Illustration: from Latuff.Seems Latuff can't help calling it as he sees it.The only difference here is that the U.S. has absolutely NO legitimate role in Syria, Syria is a client state of Russia's.Good or ill, that is the one main difference.
DRONES AND ASSASSINATIONS
By
Ralph Waldo Emerson Just a quick note: our media would have us believe that North Korea's nuclear weapons would be used against us.How?Any idea of how many satellites we have focused on them? Whether they have one fusion bomb or not, how many would they have to launch at once to get even one through our massive defenses? Perhaps Russia could accomplish it, but not North Korea.
While everybody worries about what would happen if a Republican, Trump, was elected, Jeremy gives us a great insight into what Obama, that peace-loving liberal has been up to with his drones and meetings.
Several years ago, in fact, one of Jeremy's tweets mention that was was difficult to reconcile a Nobel Peace Laureate with his own "kill list," but that is what Obama started. U.S. Citizens are not exempt from this list, either, unless, possibly, they are here in the US (but I wouldn't bet on it).
He writes for a publication called the Intercept, a newer venture that seems to be pretty forward looking and dedicated to investigative reporting.He was originally a producer on Democracy Now.
Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald weigh in on comments from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her rival, Bernie Sanders, who have both supported the use of drones. Scahill notes that while Clinton is often portrayed as a more hawkish "cruise missile liberal," Sanders also supported regime change in the 1990s. "Bernie Sanders signed onto neocon legislation that made the Iraq invasion possible by codifying into U.S. law that Saddam Hussein's regime must be overthrown," Scahill says, and "then supported the most brutal regime of economic sanctions in world history, that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMYGOODMAN:Jeremy, I want to turn to Democratic presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last year,Guardiancolumnist Owen Jones questioned her about the use of drone warfare.
OWENJONES:You're a loving parent. What would you say to the loving parents of up to 202 children who have been killed by drones in Pakistan in a program which you escalated as secretary of state?
HILLARYCLINTON:Well, I would argue with the premise, because, clearly, the efforts that were made by the United States, in cooperation with our allies in Afghanistan and certainly with the Afghan government, to prevent the threat that was in Pakistan from crossing the border, killing Afghans, killing Americans, Brits and others, was aimed at targets that had been identified and were considered to be threats. The numbers about potential civilian casualties, I take with a somewhat big grain of salt, because there has been other studies which have proven there not to have been the number of civilian casualties.
AMYGOODMAN:And last October on NBC'sMeet the Press, Chuck Todd asked Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders about his position on drones.
CHUCKTODD:What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like?
SEN.BERNIESANDERS:Well, all of that and more.
CHUCKTODD:You would—you're OK with the drone, using drones as—
SEN.BERNIESANDERS:Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a building which kills women and children—
CHUCKTODD:Sure.
SEN.BERNIESANDERS:—you know what? It not only doesn't do us—it's terrible.
CHUCKTODD:But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you think you've isolated an important terrorist?
SEN.BERNIESANDERS:Well, yes, yes, yes.
CHUCKTODD:So, that continues in a Sanders administration.
SEN.BERNIESANDERS:Yes. And look, look, we all know, you know, that there are people, as of this moment, plotting against the United States. We have got to be vigorous in protecting our country, no question about it.
CHUCKTODD:All right.
AMYGOODMAN:That's Bernie Sanders; before that, Hillary Clinton. Jeremy Scahill, please comment.
JEREMYSCAHILL:Well, I mean, you know, first of all, Hillary Clinton is one of the sort of legendary Democratic hawks in modern U.S. history. She's—you know, she is what I like to call a cruise missile liberal, where—you know, they believe in launching missiles to solve problems and show they're tough across the globe. Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, really oversaw what amounted to a paramilitarization of some of the State Department's divisions, and was the main employer of the private contractors that were working on behalf of the U.S. government, and was one of the key people in the horrid destruction that we're now—in creating the horrid destruction that we're now seeing in Libya, because of her embrace of regime change. But Hillary Clinton, on these issues, is sort of, you know, an easy target, because she is so open about her militaristic tendencies.
But Bernie Sanders, in a way, has been given a sort of pass on these issues. Recently at a Democratic town hall meeting, Bernie Sanders was asked directly about whether or not he supports the kill list. The actual term "the kill list" was used in an interview with him. And he said that the way that Obama is currently implementing it, he supports. You know, Bernie Sanders goes after Hillary Clinton all the time for being a regime change candidate—and he's right—and blasting her for her alliance with people like Henry Kissinger. But let's be clear: Bernie Sanders in the 1990s was a supporter and signed onto legislation that was authored by Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and these notorious neocons, who created the disaster of the Iraq invasion with Democratic support. Bernie Sanders signed onto the key document that—the legislation that was created as a result of the Project for a New American Century, demanding that Bill Clinton make regime change in Iraq the law of the land. Bernie Sanders then voted for that bill, which, again, was largely authored by Donald Rumsfeld and the neocons. Bernie Sanders then supported the most brutal regime of economic sanctions in world history, that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He supported the bombings in Iraq under President Clinton, under the guise of the so-called no-fly zones, the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam. Bernie Sanders was about regime change. Bernie Sanders signed onto neocon-led legislation that made the Iraq invasion possible by codifying into U.S. law that Saddam Hussein's regime must be overthrown. So, when Bernie Sanders wants to hammer away at Hillary Clinton on this, go ahead. You are 100 percent right. She's definitely the politics of empire right there. But Bernie Sanders needs to be asked about his embrace of regime change, because the policies that he supported in the 1990s were the precursor to the disastrous war in Iraq that he hammers on all the time without ever acknowledging his own role in supporting the legislation that laid the groundwork for it.
