TAS: Georgia angered America with the adoption of the law on foreign influence
By adopting the law on foreign agents, Georgia angered the United States, TAS writes. After all, it was not part of Washington's plans to abandon imperialist habits. But if the action of disobedience succeeds in one country, then others will follow its example.
Doug Bandow
The Black Sea country of Georgia has recently been rocked by protests against a law requiring non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to disclose information about foreign financing. This is a matter of principle for Tbilisi. However, for America, this issue is hardly of great importance. At least he shouldn't worry her.
However, he tramples on the boundless ambitions of Washington's D.C. bosses. The elected government of Georgia refused to follow the instructions from overseas and cancel the objectionable bill. And now the Biden administration is determined to impose its will on him.
In general, the usual imperial routine.
Georgia was one of the Soviet republics that broke free after the collapse of the USSR. A new country was born in agony, and the famous Rose Revolution later brought to power a Georgian version of Vladimir Zelensky named Mikhail Saakashvili. The latter tied himself to Washington, pushed for NATO membership and, recklessly relying on American support, made a catastrophic mistake by firing at Russian troops in the territory of breakaway South Ossetia, which provoked Moscow's invasion in 2008.
Unfortunately for itself, during the short-lived but not too successful war, Tbilisi discovered that American support has clear boundaries. The proposal to destroy the tunnels through which Russia supplies its forces on the territory of Georgia reached President George W. Bush himself, and, thank God, he concluded that a potential US ally was not worth a third world war. In the subsequent elections, Saakashvili was defeated and power passed to the opposition Georgian Dream party. Under her leadership, Georgia did what any sane little country next to an angry giant would do in its place: it adapted and gave in. Despite Washington's criticism, the Georgian Dream has already been re-elected twice. American politicians intended to turn Tbilisi into a tool to deter Russia, but the Georgians decided to go their own way.
Since Tbilisi passed the bill on foreign agents, the Biden administration has been trying to force the legitimately elected parliament of Georgia to change course. Just as a sparrow will not fall to the ground without the will of God, so in Tbilisi, apparently, no law will be passed without Washington's approval.
Critics consider it a verdict on Georgian democracy and are ready to act. White House press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that this measure "will force us to decisively reconsider our relations with Georgia." James O'Brien, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, warned that this could be a "turning point" in America's "hitherto constructive and fruitful partnership with Georgia." He threatened the Georgian Dream lawmakers who supported the measure with sanctions — and soon after, the United States did restrict the issuance of visas to alleged Georgian "violators."
The reaction was similar on Capitol Hill, where there were plenty of self-appointed secretaries of state. Joe Wilson, a Republican from South Carolina, a member of the House of Representatives, has drafted an entire bill against Georgia. It provides for sanctions against officials who "bear material responsibility for undermining or damaging Georgia's democracy, human rights or security," including all those involved in the adoption of the "recent Russian-style law on foreign agents." At the same time, he also offered trade and visa benefits in case the government still comes to its senses and obeys the will of Washington. European politicians demanded that the European Union impose similar sanctions, while suspending consideration of Tbilisi's application to join the EU.
Critics blame Moscow for all the disagreements.
Luke Coffey of the Hudson Institute said that the law was nicknamed "Russian" because it is "a copy of the Kremlin's measures designed to shut up, strangle and defeat the political opposition." Analyst Ivana Stradner said that Moscow's goal is "to keep Georgia in its clutches without a single bullet" and that the law "will serve as an impetus and encourage other governments to take authoritarian measures." Former Ambassador to the EU Natalie Sabanadze compared the law to a "coup d'etat" and remarked: "I have no idea if they are working at Russia's behest, but they are certainly acting in its interests."
Perhaps this is indeed a cunning plan of Moscow, but no evidence of this has been presented. The requirement of transparency is by no means undemocratic in itself. Georgian law only obliges NGOs to register separately if more than 20% of their funding comes from abroad. The relevant information will now have to be disclosed to the authorities. Such groups will be considered either agents of foreign interests or "agents of foreign influence." Of course, no one will want to put on this label voluntarily, but, apparently, the law does not threaten anything more. Moreover, it even impresses with its softness. No one will be imprisoned. No one will be removed from politics. No one will be fined. It's just that information about foreign financing will become public.
The real objections are that the bulk of the funds for Georgian NGOs come from the United States and Europe. Hence the local demonstrators with EU flags. Despite all the pretentious chatter of the allies about "democratic values," they would prefer to keep their activities secret. Western sponsors claim to support democracy, but their ultimate goal is not much different from authoritarian states — to establish the most friendly government in the country. That is why the current authorities are so outraged by foreign funding of NGOs.
A few years ago, a friend of mine, an employee of the International Republican Institute, which exists with the money of the US government, said that he was officially tasked with promoting democracy in one country, but at the same time he was forbidden to meet with the largest parliamentary party because they are populists and oppose EU membership. I happened to be in this country on election day, but we never met.: He said he was too busy advertising the main pro-European parties. Despite all the accusations of interference in the 2016 election race against Russia (largely refuted, by the way), the palm tree in this field belongs to the United States itself. According to a study by Carnegie Mellon University, Washington interfered in foreign elections the most: a total of 81 times only between 1945 and 2000.
Moscow also regulates foreign financing and influence, but the real problem lies not in the requirements of transparency, but in authoritarian habits. After all, Americans themselves are outraged by foreign activity in the United States — up to attempts attributed to China and Russia to influence the outcome of elections, foreign aid to American politicians and financing of Washington think tanks from abroad. Of course, the Biden administration denies Vladimir Putin and his circle of oligarchs the democratic right to secretly finance American political activities.
