In the NED’s mission statement, it claims that it is guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values. Yet, the NED’s very actions greatly conflict with such a statement. The bulk of the NED’s funding is used to fund foreign political movements; under analysis of the chosen recipients of this funding, it is not difficult to recognize a pattern.

Without exception, the NED’s money funds parties that oppose progressive movements, endorse capitalism and globalization, and demonstrate subservience to leaders in Washington. That the NED would support only political parties that fit a certain criteria immediately dispels the myth that it has any interest whatsoever in furthering democratic practices. On the other hand, what the criteria do show is that the NED is driven by an interest to further its own agenda, through blatantly biased support and funding. What the NED depicts as furthering democratic practices is in reality immoral intervention; meddling in the progression of foreign elections in order to secure a desired outcome.

However, when such tampering proves ineffective, the NED resorts to more extreme measures.

When a candidate high on the NED’s hit-list has garnered widespread support among the populace and has successfully resisted preliminary intervention, displaying few signs of weakness, the NED has no choice but to eliminate the given leader from all contention. Under these circumstances, the NED is caught in a dilemma as such acts would tarnish its pure image, which it must seek to preserve at all costs lest its credibility be lost. The NED’s solution to this dilemma is the involvement of a third party who have direct access to the target, and who can proceed without drawing further suspicion.

The role of such a third party is often filled by ruling class elites in the given country who share Washington’s interests and oppose the progressive regime who hold or threaten power. Provided with funding from the NED, these elites organize dissident movements with the ultimate objective of toppling the government and retrieving power. If the typical smear campaigns and empty propaganda prove insufficient, the rebellious elite resort to the final measure; a coup d’etat. If the coup is pulled off successfully, the end result is the replacing of the democratically elected President by a selectively installed puppet regime that vouches for America’s interests at the expense of its own people.

However, if the coup falls apart, the result is something akin to Venezuela 2002, where an American-sponsored coup broke down almost immediately after its overthrow of Hugo Chavez when millions of Venezuelans took to the streets in protest.

With such a blatantly active history, it was not surprising that the NED was present in Iraq during the recent elections, up to its old tricks. In an election that carried such a potentially great impact- American leaders believe that the elections vindicate the decision to invade Iraq- intervention was to be expected.

From the outset, it was reasonable to conclude that fair unbiased elections could not be conducted in such an environment as Iraq, under heavy occupation by a foreign power for which the stakes of the very election ran so high. Indeed, many discrepancies emerged. Polling stations were scarce in predominantly-Sunni areas, a vote-controlling tactic. International organizations, such as the NED, dictated the election process, raising the question: how on earth were these elections deemed democratic when they were run by a third party bearing its own agenda?

Furthermore, an Iraq election authority was established by American administrator Paul Bremer, on which eight of the nine members were appointed by Bremer. This Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) was commissioned to oversee the election.

Imagine the implications; the most powerful committee of the elections appointed by the American mediator. Even more disconcerting are several of the clauses that were thrown into the voting guidelines, stating that votes cannot be made public, and that no regulators are allowed to observe vote counting.

The involvement of the NED in Iraq was no exception from its unprincipled and clandestine past. Funded by taxpayers, the NED will continue with such intervention until the American public learns to see through its illusory message, and bring to light its true purpose.

Until then, American leaders will sing the praises of undemocratic elections, and foreign masses will continue to suffer under puppet regimes, regimes who exploit their own people for all they are worth. With organizations such as the NED, the strings that guide such regimes remain hidden behind an embellished aura of charity and goodwill. These strings of deceptive suppression must be diminished; the NED would not be a bad place to start.