Serbia, Republika Srpska, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan… These are the countries where foreign agent laws have been proposed or adopted this year. To this list, Hungary should be added, starting from 2017, which, despite opposition from the European Union, managed to protect its national sovereignty through various regulations against organizations and media financed from abroad.
FLIRTING WITH NAZISM
As most of the public knows, foreign agent laws were born in 1938 in the United States (U.S.) with the adoption of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). During those years, American society was not immune to the ideas of Nazism, and the Great Depression fueled fears of communist action within the country.
Many segments of U.S. society saw Adolf Hitler’s rise as a policy of stability, order, and even prosperity. A range of American political and social organizations promoted Nazi ideas among Americans.
Leading this effort was the German American Federation (also known as the “German American Bund”), along with numerous other increasingly influential groups, organizations, and individuals such as Henry Ford, Joseph P. Kennedy (father of President John F. Kennedy), Charles Lindbergh, and other prominent figures. Business circles, in particular, were eager to engage in trade with the Nazis and their companies. Coca-Cola, Ford, IBM, General Motors, Chase National Bank (now JPMorgan Chase), Standard Oil (now ExxonMobil), and many others played a key role.
FANTA AS A NAZI PRODUCT
It is less known to the public that the famous soft drink Fanta was a product of Coca-Cola’s collaboration with the Nazis. After the outbreak of World War II, economic cooperation with the Nazis continued, but obtaining raw materials became significantly more difficult. Since it could no longer import syrup and components for Coca-Cola, the company “German Coca-Cola GmbH” began producing Fanta, which remains part of Coca-Cola’s family of beverages today.
The ideology of Nazism spread from Germany to the United Kingdom, where it had also taken deep root, even within the royal family, and eventually permeated all layers of American society. The law passed in the U.S. in 1938 stipulated that any individual or organization acting on behalf of foreign governments or entities must register with the Department of Justice. Such individuals or organizations were required to disclose their identity and all activities conducted in the U.S. In short, under this American law—still in effect today with modifications—foreign agents must disclose information about all financial transactions, payments, and other forms of compensation received in connection with their work.
A LONG TRADITION OF UNDERMINING FREEDOMS
Nazi ideology—along with the aforementioned communist threat to the U.S.—posed a risk to undermine the democratic order in the United States. In response, Washington adopted the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a legitimate move considering the U.S.’s right to protect its way of life.
Thanks to this and a series of other laws, as well as scandals marked by political persecutions—such as the activities of Joseph McCarthy, and affairs like “Venona,” COINTELPRO, “Watergate,” and “Iran-Contra”—the U.S. has frequently resorted to spying on its own citizens, violating human rights, engaging in political persecution, and abusing political power. This infamous tradition of undermining rights and freedoms persisted into the 21st century, as revealed by Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and other whistleblowers.
The problem with the U.S. lies in the fact that it is unwilling to acknowledge the right of other nations to adopt similar laws to protect their social values. The essence of monitoring and controlling foreign influence is something the U.S. refuses to recognize in other countries, seeking to retain this right exclusively for itself to avoid becoming the target of similar laws abroad.
WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR DEMOCRATIC JUPITER…
When Russia adopted a law in 2012 almost identical to the American one from 1938, the U.S. was not willing to acknowledge Russia’s right to defend its societal values. Simply put, Russia and other countries must either submit economically and ideologically to the U.S. or cease to exist as sovereign entities. They must be stripped of the right to defend what they consider their own—primarily their traditional social values, which the U.S. has aggressively challenged and undermined, not only domestically but also abroad, through NGOs, media, and pressure groups funded by the U.S.
A document from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that extensively finances “non-governmental” organizations worldwide, including in Serbia and Republika Srpska, states that countries adopting such protective laws selectively target organizations fighting corruption and advocating for human rights.
The document points out that in 2017—the same year Hungary adopted its foreign agent law—the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights “noticed a clear downward trend in several European countries regarding freedom of association, particularly concerning human rights organizations and their defenders.”
EMPTY PROMISES
The concept outlined suggests that the U.S., as the sovereign of the political elite governing the European Union, has the right to protect its values through foreign agent laws, while all others—deemed insufficiently “democratic”—are expected to believe that local organizations, which receive enormous financial support and training from the U.S. government, act in the “democratic” interest of their nations rather than in line with American interests. From a logical standpoint, this is hard to believe.
