National Endowment for Democracy

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

National Endowment for Democracy

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:55 pm

National Endowment for Democracy
last updated: March 02, 2012

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s to push democratic reforms and roll back Soviet influence in various parts of the globe. In his 1983 speech inaugurating NED, President Ronald Reagan said: "I just decided that this nation, with its heritage of Yankee traders, ought to do a little selling of the principles of democracy."[1]

The private, congressionally funded NED has been a controversial tool in U.S. foreign policy because of its support of efforts to overthrow foreign governments. As the writers Jonah Gindin and Kirsten Weld remarked in the January/February 2007 NACLA Report on the Americas: "Since [1983], the NED and other democracy-promoting governmental and nongovernmental institutions have intervened successfully on behalf of 'democracy'—actually a very particular form of low-intensity democracy chained to pro-market economics—in countries from Nicaragua to the Philippines, Ukraine to Haiti, overturning unfriendly 'authoritarian' governments (many of which the United States had previously supported) and replacing them with handpicked pro-market allies."[2]

NED works principally through four core institutes: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDIIA or NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), and the Center for International Private Enterprise—representing, respectively, the country's two major political parties, organized labor, and the business community.

Funded almost entirely by the U.S. government, NED claims on its website to be "guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values. Governed by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors, the NED makes hundreds of grants each year to support pro-democracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East."

The war on terror and subsequent democratic uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa have led to expanded NED programs in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Morocco, and the Palestinian territories, according to NED's website.[3] Although many of these programs have performed relatively non-controversial functions like monitoring elections, NED's support for civil society organizations active in their respective countries' politics has not been without controversy.

In early 2012, for example, as part of a broader crackdown on international non-governmental organizations, Egypt's military government enacted a travel ban on several representatives from NDI and IRI, preventing them from leaving the country. As of February 2012, the Egyptian government was planning to prosecute at least 19 Americans, including representatives from NDI and IRI, on charges of illegally operating unlicensed foreign NGOs in the country.[4] The government lifted the travel ban on February 29 under pressure from the United States and amid a series of resignations by Egyptian judges who refused to hear the case, although it was unclear whether the charges would be dropped.[5]

The incident marked a period of considerable tension for the U.S.-Egyptian relationship, with the U.S. government threatening to cut off aid to Egypt if the U.S. detainees were not released. However, some observers have argued that the Egyptian government had reason to be wary of the targeted organizations. UN Human Rights Rappoteur Richard Falk, while criticizing the military regime for using "licensing and funding technicalities as a pretext for a wholesale crackdown on dissent and human rights," added that "these Washington shrieks of wounded innocence, as if Cairo had no grounds whatsoever for concern, are either the memory lapses of a senile bureaucracy or totally disingenuous. In the past it has been well documented that IRI and DNI were active in promoting the destabilisation of foreign governments that were deemed to be hostile to the US foreign policy agenda."[6]

Inter Press Service contributor Emad Mekay argued that NED-backed groups in Egypt were supporting a "small circle of sloganeering politicians on the take from the U.S. government who are unpopular and discredited among their own people." He added, "When these U.S.-funded politicians ran for office in Egypt's first real and democratic elections last month, they lost, leaving Washington with no leverage in the new Egypt. If Washington delivers on its threats to cut aid to Egypt, it is undermining whatever remains of U.S. influence."[7]

Other NED grantees in recent years have included the World Uyghur Congress, neoconservative writer Kenneth Timmerman's Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and South Korean radio broadcasters to the North.

NED's chairman is former Democratic Rep. Dick Gephardt. Its president is Carl Gershman, a longtime figure in U.S. sectarian politics dating back to the 1970s. The NED Board of Directors includes former chairman Vin Weber, a high-profile Washington lobbyist who has supported the work of the Project for the New American Century along with a host of other neoconservative outfits; former U.S. ambassador to the UN and neoconservative activist Zalmay Khalilzad; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute; Anne-Marie Slaughter, noted liberal hawk who served as the director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department during the Obama administration; and Francis Fukuyama, an erstwhile supporter of the neoconservative political faction and well-known political scientist.

Origins and Networks

When it was created in 1983, NED's core agenda was to support political groups in target countries that would contest communist or otherwise left-of-center organizations and political parties. In announcing its creation, President Ronald Reagan said that the NED would achieve this goal by supporting "the infrastructure of democracy—the system of a free press, unions, political parties, and universities—which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means."[8]

Allen Weinstein, a member of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) working group known as the Democracy Group, which first proposed the formation of a quasi-governmental group to channel U.S. political aid, served as NED's acting president during its first year. Talking about the role of NED, Weinstein told the Washington Post in 1991 that "a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."[9]

Under NED's elaborate structure, designed to veil U.S. government funding, U.S. Information Agency (USIA) and USAID funding did not flow directly to foreign political parties, unions, business associations, and civic groups, but was instead routed through the AFL-CIO, the International Chamber of Commerce, and the IRI and NDIIA. NED's origins go back to a bipartisan commission called the American Political Foundation established by the State Department that began to address the problem of having U.S.-funded "soft-side" overseas operations perceived as CIA fronts.[10]

The working model for a new type of foreign operations program was the AFL-CIO's Free Trade Union Institute, which was funded by USAID and a tripartite directorship of labor, business, and government officials. In turn, the American Political Foundation called for a feasibility project called the Democracy Program, which formulated the objectives and structures for NED. Although the Democracy Program included business and USIA officials, its key movers were neoconservatives: Eugenia Kemble (sister of Penn Kemble), George Weigel (later with the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a signatory of PNAC's founding statement), Raymond Gastil of Freedom House, and Weinstein (member of neocon-led 1970s group the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and later president of the NED-funded Center for Democracy).

Gershman, the founding and current president of NED, was an organizer with the Socialist Party. As a member of a right-wing faction of the party known as Shachtmanites (followers of Trotskyist leader Max Shachtman), Gershman challenged Michael Harrington's leadership of the Socialist Party in 1972. While Harrington was a vociferous opponent of the Vietnam War, the Shachtmanites supported the war and favored Republican Richard Nixon over Democrat George McGovern in the presidential election campaign that year.

After the Socialist Party split, Gershman—together with Rachelle Horowitz and Tom Kahn (both of whom worked with the CIA-funded International Affairs Department of the AFL-CIO)—founded the Social Democrats/USA (SD/USA). For many neoconservatives with Trotskyist backgrounds, SD/USA became their main point of entry into the struggles to break what they perceived as the control of the progressive "New Politics" faction of the Democratic Party. Although it had only a few dozen members and associates, SD/USA exercised major influence in the AFL-CIO and in shaping foreign policy objectives in the Reagan administration.

In the late 1970s a bipartisan group of foreign policy hawks concluded that a new system was needed to channel "political aid" to an international network of "free" trade unions, anti-leftist political parties, publishing houses, and civic groups that would promote U.S. foreign and military policies. A faction of neoconservatives associated with SD/USA and the AFL-CIO's International Affairs took the lead in working with right-wing corporations and the U.S. government to address this need through the American Political Foundation, which received State Department funding to explore new avenues to offer U.S. government support for "domestic pluralistic forces in totalitarian countries."[11]

To substitute for secret CIA financing of political and cultural organizations (which had been prohibited by Congress after revelations that the CIA was funding domestic academic and cultural organizations), neoconservatives and their labor partners advocated that Reagan establish a quasi-governmental organization to redirect USIA and USAID funds.

Not only did NED give neoconservatives a government-funded institute over which they exercised effective control, but it also facilitated close links with the U.S. government-funded international operations of the AFL-CIO, while building new ties with business. NED supported the creation of a series of neoconservative-led front groups that sought bipartisan and U.S. public support for an interventionist policy in Central America, which was part of the larger rollback and containment policy advocated by groups such as the Committee on the Present Danger and the Coalition for Peace through Strength. One of the most prominent of these NED-financed front groups was the Project for Democracy in Central America (PRODEMCA), whose objectives merged the hard (military) and soft (political aid/public diplomacy) sides of the neoconservative agenda in Central America. On the one hand, it received clandestine support from the unofficial "Project Democracy" of the National Security Council, operated by Oliver North and supervised by Elliott Abrams. On the other hand, it received USAID funding through NED for public diplomacy efforts.

Cold War politics and nationalism partly explain the bizarre and intricate networks that brought U.S. government agencies together with the AFL-CIO, corporate America, and former Trotskyists. But the partnerships did not end with the Cold War. Gershman was an initial enthusiast of Middle East and North Korea democratization as part of the Bush administration's regional restructuring agendas.[12] However, he began expressing reservations about this strategy as the Iraq War began to spiral out of control after the invasion, although he found democratic deficiencies in the Middle East more at fault than the shortcomings of U.S. interventionism.[13]

Weber, a past NED chairman, signed the 1997 PNAC founding statement, along with current NED board member Fukuyama and former board members Paula Dobriansky and Paul Wolfowitz (each of whom later joined the George W. Bush administration).

