A report on the visit of top US diplomat Donald Lu to India and Bangladesh (Lakshman, 2024) has triggered this article. 

The stated official purpose of the visit “Throughout his trip, Assistant Secretary Lu will reaffirm the United States’ commitment to supporting our partners’ economic growth and promoting stability throughout the Indo-Pacific region” (USDS, 2024), seems a little disconcerting, keeping in mind the actual role, Mr Lu has played in various regime changes the world over.

Interestingly, Mr Lu visited Bangladesh in May 2024, a few months before the overthrow of the Sheikh Hasina government. That visit was appropriately viewed with considerable scepticism, as Lu’s reputation had travelled ahead of him (Jakir, 2024). 

The US has a long history of trying to shape the world as per its vision. On numerous occasions, it has intervened in various countries and precipitated regime changes to suit its purpose, mostly leaving those countries to face chaos, as an aftermath. The current US moves in India, (including the visit of Mr. Donald Lu) are, therefore, a cause for serious worry for India and it needs to be fully prepared to counter the resultant fallouts. Indian Citizens too need to be aware of this danger. 

This article, therefore, tries to examine reasons for the US mindset, the role played by the US in regime changes -in different countries- both in the Cold War and Post Cold War eras, US Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)- for provoking the regime change, the significance of its current moves in India and measures India would need to adapt to minimize the probable impacts. 

Deciphering USA’s Mindset

The US has always projected itself as an ‘ultimate protector of democracy’. However, research shows that US foreign policy has mostly revolved around various global struggles between democracies and autocracies. Surprisingly, the US has maintained close relationships with various ‘authoritarian’ regimes in different parts of the world, including Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Many US citizens have expressed their scepticism against the government’s trade-offs between its moto of supporting democracies globally vis a vis contrasting interests in maintaining close relations with some of the autocracies. This US relationship game is closely linked with its interests- at the cost of its democratic principles (Carothers and Feldman, 2023). 

The US also claims that its foreign policy had to evolve to deal with conflicting requirements between democracy and security. During the Cold War era, US foreign policy’s focus on ‘protecting the free World’ from the spread of communism was affected by its contrasting decisions to work with anti-communist autocrats, known for suppressing democratic movements in their own countries. Even in the post-Cold War times, US policymakers have chosen to maintain close ties with many undemocratic countries, to protect American interests. The cover-up reasons for the same have been – maintaining geopolitical stability and countering the ever-increasing threat of terrorism. Some of the stark examples of the US’s double standards policies are US support to the Suharto regime in Indonesia, autocrat Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, and the Arab Spring movement (Carothers and Press, 2021).

The US also used the Soviet Union collapse (in the year 1991) to its advantage. This collapse heralded US global hegemony in world politics, which it used deftly for imposing regime changes, at its will.  Successive US governments unabashedly tried to shape the world, as per their definitions, either by intervening or militarily invading many countries. In the early post-Cold War years, the United States carried out interventions to promote Western-style democracy, humanitarianism, and liberal internationalism in countries like Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. Later, the US also undertook large-scale military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on a smaller scale in Africa, Asia, and Arabia. The aftermath of these interventions is well known. The above analysis establishes the US’s mindset of intervening in the countries- which it considers inimical its interests (Henrikson, 2022). 

It would be, thus, important to examine the history of the US interventions and regime changes imposed/triggered by them. It would also be important to analyze its policies and moves and their impact on various countries, including India,

Emergence of New US Policies During Cold War Era

The Cold War, also known as ‘a 45-yearlong Gray Zone struggle’ permitted the US to formulate and practice new doctrines and strategies and shape the world as it saw fit. That exercise also involved strategies for intervention in affairs of the other countries, and many a time imposing or causing regime changes. Interestingly, Since the 19th century, the US has participated and interfered, both overtly and covertly, in the replacement of many foreign regimes. To cite one of the early period examples, the US annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845 (Britannica, 2024). 

Research has shown that from 1947 to 1989, the United States adopted four prominent approaches for responding to the Cold War conditions. These also included the formulation of grey zone-like missions and the formation of organizations for the implementation of those missions.  The said four approaches were (Kinman, 2019): 

•  Genesis Phase (1947–1953)- This was used for the post-World War II reorganization of the entire national security apparatus. It was also used for shaping the organizational structure for U.S. grey zone operations during the Cold War. 
• Consolidation Phase (1953–1969)- In this period the US reorganized national security institutions, to refine its covert and clandestine instruments, to support anti-communist proxies and to conduct paramilitary activities against the Soviet Block. These operations, particularly enhanced the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) powers. Processes for overt political and economic coercion were also reformed. This activity peaked during the Vietnam War.
•  Constrain Period (1969–1979) – In this period a strong resentment toward the Vietnam War forced the US government to restrain its grey zone (covert/clandestine) offensive activities. This also caused down gradation of the Department of State’s (DoS) policy formulation role. 
• Resurgence Period (1979–1989)– This era saw redoubling of actions against the Soviet Bloc. It was instrumental in increasing the investment in the full range of conventional and grey zone competitive mechanisms. This period also saw noticeable growth in Department of Defence influence, but that growth was overshadowed by many fold increase in the powers of the Secretary of State and CIA.   

The above four phases represented a pattern of experimentation involving both direct organizational actions and implementation of the policies with organizational implications. Analysis has revealed that above mentioned phased operations helped the US in achieving the following: – 

• Enhancing Western political solidarity and military capacities.
• Promoting broader interventions and counter-interventions in pro-Western and pro-Soviet states, respectively, including active economic and military support to the pro-Western states. 
• Pursuing détente and fewer U.S. entanglements in the peripheral states.
• Exerting comprehensive pressure on Moscow.

In summary, it could be said that the success of the above policies strengthened the US’s tendency to intervene in the affairs of other countries, clandestinely or otherwise. 

 US role in Regimes changes In Cold War Era  

Undoubtedly, proving covert interventions is a tough task. Such operations are mostly designed in a manner to leave room for the intervening state to deny its role, and deflect blame on other actors. The task becomes further difficult due to the non-availability of reliable cross-national data, as it is subject to widely varying rules in various countries. If multifold conspiracy theories are added to this gamut, then it becomes even harder to separate the facts from the fiction.

However, a reputed researcher LA O’Rourke (O’Rourke, 2019) has examined all known US-backed regime change attempts during the Cold War era. His research had focused on ‘regime changes’ by the US, based on the premise of Westphalian sovereignty. During those regime change exercises US had covertly meddled in the political affairs of many target states. An examination revealed that the US undertook the above interventions for the following 4 reasons: –

•  Change regimes in states refusing to tow US lines.
•  To promote liberalism abroad.
•  To install authoritarian regimes in democratic countries, authoritarian leaders were able to execute policies- unpopular in their country but favourable to the US.
• To Protect its military and national security interests

 Table 1 below would help in better understanding of the range and spread of US attempts for the regime change: 

The above Table clearly shows that the US had no reservations about changing the regime- irrespective of its type if it did not suit US vision and interests. Further examination showed that US interventions fell into three broad categories viz. offensive, preventive, and hegemonic, depending on the primary political objective of its campaign (O’Rourke, ibid, CIA Report, ND). Analysis of the above 64 operations has revealed that during the Cold War era, the US attempted: – 

• 23 covert and 2 overt offensive regime changes against the Soviet Union and its allies, for establishing its primacy.
• 25 covert and 1 overt preventive regime change operations, justifying them as operations against the spread of communism. 
• 18 covert and 3 overt hegemonic regime changes, to maintain its position of regional dominance within the Western Hemisphere and garner associated military, economic, and political benefits. 

