China Specialists Say Beijing Trying to Influence US Think Tanks

Here is more from the Washington Post:

A distinguished group of China specialists who have long championed engagement with Beijing are now advocating the United States take a more skeptical view of what they see as growing Chinese efforts to undermine democratic values, including free-speech rights, both here and abroad.

“Except for Russia, no other country’s efforts to influence American politics and society is as extensive and well-funded as China’s,” the specialists say in a report to be issued Thursday by a working group convened by the Hoover Institution and the Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations.

The report finds that though the Chinese are trying to shape the agenda of U.S. think tanks, the institutions are “very resilient” in resisting. “There’s very little evidence that the Chinese are successful when they’re trying to shape think-tank scholars’ writing on China,” said Economy, director of Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

For years the Chinese have been working to gain access to US think tanks, both through legitimate funding as well as through more nefarious methods such as cyber attacks.

Update: Here is the report cited in the above-mentioned article (and full PDF version).  Here is the section specifically on think tanks.  33 scholars from think tanks, universities, foundations, and the media were part of the working group that provided input for the report.

Chinese money is flowing to both think tanks and universities.

Lobbyists Relying on Think Tanks to Develop Ties to New Lawmakers

Here is more from Roll Call:

Instead of PAC dollars, corporate interests plan to rely on individual personal donations from their executives, lobbyists and other consultants, instead of the collective contributions from corporate PACs. In addition, lobbyists will be sure to attend meet-and-greets happening over the coming days and weeks with the new members.

Some lobbyists said they also would rely on policy partnerships with think tanks, grassroots activist organizations and charities — as well as shopping op-eds focused on specific lawmakers — for entree to the newly-elected members of Congress.

Individual corporations often pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to think tanks in order to influence policy and build relations with other organizations, lawmakers, and government agencies.

Hackers Impersonating State Dept. Officials to Attack Think Tanks

Here is more from Reuters:

Hackers linked to the Russian government are impersonating U.S. State Department employees in an operation aimed at infecting computers of U.S. government agencies, think tanks and businesses, two cybersecurity firms told Reuters.

The operation, which began on Wednesday, suggests Russia is keen to resume an aggressive campaign of attacks on U.S. targets after a lull going into the Nov. 6 U.S. midterm election, in which Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives, according to CrowdStrike and FireEye Inc.

Every major think tank in the US has been hacked by foreign governments over the past several years, and many face attacks on a daily basis.

Think Tank Quickies (#336)

• Cornell cuts ties with Chinese school after crackdown.  Think tanks cutting ties next?
• Another day, another Trump official (Peter Navarro) blasting China at a think tank (CSIS).
• NYT: Why that hot new study may be flawed. 
• Businesses turning to public record requests against academic researchers to challenge work at public universities.
• Seeking work after Congress?  Sharp partisans too poisonous for think tanks?
• CFR senior fellow Max Boot explains why he left the Republican Party ("Boot now regards the Iraq war, which he giddily championed in explicitly imperialistic terms, as a mistake.") 
• The Guardian view on political dark money: think tanks must come clean.
• Russia's RT: Dirty little secret - think tanks are among top culprits in media disinformation crisis. 
• Banning civilian think tanks in China won't do any good.
• Flashback to 2006: Think tank will promote thinking.

China Closes One of Last Remaining Independent Think Tanks

Here is more from the Financial Times:

One of China’s few independent economic think tanks has been forced to cease operations in the latest sign of Beijing’s growing intolerance of dissent as economic growth slows amid an ongoing trade war with the US. 

On Monday evening local time the Beijing-based Unirule Institute of Economics announced that “in the current institutional environment in China, unless normal protection by the Constitution and laws is confirmed, Unirule . . . will cease public activities under its name temporarily”, after the business license of its affiliate company was revoked. 

Sheng Hong, the executive director of Unirule who earlier this month was prevented from leaving China to participate in a forum at Harvard University on national security grounds, said in a statement dated November 9 and published on Monday evening that the license of the company, Beijing Unirule Consulting Co, had been revoked “for the wrong purpose, based on the wrong evidence, and executed at the wrong time and place”.

Here is a previous Think Tank Watch piece about China's crackdown on Unirule.

