by William Blum
excerpted from the book “Rogue State – A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”
2000
from IEFD Website
How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)?
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
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.
“We should not have to do this kind of work covertly,” said Carl Gershman in 1986, while he was president of the Endowment.
“It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.” (1)
And Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991:
“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” (2)
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)
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 numerous foreign countries by supplying,
funds
technical know-how
training
educational materials
computers
faxes
copiers
automobiles,
…and so on, to selected,
political groups
civic organizations
labor unions
dissident movements
student groups
book publishers
newspapers
other media, etc.
NED typically refers to the media it supports as “independent” despite the fact that these media are on the US payroll.
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 free-market economy is equated with democracy, reform, and growth; and the merits of foreign investment in their economy are emphasized.
From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than $2,500,000, to the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), an organization used by the CIA for decades to subvert progressive labor unions.(3)
AIFLD’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”.(4)
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 the Endowment.(5)
NED has funded centrist and rightist labor organizations to help them oppose those unions which were too militantly pro-worker. 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”.(6) (“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.” (7)
Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, a socialist, were supported by NED grants for years.(8)
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.
Interference in elections
NED’s Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted in 1984, asserts that,
“No Endowment funds may be used 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”.
As described in the “Elections” and “Interventions” chapters, NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in Washington.
And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and to support a referendum to unseat him.
Additionally, in the 1990s and afterward, NED supported a coalition of groups in Haiti known as the Democratic Convergence, who were united in their opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology, while he was in and out of the office of the president.(9)
The Endowment 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 virtually all the countries named above, in whose electoral process NED intervened, 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.(10)
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 (North’s euphemism for the North-Secord “Enterprise” of private companies), 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”.(11)
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.(12)
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 Foundation, 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 had been 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,(13) and in 2000 imprisoned in Panama when he was part of a group planning to assassinate Fidel Castro with explosives while the Cuban leader was speaking before a large crowd, although eventually, the group was tried on lesser charges.
The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does supporting democracy.
The governments and movements whom the NED targets call it destabilization.(14)
NOTES
1. The New York Times, June 1, 1986
2. Washington Post, September 22, 1991
3. NED Annual Reports, 1994-96.
4. NED Annual Report, 1996, p.39
5. For further information on AIFLD, see: Tom Barry, et al., The Other Side of Paradise: Foreign Control in the Caribbean (Grove Press, NY, 1984), see AIFLD in index; Jan Knippers Black, United States Penetration of Brazil (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), chapter 6; Fred Hirsch, An Analysis of Our AFL-CIO Role in Latin America (monograph, San Jose, California, 1974) passim; The Sunday Times (London), October 27, 1974, p.15-16
6. NED Annual Report, November 18, 1983 to September 30, 1984, p.21
7. NED Annual Report, 1998, p.35
8. See NED annual reports of the 1990s.
9. Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Washington, DC), press release, June 13, 2002, http://www.coha.org; Washington Post, November 18, 2003; NED Annual Report, 1998, p.53; Haiti Progres (Port-au-Prince, Haiti), May 13-19, 1998
10. New York Times, March 31, 1997, p.11
11. Washington Post, February 16, 1987; also see New York Times, February 15, 1987, p.1
12. San Francisco Examiner, July 21, 1985, p.1
13. New York Times, July 13, 1998
14. For a detailed discussion of NED, in addition to the sources named above, see: William I. Robinson, A Faustian Bargain: U.S. Intervention in the Nicaraguan Elections and American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era (Westview Press, Colorado, 1992), passim
The CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy
by thefilmarchive
September 28, 2009
from YouTube Website
– National Endowment for Democracy –
Overt Arm of The CIA
by B.Raman
March 2006
from ThereAreNoSunGlasses Website
[The following, by a former RAW chieftain, is a daring assessment of America’s foreign policy of fomenting democratic-revolution, or outright terrorism by the NED, Reagan’s privatized CIA.
It is brutally honest about the repercussions for India for supporting such a policy in Asia, without condemning the criminal American policies that are discussed. This position of the author is predicated on the prevailing wisdom in India that the American side will be victorious in its grand game. My own assessment is in RED, embedded within Mr. Raman’s work. – Peter C.]
National Endowment for Democracy of U.S.
The post-Watergate enquiries into the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US exposed details of its covert political activities in other countries in order to promote US foreign policy objectives.
Amongst such activities were the secret funding of individuals, political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) favorable to US interests and funneling of money to counter the activities of those considered anti-US.
After taking over as the President in January, 1977, Mr. Jimmy Carter banned such activities and imposed strict limits on the CIA’s covert operations in foreign countries.
During the election campaign of 1980, Mr. Ronald Reagan used effectively against Mr. Carter the argument that the post-Vietnam and post-Watergate decline of the US under Mr.Carter was due to the emasculation of its military and intelligence apparatus.
