Monday, December 19, 2011

Iran’s Fear of a ‘Velvet Revolution’

This week, at the start of the fourth mass trial of opposition supporters in Tehran, an Iranian prosecutor read another indictment accusing leading reformist politicians and an Iranian-American scholar named Kian Tajbakhshof plotting to overthrow Iran’s government.
Iran’s judiciary charges that the protest movement that began after the June 12 presidential election was not a spontaneous outpouring of disgust but part of a plot intended to bring about what the government calls a “velvet revolution,” aided, they say, by foreign governments and the billionaire financier George Soros.
While Iran’s ruling cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did concede on Wednesday that it “has not been proven” that the post-election protests were foreign-led, he also reiterated the theory that opposition supporters did not flood Iran’s streets in the days after the election was declared a landslide victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because they believed the count was rigged. As my colleague Michael Slackman reports, Ayatollah Khamenei told a group of university students in Tehran, “There is no doubt that the events were planned” in advance of the election.
Leaving aside the fact that there appears to be no real evidence, save for what could be forced confessions, that such a plot existed, it is striking that the leaders of Iran’s Islamic republic appear to be obsessed with the peaceful transfer of power that took place in Czechoslovakia in 1989. For starters, the comparison is extremely unflattering to those in power. After the fall of the Berlin wall, the Czechoslovak Communist regime was so unpopular that it crumbled in a matter of days when it became clear that enforcing its will through violence against peaceful demonstrators was no longer an option.
But the larger problem for those in Tehran who look at the opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi and see an Iranian Vaclav Havel, is that Czech and Slovak dissidents led an entirely homegrown movement that was not in any way orchestrated by foreign powers. It was only after the collapse of Communist governments across Eastern Europe that the American government and Mr. Soros became involved in financing democracy-building programs.
Despite these and other logical problems with the argument, hard-line members of Iran’s government for quite some time have been trying to frame all opposition to their rule as an insidious plot against the foundations of the Islamic republic.
Before Iran’s presidential election this year,The Lede noted that the Washington-basedMiddle East Media Research Institute (also known as MEMRI) has helped document the role Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence has played in casting the people who have been attempting to reform Iran’s government as counter-revolutionaries who want to topple it.
The institute subtitled an elaborate, and unintentionally funny, public service announcement produced by the ministry, and broadcast last year, to help Iranians understand how their friends and neighbors might be involved in anti-government plots hatched in the White House.
In the P.S.A., embedded below, computer animated versions of John McCain and George Soros are shown meeting inside the White House to plot against Iran. The evil genius they confer with is an animated version of Gene Sharp, the political scientist whose theoretical work on nonviolent protest inspired the color revolutions of Eastern Europe.
Iranian hard-liners are now trying to convince the public that that is the kind of plot the government is facing. Whether it makes any sense, or is even believed by the men putting it forward, as the Iranian-American writer Hooman Madj said recently on PBS, “That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.”
Last week, in an op-ed headlined “Tehran’s Self-Fulfilling Paranoia,” Haleh Esfandiari, an Iranian-American scholar who was held in solitary confinement in Tehran’s Evin Prison for 105 days, wrote in The Washington Post that she knew this story only too well:
I was arrested in early 2007 on the ludicrous charge of attempting to foment a “velvet revolution” to overthrow the Iranian government and held as a political prisoner by the Intelligence Ministry. Even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has acknowledged the absurdity of these charges. [...]
In weeks of interrogation during my incarceration in 2007, I came to understand only too well the paranoia that drives Iran’s security agencies and its hard-liners. These men fear that they will be overthrown by a mass movement of their own people, similar to the popular movements, or “velvet revolutions,” that toppled autocratic regimes of the former Soviet empire in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus. They have convinced themselves that those earlier movements were not homegrown but were planned and orchestrated by the United States. They believe America is scheming to pull off a similar upheaval in Iran. [...]
A million Iranians poured into the streets in June in support of Mousavi and to protest a stolen election. The protests chilled the regime; the worst fears of the security agencies seemed to be playing out. It did not register with the government that the protesters were calling for reform, not revolution.
In Ms. Esfandiari’s reading, the government’s fear of revolution (perhaps not surprising in men who themselves came to power not through gradual reform but sudden revolution) may be self-fulfilling. It has led them to create the exact conditions under which an Iranian remake of the velvet revolution might come to pass: they have closed off all avenues to incremental change and resorted to violence against their own people. “The trials,” she writes, “have caused as much revulsion at home as abroad. Prominent Iranians have described the proceedings in Tehran as ‘Stalinist.’”
Ms. Esfandiari concludes:
Iran’s hard-liners have long feared a foreign-inspired upheaval. Ironically, they seem to have accomplished what their ubiquitous foreign “enemies” could not: They have planted the seeds for their own, homegrown velvet revolution.
This conclusion, that by closing off the possibility of gradual democratic reform, hard-line elements in Iran’s government are in fact making revolution more likely, matches that of Omid Habibinia, an Iranian blogger in Switzerland. In a post written earlier this month, Mr. Habibinia was scathingly critical of what he called “the stupidity and confusion of the remainder of reformists” in a struggle “against a police state who wants to eliminate them completely.”
From Mr. Habibinia’s perspective, the brutal security crackdown may have finally discredited the movement to reform the Islamic republic’s system of government:
The main characteristic of the movement after June 20th has been its radicalism and its disconnect from the so called reformist leaders. In other words within the ten days following the elections the movement changed from a silent protest demanding new elections to street fights trying to overthrow the regime. This surpassed even the demands of the most radical factions of the reformists.

Who Really Brought Down Milosevic?

The south of Serbia is known for plum brandy and gracious monasteries but scarcely for places like the Zulu Cafe in the small town of Vladicin Han, where the decor features African statuary and a favorite number is Lou Reed's ''Perfect Day.'' The sultry song wafts over this sleepy place, as unlikely as a rainbow, and abruptly everything does seem perfect enough: the sun is shining, the well-known police informer in the corner is showing scant interest in a stranger and Slobodan Milosevic is history, ousted in Europe's last democratic revolution. It is possible to taste freedom, just as it is possible to taste murder, and this Serbian air no longer acrid with blood is little short of intoxicating.
Davorin Popovic, 20, savors the light air laced with Reed's voice as he sips a grainy coffee. This establishment opened in June. At the time, before Serbia's October Revolution, a small-town bar with an African name was tantamount to sedition. Davorin compares his childhood here under Milosevic's 13-year rule to that of a ''hostage''; he talks of building Serbian democracy ''from the roots up''; he exudes a fresh-faced determination that seems almost miraculous in a country so warped by war, so lulled by lies. But I am interested less in the dreams of this young revolutionary than in his fresh scars. For they tell the hard stories of how power really changed hands in this country and of what a necessarily scarred Serbian future holds.
I have traveled southward from Belgrade, over bridges now repaired after NATO's 1999 bombing, because it was not the capital that toppled Milosevic, for all the stirring images of the federal Parliament in flames on Oct. 5. Rather, his overthrow came through a provincial uprising stirred in large measure by Serbian youth acting through a grass-roots movement called Otpor (''Resistance''). The provinces and the young turned on Milosevic with a venom that the dithering, protest-by-news-conference political dilettantes of the capital could never muster. And nowhere did popular anger arise more suddenly than in Vladicin Han.
For many years, the town of 9,000 was a typical bastion of the regime. Its setting in a fertile valley of fruit trees is seductive, but little of the charm has rubbed off on the dismal collection of buildings bisected by a railroad track. Here, the apparatchiks of Milosevic's Socialist Party instructed people how to vote if they wanted to keep their jobs in the timber and paper and fruit-juice factories. Serbian television used its monopoly to ram home a simple message: Milosevic or mayhem.
Few rose above the resulting fear to resist; those who did had to answer to Radivoje Stojimenovic, the burly chief of police. Davorin, a student of physical education, knew Stojimenovic because the top cop shopped for groceries at his father's store. Davorin also felt another connection -- his 25-year-old brother, Daniel, had joined the police in Belgrade. That sort of career choice earned families respect in Vladicin Han.
So, Davorin recalls, it was doubly shocking for him when, back in early September, he felt Stojimenovic's hands tighten on his throat as the police chief threatened to strangle him. ''Are you a terrorist?'' the policeman screamed, his breath thick with alcohol. ''Who is your leader? Where does your money come from?''
