Why Serbia needs law about agents of foreign interests?

Does the interconnection between “non-governmental” organizations, foreign financiers, and domestic institutions represent the biggest obstacle to more serious re-sovereignization of the Republic of Serbia, and why does the case of Georgia serve as a warning?

The Case of Georgia as a Warning

The recent developments in Georgia regarding the adoption of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence clearly demonstrate the significant role that civil society organizations and media play in the neo-colonial policy of the Collective West towards certain countries. This is why the registration of such entities as agents of foreign influence is the first necessary normative precondition for initiating the process of re-sovereignization of a state.

The Georgian Case

Dissatisfied with the interference of certain Western “non-governmental” organizations in Georgia’s internal politics and the spread of disinformation through rigged public opinion polls, primarily by well-known American organizations such as the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), the “Alliance of Patriots of Georgia” demanded a ban on the activities of these and similar organizations as early as 2020. This was followed in March 2023 by the first attempt to pass the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence. Although the bill passed in the first reading in parliament (in Georgia, a bill must be voted on in three readings to become law), its proponents—the parties “Georgian Dream” and “Power of the People”—withdrew the bill from parliamentary procedure at that time. They faced coordinated violent mass protests from the opposition (about 50 police officers were injured) and open threats from EU and US officials that Georgia’s further accession process to the European Union would be blocked if the law was adopted.

Protests in front of the Parliament building in Georgia

Threats of Sanctions

The “Georgian Dream” political party, which has a majority in parliament and constitutes the Georgian government, decided in early April this year to restart the procedure for passing the same law, recognizing its necessity for stabilizing the political situation in the country. Again, the law’s proponents faced opposition from the president, parliamentary opposition, the Collective West, and multi-day mass protests in several major Georgian cities. Despite this, the parliamentary majority managed to pass the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence after overcoming the president’s veto with an absolute majority vote in parliament on May 28th.

The Controversial Law

What is so controversial about the law that has led Georgian authorities to face threats of sanctions and visa regime restrictions from the US and EU, as well as previous attempts by numerous Brussels envoys (foreign ministers of Iceland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia) to persuade representatives of the Georgian government and parliamentary majority to abandon this act? The Georgian Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence requires all civil society organizations and media that receive more than 20% of their annual funding from abroad to register in a special registry as an “organization that implements the interests of a foreign power” and to submit a special report on their operations to the competent Georgian state authority at the end of each year. Violations of these obligations are subject to an administrative fine of up to $9,500. (Source 1) (Source 2)

Who is chanting “No to the Russian Law“?

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze tried in vain to convince Western officials and domestic opponents of the law that it was modeled after a similar American law (FARA) from 1938 and that a similar bill had recently passed the procedure in the lower house of the French representative body. Meanwhile, the president of the Georgian parliament questioned, “Why can’t we pass a law that already exists in their countries?” In response to these arguments, the opposition in parliament and on the streets, supported by regular statements from the US embassy in Tbilisi and the personal presence of foreign ministers from certain EU member states at rallies, continuously chanted, “No to the Russian law!

The Struggle Between the Government and the Elites

The reasons why the Collective West applies double standards in this matter are easily understood from the explanation of Georgian political scientist and analyst Archil Sikharulidze. According to him, there is now “a struggle between the elected government and the elites formed as a result of foreign financial support to so-called civil society.” “The problem is that this is not civil society in the classical sense of the term,” as “most of the logistics and financial support comes from abroad,” adds the Georgian analyst, concluding that “the law on foreign agents will document that the only legitimate authority is the elected party ‘Georgian Dream,’ while social organizations do not have the necessary level of legitimacy since their financial logistics do not come from the people but from foreign structures.” Former Georgian parliamentarian Petre Mamradze points out that “Europeans have no problem interfering in Georgia’s internal affairs,” that they have “built a network of media, civil, and non-governmental organizations through which they manipulate public opinion, and now they are protecting these structures with all their might.” He stresses the importance of making the sources of funding for these organizations transparent because “only then can our country become truly sovereign.”

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Front for proxy war against Russia?

The fact that the Collective West has formed a colossal structure of non-governmental organizations and media in Georgia is evident from the fact that there are currently around 10,000 organizations in this Caucasian country, which, based on their funding sources, can be characterized as agents of foreign influence. The number of Western influence agents in Georgia may not correspond to the size of the country, but it certainly matches its strategic geographical position, as the Caucasus is seen in the Collective West’s plans as a region where a second front in the proxy war against Russia can be opened. Thus, it is not surprising that the director of the American think tank “McCain Institute” and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas, recently stated that Georgia will go through the same path that Ukraine went through in 2014 when it tried to pass a similar law that was an obstacle on the country’s path to European integration.

Russia’s experience in combating pro-Western “non-governmental” organizations and media confirms the opinion of the former Georgian parliamentarian that the registration of these organizations as agents of foreign interest and the public exposure of their background is one of the necessary preconditions for initiating the process of re-sovereignization of the state. At the beginning of a new, radically confrontational phase in relations with the Collective West, which followed the Kiev Maidan and the annexation of Crimea to the motherland, Russia immediately began “cleaning” the network of non-governmental organizations and media founded and (or) funded by the West as the main subversive instrument of its “soft power.”

Law No. 129

According to Federal Law No. 129, adopted in May 2015, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation was authorized, along with the federal body that registers non-governmental organizations, to declare an NGO “undesirable” on the territory of the Russian Federation if its activities pose a threat to the constitutional order, defense capability, or security of the state. Such an organization is then entered into the register of banned NGOs maintained by the Ministry of Justice, and further participation in its activities incurs administrative and criminal sanctions, including fines and imprisonment for Russian citizens.

Some of the first organizations targeted by the new Russian law were those whose activities in Georgia had also prompted the adoption of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence (Source 1) (Source 2). Shortly after the adoption of the Russian law, the first banned organization was the American National Endowment for Democracy (NED), followed in 2016 by the American National Democratic Institute (NDI), the American International Republican Institute (IRI), and the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF) (Source 1) (Source 2) (Source 3).

CIA Headquarters, Langley, McLean, Virginia, United States

Taking over CIA´s work

Russian media have published numerous details about the activities of these organizations, which receive funding from the US budget and have taken over tasks previously handled by the CIA, such as organizing “Orange color” revolutions. This organization, known in Serbia as the financier of “Otpor,” financed many activities in Russia, from the Helsinki Committee to Chechen separatists, all under the guise of projects officially related to fighting corruption, the rule of law, and media freedom. The National Democratic Institute (NDI), backed by the US Democratic Party and formerly led by Madeleine Albright, funded the work of one of Russia’s leading election monitoring NGOs, “Golos,” and established contacts with some local authorities and youth organizations. (Source 1) (Source 2) (Source 3) The International Republican Institute (IRI), affiliated with the US Republican Party and led at the time of its ban in Russia by Senator John McCain and later Senator John Sullivan, organized training for Russian opposition in Poland and was involved in an attempt to bribe the then-governor of the Kirov region, Nikita Belykh, which Russian security services timely uncovered. Representatives of the Russian branch of IRI were involved in corrupting some Russian opposition politicians. (Source 1) (Source 2) (Source 3)

Training political cadres in Serbia

Serbia, regarding the number, scope, and entrenchment of Western “non-governmental” organizations in institutional structures, may be in an even worse situation than Georgia. While there has been writing about organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Serbia, the activities of organizations affiliated with the US Democratic and Republican parties, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) have not been as extensively covered.

Under the USAID project, with a total value of $13,800,000, running from 2019-2026, NDI and IRI train members of 10 political parties in Serbia. Publicly available information does not specify which parties are involved, only that they represent the broadest political spectrum. Among the financiers of the election monitoring organization “CRTA” are the American NDI and IRI. Recently, the highest structures of NDI have shown particular interest in local elections for the City of Belgrade and the formation of the Association of Serbian Municipalities in the so-called Republic of Kosovo (Source 1) (Source 2). IRI focuses on forming a structure of young leaders in Serbia as future agents of American interest. IRI also funds seemingly non-political projects of economic cooperation in the region between small entrepreneurs and farmers, aiming to promote the independence of the so-called Kosovo among Serbian entrepreneurs and encourage cooperation between them.

Attack on Chinese investments

The activities of the Republican Institute IRI are particularly noticeable in funding the Belgrade Center for Security Policy. Among the projects recently funded by IRI is one aimed at presenting Chinese investments in Serbia negatively, titled: “The Impact of Chinese Projects on Human Security in Serbia“. Current projects of this highly influential “non-governmental” organization, which also promotes Serbia’s NATO membership, include a project dedicated to the war in Ukraine, funded by the American National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The management structure of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy is a representative indicator of how interconnected “non-governmental” organizations, foreign financiers, and domestic institutions are through certain individuals. The Governing Board of this “non-governmental” organization includes the long-time Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, former minister, and vice-president of the National Assembly, Rodoljub Šabić, and one of the leading younger political advisors of the pro-Western opposition, Professor of the Faculty of Political Sciences Filip Ejdus.

This interconnectedness represents the biggest obstacle to more serious re-sovereignization of the Republic of Serbia, which would also lead to a change in the existing disastrous course of European integration. The Georgian case shows that if official attempts are made to implement such changes, agents of foreign interest in the NGO sector and the media would be the main instigators of instability in the country. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to make their work transparent in time—by passing a law on agents of foreign interest.

Author: Ratko Nikolić