Caribbean Affairs

Since its founding, NED has served as an instrument of U.S. policy to support Cuban-American efforts to oust Cuba's longtime leader Fidel Castro. Although many experts and advocates of democracy building believe that a constructive engagement—economically and diplomatically—encourages internal processes of democratization, NED has long supported U.S. groups that are strident proponents of continuing the U.S. embargo and diplomatic isolation of Cuba. In the 1980s and through the Bush senior administration, two of the favored instruments of NED democratization funding in Cuba were the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) and the AFL-CIO's American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), which managed the Labor Committee for a Free Cuba.[14] NED funding in Latin America and the Caribbean frequently goes to U.S.-based Cuban-American groups.[15] The endowment also organizes award ceremonies for Cuban political prisoners tied to U.S.- or Cuban-American initiatives.[16]

Through its grants to the IRI, NED assumed a prominent (if surreptitious) role in the 2004 coups that overthrew Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. According to Robert Maguire, director of the Haiti Program at Trinity College in Washington, DC: "NED and USAID are important, but actually the main actor is the International Republican Institute, which has been very active in Haiti for many years but particularly in the last three years. IRI has been working with the opposition groups. IRI insisted, through the administration, that USAID give it funding for its work in Haiti. And USAID has done so but kicking and screaming all the way. IRI has worked exclusively with the Democratic Convergence groups in its party-building exercises and support. The IRI point person is Stanley Lucas who historically has had close ties with the Haitian military. All of the IRI sponsored meetings with the opposition have occurred outside Haiti, either in the [Dominican Republic] or in the United States. The IRI ran afoul with [Jean-Bertrand] Aristide right from the beginning since it has only worked with opposition groups that have challenged legitimacy of the Aristide government. Mr. Lucas is a lightning rod of the IRI in Haiti. The United States could not have chosen a more problematic character through which to channel its aid."[17]

Many observers have also accused Washington of having been behind the attempted ouster of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez in April 2002, although the Bush administration denied any U.S. involvement. Before the coup attempt, millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars were channeled through the IRI and other U.S. organizations that funded groups opposed to Chávez. Writer Mike Ceaser reported that in an April 12, 2002 fax sent to news media, IRI President George A. Folsom rejoiced over Chávez's removal from power. "The Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country," Folsom wrote. "Venezuelans were provoked into action as a result of systematic repression by the government of Hugo Chávez." With NED funding, IRI had been sponsoring political party-building workshops and other anti-Chávez activities in Venezuela. "IRI evidently began opposing Chávez even before his 1998 election," wrote Ceaser. "Prior to that year's congressional and presidential elections, the IRI worked with Venezuelan organizations critical of Chávez to run newspaper ads, TV, and radio spots that several observers characterize as anti-Chávez."[18]

According to NED's website, the largest single 2002 NED grant in Latin America went to ACILS. NED gave this USAID-supported branch of the AFL-CIO $775,000 "to implement a program to reinforce the capacity of labor unions to promote economic and political reform and build alliance with civil society at community and national levels." ACILS did the same in Venezuela, where it worked with anti-Chávez worker groups that formed an alliance with business, civil society, and political parties that engineered the attempted coup in April 2002. The same year, ACILS received $116,000 to "support the Venezuelan trade movement, represented by the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, in developing a program to extend organization, training, and representation to the informal sector."

In 2004, after Hugo Chávez easily won a referendum in August on his presidency, fresh accusations emerged about the NED's role in supporting anti-Chávez groups. When the government arrested leaders of these groups, Gershman denounced the action, saying: "In the spectrum between democracy and dictatorship, the prosecution against the activists would be moving ... closer to the authoritarian end." Regarding Chávez's claims that the NED was part of a CIA effort to undermine his government, Gershman said: "That's propaganda."[19] Venezuelan congresswoman María Corina Machado, a leading 2012 rival of Chávez, accepted NED funds in as the head of Súmate, a civil society organization that led the petition drive against Chávez that year.[20]

Opposition and Criticism

Since its inception, NED has been the focus of intense debate and criticism regarding the proper role of the United States in fostering democracy around the world. Although promoted as idealistically oriented programs aimed at encouraging democratic development, NED's work has been repeatedly criticized by observers from all political backgrounds for being potentially detrimental to U.S. relations with other countries and an inappropriate use of taxpayer money.

For instance, Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, lambasted NED in an October 2003 op-ed, arguing: "The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes U.S. taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects 'soft money' into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call U.S. manipulation of foreign elections 'promoting democracy.' How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?"[21]

Some notable observers have defended NED's work, including the British historian Timothy Garton Ash, who in a January 2004 article for the Guardian highlighted what he viewed as the positive role NED and other like-minded organizations have played in world affairs. He wrote: "I've seen the impact of the National Endowment for Democracy, together with our own Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other semi- and wholly non-governmental organizations in eastern Europe and the Balkans. Without their work, Slobodan Milosevic might not have been toppled by a revolution in Serbia. Add the clear message that corrupt, oil-bloated Arab elites no longer enjoy Washington's unconditional support, and we could see some fireworks. Not laser-guided American military fireworks from the sky, but emancipatory Arab fireworks from the ground. The fact that this support for would-be democrats is tainted by its association with the United States, the neo-imperialist occupier of Arab lands, will, I suspect, dampen but not extinguish the fuse."[22]

NED's work in Latin America, particularly in the 1980s, roused criticism from both Reagan-era diplomats and some on the libertarian right. During the 1984 elections in Panama, for example, NED supported a candidate associated with the military, Nicholas Ardito Barletta, despite the fact that the United States was purportedly opposed to military rule in the country. The NED's actions prompted an angry response from the U.S. ambassador, who wrote in a secret cable: "The embassy requests that this hair-brained project be abandoned before it hits the fan."

"An even more dubious initiative," wrote Barbara Conry for a 1993 Cato Institute report, "was NED's involvement in Costa Rica. Not only is Costa Rica a well-established democracy—former president George Bush visited the country in 1989 to celebrate 100 years of democracy there—it is the only stable democracy in Central America. But Costa Rican president Oscar Arias had opposed Ronald Reagan's policy in Central America, especially his support of the Nicaraguan Contras. Arias received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to dampen conflicts in the region, but he incurred the wrath of right-wing NED activists. So from 1986 to 1988 NED gave money to Arias's political opposition, which was also strongly supported by Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. As Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY) commented: 'They may technically have been within the law, but I felt this clearly violated the spirit. ... The whole purpose of NED is to facilitate the emergence of democracy where it doesn't exist and preserve it where it does exist. In Costa Rica, neither of these [conditions] applies.'"[23]

These and other activities have led many observers to question the value of the NED, as well as to highlight the potential danger it poses to U.S. interests. Concluded Conry: "Promoting democracy is a nebulous objective that can be manipulated to justify any whim of the special-interest groups—the Republican and Democratic parties, organized labor, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—that control most of NED's funds. As those groups execute their own foreign policies, they often work against American interests and meddle needlessly in the affairs of other countries, undermining the democratic movements NED was designed to assist."

Others have faulted the NED and its affiliates emphasizing only one particular form of democracy, pro-market democracy. Wrote Jonah Gindin and Kirsten Weld in the January/February 2007 NACLA Report on the Americas: "By combining cooptation, coercion, and deep pockets, groups like the NED and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have at times allied themselves with antidemocratic elites, and at other times capitalized on movements and individuals that were genuinely dedicated to democratizing their countries, setting the parameters of the debate by positioning a particular definition of pro-market representative democracy as the only antiauthoritarian option. U.S. and European organizations have disbursed massive amounts of money, funding some groups and projects while ignoring others, favoring those who share their general ideological conceptions while isolating those that do not."
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:21 pm

What the Media Doesn't Get About the Protests in Ukraine
Christian Stork's avatar image By Christian Stork December 31, 2013
Ukraine's capital, Kiev, has seen fresh protests after a Christmas day attack on a prominent journalist.

So what are the protests really about?

On December 18, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych inked a deal with Russia whereby Moscow would buy $15 billion worth of Ukraine's eurobond debt and slash its gas bill by a third, saving the country from almost certain bankruptcy. Protestors from the political opposition continue to linger after massive demonstrations rocked Ukraine over the past few weeks in support of an opposing trade deal with the EU. Early instances of those protests were brutally suppressed.

The story told by Western media has been that the peace-loving masses spontaneously erupted in direct action to support the EU deal, and President Yanukovych, as deemed by the New York Times, is betraying his citizens by "bow[ing] to Russia's threats" and "payouts."

Leaving aside which deal was more advantageous to Ukraine's population, there's reason to be skeptical of the current protestors' demands, and how genuinely they represent the will of a deeply divided country. Like all events in which geopolitics is afoot, an illustrative historical context eludes the eyes of those watching CNN.

Since the USSR crumbled in 1991, the United States and its NATO partners have attempted to chip away countries of the former Soviet bloc from their traditional links to Russia, including Ukraine. Their favored method? Form protests, splash a little color on them, then call it a revolution.

What do all of these "revolutions" of the past two decades have in common? They were all organized, financed, and/or significantly aided by American "pro-democracy" outfits like USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Freedom House, George Soros' Open Society Institute, and a whole constellation of public-private affiliates.

For those who don't recall these "color revolutions," here's a primer: They began with Serbia's Bulldozer Revolution in 2000; then Georgia's Rose Revolution of 2003, which rose the psychotic Mikhail Saakashvili to power (who, in turn, started a war with Russia that destroyed his country and almost brought the U.S. into World War III); Kyrgyzstan's 2005 Tulip Revolution, which later led to massive violence and near-ethnic cleansing; and Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution, which deserves closer examination in light of the recent deluge of support for the political opposition from the U.S. Senate and the Worst Batman.

Back in November 2004, western-backed candidate Viktor Yushchenko lost, but the results were disputed. Exit polls, those ever-reliable indicators, put Yushchenko ahead by 11%, although the final tally had his rival, Kremlin favorite Viktor Yanukovych, up by 3%.

While not the only ones, the largest civil regional election monitoring effort in the 2004 Ukrainian election was organized by Freedom House and the Democratic Party's National Democracy Institute (NDI), one of the four main organizations comprising the NED.

Although the election results wouldn't be announced until November 23, the Yushchenko campaign publicly called for protests two days earlier, on the day of the election, after reports of fraud circulated in the form of leaflets printed and distributed by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation(DIF), based ostensibly on the results of their exit poll. According to their website, DIF is "an analytical and enlightening organization which aims at building Ukrainian state, democracy, and market economy [sic] and enhancing full integration of Ukraine into European and Euro-Atlantic structures" [emphasis added]. The group has been known to receive USAID funding for certain projects.

By November 22, a day before the results were officially announced, half a million people had already mobilized in Kiev's Independence Square to denounce the election. From then until their end in January, the Kiev protests were coordinated by the Ukrainian youth group Pora! ("It's Time!"). Established in 2004 in opposition to the Kuchma regime, Pora! funded the training of its activists through "grants provided by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Freedom House and the Canadian International Development Agency."

Those grants sent Pora! organizers to be trained by Otpor, the Serbian youth protest movement wielded by the West so effectively against Slobodan Milosevic in the Bulldozer Revolution." Here's how an article in the Washington Post described those efforts in Serbia's 2000 election:

"U.S.-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan 'He's Finished,' which became the revolution's catchphrase."

Oddly enough, the content of that Washington Post article — published on Dec. 11, 2000 and titled "US Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition" — has been blocked from search engine indices so that it can't be accessed through Google and others.

