Skip to content

Category Archives: Color Revolution

The Color Revolution Campaign Begins in the Philippines


Sept. 15 (EIRNS)–The woman leading the Philippine Senate inquiry into alleged extra-judicial killings in President Duterte’s War on Drugs, Leila de Lima, the former Justice Secretary under Aquino and former chairwoman of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, brought out a witness today, Edgar Matobato, who testified that he was part of the 300-member “Davao Death Squad” which he alleges was run on the orders of then Mayor of Davao, Duterte. The Inquirer reports that Matobato testified the death squad killed alleged drug dealers and criminals in the southern city of Davao between 1988 and 2013. More than 1,000 were killed in Davao City alone, he claimed.

Leila de Lima has been going after Duterte for many years, running a massive investigation into what she called criminal activity in Duterte’s cleaning out drugs and crime in Davao City, which everyone admits was successful. In all the investigations, de Lima came up with nothing, and never was able to prosecute anything. Matobato, it turns out, turned against Duterte in 2013 and was placed in a witness protection program by de Lima by at least 2014, meaning de Lima had access to all this testimony long ago, but never brought it forward — probably because there was no evidence and many people call Matobato a liar, who perhaps could be called the Philippines’s “Curve Ball.”

Many people have come forward today to denounce the witness as a liar. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, who supports the President, clashed with the witness and de Lima in the hearing, questioning Matobato’s credibility and accused him of being part of a plot to overthrow the president. “I’m asking about you (de Lima), your motive and the motive of your party in this hearing because I am testing if he’s a credible witness or if this is part of the plan B of the Liberal Party to grab Malacañang [presidential palace] and to destroy him (Duterte)” he said.

Duterte included de Lima on his list of officials with drug connections, saying that her driver was a drug courier (as well as her lover). He announced today that he has an updated list of about 1000 officials  — judges, police, military, mayors, etc — who are involved in the drug trade, which he will release soon.

Ernesto Abella, a presidential spokesman, said the hearing was a rehash of issues that have already been addressed in 2009 under de Lima, and that even then no case was filed against then-Mayor Duterte. He added: Aside from indications that this is a perjured witness, one wonders at the timing of the case, when de Lima is about to face the Senate inquiry on her alleged involvement in the illegal drug case.

Neo-Cons Threaten Duterte


Sept. 14, 2016 (EIRNS) — The neo-Conservative Center for a New American Security (CNAS) today issued a veiled death threat to Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte. Under the title: “Can the U.S.-Philippine Alliance Endure Duterte?”, CNAS hands Patrick Cronin and Anthony Woon Cho list the various measures by Duterte against Obama’s treatment of the Philippines as a puppet state and as a military base for a war on China, describing each step as both anti-American and a threat to Asia as a whole by undermining the anti-China crusade.

Cronin writes: “The Philippine president managed within a mere 24-hours to shock the world by ordering his defense secretary to work on security pronouncements with China and Russia to combat drug traffickers and insurgents and cease joint patrols in the South China Sea alongside the U.S. Navy.”

The final sentence of the diatribe can only be described as a veiled threat on Duterte’s life: “It isn’t too late for President Duterte to tone back his rhetoric and weigh the will of his people. However, time is running out; Duterte must start walking back from the edge before he is unable find his way back.”

Will Obama add Duterte to his weekly drone kill list?

Color-Revolution Guru Malloch Brown Moves on the Philippines


July 3, 2015 (EIRNS)–Lord Mark Malloch Brown, the genocide merchant who has worked hand-in-hand with George Soros in funding and promoting color revolutions around the world, suddenly showed up in the Philippines last month to beat back an effort to stop the notorious vote-fraud mechanism which placed Noynoy Aquino in office 2010 and swept the midterm election of 2013 for Noynoy’s party.

Smartmatic, a London-based electronic voting machine company, sold their machines to the Philippine’s COMELEC (the Commission on Elections) for the 2010 election. When the accuracy tests failed the week before the election, COMELEC ruled to proceed with the election anyway, leading to charges of fraud being carried out both by Smartmatic and the Government. In the 2013 election, the machines were used again, and generated a “60-30-10” pattern of votes — administration, opposition, and independent senatorial candidates obtained 60 percent, 30 percent, and 10 percent of the votes, respectively, across the board — a political and statistical impossibility.

With the 2016 presidential election campaign in process, Smartmatic was disqualified by COMELEC in May in bidding for new election machines, although not based on fraud in the past but on failed tests and other compliance failures this year.

But lo and behold! Last November Lord Mark Malloch Brown was hired as Smartmatic’s chairman. In June, after the disqualification of Smartmatic, Malloch Brown visited Manila, held many meetings and press conferences, and, wonder of wonders, COMELEC changed its position and announced that the Smartmatic machines work after all, and that the Philippines would buy 23,000 of their new optical mark reader machines to be used in the 2016 polls, at a cost of US$55.5 million. More contracts are in the works.

One of Malloch Brown’s first color revolutions was, in fact, in the Philippines in the 1980’s, when he worked closely with Cory Aquino in the US-orchestrated coup against the Philippines’ last nationalist president, Ferdinand Marcos, placing Cory Aquino in the presidency, where she proceded (under direction from the neo conservatives in Washington) to dismantle the nation’s industries, food self-sufficiency, and nuclear power program. Her son Noynoy continues the destructive tradition.

The British Empire Created the ‘Color Revolutions’ as Acts of War


{The following two articles, which appeared in the Jan. 20 and Feb. 3 editions of {EIR Online} magazine, respectively, provide the essential documentation on the British Empire’s spawning of the “color revolution” strategy, which has been implemented by “democracy” thinktanks and other irregular warfare operatives throughout the world. They have been slightly abridged.
{Note that the major players in the direct anti-Russia operations described here have also been in the center of the Ukraine operation–notably, British money-bags George Soros, and British-trained National Endowment for Democracy head Nadia Diuk.}

Bankrupt British Empire Keeps  Pushing To Overthrow Putin

by Rachel Douglas

Jan. 9–Organizers of the December 2011 “anti-vote-fraud” demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 4 as the date of their next street action, planned as a march around the city’s Garden Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration which paved the way to the end of the Soviet Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition layers, and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of “dialogue” between them, in which ex-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests are intent on–if not actually destroying Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s bid for reelection as Russia’s President in the March 4 elections–casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political turmoil.
Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down.
Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators demanded be cancelled for fraud, shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov, the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus inside the United States, exposed by {EIR} in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional “secret government,”[fn1] have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.

– Project Democracy –
Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), before the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy; it functions, inclusively, through the International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).
Diuk was educated at the U.K.’s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at Oxford University, before coming to the U.S.A. to head up the NED’s programs in Eastern Europe and Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author, Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[fn2] for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.
In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as “authoritarian,” “dictators,” and so forth. She said, “The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state.” She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: “[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule.”
Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could be replicated in Russia, claiming that “when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian citizens saw a vision across the border of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation.” She then detailed what she claimed were the Kremlin’s reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that “the leaders in the Kremlin–always the most creative innovators in the club of authoritarians–have also taken active measures to promote support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition….”
While lauding “the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East” in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress to “look to [Eastern Europe] as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but also how the forces for freedom and democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support.”
In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center Russian polling organization, who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election. Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza, who predicted in the nastiest tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September period, Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to Putin’s dominance.
The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of “civil society” groups in Russia. Golos, the supposedly independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED money through the NDI since 2000. Golos had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting irregularity. NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny–the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations–since 2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating project called “DA!” (meaning “Yes!” or standing for “Democratic Alternative”). Gorbachov’s close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a “dialogue between the authorities and the opposition,” also received NED grants to his World Movement for Democracy.
Besides George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest source of funds for this meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually, of which nearly half is for “Governing Justly & Democratically” programs, another 30% for “Information” programs, and only a small fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon announced that the Obama Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with “an initiative to create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more pluralistic and open society.”

– Awaiting McFaul –
People from various parts of the political spectrum in
Russia see the impending arrival of Michael McFaul as U.S.
Ambassador to Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy
efforts to destabilize Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack
Obama’s National Security Council official for Russia, has been
working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the
NDI in Russia at the end of the Soviet period, and headed its
office there.
As a Russia specialist at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli
Institute for International Studies and Hoover Institution, as
well as the Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian
studies think tanks, McFaul has stuck closely to the Project
Democracy agenda. Financing for his research has come from the
NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another
notorious agency of financier interests within the U.S.
establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book {Revolution in
Orange: The Origins of Ukraine’s Democratic Breakthrough},
containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.
In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled {After Putin’s
Russia},[fn3] McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in
Ukraine–which was notoriously funded and manipulated from
abroad–as a triumph of “people’s political power from below to
resist and eventually overturn a fraudulent election.”
Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul’s many positions at
Stanford was co-director of the Iran Democracy Project. He has
also been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson
Society which is active in the drive to overthrow the government
of Syria.