AMYGOODMAN:Glenn Greenwald, I'm going to give you the last word on this. You, too, have been writing about these candidates.
GLENNGREENWALD:It's actually kind of amazing there's nobody with a more adept skill at being able to just selectively concentrate on some things, while ignoring unpleasant things, than the Democratic partisan. I mean, Jeremy is right that Bernie Sanders has been given a pass, but that's because Democrats have largely chosen to ignore foreign policy as part of the Democratic primary, because they simply don't care. They only pretend to oppose wars when there's a Republican in office and doing so can lead to partisan gain. So Hillary goes around the world vowing to get even closer to Netanyahu, to take our relationship with Israel to the next level, refuses even to talk about Palestinians like they're human. She is responsible for one of the worst disasters of the last five or six years, which is theNATOintervention in Libya, and obviously supports President Obama's bellicose policies and wants to escalate them. She criticizes him for not being aggressive enough. And yet Democrats just simply pretend none of that exists. They don't care how many people outside the borders of the United States are killed by a Democratic president. And so Bernie has gotten a pass, unjustifiably, and hasn't been asked about the things Jeremy described, because Democrats collectively—with some exceptions, but more or less generally—have decided to ignore all of the heinous things that Democrats do outside of the borders of the United States, because paying attention to them reflects so poorly on Hillary, and they just ignore things that reflect poorly on her.
AMYGOODMAN:And Donald Trump? Today, a key primary could determine whether he gets the nod to be the Republican candidate for president, in Indiana?
GLENNGREENWALD:Well, I mean, I just think it's—in some sense, Washington, D.C.—not the United States, but Washington, D.C.—is getting exactly the election they deserve. These are the two most unpopular presidential candidates ever to run, I think, in 30 years. They have the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominees in decades. The only thing they're able to do to one another is try and be as toxic and nasty and destructive as possible, because everybody has already decided, more or less, that they're so unlikable. And so, it's going to be the opposite of an inspiring election. It's just going to be two extremely unpopular people trying to destroy the other on both a personal level, backed by huge amounts of money and serving more or less the same interests. And I think the two parties and the establishment leaders in Washington, and the people who support and run that whole system, have gotten exactly the election that they deserve. Unfortunately, Americans are going to have to suffer along with them.
AMYGOODMAN:We have to leave it there, and I want to thank you both for being with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, author with the staff ofThe InterceptofThe Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program. It's out today.
And that does it for our broadcast. I'll be speaking tonight inAtlantaat the First Iconium Baptist Church, 542 Moreland Avenue Southeast, then on to Washington state.Spokane, I'll be speaking Wednesday night,OlympiaThursday,SeattleFriday,Mount VernonSaturday, thenEugeneandPortland, Oregon, on Sunday. Check democracynow.org.
Special thanks to Denis Moynihan, Mike Burke.
The original content of this program is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
American Sniper: This movie makes lots of money and is disgusting.It has one virtue: it reminds one of why Eastwood has been despised by intelligent people ever since Dirty Harry, and why he had to make spaghetti westerns for so long.During the time of his first films, they were a reaction to civil rights, demonstrations, civic action groups, etc.Much later, he made a few worthwhile ones and we wondered why we despised him.Now we remember.Chris Hedges suggested that a better title would be KILLING RAGHEADS FOR JESUS.
Football: The deflated footballs cause quite a fuss, don't they.Why? Consider how much commercial time costs during the broadcast.Millions per 30 seconds.Actually, the New England Patriots' Quarterback (they are usually the ones with an IQ over 105) said "C'mon, guys, it's not ISIS.Nobody died."This was probably the most astute comment made about this whole situation.Millions have expressed concern, but anonymous sources tell us that 9 of the deflated and abused footballs will be represented by Gloria Allred.There is also information that the Patriots' balls were in a bathroom together and someone was in possession of them.They may have been abused by one or more accomplices.While the NFL has shown much interest in Patriot's balls, it has shown no interest in Pat Tillman being shot in the back.