[The real reason for the American decline was the period of national shame we had entered into, for what we had sent our sons to Vietnam to do, and what we, as a people, had become in the process. The falsehoods at the base of every Reagan Doctrine, both economic and military, created the national delusion that we had not become monsters in our lust to kill and dominate the world. The national Republican delusion must be brought to an end, by clarifying the moral focus of what monsters we have become, by highlighting our monstrous crimes against humanity that take place everyday, all over the world.]
After his election in November, 1980, and before his taking-over as the President in January, 1981, Mr. Reagan appointed a transition group headed by the late William Casey, an attorney and one of his campaign managers, who was to later take over as the CIA Director, to recommend measures for strengthening the USA’s intelligence capability abroad.
[Mr. Raman tends to hide the worst truths about the lone superpower, in this case, covering-up Casey’s purloining of Jimmie Carter’s debate preparation book, as well as his helping George Bush pull-off the October Surprise and the deal to hold the Iranian hostages until after Carter left office. Wm. Casey was an amoral monster who created the menace of international “Islamic” terrorism and set it loose upon the world, in a concerted plan to gain total American world dominion. That plan (later dubbed by others, the New American Century) included future false flag “Pearl Harbor type attacks to shock the American people into accepting the final steps into a militarized garrison state as the ultimate price tag for totally dominating the world by seizing control over limited energy reserves. The United States has been on the course to total world war set by Mr. Casey and all his collaborators in the greatest crime wave that the world has ever seen.]
One of its recommendations was to revive covert political activities.
Since there might have been opposition from the Congress and public opinion to this task being re-entrusted to the CIA, it suggested that this be given to an NGO with no ostensible links with the CIA.
[Right here is the point in the narrative of an insane Republican foreign policy, where the Constitution was subverted, international law was thrown out the window, and the American anti-Communist right wing created a private CIA, beyond the control and oversight of the American people. With the help of America’s foreign partners in previous CIA crimes (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, France, Israel and others), an international organization was begun, that worked through the subversive NED, dedicated to helping Reagan’s CIA bypass the American Congress and Constitution. The new multinational entity, called the “Safari Club” was a secret funding and recruitment effort for illegal foreign wars. The international “Islamic” army organized by it, was known as bin Laden’s “International Islamic Front,” Arabic elements of this group later became known as “al Qaida.”]
The matter was further examined in 1981-82 by the American Political Foundation’s Democracy Program Study and Research Group and, finally, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was born under a Congressional enactment of 1983 as a,
“non-profit, non-governmental, bipartisan, grant-making organization to help strengthen democratic institutions around the world.”
Though it is projected as an NGO, it is actually a quasi-governmental organization because till 1994 it was run exclusively from funds voted by the Congress (average of about US $ 16 million per annum in the 1980s and now about US $ 30 million) as part of the budget of the US Information Agency (USIA).
Since 1994, it has been accepting contributions from the private sector too to supplement the congressional appropriations.
Thirty per cent of the budgetary allocations constitute the discretionary fund of the NED to be distributed directly by it to overseas organizations and the balance is distributed through what are called four “core organizations”,
the International Republican Institute (IRI)
the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)
the Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)
the Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI)
In 1994, the NED set up two other organizations called the International Forum for Democratic Studies (IFDS) and the Democracy Resource Centre (DRC), both largely funded by the private sector.
Since its inception, the NED and its affiliates have been mired in controversy in the US itself as well as abroad.
Amongst its strongest supporters in the US is the Heritage Foundation of Washington DC, a conservative think tank, which played an active role in influencing the policies of the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
[The Heritage Foundation is at the center of the American brainwashing campaign/arms venture described in the Iran/Contra reports’ “Lost Chapter,” entitled “Launching the Private Network.”]
It brought out two papers on the justification for the NED, when questions were raised in the US on the continued need for it after the collapse of the communist regimes of East Europe.
In the first paper of July 8,1993, (Executive Memorandum No. 360) it described the NED as “an important weapon in the war of ideas” and said:
”The NED has played a vital role in providing aid to democratic movements in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam and elsewhere… Communist dictatorships still control China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam.
Moreover, ex-communists masquerading as nationalists continue to dominate several of the Soviet successor states. The NED can play an important role in assisting those countries in making the turbulent transition to democracy…
Local political activists often prefer receiving assistance from a non-governmental source, as aid from a US government agency may undermine their credibility in the eyes of their countrymen.”