– The Internet Dimension –
The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were
organized largely online. Participation rose from a few hundred
on Dec. 5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000
people on Bolotnaya Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide
range of 30,000 to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect Dec.
Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social
networking over the past three to five years has opened up a new
dimension of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An {EIR}
investigation finds that British intelligence agencies involved
in the current attempts to destabilize Russia and, in their
maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively
to profile online activity in Russia and find ways to expand and
exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think tanks
in the U.S.A. and Canada, but their center is Cambridge
University in the U.K.–the heart of the British Empire, home of
Bertrand Russell’s systems analysis and related ventures of the
Cambridge Apostles.[fn4]
The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be
seen in the Cambridge-centered network’s interaction with Russian
anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the
December protest rallies.
While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet
access in the former Soviet Union starting two decades ago, as
recently as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were
complaining that the Internet was not yet efficient for political
purposes in Russia. Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the
Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008,
titled “The Web that Failed: How opposition politics and
independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia.”

– The Cambridge Security Programme –
Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal
Rohozinski, who assessed its status in their essay “Control and
Subversion in Russian Cyberspace.”[fn6] At the University of
Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of
the International Network of Social Network Analysis
(INSNA).[fn7] Rohozinski is a cyber-warfare specialist who ran
the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge Security
Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University in 2002-07. Nominally
ending its work, the CSP handed off its projects to an array of
organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), including
Rohozinski’s SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the
{Information Warfare Monitor}.
The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing
Internet surveillance and filtering by governments, is a joint
project of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute,
the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
School, and the University of Toronto.
Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times
faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle
East, in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million
Russians were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband
access from home; the forecast number of Russia-based Runet users
by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million.
Qualitatively, the ONI authors welcomed what they called “the
rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and
politics.” On the political side, they asserted that “the
Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms of its reach,
readership, and especially in the degree of free speech and
opportunity to mobilize that it provides.”
This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population
becoming the focal point of Russian society is now being hyped by
those who want to push the December demonstrations into a
full-scale political crisis. Such writers call this segment of
the population “the creative class,” or “the active creative
minority,” which can override an inert majority of the
population. The Dec. 30 issue of {Vedomosti}, a financial daily
co-owned by the {Financial Times} of London, featured an article
by sociologist Natalya Zubarevich, which was then publicized in
“Window on Eurasia” by Paul Goble, a State Department veteran
who has concentrated for decades on the potential for Russia to
split along ethnic or other lines.
Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population
living in the 14 largest cities, of which 9 have undergone
“post-industrial transformation,” constitute a special,
influential class, as against the inhabitants of rural areas
(38%) and mid-sized industrial cities with an uncertain future
(25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: “It is
in this Russia that the 35 million domestic users of the Internet
and those who want a more open society are concentrated.” …
[The article concludes with an extensive profile of Alexei
Navalny, one of the leading NED operatives at the time. Footnotes
are available in the version on]

The `Democracy’ Agenda of McFaul & His Oxford Masters

by Rachel Douglas

Jan. 22–Two centuries ago, Russia and the young United States
entered the dread year of 1812, each in peril of annihilation. We
Americans were about to be assaulted along our East Coast by the
British, who would seize and burn Washington, D.C., while the
Anglo-Venetian creature Napoleon marched on Moscow. At that time,
our ambassador at St. Petersburg was a universal thinker, an
astronomer, a rhetorician, one of our outstanding statesmen and
future greatest Presidents, John Quincy Adams. In Count Nikolai
Rumyantsev, the commerce minister, foreign minister, and
chancellor to His Imperial Majesty Alexander I of Russia, Adams,
during his 1809-14 posting, found an interlocutor of likewise
broad interests, and a crucial shared one: awareness of the
British Empire as the common enemy of the United States and
Today we are all the more in need of such a high quality of
diplomatic representation, as the financial powers and
geostrategists of the collapsing Trans-Atlantic system, descended
from that same British Empire of 200 years ago, threaten to
plunge the world into a dark age of depopulation and war–a
thermonuclear war that would wipe out civilization.
Instead, Barack Obama this month sent to Moscow as the new
U.S. ambassador, one Michael McFaul, who has pursued a narrow
ideological agenda throughout his career. It is not an American
agenda, but a British one: the cynical cultivation of
“democratic” movements for geopolitical purposes, all the way
up to and including the overthrow of governments deemed
uncooperative with recent decades’ globalization agenda. That has
been the design of Project Democracy from its outset in the
1970s-1980s.[fn2] The Oxford background of leading figures
like McFaul and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) vice
president Nadia Diuk dramatizes the British connection, while
they themselves openly state what it is they are up to.
McFaul told in a June 2011 interview: “Most
Russia-watchers are diplomats, or specialists on security and
arms control. Or Russian culture. I am neither. I can’t recite
Pushkin by heart. {I am a specialist in democracy,
anti-dictatorial movements, and revolutions”} (emphasis added).
It is truly difficult to study Russian without learning by
memory at least something from Alexander Pushkin, Russia’s
national poet, and only somebody obsessed with a higher priority
would make such an omission and then brag about it. McFaul indeed
had adopted a higher priority than mastering Russian culture and
politics, or Soviet history. He spelled it out in a December 2004
op-ed in the {Washington Post.} “Did Americans meddle in the
internal affairs of Ukraine?” asked McFaul, talking about the
events of that month, when street demonstrations in Kiev forced
the rerun of a Presidential election, resulting in a different
outcome–the so-called Orange Revolution. “Yes,” he answered to
his own question. “The American agents of influence would prefer
different language to describe their activities–democratic
assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc.–but
their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change
in Ukraine.”
McFaul enumerated the funding for the Orange Revolution from
U.S. government sources, government-funded NGOs, and George
Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI), an account he later
expanded in more detail in the 2006 book, {Revolution in Orange:
The Origins of Ukraine’s Democratic Breakthrough.} But he also
demurred: “Did American money bring about the Orange Revolution?
Absolutely not.” According to McFaul, the cumulative billions of
dollars spent on “democracy promotion” merely assists a process
which is moving ahead of its own accord: “The combination of a
weak, divided and corrupt {ancien regime} and a united, mobilized
and highly motivated opposition produced Ukraine’s democratic
breakthrough…. Democracy promotion groups do not have a recipe
for revolution. If the domestic conditions aren’t ripe, there
will be no democratic breakthrough, no matter how crafted the
technical assistance or how strategically invested the small
Any review of the NED or U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) grant lists for Russia, for example, will
reveal how very strategically crafted the funding is.[fn3]
McFaul wrote, “Does this kind of intervention violate
international norms? {Not anymore. There was a time when
championing state sovereignty was a progressive idea,} since the
advance of statehood helped destroy empires. But today those who
revere the sovereignty of the state above all else often do so to
preserve autocracy, while those who champion the sovereignty of
the people are the new progressives” (emphasis added).
It’s hard to say whether that formulation of the British
doctrine of liberal imperialism contains more sophistry, or
hypocrisy. Nation-states are to be smashed in the name of “the
people,” while the same people, as well as their nations as a
whole, are brought under the tyranny of the still-existing,
albeit bankrupt, British Empire: the empire of globalized
finance, and the “empire of the mind”–the
rock-drug-sex-digital counterculture. The Empire which campaigns
for reducing Earth’s population from 7 billion to no more than 1
billion humans.
A veteran Russian human rights activist highlighted McFaul’s
hypocrisy, in a question during Lyndon LaRouche’s Jan. 18 State
of the Union webcast ({EIR}, Jan. 27, 2012, p. 20). “I know
people who were told by McFaul personally,” he reported, “that
when he came to the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early
1990s on various `democratization’ projects, he was never
interested in achieving `democracy’ as such, but rather in
collapsing the Soviet Union. On Monday [Jan. 16], McFaul
presented his credentials. On Tuesday, he met with
representatives of the liberal opposition to the Kremlin. … Has
Michael McFaul been sent here with the same intention of breaking
up Russia, as he had toward the Soviet Union over 20 years ago?”
After McFaul’s hosting of some of the December 2011 street
protest leaders at the U.S. Embassy, Russian state-owned TV
commentators sharply criticized his behavior (see Documentation,
below), openly asking if the new ambassador had come with a
mission to “dismantle the existing regime” in Russia. In a Jan.
20 interview with the government daily {Rossiyskaya Gazeta},
former Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov joined these commentators in
chastising McFaul for violations of diplomatic custom and
In this installment of our dossier on the current
British-driven campaign against Russia, and Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin in particular, we shall look at the British roots
of McFaul’s agenda, particularly of Project Democracy’s so-called
color revolutions, and discover that these allegedly non-violent
projects are a form of irregular warfare.

