CanadaÂs Peace Magazine and the promotion of non-military warfare in the service of US foreign policy goals
While apparently possessing impeccable leftwing credentials, the Canadian publication, Peace Magazine, is a bulwark of conservatism which virtually operates as a house organ of the Ackerman-Helvey-Sharp destabilization school of US foreign policy. Although it opposes military intervention in the pursuit of US foreign policy goals, it is supportive of liberal-democratic-free-trade capitalist arrangements and the overthrow of governments that operate outside the US axis of domination. It promotes the use of US-sponsored and funded nonviolent resistance (NVR), sometimes called political defiance, or what the CIA calls destabilization, to Âtake outÂ governments whose overthrow Washington justifies by demonizing as dictatorial. And it uncritically echoes the pronouncements on official enemies of the White House and US State Department, endorsing from the left US government-provided pretexts for the expansion of US imperialism. The peace that Peace Magazine promotes, is one in which the United States is firmly in control, and the system of government and economy its ruling class favours has been imposed, willy-nilly, in every corner of the earth.
The Ackerman-Helvey-Sharp destabilization school
Peter Ackerman, an immensely wealthy investor and member of the premier US establishment think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Robert Helvey, a thirty year veteran of the US Army, are the major proponents of a method developed by Gene Sharp for destabilizing foreign governments. While the name NVR gives the technique a fresh look, it is nothing more than CIA-style destabilization, with a twist: it rejects overt CIA sponsorship to escape the taint of being associated with the CIA. Instead, it relies on funding channelled openly through Western government and ruling class foundations. Ackerman defines the technique as: Âthe shrewd use of strikes, boycotts, civil disobedienceÂ  in addition to mass protests  and even nonviolent sabotage, to disrupt the functioning of government  and make Âa country ungovernable.Â  NVR, then, is equivalent to the CIA-engineered destabilization used to help overthrow ChileÂs leftist president, Salvador Allende.
Ackerman, Helvey and Sharp are involved in some capacity in deploying SharpÂs destabilization techniques to countries the US government pressures diplomatically, militarily and economically: Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Myanmar, Iran, and formerly Georgia, Ukraine and Yugoslavia. Peace Magazine likes the governments of none of these countries, calling VenezuelaÂs economic policies mistaken  and welcoming a nonviolent resistance to (i.e., destabilization of) Hugo ChavezÂs government.  The magazineÂs fondest wishes have been fulfilled. ÂA couple of people who worked with us, including Bob Helvey, have been there and done a workshop for Venezuelans,Â explains Gene Sharp. 
The trio illegitimately abstracts destabilization from the multi-tiered approach the United States employs to take out targeted foreign governments, in order to argue deceptively that NVR alone, and not NVR plus the threat or use of military violence plus economic warfare are responsible for regime change successes. For example, the role of a 78-day bombing campaign and economic warfare in the eventual ouster of Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic has been minimized by the destabilizers, whose version of history holds that it was HelveyÂs training of US-funded nonviolent mercenaries in SharpÂs techniques that was responsible for MilosevicÂs overthrow and his replacement by a US-backed neo-liberal regime.
Peace Magazine amplifies this deception, acting as an indefatigable cheerleading squad for Sharp, Helvey and Ackerman and their views. All three have been frequently featured in the magazine, through major interviews, or through the wholesale adoption of their positions in editorials, or both.
Promoting capitalist democracy
Editor Metta Spencer frequently adulates democracy, whose imposition on other countries has formed one of the enduring pretexts for US interventions. The democracy she celebrates is the multi-party parliamentary democracy dominant in the West, and not the original idea of rule by or for a previously subordinate class or people Â the original sense having always been regarded as dangerous and undesirable by property-owning classes (and social democrats, too, to say nothing, I suspect, of Peace Magazine.) To be sure, it is not democracy in its dangerous and original sense that Spencer adulates. It is democracy tamed by the wealthy that she celebrates.
In an interview with Seymour Martin Lipset, Spencer invites the academic to refute Western democracyÂs Marxist critics.
Spencer: But people sometimes say, ÂDonÂt tell me Canada and the United States are democratic. Look at the way money controls the outcome of the electionsÂ Â
Lipset: Â It is obviously true that money has enormous influence on elections. However, that does not determine everything. 
