teleSUR – 2016-10-02 15:33:42
US Spent $4 Million to Undermine Cuban Government in 2015
(September 29, 2016) — In the past two decades, Washington funded destabilizing programs with about $284 million, according to the official data of the US administration.
Washington spent close to $4 million in 2015 alone to fund programs that promote regime change on the socialist island of Cuba through the US agency National Endowment for Democracy, data compiled by journalist Tracey Eaton revealed in a report issued Wednesday by Along the Malecon.
Cuban youth are the main target of such funding, followed by communications, with $2 million, and political activities in communities, with $673,362.
The organization that received the highest amount of money was the Cuban Democratic Directorate, which has been leading destabilization attempts for 25 years from Miami.
The newspapers most funded by Barack Obama’s administration was Diario de Cuba and Cubanet.
NSA’s Meddling in Latin America Exposed in WikiLeaks
The NED was created by the administration of former US President Ronald Reagan in 1983 and operates as a foundation that provides grants for “democracy promotion.” The foundation is structured as an umbrella with a business flavor.
In many ways, the NED resembles previous CIA efforts in the 1950s, 60s and 70s to provide mostly public money for secret operations aimed to bolster pro-US governments and movements abroad.
It houses four other organizations reflecting US sectoral and party interests, such as the US labor-affiliated American Center for International Labor Solidarity; the Chamber of Commerce-linked Center for International Private Enterprise; and the other two, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the International Republican Institute, who reflect Democrat and Republican affiliations, respectively.
How the US Funds Dissent against Latin American Governments
“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
— NED founding father, Allen Weinstein
(March 12, 2015) — The US government and military have a long history of interfering in the affairs of numerous countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
By the end of the 19th century, there had been at least 10 US military interventions across the hemisphere including Argentina (1890), Chile (1891), Haiti (1891), Panama (1895), Cuba (1898), Puerto Rico (1898) and Nicaragua (1894, 1896, 1898 and 1899).
From this time onward, successive US administrations applied different strategies and tactics for involvement in the region as a means to secure and protect its geopolitical and economic interests.
However, only recently has there been wider acknowledgement about the role that US funding to nongovernmental organizations — particularly via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) — plays in furthering US foreign policy.
For example, in 2012 governments of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) collectively signed a resolution to expel USAID from each of the member countries. Those countries include Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Dominica, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
The National Endowment for Democracy
The NED was created by the administration of former US President Ronald Reagan in 1983, operates as a foundation that provides grants for “democracy promotion.” The foundation is structured as an umbrella with an almost corporatist flavor.
It houses four other organizations reflecting US sectoral and party interest: the US labor-affiliated American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS); the Chamber of Commerce-linked Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE); and the other two, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), reflect Democrat and Republican affiliations respectively.
In many ways the NED resembles previous CIA efforts in the 1950s, 60s and 70s to provide mostly public money for secret operations aimed to bolster pro-US governments and movements abroad. In South America for example, between 1975 and 1978 the US helped with the creation and implementation of Operation Condor.
The US provided right-wing dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador with technical and military support for the goal of hunting down and killing political opponents. Some estimate that Operation Condor killed between 60,000 and 80,000 people.
In 1986, the then president of the NED, Carl Gershman, explained to the New York Times, “We should not have to do this kind of work covertly . . . It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60s, 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.”
US citizens fund the NED with public money, for the most part without their knowledge or consent. The US government allocates part the budget of the US Department of State to USAID, which in turn provides most of the NED’s funding. Although it receives practically all of its funding from the US government, the NED is technically a nongovernmental organization, headed by a board of directors. The current board includes:
* Francis Fukuyama, a political economist, author and free-market universalist;
* Elliott Abrams, former deputy assistant and deputy national security adviser on Middle East policy in the administration of George W. Bush;
* Moises Naim, Venezuelan Minister of Trade and Industry during the turbulent early 1990s and former executive director of the World Bank;
* Robert B. Zoellick, former deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush and Vice Chairmanship at Goldman Sachs Group.
The scope of activity of the NED is truly impressive. According to the NED website, it supports more than 1,000 non-government projects in more than 90 countries.
At its inception in the early 1980s, the NED’s funding allocation was set at $18 million and reached its peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allocations for 2014 and 2015 have been approved for $103.5 million, while over $7 million was directed primarily to opposition organizations in Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba in 2013.
Within the US Department of State’s “Justification of Request” documents, which outline the reasons for funding requests, it is clear that funding priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean reflect the NED’s modern strategy of overtly carrying out old covert objectives.
Michel Chossudovsky, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa in Canada, sees this funding as an element in “manufacturing dissent” against governments that the US government dislikes. However, these funders do not work alone. “The NED (and USAID) are entities linked with the US state department, but they operate in tandem with a whole of other organizations,” said Chossudovsky.
In May 2010 the Foundation for International Relations and Foreign Dialogue released their report “Assessing Democracy Assistance in Venezuela,” which revealed that in addition to NED and USAID funding, a broad range of private and European-based foundations funded opposition-aligned nongovernmental organizations in the country with some $40-50 million annually.
According to Dan Beeton, the international communications director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, DC, NED funds in Latin America have been directed at “a lot of what are kind of the old guard political entities that are now kind of discredited,” such as the Trade Union Confederation of Venezuela (CTV), which was instrumental in the country’s 2002 coup, as well as older political parties that are now marginal forces in their country’s political landscapes, in spite of their considerable outside funding.
The United States Agency for International Development
Created in 1961 as a foreign assistance program under President John F. Kennedy, USAID commands a much larger budget and broader scope than the NED.
While US diplomats continue to stress that USAID funding does not have a political basis, USAID documents nonetheless acknowledge its role in “furthering America’s interests” while carrying out “US foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States.” But critics are skeptical of USAID’s missionary work, noting how its strategy has changed over time.