This certainly goes to show the autocratic and hegemonistic attitude of the US, which proclaims itself as a ‘Protector of Democratic Principles’ – a contrast that the US may not care to explain.  

US Role in Regime Changes in Post Cold War Era

The US, emboldened by its successes in the regime change attempts during the Cold War era, has continued to work with the same mindset. Here too, the US kept pursuing its regime change attempts- overt or covert, despite increasing problems for its broader statecraft. The US has been consistently accused of using Trojan Horse techniques for regime change, in the name of protecting democracy, promoting humanitarian aid, and rendering support to civil society programs. The US has also been accused of execution of its operations through US-funded NGOs, CIA-cultivated contacts, indoctrinated educational organizations and bought-out politicians and media.  

Sometimes, such programs were detected by the targeted countries and were either subjected to restrictions or completely thrown out by such countries, including Russia, China, Egypt, Venezuela, and Hungary, over the fears that they were aimed at regime change. Consequently, fear of being labelled as US agents has forced many US-funded (so-called) democracy-promotion organizations / NGOs, to curtail their nefarious activities to avoid the inevitable consequences (Denison,2020). To cite an example, as many as 890 civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations have been put on the foreign grant suspended list (GOI report, 2024) and FCRA restrictions have been imposed on more than 6800 NGOs (PTI/The Hindu, 2024) in India alone, for promoting anti-national activities. 

These suspicions have caused great harm to genuine American organizations, working for human rights and humanitarian aid. But, the US has done very little to remedy this situation. Persistent US failure to indicate its disinterest in toppling foreign governments has troubled many countries and has also harmed US interests. Despite this US government has continued to deploy maximum pressure campaigns, directly targeting regimes it dislikes (Simons, 2021), denting its credibility further, in the bargain. 

This has created a persistent belief in the minds of many countries that a “possibility of a coup lurks in all tools of U.S. foreign policy”, undermining US interests and strengthening its peer competitors like Russia and China. 

The US seems to be blind to the facts that:

•  When every tool of US policy becomes associated with regime change, it undermines the efficacy of the other tools available for pursuing its interests abroad.
• Its audacity is helping China gain more influence through covert actions, like the US. Credible evidence indicates that China has attempted covert actions to increase pro-China sentiments among some US-allied governments. 

In this regard, Denison (Denison, 2022a) has rightly pointed out that:

However, returning to the Cold War strategy of duelling attempts at covert regime change is not the answer to this challenge. This would simply increase international instability, push potential allies further away, and not produce any meaningful policy gains. It would further heighten tensions and lead to long-term consequences for American statecraft that would be difficult to repair.

It would be, thus, better for the US to re-examine its attitude and refrain from sponsoring foreign coups or acting through non-governmental organizations, aid programs, and economic sanctions, for regime change purposes. It is hoped that the US will see the writing on the wall. 

 As seen above, the US uses many tricks from its bag to impose regime change. Accordingly, it would be important to examine Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) used by the US for enforcing/triggering regime changes.   

Operating Procedures Adapted by the US for Regime Change

Historically, the US has been involved in regime change activities since 1845 and has mastered certain operating procedures (to be deployed both covertly and overtly) for enforcing regime change. Analysis has shown that the US has been using 12 steps, stand-alone or combined, to achieve its goals. 

Twelve Different Steps Used by the US for Regime Changes

Step One: Colonialism’s Traps- The US realized that most of the Global South remains trapped in the structures put in place by colonialism. Colonialism especially struck those states that had single commodity producers, e.g. sugar for Cuba and oil for Venezuela. Their inability to diversify national economies meant that they earned the bulk of their export revenues from singular commodities (e.g. 98% of Venezuela’s export revenues from oil). As long as the prices of the commodities were high, the export revenues were secure. However, when the prices fell due to rigging, revenues suffered. This legacy of colonialism has been exploited by the US for its gains by price manipulations (Marco, 2019),

Step Two: Defeat of the New International Economic Order -The countries of the Global South had called for restructuring the architecture of the world economy, in the year 1974. They called for the creation of a New International Economic Order (NIEO) to help them move away from the colonial legacies (one commodity reliance) and diversify their economies. They envisaged the formation of Cartels for raw materials, such as oil and bauxite, so that they could have some control over the prices. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), became a pioneer of the commodity cartels. However realizing the loss of their strategic grip, some powerful nations did not allow cartelization of other commodities, thus keeping Global South countries at their mercy (Pindyck,1977). 

Step Three: Death of Southern Agriculture – In November 2001, it was estimated that about three billion small farmers and landless peasants were in the world. That month, the World Trade Organization (WTO) met in Doha (Qatar) to let loose the productivity of big agri-businesses against the billions of small farmers and landless peasants of the Global South (WTO, 2001).  With massive-scale mechanization, large and industrial-scale farms in North America and Europe raised their productivity to about 1 to 2 million kilograms of cereals per farmer. This was in contrast with the struggle of the small farmers and landless peasants in the rest of the world to grow 1,000 kilograms of cereals per farmer. The Doha decision led to the annihilation of the small farmers and landless peasants. In addition, the corporate take-over of agriculture introduced by the US resulted in pushing peasants off their land and leaving them in poverty, ruining the economy of these countries and affecting their regimes. The US, thus, gained a hard hold on the global south.

Step Four: Culture of Plunder – The Western domination of corporates and businesses allowed monopolistic firms to act with total disregard for the law. Reports have brought out that in the Democratic Republic of Congo, out of its annual budget of $6 billion, at least $500 million was siphoned off by monopoly mining firms, mostly from Canada (it may not be without US knowledge). Canada has also put similar operations in place in Venezuela. Mispricing and tax avoidance schemes have allowed large Canadian firms viz. Agrium, Barrick and Suncor, routinely steal billions of dollars from impoverished states (Italia,2019). 

Step Five: Debt as a Way of Life – Badly affected by their inability to raise funds from commodity sales or institutions like the IMF, a broken world agricultural system and Western culture of plunder, countries of the Global South have been forced to go to commercial lenders for finance. Over the years, debt held by the Global South states has increased, with resultant debt payments increasing by 60 %. When commodity prices rose between 2000 and 2010, debt in the Global South decreased. But as commodity prices began to fall (maybe rigged) from 2010 onwards, debts have risen. A Conference addressing the Debt Crisis in the Global South presented facts and figures bringing out that out of the 67 impoverished countries in the Global South (which were mapped), 30 were in debt distress. It was also brought out that more than 55.4% of Angola’s Oil export revenue was going towards servicing its debts. Other oil exporters such as Ghana, Chad, Gabon and Venezuela were also suffering from high debt-to-GDP ratios (UNCTAD, 2022). This has allowed the US to have indirect control over the Global South. 

Step Six:  Ruining Public Finances- With little incoming revenue and low tax collection rates, public finances in the Global South have gone into crisis. As the UN Conference on Trade and Development pointed out, ‘public finances have continued to be suffocated’. States simply cannot put together the funds needed to maintain basic state functions. Balanced budget rules make borrowing difficult, which is compounded by the fact that banks charge high rates for money, citing the risks of lending to indebted countries (UNCTAD,2021). This happened because lenders like the IMF acted in the interests of the US. 