Here is more from Reuters.

CSIS Continues to Monitor China Via Satellite

Here is more from Fox News:

China appears to have constructed a new platform at a remote part of the disputed South China Sea that could be used for military purposes, according to satellite images reviewed by a U.S. think tank on Tuesday.

The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative of Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies said the "modest new structure" appears to be anchored on Bombay Reef, and is topped by solar panels and a radome. A radome is an enclosure that protects radar equipment.

"The development drew attention given Bombay Reef’s strategic location, and the possibility that the structure’s rapid deployment could be repeated in other parts of the South China Sea," the group said in its report.

Earlier in November, CSIS used satellite images to detect secret North Korean missile sites.

Think Tanks Undergoing Fundamental Evolution

This is from David Brooks:

Washington think tanks are undergoing a fundamental evolution. A lot of them, like the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, were built to advise parties that no longer exist. They were built for a style of public debate — based on social science evidence and congressional hearings that are more than just show trials — that no longer exists. Many people at these places have discovered that they have more in common with one another than they do with the extremists on their own sides.

So suddenly there is a flurry of working together across ideological lines. Next week, for example, the group Opportunity America, with Brookings and A.E.I., will release a bipartisan agenda called “Work, Skills, Community: Restoring Opportunity for the Working Class.”

While Mr. Brooks is correct to point this out, it is also important to remember that think tanks are facing other enormous challenges, including more competition from consulting firms as well as the ever-increasing number of think tanks, and credibility issues due to funding sources.

Think Tank Quickies (#335)

• Atlantic Council's Global Energy Forum returns to Abu Dhabi in 2019. 
• Atlantic Council launches new podcast: Resilient World.
• Andrea Baertl: What makes a think tank credible?
• Hudson announces political studies' 2019 summer fellowship.
• Tracking think tank conference carpets?
• CAP: Economic development subsidies ain't all that great. 
• Joint AEI-CAP report on reforms needed to defend NATO, EU.
• Miriam Goldstein to join CAP as Director of Ocean Policy.
• CAP launches new website to track legal battles over the future of public land.
• CAP visits Puerto Rico.

CSIS Finds Secret North Korea Missile Sites

The foreign affairs think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is making major headlines around the world after finding secret North Korean missile sites.

Here is more from the New York Times:

North Korea is moving ahead with its ballistic missile program at 16 hidden bases that have been identified in new commercial satellite images, a network long known to American intelligence agencies but left undiscussed as President Trump claims to have neutralized the North’s nuclear threat.

The satellite images suggest that the North has been engaged in a great deception: It has offered to dismantle a major launching site — a step it began, then halted — while continuing to make improvements at more than a dozen others that would bolster launches of conventional and nuclear warheads.

The existence of the ballistic missile bases, which North Korea has never acknowledged, contradicts Mr. Trump’s assertion that his landmark diplomacy is leading to the elimination of a nuclear and missile program that the North had warned could devastate the United States.

 The secret ballistic missile bases were identified in a detailed study published Monday by the Beyond Parallel program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a major think tank in Washington.

The program, which focuses on the prospects of North-South integration, is led by Victor Cha, a prominent North Korea expert whom the Trump administration considered appointing as the ambassador to South Korea last year. His name was pulled back when he objected to the White House strategy for dealing with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader.

The report, which was also written with Lisa Collins, a research fellow at the center, supplemented the satellite imagery with interviews of North Korean defectors and government officials around the world.

More about the report can be found here and here.  Besides Victor Cha and Lisa Collins, the report was also co-authored by Joseph Burmudez, who is concurrently a senior fellow at CSIS, senior adviser and imagery analysts for the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK), author for IHS Markit, and publisher/editor of KPA Journal.

CSIS also uses satellite intelligence in many of its reports on China.

Here is a previous Think Tank Watch piece about the satellite imagery that CSIS uses, as well as funding for the project.

Canadian Think Tanks at Risk From Foreign Espionage

Here is more from The Globe and Mail:

Canada’s spy service is warning that Canadian research is “of interest to foreign states,” whose exploitation of such work poses potential harm to “Canada’s national interests.”