The Marxist critique of Western democracy isnÂt that money determines everything, but that those who own productive property and therefore have immense wealth have the means to dominate the electoral process and shape its outcomes to favour their interests and to encroach upon the interests of everyone else. They donÂt always get their way, true Â but they often do. That the wealthy donÂt always win, however, is hardly a ringing endorsement of capitalist democracy, and hardly a reason to be satisfied with it or work for its promotion. Nevertheless, Lipset and Spencer believe that so long as the majority can influence the government some of the time on some issues in some way, all is well.
CubaÂs democracy, based on the election of individuals unaffiliated with political parties (as opposed to ambitious, exhibitionist lawyers who have been vetted by political parties financed overwhelmingly by wealthy individuals and corporations) doesnÂt count as democracy in the Peace Magazine view. Cuba, instead, is denounced by the magazine as a tyranny, and CubaÂs former president, and presumably its current one, too, is regarded as being on the same plane as Hitler, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, and Ida Amin. So too are Lenin and Stalin.  That Peace MagazineÂs democratic sympathies lie with those of the dominant property-owning class in the West, and not with revolutionaries guided by a definition of democracy closer to the original meaning, is evident in Spencer drawing on the arch-establishment figure, imperialist and war criminal Winston Churchill, for support. ÂAs Winston Churchill pointed out,Â she reminds us sententiously, Âdemocracy is the worst system of government Â except all others.Â 
In SpencerÂs view, ÂDemocratic states virtually never are involved in wars against other democratic statesÂ (only against ÂrepressiveÂ or ÂfailedÂ states).  The absurdity of this view hardly needs to be pointed out. Israel, a multi-party democracy along Western lines, attacked Gaza, precisely because the Palestinian territories are a democracy which elected a party, Hamas, which Israel refuses to accept. The only way this nonsense can be made true is by defining the democratic states that other democratic states attack as being repressive or failed. But the logic is circular. In 1999, Yugoslavia, a federation that had adopted Western multi-party democracy, was attacked militarily by Western democracies. But in the circular logic of Peace Magazine, Yugoslavia was attacked because it was repressive, and therefore not truly democratic. But how do we decide when a country is truly democratic, and when it is repressive or failed? Moreover, who decides? The answer, in the Peace Magazine view, is that Washington does.
Legitimizing imperialist intervention
The Peace Magazine modus operandi is to accept all US government pronouncements on the threats posed by foreign governments as true, and then to propose the use of SharpÂs destabilization techniques as an alternative to military intervention to deal with the threats.
For example, Peace Magazine contributor John Bacher wrote in a 2004 review of a Robert Helvey book that, ÂRather than attempting to build costly and leaky shields for missiles from Iran and north Korea, why not seek non-violently to change these regimes into democracies?Â  Apparently, it never occurred to Bacher to ask why Iran and North Korea would attack the West, since it would mean their immediate annihilation, nor inquire into what possible motivation either country could have to lob missiles at the West. Instead, he accepted as true a rather transparent pretext for justifying the construction of missile shields that would provide the United States with a nuclear first strike capability against Russia, while fattening the bottom lines of US military contractors.
Even more astonishingly, in 2003, the magazineÂs editor took peace activists to task for failing to acknowledge that ÂGeorge W. Bush was right aboutÂ the need for regime change in Iraq.Â  She echoed Peter Ackerman, who, a year earlier, had teamed up with sidekick Jack DuVall to write a SojournerÂs Magazine article urging Âanyone who opposes U.S. military action to dethrone (Saddam Hussein)Â to suggest how he (Hussein) might otherwise be ushered out the backdoor of Baghdad.Â  Spencer also scolded Âthe organizers of protests (against the war on Iraq, for failing to) on the whole propose any alternative nonviolent way of bringing democracy to Iraq.Â  In this, the magazine accepted US positions on Iraq as legitimate, and demanded that opponents pressure the US government to use non-military means. In the Peace Magazine view, the left should partner with the US government, and try to influence it to adopt less sanguinary methods of achieving its foreign policy goals. This apes Gene Sharp. Asked what he thought of mass demonstrations in the United States against the war on Iraq, Sharp replied,
ÂI donÂt think you can get rid of violence by protesting against it. I think you get rid of violence only if people see that you have a different way of acting, a different way of struggle. [Â ] Part of my analysis is that if you donÂt like violence, you have to develop a substitute. Then people have a choice. If they donÂt see a choice, then violence is all that they really have. [Â ] The thing that is most shocking is that the Bush Administration acted on the basis of the belief Â dogma, ÂreligionÂ Â in the omnipotence of violence. [Â ] The assumption is an invading country can come in, remove its official leader, arrest some of the other people, and well, then, the dictatorship is gone.Â 
The reason Spencer believes peace activists should endorse WashingtonÂs regime change agenda is evident in her approval of the Âresponsibility to protectÂ doctrine, an up-to-date intellectual apology for imperialism. She writes,
ÂStates have a responsibility to protect their own citizens. If instead they abuse them, as in Iraq, they cannot take refuge in the usual rules of sovereignty. The international community may legitimately intervene against such a state.Â 
The critical flaw in this doctrine lies in the question of who decides when a state has abnegated its responsibility. The answer is Âthe international community,Â a high-sounding synonym for the United States and any other country Washington can bully, cajole or entice to join a coalition under its leadership.
