Pro-Saudi Think Tank Arabia Foundation Shuts Down

Here is more from The National:

The board of the Arabia Foundation, a think tank based in Washington, has decided to shut down operations immediately.

The National was first to report the decision on Tuesday, and was told by a source that the think tank’s board members decided to shut down “due to differences of opinion among its donors".

Later on Tuesday, the institute's founder Ali Shihabi confirmed the news.

“It is with regret that I confirm that the board of directors of the Arabia Foundation decided today to close down the foundation," he tweeted.

"This is due to ongoing differences among our donors that made continued operations difficult.”

The Arabia Foundation was founded in 2017, with a goal of covering Middle East politics and socio-economics, with a particular focus on the Arabian Peninsula.

The Washington Times adds more juicy gossip to the news:

Concurrent to Arabia ceasing operations is a lawsuit filed by Ola Salem by her attorneys, Gerstman Schwartz LLP, alleging sexual harassment and other types of abuse while she was employed by Mr. Shihabi.

The lawsuit alleges slander and defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional emotional distress, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, retaliation and more. Salem even alleges she was prevented from gaining employment after leaving Arabia.

Here is more from the Middle East Eye.
 
After the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a number of think tanks who had been taking Saudi money were pressured to stop accepting those funds, and those with close ties to Saudi Arabia were scrutinized closely.

Think Tank CAP Fires Two Staffers Amid Leak Investigation

Here is more from The Intercept:

The Center for American Progress fired two staffers suspected of being involved in leaking an email exchange that staffers thought reflected improper influence by the United Arab Emirates within the think tank, according to three sources with knowledge of the shake-up. Both staffers were investigated for leaking the contents of an internal email exchange to The Intercept, but neither of the former employees was The Intercept’s source.

One of those fired, Ken Gude, was a senior national security staffer. He worked at CAP since 2003 and previously served as the progressive think tank’s chief of staff.

A CAP spokesperson acknowledged two employees were fired as a result of the leak investigation, but said that the leak was not the reason they were fired: “We are not going to discuss internal personnel matters, but no one was fired at CAP for leaking or whistleblowing.” Internally, however, multiple members of CAP leadership have used the leak as the leading rationale for the firings in multiple settings, sources said.

At issue was an internal debate over how to frame CAP’s response to the murder of Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, who was dismembered by Saudi Arabian officials inside the nation’s consulate in Istanbul on October 2.

The initial draft of the CAP’s statement condemned the killing and Saudi Arabia’s role in it, calling for specific consequences. Brian Katulis, a Gulf expert at CAP, objected to the specific consequences proposed in an email exchange with other national security staffers, according to sources who described the contents of the thread to The Intercept. 

The UAE, Saudi Arabia’s closest ally, is one of the top donors to the think tank. Katulis is close with the UAE’s ambassador in Washington, Yousef Al Otaiba.

 Katulis is CAP’s link to Otaiba. As The Intercept has previously reported, Katulis worked with the diplomat to help organize UAE-sponsored trips to the wealthy Gulf country for American think tank experts, according to emails purloined from Otaiba’s Hotmail inbox.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) has experienced lots of drama the past couple years.  In April, the think tank was bashed for its response to sexual harassment claims. 

The Saudi Think Tank Whisperer

Here is more from Politico:

Even as evidence mounted last week that a Saudi Arabian hit squad had murdered and dismembered his friend, Jamal Khashoggi, Washington operative Ali Shihabi took to Twitter to do what he does best: defend the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The global outrage over Khashoggi’s murder has forced many Washington lobbyists and public relations pros to cut ties with the Saudi government. But not Shihabi, a Saudi national who may be the country’s most effective defender in the U.S. capital. Media savvy and politically shrewd, Shihabi has relationships with prominent journalists, Trump administration officials and think tank experts throughout Washington. The Saudi ambassador left Washington earlier this month and reportedly may not return, but it matters less given that many already consider Shihabi, who is close to the Saudi leadership, to be the kingdom’s unofficial envoy.

A former banker and novelist who leads the nonprofit Arabia Foundation — a think tank founded in the belief that the Saudi government was not making an effective case in the U.S. — Shihabi can often be seen on the D.C. circuit, hitting book parties hosted by the likes of the operative-hostess Juleanna Glover and dining at spots like the Monocle and the Four Seasons with such A-list media figures as Fox News host Tucker Carlson. He also hosts off-the-record dinner-discussions in Georgetown for journalists and policymakers.

He describes the foundation as an independent think tank funded by himself and other Saudi businessmen. The foundation doesn’t take Saudi government money, Shihabi says, though he acknowledges that he informed Saudi officials about his plans to establish the foundation, partly to ensure financial support from other Saudis. 

Here is a link to the Arabia Foundation.

Here is a previous Think Tank Watch post about think tanks weighing whether or not to take Saudi money.

Think Tanks Continuing to Weigh Whether to Take Saudi Money

A number of US think tanks have been distancing themselves from Saudi Arabia following the alleged murder of Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi assassination squad.

The Brookings Institution announced that it would terminate a research grant from Saudi Arabia.  The think tank will also stop taking money from Aramco Services Company "effective immediately."

The Middle East Institute (MEI), which receives money from Aramco, said it will no longer participate in New York museum exhibits and programs funded by Saudi Arabia.  MEI's Board of Governors reportedly will meet next week to make additional decisions about its Saudi funding.