Davorin felt terror and rage rising in equal measure, but recalled the message of his Otpor training. Do not respond to violence. Overcome your fear, because when fear disappears the regime loses a central pillar of its power. Remember that violence is the last sanctuary of the weak.
He answered that his movement had no leader, that he knew nothing of its financing and that it strived only for a better future for Serbia. This was too much for the police chief. ''You should be ashamed of your betrayal of Daniel,'' he yelled, squeezing Davorin's neck hard enough to leave bruises before accusing him of belonging to a ''murderous organization for killing the Serbian people.''
Such was the official image of Otpor during the months leading up to the Sept. 24 election in which Vojilsav Kostunica would defeat Milosevic, opening the way for the Oct. 5 uprising that at last unseated the Serbian strongman. Against the warnings of his brother and the wishes of his parents, Davorin joined the movement early this year, soon after its local branch opened in a makeshift fitness center. Founded in Belgrade on Oct. 10, 1998, by a half-dozen survivors of the inconclusive student protests of 1996, Otpor had chosen a provocative symbol of defiance: a clenched fist, black-on-white or white-on-black, that riffed off the communist imagery (red fist) dear to Milosevic and his wife.
This uncompromising stance attracted Davorin. Like much of Serbian youth, after 13 years under Milosevic he could see no prospects for himself. No chance to travel, to earn a decent wage, to see an international rock group, to have a say in the governance of the country. Otpor, part political movement, part social club, offered hope. Joining up was a hard decision, in that it involved taming his fears, and an easy one, in that the movement seemed the only way out. Where once there was nowhere to go and nothing to do, now there was Otpor's headquarters and later, the Zulu. On weekends, when the fitness machines were removed, parties raged. There was the heady feeling of belonging -- to one another and to some promise, however dim, of changing the world.
Thousands of young Serbs -- more than 70,000 in all -- followed Davorin's path into activism. Backed by extensive financing from the United States, Otpor steadily coaxed them from the inertia and introspective desperation of the 1990's, when the most decisive act of the best and the brightest was emigration or draft evasion. Through marches and mockery, physical courage and mental agility, Otpor grew into the mass underground movement that stood at the disciplined core of the hidden revolution that really changed Serbia. No other opposition force was as unsettling to the regime or as critical to its overthrow.
Just how unsettling became clear to Davorin and several fellow activists in the early hours of Sept. 8. Under cover of night, they were out spray-painting Otpor fists and election slogans -- Gotov Je'' (''He's Finished'') and ''Vreme Je'' (''It's Time''). Briefly detained by the police, they were called back the next afternoon to be photographed and fingerprinted. But a routine, if disagreeable, session abruptly veered into a traumatic ordeal when Stojimenovic and two of his police cronies lurched back drunk from a long lunch.
The trigger was a T-shirt worn by Vladica Mircic, 22, a friend of Davorin, that proclaimed a truly terrible and terrifying thing: ''Promene'' -- Changes.'' What changes? the three policemen snarled, as they ripped the shirt off him. Who did he think he was? Mircic was pushed into an office where his ankles and wrists were tied before he was beaten to the brink of unconsciousness.
Another of Davorin's colleagues, Marko Pejakovic, 20, was sporting something almost as disturbing to the police as the T-shirt: an earring. Stojimenovic yanked at it, declaring the earring to be proof that Pejakovic was ''a decadent Muslim and a hater of Serbs.'' Shades of Bosnia. A fourth Otpor activist, Aca Radic, 23, endured a mock strangulation similar to Davorin's. All of them were threatened with ''liquidation'' on the nearby Kosovo border.
But in a small town, the disappearance for several hours of six youths will not long go unnoticed. By late evening, about 300 people had gathered outside the police headquarters. Davorin's father, Zoran, was on the phone demanding to know what had happened. ''I'm glad I found out relatively late, or I might have done something I regret with my hunting rifle,'' he says.
As it was, by the time Zoran and Daniel Popovic reached the police station, Davorin and his friends had already been released and were at the local health clinic. When Daniel, who was on leave from his police duties in Belgrade, saw his brother's wounds, he felt ''disappointed and ashamed.'' He had not supported Davorin's joining Otpor, but neither could he tolerate such action by the police.
His disillusionment was widely shared. Parents, relatives and friends of the students turned away from a regime that they had grudgingly supported but that had now indulged, before their eyes, in gratuitous violence against unarmed kids. In other provincial towns, similar, if usually less dramatic, incidents also moved people to a new courage, as more than 2,000 Otpor activists were detained. ''Nobody could ever convince me that Milosevic would go,'' says Davorin's mother, Dragica Popovic. ''But this beating changed my ideas.''
Otpor's founding principles were straightforward, refined by the failure of earlier agitation: remove Milosevic because otherwise nothing will change; spread resistance to the provinces; galvanize a cowed population by providing examples of individual bravery; be hip, funny where possible, in order to create a contemporary message; avoid a hierarchy because the regime will co-opt any leader. ''The idea was, cut off one Otpor head, and another 15 heads would instantly appear,'' says Jovan Ratkovic, an early member.
Among the heads were those of Slobodan Homen, who dealt with international contacts; Srdja Popovic (no relation to Davorin and Daniel), who managed ''human resources''; Ivan Andric, who took charge of slogans and ''marketing''; and Pedrag Lecic, who oversaw the logistics of distributing tons of material through clandestine channels. Outrage over Serbian war crimes in Bosnia or Kosovo had little to do with the movement, but the fierce frustration of an Internet generation condemned under Milosevic to the status of international pariah had a lot to do with it. ''We wanted to be normal,'' Homen says, ''to be able to raise our own children here.''
From the start, Otpor's leaders shunned violence because they believed guerrilla tactics would play to Milosevic's strengths. But they were less sure how to attack his weaknesses. It was not long, however, before they found a host of willing -- and well-financed -- instructors.
American assistance to Otpor and the 18 parties that ultimately ousted Milosevic is still a highly sensitive subject. But Paul B. McCarthy, an official with the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy, is ready to divulge some details. McCarthy sits in Belgrade's central Moskva Hotel, enjoying the satisfaction of being in a country that had long been off limits to him under Milosevic. When he and his colleagues first heard of Otpor, he says, ''the Fascistic look of that flag with the fist scared some of us.'' But these feelings quickly changed.
For those Americans intent on bringing democracy to Serbia, the student movement offered several attractions. Its flat organization would frustrate the regime's attempts to pick a target to hit or compromise; its commitment to enduring arrests and even police violence tended to shame the long-squabbling Serbian opposition parties into uniting; it looked more effective in breaking fear than any other group; it had a clear agenda of ousting Milosevic and making Serbia a ''normal'' European state; and it had the means to sway parents while getting out the critical vote of young people.
''And so,'' McCarthy says, ''from August 1999 the dollars started to flow to Otpor pretty significantly.'' Of the almost $3 million spent by his group in Serbia since September 1998, he says, ''Otpor was certainly the largest recipient.'' The money went into Otpor accounts outside Serbia. At the same time, McCarthy held a series of meetings with the movement's leaders in Podgorica, the capital of Montenegro, and in Szeged and Budapest in Hungary. Homen, at 28 one of Otpor's senior members, was one of McCarthy's interlocutors. ''We had a lot of financial help from Western nongovernmental organizations,'' Homen says. ''And also some Western governmental organizations.''
At a June meeting in Berlin, Homen heard Albright say, ''We want to see Milosevic out of power, out of Serbia and in The Hague,'' the site of the international war crimes tribunal. The Otpor leader would also meet with William D. Montgomery, the former American ambassador to Croatia, in the American Embassy in Budapest. (Washington had by then severed diplomatic relations with Belgrade.) ''Milosevic was personal for Madeleine Albright, a very high priority,'' says Montgomery, who was yanked out of Croatia in June to head a group of officials monitoring Serbia. ''She wanted him gone, and Otpor was ready to stand up to the regime with a vigor and in a way that others were not. Seldom has so much fire, energy, enthusiasm, money -- everything -- gone into anything as into Serbia in the months before Milosevic went.''
Just how much money backed this objective is not clear. The United States Agency for International Development says that $25 million was appropriated just this year. Several hundred thousand dollars were given directly to Otpor for ''demonstration-support material, like T-shirts and stickers,'' says Donald L. Pressley, the assistant administrator. Otpor leaders intimate they also received a lot of covert aid -- a subject on which there is no comment in Washington.