Spencer tops off her endorsement of the US right to determine when intervention is justified with jaw-dropping sophistry.
ÂAnd having been complicit in imposing sanctions that caused the deaths of a million or so Iraqis, we have a moral duty now to intervene and help themÂ Â 
By this logic, creating a grave injustice through an initial intervention provides a perpetual moral obligation to continue to intervene to try to set the original injustice straight. Of course, the United States and BritainÂs subsequent military intervention, following the mass murder of over one million Iraqis in the preceding decade through economic warfare, didnÂt redress the initial injustice. Instead, it sparked a humanitarian calamity of colossal magnitude, far greater than the one in Darfur. And yet the magazine advocates non-military warfare to overthrow the government of Sudan , but is completely silent on the use of the same NVR techniques to disrupt the US government and make US society ungovernable, to put a stop to the much larger, US-engineered, catastrophe in Iraq.
In an astonishing exchange with Gene Sharp, Spencer expresses her contempt for national sovereignty (at least that of countries the United States seeks to dominate) and wonders why anyone would object to Washington overthrowing foreign governments.
Spencer: Recently we showed the film about Otpor (an underground destabilization group trained by Robert Helvey and bankrolled by the US government) and the overthrow of Milosevic, Bringing Down a Dictator. Lots of pro-Milosevic people were present. The real issue for them is, here is the evil USÂ funding this nonviolent resistance. To them thatÂs a cardinal sin. A government cannot sponsor the overthrow of another government!
Sharp: Why not?
Spencer: Because the US has interests and itÂs supposedly immoral to have interests. Nobody is surprised that the US gives guns to people, but the idea that they assisted the Serbs to get rid of Milosevic seems somehow especially evil. To my mind, it is particularly the US, of all countries, that I want to see supporting nonviolence. It would be the greatest thing in the world for the US to adopt nonviolence.
Sharp: Â What do they prefer that the US spend money on? 
While the defense of national sovereignty has become associated with the left, it has not always been true that the left has supported an absolute right of countries to be free from foreign intervention. Indeed, there have been frequent interventions supported by the left and carried out by leftist forces: the Soviet Union and the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War;Â China in the US imperialist war on the Korean peninsula; Cuba in Africa. In these interventions the question wasnÂt whether countries had an absolute right to sovereignty, but whether the reasons for and outcomes of intervention were progressive. Was the point to free a class from exploitation and a people from oppression, or to provide a foreign ruling class with new opportunities for expropriating the economic surplus of another country?
Peace Magazine and the destabilizers present US interventions as progressive, guided by opposition to tyranny and the goal of spreading democracy. But the question is whether the democracy the destabilizers promote is a cover for another kind of tyranny, that of domination by US corporate and financial interests. One way to tell is to look at the outcome of successful interventions. Who benefited? Who was injured? In Yugoslavia, the intervention the destabilizers point to with particular pride, the overthrow of the socialist Milosevic, was soon followed by a spate of privatizations, in which formerly publically- and socially-owned assets were bought by Western investors. In Eastern Europe, where a similar destabilization paradigm helped bring about the collapse of socialism and its replacement by a liberal-democratic-capitalist model, joblessness, economic insecurity, deep inequality and the recrudescence of previously virtually eliminated diseases, replaced equality of income, education, healthcare and opportunity. That the outcomes of US interventions have not been progressive may explain why the destabilizers never consider them. But to Spencer, outcomes donÂt matter.