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) said on Tuesday that it routinely meets with universities to warn them of risks. The Globe and Mail reported this week that at least nine Canadian postsecondary institutions have conducted joint studies in recent years with researchers from Chinese military institutions, including the People’s Liberation Army Information Engineering University, China’s Air Defence College and the elite National University of Defense Technology.

In general, Canadian university policies require joint research to be published openly.

The collaborations, however, have raised concern that Canada’s academic establishment has become a target for Chinese intelligence-gathering, as Beijing conducts a sweeping technological modernization of its armed forces. Some Chinese defence scientists working with Canadian scholars have used the names of what appear to be non-existent civilian institutions rather than citing their military credentials in joint publications.

Think tanks all around the world have been targets of foreign espionage.  In October, US Vice President Mike Pence gave a major speech at the Hudson Institute in which he warned about Chinese espionage at think tanks.

Warning to Think Tankers: Someone May Be Impersonating You

This tweet is from Laurie Garrett, a former Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR):

WARNING someone is impersonating me on @Twitter & I have no idea how to stop them. If you see Tweets from @LaurieG70265601 that is NOT ME, though it uses my photo and bio. Somebody evil lurks.

— Laurie Garrett (@Laurie_Garrett) November 9, 2018

Think Tank Watch is aware of several other similar instances where someone was impersonating a scholar using Twitter or other platforms.

Here and here are previous Think Tank Watch pieces about fake think tanks.

There have also been instances of fake think tank documents.

Here is a recent Think Tank Watch piece about how fake Chinese think tank accounts were used for spy efforts on the French.

Think Tank Quickies (#334)

• McKinsey and BCG escorted five emissaries from the Saudi royal court to make the rounds at Washington think tanks.
• Politico: Domestic issues normally associated with Washington think tanks have been repackaged into cultural-resentment fodder.
• Watching the North Korea watchers (at think tanks).
• Think tanks unlikely to fund any work that has "income" or "wealth inequality" in its title? 
• OpenSecrets: A look at the wide-ranging group of think tanks that might wield the Koch network's greatest power.
• Legislation written by lobbyists and think tanks.
• Australian think tank releases new satellite footage showing China's "re-education" camps.
• IPF event (India): The role of think tanks.
• Group behind Steve Bannon event in Canada funds Canada's biggest right-wing think tank.
• RAND's got talent.

Think Tank: Half of Russians in London Are Spies

The neoconservative think tank Henry Jackson Society (HJS), based in London, has issued a new report entitled "Putin Sees and Hears It All: How Russia's Intelligence Agencies Menace the UK," which notes that up to a half on Russians living in London are spies.  Here are some of the findings:

• Russia’s intelligence and security services are as much as 52 times the size of their British equivalents. 

• There are up to five times the number of Russian case officers in the UK as there were in 2010.  These 200 ‘case officers’ are handling up to 500 agents. 

• Out of an estimated population of 150,000 Russian ex-pats living in London, up to half are said to be FSB, GRU, or SVR informants – potentially, some 75,000 assets. 

• As many as half of Russian Embassy diplomats are actively engaged in intelligence work, with as many – if not more – said to be working in Russia’s Trade Delegation.

Russia's Sputnik took aim at the report, calling it "ludicrous."

In 2017, The Times accused HJS of running an anti-China propaganda campaign after the Japanese embassy gave them a monthly fee of around $13,000.

Trump's Favorite Think Tank Trade Economist

President Donald Trump often cites a single source when talking about trade statistics: Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).  Now, Scott is saying that tariffs will not bring back lost jobs, a long-held belief of President Trump.  Here is more from Axios:

President Trump's trade war with China won't bring back the jobs lost from the trade deficit with China, according to Robert Scott, a senior economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, whose work Trump cited on the campaign trail and during his presidency.

Here is Scott's latest report on China, which was co-authored by Zane Mokhiber.

