In recent decades, the map of global power has mutated. To impose their hegemony, these powers are no longer satisfied with military attacks or economic blockades; rather, the appropriation of nature—via commodities —and the labor force of the Global South is waged in the realms of culture, public opinion, and so-called “civil society” organizations.

In Latin America, this model has been precisely replicated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) subsidized by European and US funds. These organizations have played a key role in delegitimizing progressive governments by promoting narratives of “populism,” “authoritarianism,” and “corruption,” which pave the way for political crises or coups d’état. A large proportion of NGOs represent the political and ideological arm—through lobbying , for example—of Western powers, transnational corporations, and international foundations.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of these “civil society” networks has coincided with the consolidation of the neoliberal model on a global scale. Many of them operate with multi-million-dollar budgets financed by large corporations such as Coca-Cola, Siemens, and Shell, and by foundations linked to global elites, such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations or the Ford Foundation.

Indeed, the most eloquent demonstration of their role is the statement made by former US President Bill Clinton during a Bilderberg Group meeting in 2005: “The growth of NGOs was one of the most extraordinary things that happened on the planet since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

This rise is not a response to a spontaneous demand for solidarity but to a deliberate strategy of depoliticization. Far from being autonomous entities, many NGOs operate as intermediaries of the state and capital in the implementation of structural adjustment policies, depolarizing social struggles and promoting a “governance” aligned with the interests of transnational capitalism.

In this context, their real mission is not to combat poverty but to neutralize any systemic alternative to capitalism. As Sangeeta Kamat (2004) argues in her article , The Privatization of Public Interest , NGOs reproduce a discourse that “privatizes the public interest” by transforming structural problems into matters of technical management or individual charity.

German political interference on both sides: Konrad Adenauer Foundation on the right

Within this ecosystem of soft power, German political foundations occupy a central place. Although they officially present themselves as civic education and democracy promotion entities, their real role goes far beyond the training of citizens. They are, in essence, instruments of the German state to project its ideological and political influence abroad, under the umbrella of “international cooperation.”

The Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS), affiliated with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), operates as an extension of German conservative foreign policy. Its history is marked by direct intervention in important political processes. Since its creation in 1952, it has been a key instrument in the Western bloc’s diplomacy of ideas.

In 1988, he financed and trained Christian Democrat activists in Chile who promoted the “no” vote in the plebiscite against Augusto Pinochet. While this may have seemed like a progressive action, its objective was not necessarily social justice but rather the strengthening of a political alternative aligned with the economic and geopolitical interests of NATO. The Atlanticist elite had already used the dictator to impose its neoliberal doctrine and geopolitically align the southern country, so they chose to discard him.

The KAS has been a crucial player in Latin America, promoting neoliberal reforms that have strengthened opposition parties to governments considered “populist” and have funded delegitimization campaigns. This foundation acts as an arm of a " soft imperialism " that intervenes in the domestic politics of countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, not with troops but with seminars, scholarships, and networks of “experts” who disseminate a liberal-conservative agenda.

And on the left: Rosa Luxemburg Foundation

The left is no exception to this system of control. The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (RLS), linked to the Die Linke party, presents itself as a critical alternative to capitalism. However, its state funding and its integration into the German diplomatic apparatus make it an ambiguous instrument.

In Nicaragua, amid a violent escalation that resulted in 253 deaths, the RLS distanced sectors of the international left from the Sandinista government by declaring that “Nicaragua is no longer a symbol of identification for the left.” This position did not arise from an independent analysis but from a political line that, while critical of neoliberalism, followed the dictates of German foreign policy, which distrusts governments that escape Western control.

~In 2018, during the attempted soft coup against Daniel Ortega’s government, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation aligned itself with the US-funded opposition’s narrative. (Photo: The Grayzone)~

Although they reject each other for having Nazi roots or coming from extremism , both foundations seem to serve to defuse autonomous popular movements from the right and from an institutionalized left. They operate in more than 100 countries, including emerging states, and act as " ghost companies " that allow the German state to “distance itself from the political problems that its interference can create,” which helps maintain a “good image of Germany.”

In 1973, an internal report from the Ministry of Cooperation recommended that “state funding for certain projects should not be disclosed,” a fact that has since become evidence of a policy of deliberate opacity.

The relationship between the Latin American left and these foundations is deeply contradictory. While some intellectuals and activists criticize them as tools of domination, others rely on their scholarship, publications, and forums for debate. This link creates an ideological dependency that erodes the autonomy of critical thought in the name of “interparty dialogue” and “democratic management.”