In the second paper of September 13, 1996, (Executive Memorandum No.461), it said:
”The NED advances American national interests by promoting the development of stable democracies friendly to the US in strategically important parts of the world. The US cannot afford to discard such an effective instrument of foreign policy at a time when American interests and values are under sustained ideological attack from a wide variety of anti-democratic forces around the world…
The NED has aided Lech Walesa’s Solidarity movement in Poland, Harry Wu’s human rights efforts in China and independent media outlets in former Yugoslavia. Russian political activists affiliated with the NED also played a major role in President Boris Yeltsin’s re-election campaign against the reinvigorated Communist Party earlier this year…
The NED is a cost-effective way to encourage captive nations to liberate themselves without committing the US to a prohibitively risky and costly military crusade to free them from communism.”
Testifying before the Sub-committee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives on March 13,1997, Mr. Carl Gershman, President of the NED, said:
”I just want to say that the Endowment’s work is based upon a very, very simple proposition. And that is, where there are people who share our values, where there are people who might be called the natural friends of America, then it is our obligation to help those people in some way.”
Amongst the critics of the NED are Ms. Barbara Conry, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute of Washington D.C. and Mr. Ralph McGehee, stated to be a former CIA official.
In a paper of November 8,1993 (Foreign Policy Briefing No.27), Ms. Conry said:
“NED is resented (abroad) as American interference; it is often further resented because it attempts to deceive foreigners into viewing its programs as private assistance…
On a number of occasions, NED has taken advantage of its alleged private status to influence foreign elections, an activity that is beyond the scope of AID (Agency For International Development) or USIA and would otherwise be possible only through a CIA covert operation…
What finally drew public attention to NED’s meddling in foreign elections was an aborted attempt to provide opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro with $ 3 million in funding for her 1989 election campaign against Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. The plan was abandoned after it was determined that NED’s charter, which expressly forbids campaign contributions, would be violated.
In the end, the money was channeled to programs that aided Chamorro indirectly rather than through direct campaign contributions.”
In a statement of January 19,1996, Mr. McGehee described the post-1991 activities of the NED as,
“political action operations targeting China and Cuba.”
Another NGO of the US has said:
”NED engages in much of the same kinds of interference in the internal affairs of foreign countries, which were the hallmark of the CIA.
The NED has financed, advised and supported in many ways selected political parties, election campaigns, unions, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, other media, even guerillas in Afghanistan and, in general, organizations and individuals which mesh well with the gears of the globalised-economy machine…
Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, and also founded the Centre for Democracy, one of NED’s funding middlemen, was quite candid when he said in 1991:
“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does supporting democracy. The governments and movements whom the NED targets call it destabilization.”
Initially, the NED’s activities were directed mainly against the communist regimes of East Europe, but, subsequently, it started combating the communist parties in multi-party democracies of West Europe too.
In the 1980s, when the late Francois Mitterrand was the French President, an NED report showed an expenditure of US $ 1.5 million,
“to promote democracy in France.”
There was an uproar in France when the French press discovered that part of this amount had been given by the NED, through the FTUI, to the National Inter-University Union of France, allegedly a right-extremist and xenophobic organization, in an attempt to use it to defeat communist candidates in the elections to the National Assembly.
Embarrassed by the controversy, the Reagan Administration dissociated itself from the NED activities in France.
After the collapse of the communist regimes of East Europe, the NED has been focusing its activities against the communist regimes of Cuba, Vietnam, China and North Korea and the Myanmarese military regime and against the resurgence of the communist parties in East Europe due to the economic difficulties there.
Its activities relating to China are of two kinds:
Those, which are legitimate in the Chinese perception such as training of local village officials in the holding of elections, training of local business executives in better management practices, advice on the drafting of economic reform legislation etc
Those, which are legitimate in the US perception, but interference in internal affairs in the Chinese view, such as support to political dissidents, human rights activists and Tibetan exiles and projection of Taiwan as a democratic model worthy of emulation.
The first type of activities is carried out by workers of organizations affiliated to the NED, either based in China or visiting the country and the second by off-shore offices of the NED, which were located in Hong Kong before its reversion to China in June, 1997, and which were thereafter reportedly shifted to Australia since the ASEAN countries would not host them.
Finding Australia not a convenient place, the NED has reportedly been eyeing India as a possible base for its activities directed against China. Beijing has reasons to be concerned over what it considers as the illegitimate activities of the NED.
Of the 28 NGOs of Asia funded by the NED,
14 focus on China, 4 of them of Tibetan exiles
5 on Myanmar
2 on Cambodia
1 each on Vietnam and North Korea
the remaining 5 on the Asia-Pacific region as a whole
In his testimony of March 13,1997, before the House Sub-committee on International Operations and Human Rights, Mr. Gershman said:
”There has been a doubling of resources spent in Asia (primarily China, Burma and Cambodia) and a tripling of resources for the Middle East. There were also dramatic increases in Central Asia and the former Yugoslavia…
While the discretionary programs and those of our affiliated labour institute support the activities of various pro-democracy networks, among them Human Rights in China, the China Strategic Institute, the Laogai Research Foundation, and the Hong Kong based activities of labour activist Han Dongfang, IRI and CIPE have targeted opportunities created by the official reform policy in the areas of local elections and economic modernization.