Here is what Robert Koopman, the chief economist at the World Trade Organization (WTO) has to say about EPI:

The EPI stuff has been off for years but they have an audience that eats it up and good marketing. During the financial crisis the trade deficit dropped like a rock and unemployment rose. It’s kind of like the confusion on why M is subtracted in the GDP equation. https://t.co/ImdRtPmKNH

— Robert Koopman (@RBKoopman) November 3, 2018

Think Tank Tweet of the Week: View of Think Tanks With Fresh Eyes

This is from Eli Lopez, Senior Editor for Global Opinions at the Washington Post:

As a new resident of D.C., I'm embarrassed to admit my surprise at the amount of vulgar propaganda operations -that go by "think tanks" - and hacks and bullshit peddlers -"analysts"- that this town pays and takes seriously

— Eli Lopez (@elopezgross) November 1, 2018

Think Tank Quickies (#333)

• Did alleged Russian spy Maria Butina spy on US think tanks while at American University?
• Heritage Foundation formally installs Barb Van Andel-Gaby as its new chairman of its Board of Trustees; names two new VPs: Thomas Binion and Andrew McIndoe.
• Hudson Inst. becomes shadow gov't, hosting US-EU-Israel talks and India-US-Japan talks.
• Russia's RT goes after AEI for free trade tweet. 
• Chinese think tank (Charhar Institute) launches National Committee for China-US Relations.
• Gov. Pete Ricketts (NE) disagrees with tax survey from think tank (Platte Inst.) he helped found.
• Pic: Penn State visits CSIS.
• Think tanks are in "The Box." 
• Heritage Foundation scholars differ on approach to birthright citizenship.
• Brookings hires Stephanie Aaronson, formerly with the US Federal Reserve Board, as VP & Director of its Economic Studies Program.

Fake Chinese Think Tank Accounts Used for Spy Efforts on French

This is from the Epoch Times:

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is trying to recruit or spy on thousands of French experts using fake LinkedIn accounts, according to Le Figaro.

Several hundred people have been compromised, the French paper reported.

Chinese agents targeted some 4,000 French individuals, including civil servants, scientists, high-level managers, and other influential figures, Le Figaro reported on Oct. 23. Of that figure, about 1,700 are employed or otherwise involved with national institutions.

The agents use fake LinkedIn accounts to present themselves as entrepreneurial representatives, think tank members, or consultants, who offer all-expenses-paid trips to China to the experts they are trying to recruit.

Here is a recent Think Tank Watch piece about Chinese think tankers being targeted by the US Department of Homeland Security.

Libertarian Think Tank Dumps Libertarianism

A libertarian think tank has decided it no longer needs libertarianism.

Here is more from Jerry Taylor, President of the Niskanen Center:

When we launched the Niskanen Center in January 2015, we happily identified ourselves as libertarians. Sure, we were heterodox libertarians, but there are many schools of libertarianism beyond those promoted by Charles Koch’s political operations. The school we identified with was a left-libertarianism concerned with social justice (a libertarian perspective that I’ve defended in debates with more orthodox libertarians here and here). That worldview lacked an institutional voice in 2015. Our ambition was to create a space for it and, in so doing, redefine what it meant to be libertarian in the 21st century.

I have abandoned that libertarian project, however, because I have come to abandon ideology. This essay is an invitation for you to do likewise — to walk out of the “clean and well-lit prison of one idea.” Ideology encourages dodgy reasoning due to what psychologists call “motivated cognition,” which is the act of deciding what you want to believe and using your reasoning power, with all its might, to get you there. Worse, it encourages fanaticism, disregard for social outcomes, and invites irresolvable philosophical disputes. It also threatens social pluralism — which is to say, it threatens freedom.

Here is what Quartz has to say about the Niskanen Center news.

Here is more about the launch of the Niskanen Center.

GMF Trying to Make Sure Georgia Stays United With West

Here is more from Axios reporter Dave Lawler:

I'm coming to you from the Republic of Georgia, where I spent the past four days as part of a German Marshall Fund delegation observing Sunday's presidential election and meeting with the leading candidates, the current president, foreign minister, speaker of parliament, and leaders in civil society, the clergy and business. What I saw and heard here will comprise the top half of today's edition.

The German Marshall Fund (GMF) recently held an event entitled "Keeping Georgia's Euroatlantic Future on Track."  GMF Senior Fellow Laura Rosenberger recently spoke about foreign election interference.