– Democracy Promotion –
From the time of the ruination of Greece in the
Peloponnesian War of the 5th Century B.C., democratic parties
again and again have served as tools of imperial factions. The
manipulation of a popular movement, whose members fail to grasp
who is using them, and to what ends, is an ancient skill, honed
by every empire since Babylon.
Regarding contemporary “democracy promotion,” it is
essential to keep in mind that all the institutions of Project
Democracy, since the establishment of the NED in 1983, belong to
the post-Aug. 15, 1971 world (though their roots reach farther
back). The floating-exchange-rate system, installed then by
President Richard Nixon at the behest of his Director of the
Office of Management and Budget George Shultz,[fn4] opened the
gates to globalization: a world in which financial activity,
decoupled from the real economy, but demanding to be serviced by
it, would balloon to unprecedented dimensions before collapsing.
Under globalization, the populations of most countries
figure as pools of cheap labor, at best; at worst, they are part
of what Prince Philip and lower-level ideologues consider to be
the 6 billion excess people on the planet. National leaders who
stand in the way of the imperial agenda, or who are powerful
enough to threaten to do so, are subject to attack. Through
Project Democracy, “anti-dictatorial movements” have been
cultivated and used as weapons for this purpose.
No wonder the same George Shultz is credited by McFaul with
pioneering the approach that he, McFaul, takes today: “American
diplomats must practice dual track diplomacy of the sort
practiced by Shultz in dealing with the Soviet Union: engaging
autocratic leaders in charge of the state and democratic leaders
in society in parallel and at the same time.”[fn5]
And no wonder the biggest private financier of democracy
promotion is the London-Wall Street financial kingpin George
Soros. By the late 1990s, Soros’s OSI was pumping $400 million
annually into “civil society” programs in East-Central
Europe.[fn6] In the very same period, wagers by hedge-fund
operator Soros against national currencies in Asia were notorious
as a trigger of the 1997-98 phase of the global financial crisis,
culminating in Russia’s being forced into default in August 1998.
The close ties of Soros with the London Rothschild banking
interests date from their sponsorship of his career in post-war
Britain, while the Rothschilds and their Inter-Alpha Group–the
largest financial combine in the world–have never abandoned the
intention of gaining control over Russia’s vast assets. In the
current generation, Nat Rothschild has made no secret of his
drive to build a presence in Russia, both through his JNR Ltd.
investment company and Russia-oriented raw materials ventures
like Vallar Plc., and by cultivating post-Soviet “oligarchs”
like Oleg Derispaska.[fn7]

– Cambridge and Oxford: Brain Trust for the Empire –
For sheer quantity of patronage, you can’t beat Soros, the
NED, and USAID. For the guiding principles of “democracy
promotion,” however, you have to go to Oxford.
Leading acolytes of Project Democracy did so, literally.
McFaul was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. U.S. Permanent
Representative at the United Nations Susan Rice was a Rhodes
scholar at Oxford. Nadia Diuk, the NED vice president who talks
about Russia’s current leaders strictly as “authoritarians” to
be ousted, taught at Oxford before assuming her duties in the
Two Oxford professors, Sir Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton
Ash, have conducted a project called Civil Resistance and Power
Politics since 2006. Its goals, as related to regime change in
the world today, are better understood by first knowing about the
centuries-long role of the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford
as two wings of a brain trust, managing the British Empire.
British redcoats and gunboats were the overt instruments of
imperial rule in the 18th and 19th centuries, but the Cambridge
and Oxford dons were always developing its stratagems. These
universities served as the monasteries of an imperial priesthood;
well into the second half of the 19th Century, the “dons” even
had to be members of clerical orders who had taken vows of
celibacy. Today, when the British Empire operates through control
over international finance and through cultural warfare, or the
“empire of the mind,” the role of Cambridge and Oxford is as
important as ever.
Over the centuries, a rough division of labor has functioned
between the two universities: Cambridge, as the center of the
British cult of mathematics, has run the deeper intellectual
schemes, such as James Clerk Maxwell’s subversion of the physical
science breakthroughs of Gauss, Riemann, and Ampère in the
mid-19th Century.[fn8] During the past 60 years, Cambridge has
sat at the center of the creation of computers, the cult of
cybernetics and systems analysis, postwar “mathematical
economics,” and an array of information-age brainwashing
typified by Facebook, Twitter, and the Internet in
general.[fn9] Oxford has been more of the hands-on colonial
administrator, especially through persons awarded Oxford degrees
in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (PPE). During the 20th
Century, the Cambridge-based Lord Bertrand Russell, identified by
LaRouche as the most evil man of his age, was a pivotal figure in
both types of project.
Oxford became a staging ground for the far-flung imperial
plans of Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), including the Round Table
organization whose creation he inspired. Formally headed by Lord
Alfred Milner (1854-1925), the Round Table was a British Crown
project to carry the Empire’s worldwide lines of influence well
into the 20th century, until after World War I.
Alongside Milner, the active leaders of the Round Table club
included royal family intimate Lord Esher (Reginald Balliol
Brett, 1852-1930), who was the Constable and Governor of Windsor
Castle and strategic advisor to Queen Victoria, King Edward VII,
and King George V; and William T. Stead, the journalist and
intelligence operative who wrote that it was so important to
recapture control over Britain’s former North American colonies,
after Abraham Lincoln’s victory over the British-backed
Confederacy in the Civil War, that it would be worth it to allow
the seat of British power to reside–at least in part–in the
U.S.A. The point was to cultivate subtle forms of indirect rule,
a tradition continued in Oxford’s promotion of “democratic” and
“people power” revolutions today.
Stead and Lord Nathan “Natty” Rothschild were Rhodes’
designated heirs in the Round Table. In 1902, Rhodes had
established the Rhodes scholarships at Oxford, to educate an
elite of scholars and statesmen from the colonies (later the
Commonwealth) and, especially, the United States. Lord Rothschild
looked after the financial side of the Rhodes scholarships.
Not every Rhodes scholar becomes an agent of British
influence, as the experience of Bill Clinton demonstrates. But
most of those working in PPE fields swallow British foreign
policy methods hook, line, and sinker. The outstanding example in
our day is now-UN Ambassador Susan Rice, whose 1990 Oxford
doctoral dissertation lauding the British Commonwealth Initiative
in Zimbabwe received the Chatham House (Royal Institute of
International Affairs, RIIA)-British International Studies
Association prize as the best international relations thesis
written in the U.K. that year.[fn10]