At the International Republican Institute, another nongovernmental Washington group financed partly by A.I.D., an official named Daniel Calingaert says he met Otpor leaders ''7 to 10 times'' in Hungary and Montenegro, beginning in October 1999. Some of the $1.8 million the institute spent in Serbia in the last year was ''provided direct to Otpor,'' he says. By this fall, Otpor was no ramshackle students' group; it was a well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States.
But other American help was as important as money. Calingaert's organization arranged for a seminar at the luxurious Budapest Hilton from March 31 to April 3. There a retired United States Army colonel, Robert Helvey, instructed more than 20 Otpor leaders in techniques of nonviolent resistance. This session appears to have been significant. It also suggests a link between the American-influenced opposition base in Budapest and the events in Vladicin Han.
It was Aca Radic, one of the students tortured in Vladicin Han, who founded the Otpor branch there. His motives were similar to Davorin Popovic's. ''I just felt, enough of tolerance,'' he says. ''Enough of patience.'' So this good-looking young man -- like Davorin, a student of physical education -- made his way up to Belgrade in December 1999. At the Otpor office there, he was closely questioned and then given flyers, leaflets, sprays, posters, Otpor T-shirts and $130 and a cell phone. ''I was happy,'' Radic said, ''I felt like a revolutionary going home to spread the word.''
The man who gave him this insurrectionary material was Srdja Popovic. Lean and trenchant, Srdja calls himself -- half jokingly -- the ''ideological commissar'' of Otpor. He combines a Leninist intensity with the skills of a Washington lobbyist. (His favorite word is ''networking.'') It was he who coordinated the training of Otpor's 70,000 members in 130 branches, including the one that opened in Vladicin Han.
These training methods were heavily influenced by Helvey. Gathered in a conference room of the Budapest Hilton (''We thought it was stupid to organize a revolution in a luxury hotel,'' Srdja says, ''but the Americans chose that place''), the Otpor activists listened as Helvey dissected what he called the ''pillars of support'' of the regime. These naturally included the police, the army and the news media, but also the more intangible force of Milosevic's ''authority.'' That is, his capacity to give orders and be obeyed.
Find nonviolent ways to undermine authority, Helvey suggested. Look at Myanmar. There, the opposition National League for Democracy took a farmer's hat as its symbol; so everyone started to wear farmer's hats. The regime tried to make the hats illegal, but such repression merely provoked outrage.
The same thing would happen in Serbia with Otpor's T-shirts adorned with the fist symbol. ''We focused on breaking Milosevic's authority, on ways to communicate to dissatisfied people that they are the majority and that the regime could only dig itself into a deeper hole through repression,'' Srdja recalls. ''We learned that fear is a powerful but vulnerable weapon because it disappears far faster than you can recreate it.''
Helvey stressed the sources of momentum in a nonviolent movement. ''There is an enormous price -- domestic and international -- paid today for using force against a nonviolent movement,'' he says. ''The battle is asymmetrical. The dictator still may hold the externalities of power, but he is steadily undermined.'' This process has been dubbed ''political ju-jitsu'' by Gene Sharp, an American writer who is close to Helvey and who emerged as a sort of guru to Otpor leaders. His book ''From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation,'' became a samizdat passed around Otpor branches in the last months of Milosevic's rule. In it, Sharp writes, ''The stark brutality of the regime against the clearly nonviolent actionists politically rebounds against the dictators' position, causing dissension in their own ranks as well as fomenting support for the resisters among the general population, the regime's usual supporters and third parties.''
Srdja is often to be found in Belgrade with heavily underlined copies of Sharp's work, parts of which were translated into Serbian as the ''Otpor User Manual.'' Not for nothing were Otpor's activities drawn from Sharp's list of 198 ''methods of nonviolent action.'' In an interview, Sharp says: ''My key principle is not ethical. It has nothing to do with pacifism. It is based on an analysis of power in a dictatorship and how to break it by withdrawing the obedience of citizens and the key institutions of society.''
According to Srdja, Otpor simply represents the ''ideology of nonviolent individual resistance.'' It was developed, he says, ''because we finally understood that nobody from Mars was going to come and remove Milosevic.'' Organization was intense. Throughout Serbia, activists were trained in how to play hide-and-seek with the police, how to respond to interrogation, how to develop a message in posters and pamphleteering, how to transfer fear from the population into the regime itself and how to identify and begin to infiltrate Helvey's ''pillars of support'' in the police and elsewhere.
Just how effective that infiltration was became clear to Srdja 12 days before Milosevic's July 27 call for a presidential election. Otpor received advance word of Milosevic's intentions in secret e-mailed messages from anonymous dissenters within the regime. As a result, Otpor already had more than 60 tons of electoral propaganda ready on July 27. Some of it went to Vladicin Han, where Aca Radic and his friends went out every night to plaster slogans. When he was arrested and beaten seven weeks later, Radic had a last message to communicate to the police: ''I was silent as they beat me, determined not to react, trying to look Stojimenovic in the eye to show him I was not afraid and convey one thing: You can hit us and beat us, but our time will come as well.''
From his position as deputy commander of the police in a central Belgrade neighborhood, Daniel Popovic was well placed to observe the growing unease provoked by Otpor. Daniel is a calm young man, reflective and ponderous where his brother, Davorin, is brisk and agitated. Daniel's manner is less intense than his brother's, his features softer, his movements slower. He is of conservative disposition, more inclined to value order than change.
Daniel says he became a policeman ''because I like justice and have a very strong sense of injustice.'' In 1994, he moved to the capital from Vladicin Han to begin his studies at the police academy, qualifying five years later. Married to a half-Croatian woman named Milena, he has a 1-year-old daughter, Anastasia, whom he clearly adores.
But life has scarcely been playful over the past couple of years. Daniel was almost dispatched to Kosovo during the NATO war; he lost several young colleagues there. Then, early this year, he started hearing about Otpor, described within the police as an enemy of the state and a stooge of Madeleine Albright. As the Otpor alarm began to sound, he received disturbing news: his brother, Davorin, had joined the movement.
''At the time, I told him I could not support him, but would not condemn him,'' Daniel recalls. But on May 13, things changed. The governor of the northern province of Novi Sad, a senior member of Milosevic's party, was assassinated by a deranged gunman. The regime, with no evidence, accused Otpor of the killing, calling it a ''terrorist organization'' for the first time. Daniel received instructions that Otpor activists were to be treated as ''terrorists.'' Anyone detained was to be interrogated, photographed and fingerprinted -- a procedure he knew to be illegal. Still, he had to follow instructions.
After some hesitation, the young policeman decided to alert his activist brother. ''I told him what the situation was,'' Daniel says. ''I told him that a file would be opened on him if he was arrested, and there was a strong possibility he might be detained. I warned him things were getting unpleasant.'' The response surprised Daniel. ''Davorin told me he was aware of the dangers, but he did not seem to care.''
This exchange captured, in microcosm, the shifting psychology of Serbia, a change that would lead to Europe's last democratic revolution. On the one hand, a weary young policeman, earning $65 a month, embittered by the regime's paltry reaction to the death of colleagues in Kosovo (their widows received a free vacation on the coast), unhappy that joining Milosevic's party (or that of his wife) was the only passport to high rank, troubled by an apparently disproportionate onslaught on young people like his brother. On the other, a student with nothing to lose, tired of the small-town oppression that has been his only lot, trained to understand that breaking the regime may involve absorbing its blows, convinced, as an Otpor sticker put it, that Serbia had reached a point of Sad ili Nikad -- Now or Never.''
Daniel did his duty. After May, he found himself fingerprinting dozens of Otpor activists caught doing anything from distributing matchboxes to putting up a poster. But violence was never used on them in Belgrade, he says. ''The movement spread very quickly,'' he adds, ''and its courage caused panic in the police.''
So how did he feel as part of an institution that was a chief bulwark of the regime? It was my job, Daniel ventures. He was there to protect order, the constitution, laws. The clampdown on Otpor was an ''overreaction,'' but it ''came from the very top.'' He had to be neutral. ''I don't know about defending the regime,'' he continues, sipping a plum brandy made in his hometown. ''My friends and I tried to tell ourselves we did not work for one side or the other, but for the people.''