Mr. Alexander Nazaryan of Yahoo News also has some interesting updates about think tank thinking on Saudi money:

The Wilson Center, where Khashoggi has been offered and accepted a position as a fellow, said that in July, it had requested funds from the Saudi government for work on an index of female leaders. “The Saudi Arabian government never confirmed that funds would be forthcoming,” said Wilson spokesman Ryan McKenna in a statement. He added that if it turns out that Khashoggi was indeed murdered by the Saudis, “we will withdraw our pending funding request.”

Not all think tanks are rushing to distance themselves from Saudi Arabia. The Center for Strategic and International Studies told Yahoo News that the think tank “has received funding from the Saudi Arabian government to conduct diplomatic training exercises,” Andrew Schwartz, the organization’s spokesman, said in a statement. “We are following the Jamal Khashoggi story closely and haven’t made any decisions.”

Several think tanks were able to say that they do not accept any Saudi government funding. These included several prominent conservative and libertarian institutions, including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute. The Council on Foreign Relations also said it did not accept funds tied to the Saudi government. 

The announcements come after a number of people started calling for think tanks to disclose their Saudi funding.

Hudson Institute chief Kenneth Weinstein notes that five years ago, the think tank's board of trustees set a policy to refuse funds from non-democratic governments.  "Yes, the policy undoubtedly cost us tens of millions of dollars but it was and is the right thing to do."

Here is a similar story about Saudi funding of think tanks by Emily Tamkin of BuzzFeed News.

To put things into perspective, Daniel Drezner notes that think tanks get relatively little money from Saudi Arabia compared to big consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.

Updates: Here is a map from the Washington Post showing Saudi Arabia's influence in Washington.

In the UK, a member of parliament is being scrutinized over his links to a Saudi think tanks, the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.

The Washington Institute says it neither solicits nor accepts financial support from any foreign source, relying solely on American donors.

A Washington Post editorial says think tanks and universities must rethink their ties with Saudi Arabia.

Brookings Terminates Research Grant From Saudi Arabia

The Brookings Institution has become the latest entity to distance itself from Saudi Arabia over the alleged killing of dissident Jamal Khashoggi.

Here is more from the Washington Post:

The Brookings Institution said Friday that it would “terminate” its “sole research grant” from Saudi Arabia, which was earmarked for an analysis of the Saudi think tank sector. “We felt we would be unable to conduct further research with this funding” given the Khashoggi case, Brookings said.

The announcement came after a number of people criticized Washington think tanks for taking Saudi money.

The top of Brookings' homepage currently features a piece by Shadi Hamid entitled "Saudi Arabia is Taunting Trump."  Here is a link to all the center-left think tank's writings on Saudi Arabia.

Brookings receives funding from a large number of foreign governments, including Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Norway, Taiwan, Australia, Denmark, Finland, European Union (EU), South Korea, Japan, France, Netherlands, and others.

After Think Tank Watch posted that Brookings receives money from Aramco Services Company, a subsidiary of Saudi Aramco which is 100% wholly-owned by the Saudi government, a Brookings spokesperson reached out to tell us it will no longer be accepting funding from Aramco "effective immediately."

In related news, the Middle East Institute (MEI) said it will no longer participate in New York museum exhibits and programs funded by Saudi Arabia.

Here is a previous piece about how a think tank speech could have helped trigger Khashoggi's apparent death.

Here is a piece from Vox entitled "How Saudi Arabia Captured Washington," which discusses Middle East funding of various Washington think tanks.

According to Ben Freeman, who directs the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative program at the Center for International Policy, registered foreign agents working on behalf of interests in Saudi Arabia contacted congressional representatives, the White House, the media, and figures at influential think tanks more than 2,500 times in 2017 alone.

Think Tank Role in Jamal Khashoggi Disappearance?

This is from the Washington Post editorial board:

After Donald Trump’s election, Mr. [Jamal] Khashoggi remarked at an event at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that the kingdom was rightfully nervous about a Trump presidency. This comment apparently angered the Saudi leadership, which hoped to ingratiate itself with the new president. Mr. Khashoggi was told to stop writing and using Twitter.

The above-mentioned event is referring to a November 15, 2016 talk sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a Washington, DC-based think tank established in 1985.

Some have reported that WINEP is essentially the think tank of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Funders of WINEP reportedly include the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Adler Family Foundation, the CMS Foundation, the Lafer Family Foundation, the James and Merryl Tisch Foundation, the Harold and Anna S. Ullian Foundation, and the Etzioni Charitable Foundation.

Update: Have Washington think tanks been silent on Khashoggi because they take so much Saudi money?

Middle East Think Tank Feud Deepens

Here is more from Politico:

The legal battle between SAPRAC, a Washington lobbying firm closely aligned with Saudi Arabia, and the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a think tank, has escalated since the think tank sued SAPRAC this summer. The suit alleged that Salman Al-Ansari, who runs SAPRAC, smeared Ali Al-Ahmed, one of the think tank’s experts, by calling him a terrorist in an interview with a blogger. SAPRAC’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the suit. The institute’s lawyers have responded by filing a legal motion of their own on Tuesday, including an affidavit signed by Al-Ahmed in which he reports living “in constant fear of being attacked, especially by people who sympathize with Saudi Arabia who will take Al-Ansari’s word as truth.”

Al-Ahmed also claims he’s been blackballed by reporters who used to interview him. “Specifically, a significant number of media outlets have stopped inviting me to appear, and those that had recorded interviews with me, such as BBC and NPR, chose not to air them after Al-Ansari made these statements,” he writes in the affidavit. “Additionally, the political newspaper called The Hill has ignored my request to become a contributing writer.” SAPRAC didn’t responded to a request for comment.

Here is a link to the Institute for Gulf Affairs' (IGA) website, and here is a link to Ali Al-Ahmed's biography.  IGA is based in Washington, DC.