Counterpoint: Regulating foreign influence is the moment and not Russian!
This blog presents a rebuttal to criticisms surrounding our article on Georgia's foreign influence bill, offering more insights and alternative perspectives on the contentious issue.
I am posting this here, it is a reply to some feedback on our original article found here.
It's important to acknowledge that no single article can cover every aspect or fully explore such a complex situation. The original piece focuses on investigating foreign influence and places the responsibility on the EU and the “West”, rather than reflecting the perspective of the protestors. It also delves into the origins of the middle and ruling classes, highlighting the similarities in resumes between Georgian Dream and top NGOs.
Approaching this from a materialist and international perspective, it's evident that there's been significant change, with countries facing mounting pressure due to the surge of protectionist policies. There's a noticeable resurgence in efforts to curb and regulate foreign influence, particularly in Western nations recently. It's worth noting the extensive regulatory frameworks present in Western countries, with continuous governance spanning decades or even centuries, such as in the United States, where numerous laws are already in place to regulate various aspects of governance.
However, apart from the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of the US dating back to the 1930s, the adoption of similar regulations in the 2000s has primarily occurred outside of the West though now it’s catching up there too. This is significant as Western-run organizations, formations, or countries, including the EU and the US, are major donors to the rest of the world. The debate on whether aid serves as a form of colonization or promotes the interests of the donor country or bloc has been ongoing for decades, with numerous books and essays exploring this topic. There is even a notable book discussing how post-socialist countries prioritize civil and political rights over economic and social rights, aligning with the first part of the UN Human Rights Declaration, “Human Rights Aren’t Enough”. Additionally, I argue that international aid and NGOs are integral to neoliberalism, functioning as a means of outsourcing services.
I view this phenomenon as a symptom of the decline of socialism and a means to undermine state-led capitalism. The proliferation of NGOs is not necessarily indicative of a thriving civil society in my view. While many of us, including myself, are compelled to participate in this structural event due to the lack of alternatives, it doesn't mean that we cannot criticize it or want a way out. I recall attending a meeting in Berlin last year that was quite eye-opening. Donors of NGOs were openly critiquing themselves, acknowledging shortcomings and flaws within the system. The conference site highlighted the inadequacy of philanthropy in funding systemic alternatives, while also benefiting from the same capitalist system it criticizes. The speeches delivered at the event were truly remarkable, and I believe there may be videos available for those interested in learning more.
Ironically, the remarkable Oyoun center where the meeting took place was shut down by the German government a couple of weeks after the conference. This action was reportedly due to the center's pro-Palestinian stance, particularly for hosting an event by "Jewish Voice for a Just Peace."
It's often easier to critique things that are considered "sacred" or beyond criticism outside of Georgia than within the country itself. Speaking out can be challenging here. The intense backlash I received for this article is a clear example of this difficulty.
Here is about FARA the US since there have been many articles saying it is not like the US version and while it doesn’t require everyone with 20% funding to register like the Georgian version, it is worse in some aspects if US decided to enact it: “An “agent” that willfully does not comply with FARA faces criminal penalties.”
Here is an example: “Given the broad language, it is easy to accuse groups and individuals of violating the Act. For example, in 2018 the House Natural Resources Committee investigated whether four prominent U.S. environmental nonprofits violated the Act, focusing on whether they ever acted at the “request” of a foreign principal. This investigation of U.S. environmental nonprofits was restarted in 2023”
Four Common FARA Misconceptions
1. WHO IS A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL?Some observers believe that FARA is only targeted at the agents of foreign governments. However, a “foreign principal” under the Act includes not only foreign governments, but also foreign individuals, foundations, nonprofits, companies, and other entities.
2. COVERED ACTIVITY Many believe FARA only applies to lobbying or electioneering activity. However, the Act covers an array of “political activities,” which include attempts to influence “any section of the public within the United States” on domestic or foreign policy. Furthermore, these activities do not even need to be political. For example, an “agent” soliciting or disbursing contributions or other things of value on behalf of a foreign principal is also covered by the Act.
3. FARA’S “PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP”FARA does not require a true principal-agent relationship. The relationship can be far more informal than many appreciate. An entity can be considered an “agent” even if the “agent” acts at the mere “request” or is financed “in major part” by the foreign principal (with both “request” and “major part” being undefined).
4. THE BURDEN IMPOSED BY FARAWhile often thought of as a transparency statute, the Act creates significant burdens. An “agent” needs to register with the Justice Department, provide regular (publicly available) updates of activities covered by the Act, and when providing information to the public must make a “conspicuous” statement that it is acting on behalf of a foreign principal. Further, an “agent” may be ineligible from receiving certain government benefits. For example, under the federal government’s COVID relief program an “agent” was ineligible for a forgivable PPP loan. An “agent” that willfully does not comply with FARA faces criminal penalties.
Read more here: https://www.icnl.org/post/analysis/the-danger-of-the-foreign-agents-registration-act-to-civil-society
In a 2013 study, the Journal of Democracy, funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, found an “upward trend in civil society restrictions that has continued and is increasing pace.” Fifty-one of the 98 countries studied either prohibit or restrict “foreign influence.” Since 2013, there have been new additions to this list. Most recently, Canada and the EU have announced plans for passing foreign influence bills at the same time as the US and EU issue statements opposing similar foreign agent bills in Georgia - we do not know what the concrete bills look like but EU civil society is equally alarmed. Russia received the most attention when beginning in 2012, it imposed a series of restrictions on foreign funding and CSOs. There were numerous criticisms of the Russian bill that Georgian civil society was well aware of and could use the same arguments against the bills in Georgia. According to the same journal, the main reason for countries imposing restrictions is wariness about domestic instability.