Argentine philosopher and economist Néstor Kohan has denounced how certain Latin American leftists have become spokespersons for foundations like the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, funded by the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), thus reproducing a discourse that, while critical of “savage capitalism,” never questions the liberal order or the structures of imperialism. These intellectuals, by accepting funding and platforms from such foundations, end up legitimizing a system that neutralizes any revolutionary project.

Analysts claim that, despite its symbolic name, the RLS does not promote a radical left but rather a manageable, reformist left that dialogues with traditional parties and rejects governments like those of Nicaragua and Venezuela. In this sense, its role is not to strengthen the class struggle but to domesticate it.

According to accounts from Polish activists, the RLS funded conferences and publications, but demanded in return a break with radical trade union organizations like August 80 and called their leaders “fascists.” In 2007, it banned Polish Workers’ Party (PPP) activists from participating in Party of the European Left events. This pattern of internal division and delegitimization has weakened the Polish left, making the RLS a factor of disintegration rather than unity.

It’s worth quoting Valentín Pacho, former general secretary of the CGTP of Peru and former vice president of the World Federation of Trade Unions, who stated in 2022 that NGOs “develop intense political and ideological campaigns to suppress class consciousness, turning social movements into political illiterates and appendages of capital.”

Behind the mask of soft power

Many left-wing NGOs are accused of co-opting social struggles by promoting a “postmodern” agenda that, for example, proposes environmentalism without anti-capitalism or feminism without class struggle, which neutralizes their transformative potential and makes them functional to a systemic “left” acceptable to the European establishment . Their controversial funding has even generated criticism within Germany , where the use of public funds to influence the politics of other nations is questioned.

In Europe, many NGOs funded by both NATO and the government were accused of collaborating with government agencies to interfere in the German elections. Their “influence operation” sought to keep Germany in line with US foreign policy objectives and undermine the European peace movement.

Russia and China, aware of the political interference of these organizations, have taken action. In 2023, Moscow declared the RLS an “undesirable organization” and accused it of interfering in internal affairs. Previously, four German foundations, including KAS and RLS, were formally registered in Beijing as “foreign NGOs,” allowing them to operate under strict Chinese state supervision.

The Chinese government has warned that these organizations “must not interfere in internal affairs or promote foreign ideological values.” Both countries in the multipolar axis consider the presence of these entities to be interventionist actors, financed by a foreign government. Their role is not perceived as “development aid” but as tools of unconventional warfare.

In Latin America: Siege and interference

In Venezuela, the role of these foundations has been particularly aggressive. Since the 2000s, the KAS has funded opposition NGOs, liberal think tanks , and media outlets that promote the narrative of a " humanitarian crisis " and justify international sanctions. Civil organizations that present themselves as independent are often linked, directly or indirectly, to European funding networks, often channeled through the KAS or the Friedrich Naumann Foundation—linked to the German Free Democratic Party, or FDP.

The country’s “color counterrevolutions” have been supported by some NGOs receiving European funding and have replicated strategies applied in Eastern Europe. Since the “white hands” movement in 2007, young university students have acted as the vanguard of a fourth-generation war , in which the objective has not been to win militarily but to destabilize through disinformation campaigns, the judicialization of politics— lawfare or legal warfare—and the mobilization of middle-class urban sectors.

The KAS, along with other foundations, has funded political training centers, promoted “unity candidates,” and created networks with right-wing parties such as Primero Justicia and Copei. It has also promoted narratives that criminalize the Venezuelan government. This model is not unique to Venezuela:

• A report by the Lawfare Observatory (2023) details the role of the KAS in promoting lawfare against leaders such as Lula da Silva and Rafael Correa.
• In Bolivia, following the 2019 coup, the role of European foundations in strengthening opposition actors became evident .
• According to journalist José Manzaneda , in Cuba “every year there are almost $30 million on the table” for groups that “play a clear political role in destabilization or information manipulation.”
• In Honduras, some NGOs linked to Christian Democracy are credited with playing a key role in the 2009 coup against Manuel Zelaya.
• In Chile and Colombia, constitutional reforms have been promoted under the guise of “participatory democracy,” but with profoundly liberal content.
• Under the guise of “cooperation” and “democracy,” NATO elites seek to secure the hegemony of the clearly broken unipolar global order. From both the right and the institutionalized left, these foundations divert social struggles into controllable channels and delegitimize any project that aspires to national sovereignty.

German political foundations operate as a sophisticated soft power apparatus, executing their country’s foreign policy through other means. Their work, far from being an act of solidarity, implies an architecture of global intervention designed to subordinate the self-determination of nations to the strategic interests of the Euro-Atlantic bloc.