4 ms·

>4. Looking at the list of supporting organizations on the OCCRP's web site, it would be rather extraordinary if this publication does not have a political bias

>4. Looking at the list of supporting organizations on the OCCRP's web site, it would be rather extraordinary if this publication does not have a political bias, since many of these supporters have rather blatantly open political agendas (with some of them at least being suspect of being criminal organizations in their own right). What are the blatantly open political agendas of those supporters? I'm asking seriously. All seem to be about human rights and civic societies and so forth.

dpwm 8y ago
Well, US Agency for International Development is one of them. Whilst I have no doubt it has done some good stuff, it's also been directly involved in funding attempts at regime change. This usually done under the guise of promoting democracy – often in places that were once US puppet-states. It's interesting that the US speaks of promoting democracy, when it is fiercely supportive of some of the least democratic states. If USAID's plans would be so widely supported by the US taxpayer, words like "discreetly" [0] should not need to be used. [0] https://www.scribd.com/document/122217408/USAID-DAI-Contract https://www.scribd.com/document/122217408/USAID-DAI-Contract
- mrleiter 8y ago
  Thanks! Very interesting document.
elmo2you 8y ago
> All seem to be about human rights and civic societies and so forth. That is indeed what it says on the label, doesn't it? Yet, most (if not all) of the supporters hail from countries that have an active (some may argue: notoriously aggressive) foreign policy towards Russia. At best, they all belong to a group of countries that (especially in recent years) has been known to be far from balanced and unbiased (regarding anything but their own interests, international law and human rights included). Maybe (even) more telling, what's missing are the organizations from countries that do not belong to this "front against Russia" group of countries. While most of these organizations claim to be independent of their host country's governments, many of them have a proven track record of going beyond their stated mandate, and actively promote (or even force) the political foreign policies of their host country, often under the guise of "humanitarian aid" or spreading "freedom and democracy". (use Google; it's not rocket science) Just as a practical example (already mentioned partially by somebody else), USAID is supposed to be an independent organization, yet it operates subject to the guidance of the US President, Secretary of State, and the National Security Council. Can somebody open a dictionary and search for the meaning of "independent"? I can/will not blame anybody for not believing me (fair enough), for I will not give specifics. But I have personally witnessed several of these organizations doing things (in particular in the South-East of Europe) that would get them into (legal) trouble if they would do the same "at home". At least on a personal level, that is enough for me to be suspicious about the real motives of these organizations. Maybe not so much regarding their volunteers, which I believe have (mostly) good (but often misguides/arrogant/brainwashed) intentions, but regarding the higher-up management, I am far less positive.

dpwm 8y ago

Well, US Agency for International Development is one of them. Whilst I have no doubt it has done some good stuff, it's also been directly involved in funding attempts at regime change. This usually done under the guise of promoting democracy – often in places that were once US puppet-states. It's interesting that the US speaks of promoting democracy, when it is fiercely supportive of some of the least democratic states. If USAID's plans would be so widely supported by the US taxpayer, words like "discreetly" [0] should not need to be used. [0] https://www.scribd.com/document/122217408/USAID-DAI-Contract https://www.scribd.com/document/122217408/USAID-DAI-Contract

mrleiter 8y ago
Thanks! Very interesting document.

elmo2you 8y ago

> All seem to be about human rights and civic societies and so forth. That is indeed what it says on the label, doesn't it? Yet, most (if not all) of the supporters hail from countries that have an active (some may argue: notoriously aggressive) foreign policy towards Russia. At best, they all belong to a group of countries that (especially in recent years) has been known to be far from balanced and unbiased (regarding anything but their own interests, international law and human rights included). Maybe (even) more telling, what's missing are the organizations from countries that do not belong to this "front against Russia" group of countries. While most of these organizations claim to be independent of their host country's governments, many of them have a proven track record of going beyond their stated mandate, and actively promote (or even force) the political foreign policies of their host country, often under the guise of "humanitarian aid" or spreading "freedom and democracy". (use Google; it's not rocket science) Just as a practical example (already mentioned partially by somebody else), USAID is supposed to be an independent organization, yet it operates subject to the guidance of the US President, Secretary of State, and the National Security Council. Can somebody open a dictionary and search for the meaning of "independent"? I can/will not blame anybody for not believing me (fair enough), for I will not give specifics. But I have personally witnessed several of these organizations doing things (in particular in the South-East of Europe) that would get them into (legal) trouble if they would do the same "at home". At least on a personal level, that is enough for me to be suspicious about the real motives of these organizations. Maybe not so much regarding their volunteers, which I believe have (mostly) good (but often misguides/arrogant/brainwashed) intentions, but regarding the higher-up management, I am far less positive.