ÂGetting rid of Milosevic did not immediately bring good governance to SerbiaÂ and neither Afghanistan nor Iraq will likely become democratic soonÂ We canÂt help much with that. But their democratization must start with liberation, and we can help them achieve that Â non-violently.Â 
Having no qualms about aligning itself with WashingtonÂs imperialist projects, Peace Magazine endorses without scruple the Western government foundations which support the work of the destabilizers. Asking ÂHow can we help?Â, the magazine explains that,
ÂMany countries maintain organizations that help democratic opposition movements inside tyrannical regimes. In Britain, itÂs the Westminster Foundation. In the US itÂs the National Endowment for Democracy. In Sweden itÂs the Olaf Palme Center. In Canada itÂs Montreal-based Rights and Democracy. Moreover, there are experts who have studied nonviolent struggle and who can help dissident movements develop effective strategiesÂ  such as Robert Helvey.
It would doubtlessly cause little embarrassment to the magazine to point out that the National Endowment for Democracy was established by the Reagan administration to overtly bankroll the overthrow movements the CIA used to fund covertly. So long as imperialist goals are pursued through non-military means, Peace Magazine is content.
Despite its apparent left credentials, Peace Magazine serves the conservative function of legitimizing the goals of US foreign policy and burnishing the reputation of a capitalist democracy subordinated to US corporate and financial domination. The magazine apes the views of Peter Ackerman, Robert Helvey and Gene Sharp, the major proponents within the US establishment of the use of destabilization methods to overthrow foreign governments that resist domination by US corporate and financial interests. The magazineÂs only disagreement with US foreign policy is its reliance on military intervention. This disagreement is motivated in part by a public relations concern. If the US government Âwould restrict its interventions to aiding nonviolent opponents of tyrants,Â the magazine contends, Âthe world would admire it.Â  That a peace magazine wants the world to admire the leading champion of capitalist imperialism leaves little doubt as to its orientation, whose side itÂs on, and what role it seeks to play in the struggle for economic, social and political justice.
1. Ackerman, Peter, ÂPaths to peace: How Serbian students brought dictator down without a shot fired,Â National Catholic Reporter, April 26, 2002.
2. Ackerman, Peter and Jack DuVall, ÂThe nonviolent script for Iran,Â Christian Science Monitor, July 22, 2003.
3. Ackerman, Peter and Jack DuVall, ÂWith weapons of the will: How to topple Saddam Hussein Â nonviolently,Â Sojourners Magazine, September-October 2002 (Vol 31, No. 5, pp.20-23.)
4. Ackerman and DuVall, 2003.
5. Spencer, Metta, ÂGene Sharp 101.Â Peace Magazine, July-September 2003. ÂPersonally, I think Chavez is steering the wrong course on economic matters,Â writes Spenser. ÂThey wonÂt get out of the hole until they have different policies.Â
8. Spencer, Metta, ÂDemocracy matters: A conversation with Seymour Martin Lipset,Â Peace Magazine, July-September, 2000.
9. Spencer, Metta, ÂIntroduction: Nonviolence versus a dictatorship,Â Peace Magazine, October-December, 2001.
12. Bacher, John, ÂOn Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals,Â Peace Magazine, October-December 2004.
13. From the Editor, Peace Magazine, April-June, 2003.
14. Ackerman, Peter and Jack DuVall, ÂWith weapons of the will: How to topple Saddam Hussein Â nonviolently,Â Sojourners Magazine, September-October 2002 (Vol 31, No. 5, pp.20-23.
15. Metta Spencer, ÂUshering Democracy into Iraq Â Nonviolently,Â Peace Magazine, January-March 2003.
16. Pal, Amitabh, ÂGene Sharp Interview,Â The Progressive, March 2007.
17. From the editor, 2003.
19. Lee McKenna, ÂThe nonviolent way in Sudan,Â Peace Magazine, January-March, 2009.
20. Spencer, July-September 2003.
21. From the editor, 2003.
22. Spencer, Metta, January-March, 2003.
23. From the editor, 2003.