Huawei Paid Brookings to Write Favorable Reports

The Brookings Institution just can't seem to catch a break these days.  In recent years, numerous media outlets have exposed questionable practices at the top think tank, including pay-to-play schemes, conflicts of interest, and accepting money from "unsavory" foreign entities.

Here is the latest from Isaac Stone Fish, a contributing columnist for Washington Post's Global Opinions:

In October 2017, the Brookings Institution, one of Washington’s most prestigious think tanks, published a report entitled “Benefits and Best Practices of Safe City Innovation.” The report included a case study praising the Kenyan capital Nairobi and the Chinese city of Lijiang for implementing new technology in policing.

What the report failed to mention is that the controversial Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei provided the technology for both cities, or that Huawei is one of the world’s leading sellers of Safe City equipment, which the company describes as “cutting-edge” security to improve policing and oversight. The Brookings report did, at least, disclose who provided support for the research: “Support for this publication was generously provided by Huawei.” In other words, Brookings praised Huawei’s technology in a report sponsored by Huawei.

Brookings has a conflict of interest problem with Huawei — the world’s second-largest smartphone maker, behind Samsung and ahead of Apple, and a company long seen as a threat to the United States.

Between July 2016 and June 2018, Huawei gave at least $300,000 to Brookings, via FutureWei Technologies, Inc., a U.S.-based subsidiary of the company, according to Brookings' annual reports. 

The person who wrote the Safe Cities report (along with a former Brookings intern) is Darrell M. West, Brookings vice president and founding director of its Center for Technology Innovation. Formerly a professor at Brown University, West has written 19 books, according to his LinkedIn page, and is a respected commentator on issues involving technology policy, privacy and security. Yet West’s relationship with Huawei raises questions about the independence of his scholarship — and represents a worrying example of China’s influence on one of America’s leading think tanks.

Most recently, Brookings was bashed for accepting money from Saudi Arabia, leading it to terminate certain connections to that government.

Several days ago, a group of China experts from think tanks and universities released a report saying that Beijing is trying to influence US think tanks.

Earlier this year, an Australian think tank report criticized Huawei for sponsoring overseas trips for Australian politicians.

In 2017/2018, the think tank Chatham House received between $62,000 to $125,000 from Huawei.

Pay-to-Play Scheme Rocks UK Think Tank IEA

Here is more from The Guardian about the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a UK-based think tank established in 1955 by admirers of the free-market economist Friedrich Hayek:

A rightwing thinktank has been offering potential US donors access to government ministers and civil servants as it raises cash for research to support the free-trade deals demanded by hardline Brexiters, according to an investigation.

The director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was secretly recorded telling an undercover reporter that funders could get to know ministers on first-name terms and that his organisation was in “the Brexit influencing game”.

Mark Littlewood claimed the IEA could make introductions to ministers and said the thinktank’s trade expert knew Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and Liam Fox well.

The IEA chief was also recorded suggesting potential US donors could fund and shape “substantial content” of research commissioned by the thinktank and that its findings would always support the argument for free-trade deals.

The investigation, undertaken in May and June, also revealed the thinktank had already provided access to a minister for a US organisation.

Here is more coverage from various sources:

• Think tank faces double investigation after 'cash for access' claims (The Guardian).
• Institute of Economic Affairs think tank 'offered access to ministers' (The Times).
• A hard Brexit think tank told a potential donor it could influence its research reports in exchange for funding (Unearthed). 
• Labor demands investigation into right-wing think tank over accusations it offered 'access to ministers' (Independent)
• Revealed: BP and gambling interests fund secretive free market think tank (Ecologist).
• Revealed: How the Uk's powerful right-wing think tanks and Conservative MP's work together (openDemocracy UK) 
• Revealed: IEA think tank bosses' £4.6 million for Tories (The Red Roar). 
• Casino owners donated to IEA after think tank's pro-gambling report (The Guardian).
• The IEA's "Brexit-influencing game" shows think tanks are open to abuse (NewStatesman). 
• IEA think tank faces registration as a lobbyist as government tsar opens investigation (Third Sector).
• Jersey Finance paid for IEA report rubbishing 'hotbeds of tax evasion' claims (The Guardian). 
• Channel Island banks fund IEA research defending tax havens (Unearthed).
• IEA think tank unveils pro-gambling report after being funded by casino industry players (Casino Guardian).
• Institute of Economic Affairs says it has 'no apology' to make over newspaper claims (Third Sector).
• Institute of Economic Affairs defends 'cash for access' (BBC)
• The Daily Devil's Dictionary: Think Tanks Provide "Access" (Fair Observer). 
• Why it's time for the Institute of Economic Affairs to be pulled off air (Left Foot Forward).