In total, the U.S. spent roughly $65 million on influencing the 2004 Ukrainian elections. It remains unclear how much of today's current protests trace back to the infrastructure and strategy pioneered in 2004.

In 2010, after the Orange Revolution devoured itself and Yanukovych was brought to power, the new clarion call for Ukraine's western-centric population became EU membership.

When Yanukovych refused to sign the EU associate deal this November, he was denounced for "us[ing] Ukraine as a pawn" by opposition leader and new western darling Vitali Klitschko, who accused the president of handing over Ukraine's industrial base to Russia in exchange for the perks. In a typical bout of economic blindness best reserved for television's talking heads, Klitschko seems unaware that the regulations adjoining the EU association allow for similar plundering, if not worse, by western capital. The EU deal included a bailout package from the IMF, but stringent "economic reforms" of the familiar variety came in tow: austerity for the population, a decrease in social spending and wages, plus a sharp rise in utility rates.

In fact, Russia has been routinely chided by western cold warriors for its use of natural gas prices as leverage over Ukraine. But when Putin first jacked up those prices, he simply cut off the energy subsidy that Moscow was providing Kiev since its time in the Soviet Union. He was merely requiring Kiev to pay market rates for energy — a bread-and-butter neoliberal reform that would have come with the EU accord.

When it comes to analyzing why states act as they do, thankfully there's no rosy-eyed naivete in the western media about Russia's interests in Ukraine. It's about time they offered similar skepticism for the aims of Brussels and Washington, including a history of western-funded and directed protest movements.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:33 pm

Trojan Horse:

The National Endowment for Democracy

excerpted from the book
Rogue State

A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
by William Blum

Common Courage Press, 2000

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name-the National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations and of cynicism. Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to "support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts". Notice the "nongovernmental"-part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.

The Endowment has four principal initial recipients of funds: the International Republican Institute; the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs; an affiliate of the AFL-CIO (such as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity); and an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce (such as the Center for International Private Enterprise). These institutions then disburse funds to other institutions in the US and all over the world, which then often disburse funds to yet other organizations.

In a multitude of ways, NED meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries by supplying funds, technical know-how, training, educational materials, computers, fax machines, copiers, automobiles and so on, to selected political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, other media, etc. NED programs generally impart the basic philosophy that working people and other citizens are best served under a system of free enterprise, class cooperation, collective bargaining, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any shape or form. A freemarket economy is equated with democracy, reform and growth, and the merits of foreign investment are emphasized.

From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than $2,500,000, to the American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization used by the CIA for decades to subvert progressive labor unions. AlFLD's work within Third World unions typically involved a considerable educational effort very similar to the basic NED philosophy described above. The description of one of the 1996 NED grants to AIFLD includes as one its objectives: "build union-management cooperation". Like many things that NED says, this sounds innocuous, if not positive, but these in fact are ideological code words meaning "keep the labor agitation down...don't rock the status quo boat". The relationship between NED and AIFLD very well captures the CIA origins of NED.

The Endowment has funded centrist and rightist labor organizations to help them oppose those unions which were too militantly proworker. This has taken place in France, Portugal and Spain amongst many other places. In France, during the 1983-4 period, NED supported a "trade union-like organization for professors and students" to counter "left-wing organizations of professors". To this end it funded a series of seminars and the publication of posters, books and pamphlets such as "Subversion and the Theology of Revolution" and "Neutralism or Liberty". ("Neutralism" here refers to being unaligned in the Cold War.)

NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thusly: "To identify barriers to private sector development at the local and federal levels in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to push for legislative change...[and] to develop strategies for private sector growth." Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have been supported by NED grants for years.

In short, NED's programs are in sync with the basic needs and objectives of the New World Order's economic globalization, just as the programs have for years been on the same wavelength as US foreign policy.

Because of a controversy in 1984-when NED funds were used to aid a Panamanian presidential candidate backed by Manuel Noriega and the CIA-Congress enacted a law prohibiting the use of NED funds "to finance the campaigns of candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".

... NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996 and helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992. In Haiti in the late l990s, NED was busy working on behalf of right wing groups who were united in their opposition to former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology. NED has made its weight felt in the electoral-political process in numerous other countries.

NED would have the world believe that it's only teaching the ABCs of democracy and elections to people who don't know them, but in all five countries named above there had already been free and fair elections held. The problem, from NED's point of view, is that the elections had been won by political parties not on NED's favorites list.

The Endowment maintains that it's engaged in "opposition building" and "encouraging pluralism". "We support people who otherwise do not have a voice in their political system," said Louisa Coan, a NED program officer. But NED hasn't provided aid to foster progressive or leftist opposition in Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua or Eastern Europe-or, for that matter, in the United States even though these groups are hard pressed for funds and to make themselves heard. Cuban dissident groups and media are heavily supported however.

NED's reports carry on endlessly about "democracy", but at best it's a modest measure of mechanical political democracy they have in mind, not economic democracy; nothing that aims to threaten the powers-that-be or the way-things-are, unless of course it's in a place like Cuba.

The Endowment played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy "Project Democracy" network, which privatized US foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs and engaged in other equally charming activities. At one point in 1987, a White House spokesman stated that those at NED "run Project Democracy". This was an exaggeration; it would have been more correct to say that NED was the public arm of Project Democracy, while North ran the covert end of things. In any event, the statement caused much less of a stir than if-as in an earlier period-it had been revealed that it was the CIA which was behind such an unscrupulous operation.

NED also mounted a multi-level campaign to fight the leftist insurgency in the Philippines in the mid-1980s, funding a host of private organizations, including unions and the media. This was a replica of a typical CIA operation of pre-NED days.

And between 1990 and 1992, the Endowment donated a quarter-million dollars of taxpayers' money to the Cuban-American National Fund, the ultra-fanatic anti-Castro Miami group. The CANF, in turn, financed Luis Posada Carriles, one of the most prolific and pitiless terrorists of modern times, who was involved in the blowing up of a Cuban airplane in 1976, which killed 73 people. In 1997, he was involved in a series of bomb explosions in Havana hotels.

The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does supporting democracy. The governments and movements whom the NED targets call it destabilization.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:38 pm

The Stealth Destabilizer
The National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela
by KIM SCIPES
As protests have been taking place in Venezuela the last couple of weeks, it is always good to check on the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US Empire’s “stealth” destabilizer. What has the NED been up to in Venezuela?

Before going into details, it is important to note what NED is and is not. First of all, it has NOTHING to do with the democracy we are taught in civics classes, concerning one person-one vote, with everyone affected having a say in the decision, etc. (This is commonly known as “popular” or grassroots democracy.) The NED opposes this kind of democracy.

The NED promotes top-down, elite, constrained (or “polyarchal”) democracy. This is the democracy where the elites get to decide the candidates or questions suitable to go before the people—and always limiting the choices to what the elites are comfortable with. Then, once the elites have made their decision, THEN the people are presented with the “choice” that the elites approve. And then NED prattles on with its nonsense about how it is “promoting democracy around the world.”

This is one of the most cynical uses of democracy there is. It’s notable even in what my friend Dave Lippmann calls “Washington Deceit.”

The other thing to note about NED is that it is NOT independent as it claims, ad nauseum. It was created by the US Congress, signed into US law by President Ronald Reagan (that staunch defender of democracy), and it operates from funds provided annually by the US Government.

However, its Board of Directors is drawn from among the elites in the US Government’s foreign policy making realm. Past Board members have included Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, General Wesley K. Clark, and Paul Wolfowitz. Today’s board can be found at http://www.ned.org/about/board; most notable is Elliot Abrams of Reagan Administration fame.

In reality, NED is part of the US Empire’s tools, and “independent” only in the sense that no elected presidential administration can directly alter its composition or activities, even if it wanted to. It’s initial project director, Professor Allen Weinstein of Georgetown University, admitted in the Washington Post of September 22, 1991, that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

In other words, according to Professor William Robinson in his 1996 book, Promoting Polyarchy, NED is a product of US Government foreign policy shift from “earlier strategies to contain social and political mobilization through a focus on control of the state and governmental apparatus” to a process of “democracy promotion,” whereby “the United States and local elites thoroughly penetrate civil society, and from therein, assure control over popular mobilization and mass movements.” What this means, as I note in my 2010 book, AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage?, “is that instead of waiting for a client government to be threatened by its people and then responding, US foreign policy shifted to intervening in the civil society of a country ‘of interest’ (as defined by US foreign policy goals) before popular mobilization could become significant, and by supporting certain groups and certain politicians, then channel any potential mobilization in the direction desired by the US Government.”

Obviously, this also means that these “civil society” organizations can be used offensively as well, against any government the US opposes. NED funding, for example, was used in all of the “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and, I expect, currently in the Ukraine as well as elsewhere.

How do they operate? They have four “institutes” through which they work: the International Republican Institute (currently headed by US Senator John McCain), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (currently headed by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright), the Center for International Private Enterprise (the international wing of the US Chamber of Commerce), and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), the foreign policy operation of the AFL-CIO, with Richard Trumka the head of its Board of Directors.

As I documented in my book, ACILS had been indirectly involved in the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela by participating in meetings with leaders later involved in the coup beforehand, and then denying afterwards the involvement of the leaders of the right-wing labor organization (CTV) in the coup, leaders of an organization long affiliated with the AFL-CIO. We also know NED overall had been active in Venezuela since 1997.

The NED and its institutes continue to actively fund projects in Venezuela today. From the 2012 NED Annual Report (the latest available), we see they have provided $1,338,331 to organizations and projects in Venezuela that year alone: $120,125 for projects for “accountability”; $470,870 for “civic education”; $96,400 for “democratic ideas and values”; $105,000 for “freedom of information”; $92,265 for “human rights”; $216,063 for “political processes”; $34,962 for “rule of law”; $45,000 for “strengthening political institutions”; and $153,646 for Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).

Additionally, however, as found on the NED “Latin American and Caribbean” regional page, NED has granted $465,000 to ACILS to advance NED objectives of “freedom of association” in the region, with another $380,000 to take place in Venezuela and Colombia. This is in addition to another $645,000 to the International Republican Institute, and $750,000 to the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

The irony of these pious claims for “freedom of association,” etc., is that Venezuela is has developed public participation to one of the highest levels in the world, and has one of the most free media in the world. Even with massive private TV media involvement in the 2002 coup, the government did not take away their right to broadcast afterward.

