The recent controversy surrounding Georgia’s proposed “foreign influence” law has spotlighted a glaring hypocrisy in the stance of Western nations, particularly the United States and the European Union. Both entities have criticized Georgia for attempting to implement a law that bears similarities to their own regulations, raising questions about double standards and the genuine intentions behind their critiques.
The Western Context: FARA and the EU’s Proposed Legislation
The United States has long enforced the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), established in 1938, which mandates that individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign entities disclose their relationships and activities. FARA’s primary aim is to ensure transparency and inform the public and government about foreign influence on American politics and policies.
Similarly, the European Union is developing a law to address foreign influence, which will require organizations and individuals lobbying on behalf of non-EU entities to declare their activities and funding publicly. This initiative, part of a broader effort to protect EU democracy, is designed to enhance transparency without imposing criminal sanctions or labelling entities as foreign agents.
Georgia’s Foreign Influence Bill: An Echo of Western Policies
Georgia’s proposed legislation aimed to increase transparency regarding foreign-funded activities within the country, mirroring the objectives of FARA and the EU’s developing law. However, this move faced significant backlash from Western nations, with critics arguing that it would stifle civil society and curb freedoms. Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, described the Georgian law as incompatible with EU values, citing concerns about its potential “chilling effect” on civil society.
Pro-Western Protestors courtesy Reuters News
Hypocrisy and Double Standards
The criticism from Western countries reveals a double standard. While the US and the EU implement and advocate for transparency laws to protect their democratic processes from foreign influence, they condemn Georgia for attempting a similar approach. This contradiction raises several points of contention:
- Legitimate Security Concerns: Both Western and Georgian laws are driven by legitimate concerns about foreign interference. If such concerns justify FARA and the EU’s proposed legislation, why is Georgia’s attempt to address the same issues met with resistance?
- Impact on Civil Society: Critics argue that Georgia’s law could harm NGOs and civil society. However, similar arguments could be made against FARA and the EU’s transparency requirements, which also impose administrative burdens on organizations.
- Sovereignty and Self-Determination: The backlash against Georgia’s law can be seen as an infringement on its sovereignty. If Western nations have the right to enact laws safeguarding their democratic processes, so too should Georgia.
- Geopolitical Interests: The opposition to Georgia’s bill might be influenced by broader geopolitical interests. Ensuring Georgia remains aligned with Western political and economic systems could be a factor driving the criticism, rather than purely democratic concerns.
The Need for Consistency
For Western nations to maintain credibility in promoting democratic values and transparency, they must apply consistent standards. Condemning Georgia for a law that parallels their own undermines their position and suggests a geopolitical bias rather than a genuine commitment to democratic principles.
In conclusion, while Western nations rightly prioritize transparency and protection from foreign influence, they must recognize the same rights for other countries, including Georgia. Only through consistent application of these principles can the West truly advocate for democracy and transparency on the global stage.
