NGOs: Missionaries of Empire
by Devon DOUGLAS-BOWERS (USA)
Non-governmental organizations are an increasingly important part of
the 21st century international landscape performing a variety of
humanitarian tasks pertaining inter alia to issues of poverty, the
environment and civil liberties. However, there is a dark side to NGOs.
They have been and are currently being used as tools of foreign policy,
specifically with the United States. Instead of using purely military
force, the US has now moved to using NGOs as tools in its foreign policy
implementation, specifically the National Endowment for Democracy,
Freedom House, and Amnesty International.
National Endowment for Democracy
According to its website,
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is “a private, non-profit
foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic
institutions around the world,” however this is sweet-sounding
description is actually quite far from the truth.
The history of the NED begins immediately after the Reagan
administration. Due to the massive revelations concerning the CIA in the
1970s, specifically that they were involved in attempted assassinations
of heads of state, the destabilization of foreign governments, and were
illegally spying on the US citizens, this tarnished the image of the
CIA and of the US government as a whole. While there were many
committees that were created during this time to investigate the CIA,
the Church Committee (led by Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho) was of
critical importance as itsfindings
“demonstrated the need for perpetual surveillance of the intelligence
community and resulted in the creation of the permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence.” The Select Committee on Intelligence’s purpose was to
oversee federal intelligence activities and while oversight and
stability came in, it seemed to signal that the CIA’s ‘party’ of
assassination plots and coups were over. Yet, this was to continue, but
in a new way: under the guise of a harmful NGO whose purpose was to
promote democracy around the world—the National Endowment for Democracy.
The NED was meant to be a tool of US foreign policy from its outset.
It was the brainchild of Allen Weinstein who, before creating the
Endowment, was a professor at Brown and Georgetown Universities, had
served on the Washington Post’s editorial staff, and was the Executive
Editor of The Washington Quarterly, Georgetown’s Center for Strategic
and International Studies, a right-wing neoconservativethink tank
which would in the future have ties to imperial strategists such as
Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.[3] He stated in a 1991
interview that “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago
by the CIA.”[1]
The first director of the Endowment, Carl Gershman, outright admitted
that the Endowment was a front for the CIA. In 1986 he stated:
We should not have to do this kind of work covertly. It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA. We saw that in the ‘60s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.[2]
It can be further observed
that the Endowment is a tool of the US government, as ever since its
founding in 1983, it “has received an annual appropriation approved by
the United States Congress as part of the United States Information
Agency budget.”
No sooner than the Endowment was founded did it begin funding groups
that would support US interests. From 1983 to 1984, the Endowment was
active in France and “supported a ‘trade union-like organization that
for professors and students’ to counter ‘left-wing organizations of
professors,’”[3] through the funding of seminars, posters, books, and
pamphlets that encouraged opposition to leftist thought. In the mid and
late 1990s, the NED continued its fight against organized labor by
giving in excess of $2.5 million to the American Institute of Free Labor
Development which was a CIA front used to undermine progressive labor
unions.
Later on, the Endowment became involved in interfering with elections
in Venezuela and Haiti in order to undermine leftwing movements there.
The NED is and continues to be a source of instability in nations across
the globe that don’t kneel before US imperial might. Yet the Endowment
funds another pseudo-NGO: Freedom House.
Freedom House
Freedom
House was originally founded in 1941 as a pro-democracy and pro-human
rights organization. While this may have been true in the past, in the
present day, Freedom House is quite involved in pushing US interests in
global politics andits leaders have connections
to rather unsavory organizations, such as current Executive Director
David Kramer being a Senior Fellow to the Project for the New American
Century, many of whose members are responsible for the current
warmongering status of the US.
During the Bush administration, the President used Freedom House to
support the so-called War on Terror. In a March 29, 2006 speech,
President Bush stated
that Freedom House “declared the year 2005 was one of the most
successful years for freedom since the Freedom House began measuring
world freedom more than 30 years ago” and that the US should not rest
“until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation”
because “In this new century, the advance of freedom is a vital element
of our strategy to protect the American people, and to secure the peace
for generations to come.”