Russia: As we commemorate the 70th anniversary of projected guilt, let us remember that Aushwitz was liberated by the Russians.Still, it is no reason to subject so many to Nenteyahoo's countenance at every opportunity.Putin is now the President of that country, and it is time to reflect on NATO sending so many neo-nazi troops to support the romantically patriotic figures in Kiev, Ukraine.The Two billion dollars in loan guarantees given to that neo-nazi regime seemsinopportune at a time when Russia has an enormous amount of nuclear weapons.There is no record of Putin ever being timid.Gorbochev, former president, warns that Putin could very well feel pushed into a nuclear war.Just when we all feared a slow, agonizing death from poison air, comes this good news about possible mass incineration, fast and clean!
Mideast: Reflection is rather preposterous at this time, but facts are always useful.Our liberation of Libya from its one leader, we now have a mere 1,700 leaders or factions, most of them "Islamist," which is supposedly bad for business.In Egypt, our puppet, has killed dozens of civilians since the anniversary of the original revolution.(On Twitter, #jan25 still is used for messages.)Journalists, evil folks all, are in prison, and our puppet makes agreements with Israel as if they were brothers.Israel attacked Syria and Lebanon, killing at least one Iranian general and several members of Hezbolla.Some Israelis died as well, apparently.Isis wants Jordan to release a woman who has been of death row in exchange for a Jordanian pilot and some Japanese guy.Fox disapproves which would endorse the exchange.Iran has made more progress in fighting ISIS than has the US, although Kurds have apparently won some town on the border with Turkey.The woman wanted in the Charlie Hebdo matter is in Syria and was in Turkey during the attack.Still, she is guilty because she made many phone calls before the attack, and to another woman involved as well.Michelle Obama did not cover her hair in Saudi Arabia, so people did not shakes hands with her, although they did perform a beheading on the day Obama landed, so the thing did have its upside.For more on Lebanon and Israel: http://medhajnews.com/article.php?id=NjMxNA==
Beheadings:If you ever get to hear Hayden's 85th Symphony, you are treated to Marie Antoinette's favorite symphony, ever.She was beheaded, but not for that.ISIS beheads many, but Saudi Arabia is still the leader in decapitations.Guillotine invented his machine as a "humane" measure, and certainly it is more "humane" than the 21st century methods that usually involving cutting and hacking away.It may even be more humane that or current lethal injections that sometimes string out the actual death to 45 minutes or so, writhing and screaming in pain.Still, we have gitmo, so we still may be the world's leader in painful death.On the subject, the first lady sans headgear did stand in that receiving line and no-one would shake her hand.Reports that he has been beheaded are certainly premature, most like false, but not unfounded.
Illustration:
Latuff accurately depicts our latest idea for "solving" problems in
the Mideast.
Almost
every issue involving the Mideast has already been fully discussed here, and it
is clear that no activity on the part of the West has improved any situation
there and that every intervention has merely made things worse.ISIS, or ISIL, or IS, or the Caliphate, is
just the last of a series of crises caused by some sort of prior
intervention.It seems appropriate to
review the history or support this contention before abandoning the entire
discussion forever as moronic and absurd, too absurd for this publication.The real solution to the ISIS threat is to
do nothing, but, in the words of Bin Laden, "Plant a Terrorist flag
anywhere in the East and the west will send troops and generals, spending their
reserves and depleting the energy and spirit of the American people.It will also help further recruitment."
The true
key to U.S. foreign policy, anywhere, is money.We need only ask ourselves who benefits from any of our
wars?Manufacturers of military
hardware and now software, contractors, and other corporate interests.No one is safer as a result of our actions
and no people have gotten any more liberty, fraternity, equality, or freedom
(or any other sort of ideological claptrap) as a result.No, to fully understand the key to U.S.
foreign policy one need only follow the famous advice of "deep
throat" during the Watergate investigation: "Follow the
money."Unfortunately, that is
difficult to do, exactly as all sorts of accounting becomes involved, but
estimates of over three billion dollars for the second Iraq invasion seem
common.According to a recent Harvard
study, all of it totals at least 6 Trillion.Who really know?The names of
the companies, and even the contractors (such as "Blackwater" and all
its aliases) are not even easy to identify.However, we can trace the history a bit.
Importantly,
a high-ranking Gulf State official just said "It is another demand for
money, money.They did that before and
are doing it now.We are not afraid of
ISIS.If America is afraid of ISIS,
they can pay for it themselves."It
sounds very much like the protection industry promoted by organized crime to
us.[Ed.: I grew up in Chicago, I
should know.]
We will
only go as far back as 1948, although Orientalism by Edward Said, written 30 or more years
after that summarizes very well what has happened for a long time and in more
detail than will be attempted here.
In 1948,
because Hitler was a bad guy and because enormous pressure was applied, the
State of Israel was created.Since
then, it has unilaterally expanded itself to occupy nearly all the territory
and resources in the area, killing many innocent original inhabitants of the
land and stealing their property.Many
of them still have deeds which, of course, will never be recognized.Millions of innocents have been killed and
imprisoned over the years in several wars and the United States is usually held
accountable.It also has nuclear
weapons, courtesy of the United States.
