiver and mourn over; but all France could
hardly contain the coffins filled by the older and real Terror--that
unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been
taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

Mark Twain


Critique of Nonviolent Politics 6
Chapter 1
Nonviolent Philosophy
Life must be saved by nonviolent confrontations and by what the Quakers call
"bearing witness."…We must obstruct a wrong without offering personal
violence to its perpetrators.
Greenpeace1

Aggression, conquest, and brutality are the defining masculine characteristics.
War, feminists believe, is a function of masculine (phallic) identity.
Andrea Dworkin2
Nonviolent philosophy comes in many shapes and sizes, from simple opposition to war,
to belief systems encompassing a total way of life. Some pacifists* are concerned mainly
with individual resistance to war, such as refusal to pay war taxes; others emphasize mass
action and radical changes in society; still others are non-political but pursue personal or
spiritual growth.

This treatment addresses the more radical schools of pacifism, though it certainly applies
to other forms. In particular, it critiques the theory of nonviolence evolved from the
Gandhian tradition and which guides the direct action anti-nuclear movement.

Radical pacifist theory includes three main elements, the first being its opposition to
violence. Some activists reject only certain types of organized violence, such as war or
violent revolution. Gene Sharp regards this attitude as a "minimum" for pacifists. He
defines pacifism as
the belief systems of those persons and groups who, as the minimum, refuse
participation in all international or civil wars or violent revolutions, and base
this refusal on moral, ethical, or religious principle.3
Others renounce all types of violence absolutely. Janey Meyerding, a feminist pacifist,
supports the absolutist position:
Pacifism is opposed to violence in all forms, including physical, emotional,
intellectual, and economic coercion, because violence denies the value of its
victims' lives.4
_____________________
* Nonviolence and pacifism are used interchangeably herein. Some prefer to distinguish
between them.5



Critique of Nonviolent Politics 7
The second element of radical pacifism is its espousal of broad social changes and
opposition to all forms of oppression, including capitalism, sexism, and racism. For
example, the War Resisters League opposes war and violence
while at the same time working to remove the causes of war. That means we
also oppose economic exploitation, racism, sexism, heterosexism, repressive
governments, imperialism, capital punishment, and whatever else may be at
the root of war or in itself destroys life.6
Many pacifists regard their radicalism as an extension of their opposition to violence.
Violence, in this view, refers not only to the inflicting of physical injury, but to the
"social violence" of poverty, discrimination, destruction of the environment, and other
types of injustice.
The third feature of nonviolence consists of a certain philosophy of human relations and
model of struggling for change. Some of its essential points are:
• There is an underlying unity and connectedness between all people.
• Reconciliation and persuasion are more effective than brute force as a means
of resolving conflict.
• Means are inseparable from ends; evil means lead to evil ends.
• The power of rulers depends on the obedience and consent of the ruled. When
we refuse to obey, the rulers' power crumbles.

Nonviolent Philosophy in the Anti-Nuclear Movement
While anti-nuclear activists may subscribe to a wide range of philosophies, nonviolence
clearly predominates within the movement's direct action groups such as the Clamshell
Alliance in New England, California's Abalone Alliance, and Washington's Crabshell
Alliance. For many, nonviolence is less a well-defined belief system than a general
feeling that violence is wrong, and a moral code which stresses the virtue of taking a
personal stand against injustice--"putting one's body on the line"--while remaining open
and friendly toward one's opponents. But a philosophy is well articulated by a number of
activists. The Survival Guide published in 1980 by the Mobilization for Survival, a
national anti-nuclear umbrella organization, gives a representative statement:
Why Nonviolence?
Nonviolent action is an active way to confront and challenge injustice
through organizing people's power. It is an alternative to passivity or violence.
Public attention is brought to bear on a crucial issue.
It keeps our means consistent with our ends.
It is a way to be open to the humanness of our opponents, while
disagreeing with the institutions they represent or the attitudes they hold. This
makes it possible for people to change.


Critique of Nonviolent Politics 8
Aspects of Nonviolence. Nonviolence is…
An active positive force.
A willingness to accept suffering, but not inflict it on others.
A friendly, open, caring attitude towards allies and opponents alike.
Calling upon the humanity of the opponent.
Search for the truth (Satyagraha: truth force).
Not limited to actions alone, but part of the tone of all our activities,
meetings and relationships.7
The nonviolent "way of relating" holds sway at the movement's nonviolent training
sessions, which are required for all who participate in civil disobedience; in blockade
handbooks, which best express the political beliefs of the movement; at conferences and
affinity group meetings; and at the blockades and protests themselves. As the Survival
Guide statement suggests, nonviolence is seen as both a tactic and a philosophy. It is a
model of caring relationships, a pathway to spiritual enrichment, and a political method
for achieving a peaceful world.

In fact, many of the claims of nonviolence are overblown and must be reconsidered.
Certainly, nonviolent tactics are the proper course in the anti-nuclear movement and in
the vast majority of social movements and struggles. Even in the context of violent
government repression, nonviolent protest has value and applications. But there are also
circumstances--notably, circumstances of harsh repression--where strict adherence to
nonviolence may not be a proper course, and where armed resistance is needed. As for
nonviolent philosophy, its vision of a cooperative, peaceful world is certainly worth
preserving. But the theory is troubled by moral dogma and mechanical logic. History has
been misread; success is claimed for nonviolence where failure occurred. A rigidity has
developed in the way peace activists think, impeding their ability to consider new ideas
and fashion strategies within changing social contexts. The following chapters offer a
critical analysis of nonviolent theory.

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/peace/10Ryan.pdf

This work has some problems but I think is overall useful.