Then came the beatings in Vladicin Han, a profoundly disturbing incident to Daniel. The most moving moment occurred when Davorin told his family that his beating had been accompanied by charges that he was disgracing his brother. No, Davorin insisted, the truth was otherwise: he was fighting in Otpor so that his brother and sister-in-law and 16-month-old niece might have a future, a decent police wage to live on, an apartment they could afford in a country no longer isolated. Davorin continued: ''We know the educated police are on our side. Only the bullies are with Milosevic.''
Daniel looks at me, a sort of helpless half smile on his face, as if to say: What could I respond to that? And suddenly, all the anguish, the misery, the upheaval of the four wars of Yugoslavia's destruction, of the hundreds of thousands of dead, of the countless divided families and broken homes, wells up in this Belgrade room, and the face of Daniel's wife, Milena, cracks like parched earth, and she sobs uncontrollably. ''Incompetent and bad people made the Serbian people guilty, made us cursed for living in such a beautiful country, refused us a decent living and created hatred everywhere,'' she says. ''My mother is a Croat. My grandparents are Croats and live in Dubrovnik, and I have not seen them for 10 years. It was Milosevic's regime that created this hatred. They wanted Serbs against Croats, then Serbs against Bosnians, then Serbs against Kosovars -- and at last Serbs against Serbs.''
She looks at her husband and then adds with vehemence: ''But Daniel and Davorin were not going to let Serbs kill Serbs.''
She is crying. Little Anastasia is in her father's lap. The television, for so long the vehicle of Milosevic's hate-mongering propaganda, is blaring. The decade-long tide of Balkan destruction has touched these people like everyone else, but unlike many of Milosevic's victims, they are at least alive. Milena tries to control her tears. Her mother works in the southern town of Vranje, near Vladicin Han, for one of the wealthiest members of the kleptocracy installed by Milosevic, a man named Dragan Tomic, who runs a furniture conglomerate called Simpo. He's a thief and a criminal, Milena says; he threatens; he intimidates; he bestrides the place. Her mother earns $28 a month in a Simpo canteen, and, Milena says, ''she was told to vote for Milosevic or be fired.''
There was similar pressure among the police. But Daniel and his wife, like a large number of police families, did not vote as instructed. Votes, however, were never going to be sufficient to topple Milosevic, and he began, as ever, to maneuver to divide the opposition. Kostunica did not have the required 50 percent of the vote (in fact, he had at least 52 percent); a second round of voting would be needed, perhaps even a whole new election because of fraud. Otpor's response, like the rest of the opposition, was to take to the streets. And as the climactic demonstration of Oct. 5 loomed, Daniel faced an alarming prospect.
''I thought a lot about what might happen if I confronted Davorin,'' he says. ''I could not be sure that I would not confront him in the crowd, or, perhaps worse, that policemen who did not know he was my brother would confront him. I was very worried. There were strange things happening. Very few police were being readied compared to those available. There were no water cannons, no helicopters. It seemed that either it was a preparation for a surrender or a preparation of a scenario in which a defenseless policeman would get shot and provide an excuse for Milosevic to bring in the army.''
Dragica Popovic, the mother of Daniel and Davorin, is trembling. After Davorin's beating, she could not sleep. She was afraid the phone was tapped. Sometimes the phone would ring inexplicably in the middle of the night. She and her husband, Zoran, wanted to disconnect it. But what if Daniel needed to call them from Belgrade? ''Fear crept completely inside us,'' she says.
They had warned Davorin, even before the beating, to desist. They knew Otpor would bring him problems. The regime was ''in each and every pore.'' At her timber factory, the pressure to back Milosevic was unrelenting. She told her younger son to be quiet, to stay out of politics, because nothing good would come of any election. But he shot back, ''Yes, you're afraid you'll lose your job, and Dad is afraid he'll lose his store, and Daniel's in the police, but somebody has to start with something!''
In 1996, Dragica and Zoran had voted for Milosevic. It was not that they were happy with the situation. But they had a son in the police. ''It was a kind of psychosis,'' Dragica says. ''If Milosevic goes, everything will fall apart. Somebody will bomb us, the Kosovo Albanians will take our land, all hell will break loose. So we voted to keep him.''
All hell broke loose anyway: the Kosovo war and NATO bombs that sent whole dinners -- including one memorable chicken -- flying off their table; the loss of Kosovo, the very province whose fate Milosevic had used back in 1987 to propel himself to power as the messiah of a Greater Serbia; friends of Daniel killed; salaries falling; Albanians rising.
Still, Dragica and Zoran thought they would vote for Milosevic again -- until they saw what happened to their son in the local police station and turned to Kostunica. But with scant hope. ''I thought Milosevic would win, and we'd have to leave Vladicin Han,'' she says.
After the vote, more confusion. And mounting fear. On Oct. 5, the day of the huge demonstration that turned into a revolution, hundreds of people left Vladicin Han in cars and buses for the capital. Dragica did not know where her sons were. ''That was the most agonizing day,'' she says. ''The Parliament was burning, and I thought Daniel was there, and I was not sure where Davorin was, and we just could not get more crazy than that day. It was like splitting in two; I did not know who to worry about more. One in the police, one against the police. And I felt my brain would break apart.''
She can hold back the tears no longer. This middle-aged woman, so determined to salvage the vestiges of her dignity, is sobbing. I have seen so many rooms full of tears since I first accompanied a bus of raging Serbian nationalist volunteers into Bosnia in 1992 that I sometimes feel grief has become the very matter and substance of this corner of Europe, a sort of Balkan anti-oxygen that millions of people have been forced to breathe. Once again, the cause of the tears is division. In this case, of two boys. In others I have known, of husband and wife, of brother and sister, of Serb and Muslim, of Serb and Albanian, of the living and the dead. Dragica Popovic does not know it, but the Balkan shipwreck overseen by Milosevic has left her relatively unscathed.
She need not have worried. Early in the morning of Oct. 5, Daniel Popovic received a call ordering him and his police unit out of Belgrade to the Kolubara mine complex, 30 miles south of the capital, where thousands of workers had called a strike that had been critical in weakening Milosevic. This odd order amounted to another signal that the regime was crumbling from within as well as from without. For why, Daniel wondered, should the police be ordered to leave the capital when hundreds of thousands of protesters were converging on it?
At Kolubara, where the police had already shown they were not ready to use force to break the strike, Daniel spent the day chatting amiably with workers and drinking coffee. Meanwhile, no more than a few hundred policemen confronted the demonstrators.
It is now clear that important elements of the police and the army, as disillusioned as Daniel Popovic, had been won over to the opposition side before the federal Parliament went up in smoke and Milosevic decided to quit, ostensibly, he said, ''to spend more time with my grandson.'' The Otpor manual of Gene Sharp had been emphatic on this point: ''Defiance strategists should remember that it will be exceptionally difficult, or impossible, to disintegrate the dictatorship if the police, bureaucrats and military forces remain fully supportive of the dictatorship and obedient in carrying out its commands. Strategies aimed at subverting the loyalty of the dictators' forces should therefore be given a high priority.''
They were, says Zoran Zivkovic, the mayor of the southern city of Nis and a close ally of Otpor. ''We had secret talks with the army and police, the units we knew would be drafted to intervene,'' he confides. ''And the deal was that they would not disobey, but neither would they execute. If they had said no, other units would have been brought in. So they said yes when Milosevic asked for action -- and they did nothing.'' It was this impassivity that allowed Zivkovic and other regional mayors, particularly Velimir Ilic of Cacak, to bring in the tough men from the provinces that got the job done.
To the last, leading members of the regime, like Dragoljub Milanovic, the head of the hated Serbian television (or ''TV Bastille''), and his news editor, Milorad Komrakov, believed that the army would save them. They had been promised military vehicles to escort them from the building. But the army never came. To save his skin, Komrakov was forced to go on camera and make a snivelling plea to Milosevic: ''I am begging you, for the sake of the honor of the Serbian people, to recognize the victory of the people, so we can live normally like the rest of the world.''
Normality -- the long-held dream of Otpor. In the end, Davorin was far from his brother, Daniel, and far from danger, on the day Serbia rose. He was in Nis, working with Otpor activists there. Others from Otpor's Vladicin Han branch, including its founder, Radic, were in Belgrade meeting scant police resistance as they stormed the Parliament. Zoran Popovic, the boys' father, says now: ''The kids should have been born earlier to make these changes.'' And what if they had found themselves on the barricades, Daniel on one side, Davorin on the other, with Serbia's fate between them? ''Of course,'' says Daniel, ''I would have put my arms around my brother.''
