In the wake of the Trump administration’s “pause” on foreign “aid” spending, countless US-bankrolled destabilization and regime change efforts have been thrown into total disarray. Despite desperate calls from beneficiaries for the European Union to fill the gap, its member states have responded by “drastically” slashing their own “overseas development” expenditure. Yet, there is no indication so far Britain intends to curtail the operations of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, London’s little-known international meddling machine.

Established in 1992, WFD was directly modelled on Washington’s National Endowment for Democracy, created the previous decade by the CIA to carry out publicly what the Agency previously did covertly. Namely, funding media outlets, political parties, activist groups, “NGOs”, trade unions and other elements that can be corralled to destabilize if not outright overthrow foreign governments if and when they dare step out of line. Primarily funded by the Foreign Office, WFD ponderously describes itself as “an executive non-departmental public body.”

This is a euphemism for the Foundation being a British intelligence cutout, formally operating as an independent organisation free from state control or affiliation, but in reality carrying out politically sensitive, risky activities abroad with which London is wary of being openly and directly associated. This raison d’etre is amply spelled out in a markedly revealing, since-memory holed official review of WFD’s activities published in 2005, to date the only instance of its work being subject to serious scrutiny.

The review explicitly notes, “WFD’s work requires an arm’s length relationship from government,” and the Foreign Office “benefits from the cover.” The Foundation’s “central rationale” is to provide “assistance” London “could not or would not wish to undertake directly.” The indirect granting of support to “controversial” projects, concerned with ousting “enemy” leaders or propping up successfully-installed puppet governments “in countries of key interest” to Britain, limits “damage to official government-to-government relationships,” while “avoiding the danger” of “British government presence [being] interpreted as foreign interference”:

“[WFD’s] arm’s length relationship…provides the [Foreign Office] with the best safeguard…the less the [Foreign Office] seeks to exercise control the more it can deny responsibility…The Foundation provides a necessary and valuable instrument.”

WFD founder Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, a longtime NED adviser charged by the Foreign Office in the late 1980s with creating a British Endowment equivalent, is quoted in the report at some length. He states that the NED’s contemporary success in killing off Communism in Central and Eastern Europe demonstrated “interference in the internal politics of foreign countries” was “more effective” if conducted openly. Hitherto covert “interference” by the CIA and MI6 “had caused problems when secret financial assistance…leaked into the public domain.”

Pinto-Duschinsky went on to boast that WFD’s “distinctive feature” and “comparative advantage” was its “freedom to give political - rather than technical or educational - grants,” including providing funds “to political forces…in direct opposition to existing governments.” The Foundation’s largesse could also be directed to “training of police forces in developing nations.” Which of course are not up for election at regular intervals, and of obvious use in maintaining unpopular, illegitimate British-backed regimes in power.

‘Partisan Approach’

The report goes on to cite multiple examples of British overseas meddling conducted via WFD since its inception, bragging that “along the way we have made many good friends for Britain among key leaders in politics and civil society” the world over. In its early years, the Foundation infiltrated developing “democratic institutions”, political parties and civil society in the former Soviet sphere. Concurrently, WFD was heavily active in South Africa, “in the runup to its crucial 1994 elections.”

Related News

Why new 'Israel'-Zambia relation is 'betrayal'

Africa’s top university’s ‘Gaza Resolutions’ outrages pro-'Israel' lobby

That historic vote, the first in which citizens of all races in the country were allowed to take part, saw Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress elected via landslide, and marked the end of apartheid. WFD got its claws into the ANC and the Democratic Alliance, South Africa’s main opposition party, over the campaign, while supporting “independent” media organisations, “and groups that promoted women in politics.” Subsequently, the Foundation “shifted its resources and experience” elsewhere in Africa, and the West Balkans. 

The role of NED - and USAID, and the CIA - in ousting Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000 is well-known, having been openly advertised at the time. The report reveals WFD mirrored the skullduggery of these agencies, crafting “strong relationships” with “civic reform groups” and “opposition forces” to “grow and develop” antagonism to Milosevic “around the country” - including the leader’s “heartlands”, where his public support “was strongest.” The Foundation openly proclaims “this work…contributed to the defeat of Milosevic.”

