So-called pro-democracy group Avaaz demonstrates that like other "pro-democracy groups" it's just a facade for US imperialism and enslaving US taxpayers to the Endless Unwinnable War Industry-Mint Press News, 2015, Guardian 2012

.
Avaaz foments cycles of violence: 

3/11/2015, “Avaaz: Pro-Democracy Group Or Facade For American Imperialism In The Middle East?” Mint Press News, Ramona Wadi 

“Avaaz’s support for NATO intervention in Libya shows how the “democratic” movement really supports a war-like, imperialist agenda.”  

“Avaaz’s petitions have by now become a worldwide phenomenon. The organization calls itself “a global web movement to bring people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere” and claims “a simple democratic mission.” Recent history indicates that Avaaz’s alleged democratic mission has more to do with U.S. policy of conquest and exploitation of the Middle East’s natural resources, rather than freedom for the people it claims to support. 

Claiming that its “priorities and power come from members,” Avaaz insists that it prioritizes causes which indicate a strong response from random samples sent to its members. According to the organization, there is no agenda in which the staff influences members’ decisions. Additionally, Avaaz claims that it is completely member funded and “No corporate sponsor or government backer can insist that Avaaz shift its priorities to suit some external agenda.” 

News reports, however, indicate the contrary. In 2011, as the Arab Spring fervor became an internationally-discussed topic with widespread support for the fall of existing regimes (in particular that of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi), Avaaz was a strong supporter of a no-fly zone in Libya, despite knowledge, earlier on, that many of the rebels had ties to al-Qaida. 

As early as 2011, Libyan rebels were already infiltrating Syria to join forces with fighters opposing Syria’s [elected President] Bashar al-Assad. Following the murder of Gadhafi and Libya’s collapse, weapons from Libya were being transferred into Syria for use by the Free Syrian Army [a foreign funded terror group]: 

[More on the “Free Syrian Army:” “The Dark Side of the Free Syrian Army,” 12/31/2012, Huffington Post, D. Wagner: “The U.S. government’s recent embrace of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has come at a critical time in the Syrian conflict. Momentum now seems to have shifted in favor of the FSA, which is being actively armed by financial and military assistance from a plethora of foreign governments.…The Western media has adopted a sympathetic orientation to the FSA and is not reporting many of the distasteful details that are coinciding with its rise. Indeed, there is an ugly side to the FSA that much of the Western media and its governmental supporters appear to be willfully neglecting….The issues surrounding political change in Syria are multifaceted and much more intricate than is being reported in the Western media, yet the conflict is being painted in simplistic black and white terms — as a battle between a dictator who brutalizes his people and the FSA, which is supposed to represent the aspirations and future freedom of the Syrian people....The FSA has been acting more like a force opposed to the citizens of Syria than a force intended to secure their freedom. For example, it has in the recent past stolen wheat reserves intended for the residents of Aleppo and sold it to private Turkish grain traders, expropriated stocks of pharmaceuticals and forcibly resold them back to its owners, and ransacked schools. These are hardly the actions of a ‘liberation force.’…In the outskirts of Aleppo, the FSA has implemented a Sharia law enforcement police force that is a replica of the Wahhabi police in Saudi Arabia–forcing ordinary citizens to abide by the Sharia code. This is being done in a secular country which has never known Sharia Law."…] 

(continuing): “According to British-Libyan arms dealer Abdul Basit Haroun, “The authorities know we are sending guns to Syria. Everyone knows.” 

The so-called humanitarian intervention in Libya, according to Wikileaks documents, was a covert orchestration on behalf of the U.S. to enforce its domination upon Libya’s vast oil resources. 

A look at Avaaz’s co-founders Ricken Patel and Tom Periello reveals an organization that has, at its helm, individuals who have been associated with groups directly linked to U.S. imperialism. 

In 2007, Perriello stated, “most of us have policy or diplomacy backgrounds, as well as activist, so the hope is that we will be doing these things at key diplomatic moments.” 