Later, it was revealed that Freedom House became more and more
supportive of the Bush administration’s policies because of the funding
it was getting from the US government. According to its own internal report
in 2007, the US government was providing some 66% of funding for the
organization. This funding mainly came from the US Agency for
International Development (USAID), the US State Department, and the
National Endowment for Democracy. Thus, we see not only the political
connection of Freedom House to US government, but major financial
connections as well.
It should be noted, however, that Freedom House was not alone in
supporting the government. Under the Bush administration, the US
government forced NGOs to become more compliant to their demands. In
2003, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios stated
in a speech given at a conference of NGOs that in Afghanistan the
relationship between NGOs and USAID does affect the survival of the
Karzai regime and that Afghans “believe [their life] is improving
through mechanisms that have nothing to do with the U.S. government and
nothing to do with the central government. That is a very serious
problem.” On the situation in Iraq, Natsios stated that when it comes
to NGO work in the country “proving results counts, but showing a
connection between those results and U.S. policy counts as well.” NGOs
were essentially told that they were tools of the US government and were
being made part of the imperial apparatus.
Most recently, Freedom House was active in the Arab Spring,
where they aided in the training and financing of civil society groups
and individuals “including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the
Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar
Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen.”
While the Endowment and Freedom House are being used as tools of US
foreign policy that does not mean that the US government isn’t looking
for new tools, namely Amnesty International.
Amnesty International
The
human rights organization Amnesty International is the newest tool in
the imperial toolbox of the American Empire. In January 2012, Suzanne
Nossel was appointed the new Executive Director of Amnesty International
by the group itself. Before coming to Amnesty, Nossel already had deep connections to the US government as she had “served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the U.S. Department of State.”
Nossel is known for coining the term ‘smart power’ which she defined
as knowing that “US interests are furthered by enlisting others on
behalf of U.S. goals, through alliances, international institutions,
careful diplomacy, and the power of ideals.” While this definition may
seem harmless, ‘smart power’ seems to be an enhanced version of Joseph
Nye’s ‘soft power,’ which itself is defined
as “the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction
rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or coercion.” A
possible example of this ‘smart power’ is the war in Libya, where the US
used the UN as a means to get permission to engage in ‘humanitarian
intervention.’
Yet, even before Nossel was appointed to Amnesty, the group was
unwittingly aiding in the media war against Syria. In a September 1,
2011 Democracy Now interview, Neil Sammonds, the researcher and one of
the author’s for Amnesty’s report Deadly Detention: Deaths in Custody
Amid Popular Protest in Syria, spoke about the manner in which the
research was done for the report. He stated:
I’ve not been into Syria. Amnesty International has not been allowed into the country during these events, although we have requested it. So the research for this report was done mostly from London, but also from some work in neighboring countries and through communications with a large network of contacts and relatives of the families, and, you know, other sources.
How can one write a report with any amount of authority if their only
sources are through second-hand sources that may or may not have a bias
or an agenda to push? How can you write a report using sources whose
information has no way of being verified? It is reminiscent of the media
war against Gaddafi, where it was reported in the mainstream media that
he was bombing his own people and had given Viagra to his soldiers as
so they could rape women, but absolutely none of this was verified.
While NGOs can have a positive influence on society at large, one
must be aware of their backgrounds, who is in charge of them, and from
whom they are getting funding from because the nature of the NGO is
changing, it is being more and more integrated into the imperial
apparatus of domination and exploitation. NGOs are fast becoming the
missionaries of empire.
NOTES:
[1] William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, 3rd ed. (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2005) pg 239
[2] Ibid, pg 239
[3] Ibid, pg 240
--------------------------------
Funded by their governments, are these organisations funnelling money to protest movements?