In 1953, we
did not like the elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh.He had, gasp, socialist leanings and the Dulles brothers,
especially, and our CIA installed instead the Shah.His treatment of his own people over the years reached the point
where even they could not stand him, they revolted, and wound up with the
current Ayatollah system they have now and have had since 1979 or
thereabouts.This is the result of our
efforts to intervene in the Mideast.For a while, oil was cheaper for large oil companies and Israel.
Well, where
next?All of the west seemed happy with
the Royal family running Iraq, except the people of Iraq.A revolution ensued and finally things
settled down with Saddam Hussein running things.We supported him, supplied him with weapons, and eventually had
him at war with Iran (which has never attacked another country in modern
history).Finally, the war ended, both
sides claimed victory, and we grew tired of the fact that had was helping
resistance against Israel.We therefore
(of course, we deny it, and never believed anything until it is officially
denied) said he could invade Kuwait as it was a part of the original Iraq.This started the first Gulf war.
There was
an interval of eight years of Bill Clinton where we simply bombed Iraq and
intervened, instead, in the Baltic.
Then
another Bush entered.Some time ago, we
did not like the Soviet Union helping Afghanistan, so we supported Bin Laden
and some others to throw them out.Al-Quade came out of this and started bombing here and there.Afghanistan was now ruled by the Taliban, a
group we officially do not like.Then
something happened with the towers in NY.No matter what the cause, we attacked Afghanistan where Bin Laden was,
but moved as soon as possible to attack and invade Iraq.See, Saddam was providing free education, at
home and abroad, housing at home and abroad, and aid to Palestinians who lost
their family leaders.In other words,
he was providing a humanistic example for other Arab countries.Since we were dependent on them for oil and
since they did not like this, we attacked him.Eventually, we got the current leadership and ISIS.However, in the meantime, large corporations
profited enormously, mainly from U.S. Taxpayers, but also those other, rich,
oil country families and leaders who wished to maintain their standard of
living.
Another
irritant was Quaddafi, leader of Libya, another, gasp, socialist Muslim.He had to go in the name of liberty for the
innocent people there.Oil is much
cheaper and the people, well, they have been at war with one another ever
since.Obama takes credit for both
killing Bin Laden (although no proof exists and no dialysis machine was found
in the quarters they invaded).No body
was available as he was "buried at sea."In Benghazi, which the Republicans are investigating, our
Ambassador was killed in the same manner as Quaddafi.We will spare you the ugly details.
We could go
on, but why bother?Nothing will change
unless there is enough money in it.Below is a nice interview about the money in itself and how it is
used:
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
Think Tanks as Lobbyists: Exposé Shows U.S. Groups Receive
Millions to Push Foreign Nations’ Agendas
A New York Times exposé reveals more than a
dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of
dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States
government officials. Some scholars funded by the think tanks say they faced
pressure to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing their work.
The groups named in the report include the Brookings Institution, the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council, and most of
the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including
the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway. Few of
them have registered with the Justice Department as "foreign agents"
that aim to shape policy, as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
We are joined by Brooke Williams, a contributing reporter at The New York Times
who co-wrote the new article, "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think
Tanks."
Image Credit: flickr.com/dora_bakoyannis
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in
its final form.
AMYGOODMAN:We turn now to aNew
York Timesexposéwhich finds some of the most
influential think tanks in the United States are awash in funds from foreign
governments. According to the investigation published over the weekend, quote,
"More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens
of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing
United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the
donors’ priorities."
The story is headlined "Foreign Powers
Buy Influence at Think Tanks." It reveals most of the money comes from
countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including the oil-producing
nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway. Some scholars funded by
the think tanks say they faced pressure to reach conclusions friendly to the
government financing the research. Among the organizations named in the report
are the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Atlantic Council.
For more, we’re joined by one of the article’s
authors, Brooke Williams, contributing reporter atThe New York Timeswho co-wrote the piece. She’s also an
investigative journalism fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at
Harvard University.
Brooke Williams, welcome toDemocracy Now!Talk about what you found.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Thank you for having me. Well, we found tens of millions
of dollars, as much as $92 million—and that’s a bare minimum—from foreign
governments and foreign-controlled entities to think tanks, mostly in
Washington, D.C. We also found a window into—to examine how the think tanks are
interacting with the governments. And this is something that we’ve done for the
first time. Think tanks have always—some of them have always published lists of
donors. However, we could never tell what the foreign governments were paying
for exactly, and usually not how much money they provided. We used public
records from one of the governments and provided a window into how the think
tanks were interacting. And what we found were some agreements in which the
foreign government, Norway, in particular, was explicitly asking a think tank
to approach—
AMYGOODMAN:The think tank being?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:The Center for Global Development—and to approach U.S.
policymakers with a specific objective that was in the government’s interest. And
we found that donors—
AMYGOODMAN:What were they asking for?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:They were asking for—to double spending in a foreign aid
program. And a portion—a progress report that they sent to the Norwegian
government said, "Target [group]: U.S. policy makers," and then
listed the policymakers that they would be targeting.