– The Oxford `Civil Resistance’ Project –
A mentor of Rice at Oxford was Sir Adam Roberts (b. 1940),
co-chairman of the Oxford project on Civil Resistance and Power
Politics (CR & PP). Famous as a proponent of liberal
internationalism, Roberts is bringing out a book titled {Liberal
International Order} in the Spring of 2012. Advocates of liberal
internationalism, also called liberal interventionism, or liberal
imperialism, trace the doctrine to the continental operations of
Lord Palmerston in the 19th Century,[fn11] as exemplifying
interventions by self-identified “liberal” states in the
affairs of others on behalf of liberal values.
Roberts’s crony Timothy Garton Ash, in a 2008 commentary
denouncing Russia for its clash with Georgia after the latter’s
attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, dubbed himself
and co-thinkers “FLIO,” for “friends of liberal international
order.” In a 2007 column in {The Guardian}, Garton Ash reported
on his interview with outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair:
“Sitting in the Downing Street garden, I ask him what is the
essence of Blairism in foreign policy. `Liberal
Roberts’ other major ongoing project is the Oxford
University Programme on the Changing Character of War. As we
shall see, the leading Oxford specialists in democracy promotion,
non-violent action, and civil society view their efforts in
military-strategic terms–lawfully enough, for a top British
policy-shaper like Roberts. After retiring from teaching at
Oxford, where he had been at the Centre for International Studies
in the Department of Politics and International Relations,
Roberts, in 2009, became President of the British Academy, the
government-funded U.K. National Academy for the Humanities and
Social Sciences. This top establishment body, which today has 900
active fellows, received its Royal Charter in 1902 for the
promotion of British intellectual influence worldwide. Roberts is
also a member of the U.K. Defence Academy Advisory Board and the
national Council for Science and Technology, and has been
appointed Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St.
George by the Queen, for “services to the study and practice of
international relations.”
His younger colleague Garton Ash, as one of Britain’s most
prolific writers on contemporary European history, has been named
to “most influential intellectuals” lists by {Time} magazine
and the British journals {Prospect} and {Foreign Policy}. Most of
what he churns out is related to East-Central Europe and Germany.
At the height of the British elites’ “Fourth Reich” campaign
against German reunification in the Summer of 1990, just months
after the genuine, peaceful revolution that had brought down the
Berlin Wall, Garton Ash was one of a handful of academic
consultants who met with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at her
Chequers residence to share their “reservations concerning
Germany, [which] had not only to do with the Hitler era, but
referred to the period before, the whole era after
In 2006, Roberts and Garton Ash announced themselves as the
“principal investigators” for the already mentioned Oxford
“interdisciplinary research project on Civil Resistance and
Power Politics: Domestic and International Dimensions.” They
held the project’s major international conference at St. Antony’s
College, Oxford, in March 2007. Its proceedings were published in
2009 as a book titled {Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The
Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present.} The
paperback edition came out in 2011 from Oxford University Press,
“with a new foreword on the Arab Spring.”
In October 2011, according to a promotional release from the
Oxford Centre for International Studies, meetings to launch the
paperback were held at Oxford, the British Academy, the Columbia
University Law School, and the Carr Center at Harvard University,
“all with a focus on the Arab Spring.” Two years earlier, the
U.S. venues for the hardcover book launch also included Stanford
The Oxford CR & PP organizers declared that they had
evaluated “the nature and significance of civil (i.e.,
non-violent) resistance, especially, though not exclusively, in
the period from the 1960s up to the Arab Spring from December
2010 onwards.” At the time of the 2007 conference, flushed with
excitement about the Orange Revolution in Ukraine two years
earlier, they had presented case studies including the overthrow
of President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines in 1986, and the
sequence of regime changes in Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union, from Serbia in 2000, through Georgia’s Rose
Revolution of 2003, and then Ukraine.
A review of the resulting book, published in the RIIA’s
{International Affairs} magazine in 2010, described Roberts’s
attitude toward the movements he studies as “sympathetic through
critical.” “The book rejects the often repeated charge of
western orchestration,” the review noted, “[h]owever, the
protesters received substantial funding and technical advice from
abroad–for example, on how to use the media and how to organize
effective peaceful demonstrations.”[fn13] In reality, the
project’s recommended questions for the case studies reveal an
effort to fine-tune the techniques of outside intervention:
“3. Has civil resistance demonstrated a particular value as
one instrument (alongside other instruments such as external
election monitors) for challenging fraudulent election processes
and ensuring a free and fair outcome?
“4. Can an international legal/normative regime provide a
favorable background for civil resistance?
“5. To what extent did the non-violent movement succeed in
undermining, or threatening to undermine, the adversary’s sources
of power and legitimacy (military, economic, psychological,
“7. What has been the role of external actors of all kinds
(government, quasi-non-governmental organizations, NGOs,
diasporas) in assisting or attempting to assist or influence
civil resistance? Have international economic sanctions and/or
external military interventions proved useful to civil resistance
“9. How has the development of technologies, especially
information technology (e.g., email, internet, social media),
affected the capacities of civil resistance?
“10. Was there any implicit or explicit threat of a future
use of force or violence to carry forward the non-violent
movement’s cause if the movement did not achieve a degree of
success, or if extreme repression was used against it?…
“12. In cases where outside governments or organizations
supported the movement, did they understand and respect the
reasons for avoiding the use of force or violence? Should rules
(possibly in the form of a draft code of conduct) be established
regarding the character and extent of such support?
“13. Was civil resistance in one country instigated or
assisted by another state as a mere instrument for pursuing its
own ends or embarrassing an adversary? If accusations of this
kind were made, did they have any credibility?”[fn14]
At the 2007 conference, Roberts chaired a session on “Civil
Resistance and the Roles of External Actors.” One of his
panelists was Michael McFaul, who had done Africa studies at
Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, but by this time, was a senior fellow
at Stanford’s Hoover Institution of War, Revolution and Peace,
specializing on Russia.

– The Gene Sharp Playbook –
The Oxford CR & PP project’s website recommends just a
handful of “selected websites on civil resistance,” including
the British and the International Center on
Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC) of Washington, D.C. At the top of this
short list is the Albert Einstein Institution (AEI), located in
East Boston, Mass. Its founder and senior scholar, Gene Sharp,
gave the main paper on yet another panel chaired by Roberts at
the 2007 Oxford CR & PP conference: “The Politics of Nonviolent
Action and the Spread of Ideas about Civil Resistance.” Sharp
(b. 1928) is a product of the same Oxford establishment as
McFaul, but a generation earlier.
In the wake of the Ukrainian events of 2004-05, exposes
published by {EIR}[fn15] and others made Gene Sharp a
household word in Russia as the author of the “color
revolutions.” Longtime Kremlin deputy chief of staff Vladislav
Surkov, just before stepping aside from that post in December
2011, named Sharp in an {Izvestia} interview about the Moscow
demonstrations: “There is absolutely no doubt that some people
want to convert the protest into a color revolution,” Surkov
wrote. “They are acting literally according to Sharp’s books and
the latest revolutionary method guides. So literally, that it’s
even tedious.” During a recent raucous debate on the Russian
state TV program “The Historical Process,” over whether the
Moscow street actions would lead to something like the February
1917 Russian Revolution (the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II),
co-host Sergei Kurginyan displayed huge visual images of Sharp
hunched over a desk in his basement home office, and of McFaul.
The playbooks in question are Sharp’s three-volume {The
Politics of Nonviolent Action} (1973), based on his 1968 Oxford
doctoral dissertation, and {From Dictatorship to Democracy: A
Conceptual Framework for Liberation} (1993). His writings,
especially the latter, have been translated into over 40
languages. Sharp boiled down the techniques of what he calls
“PD” (for “political defiance”) to a list 198 tactics,
ranging from boycotts to symbolism using “Display of symbolic
Colors,” “Protest disrobings,” “Symbolic lights,” “Paint as
protest,” “Rude gestures,” and so forth. His recommendations
also include sophisticated political targetting, as a Tahrir
Square activist said last year in Egypt: “One of the main points
which we used was Sharp’s idea of identifying a regime’s pillars
of support. If we could build a relationship with the army,
Mubarak’s biggest pillar of support, to get them on our side,
then we knew he would quickly be finished.”[fn16]
Like his friends at Oxford, Sharp employs the nasty
sleight-of-hand of lumping together truly heroic struggles, like
those of Mahatma Gandhi against British rule in India, or Martin
Luther King in the U.S. civil rights movement, with the synthetic
movements targetted against specific leaders by the modern-day
British Empire, employing Sharp’s formulas, plus backing from
Soros and/or the NED. Sharp doesn’t distinguish: In his writings,
they are all movements against “various dictatorships.” Instead
of powerful metaphors like Gandhi’s homespun garments and
spinning wheel (denoting real economic independence of the
British, as well as simplicity in daily life), there are
arbitrary colors chosen according to advertising criteria, as in
“viral marketing.”
Sharp’s AEI, though he protests that it is a modest,
two-person operation run out of his basement, received crucial
funding, according to its own statements, from the NED, the
NED-subsidiary International Republican Institute (IRI), and the
Ford Foundation. Soros’s OSI earmarked grants for the translation
of Sharp’s manual into various languages. The IRI funded an AEI
training session held in Hungary in early 2000 for activists of
the Serbian Otpor! (Resistance!) organization, which was to lead
the overthrow of President Slobodan Milosevic later that year.
NED officials acknowledged massive funding of Otpor!, whose
activists later dispersed and took part in spreading Sharp’s
methods to activists in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere.
An array of color revolutions used his techniques (see box).
Sharp himself, in a 2006 interview with {The Progressive},
boasted that he was in Tiananmen Square in 1989, meeting with
democracy activists “three or four days before the crackdown,”
and that he wrote {From Dictatorship to Democracy} at the request
of Burmese exiles after a trip to Myanmar (Burma) in 1992, when
he entered the country illegally.
The cookie-cutter color revolution formula of recent years
is now being applied to the Russian situation, though it is
clearly not the only attack against Putin that British interests
have up their sleeve. As the RIIA reviewer of the CR & PP book
noted about Georgia and Ukraine, “in both cases the catalyst was
the detection of election fraud–with the help of western
In Russia the Golos (“Vote” or “Voice”) organization, a
self-described “independent election monitor,” a longtime
recipient of NED and USAID funding, prepared for many months to
step to the fore in charging vote fraud in the Dec. 4, 2011
Russian State Duma elections. Its activists now have their eye on
the next Russian election, the Presidential vote on March 4,
The supposedly “neutral” Golos website has featured
writings by people like St. Petersburg Prof. Grigori Golosov of
the Helix Center for Democracy and Human Rights, who exults that
the role of “social networks in spreading discontent and
organizing the demonstrations in Russian cities is a crucial
development,” but insists that “any scenario allowing for Putin
to remain in power is a pessimistic one…. An optimistic
scenario is one in which Putin goes; there is no other way.”
A color has been chosen for the would-be new Russian
revolution: Moscow’s mostly well-to-do street demonstrators wore
white ribbons.