Tahrir Square: One year on.
Ever since the Egyptian authorities raided the offices of a number of Western "non-profit organisations" in December, there has been consternation in the Western press. The 43 people accused of failing to register with the government and of financing the 6 April protest movement with illicit funds have been referred to repeatedly in the Western press as ‘NGO’ workers. This has served successfully to deflect the media from examining whether in fact there was some basis to Egypt’s claims that these people had been acting illegally.
As regards the accused organisations in Egypt, "NGO" might seem a strange term given that four of the five accused organisations receive the majority of their funding directly or indirectly from "their" governments. The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung is a German non-profit that receives 90 per cent of its funding from the German government. The International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) are two of the four core institutions of the grant-making institution the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
NED was created as an act of Congress and receives more than 90 per cent of its budget from the US government. Freedom House, while not one of its core institutions, also regularly receives the majority of its funding from NED. Chaired by Richard Gephardt – former Democratic Representative, now CEO of his own corporate consultancy and lobbying firm – the NED’s Board of Directors consists of a collection of corporate lobbyists, advisors and consultants, former U.S congressmen, senators, ambassadors and military staff, as well as senior fellows of highly political "think tanks".
NED and its affiliates (particularly IRI) have been implicated in funding groups involved in organising coups against democratically elected leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (2002), Jean-Betrand Aristide of Haiti (2004) and Manuel Zelaya of Honduras (2009). NED massively funded the political opposition to democratically elected Nobel Peace Price winner President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica (1986-1988) and, during the 1980s, NED poured funding into the cause of ‘defending democracy’ in France against her elected government, under Francois Mitterrand, which it regarded as dangerously socialist. As Barbara Conry of the right leaning Cato Institute once wrote: "Through the Endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements."
On 14 April 2011, the New York Times published an article entitled "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings" in which it stated that: "A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the IRI, the NDI and Freedom House".
One need only look at NED’s official website to see that it is pushing a right-wing agenda in Egypt, with nearly half of the $2,497,457 allocated to Egypt in 2010 going to the Center for International Private Enterprise for actions such as strengthening civil society’s "capacity to advocate for free market legislative reform" and other large grants awarded to youth organisations for training and mobilising activists in the use of new and social media.
But this is just the funding that is openly boasted of and the Egyptian authorities are finding it difficult, apparently, to trace the organisation’s funding. Dawlat Eissa – a 27-year-old Egyptian-American and former IRI employee – claimed that that the IRI was using employee’s private bank accounts to channel funding into IRI covertly from Washington.
A leaked Cairo US embassy cable from 2008, entitled "April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt", revealed how the US were in dialogue with one April 6 youth activist about his attendance at the 2008 Alliance of Youth Movements Summit in Washington. The cable also detailed the youth movement’s goal to remove Mubarak from power before 2011. The activist called Mubarak "the head of the snake" saying that it must be removed before democracy could take root.
While the Embassy, deemed this plan "highly unrealistic", the dialogue shows that from as early as December 2008 Washington was fully aware of the movement’s aim to remove the Mubarak regime from power. Critics claim that the defendants in the ‘NGO’ trial are being charged with a law that is a "relic of the Mubarak era". But in what country does the law tolerate foreign governments funding and training opposition group activists aiming for regime change? The US?
The term ‘NGO’ is used deliberately to create an illusion of innocent philanthropic activity. In this case the Egyptian government is investigating the operations of US state funded organisations which have a proven history of covertly funding political parties, influencing elections and aiding coups. Yet one mention of the Egyptian government’s raid on the offices of so-called ‘pro-democracy NGOs’ in Cairo was enough to spark an international outcry. There was an almost complete failure by the Western press to highlight at all the history of the organisations involved or the potential validity of the charges being brought against them.
---------------------------------------
--------------------------------
The Shadowy NED Network of International Subversion Exposes Itself In Egypt
17 03 2012The shadowy world of Egypt’s NGOs
Posted by Jenny O’Connor – 17 March 2012 10:12Funded by their governments, are these organisations funnelling money to protest movements?