Here you can watch the undercover video that exposed all of this.

Here is IEA's formal response, via Mark Littlewood.

Here is a Twitter thread where IEA's news editor Kate Andrews defends her think tank.

The IEA example is one of numerous pay-to-play schemes at think tanks that has come to light over the past several years.

Stay tuned for more updates soon...

Secret $20 Million Gift Given to DC Think Tank

Here is what The Intercept is reporting:

The United Arab Emirates on pace to contribute $20 million over the course of 2016 and 2017 to the Middle East Institute, one of Washington’s leading think tanks, according to a document obtained by The Intercept. The outsized contribution, which the UAE hoped to conceal, would allow the institute, according to the agreement, to “augment its scholar roster with world class experts in order to counter the more egregious misperceptions about the region, inform U.S. government policy makers, and convene regional leaders for discreet dialogue on pressing issues.”

MEI was founded in 1946 and has long been an influential player in Washington foreign policy circles. It serves as a platform for many of the U.S.’s most influential figures, allowing them to regularly appear on cable news, author papers, host private briefings and appear on panels in between stints in government.

Think tanks in Washington play a role perhaps as important as K Street, though with far less public insight into their activity or sources of funds. While the political establishment is gripped by the question of Russia’s influence on the 2016 elections, Washington itself is awash in money from both foreign corporations and foreign governments.

The whole Intercept piece, authored by Ryan Grim, is worth reading in its entirety.  It has appearances by UAE Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, think tanker Bilal Saab, UAE-based consultant Mac McClelland Jr., MEI President Wendy Chamberlain, Egyptian activist/scholar Ramy Yaacoub, Richar Mintz of The Harbour Group, Egyptian oligarch Naguib Sawiris, MEI board chairman Richard Clarke, Managing Director of Qorvis MSLGroup Michael Petruzzello, Barry Pavel of Atlantic Council, top lobbyist for Occidental Petroleum Ian Davis, former Center for a New American Security (CNAS) staffer Andrew Exum, think tank ECSSR, and many more.

Here is a recent Think Tank Watch post on the UAE's influence at other think tanks in the United States.

Google Pays Think Tanks to Influence Policy

Here is more from The Wall Street Journal:

Over the past decade, Google has helped finance hundreds of research papers to defend against regulatory challenges of its market dominance, paying $5,000 to $400,000 for the work.

Google has funded roughly 100 academic papers on public policy matters since 2009, according to a Journal analysis of data compiled by the Campaign for Accountability, an advocacy group that has campaigned against Google and receives funds from Google's rivals, including Oracle Corp.  Most mentioned Google's funding

Another 100 or so research papers were written by authors with financing by think tanks or university research centers funded by Google and other tech firms, the data show.  Most of the papers didn't disclose the financial support by the companies, the Campaign for Accountability data show.

Google's strategic recruitment of like-minded professors is one of the tech industry's most sophisticated programs, and includes funding of conferences and research by trade groups, think tanks and consulting firms...

Here is a previous Think Tank Watch piece on Google's close ties to the think tank world.

Warning from Dennis Kucinich on Washington Think Tanks

Think tanks are taking a beating these days.  Here is the latest from former congressman Dennis Kucinich, who wrote a piece for The Nation entitled "Why Is the Foreign Policy Establishment Spoiling for More War?  Look at Their Donors.":

Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves “think tanks,” and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people.

The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry. I’m fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts, at the cost of other people’s lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.

Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by a list of the think tank’s sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of the report’s authors.

The full piece can be read at the link above, and Mr. Kucinich's website can be found here.

It is the latest in a slew of articles that have recently come out detailing and/or lamenting the rampant pay-for-play at many major think tanks.