Last year, GMF, in partnership with the government of Georgia and the Heritage Foundation, held a conference marking the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the US and Georgia.

In 2012, GMF, in partnership with the Center for Independent Journalism from Romania, organized a study tour to Georgia prior to elections there.

Funding for GMF comes from a number of domestic and foreign entities, including USAID, US State Department, US Defense Department, US Mission to the European Union, NATO, the European Commission, Airbus, BP, Boeing, Daimler, Google, Exxon, Microsoft, and the governments of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Taiwan, Finland, Latvia, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

In related GMF news, Karen Kornbluh will join the think tank as director of its new technology policy program and senior fellow.  She most recently was a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and served as policy director to Barack Obama in the Senate and was ambassador to the OECD in the Obama Administration.

Also, GMF and Energy Cities just launched an 18-month transatlantic project addressing the role of cities in driving the energy transition.

Conservative Think Tanks Get Mega Millions

They may not have won Powerball of Mega Millions, but a pair of conservative think tanks is getting a huge injection of funds from generous donors.

The Heritage Foundation is getting a $43 million bequest from the estate of Judge Allison and Dorothy Rouse.  It is one of the largest gifts in the think tank's 45-year history.

Heritage is also establishing the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget from a separate $5 million grant that coincides with the sunsetting of The Grover Hermann Foundation.

The Hudson Institute is also getting a few million dollars:

Hudson Institute announced the creation of the Ravenel B. Curry III Chair to be held initially by Hudson distinguished fellow Walter Russell Mead for a five-year period. The position is made possible by a $3 million gift to the Institute by Ravenel B. Curry III.

Ravenel Curry III is the managing director and chief investment officer of Eagle Capital Management LLC. He co-founded the investment firm in 1988 with his wife, Elizabeth Curry, who passed away in 2015. Previously, Curry served as a portfolio manager at the Duke Endowment, and as a partner at H.C. Wainwright. He is a member of Hudson Institute’s Chairman’s Advisory Board and is also a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, and The New York Historical Society. 

Both Heritage and Hudson have very close ties to the Trump Administration and have played an influential role in terms of policy.

Think Tank Quickies (#332)

• The Georgetowner cover story: Think tanks - shadow governments in plain site. 
• Report from Trump's favorite think tank (Heritage Foundation) calls for a larger Navy fleet.
• WSJ editorial board: A liberal think tank (Tax Policy Center) makes the case for tax deductions for the rich. 
• Think tank ISIS: Iran was closer to nukes than we thought. 
• White nationalist Richard Spencer's wife says he repeatedly registered his think tanks to the addresses of female relatives.
• Nassim Taleb: "Someone sitting in the comfort of a think tank office (with a fridge full of yogurt drinks) dictating what aid people on the ground in Syria should receive in order to satisfy her grand principles."
• Think tank experts from Sri Lanka visit the US State Department.
• McCain Institute for International Leadership launches online ad campaign calling for a new generation of "mavericks."
• Atlantic Council partners with law firm Baker McKenzie to host 2018 Global Diversity & Inclusion Summit.
• The Palm, a swanky DC restaurant, has a picture of CSIS communications chief Andrew Schwartz on the wall (for eating their often enough).

Chinese Think Tankers Targeted by DHS

Here is more from the Washington Post:

Alarms over the souring relationship went off in Beijing this year when Department of Homeland Security agents at the San Francisco airport stopped a half-dozen senior Chinese researchers, including some employed by the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations — an influential think tank that answers to China’s intelligence agency. The agents confiscated the researchers’ laptops and phones and demanded their passwords, according to two people familiar with the incident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.

Outraged Chinese scholars suspected the searches were politically motivated and wrote to the State Department saying they would cancel future trips to the United States, according to a copy of an email from the think tank seen by The Washington Post. (The institute later resumed travel to the United States after receiving State Department assurances.)

The article notes that the Chinese have reached out to long-standing contacts at US think tanks in order to better understand the Trump Administration.  China has even dispatched a number of former government officials for "Track 2" meetings with US think tankers, but those meetings have not been very useful because "Washington's most prominent think tanks are populated by establishment figures who lack close ties to [President] Trump."