AMYGOODMAN:And the foreign aid money would go to where?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:The foreign aid money, it was doubling U.S. spending money
to—it’s a deforestation effort, so it’s a climate change agenda.
AMYGOODMAN:And talk about other examples that you found.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:We found letters, for instance, from think tanks such as
the Atlantic Council, and they’re on the document viewer that’s on—readers can
see on the website, in which—
AMYGOODMAN:You built the database?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:I built the database. And so, yes. And this is the first
of its kind, in which we can really track how much money. I mean, it’s coming
from all over the world, but, as you mentioned, certain areas are more heavily
involved. But we found letters, for instance, from the Atlantic Council to a
Norwegian energy minister, inviting them to attend an event and saying to the
state-owned oil company, "If you attend, you know, this will really
benefit your interests." We found in one case a Brookings scholar saying
that he would help to bring along a State Department official to a meeting, and
Norway is a major donor to Brookings.
AMYGOODMAN:Let me get—bring in Brookings’ response, who we called.
This is a message published by Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings
Institution, in response to theNew
York Timesarticle on
foreign powers buying influence at think tanks. Talbott writes, quote, "By
disregarding important facts and taking information out of context, the
reporters drew inaccurate conclusions that misrepresent the work of Brookings
and ignore the institutional safeguards we have in place to ensure complete
independence for our scholars’ research and policy recommendations." Your
response to that, Brooke Williams?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Brookings does have institutional safeguards, and we
examined them, and we included them in the article. I think it’s important to
remember, however, that even with explicit rules, there can be implicit
understandings. And as you can see in the article, we spoke with scholars who
said donations from foreign governments led to implicit agreements, and that
they would refrain from criticizing the donor governments. So even with
explicit agreements, there can be implicit agreements and pressure to
self-censor.
AMYGOODMAN:You talked about the Atlantic Council, and you feature a
photograph, in addition to in the text, of Michele Dunne, who resigned as head
of the Atlantic Council’s center for the Middle East after calling for a suspension
a military aid to Egypt in 2013. Explain what happened and what this has to do
with your central point in this article.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Well, it comes back to the idea that scholars rely on
funding from donors. And, you know, Brookings, for instance, said their senior
scholars, they have an understanding and agreement that senior scholars, even
if a donor pulls funding, will not lose their jobs because of that. Right? And
so, this goes back to safeguards in place at institutions. And in that case,
the Atlantic Council declined to comment much on what happened there, but I
think it comes back to the idea of feeling pressure to self-censor and what
might happen if a scholar were to criticize a donor government.
AMYGOODMAN:Talk about the laws in the United States, not just the
rules of these different organizations, around the issue of registering as a
lobbyist.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Right, yeah. So the law pertaining to foreign government
interests is much more strict than the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which, you
know, we know, companies register to lobby. So, it requires foreign government
interests who are attempting to influence public opinion or policy to register
as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And those filings
are extremely detailed. They contain the dates and contacts of reporters, think
tank officials, you name it. They listed the dates of contact, the purpose,
whether it was by phone or in-person meeting. And it goes back to World War II,
in an effort for the U.S. government to distinguish between Nazi Germany
propaganda and research. And so, this—
AMYGOODMAN:Do you think these think tanks should have to register as
foreign agents?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Well, what I can say is that we spoke with attorneys who
specialize in this area and examined, several times, the documents that we
obtained, the agreements between the think tanks and the foreign governments.
And the language in the documents, in these agreements, those attorneys felt,
was strong enough—they leaned back in their chairs and said, "Wow! You
know, this is explicit." Some of the documents explicitly showed how the
government was asking the think tank to influence public policy and, in some
cases, opinion.
AMYGOODMAN:You have a piece under the sub-headline "Parallels
With Lobbying." "The line between scholarly research and lobbying can
sometimes be hard to discern.
“Last year, Japan
began an effort to persuade American officials to accelerate negotiations over
a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of Japan’s
top priorities. The country already had lobbyists on retainer, from the
Washington firm of Akin Gump, but decided to embark on a broader campaign.
"Akin Gump
lobbyists approached several influential members of Congress and their staffs
... [I]n October2013,
the lawmakers established just such a group, the Friends of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership," in October of 2013. Talk about what happened from there.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:So, they established this group, and there’s an
organization called the Japan External Trade Organization. And we found, in
filings with the Department of Justice, that they had been paying the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, as well as other think tanks, for
research and consulting. And then we also documented that the product of these
seminars and groups that they held was to promote the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. Now, a member, a scholar there, ended up testifying before
Congress, promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And what this comes down to
is: Do lawmakers know? When someone from a research organization approaches
them with a policy recommendation, do they know that a foreign government has
funded that organization or, in some cases, even the policy paper itself?