In other words, NED and its institutes are not active in Venezuela to help promote democracy, as they claim, but in fact, to act against popular democracy in an effort to restore the rule of the elite, top-down democracy. They want to take popular democracy away from those nasty Chavistas, and show who is boss in the US Empire. This author bets they fail.


Dennis Kucinich Blames US Meddling for Russian Invasion

Tuesday, 04 Mar 2014 09:28 PM
By Greg Richter

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was spurred by U.S. behind-the-scenes actions, says former Ohio congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday accused Kucinich of being a pacifist because of his opposition to the Iraq war, and Kucinich countered that war is wrong but not all U.S. military action is so.

O'Reilly then asked how Kucinich would have handled the Ukraine crisis had he been president.

"What I'd do is not have USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy working with U.S. taxpayers' money to knock off an elected government in Ukraine, which is what they did," Kucinich answered. "I wouldn't try to force the people of Ukraine into a deal with NATO against their interest or into a deal with the European Union, which is against their economic interest."

"So, it's the USA's fault that Putin rolled in? We made them do it?" O'Reilly asked.

"Bill O'Reilly, if you don't believe in cause and effect, I don't know what I can do for you," Kucinich responded.

Kucinich said the United States has been involved covertly and behind the scenes with the CIA and two government foreign aid groups, the National Endowment for Democracy and the United States Agency for International Development, to "stir up trouble in Ukraine."

He didn't specify what the groups had done, but said the democracy endowment had sponsored 65 programs. He said the United States should stay out of Ukraine's affairs and let its people decide their future without outside interference.

As a result, "you've got neo-Nazis that are in control," Kucinich said. He was referring to a statement by Russia's U.N. ambassador in which he called pro-European Ukrainians "anti-Semites and fascists," a claim disputed by many, including CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

O'Reilly was having none of it.

"From what I'm hearing, you're blaming the USA for subverting Ukraine in the first place, thereby giving Putin a pass to go in and invade," he told Kucinich.

"That's close," Kucinich answered. "We should be concerned about the Ukrainian people, because they're being used right now. They would be used by the IMF in a new austerity program, by NATO to go on the doorstep of Russia."

O'Reilly said the Ukrainian people "threw out a puppet president," but Kucinich argued, "That wasn't democratic. That was stirred up from behind the scenes."

Unconvinced, O'Reilly closed the segment, "When China seizes the Japanese islands, which they're going to do after watching this debacle, then I want you to come back on, explain how the United States made that happen."

Kucinich wrote an op-ed in December for The Huffington Post as the protests began in Kiev after then-President Viktor Yanukovych failed to sign a trade deal with the European Union. In the piece, Kucinich called the deal a "NATO Trojan horse" that would have forced Ukraine to spend more money on its military and less on social welfare programs.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby Elvis » Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:30 am

Slad, thanks for highlighting NED's role in undermining democracy wherever it threatens Big Money. NPR programs are constantly trotting out NED "experts" who often are given the last word. Listen closely for the weasel words peppering their pap. Venezuela is a great example, I first took note of NED during the 2002 coup, when, with NED's help, Chavez was very briefly booted from power.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby stefano » Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:25 am

Thanks much, slad, this is great stuff.

Can anyone briefly explain why the AFL-CIO has been happy to collaborate with neocons on this?
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby American Dream » Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:40 am

stefano » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:25 am wrote:
Can anyone briefly explain why the AFL-CIO has been happy to collaborate with neocons on this?


The U.S. Labour Movement is pathetic really- was quite co-opted even before WW2. After the War ended things got worse, and elements of the AFL-CIO hierarchy were quite happy to work on Cold War agenda- often directly with the CIA. especially in Latin America but also in Europe. More recently, entities like the N.E.D. and State Dept. are playing a leading role in these things and the AFL-CIO is still there with it.

I know I'm barely scratching the surface here, but Kim Scipes has really focused on these issues in an excellent way, and surely has more to say on the history there.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:05 am

U.S. Gvt. Channels Millions Through National Endowment for Democracy to Fund Anti-Lavalas Groups in Haiti

Dr. Paul Farmer on Rwanda’s Health Leap, Haiti’s Struggles & How Communities Can Repair the World
Thumbhaitibook
Part 2: Jonathan Katz on How the World Came to Save Haiti After Quake and Left Behind a Disaster

Ben Nighthorse Campbell, former Senator of Colorado and former chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

Arturo Senclair, tribal governor of the Tiguas of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in Texas.

We take a look at Haiti, which is preparing for upcoming national elections. Independent Canadian journalist, Anthony Fenton, joins us to discuss the National Endowment for Democracy–the US government-funded group–that is pouring millions of dollars into trying to influence Haiti’s political future. [includes rush transcript]

Nearly two years after the overthrow of President Jean Bertrand Aristide, Haiti will be holding national elections next month. Former President Rene Preval, a Aristide ally, is leading in the polls. Meanwhile, a judge has dropped the most serious charges against jailed priest Gerard Jean Juste. Jean Juste was imprisoned in July over the murder of journalist Jacques Roche–killed while Jean Juste was in Miami. After Jean Juste’s arrest, Haitian officials prevented Lavalas–the political movement aligned with Aristide–from registering him as their presidential candidate, on the grounds he was imprisoned. Although he has been cleared in Roche’s murder, authorities say Jean Juste will remain in prison over weapons charges. Amnesty International calls him a prisoner of conscience. Calls for his release have intensified with the recent announcement he’s been diagnosed with leukemia.

Meanwhile, violence continues to affect Haiti’s poorest areas. Last week, two Jordanian troops with the UN mission were killed in a gun-battle in the poor neighborhood of Cite Soleil. Local residents later reported UN troops had shot at a hospital in the area. UN troops have stepped up armed raids on Cite Soleil amid pressure from business leaders and foreign officials.

We want to continue our Haiti coverage leading up to the election by looking at the activities of a government-funded organization that is pouring millions of dollars into trying to influence the country’s political future. The National Endowment for Democracy is one of a handful of state-funded groups that have played a pivotal role in the internal politics of several Latin American and Caribbean countries in the service of the US government.

The NED operates with an annual budget of $80 million dollars from U.S. Congress and the State Department. In Venezuela, it’s given money to several political opponents of President Hugo Chavez. With elections underway in Haiti, it’s reportedly doing the same to groups linked to the country’s tiny elite and former military.

Last week Democracy Now! interviewed Anthony Fenton about NED’s activities in Haiti and across the Caribbean and Latin America. Fenton is an independent journalist and co-author of the book "Canada in Haiti: Waging War On The Poor Majority." He has interviewed several top governmental and non-governmental officials dealing with Haiti as well as leading members of Haiti’s business community. Last month, he helped expose an NED-funded journalist who was filing stories for the Associated Press from Haiti. The Associated Press subsequently terminated its relationship with the journalist.

Anthony Fenton, independent Canadian journalist and co-author of the book "Canada in Haiti: Waging War On The Poor Majority." He will be posting leaked NED documents on Haiti at http://www.inthenameofdemocracy.org — a new group dedicated to monitoring government-funded "democracy-enhancement" projects.
Related coverage: Did the Bush Administration Allow a Network of Right-Wing Republicans to Foment a Violent Coup in Haiti?

TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Last week, I interviewed Anthony Fenton, about N.E.D.'s activities in Haiti and across the Caribbean and Latin America. Fenton is an independent Canadian journalist and co-author of the book, Canada in Haiti: Waging War on the Poor Majority. He has interviewed several top governmental and non-governmental officials dealing with Haiti, as well as leading members of Haiti's business community. Last month, he helped expose an N.E.D.-funded journalist who was filing stories for the Associated Press from Haiti. The Associated Press subsequently terminated its relationship with her. We go now to an excerpt from that interview. Anthony Fenton was in a studio in Vancouver. I began by asking him to talk about the current situation in Haiti.