Additional grants support the democracy movements in Hong Kong and Tibet and, through the International Forum, we have highlighted the role of Taiwan as an Asian model of successful democratization.”
The trans-border activities of the NED against the Myanmarese military regime seem to be directed mainly from Thailand and India.
This is evident from a testimony given by Ms. Louisa Coan, NED’s Program Officer for Asia, before the House Sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific on September 17,1997.
She said:
“NED has been able through its direct grants program to support the dissidents, to support the democracy movement of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, particularly through assistance to the groups along the borders in Thailand and in India, including twice daily radio programming through the Democratic Voice of Burma (author’s comment: based in Scandinavia), newsletters, underground newspaper, underground labour organizing, particular programs to foster inter-ethnic co-operation and unity among the opposition forces in support of Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for tripartite dialogue and national reconciliation.”
It is not known whether New Delhi was aware of the India-based activities of the NED against the Yangon regime.
Before the recent visit of the US President, Mr. Bill Clinton, to India, the NED headquarters in Washington issued the following press release:
“Secretary of State Madeleine Albright announced on Tuesday March 14 that the US and India will launch a joint non-governmental initiative called the Asian Centre for Democratic Governance during President Clinton’s upcoming trip to South Asia.
“Jointly organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the NED, the Centre will be based at CII’s offices in New Delhi, The Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training, an affiliate of the Indian Parliament, will partner with the CII in implementing the activities of the Centre.”
The press release said the expenditure on the initiative would be shared by the CII and the NED.
It is an interesting case of an important member of the Clinton Cabinet, announcing on behalf of a self-proclaimed NGO of the US funded by the Congress, a non-governmental initiative in collaboration with a non-governmental Indian business organization with which an office of the Indian Parliament would also be associated.
This launching was duly done at New Delhi.
There are three likely implications of this unusual venture:
Possibility of misunderstanding with China which might interpret it as directed against it and its presence in Tibet.
Impropriety in co-operating with an American organization working against the present Government at Yangon, which has normal diplomatic relations with New Delhi and has been co-operating in counter-insurgency measures in the North-East.
The presence in Indian territory, with official blessing, of an organization, which aims to wipe out communism as a political and ideological movement all over the world and which might utilize its presence to undermine the Indian communist movement. NED has never criticized the Indian Communist parties, but a reading of the past statements of those in the US supporting the NED would indicate that they hold communism and democracy as incompatible.
[Mr. Raman’s honesty in appraising the dangers to India from cooperating with the American destabilization program, without describing it as criminal actions in the extreme, is an act of well-intentioned cowardice. Terrorism and overthrowing foreign governments who have no disagreements with the United States other than resistance to domination are war crimes, considering that the intended purpose of all these intrigues is world war III, the military’s “generational war,” which we engineered.]
The US has also announced the association of India as co-sponsor with a forthcoming conference of “communities of democracies ” in Poland being funded by the Stefan Batory Foundation of Poland, set up by George Soros in 1998, to counter the resurgence of communism in East Europe, and the Freedom House of the US.
The Freedom House was founded in the 1940s,
“to strengthen free institutions at home and abroad”.
It played an active role in carrying on a psychological warfare (PsyWar) against the troops of the USSR and the late President Najibullah in Afghanistan during the 1980s through the Afghanistan Information Centre set up by it, allegedly with CIA funds.
The offices of this centre at Peshawar in Pakistan trained the Afghan Mujahedeen groups and Pakistani organizations such as the Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen (formerly known as the Harkat-ul-Ansar) and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, presently active in Kashmir, in techniques of media management and psywar.
[Freedom House is the instrument for all the colored revolutions in Central Asia. The MAK office in Peshawar was bin Laden’s supply and recruitment headquarters. The following was the address for bin Laden’s MAK office: MAKHTAB AL-KHIDAMAT/AL KIFAH, House no. 125, Street 54, Phase II, Hayatabad, Peshawar, Pakistan]
Since 1983, part of the funds voted by the Congress to the NED are funneled to the Freedom House, which also gets contributions from the private sector.
The Freedom House focuses its activities on media and communications and, according to a 1990 study by the Interhemispheric Resource Center of the US, more than 400 journalists in 55 countries were collaborating with the Freedom House in its activities against communist parties and regimes.
Before going ahead with these projects, there is an urgent need for an examination of the implications of our collaboration with such organizations from the point of view of our national security and political stability.
( Fonte: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net )
dagobertobellucci 