Step Seven: Deep Cuts in Social Spending – Trapped by the fickleness of international finance, the Global South governments were forced to enforce deep cuts in social spending on Education, health, food sovereignty and economic diversification, adding to the social crisis. Despite that, international agencies such as the IMF forced these countries to conduct ‘reforms’- a guise used for the extermination of independence of these countries (Grynspan, 2022, PASS, 2024,). The countries that held out faced immense international pressures to submit under the pain of extinction.

Step Eight: Social Distress and Migration. – The total number of migrants in the world in the 21st century has reached a number of at least 68.5 million. It would make the country called ‘Migration’ the 21st largest country in the world, after Thailand and ahead of the United Kingdom. Migration has become a global fallout of the collapse of countries from one end of the planet to the other. To cite an example, migration out of Venezuela was not unique for that country but was merely a reaction to the global crisis. Similarly, migrants from Honduras going northward to the United States or migrants from West Africa going towards Europe through Libya were part of this global exodus (UNHCR,2022), triggered by the unequal policies of countries like the US.

Step Nine: Who Controls the Narrative? –   Undoubtedly, the monopolistic corporate media takes its orders from the societal elite. They have no sympathy for the crisis faced by underdeveloped/developing countries. Those countries who cave to Western pressures get a free pass from the media. As long as these countries behave as per the diktat of likes of the US, they are safe. But the countries that argue against the ‘reforms’ or defy diktats are vulnerable to attacks, false propaganda and the creation of internal disturbances by the stooges of the Western world. Interference in democratic elections, tarnishing the leaders of those nations and condemnation of their national institutions is common (Pan et al, 2022).

Step Ten: Who’s the Real President or Prime Minister? – The US starts Regime change operations when it feels that a particular elected government is not towing its line. It begins questioning the legitimacy of the government in power. It also puts its weight behind either an unelected person or an opposition leader (suiting better for its purpose), calling him/her the right leader and creating situations which undermine the authority of the elected leader. The US then triggers a coup or mass protest to topple the targeted leader. It also avails this opportunity to anoint its own proxy, without an election. That person has to rapidly make it clear that he/she will abide by the authority of the United States. His/ Her kitchen cabinet needs to include former government officials- in reality, US stooges who follow US diktat to privatize everything on a fast track, at the cost of the interests of the local people, driving them to penury (Marco,2019a).

Step Eleven: Make the Economy Scream- the US always tries to use “Sanctions’ as an effective weapon to break the back of the nations, it wants to control.  To cite an example, Venezuela has faced harsh US sanctions since 2014, when US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela a ‘threat to national security’. The Venezuelan economy started to deteriorate.  As if that was not enough, the United States and the United Kingdom brazenly stole billions of dollars of Venezuelan money, by placing the shackles of sanctions on its only revenue-generating sector (oil) and watched the shattering pain suffered by that country and its people, without any remorse. The US meted out the same treatment to Iran and Cuba. As per a UN report, the US sanctions have cost Cuba (a small island) USD 130 billion (UNHRC, 2019). Such sanctions are aimed at changing the regimes. 

Step Twelve: Go to War- the US has devised a strategy of ‘Go to war’ as an ultimate weapon to be used for regime change. This strategy was used for egging on Colombia and Brazil either to do US bidding or suffer for defiance. A coup climate was created, inevitably forcing these countries to go to war. The US made it inevitable for the people of Venezuela also, who continue to fight to defend their revolution (Brownlee, 2024). 

It is evident from the above that the US is a master of regime change and has been playing this unsavoury game for centuries. 

Use of Subterfuge, Media, Money Power and Education Institutes for Regime Change

In its long, documented history US has overthrown many governments globally, to build its own empire using multiple approaches. In addition, the US also broadly uses three distinct ways, to carry out ‘regime change’ (Lauria,2022): 

1. Top Down– In the case of the targeted leaders, who were elected democratically and enjoyed strong popular support, the CIA had clandestinely worked with elite groups, such as the military, to overthrow them (sometimes through assassination).  Among several operations, the first CIA-backed coup d’état, happened just after 18 months of CIA came into being. On March 30, 1949, CIA assisted the Syrian Army Colonel Husni al-Za’im in overthrowing the elected president, Shukri al-Quwatli.  In another incident CIA toppled the elected President Jacobo Árbenz of Guatemala, in 1954. He was replaced with a military dictator. CIA continues to deploy its infamous ways even today.
2. Bottom Up– In case the targeted government is facing genuine popular unrest, the US works towards fomenting the trouble and instigating local people to topple the leader.  To cite examples:

• In 1958-59, during anti-communist protests in Kerala, supported by the opposition Party and the Catholic Church, received funds from the CIA, resulting in the removal of the elected communist government. 
• The 1953 coup in Iran that overthrew the democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was a combination of bottom-up CIA (and MI-6) backed operations involving street protests, and top-down conservative clergy and military operations, to destroy democracy and return a monarch to the throne. 
• Through Subtle Military Intervention– If a coup is not feasible, the US uses indirect or direct military intervention. One of the earliest examples was the US expeditionary force’s invasion of Russia, in1918, during the civil war, in an attempt to help overthrow the new Bolshevik government. Other examples relate to the 1983 US military invasion of Grenada to overthrow a Marxist president, and the 1989 invasion of Panama to overthrow former CIA asset, Manuela Noriega. Other prominent examples of direct military invasion are the US-led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. 

Use of ‘Color Revolution’ as a Tool for Regime Change

Another powerful tool in the US regime change toolkit relates to launching ‘Color Revolutions’ for imposing ideologies suitable to it. To start a revolution, the US first chooses a colour, e.g. ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia in 2003, the ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine in 2004, the ‘Tulip Revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, or the ‘Arab Spring’ in Asia and Africa in 2011. The past decades have shown the US planning and implementing ‘colour revolutions,’ or wars without bullets in many places around the world, effectively exporting ‘American values.’

The US has found that instead of launching direct military operations in the name of ‘Saving Democracy,’ the use of colour revolutions as a more efficient, economical, and convenient tool for:

• Intervening in other countries internal affairs for its gains
• Subverting governments in order to reinforce their global control.

Since the late 20th century, colour revolutions have swept through Central Asia, CIS countries, and Eastern European countries. Deep digging to find a root cause for these colour revolutions has invariably revealed the conspicuous black hands of the US, working behind the scenes. It is estimated that in the past 30 years or so, non-violent revolutions and Color Revolutions have accounted for more than 90 percent of all toppled governments.

It is a fact that ‘Color Revolution’ is never a spontaneous performance, but is a deliberate political act. It involves coordinated action by planners, trainers, funders, instigators, troublemakers, followers, and sometimes even terrorist organizations or hired mercenaries.  After decades of conducting ‘Color Revolutions’ across the world, the US seems to have now developed a ‘mature Color Revolution system’ (Global Times, 2021). 

Other Processes Used by the US for Regime Change

Analysis has also shown that other means deployed by the US involve the use of its own bought-out investigative agencies for discrediting the institutional agencies or big business houses, in the targeted country. An example can be Hindenburg reports targeting India.

The US many times also sends its emissaries (like Donald Lu, Jennifer Larson et al) to meet Opposition and minority leaders to stir the pot. Examples are Donald Lu’s meetings in Bangladesh, before toppling the Hasina government, and now his ventures in India. 

The US has also been known to use paid media to bash the governments it dislikes, by undertaking anti-government false propaganda. e.g. Anti-India propaganda by The Guardian. 

The US sometimes lends clandestine support to its educational institutions for corrupting education systems in the targeted countries. Harvard University’s anti-India activities can be cited as an example (Malhotra and Viswanathan, 2022). 