ANTHONY FENTON: Well, indeed, obviously, there is an ongoing military occupation there ever since the forced ouster of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February of 2004 in a coup d’etat that was assisted and planned by the Canadian government, along with the U.S. government and the French government. Of course, speaking from Canada, Canada played an integral role in the overthrow of Aristide and continues to play an integral role in the post-invasion occupation of Haiti.
They’re leading up to what are now the fourth scheduled period of elections. There have been several postponements. This is due in part — the original intention of the invasion, of course, was to subvert the young process of popular democracy that existed in Haiti prior to the coup, and of course, if Aristide hadn’t been overthrown, Haiti would have already carried out their democratic election, their presidential elections.
And, of course, the fear of the United States and of organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and the State Department, of course, was that popular democracy would take root in Haiti under another Lavalas government, and they have set about to undermine the popular movement that existed in support of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the Lavalas Party. And we’re seeing today the consolidation of the elite rule that they have long envisioned for Haiti ever since the fall of "Baby Doc" Duvalier in the mid-80s.
AMY GOODMAN: Anthony, can you just lay out what the National Endowment for Democracy is?
ANTHONY FENTON: Well, yeah, they were formed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration. Ostensibly, they purport to promote pro-democracy organizations and democratic values across the world. Just last October, President Bush spoke at a National Endowment for Democracy gathering, reiterating the vision of Reagan as he set about to, as they say, "promote democracy throughout the world," and they were given — they’ve been given various budgets allocated by Congress every year, as you said at the onset. Now their budget stands at $80 million a year. But they are, of course, just one organization among many that are linked to the U.S. Agency for International Development, as I said, the State Department. Hundreds of millions of dollars now, in fact, more money is now being spent than ever before on what they call democracy promotion.
Now, the historical record on the National Endowment for Democracy is very clear, when we look at the work of people like Philip Agee and William Robinson and William Blum, Noam Chomsky and others, and most recently, if we look at the work of attorney and independent journalist, Eva Golinger, who exposed, through Freedom of Information Act requests, the role that the N.E.D. played in attempting to subvert democracy and the revolutionary process that’s unfolding in Venezuela in 2002. The N.E.D. played a crucial role in fomenting the opposition to Hugo Chavez, and they did play a role in the attempted coup against him in April of 2002, and very much the same patterns we have seen develop in Haiti.
On your show, in 2004, you interviewed Max Blumenthal, who wrote an article, an important article for Salon that outlined the role of the International Republican Institute, and when we talk about the N.E.D., we can’t talk about them without also talking about the International Republican Institute and the other affiliated organizations. There’s a virtual labyrinth of these organizations that receive funding that’s specifically earmarked for the undermining of any widespread social movements, any rudiments of popular democracy that should manifest, either in Latin America or anywhere in the world.
So, again, this is sort of the premise of what the National Endowment for Democracy really does, and as we look at what they’re doing in Haiti — and how I was able to learn about what they’re currently doing in Haiti came about through the process of a first documentary reporting trip to Haiti in September and October of 2005, where we spoke to a number of N.E.D. grantees, Haitian organizations that received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy. I returned to Canada and set about to conduct a series of interviews with N.E.D. and any program officer, in particular, with I.R.I. officials, with in-country officials who are managing several million dollars in U.S.-funded democracy promotion activities, as you said also, that are linked closely to the Haitian elite, to the opposition organizations, such as the Group of 184, the Democratic Convergence. These are the organizations that agitated most strongly for the overthrow of Aristide and that were working with the N.E.D. and the I.R.I. in the years preceding the 2004 coup.
AMY GOODMAN: The I.R.I. being the International Republican Institute.
ANTHONY FENTON: Yes. We know that — for example, just the other day, I spoke to a woman who is the leader of an organization called COFEL. It’s an umbrella organization of women political leaders. In the years before the coup against Aristide in 2004, the I.R.I. would bring in, they would bus in or fly in groups of anywhere between 60 and 80 of these women. And, of course, they’re busing in other men and other political figures in Haiti. But they would bus them into the Dominican Republic, because in 1999, at the time, Ambassador Timothy Carney — he was the U.S. ambassador at the time. That’s very important, because Ambassador Carney is the current interim ambassador to Haiti, and he was also a member of the lobby — the think tank in Washington called the Haiti Democracy Project that played an integral role in fomenting this demonization campaign against Aristide.
In any case, in 1999, the I.R.I. was closed down. Their operations were shut down. They were forced to leave Haiti, and until the coup in 2004, the I.R.I. did not have an in-country presence, so they were doing most of their work in the Dominican Republic with people like Stanley Lucas, who is well known as a card-carrying Republican Haitian American who was hired by the International Republican Institute during the first coup period against Aristide in the early 1990s, and he’s the one who sort of helped to build the political opposition from the Dominican Republic and enable the coup to take place. But that process has just followed through since the coup. Well, of course, the International Republican Institute now has an in-country office in Haiti, and through that office they’re able to penetrate all sectors of Haitian civil society in their attempt to undermine the popular movement.
Now, I would like to mention that in my interview, and this is a rare interview with an N.E.D. program officer, and this is the program officer in Washington who is responsible for Haiti currently, a woman named Fabiola Cordoba. She took over in, I believe in, November, as the program officer, and she revealed to me, not only an extensive list of documents that show the N.E.D.'s approved grants for 2005. These are, in a sense, declassified, because these are documents that are not supposed to be published until May of 2006, at least according to another N.E.D. spokesperson. But what's clear in these documents is that the N.E.D. went from, for example, a zero dollar budget in Haiti in 2003 to a $540,000 budget in Haiti in 2005.
What they’ve also done — and many Haitian people that I speak to have told me that Haiti is considered the laboratory for these sort of subversive activities on the part of the United States government. And in the context of this experimental process, they’ve hired, for the first time, an in-country program officer, as you mentioned, Régine Alexandre, who was a stringer for the Associated Press and the New York Times, was doubling, moonlighting as an N.E.D. program officer, and the Associated Press severed ties with her as a result.
Now, Fabiola Cordoba also told me that when she was in Haiti in 2002, working for one of the N.E.D.'s affiliated organizations, the National Democratic Institute, she said a lot of lines were being drawn between Haiti and Venezuela, where although 70% of the population supported Aristide, there was a very fragmented opposition. The rest of the 30% was divided between 120 different opposition groups, so the objective of the I.R.I. and the N.E.D. was to consolidate this opposition to build a viable opposition to somehow break the grip that the popular movement in Haiti had on the political environment there. And she said that Chavez — something very similar was happening in Venezuela, and of course, in 2002, the coup d'état happened there on the basis of this sort of analysis, the basis, this fear that the United States has of popular democracy and the need to subvert any attempts at consolidating popular rule and implementing policies that are in the interests of the majority poor in places like Venezuela and Haiti.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Anthony Fenton, independent author and journalist who has exposed a A.P. stringer in Haiti, Régine Alexandre, as also being on the payroll of the National Endowment for Democracy. And now talking about those parallels between Haiti and Venezuela, of course, 2002, the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez, what is your understanding of the U.S. involvement in terms of the, you know, dollar amount in Venezuela, putting money into the opposition?
ANTHONY FENTON: Well, it is very interesting, because since the activities of the N.E.D. have been so thoroughly exposed by the likes of Eva Golinger and Jeremy Bigwood through The Chavez Code, they’re very concerned with their perception in the area. So what they’re doing, in a way, they’ve continued to funnel large amounts of money into Venezuela, but they’re doing it also by outsourcing, if you will. For example, they have given a grant to a Canadian think tank called the Canadian Foundation of the Americas, and through that, they’re attempting to go through the back door, if you will, riding the perception of Canada as being a benign counterweight to the U.S. in the hemisphere, in order to penetrate Venezuelan civil society.
This is an important year, of course, not only in Venezuela, but throughout the hemisphere, in the sense that there are many presidential elections taking place. Now the N.E.D. program officer told me that Venezuela, Haiti, Ecuador, and Bolivia are the four top priority countries for the N.E.D. in 2006, looking ahead to 2006 and, of course, Cuba is the perennial top of that list. They’re a special exception, because the Department of State earmarks a certain amount of funds for the N.E.D.’s work in Cuba. In fact, they doubled the amount of money being used to subvert revolutionary Cuba in 2005.
Now, what they’re doing with the Foundation of the Americas is, in fact, on the board of directors there you have a former coup plotter in the form of Beatrice Rangel, who not only played an active role, when she was an advisor to former Venezuelan president Perez in the late 1980s, literally carrying bags of money, according to William Robinson, to Nicaraguan Contras operating out of Venezuela, but she is the person, Rangel, who facilitated this N.E.D. program with this Canadian think tank, and she herself said that, you know, Canada enjoys this perception, and N.E.D.’s outsourcing to Canada is just another way for the N.E.D. to penetrate Venezuelan civil society.
But in the case of Haiti, getting back to that point, what we’re seeing is the N.E.D. works very closely with the International Republican Institute. One of the N.E.D.'s primary grantees in Haiti is a key member of the Group of 184 political opposition to Aristide, named Hans Tippenhauer. He heads up an organization that works with Haitian youth. Typically we see the N.E.D. working with Haitian youth, with Haitian women, but what they're doing — Mr. Tippenhauer, he was one of the first people to call the rebels, the paramilitaries that entered from the Dominican Republic in 2004, he referred to them as "freedom fighters," and he get grants from, not only the N.E.D., but also the I.R.I., and he also happens to be on the campaign of an independent presidential candidate named Charles Henri Baker, who was also one of the leaders of the Group of 184. He’s a sweatshop owner there and a brother-in-law of Andy Apaid, another leader of the Group of 184, who recently has been pressuring, with other members of the elite, such as Reginald Boulos, for the United Nations [inaudible] to force to enter the poor neighborhoods and commit more atrocities, so as to enable this process of consolidating elite rule in Haiti to take root.
And so, Hans Tippenhauer, as he doubles as a campaign manager for the Group 184 political candidate, the business candidate, basically a candidate that the U.S. is supporting, he is also working to penetrate Haitian civil society on a level that will allow, in the long term, this neo-liberal vision, this corporate vision of Haiti to take root, the so-called democracy, because the National Endowment for Democracy does promote some form of democracy. It’s a very narrow institutional form, kind of like we see in Canada.
It is ironic that we have elections going on here in Canada right now, but we don’t see the National Endowment for Democracy or the International Republican Institute here trying to manipulate the political environment, because we’re already on page with the State Department. We’re already on page with the N.E.D., so we don’t need their guidance, but a place like Haiti, where there were — where popular democracy was beginning to take root, even though in the face of a massive economic embargo and in the face of destabilization by these very organizations, it is very necessary that these organizations are in Haiti right now playing this fundamental role, behind the scenes, I should say, because the mainstream media has not written a single story about what these organizations are doing behind the scenes to effect political change in Haiti today.
AMY GOODMAN: Independent journalist, Anthony Fenton. We will return with him in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview on Haiti with independent journalist Anthony Fenton, co-author of the book, Canada in Haiti: Waging War on the Poor Majority.

