DISINFO: Europe opposes Georgian foreign agent law because it is a paradise of corruption
SUMMARY
Despite interference reminiscent of the glory days of the Ukrainian Maidan, the Georgian Parliament overrode the presidential veto, thus enacting the law on foreign agents.
All Atlanticist chancelleries are already predicting that if this “tragedy” comes true, the Seven Plagues of Washington will fall on Tbilisi. The law on foreign agents is not an exceptional text. By providing for the obligatory declarations of NGOs and media getting at least 20% of their funding from abroad, it is a far cry from its big American brother, which provides for coercive measures and possible criminal liability.
How could more transparency hinder European integration? Because the EU is a paradise of opacity and corruption. The intensity of Western reactions demonstrates the weakness of the globalised governance. It failed to seduce and now has to enforce. Little Georgia is David resisting the Western Goliath who would like to subjugate it.
RESPONSE
This is a pro-Kremlin recurrent narrative about the alleged corruption and opacity of the West, purportedly needed by the globalist elites, contrasted with the transparency and probity of the multipolar world. In this instance, the narrative applies to the controversial new Georgian law on "transparency of foreign influence," which is inspired by similar measures in Russia.
The new law requires news media and non-governmental organisations that receive more than 20% of their budget from abroad to register as “carrying out the interests of a foreign power.” Opponents denounce it as "the Russian law" because it resembles measures pushed through by the Kremlin. Since 2012, the Russian opposition, NGOs, and civil society as a whole have been diminished due to this legislative tool, which was progressively implemented.
The “foreign agents” law in Russia did not aim to provide more transparency and democracy; on the contrary, it was criticised by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission for constituting serious violations of basic human rights, including the freedoms of association and expression, the right to privacy, the right to participate in public affairs, and the prohibition of discrimination. As a result, it led to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case Ecodefence and others v. Russia at the European Court of Human Rights demonstrated in 2022 that the law led to restrictions on the freedom of expression and association of Russian non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
The EU High Representative and the Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement issued a statement on the Georgian law, stated:
"This law is not in line with EU core norms and values.
Georgia has a vibrant civil society that contributes to the country’s successful progress towards EU membership. The proposed legislation would limit the capacity of civil society and media organisations to operate freely, could limit freedom of expression and unfairly stigmatise organisations that deliver benefits to the citizens of Georgia.
The EU urges Georgia to refrain from adopting legislation that can compromise Georgia’s EU path, a path supported by the overwhelming majority of Georgian citizens".
The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission also strongly recommends repealing the Law of Georgia on Transparency of Foreign Influence in its current form, as its fundamental flaws will involve significant negative consequences for freedoms of association and expression, the right to privacy, the right to participate in public affairs as well as the prohibition of discrimination.
Finally, the claim about EU member states being more corrupt than Russia is false. On the contrary, the 2023 annual ranking of the Corruption Perceptions Index places Russia at rank 141 out of 180, with a score of 26 out of 100 (0 being very corrupt and 100 not corrupt), while EU members like Germany and France have scores of 78 and 71, respectively.
Read also related cases such as: The West wants to draw Russia into a conflict with Georgia, or The West finds unacceptable that Georgians want to make Georgian laws, or Protests in Georgia orchestrated from abroad, or The protests in Georgia were organised by the United States.