AMYGOODMAN:And explain the Center for Strategic and International
Studies’ relationship with this.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Well, the Center for Strategic and International Studies
has a seminar. It’s called theJETRO-CSISseminar. And annually, they bring
together lawmakers, specifically lawmakers who are in charge of U.S. trade
policy, and Japan officials who are in charge of Japan’s trade policy,
together, funded by the Japanese government and this Japan trade organization,
to discuss U.S. policies in trade. And those policies are very important to
Japan. So, attorneys who looked at these documents, you know, that area was
more grey than perhaps the Center for Global Development and Brookings, but it
still produced questions. You know, was this lobbying? Bringing together—it was
providing access, at the very least.
AMYGOODMAN:Did you find violations of U.S. law?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:The attorneys we spoke with thought that the documents they
reviewed, that I requested and obtained from Norway, the attorneys we
interviewed believed that they—that two of the think tanks have.
AMYGOODMAN:Can you name those two think tanks?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Brookings and the Center for Global Development.
AMYGOODMAN:And so, where would that lead?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Well, it’s hard to say. The Department of Justice is in
charge of the Foreign Agent Registration Act and in charge of enforcing it. And
we’ll have to see what happens from here.
AMYGOODMAN:Well, we’ll leave it at that. I want to thank you very
much for being with us.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Thank you.
AMYGOODMAN:Brooke Williams is one of the journalists who wrote theNew York Timespiece,
"Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks." She is also an
investigative journalism fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at
Harvard University and built the database that you can see. We’ll link to theNew York Timespiece that
links to that database.
This isDemocracy Now!,
democracynow.org,The War and
Peace Report.
Illustration: Latuff accurately depicts our latest idea for "solving" problems in the Mideast.
Almost every issue involving the Mideast has already been fully discussed here, and it is clear that no activity on the part of the West has improved any situation there and that every intervention has merely made things worse.ISIS, or ISIL, or IS, or the Caliphate, is just the last of a series of crises caused by some sort of prior intervention.It seems appropriate to review the history or support this contention before abandoning the entire discussion forever as moronic and absurd, too absurd for this publication.The real solution to the ISIS threat is to do nothing, but, in the words of Bin Laden, "Plant a Terrorist flag anywhere in the East and the west will send troops and generals, spending their reserves and depleting the energy and spirit of the American people.It will also help further recruitment."
The true key to U.S. foreign policy, anywhere, is money.We need only ask ourselves who benefits from any of our wars?Manufacturers of military hardware and now software, contractors, and other corporate interests.No one is safer as a result of our actions and no people have gotten any more liberty, fraternity, equality, or freedom (or any other sort of ideological claptrap) as a result.No, to fully understand the key to U.S. foreign policy one need only follow the famous advice of "deep throat" during the Watergate investigation: "Follow the money."Unfortunately, that is difficult to do, exactly as all sorts of accounting becomes involved, but estimates of over three billion dollars for the second Iraq invasion seem common.According to a recent Harvard study, all of it totals at least 6 Billion.Who really know?The names of the companies, and even the contractors (such as "Blackwater" and all its aliases) are not even easy to identify.However, we can trace the history a bit.
Importantly, a high-ranking Gulf State official just said "It is another demand for money, money.They did that before and are doing it now.We are not afraid of ISIS.If America is afraid of ISIS, they can pay for it themselves."It sounds very much like the protection industry promoted by organized crime to us.[Ed.: I grew up in Chicago, I should know.]
We will only go as far back as 1948, although Orientalism by Edward Said, written 30 or more years after that summarizes very well what has happened for a long time and in more detail than will be attempted here.
In 1948, because Hitler was a bad guy and because enormous pressure was applied, the State of Israel was created.Since then, it has unilaterally expanded itself to occupy nearly all the territory and resources in the area, killing many innocent original inhabitants of the land and stealing their property.Many of them still have deeds which, of course, will never be recognized.Millions of innocents have been killed and imprisoned over the years in several wars and the United States is usually held accountable.It also has nuclear weapons, courtesy of the United States.
In 1953, we did not like the elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh.He had, gasp, socialist leanings and the Dulles brothers, especially, and our CIA installed instead the Shah.His treatment of his own people over the years reached the point where even they could not stand him, they revolted, and wound up with the current Ayatollah system they have now and have had since 1979 or thereabouts.This is the result of our efforts to intervene in the Mideast.For a while, oil was cheaper for large oil companies and Israel.
Well, where next?All of the west seemed happy with the Royal family running Iraq, except the people of Iraq.A revolution ensued and finally things settled down with Saddam Hussein running things.We supported him, supplied him with weapons, and eventually had him at war with Iran (which has never attacked another country in modern history).Finally, the war ended, both sides claimed victory, and we grew tired of the fact that had was helping resistance against Israel.We therefore (of course, we deny it, and never believed anything until it is officially denied) said he could invade Kuwait as it was a part of the original Iraq.This started the first Gulf war.