AMY GOODMAN: Anthony Fenton, one of the people that you have written and talked about is Ira Lowenthal. I remember him from, well, more than a decade ago in the midst of the first coup against President Aristide in 1991 to ’94, working for USAID in-country in Haiti. What is his role today?
ANTHONY FENTON: Well, after the coup, Ira Lowenthal reentered Haiti. Now, he had had to leave, I believe, in 2002, because he was getting too hot. He was up to some activities that were being scrutinized by the Haitian government. Now, he joined and helped create the Haiti Democracy Project in 2002, in late 2002, and then he supported the emergence of the Group of 184 shortly thereafter, which is basically the Haitian version of the Haiti Democracy Project. I mentioned the Boulos family. Rudolph Boulos is a board member, founding board member of the Haiti Democracy Project, as well, and he’s actually running for Senate in the area of Haiti where they plan to develop free-trade zones and open up a whole swath of sweatshops.
But Ira Lowenthal, he was working for the Americas Development Foundation, which is one of the key organizations implementing these so-called Democracy Enhancement projects prior to the coup. After the coup, he had a brief stint with them, and then he moved on to this other organization called the United Nations Office for Project Services. Now, it’s a very interesting organization that does reconstruction work, and they’re working — they’re called the self-financing arm or management services arm of the United Nations, very obscure and little known, but Ira Lowenthal became the director of this organization in Haiti just after the coup, and he helped set up registration centers for the elections, and he’s played an integral role in the sort of infrastructure of carrying out this election process.
Now, he stepped down as director of UNOPS, and UNOPS currently gets a $3 million contract from USAID to work and funnel money to the political parties — the "approved" political parties, most of which happen to comprise the former political opposition to Aristide, the Democratic Convergence. Now Ira Lowenthal is a key consultant for UNOPS today, and in fact, there’s a Canadian by the name of Jean-Francois Laurent, who directs the UNOPS activities in Haiti. But Ira Lowenthal, anyone I speak to, everyone speaks glowingly of him in the democracy promotion community. He’s an old hand there, as you’ve said. He had links to the Boulos family back in the previous coup period, and, of course, the Boulos family is said to have had relations with FRAPH, the paramilitary organization set up by the C.I.A. in order to destroy the popular movement at that time.
Now the Boulos family again, it has been widely reported that they may be linked along with the Apaids to death squad activity in Cite Soleil, anti-Lavalas gangs that are designed to destroy the popular support for the calls of demanding the return of Aristide or demanding the right to vote for the candidate of choice, now Rene Preval. But Ira Lowenthal has played an instrumental role. In fact, every week this organization, UNOPS, to give you an example of the sort of familial relations there, they meet with the I.R.I., the N.D.I., with USAID, and with I.F.E.S, which is linked to the I.R.I. The chairman of I.F.E.S. is a former Reagan advisor and a Bush appointee as U.N. ambassador just before the 9/11 attacks in 2001, William Hybl.
So you see this family meeting on a weekly basis, coordinating their activities. They’re funneling millions of dollars to the political parties, by way of giving them credits for TV advertising, for pamphlets, for t-shirts and all sorts of other activities. And, of course, this is all geared towards — they’re hoping, I think, right now, that there will be a run-off election, sort of like there was in Liberia, where the International Republican Institute and these other organizations played a central role, as well, because if there’s a run-off election — and it’s possible that one of their rightwing candidates, perhaps such as Marc Bazin, who’s running under the Lavalas name today, but of course was a World Bank candidate that Aristide beat in a landslide in 1990 — they’re hoping that one of these candidates, maybe it’ll be Henri Baker, will be able to win in a run-off.
But there’s also the terror card that they’re holding over their heads. The paramilitaries that entered in 2004 like Guy Philippe. Other well known NARCO traffickers, the nephew of the current Prime Minister, Gerard Latortue, his name is Youri Latortue, the mere mention of his name in Haiti, strikes the fear in the people’s eyes when you speak to them, and this person is running for senate in the Artibonite region. And the possibility of a violent intervention in this election process is in the background, and it looms, and people like Ira Lowenthal and these other organizations, the N.E.D., they are well aware of this, and so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
AMY GOODMAN: And the role, Anthony Fenton — you’re speaking to us from Vancouver, Canada, in the midst of your own elections — of Canada and the current candidates in the coup of 2004, as well as what you understand is the U.S. role that forced Aristide out?
ANTHONY FENTON: Well, indeed, Canada in September hosted a meeting with members of Haiti’s private sector with that think tank that I mentioned earlier that’s getting N.E.D. funding, FOCAL, the Foundation for the Americas. Reginald Boulos, one of the long-time elites who supported this U.S. vision for Haiti and has long-standing ties to Washington, he was invited to this meeting. And what you were seeing is Canada supporting whole-heartedly. In fact, Roger Noriega, former Secretary of State for the western hemisphere, came to Canada just after the coup with Adolfo Franco from USAID. Franco, incidentally, has refused to be interviewed on the question of USAID’s activities on the democracy promotion side in Haiti recently. But they came to Canada just after the coup with the intention of asking Canada to play a leadership role in Haiti, and Canada quickly acquiesced.
In fact, when I was in Haiti in September with a couple of other Canadian journalists, we interviewed a top-level Canadian diplomat, and he was boasting how finally in Haiti there’s a government that’s being ruled by the transnational elite in the private sector and civil society. And Canada’s job is to stand on the frontlines diplomatically, politically, and they’re also helping out militarily, and on the intelligence side, to prop up this illegitimate regime that was installed by the United States, that was imported from Florida and installed — imposed on the Haitian people. And so Canada is playing an increasing role and they are expecting to play — in fact, this high level diplomat told us Canada is sort of like earning its stripes in Haiti, because there is going to be a coming transition, and he mentioned Cuba specifically, and of course, strategically where Haiti is situated — the State Department in 2005 listed Haiti and Colombia as the two primary strategic states — so it’s very important that they take control of Haiti.
There is a Dominican Republic interest there, as well. They are possibly establishing military bases there. The U.S. has for a long time dictated the Dominican military’s policies for the region, and the Canadian government here, what we’re seeing, is under the liberal government that is about, it appears, to lose power to a neo-conservative electoral coup, if you will, led by Canada’s Conservative Party and Stephen Harper, who is a well-known admirer of George Bush. Canada, the liberal government, initiated a rightwing shift over the past decade, that we’ve seen a new role for Canada in the Americas. In fact, this high-level diplomat referred to the destiny of Canada and the Americas being fulfilled through their role in Haiti today.
AMY GOODMAN: Anthony Fenton is our guest. He’s speaking to us from Vancouver, Canada. And the proof of the involvement of the U.S. government in the coup that forced out President Aristide February 29th, 2004?
ANTHONY FENTON: Well, in 2003 there was a meeting held in Ottawa called the Ottawa Initiative on Haiti. At the time, it was a secret high level round table that did not involve any Haitians, although it was a meeting that was designed to discuss the future of Haiti. It was leaked by the host of that meeting, a Canadian Member of Parliament named Denis Paradis, to a Quebec magazine, that the possibility of removing Aristide and installing a U.N.-style trusteeship was discussed. This was quickly glossed over, and the Canadian government retracted that this was discussed, but after the coup I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request and did receive some of the documents, which seem to corroborate what was leaked at the time, that there were high-level meetings being held not only in Ottawa, but other follow-up meetings, I understand, in Washington and in El Salvador that planned the overthrow of Aristide on the diplomatic side.
The Organization of American States was involved. And the then Assistant Secretary General of the O.A.S., Luigi Einaudi, who famously said on the eve of Haiti’s independence, 'The problem with Haiti is that the international community is so screwed up and divided that we're actually allowing Haitians to run Haiti.’ It’s people like this and sentiments like this that informed these sorts of meetings that took place before the coup, and, you know, the writing was on the wall for Aristide when he was elected in November of 2000. We saw the opposition boycott the elections. The Gallup polls indicated a landslide victory for Aristide, and again we return to the point made by the N.E.D. program officer, it was simply the case that, from the perspective of the United States, Canada, and France, and the European Union, the primary backers of this coup d’etat, that Aristide was consolidating power, that the Lavalas Party, in particular, and that the popular movement was emerging and was taking root, and that is what had to be overthrown and stopped in its tracks, and that’s what we’re seeing happen today.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, Anthony Fenton, on the issue of what is happening in the Cite Soleil with the killings of innocent residents there, also the killings of U.N. forces there, recently you had Reginald Boulos and Andy Apaid, well known anti-Lavalas leaders, holding a major protest, calling for a crackdown on Cite Soleil. Can you talk about that?
ANTHONY FENTON: Yeah, again, this — I read that as a provocation. They’ve been — if you go back to summer of 2005, there was a kidnapping spree, as the The New York Times and the L.A. Times reported it, that was used as a pretext to demand that the U.N. go into Cite Soleil and root out the so-called chimeres, the so-called bandits, the so-called terrorists. Now, I learned through sources inside the prime minister’s office in Haiti and through other sources that, again, Youri Latortue, the nephew of Gerard Latortue, was involved in this kidnapping spree, that he was carrying out and overseeing a kidnapping ring of his own that was used as a pretext to go into these neighborhoods and commit massacres. And on July 6th, it’s been well reported and well documented that a massacre did take place, and it was carried out by the United Nations. It buckled to the pressure that was being exerted on it by the likes of Reginald Boulos and other members of the elite, like Andy Apaid.
And so I see, I think, from what I can tell, this is being replayed, and the kidnapping spree — it’s possible that these assaults on the so-called peacekeepers, the Jordanians who have played one of the more repressive roles in Cite Soleil, that that is another provocation that is intended to pressure the U.N. forces to go into Cite Soleil and fire arbitrarily, as they’ve been doing repeatedly. You know, within the past few days a number of people have been killed in Cite Soleil, even since that demonstration. Canadian journalists who are there right now, Aaron Lakoff and Leslie Bagg, reported on how four people in Cite Soleil have been killed.
And the U.N. knows that they can’t go into Cite Soleil and conduct these operations without killing civilians, and yet people like Reginald Boulos don’t seem to mind if civilians get killed. It’s just collateral damage, and he’s said that he is willing to create a fund to assist the victims of Cite Soleil. When we interviewed Mr. Boulos in September, he referred to himself as Mr. Cite Soleil. So, he has a vested interest in putting down this popular movement that’s calling for Aristide’s return or calling for free and fair elections that would see Rene Preval win in a likely landslide.



National Endowment For Democracy (NED) In Venezuela

By Kim Scipes

26 February, 2014
Countercurrents.org

As protests have been taking place in Venezuela the last couple of weeks, it is always good to check on the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US Empire’s “stealth” destabilizer. What has the NED been up to in Venezuela?

Before going into details, it is important to note what NED is and is not. First of all, it has NOTHING to do with the democracy we are taught in civics classes, concerning one person-one vote, with everyone affected having a say in the decision, etc. (This is commonly known as “popular” or grassroots democracy.) The NED opposes this kind of democracy.

The NED promotes top-down, elite, constrained (or “polyarchal”) democracy. This is the democracy where the elites get to decide the candidates or questions suitable to go before the people—and always limiting the choices to what the elites are comfortable with. Then, once the elites have made their decision, THEN the people are presented with the “choice” that the elites approve. And then NED prattles on with its nonsense about how it is “promoting democracy around the world.”

This is one of the most cynical uses of democracy there is. It’s notable even in what my friend Dave Lippmann calls “Washington Deceit.”

The other thing to note about NED is that it is NOT independent as it claims, ad nauseum. It was created by the US Congress, signed into US law by President Ronald Reagan (that staunch defender of democracy), and it operates from funds provided annually by the US Government.

However, its Board of Directors is drawn from among the elites in the US Government’s foreign policy making realm. Past Board members have included Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, General Wesley K. Clark, and Paul Wolfowitz. Today’s board can be found at http://www.ned.org/about/board; most notable is Elliot Abrams of Reagan Administration fame.

In reality, NED is part of the US Empire’s tools, and “independent” only in the sense that no elected presidential administration can directly alter its composition or activities, even if it wanted to. It’s initial project director, Professor Allen Weinstein of Georgetown University, admitted in the Washington Post of September 22, 1991, that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

In other words, according to Professor William Robinson in his 1996 book, Promoting Polyarchy, NED is a product of US Government foreign policy shift from “earlier strategies to contain social and political mobilization through a focus on control of the state and governmental apparatus” to a process of “democracy promotion,” whereby “the United States and local elites thoroughly penetrate civil society, and from therein, assure control over popular mobilization and mass movements.” What this means, as I note in my 2010 book, AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage?, “is that instead of waiting for a client government to be threatened by its people and then responding, US foreign policy shifted to intervening in the civil society of a country ‘of interest’ (as defined by US foreign policy goals) before popular mobilization could become significant, and by supporting certain groups and certain politicians, then channel any potential mobilization in the direction desired by the US Government.”

Obviously, this also means that these “civil society” organizations can be used offensively as well, against any government the US opposes. NED funding, for example, was used in all of the “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and, I expect, currently in the Ukraine as well as elsewhere.

How do they operate? They have four “institutes” through which they work: the International Republican Institute (currently headed by US Senator John McCain), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (currently headed by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright), the Center for International Private Enterprise (the international wing of the US Chamber of Commerce), and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), the foreign policy operation of the AFL-CIO, with Richard Trumka the head of its Board of Directors.

As I documented in my book, ACILS had been indirectly involved in the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela by participating in meetings with leaders later involved in the coup beforehand, and then denying afterwards the involvement of the leaders of the right-wing labor organization (CTV) in the coup, leaders of an organization long affiliated with the AFL-CIO. We also know NED overall had been active in Venezuela since 1997.

The NED and its institutes continue to actively fund projects in Venezuela today. From the 2012 NED Annual Report (the latest available), we see they have provided $1,338,331 to organizations and projects in Venezuela that year alone: $120,125 for projects for “accountability”; $470,870 for “civic education”; $96,400 for “democratic ideas and values”; $105,000 for “freedom of information”; $92,265 for “human rights”; $216,063 for “political processes”; $34,962 for “rule of law”; $45,000 for “strengthening political institutions”; and $153,646 for Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).

Additionally, however, as found on the NED “Latin American and Caribbean” regional page, NED has granted $465,000 to ACILS to advance NED objectives of “freedom of association” in the region, with another $380,000 to take place in Venezuela and Colombia. This is in addition to another $645,000 to the International Republican Institute, and $750,000 to the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

The irony of these pious claims for “freedom of association,” etc., is that Venezuela is has developed public participation to one of the highest levels in the world, and has one of the most free media in the world. Even with massive private TV media involvement in the 2002 coup, the government did not take away their right to broadcast afterward.

In other words, NED and its institutes are not active in Venezuela to help promote democracy, as they claim, but in fact, to act against popular democracy in an effort to restore the rule of the elite, top-down democracy. They want to take popular democracy away from those nasty Chavistas, and show who is boss in the US Empire. This author bets they fail.

Kim Scipes, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Purdue University North Central in Westville, IN, and is author of AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage?, and KMU: Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines, 1980-1994. He can be reached through his web site at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby stefano » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:40 am

American Dream » Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:40 pm wrote:
stefano » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:25 am wrote:
Can anyone briefly explain why the AFL-CIO has been happy to collaborate with neocons on this?


The U.S. Labour Movement is pathetic really- was quite co-opted even before WW2. After the War ended things got worse, and elements of the AFL-CIO hierarchy were quite happy to work on Cold War agenda- often directly with the CIA. especially in Latin America but also in Europe. More recently, entities like the N.E.D. and State Dept. are playing a leading role in these things and the AFL-CIO is still there with it.

I know I'm barely scratching the surface here, but Kim Scipes has really focused on these issues in an excellent way, and surely has more to say on the history there.

Thanks AD. There's also a mechanism at work thanks to which exploitation in the developing world allows high wages for workers (and the unemployed) in developed countries, giving an incentive to organised labour in rich countries to support economic imperialism. Turns out they do have more to lose than their chains. Cf. 'New Labour' in Britain.

This NED stuff is very interesting, I'm doing some reading on CANVAS which is very relevant, I'm sure it's been covered in some threads though. I'm starting to suspect an anti-Bouteflika movement in Algeria is CANVAS-funded. It's certainly inspired by them and using the same tactics.
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:23 am

Here is Kim Scipes' take on some of the earlier AFL-CIO history:


Labor Imperialism Redux?: The AFL-CIO’s Foreign Policy Since 1995

Kim Scipes
May, 2005


Throughout much of its history, the AFL-CIO has carried out a reactionary labor program around the world. It has been unequivocally established that the AFL-CIO has worked to overthrow democratically-elected governments, collaborated with dictators against progressive labor movements, and supported reactionary labor movements against progressive governments.1 In short, the AFL-CIO has practiced what we can accurately call “labor imperialism.” The appellation “AFL-CIA” has accurately represented reality and has not been left-wing paranoia.

“Labor imperialism” did not begin with the merger of the AFL-CIO in 1955. It actually began under the American Federation of Labor (AFL) in the early twentieth century, before the First World War, under federation president Samuel Gompers. The AFL engaged in counteracting revolutionary forces in Mexico during that country’s revolution, actively worked to support and defend U.S. government participation in the First World War, and then led the charge within U.S. foreign policy circles against the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the AFL led an effort to establish a Pan-American Federation of Labor (PAFL) after the First World War to control labor movements throughout the Western Hemisphere, and most importantly, in Mexico. As shown by Sinclair Snow in his 1964 study of the PAFL, the effort to establish the PAFL was underwritten by a $50,000 grant to the AFL from the Wilson administration.2

Although most foreign efforts ended with the death of Gompers in 1924, they were revived during the Second World War. The AFL was particularly active in Europe, initially against the Nazis but then against the Communists, who had been leading forces in the various resistance movements against the fascists. After the Second World War, during the “Cold War,” AFL operatives engaged in extensive efforts to undermine Communist efforts in Italy and France in the late 1940s, and then in long-term efforts to advance U.S. interests against the Soviet Union on the continent. These efforts were funded through the U.S. government’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and they involved participation in the drug trade, including the notorious “French Connection,” when the CIA cut off funding.3

AFL operations in Latin America were also revived after the Second World War. Initially, they worked through ORIT—the Latin American regional organization of the anticommunist International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)—and helped to overthrow the government of Guatemala in 1954. After the successful Cuban Revolution, however, the successor AFL-CIO established its own Latin American operation in 1962, the American Institute for Free Labor Development or AIFLD, to better respond to “challenges” within the region. Among other activities, AIFLD helped lay the groundwork for the military coups against democratically-elected governments in Brazil in 1964 and Chile in 1973, while also interfering in the Dominican Republic and British Guinea.

These efforts in Latin America were paralleled in Africa and Asia. The African-American Labor Center (AALC) was established in 1964 and was later involved in actions against the anti-apartheid forces in South Africa. In 1982, the AFL-CIO gave its George Meany Human Rights Award to apartheid collaborator Gatsha Buthelezi, who had created a labor center (United Workers of South Africa) specifically to undercut the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the rest of the liberation movement.

In 1967, the Asian-American Free Labor Institute (AAFLI) was established. AAFLI was particularly active in South Korea, and then provided massive funding in the Philippines to help the government of Ferdinand Marcos in his battle against the forces challenging his dictatorship. Between 1983 and 1989, the AFL-CIO provided more money to the Marcos-created Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) to use against the progressive labor organization Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) than it gave to any other labor movement in the world, including Poland’s Solidarnosc. These efforts against progressive labor in the Philippines included supporting the largest affiliate of the TUCP in its efforts against a KMU affiliate at Atlas Mines, including active collaboration with a death squad.4 These operations continued at least through the 1980s. AAFLI also provided money to a TUCP leader serving in the Philippine Senate to get him to vote for retention of U.S. bases when that issue was before their Congress. AAFLI was active in Indonesia as well.

In short, reactionary labor operations were carried out by the AFL-CIO throughout the Cold War tenures of presidents George Meany and Lane Kirkland.5 Considerable opposition to these operations did develop within the labor movement by the mid-1980s, and this opposition was at least one factor in developments that led to the election of John Sweeney to the presidency of the AFL-CIO in 1995.

When John Sweeney was elected to the presidency of the AFL-CIO in October 1995, there was hope among labor activists that he would radically reform the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy. Sweeney’s initial efforts were encouraging. By 1997, he had disbanded labor’s semi-autonomous regional “institutes”—AAFLI, AALC, AIFLD, and the Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI) operating in Europe—and replaced them with a centralized organization, headed by a long-time progressive, with an encouraging name: American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), better known today as the “Solidarity Center.” Sweeney also removed many of the long-time cold warriors from the International Affairs Department. And these changes, along with some positive efforts to support workers’ struggles in several developing countries, were a qualitative improvement over the preceding regimes of George Meany and Lane Kirkland.

However, certain events in recent years have called into question the depth of the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy reforms. Three such events stand out: the AFL-CIO’s refusal to open the books and clear the air with respect to its past operations; ACILS’s involvement in Venezuela concerning attempts to overthrow the government of the radical Hugo Chávez; and the federation’s support of and participation in a new Cold War–like labor agency of the federal government.


http://monthlyreview.org/2005/05/01/lab ... since-1995
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:49 am

from counterpunch

WEEKEND EDITION OCTOBER 3-5, 2014

A Not So Angelic Craziness
Our Boys in Hong Kong
by LUCIANA BOHNE
I woke up this morning to read the news in the Guardian that the pope believes in angels. I took the headline on faith, and moved on. The Guardian introduced me to Joshua Wong, leader of the “the spontaneous nature of the civil disobedience,” in Hong Kong, as if to illustrate the pope’s charming belief.

