"The United States actively employs techniques to destabilise countries whose governments do not satisfy it for various reasons, and has effected regime change in a series of “colour revolutions.” This continues to be US policy."
From Wikipedia:
Colour revolution (sometimes called the coloured revolution) or color revolution is a term that was widely used by worldwide media[1] to describe various related movements that developed in several societies in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans during the early 2000s. The term has also been applied to a number of revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East. Some observers[who?] have called the events a revolutionary wave, the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines.
Participants in the colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been intended protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements generally adopted a specific colour or flower as their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative non-violent resistance.
Such movements have had a measure of success, as for example in the former Yugoslavia's Bulldozer Revolution (2000); in Georgia's Rose Revolution (2003); and in Ukraine's Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not all cases, massive street protests followed disputed elections, or requests for fair elections, and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian. Some events have been called "colour revolutions" but are different from the above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon's Cedar Revolution (2005); and Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005).
Government figures in Russia, such as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have charged that colour revolutions are a new form of warfare.[2][3] President Putin said Russia must prevent color revolutions, "We see what tragic consequences the wave of so-called color revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia."[4]
--------------------
No, Lavrov is wrong. The Blue Revolution? The Bulldozer Revolution? Never heard of 'em. The United States did not "effect regime change" in any of those.
In addition: The U.S. should have tried! If Lavrov thinks that anything he or anyone else says about U.S. support for people in other lands who are attempting to "effect regime change" nonviolently and through civil disobediance is going to stop America from supporting those people, then he imputes to himself WAY too much influence.
The American people would not stand for such non-interference. Our country was founded upon revolutionary change! Violent, too! America has never been an imperial power, never invaded another country to get it land, to get its resources or to subjugate its people.
Ask FDR the U.S. position on independence of India from Britain!
Ask Ike the U.S. position on Egyptian independence from Britain!
Ask Jimmy Carter the U.S. position on supporting human rights abroad!
Since Carter's presidency support for human rights has been a pillar of United States foreign policy, many times coming into conflict with realpolitik. We use our best judgment to resolve those conflicts but support for human rights is a real pillar of American relations with the rest of the world.
Ask Henry Kissinger!
Lavrov should re-read On China. The American people would not stand for an abandonment of the human rights pillar even if an American president were to propose it.
TAIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
From Wikipedia:
Colour revolution (sometimes called the coloured revolution) or color revolution is a term that was widely used by worldwide media[1] to describe various related movements that developed in several societies in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans during the early 2000s. The term has also been applied to a number of revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East. Some observers[who?] have called the events a revolutionary wave, the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines.
Participants in the colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been intended protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements generally adopted a specific colour or flower as their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative non-violent resistance.
Such movements have had a measure of success, as for example in the former Yugoslavia's Bulldozer Revolution (2000); in Georgia's Rose Revolution (2003); and in Ukraine's Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not all cases, massive street protests followed disputed elections, or requests for fair elections, and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian. Some events have been called "colour revolutions" but are different from the above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon's Cedar Revolution (2005); and Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005).
Government figures in Russia, such as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have charged that colour revolutions are a new form of warfare.[2][3] President Putin said Russia must prevent color revolutions, "We see what tragic consequences the wave of so-called color revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia."[4]
--------------------
No, Lavrov is wrong. The Blue Revolution? The Bulldozer Revolution? Never heard of 'em. The United States did not "effect regime change" in any of those.
In addition: The U.S. should have tried! If Lavrov thinks that anything he or anyone else says about U.S. support for people in other lands who are attempting to "effect regime change" nonviolently and through civil disobediance is going to stop America from supporting those people, then he imputes to himself WAY too much influence.
The American people would not stand for such non-interference. Our country was founded upon revolutionary change! Violent, too! America has never been an imperial power, never invaded another country to get it land, to get its resources or to subjugate its people.
Ask FDR the U.S. position on independence of India from Britain!
Ask Ike the U.S. position on Egyptian independence from Britain!
Ask Jimmy Carter the U.S. position on supporting human rights abroad!
Since Carter's presidency support for human rights has been a pillar of United States foreign policy, many times coming into conflict with realpolitik. We use our best judgment to resolve those conflicts but support for human rights is a real pillar of American relations with the rest of the world.
Ask Henry Kissinger!
Lavrov should re-read On China. The American people would not stand for an abandonment of the human rights pillar even if an American president were to propose it.
TAIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