Subsequently, WFD set up a program under which “more than 900 judges, prosecutors, lawyers and others, from all over the country” were trained, “creating a country-wide network of legal reformers.” The Foundation crowed, “many participants” went on to become “prominent” within Yugoslavia’s pro-Western, post-coup administration, including “various key government departments, its supreme court, and police forces.” Simultaneously, WFD was “helping lay the groundwork” for revolution in Ukraine, having secretly colluded with local “opposition groups” ever since Kiev’s 1991 independence.

In November 2004, NED-trained and bankrolled NGOs and activists in Ukraine forced a rerun of that year’s presidential election, to oust Viktor Yanukovych and elect Viktor Yushchenko, a pro-NATO Western puppet. Again, the fundamental US role in this palace revolution is well-established, and openly admitted. The report suggests WFD’s contribution to the putsch, which imitated Washington’s efforts, was decisive. The Foundation “mobilised mass support” for “peaceful resistance” to Yanukovych’s initial victory, exploiting “Ukrainian parties and youth organisations” for the purpose:

“Despite initial [Foreign Office] qualms, the party work in Ukraine is a clear demonstration of how WFD’s partisan approach can contribute to a successful political reformist movement.”

Meanwhile, WFD organised “visits from young trainers” involved in prior regime change efforts in Yugoslavia and Georgia, “who could share their recent, comparable experiences” of toppling governments, to Kiev. The Foundation moreover ferried activists around Ukraine “to mobilise support” for causing election day chaos throughout the country, “encouraging small youth groups and NGOs to coordinate their efforts.” As a result, “young people…were helped to focus their energies and maximise their impact on the elections.”

‘Political Changes’

Over the course of its three-decade-long existence, WFD’s existence, let alone operations, have barely been acknowledged by the British media. Nonetheless, leaked documents testify that the Foundation continues to insidiously exploit youth overseas as chaos agents. For example, the Foundation covertly constructed an army of young activists in Lebanon to cause havoc around that year’s May general election. In confidential submissions to the Foreign Office, WFD boasted its penetration of Beirut was such, it maintained a dedicated “office in the Lebanese parliament building.”

The project was intended to “target youth, aged 18 - 30…eligible to vote” in Lebanon’s election, “and able to engage in political activism.” Two “sub groups of young people” were in the Foundation’s crosshairs. This comprised “youth…already politically active with traditional political parties and civil society led movement and initiatives, including in universities,” in particular “youth leaders”, and “less engaged youth who demonstrate interest and will benefit from capacity development and building their social capital”:

“This project [will] explicitly work with new actors and dynamics within Lebanese politics…Youth leaders will expand their views and networks by engaging in dialogues, advocacy and activities with the municipalities and Parliament…remaining youth will benefit more from trainings and opportunities to design and implement initiatives, develop their understanding and interest in political processes and be empowered to be active citizens. Through WFD, youth will have opportunities to engage with parliamentarians.”

Elsewhere, “at the local level in selected municipalities,” the Foundation would “target local youth groups, provide training, coaching and support to advocacy with itlocal institutions on selected issues,” in order to “empower young men and women to demand participation and accountability.” Along the way, WFD sought to enhance “youth leaders’ understanding of how political change happens and how it can most effectively be influenced by active citizens.” It was hoped this would elicit “changes in attitudes and behaviours” among the Foundation’s targets.

In sum, this effort amounted to a grand plot, à la Yugoslavia, Ukraine and elsewhere, to cultivate a legion of adolescent regime change footsoldiers, to harass elected officials and wreak mayhem if they refused to cater to their demands, or the 2018 election produced the ‘wrong’ results. It was just one of several malign cloak-and-dagger projects mounted by British intelligence cutouts in Lebanon at this time, in pursuit of out and out regime change.

From London’s perspective, Beirut’s 2018 vote very much produced an unwelcome outcome. Namely, its longtime bête noire Hezbollah effectively emerged victorious. Undeterred, leaked Foreign Office documents indicate London simply began pumping yet further funds into clandestine projects to destabilise Lebanon, with WFD being a primary beneficiary. Not coincidentally, these sums began flowing in profusion in July 2019 - right when the initial protests that eventually erupted into attempted revolution four months later began.