USAID’s mandate is “to provide development aid and historically it has provided development aid, tied into debt negotiations and so on. Subsequently with the evolution of the development aid program it has redirected its endeavours on funding NGOs,” said Chossudovsky.
While the range of activities undertaken by nongovernmental organizations is broad, and some of their programs may not have political intentions, Beeton nonetheless argues that this funding “ultimately can and often does serve a political end when the US wants these grantees to help it fulfill its goals in these countries.”
The extent of US political ambitions recently came into the international spotlight with the revelation that USAID had secretly spent $1.6 million to fund a social messaging network in Cuba called ZunZuneo, with the stated purpose to “renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society.” The project was headed up by Joe McSpedon of the USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI).
Other USAID officials accused of active political meddling in the affairs of sovereign countries include regional head Mark Feierstein. According to Venezuelan investigative journalist Eva Golinger, in 2013 Feierstein met Venezuelan opposition figures including right-wing politicians Maria Corina Machado, Julio Borges and Ramon Guillermo Avelado, as well as political strategist Juan Jose Rendon, to devise a plan to undermine the Venezuelan government.
At the State Department budgetary hearing, Feierstein also confirmed “a long-standing program in place to support those who are advocating and fighting on behalf of democracy and human rights in Venezuela . . . and we are prepared to continue those under any scenario.”
State Department cables revealed by WikiLeaks also brought to light previous activities by USAID/OTI in Venezuela, including the development of a five-point, anti-government strategy for US embassy activities, as well as the confirmation that grantees had been active in promoting street demonstrations in 2009.
Machado, a former anti-Chavista National Assembly member, was among the signatories of the Carmona decree following the Venezuelan coup in 2002, which abolished the legislative and judiciary powers, as well as the constitution. She was also among the most prominent promoters of last year’s opposition violence that claimed the lives of 43 people.
In Bolivia, local rural workers’ groups and the government expelled the US-based Chemonics International Inc. after their $2.7 million USAID-funded “Strengthening Democracy” program was accused of financing destabilization attempts against the government. Chemonics operates in approximately 150 countries, offering various technical services and “consulting.”
The Bolivian government publicly outlined what they argued was proof of USAID-funded programs to mobilize the indigenous population against the government, in particular an indigenous march protesting the construction of a highway. USAID-funded programs were active in these areas, and had funded some of the leading organizations, such as the Eastern Bolivia Indigenous Peoples and Communities Confederation (CIDOB).
“USAID refused to reveal who it was funding and the Bolivian government had strong reasons to believe that it had ties and coordination with opposition groups in the country which at the time was involved in violence and destructive activities aimed at toppling the Morales government,” said Beeton. “Now we know through WikiLeaks that that’s what really was going on.”
President Evo Morales also revealed transcripts of phone calls between the anti-highway march organizers and US embassy officials. The US embassy confirmed the calls, but explained that they were merely trying to familiarize themselves with the country’s political and social situation.
Officials also denounced the lack of accountability to the Bolivian government or to the recipient constituencies of USAID funds.
The head of the CIDOB, Lazaro Taco, confirmed that they had received “external support for our workshops,” but would not identify the source.
These and other USAID activities led Bolivian President Evo Morales to claim that the agency was conspiring against his government. The government expelled USAID from the country in May 2013, while USAID denied any wrongdoing.
In June 2012, an Ecuadorian daily revealed that four nongovernmental organizations based in Ecuador were recipients of over $1.8 million for a project called Active Citizens, whose political bend was critical of the Correa government.
Shortly afterwards, the Technical Secretariat for International Cooperation (Seteci) of Ecuador announced it would also investigate the “Costas y Bosques” (Coasts and Forests) conservation project, which received $13.3 million in funding from USAID. The project, based in the provinces of Esmeraldas, Guayas and Manabi, was also being undertaken by the Chemonics International Inc.; the same organization expelled from Bolivia.
Mireya Cardenas, National Secretary of Peoples, Social Movements and Citizen Participation, said that “there is every reason to consider USAID a factor of disturbance that threatens the sovereignty and political stability (of Ecuador).”
While the US Ambassador in Ecuador Adam Namm tried to reassert that USAID did not fund political parties, he did confirm that certain opposition groups, such as Fundamedios, was funded “indirectly.”
In November 2013 the Ecuadorean government sent a letter to the US embassy in the country’s capital Quito, ordering that “USAID must not execute any new activity” in Ecuador. USAID canceled its aid shortly after.
For Beeton, “lack of transparency is probably the biggest problem (with USAID) in that it really prevents the governments in the host countries from finding something objectionable, or even coordinating better”.
This was in large part the principle concern from the Ecuadorian Seteci, which questioned the extent of expenditures on certain project and the lack of coordination.
In the wake of the devastating 2010 earthquake, CEPR conducted an extensive evaluation of USAID funding to Haiti, including the history of funding, and found transparency and coordination with local government to be a significant problem, especially when the local government experienced tensions with US foreign policy.
“The US government has been perfectly happy to not coordinate with governments, and that has a lot to do with politics. . . it was under [former Haitian President] Aristide really saw a lot of assistance bypass the Haitian government and go to NGO, including violent opposition groups and so called democratic opposition groups much like what you are seeing recently in Venezuela and Bolivia,” said Beeton.
For 2013, the combined NED and USAID allocations for Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia alone totaled over $60 million, with the bulk of these funds destined to Cuba and Ecuador.
For the government and progressive social movements of these countries, there is a growing concern that these funds could be used to undertake what Chossudovsky qualified as a “consistent process of destabilizing government as part of non-conventional warfare, meaning you don’t send in the troops but you destabilize the government through so called colored revolutions or infiltrations.”
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.