In summary, it could be said that the US uses subterfuges, money power, its political elites, and paid politicians/media/educational institutions to destabilize the governments it dislikes and wants to force them to unquestionably tow the US line or face the consequences. 

After examining US operating procedures, some specific examples would help in understanding US role in regime changes, world-over, better. 

Sample Case Studies: US Regime Change Operations 

Earlier Cases (Countries in alphabetical order)

Belarus 

The events in Belarus started in early 2020 as an attempt at regime change, using technologies to oust incumbent President A. Lukashenko and bring in the ‘leader of the opposition’ S. Tikhanovskaya to power. Attempts were made to use simmering economic grievances, probable lack of direct communication between the government and the people, a disputed election and consolidating foreign support for regime change (especially from Poland and Lithuania), to mobilize the public against the Belarus President. But it was to no avail as Lukashenko proved himself to be a tough leader. It was observed that though Belarus was the target country, the real object was undermining Russia’s military and economic potential, by marginalizing its allies and partners (Denison, ibid)

Bolivia and Venezuela 

The year 2019 proved to be remarkable in the history of regime change attempts by the US. A series of revolutions and unrest swept through six continents. This affected various types of political regimes, in an unprecedented display of mass mobilization. But the notable were the long-term targets of U.S. regime change in Latin America covering the governments of Bolivia and Venezuela. Once more, the US used the pretext of undemocratic elections and the protection of democratic principles as a ruse to trigger political subversion. Though, the US succeeded in its regime change attempt in Bolivia, with J Anez assuming charge, the turmoil in Bolivia continued in regime change’s wake. However, the US had to eat a humble pie in Venezuelan attempts of regime change (Wayland,2018, Nugent, 2019). The Venezuelan crisis persists even today (Maduro, 2024). 

Iraq

Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched (2003), to overthrow and capture of Saddam Hussein, after previous US efforts to change the regime had failed. Iraq was characterized as a grave potential threat to the United States because of its so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. US had stated in the UN General Assembly (Sep 2002) that unless Iraq was fully disarmed- in cooperation with United Nations weapons inspectors, the US would act militarily, making clear that this would include the ouster of Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein.  Iraq was not left with any choice but to comply. However, the US with a different objective in mind, termed Iraq’s cooperation with UN weapons inspectors as inadequate, and launched ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’, on 19 Mar 2003, to disarm Iraq and change its regime. The regime fell on 09 Apr 2003. It is a matter of record that regime change searches did not reveal the presence of any WMD in Iraq, and it was an excuse used by the US to overthrow a government considered unsuitable for furthering the US interests (Katzman,2004). The US intervention and regime change has achieved nothing more than ruining an otherwise well-administered country. 

Ukraine

This was one of the examples of non-cascade regime change operations in the 21st century, that was waged in the name of protection of human rights, democracy, freedom of choice and other projected ‘universal values’ for geopolitical gain. In this operation- known as Euromaidan or also as the Revolution of Dignity (2015), new information and communications technologies and social media tools were deployed to play a critical role in the rapid enticing and mobilizing of local people against the targeted government, led by President V. Yanukovych.  US also helped in organizing and coordinating the internal and external communications, and organization and coordination of various other events (Danison, 2022b). The puppet Zelensky government came to power thereafter and the rest is history. 

Recent Cases: US Regime Change Activities (Countries in Alphabetical Order)

Bangladesh

The US had an amicable relationship with Bangladesh since 1971. Notably, the US was one of the first countries to recognize it as an independent nation. US-Bangladesh bilateral ties grew steadily and the golden jubilee of their diplomatic relations was celebrated in 2022. On the business front, the US has been the third largest trading partner for Bangladesh, the largest market for its Ready-Made Garments. The US also has been the largest source of Foreign Direct Investment and the largest investor in Bangladesh’s energy sector. 

However, in recent years, the harmonious relations started a downswing due to the US’s discontentment with Bangladesh’s domestic socio-political scenario. The root cause of the discord in US-Bangladesh relations is related to the US perception of human rights and democracy situation in Bangladesh. This perception culminated in USA imposing sanctions, over allegations of human rights abuse, on seven former and current high-level officials of Bangladesh’s Rapid Action Battalion, in December 2021. 

In another indication of US displeasure, in 2022, the American Ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter Haas, visited the families of victims of alleged abductions, including the family of Sajedul Islam Sumon, a leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).  The Ambassador was unusually critical about the human rights situation in the country and expressed his doubts about the conduct of ‘free and fair elections’. 

The USA also had been quite harsh about the implementation of the sanctions. In January 2023, the US prevented a Russian ship, Ursa Major, carrying goods for Bangladesh’s nuclear power plant in Rooppur, from delivering the goods, as the ship was under sanctions (Bose, 2024). 

The US also took umbrage in strong retaliation to the US’s incessant criticism, by then PM Sheikh Hasina, In her retaliatory statement she advised the USA to examine its own handling of democracy and human rights. She also accused the US of seeking a regime change in Bangladesh and said, “They are trying to eliminate democracy and introduce a government that will not have a democratic existence.” 

The US was also miffed with Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s reference to a plot by a third country, that could lead to the division of Bangladesh on religious lines and her opposition to building an air base on Saint Martin’s Island by the USA. Taking refuge under these irritants US initiated a regime change operation in Bangladesh and put its favoured person (Mohammad Yunus) in charge (Mishra, 2024, Deshmukh,2024). What fate now holds for Bangladesh only time will tell. 

Cambodia 

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, in his address in Apr 2024, accused the US of inciting and supporting the ‘Color Revolution’ in Cambodia. He stated that “all activities, both within and outside the country, aimed at fomenting a colour revolution in Cambodia, created insecurity in the society. It is imperative, at all costs, to maintain peace and actively contribute to preventing and swiftly suppressing all crimes” (Khmer Times, 2024). Sok Eysan, spokesman for the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) also has expressed similar views. 

In addition, Yang Peou, secretary-general of the Royal Academy of Cambodia, has commented on the situation stating that Cambodia should learn lessons from the colour revolutions that occurred in the Arab world as well as in Syria, Libya and Tunisia. He also stated that “The situation was not improved in any of those countries by having foreign interlopers topple their governments. It just brought insecurity and destroyed peace. This is the lesson that Cambodia must learn. We must avoid conflict and keep the peace at all costs” (Chandar, 2023).

The US needs to remember that the practice of democracy has a different basis in the West than in the Asian world. It differs because of social attitudes, leadership systems, and many other factors like education and economic levels etc. The US should neither compare these practices with its own nor try to impose its practices on others. 

Georgia (another Victim of the Color Revolution)

A dark political cloud has been swirling over the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, and growing more ominous by the day. The said cloud related to the Color Revolution in that country. It is alarming to note that the Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze was told by the European Union (EU) commissioner that he will suffer the fate of Robert Fico, the Slovakian leader, who is fighting for his life, after an assassination attempt. In addition, the US lawmakers have put in motion a plan to sanction members of the ruling Georgian Dream party. The threat of the Color Revolution raised its ugly head further when opposition MP Tako Charkviani, on 14 May 2024, openly declared in the Georgian Parliament “Believe me, there will be a colour revolution in Georgia.”

The cause of this tumult has been attributed to a bill known as the “Foreign Influence Transparency” law which will force organizations to publicly disclose their foreign funding. The protests against this law have raised suspicions about the ‘sponsor source’. 

