Most people agree that a democratic public sphere is an essential part of any nominally democratic society, however, what many disagree over are the exact ingredients of such an environment. In large part these disagreements are caused by different conceptions of what democracy actually means. So while optimistic writers believe that democracy is thriving globally, researchers of a more critical bent are more inclined to believe that, while global democratic governance is on the rise, these gains are being overshadowed by the increasing dominance of corporate and political elites over all aspects of life.

This gloomy diagnosis does not mean to belittle the significance of progressive victories in majority and minority countries, [1] but collectively considered these hard won concessions have been unable to counter the coordinated neoliberal onslaught waged upon the global citizenry over the last few decades. [2] Subsequently, the political, economic and cultural ascendency of corporate-backed elites has severely limited discussions of what should constitute a democratic public sphere. Not surprisingly the corporate voices driving such media discourses provide ‘democratic’ options far removed from radical proposals for a New World Information and Communication Order.

Despite the democratic rhetoric flowing from the world’s most powerful political leaders – which is duly amplified by their corporate media mouthpieces – their actual actions tell an alternative, antidemocratic story, a story that is defined by its dedication to oppression, destruction, and opposition to all but the most minimal interpretations of democracy. [3] That many of our planet’s ruling politicians are also world misleaders is well documented, [4] yet even these so-called politicians still acknowledge that their voters (that is their secondary constituents after their corporate backers) hold great power to effect dramatic social change. Consequently in a perverse tribute to progressive activism, politicians cloak their antidemocratic actions (particularly their military ventures) under the veil of democracy – stretching their lexicon almost beyond belief to coopt and encompass terms like empowerment and participatory democracy – to describe work which undermines commonly understood conceptions of democracy by promoting polyarchy in its place. [5]

A ‘Democratic’ Foreign Policy

The US government, like many of its ‘democratic’ counterparts, has always been prone to secrecy: but, in the 1970s after the public revelations of some of their worst atrocities, they recognized that a more effective propaganda strategy might be to carry out such activities overtly rather than covertly. This stroke of public relations genius was formally institutionalized in 1984, when with bipartisan support, the US government launched a quasi-nongovernmental organization called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Since then, the NED has been coordinating the global promotion of polyarchy by promoting the ‘democratic’ interests of transnational capital.

Professor William I. Robinson was the one of the first researchers to draw attention to the hypocrisy that was the antidemocratic practices of the NED’s global activities. His seminal work on this topic was Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony, which examined the ‘hijacking’ of democratic transitions in Nicaragua, Haiti, the Philippines and Chile. Robinson concluded that the success of foreign interventions can “be understood only when seen in its entirety – as a skilful combination of military aggression, economic blackmail, CIA propaganda, NED political interference, coercive diplomacy, and international pressures.” He noted that:

“Unlike earlier US interventionism, the new intervention focuses much more intensely on civil society itself, in contrast to formal government structures, in intervened countries. The purpose of ‘democracy promotion’ is not to suppress but to penetrate and conquer civil society in intervened countries, that is, the complex of ‘private’ organizations such as political parties, trade unions, the media, and so forth, and from therein, integrate subordinate classes and national groups into a hegemonic transnational social order.” [6]

Since the creation of the NED, the number of organisations committed to promoting such ‘democratic’ work has grown rapidly. Yet most of them owe their creation to the pioneering work undertaken by liberal philanthropists – most notably the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations’ – who had worked hand in hand with the CIA in leading the cultural war against communism. (For more on this topic see my recent two-part article Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions?) Moreover, the multitude of groups that now promote these ‘democratic’ ventures provide a vital ‘humanitarian’ dimension to imperial power politics, complimenting the brutal military interventions and occupations that are the forte of the world’s leading powers.

Armed with this knowledge it is predictable that the NED would have an interest in supporting the work of an international media watchdog like Reporters Without Borders (RSF) – a fact that RSF now acknowledges on their website. Therefore, this article will endeavour to provide the first comprehensive investigation of the links between RSF and three key ‘democracy promoting’ bodies, the NED, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and Rights and Democracy (the latter two being the NED’s British and Canadian counterparts). However, before launching into an analysis of RSF’s ‘democratic’ links, the following section will contextualize the study by providing a brief introduction to RSF.

Who are Reporters Without Borders?

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) was set up in 1985 by Robert Ménard – who is still their secretary general – and since it’s founding it has seemingly worked tirelessly to support journalists all over the world in their efforts to promote press freedom. Their website notes that RSF:

• defends journalists and media assistants imprisoned or persecuted for doing their job and exposes the mistreatment and torture of them in many countries.
• fights against censorship and laws that undermine press freedom.
• gives financial aid each year to 100 or so journalists or media outlets in difficulty (to pay for lawyers, medical care and equipment) as well to the families of imprisoned journalists.
• works to improve the safety of journalists, especially those reporting in war zones.

So who could fault an organisation with such a progressive mission? Well it seems that quite a few journalists in the independent media already have. The earliest online critique (albeit a minor one) was written in 2001 by Serge Halimi who observed in reference to RSF’s work that “glorifying ‘freedom of the press’ often serves to mask the silent tyranny that the media and their proprietors would like to impose on political and cultural life.”  Shortly thereafter, however, critiques of RSF started picking up momentum.

Writing about the 2002 coup in Venezuela, Ignacio Ramonet highlighted the problematic role that international organizations like RSF fulfil through their denigration of a democratic government’s attempt to try to limit the influence of pro-coup forces within their country. Indeed during the 2002 coup, Ramonet reported that RSF “clos[ed their] eyes to the one of the most odious media campaigns ever launched against a democratic government”. [7] A few months later, again writing about RSF’s antidemocratic role in Venezuela, Thierry Deronne compared RSF’s current work with that the Inter-American Press Association’s (IAPA) – an infamous ‘press freedom’ group which in earlier times had formed an alliance with the corporate media to help “topple the Allende government in Chile in 1973.” [8] It is fitting then, that like RSF the IAPA describes itself as a “non-profit organization dedicated to defending freedom of expression and of the press throughout the Americas.” The use of such benign self-descriptors is comparable to those adopted by the neoconservative Freedom House, which similarly describes itself as a “non-profit, nonpartisan organization, [that] is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world.” Clearly something is amiss as far as honesty is concerned.

It was only in 2005 that critics of RSF determined that their work was being funded by the notorious National Endowment for Democracy (NED). A discovery that probably owes a debt of gratitude to the numerous articles that have been devoted to critically dissecting the events leading up to the 2002 coup in Venezuela, which although ultimately unsuccessful (due to genuine popular resistance), obtained vital support from US ‘democracy promoters’ working through groups like the NED.

Bringing all this information together, it comes as no surprise to find that RSF is currently backing the US government’s official foreign policy line in Venezuela, Palestine, Haiti, and Cuba [9] – all countries in which international ‘democracy promoting’ organisations are highly active. Furthermore, although the NED is not presently active in the Philippines, Carolina Cositore (2006) critiqued RSF for failing to “defend reporters in the Philippines, which is the second deadliest nation for journalists after Iraq”, an omission which she suggests might have something to do with the fact the Philippine government is a “strong ally of the US military.”

Understanding these apparent links between US foreign policy and RSF’s overseas activities may also help explain why RSF has recently been demonising the Venezuelan government for failing to renew the licence of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV): a CIA-linked media outlet that led the charge in attempting to oust Chavez from office, having already played a key role in organising the coup in 2002. Likewise, as this author has pointed out in a recent article, RSF’s role in Venezuela is closely related to that of another NED-supported media watchdog the Veneuzuelan-based Instituto De Prensa Y Sociedad (otherwise known as the Press and Society Institute).