Tahrir Square: One year on.
Ever since the Egyptian authorities raided the offices of a number of Western "non-profit organisations" in December, there has been consternation in the Western press. The 43 people accused of failing to register with the government and of financing the 6 April protest movement with illicit funds have been referred to repeatedly in the Western press as ‘NGO’ workers. This has served successfully to deflect the media from examining whether in fact there was some basis to Egypt’s claims that these people had been acting illegally.
As regards the accused organisations in Egypt, "NGO" might seem a strange term given that four of the five accused organisations receive the majority of their funding directly or indirectly from "their" governments. The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung is a German non-profit that receives 90 per cent of its funding from the German government. The International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) are two of the four core institutions of the grant-making institution the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
NED was created as an act of Congress and receives more than 90 per cent of its budget from the US government. Freedom House, while not one of its core institutions, also regularly receives the majority of its funding from NED. Chaired by Richard Gephardt – former Democratic Representative, now CEO of his own corporate consultancy and lobbying firm – the NED’s Board of Directors consists of a collection of corporate lobbyists, advisors and consultants, former U.S congressmen, senators, ambassadors and military staff, as well as senior fellows of highly political "think tanks".
NED and its affiliates (particularly IRI) have been implicated in funding groups involved in organising coups against democratically elected leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (2002), Jean-Betrand Aristide of Haiti (2004) and Manuel Zelaya of Honduras (2009). NED massively funded the political opposition to democratically elected Nobel Peace Price winner President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica (1986-1988) and, during the 1980s, NED poured funding into the cause of ‘defending democracy’ in France against her elected government, under Francois Mitterrand, which it regarded as dangerously socialist. As Barbara Conry of the right leaning Cato Institute once wrote: "Through the Endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements."
On 14 April 2011, the New York Times published an article entitled "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings" in which it stated that: "A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the IRI, the NDI and Freedom House".
One need only look at NED’s official website to see that it is pushing a right-wing agenda in Egypt, with nearly half of the $2,497,457 allocated to Egypt in 2010 going to the Center for International Private Enterprise for actions such as strengthening civil society’s "capacity to advocate for free market legislative reform" and other large grants awarded to youth organisations for training and mobilising activists in the use of new and social media.
But this is just the funding that is openly boasted of and the Egyptian authorities are finding it difficult, apparently, to trace the organisation’s funding. Dawlat Eissa – a 27-year-old Egyptian-American and former IRI employee – claimed that that the IRI was using employee’s private bank accounts to channel funding into IRI covertly from Washington.
A leaked Cairo US embassy cable from 2008, entitled "April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt", revealed how the US were in dialogue with one April 6 youth activist about his attendance at the 2008 Alliance of Youth Movements Summit in Washington. The cable also detailed the youth movement’s goal to remove Mubarak from power before 2011. The activist called Mubarak "the head of the snake" saying that it must be removed before democracy could take root.
While the Embassy, deemed this plan "highly unrealistic", the dialogue shows that from as early as December 2008 Washington was fully aware of the movement’s aim to remove the Mubarak regime from power. Critics claim that the defendants in the ‘NGO’ trial are being charged with a law that is a "relic of the Mubarak era". But in what country does the law tolerate foreign governments funding and training opposition group activists aiming for regime change? The US?
The term ‘NGO’ is used deliberately to create an illusion of innocent philanthropic activity. In this case the Egyptian government is investigating the operations of US state funded organisations which have a proven history of covertly funding political parties, influencing elections and aiding coups. Yet one mention of the Egyptian government’s raid on the offices of so-called ‘pro-democracy NGOs’ in Cairo was enough to spark an international outcry. There was an almost complete failure by the Western press to highlight at all the history of the organisations involved or the potential validity of the charges being brought against them.
---------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment