“NED and Freedom House as a tag team”

Key Neocon Calls on Pindostan to Oust Putin
Robert Parry, Consortium News, Oct 7 2016

The neocon president of the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy [NED] has called for the government to “summon the will” to engineer the overthrow of Putin, saying that the 10-year-old murder case of a Russian journalist should be the inspiration. Carl Gershman, who has headed NED since its founding in 1983, doesn’t cite any evidence that Putin was responsible for the death of Anna Politkovskaya but uses a full column in the WaPo on Friday to create that impression, calling her death “a window to Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin autocrat whom Pindosis are looking at for the first time.” Gershman wraps up his article by writing:

Politkovskaya saw the danger, but she and other liberals in Russia were not strong enough to stop it. Pindostan has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so. Remembering Politkovskaya can help us rise to this challenge.

That Gershman would so directly call for the ouster of Russia’s clearly popular president represents further proof that NED is a neocon-driven vehicle that seeks to create the political circumstances for “regime change” even when that means removing leaders who are elected by a country’s citizenry. And there is a reason for NED to see its job in that way. In 1983, NED essentially took over the CIA’s role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing governments that got in the way of Pindosi interests, except that NED carried out those functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly. NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons and other favored foreign policy operatives because a substantial portion of NED’s money circulates through Pindostan-based NGOs. That makes Gershman an influential neocon paymaster whose organization dispenses some $100m/yr in taxpayers’ money to activists, journalists and NGOs both in Faschingstein and around the world. The money helps them undermine governments in Faschingstein’s disfavor or, as Gershman would prefer to say, “build democratic institutions.” Even when that requires overthrowing democratically elected leaders. NED was a lead actor in the Feb 22 2014 Ukraine coup against Yanukovych. Before the coup, NED was funding scores of projects inside Ukraine, which Gershman had identified as “the biggest prize” in a Sep 26 2013 column also published in the WaPo. In that column, Gershman wrote that after the West claimed Ukraine:

Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.

In other words, Gershman already saw Ukraine as an important step toward an even bigger prize, a “regime change” in Moscow. (…) In his latest column, Gershman not only urges Pindostan to muster the courage to oust Putin but he shows off the kind of clever sophistry that neocons are known for. Though lacking any evidence, he intimates that Putin ordered the murder of Politkovskaya and pretty much every other “liberal” who has died in Russia. It is a technique that I’ve seen used in other circumstances, such as the lists of “mysterious deaths” that right-wingers publish citing people who crossed the paths of Bill and Hillary Clinton and ended up dead. This type of smear spreads suspicion of guilt not based on proof but on the number of acquaintances and adversaries who have met untimely deaths. In the 1990s, one conservative friend of mine pointed to the Clintons’ “mysterious deaths” list and marveled that even if only a few were the victims of a Clinton death squad that would be quite a story, to which I replied that if even one were murdered by the Clintons that would be quite a story, but that there was no proof of any such thing. “Mysterious deaths” lists represent a type of creepy conspiracy theory that shifts the evidentiary burden onto the targets of the smears who must somehow prove their innocence, when there is no evidence of their guilt (only vague suspicions). It is contemptible, but it is not beneath Carl Gershman. Beyond that, Gershman’s public musing about Pindostan somehow summoning “the will” to remove Putin might in a normal world disqualify NED and its founding president from the privilege of dispensing taxpayers’ money to operatives in Faschingstein and globally. It is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous, an example of classic neocon hubris.