Another new bill, aimed at reigning in Western meddling has also sparked anti-government protests, explicitly encouraged by the US. Though there may be some truth in the fear of the Georgian Citizens that their government’s actions will sabotage Georgia’s EU aspirations, there are clear indications that many have been severely misled about the nature of the new law, by foreign media outlets and foreign-funded NGOs. 

Today, over 25,000 NGOs are active in Georgia, and nearly all of them receive funding from the US and EU. Many NGOs have been blackmailed by the EU to join the anti-government protests, which finances over 130 separate “active projects” and 19,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the country. American intelligence cutouts USAID, and CIA front NED, are also prominent backers of the sector. Joining hands, these foreign-backed entities are mobilizing their constituents into the streets for a new round of protests that ultimately aim to bring the existing government down and replace it with one that suits the interests of the US and EU (Klarenburg, 2024). 

US Gets Taste of Its Own Medicine

Black Lives Matter (BLM), an international activist movement, has been regularly protesting police killings of black people and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system. In 2013, the movement started with the use of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media, after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin. Black Lives Matter became nationally known after its street demonstrations after the post-2014 deaths of two African Americans: Michael Brown, in Ferguson, and Eric Garner in New York City.

The widespread protests again broke out against US racial injustice and police brutality, after the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis on the 25th of May, 2020. The protests followed several high-profile incidents involving African Americans and the police, invoking debates about racism in the US (Taylor, 2020).  

In summary, the US which brutally suppresses the Color Revolution in its own states, has no qualms in inducing Color Revolutions in other countries, for the purpose of regime change. This clearly reveals the ‘double standards’ of the US. 

After examining the US role in regime change activities using the plethora of SOPs, a specific analysis of the situation in India would be in order.   

US Activities in India 

India – US seem to enjoy good bilateral relations. But, analysis has shown that despite outwardly strong US-India relations, they are considerably more fragile than they appear. The two countries have had their differences and are expected to experience friction in several areas which, if left unattended, could derail mutual cooperation, impacting not only India but the region. 

The US has deepened concerns about its perceived notions of India’s less tolerance towards minorities and their religions, its abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, government policies related to curbs on freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and other basic rights, restrictions on media and Civil Society (USDS, ND, Paul and Ganguly, 2024). The USA shows these concerns despite its own bleak record on many similar counts. 

The US also continues to express its concerns about Indian government policies transforming India into a so-called illiberal democracy. The US despises India for its close ties with Russia (while the USA continues to hobnob with China and Pakistan). The USA also seems to be miffed with India for its desire to have a greater role in regional geopolitics, which the US treats as a thorn in its flesh. It is so because the US wishes for the continuance of its primacy in the international system. The US also feels that India’s desire for multipolarity is as an anti-Western policy, and is unhappy about it. (Rand, 2024). In addition, the present Indian regime has shown a streak of independence in its foreign policy, which is unpalatable to the US. Its inability to force India to buy American Vaccines (during Covid-19) or defence equipment mainly from the US, has annoyed the US administration. In short, the USA has all the motives to create problems for India and destabilize the current government. 

From an examination of the happenings over the past few years, it would be evident that the US has been using every opportunity possible, to create problems for the current regime. Some of the issues where clandestine US administration /CIA support could be suspected (Malhotra and Viswanathan, 2022a, Deshmukh 2024a) are: –

• Interference in general elections in India by outside agencies.
• Resurgence in terrorist attacks in J and K, and continuing unrest in other parts of India.
• Behind the screen efforts by Civil Society- like Omidyar Network India and many US-funded NGOs to create internal strife.
• Attacks on India by US Universities (especially Harvard), bought Indian Media Houses, and US-generated malicious reports on India, based on manipulated data. 
• Multiple cases are being filed in the Supreme Court and other courts against governmental policies/initiatives.
• Constant corruption accusations against the government.
• Reports from agencies like Hindenburg against SEBI and business houses, with the aim of creating economic disturbances. 
• Resurgence in quota politics 
• US officials like Donal Lu (a regime change expert) and Jennifer Larson visit India and meet opposition political and minority leaders.
• US Ambassador’s veiled statement against government policies both domestic and foreign.  
• US caused delays in important defence programs- e.g. supply of GE aero-engines for Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) built Tejas Fighter aircraft 

(Sources, PTI, 2024, Malhotra and Viswanathan ibid, Kunde, 2024)

In addition, the latest events/ serious irritants created by or in the US are: –

1. Display of Anti-Modi Posters prior to the visit of PM Modi (The Statesman, 2024).
2. Meeting with the Sikh Activists in the US by White House officials, just before PM Modi’s visit to the US (PTI/Mint, 2024).

Happenings which should not be ignored by India. 

Ominous Warning for India

The selective antagonism of the US (which was involved in toppling the Bangladesh government) towards India, and many other commonalities between the situation in Bangladesh (prior to the toppling of the Hasina government) and that is prevailing in India now- should be a cause of serious worry for India. 

Though some contrasting views state that the US may not like to destabilize India (Menon,2023), the author opines that with the disquieting situation being created by the US in India, such observations may be taken with a pinch of salt. 

It is, therefore, important that the issues examined above should be treated by the Indian government and its citizens as an Ominous Warning. Both should be prepared to collectively battle the probable fall-outs, which are undoubtedly in the realm of possibility. Bharat that is India should not forget the dictum ‘Forewarned is Forearmed’.

Suggested Remedial Solutions 

For USA 

It’s undeniable that US-China competition is intensifying and its global ramifications could be harsh. As the competition builds, conflicts in developing nations could become a battleground for influence. It is felt that the United States and China may engage in the sort of proxy warfare that was common during the Cold War era. In addition, a dangerous contest of covert operations could exacerbate the situation. In such a scenario, the US needs to tread carefully as the benefits of only a few covert interventions and proxy wars outweigh their costs. 

With rising geo-political and geo-economical complexities, the US also needs to avoid actions aimed at discrediting or undermining, and, in some cases, overthrowing national leaders or governments in developing countries, which it considers inconvenient, as it will be counter-productive for the US. In this regard, World Commission on Environment and Development’s report of 1987 still stands good (WCED, 1987). 

The lessons from the Cold War era also should serve as a reminder here. The main lesson from those pertains to the tricky balance between short-term urgency and long-term strategic objectives. In many of the Cold War issues, the US mistook leaders or movements critical of US power and US goals as an opposition to American interests. It saw nationalist, socialist, or anti-colonialist movements as pro-Soviet when they were not. 

Repeating similar mistakes, where India is concerned would be a grave mistake. The same would be applicable (to some degree) for Russia and China. While competing with China, the US will be better off by taking the risks of covert regime change more seriously and using restraint while trying to influence events in developing countries. Instead of gearing up for proxy wars and covert regime change, the US should consider building a more sustainable long-term strategy for promoting economic and military stabilities, in developing countries (Mazarr, 2021).

For Global South

The US needs to take note of the growing Global South discontent with rising major power competition in the world in general and the Indo-Pacific region in particular. Key developing countries now want to carve out an independent path for themselves. With China and Russia trying to blunt the US power, and the US & its allies’ response to that has complicated the situation further. The intersection between Global South’s increasing aspirations and the said strategic competition would be critical for both – world stability and US interests. In this regard, Parmeswaran (Parmeswaran,2024) has rightly said that: –

The emerging balance of power will shape the contours of competition and cooperation across geopolitical and geoeconomic domains as well as the world’s most serious shared challenges for decades to come. The stakes are particularly great in the Indo-Pacific, the primary theatre of major power competition that encompasses around two-thirds of the world economy, more than half its people and seven of its largest militaries.

