MOSCOW, (RIA Novosti political commentator Peter Lavelle). Russian President Vladimir Putin stated this week that Western NGOs financing political activities in Russia should be tightly monitored, if not banned altogether.
Western media claim restricting the activities of Western NGOs in Russia is a threat to the country's democracy and civil society. In fact, what appears to be in play is Russia establishing its own version of the American "Foreign Agents Registration Act."
Should so-called Western NGOs such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiaries, the International Republican Institute (IRI, chaired by Sen. John McCain) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI, chaired by ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright), Freedom House (chaired by ex-CIA Director Woolsey) and George Soros' assorted organizations be allowed to fund Russian political organizations and parties? After the "rent-a-crowd" revolutions in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and, to some extent, Kyrgyzstan, in which these NGOs spent millions, the Kremlin is determined not to allow non-governmental freelancers to carry out personal political agendas in Russia.
Woolsey is quoted on American television as saying, "The Russian government under Putin has moved to within striking distance of being, essentially, fascist." Sen. McCain has repeatedly described Russia in the most disparaging terms and supports petitions for Russia's exclusion from the G8. It should not surprise anyone that Russia is concerned with loose cannons such as Woolsey and McCain who have histories with "franchised revolutions."
Is the move to ban the activities of such NGOs a strike against Russia's democracy? Is this a defensive measure to thwart a "colored revolution in Russia? The answer to both questions is no. Russia's authorities are being proactive to protect self-determination at home and to prevent outside meddling in Russia's domestic political affairs.
Those who defend the involvement of Western NGOs in the domestic affairs of other countries claim the demise of corrupt and/or authoritarian leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, Eduard Shervardnadze in 2003, and Leonid Kuchma in 2004 is proof positive of their noble deeds and commitment to the spread of democracy in the world. What these NGOs do is neither noble nor good for democracy.
What these NGOs practice is "electoral coup d'etats." Individuals are selected as a favored candidate or a political party and backed-up with training, financing and sophisticated agitation. They harass legally elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and indirectly promote the corruption of democratic movements. They do not advance democracy; they treat the politics of other countries as a commodity that can be bought and sold.
Many of these NGOs, particularly the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), are taxpayer funded and peppered with private corporate funding. However, NED and other NGOs are not held accountable to Congressional oversight. In turn, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute are funded by NED. With taxpayer money and private individuals with deep pockets, these quasi-private organizations pursue what is essentially an independent foreign policy under the guise of "promoting democracy" and often like to give the impression they represent official American foreign policy interests.
What these NGOs do in the world would be rightly illegal in the United States. The Kremlin is set to emulate the U.S. by establishing its own version of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act" (FARA). The purpose of FARA is to insure that the American public and its lawmakers know the source of information (propaganda) intended to sway public opinion, policy, and laws. In 1938, FARA was Congress' response to the large number of German propaganda agents in the pre-WWII U.S. This law has been updated a number of times since, particularly the "The Lobbying Disclosure Act" of 1995. The U.S. is keenly interested in limiting foreign influence peddling in its domestic politics; Russia is set to do the same.
America's FARA works in the following way:
1. The Act requires every agent of a foreign principal to register with the Department of Justice and file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures on behalf of the foreign principal. These forms are public records and must be supplemented every six months.
2. The Act also requires that informational materials (formerly propaganda) be labeled with a conspicuous statement that the information is provided by the agents on behalf of the foreign principal. The agent must provide copies of such materials to the Attorney General.
3. Any agent testifying before a committee of Congress must furnish the committee with a copy of his most recent registration statement.
4. The agent must keep records of all his/her activities and permit the Attorney General to inspect them.
A Russian version of FARA will actually strengthen Russia's democracy and political parties in many ways. Compared to American politics, the cost of funding political parties in Russia is still quite low. Cutting off outside funding of any sort will make Russia's parties rely on domestic resources instead of hoping for a grant from a Western NGO "donor" - and the demands the "donor" has before dispensing funding. A Russian FARA will also make political parties more accountable to the Russian law and voters.
Since Vladimir Putin came to office, Russia's oligarchs are no longer allowed to buy and sell political parties and politicians. In light of the heavy involvement of Western NGOs in elections in the post-Soviet space recently, the Kremlin now intends to assure that Russia's politics will not be subject to the same kind of machinations. Introducing a Russian version of FARA will promote party development at home and Russia's overall democratic project. Most importantly, a Russian FARA will obligate domestic political and civil society organizations to observe the law - unlike many Western NGOs that recklessly disregard laws to protect the United States from outside meddlers.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.