– The War-Mongering Peacenik, Bertrand Russell –
When Sharp left his native Ohio for Britain in the 1950s, he
didn’t go straight to Oxford. Beginning in 1955, he worked for
the British pacifist publication {Peace News}, which had been
notorious in the 1930s, when it was founded, for advocating peace
with Nazi Germany at any cost. In the late 1950s, {Peace News}
supported Bertrand Russell’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
(CND), and it was under CND auspices that Sharp made the
acquaintance of Adam Roberts, a CND activist who would become a
{Peace News} writer in the 1960s, moving on to his high posts at
Oxford and the British Academy. Roberts even credits Sharp with
introducing him to the topic of “non-violent action under
totalitarian regimes.”[fn17]
Historians of the work of Sharp and his fellow Oxonians
trace their civil-resistance studies to Bertrand Russell’s
article “War and Non-Resistance,” published in {The Atlantic
Monthly} in April 1915, during World War I.[fn18] There,
Russell painted a fantastical picture of how England could
confront an imagined German invasion through “passive
resistance”: “Whatever edicts they might issue would be quietly
ignored by the population…. If they ordered that English young
men should undergo military service, the young men would simply
refuse; after shooting a few, the Germans would have to give up
the attempt in despair. If they tried to raise revenue by customs
duties at the ports, they would have to have German customs
officers; this would lead to a strike of all the dock laborers,
so that that way of raising revenue would become impossible. If
they tried to take over the railways, there would be a strike of
the railway servants. Whatever they touched would instantly
become paralyzed….”
(The article is also noteworthy for Russell’s take on the
turn-of-the-century mass strikes in Russia, which were largely
police-agent projects, culminating in the January 1905 Bloody
Sunday massacre of protesting workers led by secret police agent
Fr. Georgi Gapon in St. Petersburg. Russell wrote approvingly,
“Even in Russia, it was the general strike which secured the
Constitution of 1905.”)
The same Bertrand Russell is infamous for his 1946 article
in {The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,} advocating that the
Soviet Union be forced to accept a one-world government with
supranational control of nuclear weapons, under threat of defeat
in a war the West would launch before the U.S.S.R. itself could
develop nuclear weapons: a nuclear first strike against Russia.
It was only after the Soviet nuclear (1949) and thermonuclear
(1953) bomb tests that Russell went full-steam onto the “peace”
track of his world government campaign, inviting Soviet leader
Nikita Khrushchov’s representatives to his World Association of
Parliamentarians for World Government conference in 1955.
For many years Gene Sharp’s “civilian nonviolent
resistance” advisories were couched in Cold War military terms,
supposing conditions in which Soviet forces would have overrun
Europe. An attendee at one of his lectures in 1984, when Sharp
was working with the Harvard Center for International Affairs
(CIA), described the scenario Sharp presented for a quarter of a
century in the future: “The year is 2010. Russian tanks swarm
into a small country in Western Europe, spearheading an invasion
by Warsaw Pact troops. But this invasion is unusual because no
shots are fired. Instead, the Communist soldiers are greeted by
shuttered windows and deserted streets. The nation being overrun
phased out its military years ago and now relies on a carefully
planned program of civilian nonviolent resistance to deter its
Sharp was not a Rhodes scholar, but he worked at Oxford
University off and on for nearly ten years, in 1968 completing
the thesis that became {The Politics of Non-violent Action}. In
its preface, Sharp thanked Sir Isaiah Berlin, the British liberal
philosopher and intelligence figure whose closest associates were
leading lights of Russell’s logical positivist school, like A.J.
Ayer and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Berlin is today idolized by Timothy
Garton Ash, among others. Sharp’s immediate academic advisor was
the Montenegro-born John Plamenatz, with whom his “supervised
study … emphasized theories and philosophies of the nature of
political power, authority and obedience; dictatorial systems;
resistance and revolutionary movements” (Sharp’s account).
Plamenatz was a fellow of All Souls College, historically the
most important of the Oxford colleges for the Round Table.

– Dr. Strangelove –
BBC journalist Ruaridh Arrow last year made a laudatory
documentary titled “Gene Sharp: How To Start a Revolution.” In
a BBC interview about the project, Arrow characterized Sharp’s
198 measures as follows: “Designed to be the direct equivalent
of military weapons, they are techniques collated from a forensic
study of defiance to tyranny throughout history.”
The military provenance of Sharp’s {The Politics of
Nonviolent Action} is unmistakeable, leaving no doubt that it is
an irregular warfare manual. On whose behalf: the brave
resistance fighters seeking personal freedom and betterment for
their nations; or Bertrand Russell’s crazy followers who gave us
the nuclear brinksmanhip of the mutually assured destruction
doctrine for the past 60 years?
Sharp, in the Preface, cites the financing of his work while
he was at the Harvard CIA, between Oxford stints in the 1960s, by
“funds from grants for projects of Professor Thomas C. Schelling
made to Harvard University from the Ford Foundation and from the
Advanced Research Projects Agency [ARPA] of the U.S. Department
of Defense, Contract No. F44620-67-C-0011.” This was the same
Thomas Schelling who, in 2005, would receive the Nobel Prize in
Economics, with Robert Aumann, “for having enhanced our
understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory
analysis.” The Nobel committee outdid itself, hailing
Schelling’s “vision of game theory as a unifying framework for
the social sciences.”
The vision was set forth in Schelling’s 1958 book {The
Strategy of Conflict,} in which he developed the notion of
“rational irrationality.” He applied this game theory to
scenarios for nuclear war.[fn20] This was in the period
when Russellite “peaceniks” in the Anglo-American strategy
establishment were holding events like the 1958 second Pugwash
conference, where Leo Szilard delivered his infamous speech,
“How To Live with the Bomb and Survive”; Szilard proposed that
terms of a limited nuclear exchange between the United States and
the Soviet Union, possibly triggered by a conflict in the Middle
East, should be negotiated beforehand. Nuclear war games were
played at the RAND Corporation, where Schelling worked, and other
hotbeds of Cambridge-originated mathematical modelling, such as
MIT and Stanford. Schelling provided consultations to film
director Stanley Kubrick for the famous nuclear Armageddon film
of this time, “Dr. Strangelove.”
Schelling also served as an idea man for Defense Secretary
Robert S. McNamara in the Vietnam War. “What is little-known in
general,” wrote one critic of Schelling’s Nobel prize, “is the
crucial role he played in formulating the strategies of
`controlled escalation’ and `punitive bombing’ that plunged our
country into the war in Vietnam.”[fn21]
Far from being merely a channel of money to Sharp, Schelling
wrote the introduction to {The Politics of Nonviolent Action,}
speaking of the project less as Sharp’s own personal
investigation, than as a joint commitment with Schelling and
others: “The original idea was to subject the entire theory of
nonviolent political action, together with a full history of its
practice in all parts of the world since the time of Christ, to
the same cool, detailed scrutiny that military strategy and
tactics are supposed to invite. Now that we have Gene Sharp’s
book, what we lack is an equally comprehensive, carefully study
of the politics of violent action…. It is too bad that we
haven’t that other book, the one on violent action. It would be
good to compare the two in detail.”[fn22]
From 1983 to 1989, Sharp was director of the Program on
Nonviolent Sanctions of the Harvard CIA. He launched his Albert
Einstein Institution in 1983, the same year as the founding of
the NED.  …
1. “Why Count Rumyantsev Is Turning Over in His
Grave,” {EIR}, July 6, 1982. {The Memoirs of John Quincy Adams,
Comprising Portions of His Diaries,} Vol. II, Ch. 7, “Mission to
Russia,” reports his conversations with “Count Romanzoff”
(Rumyantsev). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1874. This book and
a more recent edition, {The Russian Memoirs of John Quincy Adams:
His Diary from 1809 to 1814} (New York: Arno Press, 1970), are
2. “Bankrupt British Empire Keeps Pushing To
Overthrow Putin,” {EIR}, Jan. 20, 2012 (part 1 of this series).
{Project Democracy: The `parallel government’ behind the
Iran-Contra affair} (Washington, D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987).
That special report explored the connection between the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running
operations of Col. Oliver North, et al. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.’s
introduction to the report identified the roots of North’s
“Irangate” gunrunning in Henry A. Kissinger’s reorganization of
U.S. intelligence under President Richard M. Nixon, in the wake
of post-Watergate findings of the 1975 Senate Select Committee to
Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence
Activities (“Church Committee”). Traditional intelligence
functions of government were replaced with National Security
Council-centered operations, often cloaked as promoting
“democracy” worldwide. Supporting “democracy”–measured by
such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market
programs, which ravage the populations that are supposedly being
democratized–became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy.
3. NED [[grants]] are itemized annually.
[[ russia]] USAID
projects are publicized in the form of a [[list]] of
“implementing partners,” including Russian NGOs and U.S.-based
agencies. [[]]
4. Scott Thompson and Nancy Spannaus, “George
Pratt Shultz: Profile of a Hit Man,” {EIR}, Dec. 10, 2004. One
of the foremost representatives of international banking
interests in the U.S. establishment during the late 20th Century,
Shultz went on to be Nixon’s Treasury Secretary, President Ronald
Reagan’s Secretary of State, and the architect of the George W.
Bush Administration.
5. Michael McFaul, {Advancing Democracy
Abroad: Why We Should and How We Can} (Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010, p. 176).
6. Anders Aslund, {How Capitalism Was
Built: The Transformation of Central and Eastern Europe, Russia,
and Central Asia} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
The Open Society Institute (OSI) is now called the Open Society
7. “The True Story of Soros the Golem,” EIR
Special Report, 1997. “Your Enemy, George Soros,” LaRouchePAC
pamphlet, 2008. John Hoefle, “The Inter-Alpha Group:
Nation-Killers for Imperial Genocide,” {EIR}, Sept. 17, 2010.
8. Laurence Hecht, “The Ampère Angular
Force and the Newton Hoax,” {EIR}, April 13, 2007.
9. The first article in this series,
“Bankrupt British Empire Keeps Pushing To Overthrow Putin”
({EIR}, Jan. 20, 2012) introduced the role of the Cambridge
Security Programme and its spinoff, the OpenNet Initiative, in
shaping the Internet in Russia as a mechanism for political
operations. The Oxford Internet [[Institute]]
[[]] is also active in this area, seeking
“to stimulate and inform debate about the Internet, and to shape
policy and practice around its (re)invention and use.”
10. “Susan Rice, and U.S. Sovereignty,”
{EIR}, July 23, 1999: “If anyone were to doubt the accuracy of
{EIR}’s insistence, that important areas of U.S. foreign policy
are run by the British oligarchy, that person should take a long,
hard look at what a senior official in the State Department has
recently proclaimed to leading figures of that oligarchy. The
person in question is Susan Rice, U.S. Assistant Secretary for
African Affairs. On May 13, Rice delivered the Bram Fischer
Memorial Lecture at the Rhodes House in Oxford, England. She
declared her undying loyalty to the British establishment. `I am
deeply honored to be the Bram Fischer lecturer this year,’ she
said. `It is gratifying to be back at Oxford representing
President Clinton and Secretary Albright…. Almost nine years
ago, I spent much of my time in this very house, buried in the
library upstairs. To be at Rhodes House tonight with so many
friends, benefactors, and mentors is a personal privilege. It is
like a coming home for me–for much of what I know about Africa
was discovered within these walls, refined at this great
university, with the generous support of the Rhodes Trust.'”
This {EIR} article, situating Rice in the British-oriented
Kissinger-Brzezinski school of U.S. diplomacy, is available in
our online [[archive]],
[[ index.html]] and is
recommended reading.
11. “Lord Palmerston’s Multicultural Human
Zoo,” {EIR}, April 15, 1994.
12. Minutes of the meeting were leaked to
{Der Spiegel} magazine and published on July 15, 1990.
13. David Wedgwood Benn, “Review article: On
realpolitik and its limitations,” {International Affairs} 86:5
(2010), p. 1191-97.
14. “Civil Resistance and Power
Politics”–Project [[Outline]], Centre for International
Studies, Department of Politics and International Relations;
European Studies Centre, St. Antony’s College; University of
Oxford. [[
15. Konstantin Cheremnykh, “Ukraine: A
Postmodernist Revolution,” {EIR}, Feb. 11, 2005.
16. Quoted in Ruaridh Arrow, “Gene
[[Sharp]]: Author of the Nonviolent Revolution Rulebook,” the
BBC, Feb. 21, 2011. [[
17. Interviewed by Alec Ash, Dec. 8, 2011, on
[[The Browser]]. [[]]
18. Robert J. Burrowes, {The Strategy of
Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach} (Albany: SUNY Press,
19. James [[VanHise]].
[[ html]]
20. Esther-Mirjam Sent, “Some Like It Cold:
Thomas Schelling as a Cold Warrior,” Nov. 13, 2006 paper online
at, reports some details
of how Schelling helped gear up for the potentially thermonuclear
showdowns with the Soviet Union over Berlin (1961) and Cuba
(1962): “[I]n 1961, the Pentagon sponsored several huge war
simulation games at Camp David that were run by Schelling, known
as `the Berlin games.’… Participants included John McNaughton,
Henry Kissinger, Alain Enthoven, and national security advisor
McGeorge Bundy…. The foundations for a general theory of
strategy developed by Schelling … consisted of nuclear
deterrence, crisis management, limited war, arms control, and
coercion and compellence.
21. Fred Kaplan, “All Pain, No Gain: Nobel
Laureate Thomas Schelling’s Little-Known Role in the Vietnam
War,”, Oct. 11, 2005.
22. Gene Sharp, {Power and Struggle, Part One
of The Politics of Nonviolent Action} (Boston: Porter Sargent
Publishers, 1973).


Common elements in the so-called color revolutions include a
symbolic color or image, as recommended in Gene Sharp’s manuals,
and a one- or two-word slogan. Michael McFaul ({Advancing
Democracy Abroad}) lists among “factors for success” a united
opposition movement; timing around an election, with the use of
exit polls and foreign observers as a basis for claiming vote
fraud; media ability to publicize the vote fraud claims; and
demonstrations against vote fraud.
Funding by U.S. Project Democracy agencies (National
Endowment for Democracy, National Democratic Institute,
International Republican Institute, and the USAID) and George
Soros’s Open Society Institute is typically targetted to enhance
those factors. McFaul and others have identified several of these
elements in the 1986 People Power overthrow of President
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, during which NED and NDI
funds were aimed at exposing vote fraud; the demonstrators wore
yellow ribbons, leading some to call it the first color
revolution–the Yellow Revolution.
The color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Eurasia also
featured the special role of Sharp’s trainees.
{{Serbia, October 2000–Bulldozer Revolution}}.
Regime-change: President Slobodan Milosevic replaced by
Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) leader Vojislav Kostunica.
Timing: After disputed election. Key group: Otpor!
(“Resistance!”). Symbol: Clenched-fist logo. Funding and
advice: Up to $40 million in foreign support for Otpor! from
sources including the NED and its subsidiaries, the British
Foreign Office’s Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), and
Soros’s OSI. Freedom House paid for printing Sharp’s books; the
NED and NDI worked to unify the DOS behind Kostunica, and the IRI
sponsored training of Otpor! cadre by Sharp’s associate Col.
Robert Helvey.
{{Georgia, November 2003 — Rose Revolution.}}
Regime-change: President Eduard Shevardnadze replaced by Mikhail
Saakashvili. Timing: After disputed election. Key group: Kmara!
(“Enough!”). Symbol: Red rose. Funding and advice: NED and
USAID funding went to “civil society” NGOs and exit polling,
while the outstanding intervention was the OSI’s sponsorship of
travel by Serbian Otpor! activists to train young Georgians.
{{Ukraine, December 2004–Orange Revolution.}}
Regime-change: President-elect Victor Yanukovych forced out in
favor of Victor Yushchenko. Timing: After disputed election. Key
group: Pora! (“High Time!”). Symbol: The color orange. Funding
and advice: Similar to Georgia, including training of youth
activists by guests from Otpor! and Kmara! The post-Orange
Revolution leadership disintegrated in multiple disputes and
Yanukovych was elected President in 2010.
{{Kyrgyzstan, March 2005–Tulip Revolution.}} Regime-change:
President Askar Akayev was ousted, but a new leadership failed to
consolidate, and the country has experienced clan warfare and
several leadership changes since. Timing: After disputed
election. Symbol: Pink tulip. Funding and advice: Similar to
above, with on-the-scene consultations from Georgian NGO

Shultz and the ‘Hit Men’ Destroyed the Philippines


This article appears in the December 24, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

PDF version

Shultz and the ‘Hit Men’ Destroyed the Philippines

by Mike Billington

Editor’s Note: This is the third in a series of features on the assault against the Third World by the “Economic Hit Men.” We examine here first the case of the Philippines, and then Mexico.

The U.S.-orchestrated coup which overthrew the government of Philippines’ President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 was a classic case study of what John Perkins describes in his recent book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, as the post-World War II preferred method of imposing colonial control under another name. In the Philippines case, George Shultz performed the roles of both the economic hit man, destroying and taking full control of the Philippine economy, and the coup-master, deposing the Philippine President in favor of an IMF puppet—while calling the operation “people power.”