The US, thus, needs to be pragmatic about the real situation in the region and temper its ambitions accordingly. In turn, the Global South needs to be cognizant of its power and unite to counter the unwanted regime change activities of the US and demand its rightful place on the global political chess board. 

For India

Indo-US relationship is relatively complex to understand and a holistic examination of the same would be in order for better appreciation.

Currently, when uncertainty shadows the role of the United States in the world, India has managed to find a suitable place in the emerging new world order. That is in line with its ambitions of becoming a ‘leading power’ in global affairs (Ministry of External Affairs, 2015). At the strategic level, India and the US are now embedded in the Indo-Pacific framework. 

Notwithstanding, the obvious commonalities of strategic interests and willingness to accommodate each other’s concerns, the Indo-US bilateral relationship has not blossomed into a mutually comfortable alliance. The reason seems to be that while the US expects India to have bilateral engagement at all levels, from the strategic to the tactical, India is unwilling to be seen as a member of any camp (Tellis & Blackwell, 2019). 

Even though the list of areas in which the U.S. and India cooperate has been growing, there is still a gap between what the US thinks India can deliver and what India can and wants to deliver (Mukherjee,2020). Table 2 below enumerates the benefits and costs of the partnership for both sides.

Table: 2- Benefits and Costs of the Partnership

Table:2 Courtesy: (Mukherjee, ibid) 

The above differences and unusually candid and straightforward approach of the current Indian government towards the India-US relationship have not gone down well with the US administration, This is because the US is accustomed to cooperative allies in the Indo-Pacific such as Japan and Australia; while India is not used to alliances. Thus, the US feels that the Indian government is not pliant enough to achieve its goals. That seems to be the reason for US efforts in undermining the authority of the Indian government, as has been seen from the analysis above. 

Further, India has its strategic issues to tackle and it cannot (and should not) allow the US to undermine its standing in global geopolitics. Therefore, India needs to effectively counter the US’s false propaganda against governmental policies and institutions, control foreign Civil Society Organizations and NGOs, and fight nefarious activities by the likes of Harvard University- related to the indoctrination of the Indian Student bodies and corruption in the Indian education system and reign in the bought-out media.

India must realize that the US bets on India as a robust market for its defence and nuclear technologies, and as a long-term democratic partner to help in managing China’s rise. The US is also dependent on New Delhi’s diplomatic support for the Indo-Pacific strategic framework, and participation in strategic dialogues and military exercises with the US and its allies Japan and Australia under this rubric. India, therefore, must keep US constantly reminded of the fact that a destabilized or weaker India will not be in the US’s interests in the region and ask it to be more pragmatic in US dealings with India (Mukherjee, 2020a).  

While India must fight the US’s destabilizing activities, it must also remember that there is a clear sense in having the US on its side, with Japan and Australia joining the axis (QUAD), to keep China in check. It would be thus better for India to pragmatically manage its relationship with the US and undertake the tightrope walk such an exercise would demand. 

Finally, it would be appropriate to end the article with some excerpts from Mr. Manoj Joshi’s article (Joshi,2020), which spells the situation correctly: –

The important thing right now is not to get rattled by immediate events…This is neither the time to boycott a major economic power nor get into a shooting war with anyone. Anger…is understandable, but there are times in one’s life when you must swallow back bile and get on with life…. Our aim, like Arjun, must be on the eye of the fish. And as the Americans say, don’t get mad, get even.

Conclusion

The US has a long history of carrying out regime changes the world over, starting from the year 1846, making analysis an arduous task. Though the US proclaims itself to be the ‘Protector of Democracy’ it undertakes:

•  Regime change operations, both overtly and covertly, with total impunity.
•  Regime changes against the countries it considers inimical to its interests. 
• It undertakes operations with complete disregard for the interests of the targeted country and its citizens. 

The US had made 64 regime change attempts during the Cold War era- against all types of governments and continues with the same in the post-Cold War era too. It has now reached the highest level of mastery in the regime change game. CIA obviously plays a major role in such operations.

The US uses well-established Standard Operating Processes (honed toolkits) for carrying out regime changes. They comprise multiple steps and approaches – to be used based on the circumstances, Color Revolutions are another effective regime change tool. It also uses US-funded NGOs and the bought-out politicians, bureaucrats, educational institutions and media (in the target country) to trigger regime change in other countries, but cracks down heavily on such attempts in its yard. 

There are many examples of US regime change attempts starting with Texas in 1846, with the USSR and its allies during the Cold War era, and Latin American and Global South countries (which are now protesting against US actions), Afghanistan, and Iraq during the post-Cold War era. The latest to join the list of victims are Bangladesh (regime change- with a desired person in charge) and Georgia (Color Revolution).

India is a different ball game for the US. It calls India its important ally on one hand but never leaves an opportunity to express its displeasure on the other – about an independent streak of India’s current dispensation, its ambitions for the rightful place in global politics, its Foreign and Defence Policies and relations with Russia. The US wanted India to fall in line and use its funded NGOs, and diplomats cultivated Indian Politicians and bureaucrats and bought out media houses and educational institutions to do its bidding.  

The US needs to remember that China is getting stronger on economic and military fronts and is also learning tricks of regime change from the US. In this scenario, the US needs to temper its desires to impose regime changes at its will and wish. It must also remember that it needs India as an ally, not only to maintain balance in the Indo-Pacific region but also to protect its interests. It also needs to understand the aspirations of the Global South countries, 

India in turn, needs to be conscious of US unwarranted activities in India, targeted at destabilizing the current regime and must put in place measures to counter the same. At the same time, it needs to remember that it is India’s interest to have the US in its camp, and accordingly balance its approach to maintain healthy Indo-US relations, as well as achieve progress on other fronts including QUAD.  

It would be a tightrope walk for India- which it must undertake in its interests. Dr S Jaishankar, Hon. MEA’s words of wisdom would be of relevance here to rest the case: India needs “An approach that takes risks as well as hedges, injects greater realism in policy, reads the global tea leaves right — and is willing to look beyond dogma and enter the real world of convergences (The Indian Express, 2019). 

The author hopes that with its pragmatic policies, India will soon assume its rightful place on the global geopolitical map. 

Though this article has tried to decipher the US role in regime change as holistically as possible, three major events need to be watched, as they may have an impact on US thinking. The events are: –

• The outcome of the US Presidential Election. 
• China’s Behavioural Pattern in Indo-Pacific.
• Turn of events in the Middle East, and South China Sea.

Jai Hind. 

