In recent years, the influence of Western NGOs in the South Caucasus—particularly in Georgia and Armenia—has sparked intense debate. Western nations, including the United States and EU member states, continue to support a variety of non-governmental organizations in these countries, seeing them as critical to promoting democracy, civil society, and the rule of law.
However, these governments, especially in Georgia, are increasingly suspicious of these organizations, accusing them of meddling in domestic politics.
Georgia’s NGO Crackdown: Political Tensions and Legislation
Georgia has come under international scrutiny after passing the controversial "foreign agents" law, which requires organizations receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register and report their finances to the government. Civil society groups and international organizations view the law as a threat to NGO and media freedom, drawing parallels to Russia’s repressive "foreign agents" law. Critics warn that it jeopardizes Georgia's democratic development.
NGOs such as the "International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy," which monitors elections and receives significant funding from Western donors like the EU and the United States, play a crucial role in fighting corruption and promoting the rule of law. Yet, their activities have alarmed the ruling "Georgian Dream" party, which accuses them of siding with opposition forces and interfering in the country’s political affairs.
Many NGOs argue that the law’s high fines and onerous bureaucracy are a form of persecution, making it nearly impossible for small and medium-sized organizations to function. Fines can reach up to 25,000 GEL (about $9,300), forcing some NGOs to relocate their operations to neighboring Armenia to avoid repressive oversight.
Western NGOs in Armenia: Support or Influence?
In Armenia, as in neighboring Georgia, Western NGOs play a vital role in bolstering democratic institutions and civil society. International donors, including USAID and the European Union, fund initiatives that promote human rights, combat corruption, and support the rule of law. However, unlike Georgia, Armenia has yet to implement strict regulations targeting foreign-funded NGOs, though discussions on such measures are ongoing.
Following the political upheavals that rocked Armenia—most notably the 44-day Second Karabakh War—international donors increased their involvement, backing projects aimed at restoring trust in government institutions and safeguarding human rights. While these efforts have been largely welcomed, some opposition voices and experts express concerns. They warn that an overreliance on Western funding could undermine Armenia’s national independence, paving the way for increased foreign influence over domestic affairs.
Facts and Figures: The NGO Landscape
As of today, Georgia has over 20,000 registered NGOs, though only a fraction—estimated between 1,000 and 3,000—are actively operating. Western donors, including the European Union, the U.S. government, and international foundations like the Soros Foundation, play a significant role in supporting these organizations. In 2022, the EU allocated over €121 million to support Georgian civil society, though some of these funds were frozen in 2023 over concerns of "democratic backsliding."
Armenia’s situation mirrors Georgia’s in many ways. Key donors include the EU, USAID, and international foundations, and in 2021, the U.S. alone provided over $70 million to Armenia for programs aimed at strengthening civil society, protecting human rights, and reforming the judicial system.
Growing Suspicion
While Western NGOs have been instrumental in supporting democratic processes in both Georgia and Armenia, their growing influence is drawing skepticism from ruling elites. In Georgia, new legislation has been introduced to curb foreign influence via NGOs, triggering both domestic and international criticism. In Armenia, while similar steps have not yet been taken, the public discourse on NGO regulation is increasingly gaining momentum.
Color Revolutions and the NGO Factor: Hidden Agendas Behind Uprisings
Color revolutions have long symbolized popular uprisings in the post-Soviet space, seemingly driven by the pursuit of democracy and freedom. However, beneath the veneer of idealism lies a more calculated reality: these revolutions are often orchestrated operations involving external actors. Central to these events are not only opposition movements and political figures but also vast networks of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foundations, and media outlets, whose roles are far more strategic and less innocent than they might appear.
The Invisible Front: NGOs as Political Catalysts
Revolutions, like any political process, tend to follow recognizable patterns. A key factor often preceding political upheaval is the rise in NGO activity. At first glance, these organizations seem to focus on charitable or educational initiatives. Yet, in recent years, amid growing distrust toward governments across the region, it has become clear that NGOs are not only facilitators of civic engagement but also catalysts for political unrest.