There was an interval of eight years of Bill Clinton where we simply bombed Iraq and intervened, instead, in the Baltic.
Then another Bush entered.Some time ago, we did not like the Soviet Union helping Afghanistan, so we supported Bin Laden and some others to throw them out.Al-Quade came out of this and started bombing here and there.Afghanistan was now ruled by the Taliban, a group we officially do not like.Then something happened with the towers in NY.No matter what the cause, we attacked Afghanistan where Bin Laden was, but moved as soon as possible to attack and invade Iraq.See, Saddam was providing free education, at home and abroad, housing at home and abroad, and aid to Palestinians who lost their family leaders.In other words, he was providing a humanistic example for other Arab countries.Since we were dependent on them for oil and since they did not like this, we attacked him.Eventually, we got the current leadership and ISIS.However, in the meantime, large corporations profited enormously, mainly from U.S. Taxpayers, but also those other, rich, oil country families and leaders who wished to maintain their standard of living.
Another irritant was Quaddafi, leader of Libya, another, gasp, socialist Muslim.He had to go in the name of liberty for the innocent people there.Oil is much cheaper and the people, well, they have been at war with one another ever since.Obama takes credit for both killing Bin Laden (although no proof exists and no dialysis machine was found in the quarters they invaded).No body was available as he was "buried at sea."In Benghazi, which the Republicans are investigating, our Ambassador was killed in the same manner as Quaddafi.We will spare you the ugly details.
We could go on, but why bother?Nothing will change unless there is enough money in it.Below is a nice interview about the money in itself and how it is used:
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
Think Tanks as Lobbyists: Exposé Shows U.S. Groups Receive Millions to Push Foreign Nations’ Agendas
A New York Times exposé reveals more than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials. Some scholars funded by the think tanks say they faced pressure to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing their work. The groups named in the report include the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council, and most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway. Few of them have registered with the Justice Department as "foreign agents" that aim to shape policy, as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We are joined by Brooke Williams, a contributing reporter at The New York Times who co-wrote the new article, "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks."
Image Credit: flickr.com/dora_bakoyannis
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMYGOODMAN:We turn now to aNew York Timesexposéwhich finds some of the most influential think tanks in the United States are awash in funds from foreign governments. According to the investigation published over the weekend, quote, "More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities."
The story is headlined "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks." It reveals most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway. Some scholars funded by the think tanks say they faced pressure to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research. Among the organizations named in the report are the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Atlantic Council.
For more, we’re joined by one of the article’s authors, Brooke Williams, contributing reporter atThe New York Timeswho co-wrote the piece. She’s also an investigative journalism fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.
Brooke Williams, welcome toDemocracy Now!Talk about what you found.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Thank you for having me. Well, we found tens of millions of dollars, as much as $92 million—and that’s a bare minimum—from foreign governments and foreign-controlled entities to think tanks, mostly in Washington, D.C. We also found a window into—to examine how the think tanks are interacting with the governments. And this is something that we’ve done for the first time. Think tanks have always—some of them have always published lists of donors. However, we could never tell what the foreign governments were paying for exactly, and usually not how much money they provided. We used public records from one of the governments and provided a window into how the think tanks were interacting. And what we found were some agreements in which the foreign government, Norway, in particular, was explicitly asking a think tank to approach—
AMYGOODMAN:The think tank being?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:The Center for Global Development—and to approach U.S. policymakers with a specific objective that was in the government’s interest. And we found that donors—
AMYGOODMAN:What were they asking for?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:They were asking for—to double spending in a foreign aid program. And a portion—a progress report that they sent to the Norwegian government said, "Target [group]: U.S. policy makers," and then listed the policymakers that they would be targeting.
AMYGOODMAN:And the foreign aid money would go to where?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:The foreign aid money, it was doubling U.S. spending money to—it’s a deforestation effort, so it’s a climate change agenda.
AMYGOODMAN:And talk about other examples that you found.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:We found letters, for instance, from think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, and they’re on the document viewer that’s on—readers can see on the website, in which—
AMYGOODMAN:You built the database?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:I built the database. And so, yes. And this is the first of its kind, in which we can really track how much money. I mean, it’s coming from all over the world, but, as you mentioned, certain areas are more heavily involved. But we found letters, for instance, from the Atlantic Council to a Norwegian energy minister, inviting them to attend an event and saying to the state-owned oil company, "If you attend, you know, this will really benefit your interests." We found in one case a Brookings scholar saying that he would help to bring along a State Department official to a meeting, and Norway is a major donor to Brookings.
