The concept of “foreign agent”, established on the eve of World War II in the United States to counter enemy propaganda, has found new life in the 21st century. Until recently, he was mainly present in the polemic between Russia and the West. The latter accused the Russian authorities that with the help of this statute, the Kremlin cuts off dissidents from vigorous activity. Moscow’s arguments that any government should understand what foreign money is and what falls within its area of sovereign responsibility have been dismissed as justification for restricting citizens’ freedoms, as civil society should have the right to funding, regardless of its own authorities.
In the United States, a provision was set on the return of great power rivalry as the main content of international politics
Therein lies the main contradiction, the manifestations of which we are now likely to observe more and more often and everywhere. The idea that cross-border funding of non-governmental organizations is not only acceptable, but also completely normal, necessary, has become a product and a sign of the period of liberal globalization. Such a vision of civil society flowed logically from the conceptual approach itself. If the objective is to eliminate trade, economic and ideally political barriers and to form a single space of rules on a world scale, then the non-governmental structures either do not have a national link at all, or are affiliated with the maximum to international organizations. This contradicts the classic idea of civil society, the essence of which lies precisely in its origin from below, ie its emergence on national soil. However, the universalist global ideology proceeds from the fact that unification is a blessing, and the ideological basis of a transnational civil society, as well as the economic organization of the world, rests on Western ideas.
Five years ago, the doctrinal documents of the United States enshrined a provision on the return of great power rivalry as the main content of international policy. This drew a line under the previous period. If this is the essence of world politics, then all instruments are used, and the former – “money has no nationality” and “letting information flow without barriers” – can no longer be perceived as outside of such a context.
Over the previous two decades, a high degree of openness of states to socio-political and informational activities has indeed been achieved. This, by the way, is partly related to the significant increase in embassy staff after the Cold War – the scope of work has expanded, including with corporations. The impressive scale of the mutual expulsions of diplomats after 2018 is associated with the collapse of relations, but they also have an objective basis. Embassies are reverting to more traditional, i.e. narrow, tasks, and so many employees have nothing to do.
The same phenomenon concerns the restrictions imposed on the work of the media, allowed relatively freely after the end of the cold war. However, the atmosphere in this area was changing as other sources opposed the dominance of Western resources in the information space. In Europe and the United States, the measures against Russian and partly Chinese news channels are explained by the fact that they are financed by the state, whereas those directed against Russia and China are public or private. Even if this is the case (but not in all cases), the modern socio-political structure of democratic countries implies a close intertwining of the state and non-state sectors. Thus, formally, a non-state structure can serve as an instrument of the state. It also happens the other way around, although less frequently.
Today, embassies are returning to more traditional, that is, narrow tasks, and the former number of employees has nothing to do
Be that as it may, the abandonment of the previous model of globalization in economics and politics does not make it possible to count on the preservation of its inherent pattern of interaction at the level of civil society. And it is no longer a question of relations between Russia and the West. She was at the forefront for the reason that Russia first opened up as much as possible, betting on integration into the Western community, and then began to reconsider this goal and dismantle the approach that had quickly rooted in the 1990s and 2000s. China, for example, despite deep economic integration, has hardly opened its socio-political sphere to outside presence. But now increasingly secure control of who funds what and from where is becoming a common concern everywhere, regardless of the form of government.
Does the new stage carry the risk that all dissidents will be driven out under the brand of a foreign agent? Undoubtedly, yes – governments everywhere and everywhere are guided by the same instincts. But, alas, this new step is an inevitable consequence of the previous one. The pendulum moves back as far as it went the other way.