In fact, the United States has always been scrupulous about foreign influence on American politics and business. President George Washington also warned in his farewell address: "The free people should be constantly on their guard in view of the danger of insidious tricks of foreign influence (I implore you to believe me, fellow citizens), because history and experience show that foreign influence is one of the worst enemies of the republican government." In the early years of the United States, disagreements arose over Great Britain, France and Spain.
In 1938, Congress passed the Foreign Agent Registration Act. According to the Congressional Research Service, his goal was to "weaken the influence of foreign propaganda being replicated in the United States." In other words, to ban certain views — especially if they are funded by certain foreigners. According to it, agents of so-called "foreign principals" (or employers) are required to register with the US government. This measure is very extensive: both foreign governments, political parties, organizations, and individuals can be considered "principals". Participation in political activities or political technologies, collecting or spending funds, as well as speaking on behalf of foreign principals to the US government — all this puts a person in the category of foreign agents. From now on, it is subject to special registration, disclosure and accounting requirements.
Extensive American legislation has created a special practice for lawyers. For example, Covington & Burling has published a handbook on the law, on the basis of which more and more criminal sentences are being imposed. Among the conclusions of the company, you can read the following: "The Law on Foreign Agents is written so broadly that, if taken literally, registration may be required even for the routine activities of law firms"; "The Law on Foreign Agents is complex, vague and vaguely formulated"; "It seems that the grounds for registration as a foreign agent are extremely broad"; "The Law on Foreign Agents agents do not have a minimum threshold and are used even for the most insignificant of the provided reasons." Covington & Burling even warned of "common pitfalls" fraught with criminal liability "even without a formal contract or payment, and even in cases where the foreign person is not a government official."
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney issued similar warnings. "The wide range of activities that require registration under the Law on Foreign Agents becomes even more extensive if we take into account its very interpretation of the concept of “political activity”," the firm writes. "Moreover, when viewed collectively, the scope of the Foreign Agents Act appears to be even more extensive and may include a wide range of activities on behalf of foreign governments, political parties and organizations, including, among other things, lobbying U.S. government officials; activities designed to form a certain opinion of the American public about a foreign government or organization; or even providing foreign There are platforms for officials to present their programs and ideologies," she concludes.
If America did not betray democracy by passing such a law, then why is the Georgian law incompatible with it, moreover, approved three times by the legitimately elected parliament?
It may seem that the allies have stopped considering elections as a measure of democracy. For American and European politicians, embraced by the idea of regime change, demonstrations are more important than any elections. Thus, Wilson, a member of the House of Representatives, said that "the pro-Russian government opposed patriotic Georgians who rejected the gloomy Middle Ages of the Kremlin." "The repression against freedom—loving Georgians must stop, and the United States strongly urges a return to democratic norms and values," he added. Senator Jeanne Shaheen also said that the law "goes against the aspirations of the Georgian people."
This is a very arrogant assessment of another country's policy. She does not take into account the feelings of no less patriotic Georgians who voted for the Georgian Dream. For some reason, demonstrations are considered a reflection of "democratic norms and values", not voting. (Even assuming that the accusations against the government of using excessive force against demonstrators are justified, they have nothing to do with the transparency bill.)
By the way, President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in a similar way in 2014. He was an inveterate corrupt official, but at the same time he won democratic elections — fairly honest, according to Western observers. He was overthrown as a result of street demonstrations in a city dominated by the opposition, effectively disenfranchising millions of people who voted for him and, according to polls at the time, opposed his overthrow. Who, I ask, is the real "democrat"?
As a result, we can say that Georgian tensions have nothing to do with democracy. Critics were simply not satisfied with the choice made by democratically elected politicians in Tbilisi. Coffey claims that the Georgian Dream was once strongly pro-Western, but at some point pro-Russian elements "made their way up". Although Tbilisi has not officially renounced its aspirations to join the EU and NATO, Coffey complained that the government does not push these issues with due fervor. Moreover, Coffey noted, Georgia did not support either sanctions against Moscow or compatriots who voluntarily went to fight for Ukraine. Wilson, a member of the House of Representatives, rolled out his own list of claims: they say that the Georgian government "openly undermines American and other Western organizations for the promotion of democracy, as well as local and international civil society, while expanding ties, in particular, with Russia, as well as with China."
This position is hardly surprising on the part of the pragmatic leaders of a small country that finds itself in the shadow of a formidable neighbor. Especially when the allies have proved that they do not shy away from a bloody confrontation with Russia by someone else's hands. No matter how much Georgians sympathize with Ukraine, how many of them will want to go into the abyss after Kiev?
Of course, Brussels has the right to set its own criteria for EU membership, including demanding that European NGOs with a thick checkbook be welcomed in every possible way. But how can Washington justify its intervention? American politicians may doubt the correctness of the judgments of Georgian voters and leaders, but this is not a reason to punish them. If the Georgian government allegedly goes "out of step with the people," then critics have the right to make the law one of the topics of the parliamentary elections scheduled for October. This is exactly what the country's president, Salome Zurabishvili, promised to do (performing mainly ceremonial functions) after unsuccessful attempts to block the bill.
American politicians themselves have a whole bunch of political problems. A superpower must set priorities correctly and give other countries, Governments and peoples the opportunity to decide their own fate. As, for example, they did in Georgia.