Hudson Institute China scholar Jonas Parello-Plesner recently said that CICIR is "an acknowledged part of the Chinese Ministry of State Security: the equivalent of the CIA running a front-end think tank."

Middle East Think Tanks Adapting to Trump Era

This is from a new piece by Brian Katulis, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP):

The waning focus on Iraq is just one of many shifts that have occurred among Washington think-tanks that focus on the Middle East over the past few years – and there are more profound shifts underway during the Trump administration that point to the possibility that overall policy analysis on the Middle East in the next few years may follow the same path as Iraq over the past few years.

In three key ways, Washington think-tanks that focus on the Middle East have shifted during the Trump era – and it’s important to note that some of these shifts were already in motion long before President Trump was elected.

1) A trend towards more policy advocacy rather than putting analysis first.

2) An increasing polarization and lack of dialogue among different views.

3) A growing focus on human rights, democracy, and dignity.

Iraq’s trajectory in the DC policy debate over the past decade may serve as a harbinger of things to come on Middle East policy overall in the next ten years. The declining attention in the broader political and media environment, a less rich and textured policy discussion inside government, and an increasing disinterest in wrestling with the detailed challenges – all of these factors may lead to what ultimate leads to the death of think-tanks analysis on Middle East policy in the coming years.

This prediction comes amid intense scrutiny of Middle East funding at influential US think tanks over the past several weeks.

Here is a recent Think Tank Watch post on the Saudi think tank whisperer.

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.

New Think Tank Funding Model: Charging for "Education Courses"

In a scramble for funding from as many sources as possible, think tanks are borrowing an idea from colleges and universities: charging for educational courses.

As a recent example, the Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) Aerospace Security Project is offering an "executive education course" from Nov. 7-8.  Here is more:

Understanding National Security Space is a professional development program designed to explore the technical, budgetary, and policy issues in the U.S. national security space enterprise. The course will be led by CSIS’s space security experts with guest lectures from former senior military and civilian space leaders, industry practitioners, and space security scholars.  Participants will have the opportunity to learn and network with other professionals interested in understanding the space domain, the evolution of space policy, and the future of national security space. Participants will take part in lectures and group discussions, culminating in an international space crisis tabletop exercise.

Applicants should have a demonstrated interest in international security, space policy, missile defense, or other related areas.

Designed for working professionals, Understanding National Security Space is held at CSIS’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., over the course of two days.

Tuition for the course, which includes lunches and a cocktail reception, is $3,000 per person (not including transportation or lodging).  CSIS notes that a limited amount of tuition assistance may be available for "outstanding applicants from the not-for-profit sector."

CSIS is not the only think tank offering paid courses.  The libertarian Cato Institute, for example, runs Cato University, which offers 3-day courses on various topics.  A course from Oct. 25-27 in Boston has fees ranging from $695 to $895 per person.  [One can apply for a scholarship for those courses.]

And Brookings Institution, for example, offers various programs through "Brookings Executive Education" (run jointly with Washington University in St Louis) which costs thousands of dollars to attend.  Tuition for its nine-month "Executive Fellowship Program" is $14,500.

Are Think Tanks Causing China to Lose the "Trade War"?

Here is more from the South China Morning Post:

Chinese policymakers have been left searching for answers to the trade war with the US because the domestic think tanks Beijing has called on for guidance have provided “filtered information” to avoid offending supervisors, sources close to the Chinese government and diplomatic observers said.

Beijing’s researchers also have been hamstrung by government restrictions on foreign travel that have limited the ability to devise a suitable response to the aggressive trade moves made by the administration of US President Donald Trump, the sources said.

In the six months since the US slapped punitive 25 per cent tariffs on US$50 billion of goods imported from mainland China, Beijing officials have been frustrated as the think tank experts being consulted for advice on a response only serve their backers’ interests, people involved in the consultations told the South China Morning Post.

In some cases, the experts had done insufficient research on the matter, the people said.

“Although the think tanks are all government-affiliated, their stances vary sharply,” a source said.

The article notes that in order to bolster its US research, the Chinese Ministry of Finance set up an alliance of 20 think tanks in July.  More information about that effort, called the "U.S. Research Think Tank Alliance," can be found here and here.

