EU Funding for NGOs: Is the Commission Under Fire From the Right Side?
Is there any criticism from conservative factions towards the Commission?
An Op-Ed by Hendrik Wieduwilt
Connect with us on: Facebook | Twitter | WhatsApp | Email | Print | Copy Link
The EU Commission grants funds to associations for political influence in the name of green politics. Is this a scandal, even when the criticism arises from right-wing political groups?
Governments constantly influence public opinion. They handle PR, feed journalists data, manage social media platforms, organize conferences, and their leaders deliver speeches, sometimes even enlightening ones. So far, so normal.
News Flash "Revealing Information" Union questions government extensively about demonstration organizers
However, the spotlight now shifts towards a newer form of discourse manipulation: governments providing monetary support to segments of civil society to amplify their voices. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) publicly champion specific policies, such as opposing coal-powered plants or free trade agreements. In Germany, many NGOs are known to be against the right and receive funds for their efforts.
Recently, the "Welt" newspaper reported on a funding program administered by the EU Commission, with an alleged 350,000 euros channeled to the environmental group ClientEarth. The newspaper claims that activists were tasked, among other things, to advocate for the phasing out of coal in Germany, while others were expected to challenge the use of glyphosate or the Mercosur agreement.
"Hidden" Agreements
These and similar agreements are "hidden", as the public remains uninformed about this form of influence. Allegations of "shadow lobbying" have surfaced. With this in mind, conservative groups within the European Parliament have united to establish a committee to investigate this matter.
Latest "Uncovering Fraud" Tax investigators recover over 250 million euros
Is this now a problem? It is, at the very least, a deception: The term "civil society" sounds benevolent, but its definition, per the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, states otherwise. The receipt of large sums of money for a specific program creates a substantial incentive.
Furthermore, it appears that one Commission body is attempting to sabotage another through this funding. The taxpayers are essentially paying for internal political discord within the EU government, as unproductive as a bridge to nowhere.
"Coordinated Campaign"
In a reasonable society, one would sit down, discuss the issue, propose adjustments, vote, and then share a cup of coffee.
It seems this approach no longer works, and there's a reason for it: the criticism stems from the right, not the left. Apparently, "left before right" applies to public debates. The main criticism is that it is a "coordinated campaign" by the Springer media empire and right-wing MEPs such as CSU politician Monika Hohlmeier. Are there no decent people on the right?
Of course, the news about the "secret contracts" between NGOs and the Commission has been overshadowed. The contracts are, in fact, not secret—only the specifics are kept confidential. Can something be considered "secret" if it's "not public"? Linguistic nuances are still fascinating.
Memories of East Germany
The backlash against allegedly left-wing NGOs has evolved into a cultural battle—one that seldom focuses on facts or legalities. It's reasonable to argue that a government shouldn't dictate opinions to the public via NGOs under the guise of civil society involvement. Democracy should emerge from the grassroots, not the other way around.
Insight "Rising Concern" Child advocates issue alarms: Internet addiction among adolescents reaches unprecedented levels
A few days ago, I conversed with Professor Hubertus Gersdorf, a law professor at Leipzig University, and his remarks echoed those of life in the former East Germany. "Nip it in the bud," he warned, noting that such NGO PR could potentially be exploited by extremist groups. NGOs, keen on spreading messages, should thus be regulated similarly to media outlets. Government should not lead the way in this matter.
The problem has significant potential for incitement. Brussels is geographically distant, and EU skepticism is already prevalent. Presenting the Commission as a manipulative presence in citizens' minds could generate the perception of a secretive "deep state." The debate is already swimming in populist polarization.
Echoes of East Germany
What's striking is that I've not come across any green or left-wing voices taking this psychological risk seriously. The reactions are, alternatively, filled with arrogance and unyieldingness. Green MEP Michael Bloss declared it a "transparent campaign against civil society engagement," equating criticism of NGO funding to a fight against noble citizens acting for the greater good.
Trending "Proposed Solution" China suggests "Green Channel" for easier export of rare earths to the EU
Professor Gersdorf cautioned that East German citizens would react negatively when manipulated. As a non-East German, I generally avoid making DDR comparisons, but such effects should be taken seriously, considering the largely conservative landscape east of the former inner-German border.
Rather than engaging in fact-driven discussions about NGO funding and legal boundaries, it's become about the clash between good and evil: Opposing NGOs is "right-wing," while supporting them represents democratic character. This perpetuates the distortion seen lately with the "Democracy Promotion Act" debate in Germany.
The Commission as Discourse Moderator
A government that's not born out of public debate but directs it is presumptuous. In Brussels, the argument is that there is an excess of industry lobbying, so consumer and environmental policy should balance it. The EU Commission is intended as the arbiter of discourse—almost like social media "Trusted Flaggers."
The marketplace of opinions can only thrive if both left and right can find their audience. Caricaturing critics as rabid and discrediting them based solely on their ideology cultivates a maelstrom of outrage that can easily jeopardize entire institutions, such as the EU—and a civil society that truly deserves that name.
The European Commission's funding to NGOs for political influence, as evidenced in the case of ClientEarth, has brought the European Union under scrutiny from right-wing political groups, raising questions about transparency and potential manipulation in public discourse. This is a contentious issue, particularly when these agreements are "hidden" from the public and labeled as a "coordinated campaign" by certain media outlets and political figures, creating a sense of distrust and potential incitement against the EU. The Commission, intended to be an arbiter of discourse, should address these concerns to maintain public trust and uphold the democratic principles it represents.