DC Insider Speaks Candidly About Pay-for-Play at Think Tanks

Investigative reporter Ken Silverstein recently spoke with an unnamed think tank insider who has been a donor to think tanks and held multiple board positions at various think tanks.  Here are some excerpts:

He who pays the bills, calls the tune, as much as people try to deny it. There’s a vicious competition in this town for money. The foreign segment is relatively new and important. Before most of that money was Israeli but now it’s much more diverse and you begin to see more and more donors pushing for very distinct and specific causes.

The competition is getting tougher and tougher and so think tanks are becoming more and more reckless. Things are done now that would’ve been impossible in the past. The boundaries are being eliminated.

The means of payment are sophisticated. There is no straightforward bribery. Maybe you work at a think tank but you also have a position at another unrelated company or maybe you have a girlfriend who has a business that’s totally unrelated to the think tank. Maybe you have a company that holds events around town and that company gets hired and is overpaid for some unrelated work by 25%. The money doesn’t go directly to the think tank, it goes to one of these other projects and the money moves from some offshore Singapore account to that unrelated company account.

Think tanks are now weapons of personal and mass destruction. They have become part of the lobbying community; that was always the case to some extent but now they’ve become very specific lobbying weapons.

Governments and gangsters are the two biggest clients for these think tanks — not corporations but governments, and not European Union governments but Third World governments.

Wow.  That is some pretty strong language.

Mr. Silverstein said that more is coming soon from this person (will he go on record?), so we are definitely looking out for that...

In the meantime, here (and here and here and here and here and here and here) is some more from Mr. Silverstein on pay-for-play at think tanks.

Pay-for-play at think tanks has gotten a significant amount of renewed attention after a damning New York Times exposé in August unveiled fresh examples of just how rampant the problem has become.

UAE Embassy Paid CAP 700K for Favorable Think Tank Report?

Another day and another pay-for-play scheme at a Washington think tank.  The most recent example comes from LobeLog, a blog named after longtime journalist Jim Lobe.  Here are some excerpts:

...Now it turns out that the foreign ministry of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) may well have helped draft the latest Middle East report by the “liberal” Center for American Progress (CAP). (The hyper-interventionist and highly confusing Washington Post has since endorsed the report in its lead editorial Sunday.)

Eli [Clifton] made a startling discovery in plain view within the report itself. One of its co-authors, Muath Al Wari, currently a “Senior Policy Analyst with the National Security and International Policy Team” at CAP, served in the UAE Embassy in Washington from 2009 and 2011 and, more recently, at “the Supreme National Security Council of the United Arab Emirates, where he focused on regional security in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings.”

Al Wari, who incidentally authored two reports about the Islamic State (ISIS or IS) since joining CAP, helped develop the Emirates’ strategy on the Arab Spring, a movement that CAP and Katulis generally welcomed as offering an unprecedented opportunity for democratization, liberalization, and accountability throughout the region.

Tom Caiazza, associate director of media relations at CAP, told LobeLog that “The Embassy of the UAE in DC contributed $699,000 to CAP in 2016 with no contributions coming in 2015.” That contribution wasn’t disclosed in the report as posing a potential conflict of interest.

The piece, which was co-written by reporter Eli Clifton, goes on to say that the revelations raise serious questions about how much financial and other contributions by certain countries are influencing think tanks.

Needless to say, the UAE and numerous other countries have collectively donated millions of dollars to Washington's most powerful think tanks over the years and have strong relations with top think tank chiefs.

The above-mentioned CAP report was released just as think tanks have begun to ramp up production of policy papers meant to influence the new administration.

One thing is clear: The media needs to do a better job in citing and referencing think tanks and think tank scholars.

More on the CAP report can be found from The Intercept's Zaid Jilani in a piece entitled "At Hillary Clinton's Favorite Think Tank, a Doubling Down on Anti-Iran, Pro-Saudi Policy."  Jim Lobe also wrote a previous piece entitled "For the Middle East, It's the Center for American Regress."

More on the funding of think tanks by Gulf countries can be found here (via Quorum Centre).  More on the rampant pay-for-play culture at think tanks can be found here.