Perriello, also a former U.S. Representative, had links to Human Rights Watch and the ICG [the International Crisis Group].”… 

[More on backers of ICG such as Qatar: “The author of this Sunday’s [March 2019] New York Times magazine cover story about the campaign to boycott, divest, and sanction the state of Israel works for an organization whose major donor, Qatar [a supporter of Muslim Brotherhood], is also the largest state funder of the terrorist group Hamas. Other significant donors to the author’s organization, the International Crisis Group, are leading supporters of the anti-Semitic boycott movementthe author describes in his piece.

The publication of the article, “How the Battle Over Israel and Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics,” represents another salvo in the New York Times‘ continuing promotion of anti-Israel writers and views. 

The author, Nathan Thrall, is tied to a large network of BDS supporters that are funded into the millions by the Qatari government, which has long been engaged in efforts to spy on the American Jewish community and pro-Israel officials. Qatar’s foreign influence operations in Washington, D.C., have flown mostly under the radar, but are part of a larger proxy battle being waged by wealthy Middle Eastern governments eager to peddle influence in powerful D.C. circles. 

Thrall, who the Times presents as a disinterested expert, serves as director of the Arab-Israeli Project at the International Crisis Group, or ICG, a left-leaning advocacy organization that has received around $4 million from the Qatari government in the just the last year. Qatar’s donations represent around 6 percent of ICG’s total budget. Qatar is not mentioned in Thrall’s 11,500-word piece. 

ICG also has raised $1 million in the past several years from the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, a prolific and open funder of the BDS movement in the United States. 

Another significant portion of ICG’s funding—more than $5 million in the last three years—comes from the Open Society Foundations, run by liberal billionaire George Soros. Open Society funds dozens of Palestinian organizations that are prominent members of the BDS movement. 

ICG’s president is former Obama administration official Robert Malley, another Israel critic who was fired from President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election team after he met with the Hamas terror organization. He joined the Obama administration in 2014. 

Thrall has been affiliated with ICG during the bulk of his career, which dates to 2010 with bylines at the BBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post, and CNN….Thrall has openly expressed support for the BDS movement, which he claimed is the “leading cause for advocates of free speech.”… 

Thrall’s advocacy with the Qatari-funded ICG is raising further questions about influence peddling by terror-tied governments.“…3/29/19, “Author of NYT Anti-Israel Piece Works for Group Funded by Qatar,” Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo] 

(continuing): “Additionally Perriello also voted in favor of on-going war in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

[Avaaz’s] Patel has, in the past, worked for the United Nations, the International Crisis Group (ICG) and The Gates Foundation. On Feb 22, 2011, only days after the revolts in Libya started, the ICG issued a press release advocating for a no-fly zone, upon allegations that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi had ordered air attacks against civilians. The press release also called for “individual nations, particularly those with close ties to Libya, and international actors — such as the African Union, the Arab League, and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference — should support these and other similar measures.” 

It is clear that, within the context of the Arab Spring, Avaaz had clearly aligned itself with U.S. [Endless Unwinnable US taxpayer funded War] interests, relying upon sensational rhetoric and dubious claims to garner support for NATO intervention in Libya and influence public opinion on Syria. 

At the start of the Libyan revolt against Gadhafi, Avaaz quickly started a petition to the U.N. Security Council, the EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and European Foreign Ministers that called for a no-fly zone over Libya. The philosophy behind the petition was “hundreds have already been killed and, without immediate international action, the situation could spiral into a national bloodbath.” 

Closer to the U.N. Security Council debate on the no-fly zone, Avaaz launched another petition that called for “a massive outcry for a no-fly zone.” 

Avaaz’s eagerness to advocate for the no-fly zone was criticized by John Hilary in the Guardian — calling into question the organization’s willingness to jeopardize civilians’ lives in the name of humanitarian intervention carried out by NATO’s bombing. Within the context of Libya, Avaaz clearly collaborated with the mainstream media to carefully orchestrate public support in favor of Western intervention. As evident in the violence that has gripped Libya, Avaaz’s actions have clearly not constituted a humanitarian approach but, rather, acted as the means through which to garner public support for war based upon unverified propaganda. 