Joshua Wong, I’m told, is the seventeen-year-old “co-founder of Scholarism, the student movement which kickstarted [sic] the demonstrations,” in Hong Kong. At fifteen, Joshua (I may be permitted the first name?) founded the movement in protest to Beijing’s proposal to introduce “national education,” which Joshua’s supporters believe is “brainwashing.”

I assume, the “brainwashing,” would be free, Beijing not being on a course of manic privatization-of-everything that I’ve heard of. In the United States, “brainwashing,” if we’re talking of university, is liberally and democratically available as the road to lifelong indebtedness—and scarce income. If Joshua is not aware of the perils of education in the self-proclaimed freest and most democratic society in the world, he, too, may believe in angels.

In fact, the Guardian describes him as one. A model of filial devotion to quiet, retiring middle-class parents, Roger and Grace, also, incidentally, veteran “pro-democracy” activists—modest and discreetly morose about his meteoric hurtling into global fame, Joshua’s apparel is the very opposite of that of Che’s, arguably the most endurably visible revolutionary in the world, himself devoted to a “brainwashing” form of education, albeit that of a “New Man,” who would revolutionize consciousness and change the world. Che’s educational program was called “socialism,” an alternative form of organizing society that American education never speaks of. Here’s how the Guardian makes its fashion statement about Joshua’s sartorial paraphernalia, the very model of a typical, though not noticeably anti-capitalist, “occupy” teenager:

With his floppy hair, baggy shorts and stripy T-shirt, accessorized [sic] with a yellow ribbon around each skinny wrist, the only thing distinguishing the 17-year-old from the other teenagers on Wednesday was the bank of television cameras facing him.

An “oriental” Maoist, this icon is not. Relax, readers. The Guardian informs with a polite, suppressed shudder, that

the Hong Kong demonstrations were triggered after the Chinese government restricted who can run as the commercial hub’s next chief executive, or leader.

Notice, readers: “restricted who can run.” Fiendish autocracy of Beijing. The Guardian, being a British newspaper, may be forgiven for not noting that in the United States, the “central government” is made up of two business parties, which restrict the electoral choice of presidents to two candidates, both of whose pockets are stuffed with million of lobby dollars—well over half a billion in Obama’s case in 2008– in order to win a popularity race that will make not a bit of difference to the citizens at home and America’s imperial hostages abroad.

Undaunted by tonal deafness and attention to comparative logic, the Guardian trudges on:

Chinese state media have attacked Scholarism as extremists and a pro-Beijing Hong Kong-based paper claimed that “US forces” had worked to cultivate Wong as a “political superstar” – accusations Wong has dismissed.

Now what has given the “pro-Beijing Hong Kong paper” such an outrageous idea? When has the US ever meddled with the internal affairs of a foreign country? Has it been listening to Putin’s propaganda, denigrating the splendid “civil society” success of the supposed American coup in Kiev last February? Has it been heeding the testimony of the “shocked” OSCE human rights observers on 29 September that grossly mutilated bodies of civilians are being exhumed in the vicinity of rebel Donetsk—one allegedly a pregnant woman and another woman decapitated, among other reportedly unidentifiable remains? Or Russian Foreign Minister’s Lavrov’s figure of over 400 corpses found in mass graves in territories recently vacated in haste by the alleged US-sponsored “fascist” rabble of the Ukrainian National Guard? Does Beijing believe victim testimony of repeated mass rapes, including of girls as young as twelve, by the Ukrainian anti-terrorist fascist battalions in villages around Donetsk? Is Beijing so credulous as to credit Amnesty International’s confirmation of human rights abuses in East Ukraine? If so, goodness, Beijing might believe that serial US-funded “color revolutions,” starting in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, have manipulated the members of the former Warsaw Pact into serving the NATO alliance in its encirclement of Russia. The Chinese central government might even go so far as to suppose that President Obama’s “pivot to Asia” requires a first stop in Moscow before proceeding to “color revolution” in Beijing.

Crazy. Speaking of which, I have a message for the Guardian, which is inscribed on a plaque hanging in my kitchen, the gift of a fan of Jack Nicholson’s wisdom in “As Good as It Gets”: “Go sell crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked up here.”

All the Guardian really needed to report for us to get the true picture was one telling fact: the budget allocated to Hong Kong by the CIA’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: National Endowment for Democracy

Postby MinM » Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:55 pm

Image
Canada’s quiet coup: How a CIA off-shoot helped install Stephen Harper as Canada’s prime minister
By Mark Taliano
Posted on January 9, 2015


The biggest threat to Canada’s national security is internal. It is the offshoot of an extraordinarily successful—because it remains largely undetected—coup that imposed itself on the country with the federal election of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) in 2006, and solidified its impacts with the election of a Conservative majority in 2011.

Author, poet, academic, and former Canadian diplomat Prof. Peter Dale Scott recently disclosed a WikiLeaks cable indicating that the International Republican Institute (IRI), an off-shoot of the CIA, and a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) helped install Stephen Harper as Canada’s Prime Minister. This was the coup.

Point 12 of the cable explains that “In addition to the campaign schools, IRI will be bringing in consultants who specialize in party renovation to discuss case studies of political parties in Germany, Spain, and Canada which successfully carried out the process.”

The “party renovation” referenced in the cable is the “renovation” of Canada’s indigenous Progressive Conservative Party into a Republican-inspired Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) that is largely subservient to the U.S Empire south of the border.

A similar, but more violent, “renovation” process occurred in 2009 when the democratically-elected government of Manuel Zelaya was overthrown in a U.S-orchestrated coup. It is also the same illegal “renovation” that is destabilizing Venezuela today, as the US interferes in the internal politics of that country, in what is often described as a “soft coup”.

Dr. Anthony James Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta Canada, explains the genesis of the Harper Conservative assault on the “Red Tory” traditions of Canada’s indigenous conservative party in Flanagan’s Last Stand? :

” The assault by the Harper-Flanagan juggernaut on the generally friendly orientation of Canadian conservatism towards the state, towards Indigenous peoples, and towards the institutions of Crown sovereignty helped clear aside obstacles to the importation from United States of the Republican Party’s jihad on managed capitalism. Flanagan and Harper took charge of the Canadian version of the Reagan Revolution aimed at transforming the social welfare state into the stock market state.”

The implications of this conservative “jihad” are a threat to our national security on many levels. Stephen Harper’s attacks on Canada’s knowledge base are foundational to what can only be described as an endorsement of man-made climate change, which is likely the foremost threat to both humanity and to Canada. The Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stresses the urgency to act now to mitigate catastrophic climate change, and yet the Harper government is moving Canada in the opposite direction. Most recently, the Harper government ratified a bilateral agreement with China, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA), which all but guarantees further expansion of Canada’s Tar Sands, and an expansion of its carbon economy.

Canada’s warmongering also bodes poorly for our collective security. The Conservative government has exploited the collective shock of the murder of Corporal Cirillo at Ottawa’s National War Monument, and the subsequent shoot-out at the House of Commons, by falsely conflating the tragedy with “Islamic terrorism” and by using it as a pretext to wage illegal warfare against ISIS. Many Canadians, including Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s girlfriend, argue that we should be addressing the tragedy by improving Canada’s capacity to provide mental health care for all of its citizens, yet that is not part of the Harper government’s longstanding agenda.

Instead of working to stop the flow of money and arms to proxy mercenary armies—that are for the most part allied with the West to illegally topple the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad—Canada has instead chosen to use military options, all but guaranteeing prolonged and deadly warfare which will exact a horrendous toll on innocent civilians.

This militarism will likely be a threat to Canada’s security as well, since Canada will increasingly be associated with war crimes and imperial hegemony abroad, rather than peace-keeping.

The largely undetected coup, as revealed by the WikiLeaks cable, goes a long way towards explaining Canada’s current predicament. This secret intervention in Canada’s political landscape will continue to undermine our country’s prosperity and security, unless we become more conscious of its insidious impacts and choose instead trajectories towards peace and national security. The foundational (though suppressed) evidence is shouting that we’re on the wrong course, and that we need to make changes fast.

- See more at: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/14891

CIA’s Hidden Hand in ‘Democracy’ Groups
January 8, 2015

Special Report: Documents from the Reagan presidential library reveal that two major institutions promoting “democracy” and “freedom” — Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy — worked hand-in-glove, behind-the-scenes, with a CIA propaganda expert in the 1980s, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy stress their commitment to freedom of thought and democracy, but both cooperated with a CIA-organized propaganda operation in the 1980s, according to documents released by Ronald Reagan’s presidential library.

One document showed senior Freedom House official Leo Cherne clearing a draft manuscript on political conditions in El Salvador with CIA Director William Casey and promising that Freedom House would make requested editorial “corrections and changes” – and even send over the editor for consultation with whomever Casey assigned to review the paper.

In a “Dear Bill” letter dated June 24, 1981, Cherne wrote: “I am enclosing a copy of the draft manuscript by Bruce McColm, Freedom House’s resident specialist on Central America and the Caribbean. This manuscript on El Salvador was the one I had urged be prepared and in the haste to do so as rapidly as possible, it is quite rough. You had mentioned that the facts could be checked for meticulous accuracy within the government and this would be very helpful. …

“If there are any questions about the McColm manuscript, I suggest that whomever is working on it contact Richard Salzmann at the Research Institute [an organization where Cherne was executive director]. He is Editor-in-Chief at the Institute and the Chairman of the Freedom House’s Salvador Committee. He will make sure that the corrections and changes get to Rita Freedman who will also be working with him. If there is any benefit to be gained from Salzmann’s coming down at any point to talk to that person, he is available to do so.”

Cherne, who was chairman of Freedom House’s executive committee, also joined in angling for financial support from a propaganda program that Casey initiated in 1982 under one of the CIA’s top covert action specialists, Walter Raymond Jr., who was moved to President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council staff...

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/08/c ... cy-groups/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016110464


Last bumped by seemslikeadream on Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:55 pm.
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 167 guests