Throughout this process, from the late 1970s through the February 1986 coup, and beyond, Lyndon LaRouche and his collaborators were fully engaged in the fight to expose and reverse this subversion and destruction of one of America’s most important allies, by the supranational financial institutions which Shultz and his ilk represent. By mobilizing support from patriots of both the United States and the Philippines, the LaRouche effort put a spotlight on the crimes of the Shultz cabal, as will be shown below. Although the effort failed to stop the process at that time, the crimes thus exposed in the Philippines can and must serve today as a nemesis to Shultz and his neo-conservative operatives, who are in an endgame in their effort to impose a new fascist order over the planet.

In a Nov. 16 interview on radio station DZAR in Manila, LaRouche described his own view of the special mission of the Philippines nation: “The Philippines has a very important pivotal role, some people would say geopolitically, in the entire region, of trying to bring together on a global scale for the first time, a world system, which is capable of accommodating both the European cultural heritage and Asian cultures. This is the great barrier, the great frontier, of a hopeful future for this planet: to bring together the cultures of Asia—which are different than those of Western Europe generally—with European culture, to get a global culture based on a system of sovereign nation-states, which understands that this unresolved cultural question has to be addressed, with a long-term view, of several generations, of creating an integrated set of sovereign nation-states as the system of the planet. So the Philippines is a very special country, with a unique importance for the people of Asia, in particular, in playing a key role in bringing about this kind of general integration of Asian and European civilizations.”

The lesson of the subversion of the Philippines in the 1980s for today is clear. Shultz is the eminence gris behind the neo-conservatives running the Bush Administration, which has brought the world to the current disastrous circumstance. It is also the case that the Philippines, although currently lacking any national leadership comparable to that of Marcos, is nonetheless facing a new coup threat, orchestrated by the same neo-conservative circles in Washington who were responsible for the 1986 coup.

The popular memory of Ferdinand Marcos today, in the U.S. and in the Philippines, is largely shaped by the massive disinformation campaign created in the early 1980s by the circles around then-Secretary of State Shultz, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. Marcos was accused of corruption, human rights violations, plunder, and even the murder of a political opponent, Benigno Aquino—and this caricature is repeated ad nauseam still today. While Marcos was not without faults, he was by far the last Filipino head of state to have understood the challenge of true leadership in a world slipping towards chaos. His overthrow by the Shultz cabal had nothing to do with the charges issued publicly, but were intended to stop his national development policies, and his international collaboration with LaRouche and others in countering the genocidal policies of the IMF, and bringing into being a new world economic system based on development and justice.
Marcos’s True Legacy

Marcos was elected President in 1965, just as the United States launched the disastrous and futile war in Indochina. The fact that the United States used its bases in the Philippines, Subic Bay and Clark Airfield in Luzon, as launching pads for the Indochina War, fed a domestic insurgency by the Maoist New People’s Army (NPA). Marcos was then treated as a close friend and ally of the United States. Even when he declared martial law in 1972, with the Indochina War still raging, the Administration of President Richard Nixon raised no objections.

But Marcos was not only concerned about “counterinsurgency” in declaring martial law. When he was elected President in 1965, the Philippines was still essentially a colonial economy, although the United States had granted full independence on July 4, 1946, as had been promised by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934. Productivity was low in both agriculture and industry: agriculture lagged as the Philippines relied on special access to U.S. food exports, and industry was confined to process industries, rather than the development of basic industries.

Marcos set out immediately to establish Philippine food self-sufficiency in rice and corn. This also required breaking the control of the landed aristocracy left over from the Spanish imperial era. Marcos was the first President of the Philippines who did not rise from this elite class, but was a “commoner” trained as a lawyer.

As President, he focussed on basic agricultural infrastructure, especially irrigation, in the major food-producing regions of Luzon and Mindanao. Credit facilities, mechanization, and the introduction of high-yield rice varieties, which needed irrigation, resulted in the elimination of rice imports by 1968.

Land reform, primarily a political problem, remained illusive. However, when Marcos imposed martial law in 1972, among his first acts was a proclamation that the entire nation was to be considered a “land reform area,” and a declaration that all tenants working land devoted primarily to rice and corn were to be the owners of that land, up to a specified limit. Despite the enraged opposition of the oligarchy, the program proved to be extraordinarily successful. Coupled with the infrastructure and mechanization improvements, a quarter of a million peasants became land owners, and grain productivity increased by half.

Another major step after the declaration of martial law was to contract with Westinghouse for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant—which was to be the first (and would still be the only) commercial nuclear power plant in Southeast Asia. While nuclear power is clearly the only sane solution to the energy requirements across the region, the sad saga of the Bataan Nuclear Plant symbolizes the pure evil of the policies enforced by the “economic hit men.” As originally contracted, the plant should have cost about $1 billion, and produced 1,200 MW of electricity by 1984. However, after the hysteria generated by the anti-nuclear “Nuclear Club of Wall Street” (see EIR, Dec. 3, 2004) following the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in Pennsylvania, the Carter Admistration imposed retroactive safety regulations which contributed to more than doubling the cost of construction. Then, after the overthrow of Marcos in 1986, one of the first acts of the new Presidency of Corazon Aquino was to mothball the fully completed, but never used, Bataan Nuclear Plant. The Philippines has been forced to pay countless billions in debt service, and pays still today over $155,000 per day, for this nuclear facility, without having drawn one watt of electricity from the state-of-the-art facility. Two further nuclear power facilities which were planned to provide 1,880 MW of electricity by 1991, were also scrapped.

Nuclear energy was not the only innovation of the Marcos regime. In 1979 Marcos announced a plan for 11 major industrial projects, with the intention of shifting the focus of the nation’s industrial economy from consumer goods to basic heavy industry. Included in the plan were steel, petro-chemical, pulp and paper, a copper smelter, aluminum, phosphate fertilizer, diesel engines, gas and oil, a coconut industry, and the nuclear power program.

The Marcos Administration, during the 1972-81 martial law period, tripled the country’s road network, doubled the electrification of the country’s homes, increased irrigated cropland eight-fold, and achieved rice and corn self-sufficiency.

Minimum daily wage rates tripled, although inflation, driven by international oil price hikes and exploding U.S. interest rates, more than wiped out these wage increases.
Enter the Economic Hit Men

This level of development—especially the capacity to free the nation from dependence on the international oil and raw materials cartels—was not to be tolerated by the international financial institutions. The contrived oil shortages of the 1970s left the Philippines, like all non-oil-producing nations, with huge debts. This was followed by the 20%-plus interest rates imposed by U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker in 1979, which doubled and tripled the debts of most Third World nations within a few years.

In 1981, Marcos lifted martial law. Also in that year, he attended the North-South Summit in Cancun, Mexico, organized by Mexican President José López Portillo (see accompanying article) where he spoke out for a “new world economic order,” and denounced the destructive “conditionalities” imposed by the IMF in exchange for financial assistance in a crisis. Then, in September 1981, Marcos pushed through the Philippine Congress nearly $4 billion worth of priority infrastructure projects, including irrigation, drainage and flood control programs, highways, telecommunications, and airports.

This was answered in 1982 (the year George Shultz became Secretary of State) by an IMF report which attacked Marcos’s projects, demanding debt payment instead: “In the Philippines situation, restraint on public investment could be an effective instrument for securing an improvement in the current account deficit.” IMF Director Jacques Delarosière lectured that the country had set “unrealistic growth targets,” while the World Bank denounced the Marcos government for supporting national industries.

These “softening up” raids were not adequate to control the Marcos government. Shultz visited Manila in the Summer of 1983, overseeing another 20% devaluation of the Philippine peso, thus further increasing the costs of financing the already-illegitimate foreign debt.

The full-scale assault began in the Fall of 1983, with the murder of Benigno Aquino. Aquino, an opposition leader whom Marcos had allowed to leave prison in order to get medical treatment in the United States (despite facing a death sentence for murder and subversion), chose to return to the Philippines in August 1983 after three years in the United States. He was gunned down as he emerged from his plane in Manila.

Although the actual conspirators were never officially discovered, the assassination was immediately blamed on Marcos, and the economic hit men called in the “jackals” (as Perkins called those whose job was to depose or even kill world leaders who resisted the demands of the economic hit men like himself). In the Philippines, Shultz and Wolfowitz doubled as economic hit men and jackals.

As to Aquino’s view of the pending threat to his life, he had been asked by the U.S. magazine Mother Jones in January 1983, while contemplating his return to the Philippines: “What do you think Marcos will do?” Aquino replied: “He will keep me alive, because he knows the moment I die, I am a martyr, like Martin Luther King, and he wouldn’t want that. Another possibility, he lets me out, and the communists knock me off. They blame Marcos. They have a martyr and they have eliminated a stumbling block.” Aquino also understood the actual cause of the economic disaster striking the Philippines: “If you made me President of the Philippines today, my friend, in six months I would be smelling like horseshit. Because there is nothing I can do. I cannot provide employment. I cannot bring prices down.”

