Devant le Congrès, le journaliste américain Michael Shellenberger défend une protection ferme de la liberté d’expression dans la politique étrangère et commerciale des États-Unis.
You say that the U.S. has made a start in eliminating government-sponsored NGOs by eliminating AID. But the overwhelming majority of the AID supported NGOs had no political agenda. Rather, they focused on real problems in many countries. Their grants specifically forbid interference in local affairs. AID was eliminated, not because of waste (though there is some), fraud, or abuse, or undue political interference. AID was eliminated because it DID NOT provide an avenue for the incoming Administration to project its political agenda to other countries.
The Voice of America, which is a government-sponsored broadcaster, is being censored for the first time in its history. It was under attack in the first Trump Administration for not promoting Christian values. Now it is operating only by reason of the Courts. If the Supreme Court endorses the Administration’s plans, Voice of America will either be eliminated (as its Director has indicated) or censored to adhere to an “America First” perspective.
One doesn’t censor free speech or news reporting in order to support the First Amendment.
One doesn’t “favor” one political view over another in social media algorithms to support the First Amendment.
And one doesn’t seek to interfere in the social media of other countries in the guise of protecting the First Amendment. Russia, China, Iran and others are already doing that with U.S. social media as it is.
That not true. The overwhelming majority of USAID funded had the political agenda of their funder... And Michael speaks about tNGOs active within speech, media, journalism etc.
In one sense I agree with you. In the same way as China has a political agenda in funding “Belts and Roads”, the U.S. sought to encourage democracy in other countries. And, in some countries, such as those that criminalize homosexuality for example, the American agenda was viewed as intrusive. However, those countries also had dangerous levels of HIV/AIDS, which were a key target of organizations like JHpiego, the Johns Hopkins health initiative.
Between 2013 and 2022, of the top 15 recipients of AID funding, four were for profits that provided development and management services to NGOs and countries. $11.3 billion) The other eleven provided economic development, family planning, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children, Global Health research, Children’s health, on the ground aid for citizens in Ukraine and Gaza, and Community Development. ($20.6 billion) Between 2022 and 2024 AID provided an additional $30 billion in non-military aid to Ukraine, to help it cope with the effects of Russia’s invasion.
While World Vision, Catholic Relief, and Save the Children are obviously Christian/Catholic in perspective, they are not “active in speech, media, journalism, etc.” And the for-profit and non-profit Development organizations are present by the invitations of their governments. They may show by example what our Democracy looks like, but they and other NGO’s are forbidden to lobby or engage in other, even remotely similar, activities, or they lose their Federal funding. If their web sites describe their point of view or their successes, that is information that everyone around the world can access, including the media and journalists.
That’s a long way of saying that if there is any direct influence on speech, media, journalism, etc., (I can’t deny that there may be), the overwhelming majority of USAID funds are forbidden to be used for political purposes. If they were not, the receiving countries would refuse the organizations.
Yes, but China does not fund NGOs to impose its norms - be they social or legal. China does not even intervene militarily abroad.
The West does. It is striking to see how, for instance, "cognitive warfare" methods developed during the war on terror have been and are still applied by government against their own people, which means that any form of dissent is considered as insurgency.
I did a lot of development work in the field. And yes, there are lots of NGOs that are not attempting to change the societies they operate in.
Yet, a significant portion of USAID funding was aimed imposing norms to others, including regime change. Organizing gay prides in Afghanistan does not alleviate any ailment, does it?
I would be shocked to see if it actually happened, given what the Taliban have done so far. As for China, they don’t fund NGOs to do what their project managers or ministers from Beijing can do. The funding of a major infrastructure project, using bonds issued to China, can have a lot of persuasive power.
You say that the U.S. has made a start in eliminating government-sponsored NGOs by eliminating AID. But the overwhelming majority of the AID supported NGOs had no political agenda. Rather, they focused on real problems in many countries. Their grants specifically forbid interference in local affairs. AID was eliminated, not because of waste (though there is some), fraud, or abuse, or undue political interference. AID was eliminated because it DID NOT provide an avenue for the incoming Administration to project its political agenda to other countries.
The Voice of America, which is a government-sponsored broadcaster, is being censored for the first time in its history. It was under attack in the first Trump Administration for not promoting Christian values. Now it is operating only by reason of the Courts. If the Supreme Court endorses the Administration’s plans, Voice of America will either be eliminated (as its Director has indicated) or censored to adhere to an “America First” perspective.
One doesn’t censor free speech or news reporting in order to support the First Amendment.
One doesn’t “favor” one political view over another in social media algorithms to support the First Amendment.
And one doesn’t seek to interfere in the social media of other countries in the guise of protecting the First Amendment. Russia, China, Iran and others are already doing that with U.S. social media as it is.
That not true. The overwhelming majority of USAID funded had the political agenda of their funder... And Michael speaks about tNGOs active within speech, media, journalism etc.
In one sense I agree with you. In the same way as China has a political agenda in funding “Belts and Roads”, the U.S. sought to encourage democracy in other countries. And, in some countries, such as those that criminalize homosexuality for example, the American agenda was viewed as intrusive. However, those countries also had dangerous levels of HIV/AIDS, which were a key target of organizations like JHpiego, the Johns Hopkins health initiative.
Between 2013 and 2022, of the top 15 recipients of AID funding, four were for profits that provided development and management services to NGOs and countries. $11.3 billion) The other eleven provided economic development, family planning, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children, Global Health research, Children’s health, on the ground aid for citizens in Ukraine and Gaza, and Community Development. ($20.6 billion) Between 2022 and 2024 AID provided an additional $30 billion in non-military aid to Ukraine, to help it cope with the effects of Russia’s invasion.
While World Vision, Catholic Relief, and Save the Children are obviously Christian/Catholic in perspective, they are not “active in speech, media, journalism, etc.” And the for-profit and non-profit Development organizations are present by the invitations of their governments. They may show by example what our Democracy looks like, but they and other NGO’s are forbidden to lobby or engage in other, even remotely similar, activities, or they lose their Federal funding. If their web sites describe their point of view or their successes, that is information that everyone around the world can access, including the media and journalists.
That’s a long way of saying that if there is any direct influence on speech, media, journalism, etc., (I can’t deny that there may be), the overwhelming majority of USAID funds are forbidden to be used for political purposes. If they were not, the receiving countries would refuse the organizations.
Yes, but China does not fund NGOs to impose its norms - be they social or legal. China does not even intervene militarily abroad.
The West does. It is striking to see how, for instance, "cognitive warfare" methods developed during the war on terror have been and are still applied by government against their own people, which means that any form of dissent is considered as insurgency.
I did a lot of development work in the field. And yes, there are lots of NGOs that are not attempting to change the societies they operate in.
Yet, a significant portion of USAID funding was aimed imposing norms to others, including regime change. Organizing gay prides in Afghanistan does not alleviate any ailment, does it?
I would be shocked to see if it actually happened, given what the Taliban have done so far. As for China, they don’t fund NGOs to do what their project managers or ministers from Beijing can do. The funding of a major infrastructure project, using bonds issued to China, can have a lot of persuasive power.