While the neocons do love their tough talk, they are not known for thinking through their “regime change” schemes. The idea of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia with the goal of ousting Putin, with his 82% approval ratings, must rank as the nuttiest and most reckless neocon scheme of all. Gershman and his neocon pals may fantasize about making Russia’s economy scream while financing pro-Western “liberals” who would stage disruptive protests in Red Square, but he and his friends haven’t weighed the consequences even if they could succeed. Given the devastating experience that most Russians had when NED’s beloved Russian “liberals” helped impose Pindosi “shock therapy” in the 1990s which reduced average life expectancy by a full decade, it’s hard to believe that the Russian people would simply take another dose of that bitter medicine sitting down. Even if the calculating Putin were somehow removed amid economic desperation, he is far more likely to be followed by a much harder-line Russian nationalist who might well see Moscow’s arsenal of nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother Russia’s honor. In other words, the neocons’ latest brash “regime change” scheme might be the last for all humanity. Gershman’s arrogance also raises questions about why the taxpayer should tolerate what amounts to a $100m neocon slush fund which is used to create dangerous mischief around the world. Despite having “democracy” in its name, NED appears only to favor democratic outcomes when they fit with official Faschingstein’s desires. If a disliked candidate wins an election, NED acts as if that is prima facie evidence that the system is undemocratic and must be replaced with a process that ensures the selection of candidates who will do what the government tells them to do.

Put differently, NED’s name is itself a fraud. But that shouldn’t come as a surprise since NED was created in 1983 at the urging of Ronald Reagan’s DCI Bill Casey, who wanted to offload some of the CIA’s traditional work ensuring that foreign elections turned out in ways acceptable to Faschingstein, and when they didn’t, as in Iran under Mossadegh, in Guatemala under Arbenz or in Chile under Allende, the CIA’s job was to undermine and remove the offending electoral winner. In 1983, Casey and the CIA’s top propagandist, Walter Raymond, who had been moved to Reagan’s National Security Council staff, wanted to create a funding mechanism to support outside groups, such as Freedom House and other NGOs, so they could engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money. In one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese, Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment,” but he recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. Casey wrote:

Obviously we here should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate.

The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money within NED for the Republican and Democrat parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. (…) Gershman, who had followed the classic neocon path from youthful socialism to fierce anti-communism, became NED’s first, and to this day only, president. Though NED is technically independent of Pindosi foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan 2 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts:

Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl. Senator Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has already given a major grant for a related Chinese program.

From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a $200k grant in 1984 to build “a network of democratic opinion-makers.” In NED’s first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6m on Freedom House, accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled “Freedom House: Portrait of a Pass-Through.” Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary, often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries deemed insufficiently “free,” including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia. Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag team with NED financing “NGOs” inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating those governments if they crack down on the NGOs. For instance, on Nov 16 2012, NED and Freedom House joined together to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government. Or, as they framed the issue:

(The Duma sought to) restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia’s NGO legislation will soon require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between registering as ‘foreign agents’ or facing significant financial penalties and potential criminal charges.

Of course, Pindostan has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence government policy to register with the Justice Dept or face possible fines or imprisonment. But the Russian law would impede NED’s efforts to destabilize the Russian government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped justify Freedom House’s rating of Russia as “not free.” Another bash-Putin tag team has been the WaPo’s editors and NED’s Gershman. On Jul 28 2015, a WaPo editorial and a companion column by Gershman led readers to believe that Putin was paranoid and “power mad” in worrying that outside money funneled into NGOs threatened Russian sovereignty. They were especially outraged that the Russians had enacted the law requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED. The WaPo’s editors wrote:

(Putin’s) latest move … is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’ The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts. The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.

However, among the relevant points that the WaPo’s editors wouldn’t tell their readers was the fact that Russia’s FARA was modeled after the Pindosi FARA and that Gershman had already publicly made clear in his Sep 26 2013 column: that his goal was to oust Russia’s elected president. In his Jul 28 2015 column, Gershman further deemed Putin’s government illegitimate. Gershman wrote:

Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy … was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy. … This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.

The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in Pindostan isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the column. Also undercutting the column’s impact would be an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. So Gershman left that out, too. After all, how many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power? And, if you had any doubts about what Gershman’s intent was regarding Russia, he dispelled them in his Friday column in which he calls on Pindostan to “summon the will” to “contain and defeat this danger,” which he makes clear is the continued rule of Vladimir Putin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s