[Guardian writer] Hilary’s article, in which he stated that “Libyans are unlikely to be grateful to be bombed by those same Western governments attempting to enforce a no-fly zone,” elicited a lengthy comment by Ben Wikler, one of Avaaz’s campaign directors. 

According to Wikler, polls conducted by the organization were enough to prompt the petition’s commencement. While claiming that support for a no-fly zone originated among Libyans, Wikler takes great pains to emphasise that a no-fly zone does not have the same consequences as a military invasion on Libyan territory.

Further, Wikler admits that Avaaz “believes” that Gadhafi was bombing Libyan civilians, based upon “reports from our partners on the ground, from the Red Cross, and from a variety of local and international news reports.” 

Also, according to Wikler, Avaaz’s decision to advocate for the no-fly zone was based upon the fact that only 9% of the Avaaz community opposed the measure. In conclusion, Wikler states that petitioning in favour of a no-fly zone was based upon “expert opinion, popular support, and most of all, the rights and clearly expressed desire of the Libyan people.”

Considering mainstream media hype about NATO’s intervention in Libya, as well as its portrayal of the Libyan rebels as alleged freedom fighters, it is difficult to gauge Libyan civilians’ support for NATO’s bombing of Libya, which paved the way for additional violence and, within the current context, the spread of ISIS in Libya. 

However, as always, Avaaz’s concern is capitalizing upon the immense amount of signatures it is capable of garnering for many of their petitions. Libya’s aftermath, as is clearly evident, was of no concern to the organization which clearly aligned itself with U.S. interests. As long as Gadhafi was prohibited from murdering his own people — a phrase repeated incessantly during the NATO war — victims of imperialism including those targeted by NATO, collateral damage, the massacres of the people of Tawergha committed by the Misrata militias, factional violence, terrorism and ISIS, do not feature within Avaaz’s, and indeed, the U.S.’s concept of protecting civilians. 

Patel was also criticized for Avaaz’s role in Syria, which the founder ignored by stating “I spent four years right up close to this stuff, this isn’t new for me,” with reference to his years spent in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan and Afghanistan while working for the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. 

Whereas, in the case of Libya, Avaaz clearly opted for the no-fly zone, in Syria the organization pushed for “a diplomatic path forward that brings all parties to the table to negotiate a ceasefire and peace.” However, the organization also involved itself in aiding the opposition to [elected Pres.] Bashar al Assad: Avaaz sent satellite phones, provided internet equipment and “smuggled in 34 international journalists into the trouble zones.” 

The Arab Spring and its aftermath have served as a blueprint for the consequences of the [so-called] pro-democracy agenda and how it fuels support for Western imperialism. Avaaz has carved out a niche for itself in this regard — each signature adds to the global phenomenon of signing petitions without understanding their ramifications. For Avaaz, however, each so-called success should evoke questions of responsibility and accountability with regard to the organization’s role in fomenting the cycle of violence.”

……………………………… 

Added: About Avaaz: “Our team” Advocates for “citizens without borders.”...SEIU is among founding partners: 

“Avaaz.org was co-founded by Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and MoveOn.org, an online community that has pioneered internet advocacy in the United States. Avaaz.org was developed and established by a group of social entrepeneurs who have worked at the intersection of global justice issues and new online organizing techniques. Avaaz.org’s individual co-founders are Executive Director Ricken Patel, Jeremy Heimans, David Madden, Eli Pariser, Tom Perriello, Tom Pravda and Andrea Woodhouse. Avaaz.org is managed by a small team of campaigners on four continents. The Avaaz team conducts research on campaigns, prepares rapid-response Avaaz action alerts and notifies the media of Avaaz.org campaigns. Our campaign team consults with Avaaz.org members to develop campaigns and uses their feedback to set the priorities of the organisation. Avaaz.org also enjoys the partnership and support of leading activist organizations from around the world, including the Service Employees International Union, a founding partner of Avaaz, GetUp.org.au, and many others.” 