There he sits, Radivoje Stojimenovic, the police chief of Vladicin Han, the man who left bruises on Davorin Popovic's neck and directed a drunken orgy of kicking and beating against the young Otpor activists. He has survived the revolution. Dressed in a gray suit that is a little too tight for him, he greets me with a very firm handshake. Beside him are two phones and a fax machine. On a table in a corner is a computer keyboard but no sign of a computer. Behind him are a couple of withering plants and shelves full of trophies won, he explains, for marksmanship.
Well, he says, twiddling his thumbs, he would like to be courteous to a visitor from as far away as New York, but he cannot say much without authorization from the Interior Ministry. I should understand, he suggests, that it is much harder to be a policeman in a small town than in Belgrade. People react emotionally. They all know one another. That makes things difficult. ''But we are professionals and do everything by the book. The problem is, things get politicized.''
Stojimenovic adjusts his watch and for no apparent reason moves some scissors on the desk in front of him. His eyes are somber, small, shrewd. He offers some coffee. There is talk of the weather and the NATO bombing (''That's high politics, too much for us ordinary mortals,'' he opines), and then I put the question: ''What was the reason for the beating of the six kids from Otpor on Sept. 8?''
Silence. He looks a little uncomfortable, then gathers himself. ''It did not happen,'' he says. I look him in the eye, where I find only a sort of blankness, and try another approach. ''You mean the accounts of the beatings have been exaggerated?'' He thinks about that. ''No,'' he repeats finally. ''They did not happen.''
I shudder inwardly. Suddenly I am in another Balkan place with another small-town Serbian official who was busy reinventing the past. That man's name was Mihajlo Bajagic, and, at the time in 1994, he was mayor of an ethnically cleansed Bosnian town called Vlasenica, where more than 18,000 Muslims had lived. The Muslims were gone, most of them driven out, many of them slaughtered by the Serbs in a local camp called Susica, and I was asking Bajagic what had happened to them. The answer I received was that they had ''simply run away of their own accord.''
And it becomes clear to me, looking at the impassive Stojimenovic, remembering Bajagic, that this is what Davorin and Aca Radic and Srdja Popovic and Slobodan Homen and all the bold young men and women behind Serbia's strangely bloodless revolution will have to come to terms with: the lies, the distortions, the reinventions, the holes in time, the frenetic scrambling of turncoats that are the legacy of the darkest period of Serbia's history. It was a decade or more in which the Serb as eternal victim was incapable of seeing that this time around the Serb was more often the perpetrator of terrible crimes. These are the scars the coming generation will carry.
They do not want to see them now; they are busy with other things. Like the ''future'' and ''democracy'' and ''Europe.'' But this revolution, imprinted to the end with Otpor's nonviolent ethos, has stopped at a sort of halfway house where shadows lurk: Milosevic is alive and in Serbia; Stojimenovic and thousands like him are still in their jobs; the new government still has a blacklist of journalists, including such distinguished American correspondents as Roy Gutman and Christiane Amanpour, accused of ''satanizing'' Serbia, whatever that means.
''My conscience is clear,'' Stojimenovic announces to me as he bids me farewell. ''The ministry will clarify everything. We in the police are at the service of the state. I have no intention of resigning. I am a professional, and this is my job. We will see what the future brings.''
That Serbian future, in many respects, lies with Otpor. ''We hope the new generation of leaders will come from Otpor's ranks,'' says Montgomery, the Budapest-based American diplomat, who is set to move to Belgrade as ambassador when diplomatic relations are restored. That would be a fair return on America's investment in the movement.
But it is a reasonable bet that things are about to get complicated for Otpor. Zivkovic, the mayor of Nis, who is now also Interior Minister in the Kostunica government, calls Otpor ''the best political project in Serbia since the state's creation.'' But, he adds, if the integrity of its achievement is to be preserved, Otpor should disband itself immediately. Its job is done.
No, say many Otpor members. The first part of Otpor's mission is accomplished: Milosevic is gone. But the second, far more ambitious goal of making Serbia a ''normal European country'' persists. ''We want to be like everyone else: work, have jobs with value, be governed by intelligent people rather than illiterate thugs, live under the rule of law,'' Davorin says. He insists Otpor must persevere, not to have power itself, but ''to act as a watchdog of all powers.'' As a start, he and his friends have brought a lawsuit against Stojimenovic and his police cronies.
''We will remain to remind Kostunica: people are watching you, man,'' says Srjda Popovic, the movement's self-styled ideological commissar. ''Don't forget, democracy starts here. You are responsible to the people.'' He rushes from meeting to meeting, cell phone in one hand, slice of pizza in another, trying to organize the future. Otpor is to have six departments: international, political, press, a research organization, human resources and a department dealing with reform of universities. ''We're getting organized because we don't trust the politicians to change this country,'' says Srjda. He's thinking big: ''We would like to be in the encyclopedia of nonviolent resistance with Gandhi and Martin Luther King. We have a right to dream about that.''
But before the dreams, the reality. Tensions abound. Homen, now formally in charge of ''international relations,'' wants Otpor to be transformed into a political party. He reckons -- probably accurately -- that ''65 percent of what was the Serbian opposition is us.'' That is a considerable potential force. He yearns, he says, to live in a country ''where Otpor is not necessary.'' It is clear enough that this young man, like many of his colleagues, has political ambitions.
A party, however, would need a leader; many believe that would be the death knell for Otpor. Vladica Mircic, the student whose T-shirt bearing the word ''Changes'' proved so provocative in Vladicin Han, thinks a central task for Otpor now is ''to get rid of Serbia's cult of leaders and messiahs. Milosevic was the savior of the Serbs, and look where we are now. That is why Otpor must never become a political party. We should be a popular movement to remind leaders of the limits of their power.''
While the debate on its future rages, Otpor is everything and nothing in the new Serbia. It is not a party; it is not even registered as a nongovernmental organization. Yet, in what is destined to become a capitalist country, it is probably Serbia's most respected brand name. As McCarthy of the National Endowment for Democracy notes, ''Otpor was always as much a state of mind as a movement.'' Some American officials are pressing the group to register and make its budget at least semitransparent. But the response from Otpor leaders is that the situation in Serbia is still too sensitive.
Dilemmas, dilemmas. After the revolution, Serbia is broken: decrepit factories, twisted minds, embedded pain, corrupted institutions. There are people prepared to admit errors; there are also the myriad, malleable Serbian mythmakers who have already wrought such havoc. I gaze at all these bright young activists who emerged from a decade of deadening destruction and wonder at their earnest vitality and obstinate patriotism even as I worry that the scale of the task ahead -- not least the shattering of myths -- will either break them or simply elude them.
''Milosevic must be held responsible,'' Davorin says. ''We cannot forget, so that he gets to spend time with his grandson.'' But where to begin? Of course, Davorin says, there were crimes against ''others.'' But the most evil, he insists, was done by Milosevic to his own people. ''Muslims, Croats, Albanians had one war,'' he says, ''but we Serbs were in all of them. That is why we want to try Milosevic here and not in The Hague.''
Davorin was 12 when Milosevic went to war in Bosnia. How much can he know or should he know? But I want to tell him that he is wrong to imagine that Serbs suffered most in the wars. What he saw in that Vladicin Han police station -- the thuggery, the anti-Muslim slurs, the drunken violence -- was nothing but a mild refrain from the thunderous crescendo of butchery that filled Muslim mass graves in Bosnia and similar pits of death in Kosovo. I want to tell him that, yes, as all the young men and women of Otpor like to note, there are a lot of Serbian refugees in Serbia; but there were also millions of German refugees in Germany after World War II, and if Milosevic was emphatically not Hitler, the spasm of nationalist frenzy he unleashed was the closest thing Europe had seen in five decades to the mass murder of Nazi expansionism. Folly has its backlash. I want to express many things, including the idea that you cannot build Serbia's craved ''normality'' on a foundation of unacknowledged killing, but I am silent.
''There were three sides in Bosnia,'' Davorin goes on. ''It's not easy to disentangle. It's a bit like the three rooms where we were beaten in the police station. There was violence in all of them. And we are still trying to collect all the information on that. Imagine how difficult it is then for Bosnia. Everyone must be held accountable.''
Daniel Popovic wants some accounting done, too, like the purging of all the policemen promoted just because they joined Milosevic's party, or the ouster of Stojimenovic. Politics and the police should be separated at last. ''I still believe in justice, and that Anastasia has a future here in Serbia,'' he says. ''But we are fearful.''