Title image courtesy: India Blooms

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of India and Defence Research and Studies

References: 

1. Lakshman Ram, 10 Sep 2024, Top U.S. diplomat Donald Lu to visit India, Bangladesh, The Hindu, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/top-us-diplomat-donald-lu-to-visit-india-bangladesh/article68625515.ece, Accessed on  02 Sep 2024
2. USDS Media Release, 10 Sep 2024, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Lu’s Travel To India and Bangladesh, Unites States Department of State, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.state.gov/assistant-secretary-of-state-for-the-bureau-of-south-and-central-asian-affairs-lus-travel-to-india-and-bangladesh/#:~:text=September%2010%2C%202024-,Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20State%20for%20the%20Bureau%20of%20South%20and,from%20September%2010%20to%2016 , Accessed on 13 Sep 2024
3. Jakir Abu, 30 May,2024, Donald Lu’s Dhaka Visit: Does it Signal a US Policy Shift Towards Bangladesh?, The Wire, Online, Retrieved from: https://thewire.in/world/donald-lus-dhaka-visit-does-it-signal-a-us-policy-shift-towards-bangladesh, Accessed on 13 Sep 2024
4. Carothers Thomas and Feldman Benjamin, 13 Dec, 2023, Examining U.S. Relations With Authoritarian Countries, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Online, Retrieved from: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/12/examining-us-relations-with-authoritarian-countries?lang=en, Accessed on 13 Sep 2024
5. Carothers Thomas and Press Benjamin, 04 Nov 202, Navigating the Democracy-Security Dilemma in U.S. Foreign Policy: Lessons from Egypt, India, and Turkey, Retrieved from: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/11/navigating-the-democracy-security-dilemma-in-us-foreign-policy-lessons-from-egypt-india-and-turkey?lang=en, Accessed on 11 Sep 2024 
6. Henrikson Thomas H, 20 Jan, 2022, America’s Wars: Interventions, Regime Change, and Insurgencies after the Cold War, Hoover Institution, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.hoover.org/research/americas-wars-interventions-regime-change-and-insurgencies-after-cold-war, Accessed on 14 Sep 2024
7. Editors of Encyclopedia, Updated 29 Jul 2024, Mexican-American War, Encyclopedia Britannica, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/event/Mexican-American-War. Accessed on: 14 Sep 2024
8. Kinman Joseph, 13 Aug,2019, Case Study: The U.S. Government in the Cold War, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Online, Retrieved from: https://www.csis.org/analysis/case-study-us-government-cold-war, Accessed on: 15 Sep 2024
9. O’Rourke, L A, 29 Nov, 2019/a, The Strategic Logic of Covert Regime Change: US-Backed Regime Change Campaigns during the Cold War, Security Studies Journal (29(1), 92–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2020.1693620), Online, Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2020.1693620#abstract, Accessed on 15 Sep 2024
10. CIA Report (Under Freedom of Information Act), ND, CIA Electronic Reading Room, Online. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/, Accessed on 10 Sep 2024. 
11. Denison Benjamin, 16 Jun,2020/a/b, Stay Out of the Regime Change Business, War On The Rocks, Online, Retrieved from: https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/stay-out-of-the-regime-change-business/, Accessed on: 10 Sep 2024
12. Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, 16 Sep, 2024, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment Government of India, Online, Retrieved from: https://socialjustice.gov.in/common/76832, Accessed on: 17 Sep 2024
13. PTI Release, 03 Apr,2024, FCRA registration of five NGOs cancelled by MHA for ‘violation’ of laws, The Hindu, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/fcra-registration-of-five-ngos-cancelled-by-mha-for-violation-of-laws/article68024012.ece, Accessed on: 17 Sep 2024
14. Simons Greg, Apr, 2021, The Evolution of Regime Change and Information Warfare in the 21 st Century, Journal of  International Analytics-11(4):2020, Reaserchgate, Online, PDF Version retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350579397_The_Evolution_of_Regime_Change_and_Information_Warfare_in_the_21_st_Century?enrichId=rgreq-1957de018cb3dcef50e96a4333a73029-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM1MDU3OTM5NztBUzoxMDA4MDI2MjI4MTI1Njk2QDE2MTczNDM1ODkxOTY%3D&el=1_x_3, Accessed on: 18 Sep 2024 
15. Marco Rubio (US Senator), 24 Jan 2019/a, Twelve Step Method to Conduct Regime Change: The Fifth Newsletter (2019), Tricontinental, Online, PDF Retrieved from:  https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/twelve-step-method-to-conduct-regime-change-the-fifth-newsletter/, Accessed on: 14 Sep 2024
16. Pindyck Robert S, 1977, Cartel Pricing and the Structure of the World Bauxite Market, The Bell Journal of Economics Vol. 8, No. 2 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 343-360 (18 pages), RAND Corporation (Available through JSTOR), Online, retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3003291, Accessed On: 06 Sep 2024
17. WTO, 2001, Report on Doha Round, WTO, Online, Retrieved from: ttps://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm#:~:text=The%20Round%20is%20also%20known,%2C%20Qatar%2C%20in%20November%202001, Accessed on 
18. Italia Redazione, 01 Jan, 2019, How Today’s Crisis in the Congo Began, pressenza, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.pressenza.com/2019/01/how-todays-crisis-in-the-congo-began/, Accessed on: 16 Sep 2024
19. UNCTAD,2021, Civil Society Declaration for the fifteenth session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, WTO, Online, Retrieved from: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/td524_en.pdf, Accessed on: 17 Sep 2024
20. Conference Report, 05 Jun 2024, Addressing the Debt Crisis in the Global South, The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, On line, Retrieved from: https://www.pass.va/en/events/2024/debt_crisis.html, Accessed on: 16 Sep 2024
21. Grynspan Rebeca, 2022, development Prospects in the Fractured World, UNCTAD, Online, Retrieved from: https://unctad.org/tdr2022#:~:text=debt%20crisis%20in%20developing%20countries,browser%20does%20not%20support%20JavaScript!, Accessed on: 18 Sep 2024
22. UNHCR Report,2022, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras Situation, UNHCR, Online, Retrieved from: https://reporting.unhcr.org/operational/situations/el-salvador-guatemala-and-honduras-situation, Accessed on: 18 Sep 2024
23. Pan, Jennifer, Shao, Zijie & Xu, Yiqing. (2022). How government-controlled media shifts policy attitudes through framing. Political Science Research and Methods. 10. 1-16. 10.1017/psrm.2021.35, PDF available through Researchgate, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359198608_How_government-controlled_media_shifts_policy_attitudes_through_framing/citation/download, Accessed on: 19 Sep 2024
24. UNHCR, 06 May, 2019, US sanctions violate human rights and international code of conduct, UN expert says, OHCHR, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2019/05/us-sanctions-violate-human-rights-and-international-code-conduct-un-expert-says, Accessed on: 07 Sep 2024
25. Brownlee Jason, 2024, Foreign-imposed Regime Change and the American War in Afghanistan, Political Science Quarterly, Volume 139, Issue 3, Fall 2024, Pages 361–385, https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqae002, Accessed through: Oxford Academics: https://academic.oup.com/psq/article-abstract/139/3/361/7615678?redirectedFrom=fulltext, Accessed on: 04 Sep 2024
26. Lauria Joe, 22 Jan,2022, The Three Types of U.S. ‘Regime Change’, screechpost, Online, Retrieved from: https://scheerpost.com/2022/01/22/the-three-types-of-u-s-regime-change/, Accessed on: 21 Sep 2024

(Note: Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and New York Times)

