Branding the revolution. posted by Richard Seymour

A while ago, I posted on the involvement of PR companies in the Iraqi elections . Introducing this week's surrealist human rights report from the State Department, Paula Dobriansky remarked :

"As the president noted in Bratislava just last week, there was a rose revolution in Georgia, an orange revolution in Ukraine, and most recently, a purple revolution in Iraq. In Lebanon, we see growing momentum for a 'cedar revolution' that is unifying the citizens of that nation to the cause of true democracy and freedom from foreign influence."

This was the first time the phrase 'cedar revolution' had been heard in relation to Lebanon. Timothy Garton Ash puts it mildly:

Spot the odd one out. "Purple revolution" in Iraq? Purple, as in the colour of blood? There's a vital difference between a democratic revolution which is peaceful, authentic and generated by people inside a country and one that is imposed, or kick-started, by a military invasion and occupation. To be sure, the former can and should be encouraged from outside.

...

But there's a problem if the brand name for Lebanese people power - cedar revolution - seems to come from a senior American official, who in the next breath talks about "freedom from foreign influence".

Branding.

When a spontaneous uprising is successfully overlaid with the branding given it by a foreign power, the narrative quickly follows, one that can be guided to a 'natural' ending by the script-writers. Bush shaking his finger in the air, demanding Syria's troops and intelligence forces leave Lebanon. US officials calmly hinting that Syria is on its last warning. Blair saying the regime has only one chance remaining. Assad saying he'll remove 'some' troops. The other side, about which we hear so little, has only one symbol: Flags held aloft by crowds in the square, the mythical centre of people's power, the scene of liberal democratic awakening which Europe and America can only gaze on with longing, given the corruption and hollowness of their own democracies.

The point, then, is to decouple them - America does not have ownership of this revolt, and any particular direction the struggle might take does not invite America to undertake corrective editing.