To dispel this insidious fear, Srdja Popovic has an idea. Let the Serbian people rock! ''We need R.E.M. in Belgrade first,'' he says, ''then we can speak of Srebrenica,'' the small Bosnian town where 7,000 Muslims were slaughtered by Serbian forces in 1995. Srdja continues: ''Let's get a relaxed atmosphere, then we'll speak of the NATO bombing. Everyone here has been through a 10-year trauma and needs positive incentives. America helped us remove a dictator. Now, please, give Serbs a chance.''
It was for a chance that Davorin fought in his closed little town. ''We knew we had to go to the end, because it would be too late when they switched off the lights and started killing people,'' he says to me at the Zulu Cafe. There is life in his eyes, as powerful and undeniable as all those Balkan images from the past decade of dead limbs entwined in patterns of silent, ghostly horror. I struggle to find some appropriate balance between this life still touched with innocence and all that death still unconfronted here in Serbia, but in the end can only fall silent again and listen to that hypnotic American voice of Velvet Underground fame:
''It's such a perfect day, I'm glad I spent it with you. Oh, such a perfect day, you just keep me hanging on. . . . You're going to reap just what you sow. You're going to reap just what you sow. You're going to reap just what you sow. . . . ''

A Green Revolution for Iran?

As election fever grips Tehran, and it begins to seem possible that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could lose to his main rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi, in Friday’s presidential election, Iranians who want to stick with the incumbent have been dropping hints that the campaign to vote him out of office might be the culmination of some sort of foreign plot to undermine their country.
After a rally for Mr. Ahmadinejad at Tehran’s largest mosque on Monday, a man explained to Lindsey Hilsum of Britain’s Channel 4 News (about 1 minute into the video report embedded below) that “all these people want Islamic republic — not liberal democracy, not Orange Revolution.” The fact that Mr. Moussavi’s supporters have made a color — in this case green, which has solid Islamic credentials — the symbol of their movement probably just reinforces the fear among some Iranians that what they are witnessing is a local version of the Orange Revolution, which swept an opposition government into power in Ukraine.
Iranians come by their willingness to believe that foreigners are plotting against them honestly, since American and British intelligence agents did, in fact, conspire to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. More recently, Seymour Hersh reported just last year that the Bush administration was spending hundreds of millions of dollars on covert operations designed to destabilize the country’s government. Then last month a senior Democratic Congresswoman, Jane Harman, seemed to suggest that the United States should be encouraging separatist movements inside Iran. While Ms. Harman apologized for her remarks, a spate of recent bombings and attacks in Iran, possibly carried out by separatists, has made Iranians wonder if the Obama administration’s policy towards them might involve bombs as well as barbecues.
But Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence has cultivated these fears as well. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, last year the ministry produced and broadcast an elaborate, and unintentionally funny, public service announcement warning Iranians that Western pro-democracy movements were really covers for anti-government plots hatched in the White House.
INSERT DESCRIPTIONStill frame from a video produced by Iran’s intelligence ministry (via MEMRI.org).
In the long-form commercial posted, with subtitles, on MEMRI.org, (registration required) animated versions of John McCain and George Soros are shown meeting inside the White House to plot against Iran. The evil genius they confer with is an animated version of Gene Sharp, the political scientist whose theoretical work on nonviolent protest inspired the color revolutions of Eastern Europe.
While there is no sign that Mr. Moussavi, a former prime minister of Iran in the 1980s, really is some sort of Western puppet, the fact that his campaign has made an issue of how Mr. Ahmadinejad has alienated Iran from the West might make it easier for his opponents to cast him as somehow soft on America.
Mr. Moussavi and his supporters seem unbowed by these sorts of accusations though. Chants of “Death to America” at rallies for Mr. Ahmadinejad this week were answered by chants of “Death to the Taliban — in Kabul and Tehran” at a rally for Mr. Moussavi. The candidate’s articulate and engaged wife has even been compared with America’s first lady (though, when asked this week about her role in her husband’s campaign, she stated simply: “I am not Michelle Obama”). On the streets of Tehran, and on Flickr, the opposition leader’s green-clad supporters have been seen waving posters of him bearing the promise, in English, of “a new greeting to the world.”
That last slogan makes it clear that Mr. Moussavi shares more than just a middle name with the new American president. Mr. Obama’s speech in Cairo last week was called “A New Beginning: Engaging With Muslims Worldwide,” and throughout his own campaign, Mr. Obama argued that his country needed a new leader who could abandon the confrontational foreign policy of the previous administration. Looking at the size and intensity of the demonstrations by his supporters in Tehran this week, it is clear that Mr. Moussavi has convinced some Iranians that their time for change has come, too. On Friday we will find out if a majority of the country’s voters feel the same way.
For a better look at how the campaign is playing out on Tehran’s streets this week, here is Ms. Hilsum’s report for Channel 4 News:

The Power of Mockery

The juiciest story behind the Middle East uprisings doesn’t concern Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s “voluptuous” Ukrainian nurse or C.I.A. bags of cash. Rather, it’s the tale of how a nonviolent revolutionary strategy crafted by Serbian students and an octogenarian American scholar came to challenge dictators in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain and many other countries.
This “uprising in a bottle” blueprint was developed by the Serbian youth movement, Otpor, to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. One of Otpor’s insights was that the most effective weapon against dictators isn’t bombs or fiery speeches. It’s mockery. Otpor activists once put Milosevic’s picture on a barrel that they rolled down the street, inviting people to hit it with a bat.
Otpor’s strategy mirrors one promoted by a rumpled Boston academic named Gene Sharp, who is little known in America but inspires tremors among dictators abroad. Sharp’s guide to toppling despots has been translated into 34 languages so far and was widely circulated in Egypt last year in Arabic.
After Otpor toppled Milosevic, it began to hold seminars for pro-democracy activists from other parts of the world, including many from the Middle East.
“About 15 of us went to Serbia from Egypt,” Mohammed Adel, one of the leaders of Egypt’s awesome April 6 Youth Movement, which helped lead the way in overthrowing President Hosni Mubarak, told me a few days ago. “The methods we learned from Serbia are what we are using in Cairo.”
A crucial lesson, he said, is the power of nonviolence: “If somebody is beating you, don’t attack him. Don’t use any violence against them. Just take photos of them and put them on the Internet.”
Toppling dictators is only one application of this kind of grass-roots movement. One of the most exciting trends in the struggle against poverty and social pathologies such as crime is the use of similar youth-owned movements to change cultural norms from the bottom up.
Tina Rosenberg, a longtime writer and journalist who contributes to the Opinion section of nytimes.com, offers a brilliant look at bottom-up initiatives to achieve social change in her new book, “Join the Club.” My favorite example has to do with teenage smoking.
From the 1970s through the 1990s, nothing seemed to work to dissuade teenagers from smoking. Television commercials warned that smoking kills you or turns your teeth yellow, but teenagers felt invulnerable. And with adults united in disapproval of teenage smoking, what better way for adolescents to rebel than to cough their way through a cigarette?
Then in the late-1990s, some frustrated anti-smoking campaigners showed teenagers how cigarette companies were manipulating them into addiction. Starting in Florida, the teenagers then designed a series of funny and withering commercials, many based on prank phone calls.
One depicted a couple of teenagers telephoning an ad agency that promoted cigarettes. The kids tried to give the agency a prize for killing teenagers in large numbers, flummoxing the staff.
In one multistate commercial, a young man calls a cigarette company and says that he is a dog walker. Then he explains his business proposition: He wants to sell dog urine. “Dog pee is full of urea, and that’s one of the chemicals in cigarettes,” he explains.
“It is likely that never before in the history of public health had anyone done a media campaign based on prank phone calls,” Rosenberg notes — but it worked.
The youth campaign spread to other states and avoided any goody-two-shoes message of “don’t smoke.” It channeled kids to rebel against tobacco instead of rebelling by using tobacco. Florida had the biggest one-year drop in high school and middle school smoking of any state in two decades. The high school smoking rate dropped in half in less than a decade.
The team effort to change culture isn’t new. It’s part of the model of Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers, microfinance lending groups and many initiatives to chip away at poverty, crime and gang violence. Rosenberg cites a housing project area in the District of Columbia, Benning Terrace, where 53 people had been killed in gang violence over two years. Then a group of local ex-convicts and former drug addicts intervened and began working with the gangs.