Now that that RSF’s work has been briefly introduced, the rest of this article will  undertake three main tasks relating to exposing RSF’s close relations with democracy manipulators. Initially, it will examine the funding that RSF has received from key ‘democracy promoting’ organisations. Then the article will investigate the ‘democratic’ credentials of a number of RSF current and former employees. Since RSF provides few details concerning the names of their staff on their website, these people were located through internet searches. Finally, in order to demonstrate the extent of RSF’s ties to international democracy manipulators the last part of the article will illustrate how most of the recipients of RSF’s annual Fondation de France Prize are also intimately linked to the international ‘democracy’ crowd.

RSF and ‘Democratic’ Funding

 

“Independent media are an inextricable element of democratic society. Citizens rely upon information from the media to make informed decisions and hold their leaders accountable. Free media act as a catalyst for political reform, contribute to consolidation of democracy, and facilitate the unfettered exchange of ideas necessary for the development of civil society.” National Endowment for Democracy

According to the NED’s online Democracy Projects Database, RSF has only received one grant (worth $39,900) from the NED, and they obtained this grant in 2005 to “strengthen free press and decrease press abuse in Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Somalia, and Côte d’Ivoire.” (In 2005, RSF’s total income from all sources was $5.7 million.) Furthermore, as a result of criticisms raised by some of the aforementioned journalists, RSF now openly displays their NED link on their website, where they also highlight the support they obtain from George Soros’s ‘democratic’ Open Society Institute and from the NED-funded Center for a Free Cuba. (For a thorough examination of the Center for a Free Cuba’s ties to the ‘democracy’ community see my article Promoting Humanitarian Imperialism in Cuba and Beyond.) [10]

Returning to the NED’s Democracy Projects Database, something that other researchers have failed to mention is a grant that RSF-Canada received from Rights and Democracy in 2004. According to the NED, this grant (for an unspecified amount) was used to support RSF-Canada’s:

“…work preparing the defence for the Zahra Kazemi case, the Canadian photo journalist who was beaten to death [in July 2003] by Iranian officials. The project’s aim was to promote public interest in this case in order to encourage the Canadian government to put pressure on the Iranian government so that justice can be served. Rights & Democracy contributed primarily to organizing discussions between Foreign Affairs and relevant organizations preparing a public awareness event and sending a human rights observer mission to attend the Zahra Kazemi trial in Iran.” 

This is important because Rights and Democracy is the Canadian version of the NED. According to their website, Rights and Democracy was “created by Canada’s Parliament in 1988 to encourage and support the universal values of human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and practices around the world.” For further critical information on Rights and Democracy, see Antony Fenton’s (2005) article Legitimizing Polyarchy: Canada’s Contribution to ‘Democracy Promotion’ in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Although Rights and Democracy has only provided one single grant to RSF, it is not the only time that Rights and Democracy have been interested in Iran’s media affairs. In fact, earlier this year, Rights and Democracy gave their 2007 John Humphrey Freedom Award to Akbar Ganji, the “Iranian journalist and dissident who spent six years in prison for exposing rights abuses committed by the Iranian government. Interestingly both Iranian journalists that have been supported by Rights and Democracy (Ganji and Kazemi) have also been recipients of the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) International Press Freedom Award, Ganji receiving it in 2000, and Kazemi in 2003. This ‘democratic’ link does not appear to be coincidental as “[o]ne of the principal activities of CJFE is the management of the world’s only freedom of expression clearinghouse, the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX).” This in turn is significant because as I demonstrate in a forthcoming article, 17 of IFEX’s 72 member organizations have received funding from either the NED, Rights and Democracy, or the Westminster Foundation. For more on this latter group see William Clark’s Philanthropic Imperialism). [11]

It is also noteworthy that Ganji was detained by the Iranian government for just over a year in April 2000 “following his participation in an academic and cultural conference held at the Heinrich Böll Institute”. This is a major German ‘democracy promoting’ organization that inspired the creation of the NED. Finally, it is interesting that Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, “formally asked to represent the family” of Zahra Kazemi. This is noteworthy because Ebadi is a director of the Points of Peace Foundation – a Norwegian based human rights organization whose advisory board includes a large number of ‘democratically’ linked individuals. 