Think Tank Quickies (#331)

• Foreign Policy: Is US doing enough to fight Chinese influence at think tanks?
• AEI chief Arthur Brooks makes appearance in new movie (The Pursuit) coming in spring 2019.
• Brookings' new State of the Heartland Factbook 2018.
• Texas think tank seizes its Trump moment.
• The Nation: US think tanks shift ire from North Korea to South Korea.
• Think tank funding fact: Carnegie Endowment gives money to CNAS. 
• North Korea parody site: DPRK prohibits TED talks, citing their general uselessness.
• USIP hosts Iraqi think tank experts.
• Security Studies Group (SSG), a "provocative next-generation think tank."
• Forthcoming report from think tank Henry Jackson Society will show Russia has five times as many spies in Britain now than it did during the Cold War.

Brookings Lobbied for Trump-Backed Foreign Aid Bill

Here is more from the New York Times:

President Trump, seeking to counter China’s growing geopolitical influence, is embracing a major expansion of foreign aid that will bankroll infrastructure projects in Africa, Asia and the Americas — throwing his support behind an initiative he once sought to scuttle.

With little fanfare, Mr. Trump signed a bill a little over a week ago that created a new foreign aid agency — the United States International Development Finance Corporation — and gave it authority to provide $60 billion in loans, loan guarantees and insurance to companies willing to do business in developing nations.

The new $60 billion aid program was tucked into a five-year reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and its passage was the product of a quiet, bipartisan effort. It included ONE, the Brookings Institution, conservative House members like Mr. Yoho and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. It was led by Ray Washburne, the president of O.P.I.C. and a top Republican fund-raiser from Texas.

Brookings has written extensively about foreign aid and has held numerous events on the topic, including this one on the future of foreign aid.

CFR President: Think Tanks Should Refuse Chinese Money

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) President Richard Haass has just penned a piece for the Wall Street Journal saying that US think tanks should stop accepting funding from the Chinese government.  Here is more:

Strengthening controls on Chinese investment in the U.S. is also a step in the right direction. Some supply chains may need to be rerouted away from China, although such interdependence is one bulwark against conflict. Universities and think tanks should refuse to accept Chinese government funding. And if the U.S. isn’t to be left behind by Beijing’s major technology push, “Made in China 2025,” the public and private sectors will need to cooperate much more in developing critical fields such as artificial intelligence.

A number of US think tanks receive money from China, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which also gets money from Taiwan.  The Brookings Institution, which has an overseas research center in China (Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy), receives money from a number of Chinese entities/people.

Haass's statement comes on the heels of a big push to get US think tanks to stop accepting money from Saudi Arabia in light of the alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a group of Saudis.

Do liberal/progressive think tanks in the US get more Chinese money than libertarian/conservative think tanks?

Secret Think Tank Program to Train and Influence Law Clerks

Here is more from the New York Times:

The closed-door “training academy” was aimed at a select group: recent law school graduates who had secured prestigious clerkships with federal judges. It was organized by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group that has played a leading role in moving the courts to the right, and it had some unusual requirements.

“Generous donors,” the application materials said, were making “a significant financial investment in each and every attendee.” In exchange, the future law clerks would be required to promise to keep the program’s teaching materials secret and pledge not to use what they learned “for any purpose contrary to the mission or interest of the Heritage Foundation.”

The conservative legal movement has made bold moves before, and it has long cultivated law students and young lawyers, partly to ensure a deep bench of potential judicial nominees. The Heritage Foundation, along with the Federalist Society, helped compile the lists of potential Supreme Court nominees from which President Trump chose his two appointees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh. The two groups also helped identify many of the scores of Mr. Trump’s appointees to the lower federal courts.

According to the application materials, Heritage’s unnamed donors were to pay for travel expenses to Washington, hotel rooms and meals during the three-day program. The curriculum would cover, the materials said, “originalism, textualism, habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights and other substantive legal and practical subject matter.” Originalism and textualism are modes of interpreting the Constitution and statutes that are generally but not exclusively associated with conservatives.

A few hours after the New York Times published the article, Heritage announced that it was suspending the program.