The ex-convicts had street cred that the police and social workers didn’t, and they worked with young people to make gang violence “uncool.” There wasn’t another gang-related killing for 13 years.
Another example is an extraordinarily successful effort to improve the performance of black college students in calculus. Started at the University of California, Berkeley, after black students there earned an average grade of D+ in calculus, it puts black and Hispanics into small groups to provide peer support, and participants by some measures now outperform white and Asian students.
Sometimes the most powerful force for social change is a bunch of irreverent and wise-cracking students, working together. 

A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History

As protesters in Tahrir Square faced off against pro-government forces, they drew a lesson from their counterparts in Tunisia: “Advice to the youth of Egypt: Put vinegar or onion under your scarf for tear gas.”
The exchange on Facebook was part of a remarkable two-year collaboration that has given birth to a new force in the Arab world — a pan-Arab youth movement dedicated to spreading democracy in a region without it. Young Egyptian and Tunisian activists brainstormed on the use of technology to evade surveillance, commiserated about torture and traded practical tips on how to stand up to rubber bullets and organize barricades.
They fused their secular expertise in social networks with a discipline culled from religious movements and combined the energy of soccer fans with the sophistication of surgeons. Breaking free from older veterans of the Arab political opposition, they relied on tactics of nonviolent resistance channeled from an American scholar through a Serbian youth brigade — but also on marketing tactics borrowed from Silicon Valley.
As their swelling protests shook the Egyptian state, they were locked in a virtual tug of war with a leader with a very different vision — Gamal Mubarak, the son of President Hosni Mubarak, a wealthy investment banker and ruling-party power broker. Considered the heir apparent to his father until the youth revolt eliminated any thought of dynastic succession, the younger Mubarak pushed his father to hold on to power even after his top generals and the prime minister were urging an exit, according to American officials who tracked Hosni Mubarak’s final days.
The defiant tone of the president’s speech on Thursday, the officials said, was largely his son’s work.
“He was probably more strident than his father was,” said one American official, who characterized Gamal’s role as “sugarcoating what was for Mubarak a disastrous situation.” But the speech backfired, prompting Egypt’s military to force the president out and assert control of what they promise will be a transition to civilian government.
Now the young leaders are looking beyond Egypt. “Tunis is the force that pushed Egypt, but what Egypt did will be the force that will push the world,” said Walid Rachid, one of the members of the April 6 Youth Movement, which helped organize the Jan. 25 protests that set off the uprising. He spoke at a meeting on Sunday night where the members discussed sharing their experiences with similar youth movements in Libya, Algeria, Morocco and Iran.
“If a small group of people in every Arab country went out and persevered as we did, then that would be the end of all the regimes,” he said, joking that the next Arab summit might be “a coming-out party” for all the ascendant youth leaders.
Bloggers Lead the Way
The Egyptian revolt was years in the making. Ahmed Maher, a 30-year-old civil engineer and a leading organizer of the April 6 Youth Movement, first became engaged in a political movement known as Kefaya, or Enough, in about 2005. Mr. Maher and others organized their own brigade, Youth for Change. But they could not muster enough followers; arrests decimated their leadership ranks, and many of those left became mired in the timid, legally recognized opposition parties. “What destroyed the movement was the old parties,” said Mr. Maher, who has since been arrested four times.
By 2008, many of the young organizers had retreated to their computer keyboards and turned into bloggers, attempting to raise support for a wave of isolated labor strikes set off by government privatizations and runaway inflation.
After a strike that March in the city of Mahalla, Egypt, Mr. Maher and his friends called for a nationwide general strike for April 6. To promote it, they set up a Facebook group that became the nexus of their movement, which they were determined to keep independent from any of the established political groups. Bad weather turned the strike into a nonevent in most places, but in Mahalla a demonstration by the workers’ families led to a violent police crackdown — the first major labor confrontation in years.
Just a few months later, after a strike in Tunisia, a group of young online organizers followed the same model, setting up what became the Progressive Youth of Tunisia. The organizers in both countries began exchanging their experiences over Facebook. The Tunisians faced a more pervasive police state than the Egyptians, with less latitude for blogging or press freedom, but their trade unions were stronger and more independent. “We shared our experience with strikes and blogging,” Mr. Maher recalled.
For their part, Mr. Maher and his colleagues began reading about nonviolent struggles. They were especially drawn to a Serbian youth movement called Otpor, which had helped topple the dictator Slobodan Milosevicby drawing on the ideas of an American political thinker, Gene Sharp. The hallmark of Mr. Sharp’s work is well-tailored to Mr. Mubark’s Egypt: He argues that nonviolence is a singularly effective way to undermine police states that might cite violent resistance to justify repression in the name of stability.
The April 6 Youth Movement modeled its logo — a vaguely Soviet looking red and white clenched fist—after Otpor’s, and some of its members traveled to Serbia to meet with Otpor activists.
Another influence, several said, was a group of Egyptian expatriates in their 30s who set up an organization in Qatar called the Academy of Change, which promotes ideas drawn in part on Mr. Sharp’s work. One of the group’s organizers, Hisham Morsy, was arrested during the Cairo protests and remained in detention.
“The Academy of Change is sort of like Karl Marx, and we are like Lenin,” said Basem Fathy, another organizer who sometimes works with the April 6 Youth Movement and is also the project director at the Egyptian Democratic Academy, which receives grants from the United States and focuses on human rights and election-monitoring. During the protesters’ occupation of Tahrir Square, he said, he used his connections to raise about $5,100 from Egyptian businessmen to buy blankets and tents.
‘This Is Your Country’
Then, about a year ago, the growing Egyptian youth movement acquired a strategic ally, Wael Ghonim, a 31-year-old Google marketing executive. Like many others, he was introduced into the informal network of young organizers by the movement that came together around Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize-winning diplomat who returned to Egypt a year ago to try to jump-start its moribund political opposition.
Mr. Ghonim had little experience in politics but an intense dislike for the abusive Egyptian police, the mainstay of the government’s power. He offered his business savvy to the cause. “I worked in marketing, and I knew that if you build a brand you can get people to trust the brand,” he said.
The result was a Facebook group Mr. Ghonim set up: We Are All Khalid Said, after a young Egyptian who was beaten to death by police. Mr. Ghonim — unknown to the public, but working closely with Mr. Maher of the April 6 Youth Movement and a contact from Mr. ElBaradei’s group — said that he used Mr. Said’s killing to educate Egyptians about democracy movements.
He filled the site with video clips and newspaper articles about police violence. He repeatedly hammered home a simple message: “This is your country; a government official is your employee who gets his salary from your tax money, and you have your rights.” He took special aim at the distortions of the official media, because when the people “distrust the media then you know you are not going to lose them,” he said.
He eventually attracted hundreds of thousands of users, building their allegiance through exercises in online democratic participation. When organizers planned a “day of silence” in the Cairo streets, for example, he polled users on what color shirts they should all wear — black or white. (When the revolt exploded, the Mubarak government detained him for 12 days in blindfolded isolation in a belated attempt to stop his work.)
After the Tunisian revolution on Jan. 14, the April 6 Youth Movement saw an opportunity to turn its little-noticed annual protest on Police Day — the Jan. 25 holiday that celebrates a police revolt that was suppressed by the British — into a much bigger event. Mr. Ghonim used the Facebook site to mobilize support. If at least 50,000 people committed to turn out that day, the site suggested, the protest could be held. More than 100,000 signed up.
“I have never seen a revolution that was preannounced before,” Mr. Ghonim said.
By then, the April 6 movement had teamed up with Mr. ElBaradei’s supporters, some liberal and leftist parties, and the youth wing of the Muslim Brotherhood to plaster Cairo with eye-catching modernist posters advertising their Tunisia-inspired Police Day protest. But their elders — even members of the Brotherhood who had long been portrayed as extremists by Mr. Mubarak and the West — shied away from taking to the streets.
Explaining that Police Day was supposed to honor the fight against British colonialism, Essem Erian, a Brotherhood leader, said, “On that day we should all be celebrating together.
“All these people are on Facebook, but do we know who they are?” he asked. “We cannot tie our parties and entities to a virtual world.”
‘This Was It’
When the 25th came, the coalition of young activists, almost all of them affluent, wanted to tap into the widespread frustration with the country’s autocracy, and also with the grinding poverty of Egyptian life. They started their day trying to rally poor people with complaints about pocketbook issues: “They are eating pigeon and chicken, but we eat beans every day.”
By the end of the day, when tens of thousands had marched to Tahrir Square, their chants had become more sweeping. “The people want to bring down the regime,” they shouted, a slogan that the organizers said they had read in signs and on Facebook pages from Tunisia. Mr. Maher of the April 6 Youth Movement said the organizers even debated storming Parliament and the state television building — classic revolutionary moves.
“When I looked around me and I saw all these unfamiliar faces in the protests, and they were more brave than us — I knew that this was it for the regime,” Mr. Maher said.
It was then that they began to rely on advice from Tunisia, Serbia and the Academy of Change, which had sent staff members to Cairo a week before to train the protest organizers. After the police used tear gas to break up the protest that Tuesday, the organizers came back better prepared for their next march on Friday, the 28th, the “Day of Rage.”
This time, they brought lemons, onions and vinegar to sniff for relief from the tear gas, and soda or milk to pour into their eyes. Some had fashioned cardboard or plastic bottles into makeshift armor worn under their clothes to protect against riot police bullets. They brought spray paint to cover the windshields of police cars, and they were ready to stuff the exhaust pipes and jam the wheels to render them useless. By the early afternoon, a few thousand protesters faced off against well over a thousand heavily armed riot police officers on the four-lane Kasr al-Nile Bridge in perhaps the most pivotal battle of the revolution.
“We pulled out all the tricks of the game — the Pepsi, the onion, the vinegar,” said Mr. Maher, who wore cardboard and plastic bottles under his sweater, a bike helmet on his head and a barrel-top shield on his arm. “The strategy was the people who were injured would go to the back and other people would replace them,” he said. “We just kept rotating.” After more than five hours of battle, they had finally won — and burned down the empty headquarters of the ruling party on their way to occupy Tahrir Square.
Pressuring Mubarak
In Washington that day, President Obama turned up, unexpectedly, at a 3:30 p.m. Situation Room meeting of his “principals,” the key members of the national security team, where he displaced Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, from his seat at the head of the table.
The White House had been debating the likelihood of a domino effect since youth-driven revolts had toppled President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, even though the American intelligence community and Israel’s intelligence services had estimated that the risk to President Mubarak was low — less than 20 percent, some officials said.
According to senior officials who participated in Mr. Obama’s policy debates, the president took a different view. He made the point early on, a senior official said, that “this was a trend” that could spread to other authoritarian governments in the region, including in Iran. By the end of the 18-day uprising, by a White House count, there were 38 meetings with the president about Egypt. Mr. Obama said that this was a chance to create an alternative to “the Al Qaeda narrative” of Western interference.
American officials had seen no evidence of overtly anti-American or anti-Western sentiment. “When we saw people bringing their children to Tahrir Square, wanting to see history being made, we knew this was something different,” one official said.
On Jan. 28, the debate quickly turned to how to pressure Mr. Mubarak in private and in public — and whether Mr. Obama should appear on television urging change. Mr. Obama decided to call Mr. Mubarak, and several aides listened in on the line. Mr. Obama did not suggest that the 82-year-old leader step aside or transfer power. At this point, “the argument was that he really needed to do the reforms, and do them fast,” a senior official said. Mr. Mubarak resisted, saying the protests were about outside interference.
According to the official, Mr. Obama told him, “You have a large portion of your people who are not satisfied, and they won’t be until you make concrete political, social and economic reforms.”
The next day, the decision was made to send former Ambassador Frank G. Wisner to Cairo as an envoy. Mr. Obama began placing calls to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and other regional leaders.
The most difficult calls, officials said, were with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Mr. Netanyahu, who feared regional instability and urged the United States to stick with Mr. Mubarak. According to American officials, senior members of the government in Saudi Arabia argued that the United States should back Mr. Mubarak even if he used force against the demonstrators. By Feb. 1, when Mr. Mubarak broadcast a speech pledging that he would not run again and that elections would be held in September, Mr. Obama concluded that the Egyptian president still had not gotten the message.
Within an hour, Mr. Obama called Mr. Mubarak again in the toughest, and last, of their conversations. “He said if this transition process drags out for months, the protests will, too,” one of Mr. Obama’s aides said.
Mr. Mubarak told Mr. Obama that the protests would be over in a few days.
Mr. Obama ended the call, the official said, with these words: “I respect my elders. And you have been in politics for a very long time, Mr. President. But there are moments in history when just because things were the same way in the past doesn’t mean they will be that way in the future.”
The next day, heedless of Mr. Obama’s admonitions, Mr. Mubarak launched another attack against the protesters, many of whom had by then spent five nights camped out in Tahrir Square. By about 2:30 p.m., thousands of burly men loyal to Mr. Mubarak and armed with rocks, clubs and, eventually, improvised explosives had come crashing into the square.
The protesters — trying to stay true to the lessons they had learned from Gandhi, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gene Sharp — tried for a time to avoid retaliating. A row of men stood silent as rocks rained down on them. An older man told a younger one to put down his stick.
But by 3:30 p.m., the battle was joined. A rhythmic din of stones on metal rang out as the protesters beat street lamps and fences to rally their troops.
The Muslim Brotherhood, after sitting out the first day, had reversed itself, issuing an order for all able-bodied men to join the occupation of Tahrir Square. They now took the lead. As a secret, illegal organization, the Brotherhood was accustomed to operating in a disciplined hierarchy. The group’s members helped the protesters divide into teams to organize their defense, several organizers said. One team broke the pavement into rocks, while another ferried the rocks to makeshift barricades along their perimeter and the third defended the front.
“The youth of the Muslim Brotherhood played a really big role,” Mr. Maher said. “But actually so did the soccer fans” of Egypt’s two leading teams. “These are always used to having confrontations with police at the stadiums,” he said.
Soldiers of the Egyptian military, evidently under orders to stay neutral, stood watching from behind the iron gates of the Egyptian Museum as the war of stone missiles and improvised bombs continued for 14 hours until about four in the morning.
Then, unable to break the protesters’ discipline or determination, the Mubarak forces resorted to guns, shooting 45 and killing 2, according to witnesses and doctors interviewed early that morning. The soldiers — perhaps following orders to prevent excessive bloodshed, perhaps acting on their own — finally intervened. They fired their machine guns into the ground and into the air, several witnesses said, scattering the Mubarak forces and leaving the protesters in unmolested control of the square, and by extension, the streets.
Once the military demonstrated it was unwilling to fire on its own citizens, the balance of power shifted. American officials urged the army to preserve its bond with the Egyptian people by sending top officers into the square to reassure the protesters, a step that further isolated Mr. Mubarak. But the Obama administration faltered in delivering its own message: Two days after the worst of the violence, Mr. Wisner publicly suggested that Mr. Mubarak had to be at the center of any change, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that any transition would take time. Other American officials suggested Mr. Mubarak might formally stay in office until his term ended next September. Then a four-day-long stalemate ensued, in which Mr. Mubarak refused to budge, and the protesters regained momentum.
On Thursday, Mr. Mubarak’s vice president, Omar Suleiman, was on the phone with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at 2 p.m. in Washington, the third time they had spoken in a week. The airwaves were filled with rumors that Mr. Mubarak was stepping down, and Mr. Suleiman told Mr. Biden that he was preparing to assume Mr. Mubarak’s powers. But as he spoke to Mr. Biden and other officials, Mr. Suleiman said that “certain powers” would remain with Mr. Mubarak, including the power to dissolve the Parliament and fire the cabinet. “The message from Suleiman was that he would be the de facto president,” one person involved in the call said.
But while Mr. Mubarak huddled with his son Gamal, the Obama administration was in the dark about how events would unfold, reduced to watching cable television to see what Mr. Mubarak would decide. What they heard on Thursday night was a drastically rewritten speech, delivered in the unbowed tone of the father of the country, with scarcely any mention of a presumably temporary “delegation” of his power.
It was that rambling, convoluted address that proved the final straw for the Egyptian military, now fairly certain that it would have Washington’s backing if it moved against Mr. Mubarak, American officials said. Mr. Mubarak’s generals ramped up the pressure that led him at last, without further comment, to relinquish his power.
“Eighty-five million people live in Egypt, and less than 1,000 people died in this revolution — most of them killed by the police,” said Mr. Ghonim, the Google executive. “It shows how civilized the Egyptian people are.” He added, “Now our nightmare is over. Now it is time to dream.”