The case of Armenia in 2018 highlights the powerful influence NGOs can exert on political events. A year before the so-called "Barbecue Revolution," Armenia experienced an unprecedented surge in the number of registered NGOs, foundations, and media outlets. In 2017 alone, over a thousand new NGOs and more than a hundred media organizations were established. As later revealed, this spike in third-sector activity was closely linked to the impending change in leadership and broader political shifts.
Who is Behind the NGOs?
In post-Soviet countries, NGOs are often portrayed as vital components of civil society, promoting democratic values and safeguarding human rights. However, their role is often more complex. Many of these organizations are funded by Western foundations, such as the Soros Foundation, and supported by international donors. This foreign backing facilitates the creation of networks that, at crucial moments, serve as powerful tools for exerting pressure on local governments.
At face value, the work of these NGOs may seem benign, even beneficial. However, the increase in their numbers and influence on the eve of political crises suggests deeper motives. The 2018 revolution in Armenia demonstrated that many of the new political elites who replaced the so-called "Karabakh clan" had close ties to Western NGOs. This strongly indicates that the revolution was not a spontaneous expression of public will but a meticulously planned operation with significant external involvement.
Revolutions on Demand: How External Forces Shape Political Upheaval in Post-Soviet States
Since the early 2000s, the post-Soviet space has witnessed a series of color revolutions—Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan—all marked by attempts or outright regime changes, partly driven by the work of NGOs. Far from spontaneous uprisings, these events illustrate how external actors can exert significant influence on the internal political dynamics of sovereign nations. The creation of civic institutions, the mobilization of activists, and the orchestration of information campaigns are all components of a well-prepared strategy that frames these revolutions as expressions of popular will but often hides the meticulous work of foreign curators.
Azerbaijan’s Early Recognition of the Risks
Azerbaijan was one of the first countries to recognize the potential risks posed by foreign-backed NGO activity. After the peak of color revolutions in 2005, Baku implemented stringent controls over NGO financing, focusing on transparency of financial flows. These measures drastically curtailed the ability of external actors to influence domestic politics through NGOs, helping Azerbaijan maintain political stability.
The Geopolitical Game
Azerbaijan’s approach to managing NGOs was so effective that other regional players, such as Georgia, began to adopt similar policies. Despite its pro-Western orientation, Georgia has increasingly felt the need to regulate NGOs, particularly those receiving foreign funds. This move provoked sharp criticism from Western governments, who view third-sector transparency as a core democratic value. Yet, beneath this criticism lies a deeper conflict of interest, where the rhetoric of democracy masks a geopolitical struggle.
The imposition of sanctions against Georgian authorities for tightening controls on NGOs symbolizes the West's determination to protect its sphere of influence in the region. Such sanctions and external pressure represent a direct response to post-Soviet states' efforts to assert their independence and safeguard their sovereignty from foreign interference.
The Sovereignty Dilemma: Color Revolutions and External Influence
Color revolutions are never purely internal phenomena. They reflect a complex web of external interests, internal conflicts, and political maneuvering. The critical question is: who benefits from these changes, and how do they shape the long-term future of the affected countries? Armenia's 2018 revolution, for instance, highlighted that the removal of the old elite and the rise of new forces does not always lead to progress. Instead, dependence on external actors and a lack of experience can exacerbate instability and trigger new conflicts.
Ultimately, revolutions often solve few problems while creating new ones. Western NGOs, which claim to support civic initiatives, frequently become tools in broader geopolitical struggles. Their actions require careful oversight, particularly in post-Soviet nations where it is not only essential to regulate NGO funding but also to grasp the long-term impact of their interference in domestic politics.
Lessons from History
The past decades offer a clear lesson: post-Soviet states aiming for true independence and stability must be ready to actively defend their sovereignty. Color revolutions and the NGOs that fuel them are not just organic responses to popular discontent. They are often part of a meticulously crafted strategy designed to reshape the political landscape in favor of external players. In today's context of global instability, these movements pose even greater risks, making it critical for nations in the region to fortify themselves against external pressure and protect their autonomy.