To be continued… Having examined the financial support that RSF has received from the ‘democracy promoting’ community the next part of this article will now turn to examine the ‘democratic’ affiliations of some of current and former employees of RSF. The final two parts of this article will then go on to reveal how many of the recipients of their annual Fondation de France Prize are intimately linked to the ‘democracy promoting’ community.  

Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate at Griffith University, Australia. He can be reached at Michael.J.Barker [at] griffith.edu.au. All four parts of this article and some of his other recent articles can be found right here.

 

Endnotes

 

[1] Al Gedicks, Resource Rebels: Native Challenges to Mining and Oil Corporations (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2001); Kathleen McPhillips, Local heroes: Australian Crusades from the Environmental Frontline (Annandale, N.S.W.: Pluto Press, 2002); Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present (New York: HarperCollins, 2003); John Walton and David Seddon, Free Markets and Food Riots: The Politics of Global Adjustment (Oxford, England: Blackwell, 2004); Bruce Podobnik and Thomas E. Reifer, The Globalization Protest Movement: Before and After 9/11 (Boston: Brill, 2005).

 

[2] Sharon Beder, Free Market Missionaries: The Corporate Manipulation of Community Values (London: Earthscan, 2006); Sharon Beder, Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda (London: Earthscan, 2006); Alex Carey, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Propaganda in the US and Australia (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1995).

 

[3] Nafeez M. Ahmed, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism (Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch Press, 2005); Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, ‘Hegemony and Appeasement: Setting Up the Next U.S.-Israeli Target (Iran) for Another ‘Supreme International Crime’ (Kafka Era Studies Number 4).’ Znet, January 27, 2007.

 

[4] Joel Bleifuss and Steve Freeman, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?
Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count (Boston: Seven Stories Press, 2006); Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World (London: Vintage, 2003); Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (London: Random House, 2007); Greg Palast, Armed Madhouse (New York: Dutton, 2006).

 

[5] Polyarchy was first coined by political theorist Robert Dahl to describe the limited form of elite-driven democracy advanced in and by the West. Polyarchy is synonymous with low-intensity democracy, and stands in stark opposition to the participatory forms of democratic engagement typically advanced by progressive activists.

 

[6] Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, pp.28-9. For related online resources 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, 1992).

 

[7] Also see, Al Giordano, ‘Open Letter to Robert Ménard of Reporters Without Borders’, Narco News, Latin America, July 29, 2002.

 

[8] For more details on the close links that existed between the CIA and IAPA see Fred Landis’s (1982) important article CIA Media Operations in Chile, Jamaica, and Nicaragua, Covert Action Information Bulletin, Number 16, March 1982, pp. 34-5. For example, writing about the CIA’s work in Chile, Landis observes that: “In 1969 the CIA had five agents working as media executives at El Mercurio, all of whom in subsequent years were elevated to the Board of Directors of IAPA.” More recently, Al Giordano (2002) wrote an open letter to Robert J. Cox, who was at the time the president of the IAPA, and noted that his “statements during and after the attempted coup d’etat in Venezuela were so knowingly dishonest that it is clear [his] position [was] directly opposed to – not in favor of – the cause of press freedom.”

 

[9] Also see Diana Barahona, ‘Government funds color press group’s objectivity’, The Guild Reporter, March 11, 2005.

 

[10] In 2007, Center for a Free Cuba’ executive director, Frank Calzon, noted that: “During the current fiscal year the Center for a Free Cuba has received from USAID $l, 081,164 and from the National Endowment for Democracy $21,472.84. We also raise about a quarter of a million dollars a year from the Cuban American community.”

 

[11] Michael J. Barker, Polyarchy and the Public Sphere: Journalism Organizations and the National Endowment for Democracy. (Forthcoming.)