One European Country’s Battle Against Global Pressure

The story

The country of Georgia legislated a foreign agent law that would require any civil society organization or non-governmental organization (NGO) receiving at least 20 percent of its funding from abroad to register as a foreign agent.

It would further require labeling all materials published by said entities as being funded by foreigners. Those opposed to the law portray it as a threat to democracy, which triggered massive protests in Georgia’s capital.

The real story here is not the law; rather, it’s the Western press coverage surrounding it. Rarely has there been such one-sided coverage of an issue—few pieces published in the English-language news media are supportive of the bill or even report neutrally on it.

The sides and responses

In America, both Democrats and Republicans are in lock-step opposing Georgia’s foreign agent law. The U.S. Senate considered bipartisan legislation to sanction Georgia, and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced a bill of his own in response to what he called Georgia’s “increasingly illiberal turn.”

Wilson’s legislation would have provided Georgia with military support and visa liberalization if the foreign agent law were canceled. In response, the Georgian government denounced Wilson’s law as “blackmail.” The U.S. ultimately imposed travel bans on members of the governing Georgia Dream party, lawmakers, and some associated private individuals.

Recently, NGOs operating inside Georgia have become actively political, pushing an anti-government message. The prime minister has even accused NGOs of trying to stage multiple revolutions and of supporting “gay propaganda.” As Georgia Dream continued to win free elections over European Union-preferred opposition, tensions became increasingly strained between the two.

Although the E.U. is chastising Georgia for wanting to disclose how its NGOs are funded, the E.U. has its own “foreign agents” law requiring private groups to publicize their non-E.U. funding.

At the same time, media outlets funded by the E.U. and the United States published hundreds of investigations into anti-western government figures, weakening public trust. The United States and the E.U. have opposed what they see as Georgia's anti-democratic shift and are doing what they can — by using NGOs and otherwise — to retain their influence in the nation.

Countering the narrative

Mainstream media organizations are equating the bill to Russia’s foreign agent law. “Government pushes Putin-style ‘foreign agent’ bill,” CNN blared. CNBC labeled it “Russia-style.” But Russia’s foreign agent law, passed in 2012, is significantly stricter; if an NGO so much as sold a T-shirt to an outsider, it could be shut down.

Georgia’s law, by contrast, does not ban foreign money — it simply requires that organizations receiving significant funds from foreign sources identify those sources.

Media organizations ignore the fact that the protests in Georgia’s capital represent a small minority of voters and do not indicate that the government is in danger of losing support. Indeed, Georgia has elections later this year, and the incumbent government is currently leading in the polls.

Why it matters

America and the E.U. have used NGOs in Georgia to attempt to keep the nation pro-Western. Now, they are outraged because they may lose their ability to influence Georgians — a political ad becomes significantly less influential when it bears a “Funded by Foreigners” stamp.

Establishment powers using NGOs to push policy positions are making their way west. Germany is considering a “Democracy Promotion Act” that could funnel billions of euros to “pro-democracy NGOs” as a safeguard if the populist right AfD party gains power. Those NGOs would use funds to produce anti-government content, and if the AfD tried to cut public funding through legislation, it would likely be accused of enacting "Russia-style" laws.

In the United States, NGOs have been found to be moving migrants across the southern border with impunity. Georgia is not unique in being vulnerable to foreign influence; it is simply the latest nation to face backlash for resisting it.