Another article argues that “Following the color revolutions, many post-Soviet countries increased the regulatory barriers for non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Given their numerous commonalities, why did Belarus and Russia pass legislation that raised such barriers while Armenia ultimately did not? Authoritarian learning is an important factor in all three cases but cannot alone explain this variation. Rather, a country’s willingness to enact restrictive legislation also depends on its authorities’ perception of both the level of politicization of NGOs and U.S. foreign policy toward regime change in the country.”
argues that there was even an incident where the bill was introduced in a country with "Russian Federation" still written on it. However, she emphasizes that this is not necessarily indicative of it being "Russian," but rather part of the broader issues previously mentioned. Even if Georgia copied a law from Russia or any other country with similar legislation, it doesn't inherently make it Russian. The practice of copying and pasting laws in our country is well-known and notorious.The argument that this bill will turn Georgia towards Russia instead of the EU, or that it's part of a larger plan to dismantle civil society akin to Russia, overlooks crucial differences between the two countries. Unlike Russia, Georgia lacks significant resources, and even our oligarchs must seek opportunities outside our borders. Russia is a vast country with abundant natural resources, relatively unaffected by sanctions, and possesses a formidable military, including nuclear weapons. In contrast, Georgia is a small nation with limited resources, unable to withstand sanctions or engage in military conflicts. Georgia is an EU candidate country with NATO aspirations while Russia was not in 2012.
Furthermore, while NGOs and foreign funding play a vital role in Georgia, they primarily provide services rather than engaging solely in political activities. Foreign funding is crucial for sustaining the country as a whole. Unlike in Russia, where civil society organizations are often mainly adversaries of the government, in Georgia, many actively participate in parliamentary committees and contribute to lawmaking. Additionally, the Russian budget has more capacity to absorb economic shocks, whereas Georgia's economy is more vulnerable and tied to foreign money.
The ambiguity from EU officials regarding their specific concerns about the bill, beyond vague references to "norms and values," coupled with statements from certain MEPs affiliated with Georgian opposition parties, raises questions. Their misleading language of the resolutions and MEP letters, particularly regarding the risk of losing visa liberalization, doesn't automatically imply that Georgia is violating EU candidacy rules. I anticipate clearer statements from the EU soon. From my perspective, the EU's efforts to strengthen ties with Georgia, along with the Balkans, stem from geopolitical motives, aiming to counter Russian influence. Georgia's consideration as a candidate status also reflects the EU's strategic interests rather than strict adherence to candidacy rules.
Labeling this law as "Russian" may indeed be effective in mobilizing support and creating a sense of panic and existential crisis and getting the attention of the EU and US. However, it's essential to critically assess such narratives and not simply accept them as truth. Concern should be based on the potential negative impacts outlined in our article, rather than suspicions about its origins. Regardless of its origins, the potential detrimental effects of this law on Georgia, its unions, and many reputable individuals and organizations are clear. It's crucial to oppose the law based on its actual implications and the harm it could cause, rather than engaging in Russian-takeover narratives. However, I do not share the fears that the banning of civil society will continue like in Russia and this is just the beginning as many have argued.
The arguments against the law in Parliament debates have been underwhelming, with only a few exceptions focusing on the stigmatization and administrative burden it imposes. More troubling are the government's flawed justifications for the law, which often lack substance and fail to address crucial concerns. As our Lawyer aptly pointed out in his paper, there seems to be a lack of thorough study and understanding of the regulations being proposed, shouldn’t they know what they are regulating? The government's shortcomings in this regard are evident, and it's essential to highlight them in both English and Georgian publications - but it’s the only thing that is discussed. That and the alleged Russian takeover.
Yet at the same time, I want to have conversations about what we can do to increase the power of the people. I want to increase the strength of unions here and grassroots civil society, I want to remove restrictions on strikes, solidarity strikes. The fact that unions are easily destroyed with one swoop and so on. I want to make the government give buildings and free offices to grassroots organizations. Increase the public budget through progressive taxation. There are so many things I personally want to do to strengthen real grassroots and union organizing.
However, I am against reverting to a model where privileged and hand-picked civil society organizations (CSOs) collaborate with the government in committees to draft laws, while the wider public remains uninformed. This approach, favored by some CSOs, does not align with true democracy. CSOs are advocating for this model again as part of their demands to the government. Hence why we need critiques of existing civil society!
It seems people are angry with me because I didn’t offer my help by only writing about the government’s role or helping to craft the narrative that it is Russian.
It’s unfortunate you have received ‘the intense backlash’. Hopefully you are safe.., and, if you indeed are, and if it’s not too much to ask, would you consider providing some examples of the pushback you have received, not as evidence backing up your statement, but as an auxiliary material that would help some readers, who are on the outside and aren’t terribly familiar with the inner workings of the G. society and politics, to think in a wider context regarding the matter.
Looking forward to part two of your series.