27. Malhotra Rajiv and Viswanathan Vijaya, 2022/a, Snakes in Ganga (ISBN: 978-93-92209-09-3), BluOne Ink LLP, Accessed as Book in May 2024
28. Wayland Kurt, 01 Dec 2018, Limits of US Influence: The Promotion of Regime Change in Latin America, Sage journals, Online, PDF Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1866802X1801000305, Accessed on: 16 Sep 2024 
29. Nugent Clara, 25 Jan,2019, Why the Threat of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela Revives Historical Tensions in the Region, Time, Online, Retrieved from: https://time.com/5512005/venezuela-us-intervention-history-latin-america/, Accessed on: 04 Sep 2024
30. Maduro Nicolas, 17 Sep 2024, Venezuela intensified ‘repressive machinery’ after Maduro re-election: UN, Al Jazeera, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/17/venezuela-intensified-repressive-machinery-after-maduro-re-election-un, Accessed on:23 Sep 2024
31. Katzman Kenneth, 23 Feb 2004, Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance, CRS Report for Congress, Online, Retrieved from: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA474703.pdf, Accessed on: )7 Sep 2024
32.  Bose Sohini, 29 May, 2023, A hitch in Bangladesh-US relations? ORF, Online, retrieved from: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/a-hitch-in-bangladesh-us-relations, Accessed on 06 Aug,2024
33. Mishra Abhinandan, 02 Jun, 2024, The Sunday Guardian, Online, Retrieved from:  https://sundayguardianlive.com/world/the-us-is-trying-to-secure-a-military-base-in-bangladesh, Accessed on 06 Aug 2024
34. Deshmukh Cmde SL, 10 Aug 2024/a, DECIPHERING BANGLADESH TURMOIL- A WARNING FOR INDIA, DRaS, Online, Retrieved from: https://dras.in/deciphering-bangladesh-turmoil-a-warning-for-india/, Accessed on:11 Aug 2024
35. Reporter, 20 Apr. 2024, Efforts to incite a colour revolution in Cambodia threaten social security; peacekeeping is a must, PM says (VIDEO), Khmer Times, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.khmertimeskh.com/501475315/efforts-to-incite-a-colour-revolution-in-cambodia-threaten-social-security-peacekeeping-is-a-must-pm-says/, Accessed on: 22 Sep 2024
36. Chandar Samban, 07 Mar 2023, ‘Colour revolution’ warning stems from bitter past: Eysan, The Phnom Penh Post, Online, Retrieved from:  https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national-politics/colour-revolution-warning-stems-bitter-past-eysan, Accessed on : 22 Sep 2024
37. Klarenburg Kit, 26 May 2024, US-EU assets pushing color revolution in Georgia, The Grayzone, Online, Retrieved from: https://thegrayzone.com/2024/05/26/us-eu-color-revolution-georgia/, Accessed on: 23 Sep 2024
38. US Government, 2015, Black Lives Matter BLM. United States [Web Archive] through the Library of Congress, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0016241/, Accessed on: 23 Sep 2024
39. Taylor, Derrick Bryson, 05 Nov 2021, George Floyd Protests: A Timeline, The New York Times, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html, Accessed on: 23 Sep 2024
40. US Department of State, ND, 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: India, USDS, Online, Retrieved form: https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/india/, Accessed on: 11 Sep 2024
41. Paul Ruma and Ganguly Sudipto, 07 Aug, 2024, Bangladesh new interim leader Yunus heads home, government to be sworn in on Thursday, Reuters, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/bangladesh-students-expect-interim-government-members-be-finalised-wednesday-2024-08-07/, Accessed on 08 Aug 2024
42. Rand, 07 Apr,2024, U.S.-India Ties Remain Fundamentally Fragile, Rand Commentary, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/04/us-india-ties-remain-fundamentally-fragile.html, Accessed on 08 Aug 2024
43. PTI, 09 May 2024, Russia accuses U.S. of meddling in India’s internal affairs, ‘complicating’ Lok Sabha elections, The Hindu, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/russia-accuses-us-of-meddling-in-indias-internal-affairs-complicating-lok-sabha-elections/article68156511.ece, Accessed on: 10 Aug 2024
44. The Statesman, 22 Sep,2024, BJP slams Rahul over anti-Modi advertisement, ahead of Indian diaspora event, The Statesman, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.thestatesman.com/india/bjp-slams-rahul-over-anti-modi-advertisement-ahead-of-indian-diaspora-event-1503345827.html, Accessed on:22 Sep 2024
45. PTI/Mint, 21 Sep 2024, White House officials meet Sikh activists before PM Modi’s US visit, The Mint, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.livemint.com/news/world/white-house-officials-meet-sikh-activists-before-pm-modis-us-visit-11726927884797.html, Accessed on 22 Sep 2024
46. Kunde, Rounak, 13 Sep 2024, GE Aerospace further Delays F404-IN20 Engine Deliveries for Tejas Mk-1A, Indian Defence Research Wing (IDRW), Online, Retrieved from: https://idrw.org/ge-aerospace-further-delays-f404-in20-engine-deliveries-for-tejas-mk-1a/, Accessed on: 23 Sep 2024
47. Staff Reporters, 03 Dec 2021, GT Investigates: US wages global color revolutions to topple govts for the sake of American control, The Global Times, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml , Accessed on: 22 Sep 2024
48. Menon Jai, 30 May 2023, ‘Disinformation’ Bogie: Why US Wants ‘Regime Degradation’, Not Change, In India, Swarajya, Online, Retrieved from: https://swarajyamag.com/politics/disinformation-bogie-why-us-wants-regime-degradation-not-change-in-india, Accessed on: 16 Sep 2024
49. World Commission on Environment and Development, 20 Mar 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Sustainable Development, Online, Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf, Accessed on 23 Sep 2024
50. Mazarr Michael,12 Aug 2021, Risky Business: Why America Should Stay Out of the Regime Change Business, Modern War Institute, Online, retrieved from: https://mwi.westpoint.edu/risky-business-why-america-should-stay-out-of-the-regime-change-business/, Accessed on: 07 Sep 2024
51. Parmeswaran Prashanth, 09 Aug 2024, Rising Global South Discontent Amid Strategic Competition in the Indo-Pacific and Beyond, Wilson Center, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/rising-global-south-discontent-amid-strategic-competition-indo-pacific-and-beyond, Accessed on: 21 Sep 2024
52. Ministry of External Affairs, 10 Jul, 2015, ISS Fullerton Lecture by Dr. S. Jaishankar, Foreign Secretary in Singapore, MEA-GOI, Online, Retrieved from:  https://www.mea.gov.in/, Accessed on 19 Aug 2024
53. Tellis, A J, & Blackwill, RD, 2019, The India Dividend: New Delhi remains Washington’s Best Hope in Asia, Foreign Affairs, 98(5), 173–183, Accessed through Library, Accessed in: Sep 2024
54. Mukherjee Rohan, 14 Oct,2020, Chaos as opportunity: the United States and world order in India’s grand strategy, Insights into Japan-US Relations- Sasakawa Peace Foundation, Online, Retrieved from: https://www.spf.org/jpus-insights/spf-worldviews-on-the-united-states-en/woldviews-on-the-united-states004.html, Accessed on: 20 Sep 2024 
55. Madan Tanvi, 16 Nov 2017, The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of the ‘Quad’, War on the Rocks, Online, Retrieved from: https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/rise-fall-rebirth-quad/, Accessed on: 21Sep 2024
56. Joshi Manoj (June 20, 2020), India shouldn’t be rattled by China but work on an effective counter strategy, ORF, Online Retrieved From: https://www.orfonline.org/research/india-shouldnt-be-rattled-by-china-but-work-on-an-effective-counter-strategy-68201/, Accessed on 10 May 2021
57. Compilation, 17 Nov 2029, Top quotes of S Jaishankar at RNG Lecture: From Kashmir to RCEP to what he said on Pakistan, The Indian Express, Online, Retrieved from: https://indianexpress.com/photos/india-news/top-quotes-of-s-jaishankar-at-rng-lecture-kashmir-rcep-pakistan-foreign-policy-6120651/, Accessed on 24 Sep 2024