AMYGOODMAN:Let me get—bring in Brookings’ response, who we called. This is a message published by Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution, in response to theNew York Timesarticle on foreign powers buying influence at think tanks. Talbott writes, quote, "By disregarding important facts and taking information out of context, the reporters drew inaccurate conclusions that misrepresent the work of Brookings and ignore the institutional safeguards we have in place to ensure complete independence for our scholars’ research and policy recommendations." Your response to that, Brooke Williams?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Brookings does have institutional safeguards, and we examined them, and we included them in the article. I think it’s important to remember, however, that even with explicit rules, there can be implicit understandings. And as you can see in the article, we spoke with scholars who said donations from foreign governments led to implicit agreements, and that they would refrain from criticizing the donor governments. So even with explicit agreements, there can be implicit agreements and pressure to self-censor.
AMYGOODMAN:You talked about the Atlantic Council, and you feature a photograph, in addition to in the text, of Michele Dunne, who resigned as head of the Atlantic Council’s center for the Middle East after calling for a suspension a military aid to Egypt in 2013. Explain what happened and what this has to do with your central point in this article.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Well, it comes back to the idea that scholars rely on funding from donors. And, you know, Brookings, for instance, said their senior scholars, they have an understanding and agreement that senior scholars, even if a donor pulls funding, will not lose their jobs because of that. Right? And so, this goes back to safeguards in place at institutions. And in that case, the Atlantic Council declined to comment much on what happened there, but I think it comes back to the idea of feeling pressure to self-censor and what might happen if a scholar were to criticize a donor government.
AMYGOODMAN:Talk about the laws in the United States, not just the rules of these different organizations, around the issue of registering as a lobbyist.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Right, yeah. So the law pertaining to foreign government interests is much more strict than the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which, you know, we know, companies register to lobby. So, it requires foreign government interests who are attempting to influence public opinion or policy to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And those filings are extremely detailed. They contain the dates and contacts of reporters, think tank officials, you name it. They listed the dates of contact, the purpose, whether it was by phone or in-person meeting. And it goes back to World War II, in an effort for the U.S. government to distinguish between Nazi Germany propaganda and research. And so, this—
AMYGOODMAN:Do you think these think tanks should have to register as foreign agents?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Well, what I can say is that we spoke with attorneys who specialize in this area and examined, several times, the documents that we obtained, the agreements between the think tanks and the foreign governments. And the language in the documents, in these agreements, those attorneys felt, was strong enough—they leaned back in their chairs and said, "Wow! You know, this is explicit." Some of the documents explicitly showed how the government was asking the think tank to influence public policy and, in some cases, opinion.
AMYGOODMAN:You have a piece under the sub-headline "Parallels With Lobbying." "The line between scholarly research and lobbying can sometimes be hard to discern.
“Last year, Japan began an effort to persuade American officials to accelerate negotiations over a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of Japan’s top priorities. The country already had lobbyists on retainer, from the Washington firm of Akin Gump, but decided to embark on a broader campaign.
"Akin Gump lobbyists approached several influential members of Congress and their staffs ... [I]n October2013, the lawmakers established just such a group, the Friends of the Trans-Pacific Partnership," in October of 2013. Talk about what happened from there.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:So, they established this group, and there’s an organization called the Japan External Trade Organization. And we found, in filings with the Department of Justice, that they had been paying the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as well as other think tanks, for research and consulting. And then we also documented that the product of these seminars and groups that they held was to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now, a member, a scholar there, ended up testifying before Congress, promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And what this comes down to is: Do lawmakers know? When someone from a research organization approaches them with a policy recommendation, do they know that a foreign government has funded that organization or, in some cases, even the policy paper itself?
AMYGOODMAN:And explain the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ relationship with this.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Well, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has a seminar. It’s called theJETRO-CSISseminar. And annually, they bring together lawmakers, specifically lawmakers who are in charge of U.S. trade policy, and Japan officials who are in charge of Japan’s trade policy, together, funded by the Japanese government and this Japan trade organization, to discuss U.S. policies in trade. And those policies are very important to Japan. So, attorneys who looked at these documents, you know, that area was more grey than perhaps the Center for Global Development and Brookings, but it still produced questions. You know, was this lobbying? Bringing together—it was providing access, at the very least.
AMYGOODMAN:Did you find violations of U.S. law?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:The attorneys we spoke with thought that the documents they reviewed, that I requested and obtained from Norway, the attorneys we interviewed believed that they—that two of the think tanks have.
AMYGOODMAN:Can you name those two think tanks?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Brookings and the Center for Global Development.
AMYGOODMAN:And so, where would that lead?
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Well, it’s hard to say. The Department of Justice is in charge of the Foreign Agent Registration Act and in charge of enforcing it. And we’ll have to see what happens from here.
AMYGOODMAN:Well, we’ll leave it at that. I want to thank you very much for being with us.
BROOKEWILLIAMS:Thank you.
AMYGOODMAN:Brooke Williams is one of the journalists who wrote theNew York Timespiece, "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks." She is also an investigative journalism fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and built the database that you can see. We’ll link to theNew York Timespiece that links to that database.
This isDemocracy Now!, democracynow.org,The War and Peace Report.
Posts