A prime example is Serbia. When the revolution of 2000—heavily financed by tens of millions of U.S. dollars—toppled Slobodan Milošević’s government, citizens were promised democracy, economic prosperity, the end of corruption, and the prevention of Albanian efforts to demand independence for Kosovo and Metohija. Revolutionaries promised that Kosovo and Metohija would become a democratic issue that the U.S. and the European Union would approach favorably, rather than solely in the national interest of the Albanians.
THE EPILOGUE OF THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION – BILLIONS EXTRACTED
The crowning promise was that Western countries would invest $4 billion in Serbia once Milošević was removed from power. The epilogue of the October Revolution came in 2011, when the Consortium of Investigative Journalists announced the results of their investigation. The findings revealed that, following the revolution carried out by organizations funded by the U.S. and the European Union, a total of $51 billion had been extracted from Serbia. This sum is tied exclusively to the process of “privatizing” Serbian enterprises and assets. The exact amount of revenue and profit generated by foreign companies operating in Serbia has never been disclosed.
It became evident that the revolution of October 5th led to a shift in ownership of national assets, expanded corruption to unimaginable levels, and accelerated—rather than prevented—Kosovo’s “independence.” Ultimately, the revolution had very little to do with the interests of Serbian citizens, apart from the often-ludicrous claims that the country was finally on a European path—a path that remains unfinished to this day, with no foreseeable conclusion.
THE SHEEPSKIN OF AMERICAN INTERESTS
The core issue that national foreign agent laws seek to address is the fight against corruption, which often serves as the sheepskin masking American interests. National states targeted by the U.S. make a grave long-term mistake by failing to develop their own professional media capacities to combat corruption internally. This neglect creates a vast field for the activities of NGOs and media outlets funded by the U.S. government, which thereby gain “credibility.”
Serbia is also a prime example of this type of government negligence. As a result, organizations like the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) can easily conclude that foreign agent laws in other countries do not protect those nations but deprive them of material and non-material resources essential to the efficiency of civil society organizations. These resources include funding, reputation, legitimacy, expertise, and alliances.
If countries like Serbia had more developed domestic media, they would be far less susceptible to long-term influence from foreign-backed media. These foreign outlets garner public favor by highlighting corruption and evident injustices—issues that domestic media often remain silent about.
WHEN MEDIA BACK DOWN, NED STEPS IN
When reports of poor working conditions for Vietnamese laborers at Linglong escalated into claims that the workers were victims of international human trafficking—shifting the focus from labor rights to attacking Chinese investments in Serbia—no domestic media outlet reported on the findings of the Vietnamese government, which investigated the case and concluded that no trafficking had occurred. Domestic media remained complicit, transmitting official statements and engaging in primitive smear campaigns against dissenters.
For these reasons, the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) emphasizes the critical importance of protecting groups that “actively collaborate with broader civil society networks” and build “strong national coalitions” from foreign agent laws. The organization asserts that the best “antidote” to local governments, in order to restore public support for civil society organizations, lies in investing in innovative communication strategies.
“To preserve their credibility – a vital asset in confronting smear campaigns – NGOs should adopt new, positive, values-based narratives tailored to local contexts that effectively engage the public. Donor organizations should, in turn, allocate even greater resources to improve the communication and promotional capacities of frontline organizations. Increased public attention can then easily translate into greater public support through creative micro-donation campaigns and crowdfunding initiatives,” the NED states in one of its analyses of foreign agent laws.
READ BETWEEN THE LINES
According to this source, these organizations should recognize foreign agent laws as clear indicators of systemic democratic erosion aimed at undermining the international legal order (read: the American rules-based order—otherwise, they wouldn’t support terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija or the color revolution in Kyiv).
“These laws represent a direct threat to global democracy and security and should be treated as such,” the NED notes. However, generations of the public accustomed to reading between the lines will undoubtedly interpret “global democracy and security” as the interests of the U.S. and its geopolitical satellites, rather than believing that the U.S. allocates billions of dollars annually out of humanitarian and altruistic beliefs rather than for its own geopolitical needs.
