Anti-Communist Project
 | This article is incomplete because it is pending further input from participants, or it is a work-in-progress by one author. Please comment on this article's talk page to share your input, comments and questions. Note: To contribute to this article, you may need to seek help from the author(s) of this page. |
The Anti-Communist Project, sometimes referred to as the Belhavian Imperative or Belhavia's Folly (by its detractors), is an ongoing geopolitical objective of the Imperial Government of the Empire of Belhavia to oppose, undermine, and defeat the few remaining leftist governments remaining in the world after the collapse of the Communist World and fall of communism in 2001. In 2007, the United Republic of Emmeria and the Kingdom of Anthor publicly committed to the policy as well, creating a strengthened partnership with the Empire on enforcing the doctrine.
The policy directive's beginnings emerged between 2001 and 2003, when President Garret Holleran aggressively pushed "de-communization" in the former Communist world through democratization, marketization, and privatization as well as bilateral free trade agreements in conjuction with Emmeria and most of Free Pardes. The actual standing policy was formulated in 2006 by President Jeff Arnoth once Provisa observed the resilience of some leftist regimes to KosCo's mission, including the enduring totalitarian Marxist government in Kolenomai, as well as the establishment of a post-KosCo entity, PISC. Arnoth instituted a trade embargo against the nation in July 2006, which has been continued until the present. In addition, Belhavia has led the movement to persuade both the PMF and PTA to adopt similar "no-go" policies which prohibit it from giving any kind of economic aid or loans, and refuses to facilitate or recognize trade relationship between its members and the pariah states. The policy has been followed by Arnoth's successor, President Eli Goldman.
The standing policy has been criticized by the global left for being harsh and overly ideological and right-wing, and it has faced criticism by the right and center, including free trade advocates and business lobbies, for undermining a source of possible democratization (introduction of foreign trade and capitalism) of the totalitarian regime. The policy's defenders accuse its critics of being "soft on Communism" and argue that it isolates and weakens these regimes in a way trade cannot.