. 25
( 42 .)


Notice the "nongovernmental"”part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually
every penny of its funding comes from the federal govern-ment, 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.

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid
when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the
CIA."1 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); and 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

In a multitude of ways, NED meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries by
supplying funds, technical know-how, training, educational materials, computers, fax
machines, copiers, automobiles and so on, to selected political groups, civic
organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, news-
papers, other media, etc. 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 are emphasized.

From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than $2,500,000, to the
American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization used by the CIA for
decades to subvert progressive labor unions.2 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."3 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 NED.4

The Endowment has funded centrist and rightist labor organiza-tions 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 1983-84 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."5 ("Neutralism" here refers to being unaligned
in the Cold War.)

NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thus: "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."6
Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have been supported by NED grants
for years.7

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.

Because of a controversy in 1984”when NED funds were used to aid a Panamanian
presidential candidate backed by Manuel Noriega and the CIA”Congress enacted a law
prohibiting the use of NED funds "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

As described in the "Elections" and "Interventions" chapters, NED successfully
manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996 and helped to
overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991
and 1992. In Haiti in the late 1990s, NED was busy working on behalf of right-wing
groups who were united in their opposition to former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide
and his progressive ideology.8 NED 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 all five countries named above 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 build' ing" and "encouraging
pluralism". "We support people who otherwise do not have a voice in their political
system," said Louisa Coan, a NED program officer.9 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 electoral 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, 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".10 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 multilevel campaign to fight the leftist insurgency in the Philippines
in the mid-1980s, funding a host of private organizations, including unions and the
media.11 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 was 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.12

The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does supporting democracy. The
governments and movements whom the NED targets call it destabilization.13

CHAPTER 20 : The US versus the World at the United Nations
America, we have all been taught for more than half a century, is the leader of "The
Free World". If this is so, it's proper to ask: Where are the followers? Where is the
evidence that Washington's world view sways the multitude of other governments and
leaders by virtue of other than the US being a 10,000-pound gorilla zillionaire? Where is
the loyalty and admiration engendered by intellectual or moral leadership? To enlist
support for its wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia,
the United States had to resort to bribery, threats and chicanery. At the United Nations,
with noteworthy regularity, Washington has found itself”often alone, sometimes joined
by one or two other countries”standing in opposition to General Assembly resolutions
aimed at furthering human rights, peace, nuclear disarmament, economic justice, the
struggle against South African apartheid and Israeli lawlessness and other progressive

The table below shows a portion of this pattern. It covers an arbitrarily chosen 10-year
period, 1978 through 1987, and is composed of the following sections:

1978-1981: All voting in the General Assembly examined; only those resolutions for
which the US cast a solitary "no" vote or was joined by one or two other nations are

1982-1983: All voting in the General Assembly examined; only those resolutions for
which the US cast a solitary "no" vote are listed.
1984-1987: Only a sample of General Assembly resolutions are shown, primarily for

In total, almost 150 examples are given. The number of abstentions is not shown. There
were many other resolutions in this period where Israel cast a solitary "no" vote and the
US was the sole abstainer.

Voting on resolutions of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council are
not included here, but these votes show a very similar pattern. In the Council, a US
solitary "no" vote is of course enough to defeat a measure.

The 1983 US invasion of Grenada was almost universally condemned in Latin America,
only the military dictatorships of Chile, Guatemala and Uruguay expressing support. The
United Nations voted its disapproval overwhelmingly. To this President Reagan
responded: "One hundred nations in the UN have not agreed with us on just about
everything that's come before them where we're involved, and it didn't upset my breakfast
at all."1

One of the evils of communist states, we were always told, was that they were oblivious
to world opinion.

...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind...

The Declaration of Independence

Date/Issue Resolution Number Yes-No Vote


Dec. 15 33/75 119-2 (US, Israel)

Urges the Security Council, especially its permanent members, to take all necessary
measures for insuring UN decisions on the maintenance of international peace and

Dec. 18 33/110 110-2 (US, Israel)

Living conditions of the Palestinian people

Dec. 18 33/113C 97-3 (US, Israel, Guatemala)

Condemnation of Israeli human rights record in occupied territories

Dec. 19 33/136 1194 (US)
Calls upon developed countries to increase quantity and quality of development
assistance to underdeveloped countries


Jan. 24 33/183M 114-3 (US, France, UK)

To end all military and nuclear collaboration with apartheid South


Jan. 29 33/196 111-1 (US)

Protectionism of developing countries' exports

Nov. 23 34/46 136-1 (US)

Alternate approaches within the UN system for improving the enjoyment of human rights
and fundamental freedoms

Nov. 23 34/52E 121-3 (US, Israel, Australia)

Return of inhabitants expelled by Israel

Dec. 11 34/83J 120-3 (US, UK, France)

Negotiations on disarmament and cessation of nuclear arms race

Dec. 12 34/90A 111-2 (US, Israel)

Demand that Israel desist from certain human rights violations

Dec. 12 34/93D 132-3 (US, UK, France)

Strengthening arms embargo against South Africa

Dec. 12 34/931 134-3 (US, UK, France)

Assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement

Dec. 14 34/100 104-2 (US, Israel)

Against support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states

Dec. 14 34/113 120-2 (US, Israel)
Request for report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries

Dec. 14 34/133 112-3 (US, Israel, Canada)

Assistance to Palestinian people

Dec. 14 34/136 118-2 (US, Israel)

Sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories

Dec. 17 34/158 121-2 (US, Israel)

Prepare and carry out the UN Conference on Women

Dec. 17 34/160 122-2 (US, Israel)

Include Palestinian women in agenda of UN Conference on Women

Dec. 19 34/199 1124 (US)

Safeguarding rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations


Nov. 3 35/13E 96-3 (US, Israel, Canada)

Requests Israel to return displaced persons

Dec. 5 35/57 134-1 (US)

Establishment of a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of
underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation

Dec. 5 35/75 118-2 (US, Israel)

Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of Palestinian people

Dec. 11 35/119 134-3 (US, UK, France)

Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples


. 25
( 42 .)