“Our mission”…

“Avaaz.org members are building a powerful movement of citizens without borders. As citizens without borders, we might not have the resources of governments, corporations or the media, but working together we can bring together millions of people around the world and make global public opinion really count on major global issues like poverty, climate change, human rights and global security. Using the latest technology, Avaaz.org empowers ordinary people from every corner of the globe to directly contact key global decision-makers, corporations and the media. By signing up to receive updates from Avaaz.org, members receive emails and text messages alerting them to new campaigns and opportunities to act online and offline, and to make a real difference on pressing global issues.”…2007

…………………………………………………. 

Added: 2012 Guardian article about Avaaz and its intervention in Syria: 

3/2/2012, “Avaaz faces questions over role at centre of Syrian protest movement,“ UK Guardian, Ed Pilkington, New York 

“It’s helped with logistics and supply in Syria, but is the activist group really equipped to operate in such a brutal war zone?” 

“Amid the mass of reporting and commentary around the bloody events in Syria this week, one aspect has largely gone unnoticed: the extraordinary role played by an online campaigning group that despite its infancy has managed to place itself at the centre of the unfolding crisis. Avaaz is only five years old [began in 2007], but has exploded to become the globe’s largest and most powerful online activist network. In Syria, it has become an important player in the crisis, acting as a co-ordinating hub and logistical supply route for the protest movement.

It was also centrally involved in the planning and co-ordination of this week’s operation to evacuate four western journalists in which 13 Syrian activists died under government shelling. 

The tragic loss of life, combined with Avaaz’s increasingly pivotal role in the Syrian uprising, has raised inevitable doubts about such a young organisation. In particular, questions have been asked about whether an internet campaign with such a limited track record is equipped to be operating in such a brutal war zone. 

The accusation of inexperience clearly irritates Ricken Patel, Avaaz’s Canadian-British co-founder and director. He stresses the personal experience of Avaaz’s senior team – the 20-odd war zones that Avaaz’s campaigns manager previously worked in; the time served by its campaign director at the US state department and Amnesty; and his own four years in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Afghanistan. 

“I spent four years right up close to this stuff, this isn’t new for me,” Patel says as we speak in Avaaz’s New York headquarters. He believes that doubts about Avaaz’s competence in war zones are the product of the traditional media’s misunderstanding of what it does….”The problem is the media just doesn’t get online organising. They look at it and think, ‘Oh, clicktivism!’ They just don’t understand it, and frankly it’s a bit tiring. We are washing our hands of it a little bit and getting on with the business of making a difference in the world.” 

Patel, empassioned now, says it will take time but eventually people will get it. “This stuff really does make a difference. You can raise more money online faster than any other model. You can mobilise people offline in the streets and protests faster.” 

Speed is certainly a quality that Avaaz has displayed in abundance – a product, Patel says, of its results-oriented culture. In 2007, it began as just a handful of online organisers armed with nothing but a few computers, a global ambition and a clever campaign slogan “to close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want”. 

Since then its internet membership has soared, doubling every year to 13.5 million. Its fundraising ability has followed suit: it has raised $3m through small donations to fund activities across the Arab spring. Its political reach, too, has grown exponentially, with the world’s top diplomats from Hillary Clinton down making a bee-line to Avaaz’s door. 

Initially, it was better known for its online petitions against such targets as Rupert Murdoch and climate change polluters. As time has passed it has taken more and more risks, expanding both the scale and scope of what it does – from “break the blackout” campaigns in Myanmar and Tibet, to engagement with the Arab spring uprisings in Tunisia and Libya…. 

Syria has certainly been risky. The group was quicker on the draw in responding to the first signs of the protest movement than most aid organisations, even than most media outlets that pride themselves in getting speedily to difficult places. 

