MADRID, March 10 (EUROPA PRESS) –

Foreign agent laws, regulations typically used as a political tool to limit the activities of organizations that have transnational networks, have come under the spotlight this week following a bill introduced in Georgia’s parliament. and which has led thousands to protest in what many have described as a Georgian Euromaidan.

What started as a fight between MPs ended up igniting political debate at national level, where the opposition showed a strong rejection of a measure which, as they defended, is akin to the legislation used by Russia to silence dissenting voices and stop the work of independent organizations and the media.

Despite the government’s attempts to defend its plan, MPs ultimately had to give in to strong opposition on the streets and overturn a parliamentary process which, as some international players had warned, could distract Georgia from its way to the European Union Syndicate. However, there are more than a dozen countries and regions around the world that have this type of legislation.

RUSSIA

Russia’s Foreign Agents Law, harshly criticized by the international community for years for violating citizens’ fundamental freedoms, has been gradually extended to undermine the activities and operations of members of civil society.

The law, adopted in 2012, makes it possible to recognize as a “foreign agent” any non-profit organization that has received money from abroad and carries out, from the point of view of the authorities, political activities.

With this regulation, so-called “foreign agents” are prohibited from teaching in public schools and universities, carrying out educational activities with minors, or receiving state funding, among other things.

Likewise, they will not be able to work in the state or municipal service, be members of electoral commissions or act as organizers of public events, in addition to being exempted from investing in strategic companies in Russia. and to make donations to the election funds of political candidates and parties.

This designation has been harshly criticized because it stigmatizes the work of this type of organization and violates the effective work of civil society with the aim, according to critical voices, of dissuading citizens from seeking help from human rights activists. man, among other aspects.

UNITED STATES

However, the United States was the first country to approve this type of legislation, which dates back to 1938 and sought to confront the propaganda of the Nazi regime in Germany. Subsequently, the so-called Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was amended in the 1960s to encompass power groups and corporations that promoted the interests of foreign governments.

The definitions included in the law have repeatedly been described as “broad” and “vague”, according to a report by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).

This allows the government of the North American country to apply the measure to a greater number of organizations, which puts civil society at risk, as denounced by human rights defenders who also insist on the fact that the wording of the text undermines the real effectiveness of the legislation. In the question.

The law became more relevant after the 2016 presidential election, when it became more of a tool to respond to foreign influence in politics.

AUSTRALIA AND CANADA

Countries like Australia and Canada have similar laws, based precisely on FARA. In the Australian case, regulations require former members of government to register “any activity they carry out on behalf of foreign entities”.

The Canadian, for its part, establishes the obligation to specify and detail the identities and payments made by foreign customers and establishes fines of up to $200,000 and penalties of up to two years in prison. in case of violation.

NICARAGUA

In Nicaragua, the law obliges all citizens who work for “foreign governments, companies, foundations or organizations” to register with the Ministry of the Interior, declare their income and expenses monthly and notify in advance how foreign funds will be spent.

The text, which provides for sanctions in the event of non-compliance, specifies that these citizens cannot “finance or promote the financing of any type of organization, movement, political party, coalition or political alliance or association” which is involved in Nicaragua’s domestic politics.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele tried to push parallel legislation in 2021, though the measure was blocked a year later amid accusations and warnings joined by the United Nations, which said that the draft included even tougher restrictions than those of Nicaragua as it sought to impose a 40% tax on all transfers from abroad.

VENEZUELA

Venezuelan legislation is not to be outdone either: after its approval in 2021, it requires the registration of all natural or legal persons of a non-financial nature and gives pride of place to NGOs, which it subjects to control. and supervision.

Framed within the framework of national security policy, it comes on top of other measures aimed at hampering the work of human rights organizations and includes, according to critical voices, restrictions on the freedom of expression.

THE EUROPEAN PARADIGM

In Europe, the measure has gone unnoticed despite the fact that countries such as Hungary, Bulgaria and Ukraine have passed legislation over the past five years limiting donations from abroad.

Thus, organizations that receive more than 24,000 euros in foreign donations in Hungary will have to re-register as organizations “receiving foreign funding”, and their websites and publications will have to carry this label.

Ukrainian regulations, which date from 2018, allow organizations to be registered as “agents acting under the influence of an aggressor state”, while Bulgarian regulations require them to report to the Treasury and, within a week, to get grants from abroad. which exceed 500 euros, approximately.

The case of South Ossetia is striking: the separatist region of Georgia has followed in the footsteps of Russian legislation. MEPs approved the measure in 2014 to include the activities of organizations that receive funding from abroad.

In this sense, and after months of debate between several NGOs clearly opposed to the terminology of the text, South Ossetia gave the green light to a regulation which, if it replaced the term “agent” by “partner”, allows to supervise the work of organizations and asks them to submit additional documents.

ASIA AND MIDDLE EAST

The law, which also prevails in Kyrgyzstan, also has its Israeli version, which requires organizations funded mainly from outside the country to be declared “foreign”.

This also includes amounts from the European Union, the United Nations and government foundations, among others.