Within two months of the assassination, the remaining credit lines to the Philippines were drastically cut, and another 21% devaluation was imposed. The nation was bankrupt. Finally, on Oct. 15, 1983, Marcos was allowed to declare a moratorium on the unpayable debt, but only on condition that the big projects he had backed to modernize the nation be scrapped, while many of the industries supported by the state were turned over to domestic and international vultures (this was done under the guise of accusing the owners of these industries of being corrupt “cronies” of Marcos).

The LaRouche movement, meanwhile, was sponsoring conferences in Bangkok, Thailand, one in October 1983, and another in October 1984, on the subject of the proposal authored by Lyndon LaRouche for “Development of the Pacific and Indian Ocean Basins.” Philippines Deputy Foreign Minister Pacifico Castro attended the 1984 Conference, speaking on “Regional Economic Cooperation and Security,” joined by government and business leaders from across the region. The conferences proposed such “Great Projects” as the Kra Canal in Thailand, and the physical transformation of Asia, as the driving force behind a new world economic order.

The opponents of Marcos were soon being wined and dined in Washington, by both the right wing (Shultz and Wolfowitz) and the left wing (Rep. Stephen Solarz, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and Princeton’s Richard Falk) of the “Project Democracy” apparatus, which performed the subversive tasks assigned by the synarchist banking institutions. Salvador Laurel, the son of the quisling President of the Philippines under the Japanese occupation, headed the opposition after Aquino’s assassination, and in February 1984, visited Washington, where he was greeted by Vice President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State Shultz. Representative Solarz introduced legislation into the Congress to abdicate the treaty regulating the U.S. bases in the Philippines, cutting the agreed aid to the Philippines by two-thirds. At the same time, a nest of anti-nuclear and anti-development NGOs in the United States took up the cause of overthrowing the “Marcos dictatorship,” including a gathering of anti-nuclear forces in Manila, including Richard Falk and representatives of the West German Green Party. Stephen Bosworth, a close collaborator of Henry Kissinger, was appointed Ambassador to the Philippines, and from that position he would subsequently orchestrate the coup against Marcos.

By October 1984, the Philippines was forced to submit to an IMF refinancing package that included an end to price controls on rice and other staples, a float of the peso, unrestricted foreign exchange speculation, import reductions, domestic austerity, and yet another devaluation—making a total of a 63.3% devaluation in one year, nearly doubling the cost of financing the foreign debt. Ironically, the opposition, fully supported and sponsored by the IMF-related institutions, rallied support among the population by denouncing Marcos for “acceding to the oppressive conditions of the IMF.”

Throughout 1985, President Ronald Reagan defended the American relationship with the Philippines and with President Marcos, despite the fact that Secretary of State Shultz and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz openly disagreed with that assessment, instead demanding Marcos’s head. The crisis came to a head in July 1984, when the U.S. Congress adopted the Solarz proposal to rip up the Bases Agreement, not only slashing the financial commitments, but insisting that the remaining aid be distributed not by the Philippine government, but by the Church, which, under Cardinal Jaime Sin, had openly called for insurrection against the government.

By November, the plans for insurrection were unveiled publicly, as the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the home of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brezezinski, carried out a “war game” against the Philippines, based on a scenario in which President Marcos is assassinated, Soviet “spetsnaz” commandos join the New People’s Army in taking over the Philippines, and the U.S. military goes into action to “save” the country.

The CSIS’s work in Asia was largely financed at that time by the C.V. Starr insurance empire, run by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg. Greenberg and C.V. Starr owned most of the insurance industry in the Philippines, and a number of Philippine politicians as well, and served as the crucial “on the ground” economic hit man in the Marcos coup.

Marcos continued fighting for the principle of a new world economic order. In November 1985, EIR and the Schiller Institute, the international association directed by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, invited Gen. Edgardo Mercado Jarrin (ret.), the head of Peru’s Institute of Geostrategic and Political Studies, to tour Asia, promoting the partial moratorium on foreign debt then being implemented by the Peruvian government. In addition to conferences in Thailand and India, General Mercado Jarrin and the EIR/Schiller Institute delegation met with President Marcos in Manila. Marcos told the delegation: “Third World Asian and South American countries should get together and push through the condonation of part of their loans. How can Third World countries pay their loans, amounting to $900 billion?” Marcos estimated that the paying capacity could not exceed $300 billion.

The Aug. 16 EIR published a story entitled “Plotting the Fall of an American Ally,” which reported that U.S. Ambassador Bosworth was plotting a military coup against the Marcos government. The article reported: “Bosworth now meets up to two hours every day with Acting Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Fidel Ramos, a West Point graduate whom the United States is attempting to groomn as a leader of a new civilian-military junta, despite his loyalty to President Marcos.” The story was based on information from reliable sources both in the Philippines and in Washington, where certain patriotic layers within the government, intelligence, and the military did not accept America’s transformation into an imperial power serving the synarchist financial interests.

The EIR exposée forced a public denial by General Ramos and by Ambassador Bosworth. As events proved, the warning was deadly accurate.

Marcos was finally coerced by Washington into calling new elections for February 1986, even though the Constitution mandated elections only in 1987. The opposition, in constant coordination with U.S. Ambassador Bosworth and the Shultz State Department, chose to run Aquino’s widow, Corazon Aquino, as the Presidential candidate, with Laurel for Vice President.

As still seen today in such neo-con-controlled “people’s power revolutions,” such as in Georgia and Ukraine, U.S. intelligence agencies financed and controlled the “citizen” electoral monitor organization, the National Movement for a Free Election (Namfrel), and prepared to declare “vote fraud” if the election did not go the way intended. Paul Wolfowitz in November 1985 told the U.S. Congress that there would be a “complete collapse of political confidence” if the elections were not perceived as “fair”—i.e., if Marcos were not defeated.

Indeed, on election day, the opposition was ahead in the early returns from Manila—which was expected—and Aquino was instructed to declare herself the winner. However, when the rural votes came in, where Marcos was still loved for the development he had brought to the nation, Marcos overtook Aquino and won the election.

In an astonishing public admission, former U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines William Sullivan (who had also been Ambassador to Iran when the Shah was overthrown by similar means in 1979), told CBS News on Feb. 9, two days after the Philippines election: “The facts as they emerge are becoming increasingly irrelevant, because it’s the perception that prevails both in the Philippines and, I think, internationally, that Mrs. Aquino won the election as far as the polling places were concerned, but the government, in the tabulation, changed the vote counts.”

As EIR had warned, General Ramos then led a military revolt against President Marcos, calling for crowds to surround the military base in the center of Manila, to create an image of “people’s power,” while the masses of the population were disenfranchised by the overthrow of their elected President. By the end of February, President Reagan had been convinced by Shultz to give up his defense of President Marcos, and endorse the military coup; Marcos and his family were sent to Hawaii.
IMF Carnage

The results of this subversion are still evident today in the decay of the economic and social fabric of the Philippines. Corazon Aquino fulfilled every IMF request, from the closure of the completed nuclear power facility to the deregulation and privatization of much of the economy. It was a surprise to some of Aquino’s supporters, but not to LaRouche, when the pro-IMF members of the Marcos Cabinet were retained in the new government. General Ramos took over directly in the next Presidential election in 1992, selling the nation to the Enrons of the West through corrupt, unequal contract agreements, especially in the energy sector, which left the country in absolute bankruptcy after the speculative assault on the Asian economies in 1997-98. Joseph Estrada, another “commoner,” was elected President in 1998, but was allowed only two years in office before another “economic hit man”-orchestrated-coup (again with General Ramos doing the bidding for his foreign controllers) brought him down in January 2001.

The current President, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has generally done what was demanded of her by the neo-conservatives in power in Washington. However, when she pulled the token Philippine military force out of Iraq, and then upgraded the country’s relations with China, she won the ire of her patrons, and is now facing the threat of yet another coup—with General Ramos again the neo-cons’ man on the scene.

LaRouche, together with his collaborators in the Philippines, intends to use this history of the economic hit men, in the Philippines and elsewhere, as a necessary part of the fight to end such criminality forever. As LaRouche concluded in his address to the Nov. 16 radio show quoted above: “I have had a long-standing special attachment to the Philippines, and I am very much concerned for its integrity and sovereignty and well-being today. I would be very happy, and the Philippines would make me very happy, by being truly sovereign, successful, growing, and peaceful again today. And you may expect that wherever I am and whatever I am doing, that commitment is very active within me, for very special reasons that I won’t bother going into, on this question of the Philippines. I am concerned. The sovereignty of the Philippines and the success of the Philippines as a sovereign Presidential republic is, to me, one of the necessary ingredients of a future for the whole Pacific area of the world.”

Ramtanu Maitra and Gail Billington contributed to the research for this report. The author can be reached at