To begin with, Avaaz sent a team of staff organisers to Lebanon after spotting the first signs of a nascent protest movement in Syria. Contact was then made with Syrian activists inside the country, and go-betweens recruited, notably Wissam Tarif, a highly respected Syrian pro-democracy leader who is widely consulted by journalists and senior western diplomats. 

From there its involvement in the Syrian Arab spring drew it steadily further and further into the conflict. First off Avaaz sent in hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of communications equipment – satellite phones and internet connections known as BGANs – that gave the protesters a link to the outside world. 

As with earlier Arab spring engagements in Tunisia and Libya, they realised that equipment alone was not enough: the protesters needed to know how to use it if they were to be effective. So Avaaz sent in trainers who could give grounding in how to use the satphones as well as basic training in citizen journalism. 

“Verification was a key element,” says Patel. “We could get stuff out, but the media didn’t know what they were looking at, or couldn’t be sure where it had come from. So we began playing the middle man, verifying information. That was in some ways the greatest value we brought to maintaining the oxygen of international attention on these protest movements.” 

Reports coming from Avaaz-trained citizen journalists in Homs and other key conflict zones, channelled through the Avaaz communications hub outside the country, has been a major source of information on the uprising and the regime’s bloody response, used by news outlets around the world. 

Getting in the equipment involved opening up smuggling routes across the Syrian border into hotbeds such as Homs and its most badly bombed neighbourhood, Baba Amr, which led Avaaz seemlessly into the next phase of its engagement. With the smuggling routes open, it could help get $2m of blood bags, tetanus shots, respiratory machines and other medical supplies into the country, bringing relief to communities that were desperate for help and that more establishment institutions like the ICRC had failed to reach.

It has also smuggled 34 international journalists into the trouble zones. Marie Colvin, the Sunday Times journalist, entered using another conduit, but the French photographer Remi Ochlik who died with her as a result of Syrian government shelling was helped in by Avaaz. 

Journalists who went in with Avaaz’s help have at times also needed help in escaping the violent suppression of the Syrian regime. So it was that Avaaz came to be involved in the evacuation mission of four western journalists last Sunday night [during which 13 activists died]. So what precisely was its role in that mission? 

“We provided the communications hub where messages could come and be relayed between the Syrian activist networks,” Patel explains. “In the course of that relaying our team gave advice. We were involved in the planning and the thinking, but we did not ink this plan or give a go or no-go order, or direct the operation.” 

Patel says that to have given such a top-down order would have utterly unethical given the risks involved. It would also have been against the core principles of Avaaz, which exists to connect online activists with those leaders on the ground who make their own decisions. 

“Think about the expertise that is needed here. You have a set of [so-called] Syrian activist networks that have [allegedly] sustained a peaceful protest movement in the face of every horror this [alleged] police state could throw at them. They know their country [for most it isn’t “their country,” most are US backed foreign jihadists] and how to do this better than anyone on the planet.” 

But does that absolve Avaaz from responsibility for what happened? “No,” Patel accepts. 

“I wouldn’t separate ourselves out from what happened. We were absolutely involved in the operation and we supported the co-ordination of it. We just didn’t make the final decision.” 

Patel says he is proud of Avaaz’s record, compared with that of more cautious international organisations. “The international community has failed to act, failed to support the Syrian people. [It’s not “the Syrian people,” it’s a US led “regime change" operation]. They’ve been full of words and light on actions. We’ve given concrete support and assistance.” 

But the loss of life has still been a heavy burden. He prefers not to think about the 13 who died in the latest mission, so much as the 8,000 who have died in total as a result of the [so-called] Syrian regime’s bloody reprisals. 

“To lose so many incredible activists who our team is very close to has been very hard. We feel sadness and despair at the cruelty that is being inflicted on these people and inspiration at the staggering bravery they are demonstrating.

Has he ever had any doubts about the fireball of energy that his creation has helped to unleash around the world? To organise a petition against News Corporation is one thing, to be involved in a life-and-death struggle in Syria another entirely. 

“No, not at all,” he says. “I think this has been one of our community’s finest moments.””




...............