trusted? Is Gene Sharp compromised?
G. S. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
initial posting 13 Jan 2008 - last update 20 Jan 2008
This sad tale of an experience in what ought to be “the movement” for a decent world tells of my disenchantment with each of three “activists”: 1. F. William Engdahl, who I believe slandered Gene Sharp and Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution, 2. Sharp, who I believe compromised himself and his institution by training young Venezuelan “activists” in Boston in non-violent strategy for getting rid of the Hugo Chavez government, and 3. George Lakey, who rationalized training students seeking to “bring democracy” to their nations by unseating the government even when such efforts “happen” to support American foreign policy objectives.
De: George Salzman <email@example.com>
Enviado el: Domingo, 13 de Enero de 2008 11:53 p.m.
Para: John Repp <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CC: Gene Sharp <email@example.com>; George Lakey <firstname.lastname@example.org>; F. William Engdahl <email@example.com>; Patrick & Mary Denevan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Asunto: On non-violent struggle for social justice
Oaxaca, Sunday, 13 January 2008
The tragedy of Burma . . . is that its population is being used as a human stage prop in a drama scripted in Washington by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the George Soros Open Society Institute, Freedom House and Gene Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution, a US intelligence asset used to spark “non-violent” regime change around the world on behalf of the US strategic agenda
I would appreciate knowing your sources of information for the above ... I am asking for references because your article is the only one I have seen that mentions him or the AEI.”
On 10 November I wrote Engdahl, in part,
On 11 November I wrote
Lakey and Sharp, in part,
“My question to each of you is whether you have been or are involved in any way, either directly or indirectly, with the efforts apparently underway to get rid of the Chavez regime? I do not have in mind abstract or scholarly research and writing, but contacts of any kind, direct or indirect, with people acting on behalf of U.S. government interests, whether they are Venezuelan nationals or not, contacts such as, I imagine, Robert Helvey might entertain.”
It’s now a bit more than two months since I sent these direct inquiries to Engdahl, Lakey and Sharp. I have had no response from any of them to these last letters. It seems to me that my tentative view on 25 October was essentially correct.
This has been a lengthy and unpleasant affair. I have lost confidence in the solidity of each of the three people. If Engdahl is ready to slander people, as I believe, then how reliable is his analysis of the intricacies of geopolitics, and how well-based is his ready acceptance of the hypothesis that petroleum is not derived from former living matter, and will therefore not “run out”? And as for Sharp, has his political perspective become amenable to the efforts of the U.S. to dominate on the pretext of “promoting democracy”? Lakey’s work seems more grassroots oriented than Sharp’s, but I was not impressed with some of the arguments he offered. All in all pretty disappointing. And why was I so impressed with Engdahl’s article to begin with? Probably because I’m too credulous, too naive.
With all best wishes,
The documents with my correspondence with Engdahl, Sharp and Lakey are: