truthout--2020-11-19--Biden Must Keep His Word and Allow Investigations of Trump to Proceed

A brief history of Republican presidents committing crimes and getting away with it : Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W .
Bush both got away with murder and fraud .
Each had a hand in the Iran-Contra deal that illegally sold weapons to Iran in order to illegally fund a war in Central America .
Reagan smiled and said “ I don ’ t recall , ” and got away with it .
Bush Sr. just pardoned everybody with the glad assistance of then-again-AG William Barr , and got away with it .
There were no consequences for anyone except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died of a “ brain hemorrhage ” the day after he was named by a sworn Congressional witness for being materially involved in providing arms to Nicaraguan rebels as part of the larger Iran/Contra scheme .
Cue the spooky music , fine , but that was the most convenient death in the history of the Republican Party .
I ’ m just sayin ’ .
The incoming Clinton administration waved the rancid Reagan/Bush administration off into the sunset before busying themselves by bollixing the health care reform movement for a generation .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liaison with an intern , but not for deliberately bombing water treatment facilities in Iraq ( an act of biological warfare against a civilian population ) .
And then came George W. Bush , the gold standard for modern-day war criminal presidents .
Before he was done , Bush oversaw the murder , maiming and displacement of millions of civilians overseas , the loss of thousands of American lives in those wars and right here at home , laundered trillions of taxpayer dollars into the bank accounts of friends and allies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wad of toilet paper stuck to his shoe .
Remember the “ comedy ” video of Bush looking for the ( still ) missing Iraqi WMD in the Oval Office ?
That is the distilled essence of his eight years in office .
President Barack Obama — no stranger to war crimes , he — came into office after Bush and his wreckers departed , arriving under the groaning weight of two failed wars and a shattered national economy .
Surveying these challenges , Obama decided it was better to “ look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush administration ’ s two-term smash-and-grab crime spree .
Again , there were no consequences for any of the incredible traumas Bush visited upon the nation and the rule of law .
Today , Bush enjoys the quiet life of a painter .
His muses include small dogs , himself in the shower , and the faces of the soldiers he fed into the meat-grinder of his illegal wars .
Occasionally he reappears on my television with people like Ellen DeGeneres to try and sell those soldier portraits and rehabilitate his image without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later — or 40 , if you peg it to Reagan — we are passing through a gruesome crucible , a compounding of crises and tribulations that have shaken the nation to its bones .
A quarter million people are dead in a pandemic that rages unchecked almost a year after its arrival .
Caged children at the border may never see their parents again .
Constitutional strictures are not even a speedbump to those in power .
The Treasury has been looted , again .
Hovering over it all like an orange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not hold his office if some form of justice had been visited upon the transgressions of his predecessors .
From Reagan to Bush to Bush to Trump , the absence of consequences for departing brigand presidents has led to more flagrantly corrupt and harmful behavior by the incoming ones .
Jumping from rock to rock to rock , each finds their own landing rock a little bigger , a little safer than the one before .
And so they push it , and get away with it , and here we are .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeated .
The walls of his West Wing fortress of solitude have started to buckle , as his own people have begun to reach out to President-elect Joe Biden despite Trump ’ s standing order that everyone say he won the election and nothing is real and leave me alone .
His crimes and transgressions are as vivid and visible as the daily death toll .
Sooner or later , he will be gone from the building , and the presidency… and then what ?
“ President-elect Joe Biden has privately told advisers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency to be consumed by investigations of his predecessor , ” reports NBC News .
“ Biden has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite and risk making every day of his presidency about Trump… .
They said he has specifically told advisers that he is wary of federal tax investigations of Trump or of challenging any orders Trump may issue granting immunity to members of his staff before he leaves office .
One adviser said Biden has made it clear that he ‘ just wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a far goddamned cry from the middle of last May , when the Associated Press reported that , “ Democratic candidate Joe Biden said that if he wins the presidency he would not use his power to pardon Donald Trump or stop any investigations of Trump and his associates .
‘ It is not something the president is entitled to do , to direct a prosecution or decide to drop a case , ’ Biden said Thursday on MSNBC .
‘ It ’ s a dereliction of duty.
’ ” The so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arbiter of true justice , and no one should be surprised that it lets the most powerful among us off the hook .
Even if , somehow , the most brutal court-based consequences were visited upon a Republican president , it would not upend or transform the system that created and coddled them in the first place .
Yet we also must recognize that there can be no moving on , not ever , if this hamster wheel of unaddressed Republican presidential corruption , wrongdoing and violence is not stopped .
If there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will happen again , but worse .
Imagine where we ’ d be if Trump actually liked doing , y ’ know , work .
His laziness saved us from the abyss as much as all the pushback by activists and opponents , and that is a terrifying truth .
The next iteration of Trump won ’ t be so slovenly , and that iteration is already out there , waiting for the main chance to pounce .
How that reckoning — and the substantial structural changes required to prohibit future Bush and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an open question worthy of serious debate .
In fact , we may need to think far outside the box of the court system to deliver anything resembling a national reckoning with Trumpism and , more broadly , white supremacy .
Still , there is no question that reckoning with Trump ’ s wrongdoing must happen in some way — we must not simply relegate his perpetration of mass death , dishonor and disgrace to the dustbin of history .
If I could pick just one reason why we must not simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the people in South Dakota who are dying of COVID even as they deny with their parting breath that it ’ s COVID that ’ s killing them , because Trump said it was fake .
This is happening multiple times daily across the Midwest , and the medical professionals can only hold their hands as these victims of Trump pass bewildered into whatever awaits us on that further shore .
The simple fact of this horrifies me to my marrow .
Trump , along with his congressional and media allies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions .
They did it to their own people –and to everyone else — and they are still doing it today .
COVID is not real , the election wasn ’ t real , nothing is real but that which comes from the gob of the overlord .
This is a crime so huge that it may not even technically be against the law .
What would you call it ?
First-degree murder of the truth ?
Negligent homicide of science ?
Manslaughter by misinformation ?
( As we know , some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from drone warfare to mass incarceration to lethal capitalism , are not considered crimes by the U.S .
government . )
Yet Trump did it , and his allies helped , and if there is no price paid for this — if there is no reckoning of any sort — we will never recover , and the next one will be worse for having gone to school on the unpunished Trump .
Allowing investigations would provide a space for a national truth-telling , even if many of Trump ’ s hypnotized followers will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are and will ever be unreachable , but if even a few are turned by the truth , it is a worthy endeavor .
One less person dying of COVID who won ’ t believe it ’ s COVID is a victory worth pursuing .
Consequences , of course , may not come to be penal in the end , though the Manhattan district attorney and New York State attorney general look to have a say in that .
After George W. Bush left office , the wars he started all but disappeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so viciously lied about fell down the memory hole , and the country whistled through eight relatively calm years of Obama , thinking we had dodged a bullet… until November 9 , 2016 , when that bullet caught us right between the eyes .
This can not be allowed to happen again , by whatever means suit best .
On May 15 , Joe Biden said he would not interfere with investigations into Trump .
He must keep his word on this , and he must take steps to encourage a national reckoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which we may not be able to imagine — but must endeavor to try .
Otherwise , this nation may be headed toward a future where the Trump administration might be looked back upon as “ the good old days .
”

A brief history of Republican presidents committing crimes and getting away with it:
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush both got away with murder and fraud. Each had a hand in the Iran-Contra deal that illegally sold weapons to Iran in order to illegally fund a war in Central America. Reagan smiled and said “I don’t recall,” and got away with it. Bush Sr. just pardoned everybody with the glad assistance of then-again-AG William Barr, and got away with it.
There were no consequences for anyone except C.I.A. Director Bill Casey, who died of a “brain hemorrhage” the day after he was named by a sworn Congressional witness for being materially involved in providing arms to Nicaraguan rebels as part of the larger Iran/Contra scheme. Cue the spooky music, fine, but that was the most convenient death in the history of the Republican Party. I’m just sayin’.
The incoming Clinton administration waved the rancid Reagan/Bush administration off into the sunset before busying themselves by bollixing the health care reform movement for a generation. President Clinton was eventually impeached for lying about a liaison with an intern, but not for deliberately bombing water treatment facilities in Iraq (an act of biological warfare against a civilian population).
And then came George W. Bush, the gold standard for modern-day war criminal presidents. Before he was done, Bush oversaw the murder, maiming and displacement of millions of civilians overseas, the loss of thousands of American lives in those wars and right here at home, laundered trillions of taxpayer dollars into the bank accounts of friends and allies, and treated the Constitution like it was a wad of toilet paper stuck to his shoe. Remember the “comedy” video of Bush looking for the (still) missing Iraqi WMD in the Oval Office? That is the distilled essence of his eight years in office.
President Barack Obama — no stranger to war crimes, he — came into office after Bush and his wreckers departed, arriving under the groaning weight of two failed wars and a shattered national economy. Surveying these challenges, Obama decided it was better to “look forward, not backward” regarding the Bush administration’s two-term smash-and-grab crime spree. Again, there were no consequences for any of the incredible traumas Bush visited upon the nation and the rule of law.
Today, Bush enjoys the quiet life of a painter. His muses include small dogs, himself in the shower, and the faces of the soldiers he fed into the meat-grinder of his illegal wars. Occasionally he reappears on my television with people like Ellen DeGeneres to try and sell those soldier portraits and rehabilitate his image without a scintilla of self-awareness.
Four years later — or 40, if you peg it to Reagan — we are passing through a gruesome crucible, a compounding of crises and tribulations that have shaken the nation to its bones. A quarter million people are dead in a pandemic that rages unchecked almost a year after its arrival. Caged children at the border may never see their parents again. Constitutional strictures are not even a speedbump to those in power. The Treasury has been looted, again.
From Reagan to Bush to Bush to Trump, the absence of consequences for departing brigand presidents has led to the exponential rise in criminal behavior by the incoming ones.
Hovering over it all like an orange thundercloud is Donald Trump, who would not hold his office if some form of justice had been visited upon the transgressions of his predecessors. From Reagan to Bush to Bush to Trump, the absence of consequences for departing brigand presidents has led to more flagrantly corrupt and harmful behavior by the incoming ones. Jumping from rock to rock to rock, each finds their own landing rock a little bigger, a little safer than the one before. And so they push it, and get away with it, and here we are.
Today, Donald Trump is all but defeated. The walls of his West Wing fortress of solitude have started to buckle, as his own people have begun to reach out to President-elect Joe Biden despite Trump’s standing order that everyone say he won the election and nothing is real and leave me alone. His crimes and transgressions are as vivid and visible as the daily death toll. Sooner or later, he will be gone from the building, and the presidency… and then what?
What indeed.
“President-elect Joe Biden has privately told advisers that he doesn’t want his presidency to be consumed by investigations of his predecessor,” reports NBC News. “Biden has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite and risk making every day of his presidency about Trump…. They said he has specifically told advisers that he is wary of federal tax investigations of Trump or of challenging any orders Trump may issue granting immunity to members of his staff before he leaves office. One adviser said Biden has made it clear that he ‘just wants to move on.’”
That’s a far goddamned cry from the middle of last May, when the Associated Press reported that, “Democratic candidate Joe Biden said that if he wins the presidency he would not use his power to pardon Donald Trump or stop any investigations of Trump and his associates. ‘It is not something the president is entitled to do, to direct a prosecution or decide to drop a case,’ Biden said Thursday on MSNBC. ‘It’s a dereliction of duty.’”
Trump did it, and his allies helped, and if there is no price paid for this — if there is no reckoning of sorts — we will never recover.
The so-called criminal “justice” system is no arbiter of true justice, and no one should be surprised that it lets the most powerful among us off the hook. Even if, somehow, the most brutal court-based consequences were visited upon a Republican president, it would not upend or transform the system that created and coddled them in the first place.
Yet we also must recognize that there can be no moving on, not ever, if this hamster wheel of unaddressed Republican presidential corruption, wrongdoing and violence is not stopped. If there is no reckoning, someone like Trump will happen again, but worse. Imagine where we’d be if Trump actually liked doing, y’know, work. His laziness saved us from the abyss as much as all the pushback by activists and opponents, and that is a terrifying truth. The next iteration of Trump won’t be so slovenly, and that iteration is already out there, waiting for the main chance to pounce.
How that reckoning — and the substantial structural changes required to prohibit future Bush and Trump-type presidencies — may come to pass is an open question worthy of serious debate. In fact, we may need to think far outside the box of the court system to deliver anything resembling a national reckoning with Trumpism and, more broadly, white supremacy.
Still, there is no question that reckoning with Trump’s wrongdoing must happen in some way — we must not simply relegate his perpetration of mass death, dishonor and disgrace to the dustbin of history.
If I could pick just one reason why we must not simply “move forward,” it would be the people in South Dakota who are dying of COVID even as they deny with their parting breath that it’s COVID that’s killing them, because Trump said it was fake. This is happening multiple times daily across the Midwest, and the medical professionals can only hold their hands as these victims of Trump pass bewildered into whatever awaits us on that further shore.
The simple fact of this horrifies me to my marrow. Trump, along with his congressional and media allies, did this monstrous thing to tens of millions. They did it to their own people –and to everyone else — and they are still doing it today. COVID is not real, the election wasn’t real, nothing is real but that which comes from the gob of the overlord. This is a crime so huge that it may not even technically be against the law. What would you call it? First-degree murder of the truth? Negligent homicide of science? Manslaughter by misinformation? (As we know, some of the most violent phenomena on Earth, from drone warfare to mass incarceration to lethal capitalism, are not considered crimes by the U.S. government.)
Yet Trump did it, and his allies helped, and if there is no price paid for this — if there is no reckoning of any sort — we will never recover, and the next one will be worse for having gone to school on the unpunished Trump.
Allowing investigations would provide a space for a national truth-telling, even if many of Trump’s hypnotized followers will refuse to listen. Most of them are and will ever be unreachable, but if even a few are turned by the truth, it is a worthy endeavor. One less person dying of COVID who won’t believe it’s COVID is a victory worth pursuing.
Consequences, of course, may not come to be penal in the end, though the Manhattan district attorney and New York State attorney general look to have a say in that. After George W. Bush left office, the wars he started all but disappeared from public awareness. The WMD he so viciously lied about fell down the memory hole, and the country whistled through eight relatively calm years of Obama, thinking we had dodged a bullet… until November 9, 2016, when that bullet caught us right between the eyes. This cannot be allowed to happen again, by whatever means suit best.
On May 15, Joe Biden said he would not interfere with investigations into Trump. He must keep his word on this, and he must take steps to encourage a national reckoning on a larger scale, the likes of which we may not be able to imagine — but must endeavor to try. Otherwise, this nation may be headed toward a future where the Trump administration might be looked back upon as “the good old days.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-11-19--Tyson Food Managers Allegedly Bet on How Many of Their Workers Would Get COVID

During the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic , Tyson Foods supervisors bet money on how many workers at a pork processing plant in Iowa would be infected with the lethal coronavirus , according to allegations in a wrongful death lawsuit that critics say reveals the “ breathtaking callousness ” of corporate managers who put profits over people .
“ This is depraved , ” United Farm Workers said in a Twitter thread .
More than 1,000 employees at the company ’ s facility in Waterloo — over one-third of the plant ’ s workforce — “ tested positive amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the meat-processing plant and spurred harsh condemnations from local officials who said the company had failed to provide the necessary protections for its workforce , ” the Washington Post reported Thursday .
At least five Waterloo plant employees died as a result .
Family members of Isidro Fernandez , who succumbed to the disease on April 26 , sued Tyson earlier this year , accusing the meatpacking company of “ willful and wanton disregard for workplace safety.
” “ Despite an uncontrolled Covid-19 outbreak , Tyson required its employees to work long hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleges .
“ Moreover , despite the danger of Covid-19 , Tyson failed to provide appropriate personal protective equipment and failed to implement sufficient social distancing or safety measures to protect workers from the outbreak.
” While the suit was originally filed in Iowa state court in August , “ an amended complaint with new allegations was filed on November 11 , ” the Post reported .
The Iowa Capital Dispatch detailed the startling new allegations against Tyson and managers at the Waterloo plant : • In mid-April , around the time Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plant and reported the working conditions there “ shook [ him ] to the core , ” plant manager Tom Hart organized a cash-buy-in , winner-take-all , betting pool for supervisors and managers to wager how many plant employees would test positive for Covid-19 .
• John Casey , an upper-level manager at the plant , is alleged to have explicitly directed supervisors to ignore symptoms of Covid-19 , telling them to show up to work even if they were exhibiting symptoms of the virus .
Casey reportedly referred to Covid-19 as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to worry about it because “ it ’ s not a big deal ” and “ everyone is going to get it.
” On one occasion , Casey intercepted a sick supervisor who was on his way to be tested and ordered him to get back to work , saying , “ We all have symptoms — you have a job to do.
” After one employee vomited on the production line , managers reportedly allowed the man to continue working and then return to work the next day .
• In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic spread across Iowa , managers at the Waterloo plant reportedly began avoiding the plant floor for fear of contracting the virus .
As a result , they increasingly delegated managerial authority and responsibilities to low-level supervisors who had no management training or experience .
The supervisors did not require truck drivers and subcontractors to have their temperatures checked before entering the plant .
• In March and April , plant supervisors falsely denied the existence of any confirmed cases or positive tests for Covid-19 within the plant , and allegedly told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working to ensure Americans didn ’ t go hungry as the result of a shutdown .
• Tyson paid out $ 500 “ thank you bonuses ” to employees who turned up for every scheduled shift for three months — a policy decision that allegedly incentivized sick workers to continue reporting for work .
• Tyson executives allegedly lobbied Iowa Gov .
Kim Reynolds for Covid-19 liability protections that would shield the company from lawsuits , and successfully lobbied the governor to declare that only the state government , not local governments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to the pandemic .
Critics in April , as Common Dreams reported at the time , called President Donald Trump ’ s order to keep meatpacking plants open a “ death sentence.
” This recent lawsuit filed on behalf of a deceased worker claims that managers at Tyson “ turned the risk into a game .
”

Over one-third of the workforce at the company’s facility in Waterloo tested positive amid the outbreak.
During the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, Tyson Foods supervisors bet money on how many workers at a pork processing plant in Iowa would be infected with the lethal coronavirus, according to allegations in a wrongful death lawsuit that critics say reveals the “breathtaking callousness” of corporate managers who put profits over people.
“This is depraved,” United Farm Workers said in a Twitter thread.
More than 1,000 employees at the company’s facility in Waterloo — over one-third of the plant’s workforce — “tested positive amid the outbreak, which eventually shut down the meat-processing plant and spurred harsh condemnations from local officials who said the company had failed to provide the necessary protections for its workforce,” the Washington Post reported Thursday.
At least five Waterloo plant employees died as a result.
Family members of Isidro Fernandez, who succumbed to the disease on April 26, sued Tyson earlier this year, accusing the meatpacking company of “willful and wanton disregard for workplace safety.”
“Despite an uncontrolled Covid-19 outbreak, Tyson required its employees to work long hours in cramped conditions,” the lawsuit alleges. “Moreover, despite the danger of Covid-19, Tyson failed to provide appropriate personal protective equipment and failed to implement sufficient social distancing or safety measures to protect workers from the outbreak.”
While the owner of Tyson Foods became $600 million richer during the pandemic, 11,000 of his workers got COVID-19 because they were forced back to work in unsafe and unhealthy plants as managers placed bets on how many would get sick. We must end this disgusting corporate greed. — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 19, 2020
While the suit was originally filed in Iowa state court in August, “an amended complaint with new allegations was filed on November 11,” the Post reported.
The Iowa Capital Dispatch detailed the startling new allegations against Tyson and managers at the Waterloo plant:
In mid-April, around the time Black Hawk County Sherriff Tony Thompson visited the plant and reported the working conditions there “shook [him] to the core,” plant manager Tom Hart organized a cash-buy-in, winner-take-all, betting pool for supervisors and managers to wager how many plant employees would test positive for Covid-19.
John Casey, an upper-level manager at the plant, is alleged to have explicitly directed supervisors to ignore symptoms of Covid-19, telling them to show up to work even if they were exhibiting symptoms of the virus. Casey reportedly referred to Covid-19 as the “glorified flu” and told workers not to worry about it because “it’s not a big deal” and “everyone is going to get it.” On one occasion, Casey intercepted a sick supervisor who was on his way to be tested and ordered him to get back to work, saying, “We all have symptoms — you have a job to do.” After one employee vomited on the production line, managers reportedly allowed the man to continue working and then return to work the next day.
In late March or early April, as the pandemic spread across Iowa, managers at the Waterloo plant reportedly began avoiding the plant floor for fear of contracting the virus. As a result, they increasingly delegated managerial authority and responsibilities to low-level supervisors who had no management training or experience. The supervisors did not require truck drivers and subcontractors to have their temperatures checked before entering the plant.
In March and April, plant supervisors falsely denied the existence of any confirmed cases or positive tests for Covid-19 within the plant, and allegedly told workers they had a responsibility to keep working to ensure Americans didn’t go hungry as the result of a shutdown.
Tyson paid out $500 “thank you bonuses” to employees who turned up for every scheduled shift for three months — a policy decision that allegedly incentivized sick workers to continue reporting for work.
Tyson executives allegedly lobbied Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds for Covid-19 liability protections that would shield the company from lawsuits, and successfully lobbied the governor to declare that only the state government, not local governments, had the authority to close businesses in response to the pandemic.
Critics in April, as Common Dreams reported at the time, called President Donald Trump’s order to keep meatpacking plants open a “death sentence.”
This recent lawsuit filed on behalf of a deceased worker claims that managers at Tyson “turned the risk into a game.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-19--Wayne County GOP Election Board Members Seek to Rescind Vote to Certify Results

Two Republican members of the Wayne County , Michigan , elections board are attempting to rescind their votes certifying the county ’ s ballots for the presidential election , a move which could flip the state from President-elect Joe Biden to Donald Trump .
Monica Palmer and William Hartmann , the two Republican members of the board , had originally blocked certification of votes earlier this week .
The move was decried by election observers as an attempt to undo the democratic will of voters in the county , which could potentially aid President Donald Trump ’ s dubious and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
Wayne County , which includes the city of Detroit , is largely Democratic and voted primarily for Biden .
“ Our democracy is built on respecting the will of the people when they express it at the ballot box , ” said Kristen Clarke , president and executive director of the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law .
The attempt to block the certifying vote was also criticized by some lawmakers as racist , as Wayne County ’ s population is 78 percent Black .
By refusing to certify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatening to essentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Black voters in the city and county overall .
“ A majority Black city ’ s votes don ’ t count .
Is this what they are saying ?
” Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib wrote in a tweet in response to the Republican board members ’ initial attempts to block certification of the vote .
Tlaib ’ s congressional district encompasses parts of the city of Detroit .
Biden won the state of Michigan by more than 157,000 votes .
However , if Wayne County ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flip to Trump , delivering the incumbent a victory by a margin of about 175,000 votes , as well as the state ’ s 16 Electoral College votes .
On Tuesday , the two Republicans claimed that discrepancies in poll books in the city warranted delaying certification of the county ’ s votes .
But those same concerns did not prevent the same board from certifying the result in 2016 , when Trump won the state against Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton .
It ’ s also not uncommon for poll books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of votes counted and the number of voters who signed in at the polls , especially in elections with a huge turnout .
After facing a deluge of criticism both locally and nationally , the Republican board members struck a compromise with their two Democratic counterparts on the board and voted to certify the election , in exchange for requesting through a resolution that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson conduct an audit of the county ’ s votes .
But Palmer , in an affidavit she signed on Wednesday evening , alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreeing to certify the vote .
Palmer also claimed that Democrats were reneging on enforcing the audit from Secretary Benson .
“ I rescind my prior vote to certify Wayne County elections .
I fully believe the Wayne County vote should not be certified , ” Palmer said in her affidavit .
Hartmann also signed another affidavit with similar wording .
Neither of the affidavits have the power to reverse the votes .
However , Palmer ’ s and Hartmann ’ s claims of being tricked into certifying the results in Wayne County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For starters , the resolution to ask Benson for an audit that was agreed upon by the board was non-binding , which Palmer and Hartmann would have known at the time .
Additionally , the two sought to rescind their votes without a formal request to Benson for an audit from the board .
Jonathan Kinloch , a Democratic member on the election board , said to The Washington Post that it ’ s too late for Palmer and Hartmann to rescind their votes .
He also warned that the move risked undermining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do they understand how they are making us look as a body ?
We have such an amazing and important role in the democratic process , and they ’ re turning it on its head , ” Kinloch said .

After originally blocking, then agreeing to certify the results, the two board members are trying to undo their votes.
Two Republican members of the Wayne County, Michigan, elections board are attempting to rescind their votes certifying the county’s ballots for the presidential election, a move which could flip the state from President-elect Joe Biden to Donald Trump.
Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two Republican members of the board, had originally blocked certification of votes earlier this week. The move was decried by election observers as an attempt to undo the democratic will of voters in the county, which could potentially aid President Donald Trump’s dubious and unsubstantiated challenges of fraud in the swing state.
Wayne County, which includes the city of Detroit, is largely Democratic and voted primarily for Biden.
“Our democracy is built on respecting the will of the people when they express it at the ballot box,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
The attempt to block the certifying vote was also criticized by some lawmakers as racist, as Wayne County’s population is 78 percent Black. By refusing to certify the vote, Palmer and Hartmann were threatening to essentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Black voters in the city and county overall.
“A majority Black city’s votes don’t count. Is this what they are saying?” Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib wrote in a tweet in response to the Republican board members’ initial attempts to block certification of the vote. Tlaib’s congressional district encompasses parts of the city of Detroit.
Biden won the state of Michigan by more than 157,000 votes. However, if Wayne County’s results remained uncertified, Michigan would flip to Trump, delivering the incumbent a victory by a margin of about 175,000 votes, as well as the state’s 16 Electoral College votes.
On Tuesday, the two Republicans claimed that discrepancies in poll books in the city warranted delaying certification of the county’s votes. But those same concerns did not prevent the same board from certifying the result in 2016, when Trump won the state against Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton. It’s also not uncommon for poll books to have a slight mismatch between the number of votes counted and the number of voters who signed in at the polls, especially in elections with a huge turnout.
After facing a deluge of criticism both locally and nationally, the Republican board members struck a compromise with their two Democratic counterparts on the board and voted to certify the election, in exchange for requesting through a resolution that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson conduct an audit of the county’s votes.
But Palmer, in an affidavit she signed on Wednesday evening, alleged that she and Hartmann were pressured into agreeing to certify the vote. Palmer also claimed that Democrats were reneging on enforcing the audit from Secretary Benson.
“I rescind my prior vote to certify Wayne County elections. I fully believe the Wayne County vote should not be certified,” Palmer said in her affidavit. Hartmann also signed another affidavit with similar wording. Neither of the affidavits have the power to reverse the votes.
However, Palmer’s and Hartmann’s claims of being tricked into certifying the results in Wayne County do not hold up to scrutiny. For starters, the resolution to ask Benson for an audit that was agreed upon by the board was non-binding, which Palmer and Hartmann would have known at the time. Additionally, the two sought to rescind their votes without a formal request to Benson for an audit from the board.
Jonathan Kinloch, a Democratic member on the election board, said to The Washington Post that it’s too late for Palmer and Hartmann to rescind their votes. He also warned that the move risked undermining the legitimacy of the board.
“Do they understand how they are making us look as a body? We have such an amazing and important role in the democratic process, and they’re turning it on its head,” Kinloch said.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-11-19--A Think Tank Echo Chamber Is Thirsting for a New Cold War With China

War : what is it good for ?
Apparently , in Washington ’ s world of think tanks , the answer is : the bottom line .
In fact , as the Biden presidency approaches , an era of great-power competition between the United States and China is already taken for granted inside the Washington Beltway .
Much less well known are the financial incentives that lurk behind so many of the voices clamoring for an ever-more-militarized response to China in the Pacific .
We ’ re talking about groups that carefully avoid the problems such an approach will provoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States or the planet .
A new cold war is likely to be dangerous and costly in an America gripped by a pandemic , its infrastructure weakened , and so many of its citizens in dire economic straits .
Still , for foreign lobbyists , Pentagon contractors , and Washington ’ s many influential think tanks , a “ rising China ” means only one thing : rising profits .
Defense contractors and foreign governments are spending millions of dollars annually funding establishment think tanks ( sometimes in secret ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign-policy agenda in the Biden years .
In doing so , they gain a distinctly unfair advantage when it comes to influencing that policy , especially which future tools of war this country should invest in and how it should use them .
Not surprisingly , many of the top think tank recipients of foreign funding are also top recipients of funding from this country ’ s major weapons makers .
The result : an ecosystem in which those giant outfits and some of the countries that will use their weaponry now play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very rationales for those future sales .
It ’ s a remarkably closed system that works like a dream if you happen to be a giant weapons firm or a major think tank .
Right now , that system is helping accelerate the further militarization of the whole Indo-Pacific region .
In the Pacific , Japan finds itself facing an increasingly tough set of choices when it comes to its most significant military alliance ( with the United States ) and its most important economic partnership ( with China ) .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at counterbalancing China will allow Japan to remain officially neutral , even as it reaps the benefits of both partnerships .
To walk that tightrope ( along with the defense contractors that will benefit financially from the further militarization of the region ) , Japan spends heavily to influence thinking in Washington .
Recent reports from the Center for International Policy ’ s Foreign Influence Initiative ( FITI ) , where the authors of this piece work , reveal just how countries like Japan and giant arms firms like Lockheed Martin and Boeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think tank market that ’ s hard at work creating future foreign-policy options for this country ’ s elite .
How to Make a Think Tank Think Take the prominent think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( CSIS ) , which houses programs focused on the “ China threat ” and East Asian “ security.
” Its Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative , which gets funding from the governments of Japan and the Philippines , welcomes contributions “ from all governments in Asia , as well as corporate and foundation support.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a picture of Japan as central “ to preserving the liberal international order ” in the face of the dangers of an “ increasingly assertive China.
” It also highlights that country ’ s role as Washington ’ s maritime security partner in the region .
There ’ s no question that Japan is indeed an important ally of Washington .
Still , positioning its government as a lynchpin in the international peace ( or war ) process seems a dubious proposition at best .
CSIS is anything but alone when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invest ever more in what now passes for “ security ” in the Pacific region .
A FITI report on Japanese operations in the U.S. , for instance , reveals at least 3,209 lobbying activities in 2019 alone , as various lobbyists hired by that country and registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act targeted both Congress and think tanks like CSIS on behalf of the Japanese government .
Such firms , in fact , raked in more than $ 30 million from that government last year alone .
From 2014 to 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian donor to the top 50 most influential U.S. think tanks .
The results of such investments have been obvious when it comes to both the products of those think tanks and congressional policies .
Think tank recipients of Japanese funding are numerous and , because that country is such a staunch ally of Washington , its government can be more open about its activities than is typical .
Projects like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ’ s “ China Risk and China Opportunity for the U.S.-Japan Alliance , ” funded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now the norm inside the Beltway .
You won ’ t be surprised to learn that the think tank scholars working on such projects almost inevitably end up highlighting Japan ’ s integral role in countering “ the China threat ” in the influential studies they produce .
That threat itself , of course , is rarely questioned .
Instead , its dangers and the need to confront them are invariably reinforced .
Another Carnegie Endowment study , “ Bolstering the Alliance Amid China ’ s Military Resurgence , ” is typical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filled with warnings about China ’ s growing military power — never mind that , in 2019 , the United States spent nearly triple what China did on its military , according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute .
Like so many similarly funded projects inside the Beltway , this one recommended further growth in military cooperation between the U.S. and Japan .
Important as well , it claimed , was developing “ the capability to wage combined multidomain joint operations ” which “ would require accelerating operational response times to enhance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding and , as it turns out , that foundation has taken in at least $ 825,000 from Japan and approximately the same amount from defense contractors and U.S. government sources over the past six years .
And Carnegie ’ s recommendations recently came to fruition when the Trump administration announced the second-largest sale of U.S. weaponry to Japan , worth more than $ 23 billion worth .
If the Japanese government has a stake in funding such think tanks to get what it wants , so does the defense industry .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 1 billion from the U.S. government and defense contractors over those same six years .
Such contractors alone lobby Congress to the tune of more than $ 20 million each election cycle .
Combine such sums with Japanese funding ( not to speak of the money spent by other governments that desire policy influence in Washington ) and you have a confluence of interests that propels U.S. military expenditures and the sale of weapons globally on a mind-boggling scale .
A Defense Build-Up Is the Order of the Day An April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US-Japan Defense Collaboration ” by the Atlantic Council ’ s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security offers a typical example of how such pro-militarization interests are promoted .
That report , produced in partnership with the Japanese embassy , begins with the premise that “ the United States and Japan must accelerate and intensify their long-standing military and defense-focused coordination and collaboration.
” Specifically , it urges the United States to “ take measures to incentivize Japan to work with Lockheed Martin on the F-2 replacement program , ” known as the F-3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jet Lockheed developed and produced in partnership with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for the Japanese Defense Forces . )
While the report does acknowledge its partnership with the embassy of Japan , it fails to acknowledge that Lockheed donated three quarters of a million dollars to the influential Atlantic Council between 2014 and 2019 and that Japan generally prefers to produce its own military equipment domestically .
The Atlantic Council report continues to recommend the F-3 as the proper replacement for the F-2 , “ despite political challenges , technology-transfer concerns , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved .
This recommendation comes at a time when Japan has increasingly sought to develop its own defense industry .
Generally speaking , no matter the Japanese embassy ’ s support for the Atlantic Council , that country ’ s military is eager to develop a new stealth fighter of its own without the help of either Lockheed Martin or Boeing .
While both companies wish to stay involved in the behemoth project , the Atlantic Council specifically advocates only for Lockheed , which just happens to have contributed more than three times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coffers .
A 2019 report by the Hudson Institute on the Japan-U.S. alliance echoed similar sentiments , outlining a security context in which Japan and the United States should focus continually on deterring “ aggression by China.
” To do so , the report suggested , American-made ground-launched missiles ( GCLMs ) were one of several potential weapons Japan would need in order to prepare a robust “ defense ” strategy against China .
Notably , the first American GCLM test since the United States withdrew from the Cold War era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Lockheed Martin Mark 41 Launch System and Raytheon ’ s Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile .
The Hudson Institute had not only received at least $ 270,000 from Japan between 2014 and 2018 , but also a minimum of $ 100,000 from Lockheed Martin .
In 2020 , CSIS organized an unofficial working group for industry professionals and government officials that it called the CSIS Alliance Interoperability Series to discuss the development of the future F-3 fighter jet .
While Japanese and American defense contractors fight for the revenue that will come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims that American , Japanese , and Australian industry representatives and officials will “ consider the political-military and technical issues that the F-3 debate raises.
” Such working groups are far from rare and offer think tanks incredible access to key decision-makers who often happen to be their benefactors as well .
All told , between 2014 and 2019 , CSIS received at least $ 5 million from the U.S. government and Pentagon contractors , including at least $ 400,000 from Lockheed Martin and more than $ 200,000 from Boeing .
In this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has cajoled its way into the inner circles of policy formation ( and it matters little whether we ’ re talking about the Trump administration or the future Biden one ) .
Think about it for a moment : possibly the most crucial relationship on the planet between what looks like a rising and a falling great power ( in a world that desperately needs their cooperation ) is being significantly influenced by experts and officials invested in the industry guaranteed to militarize that very relationship and create a twenty-first-century version of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , lives in something like an echo chamber that continually affirms the need for a yet greater defense build-up led by those who would gain most from it .
Japan is singled out in this analysis because the Center for International Policy ’ s Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative , where we work , had striking access to its influence data .
There are , however , many other nations with defense agendas in the Indo-Pacific region who act similarly .
As a Norwegian think tank document put it , “ Funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain such access , and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.
” A Japanese official publicly noted that such funding of U.S. think tanks “ is an investment.
” You can ’ t put it much more bluntly or accurately than that .
Foreign governments and the defense industry debate the nitty-gritty of how best to arm a region whose continued militarization is accepted as a given .
The need to stand up to the Chinese “ aggressor ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington .
They ought , of course , to be weighing and debating the entire security picture , including the potential future devastation of climate change , rather than simply piling yet more weaponry atop the outdated tools of war .
To be sure , think tanks don ’ t make U.S. foreign policy , nor do foreign lobbyists and defense contractors .
But their money , distributed in copious amounts , does buy them crucial seats at that policymaking table , while dissenters are generally left out in the cold .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ starters , a little transparency in Washington foreign-policy-making circles would be useful so that the public can be made more aware of the conflicts of interest that rule the roost when it comes to China policy .
All think tanks should be required to publicly disclose their donors and funders .
At least the Atlantic Council and CSIS report their funders by levels of donations and note certain sponsors of events or reports ( a basic level of transparency that makes a piece like this possible ) .
Such a standard of transparency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tanks , including prominent organizations like the American Enterprise Institute and the Earth Institute , neither of which releases any information about its funders , to highlight potential conflicts of interests .
Without transparency , the defense contractors and foreign governments that donate to think tanks help create foreign-policy thinking in which this world is , above all , in constant need of more weapons systems .
This only increases military tensions globally , while helping to perpetuate the interests and profits of a defense industry that is , in truth , antithetical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many of whom would prefer diplomatic , peaceful , and coordinated solutions to the challenges of a rising China .
Unfortunately , as foreign policy is now made , a rising China is also guaranteed to lift all boats ( submarines , aircraft carriers , and surface ships ) as well as fighter planes aiding the military-industrial complex on a planet increasingly at war with itself .

War: what is it good for? Apparently, in Washington’s world of think tanks, the answer is: the bottom line.
In fact, as the Biden presidency approaches, an era of great-power competition between the United States and China is already taken for granted inside the Washington Beltway. Much less well known are the financial incentives that lurk behind so many of the voices clamoring for an ever-more-militarized response to China in the Pacific. We’re talking about groups that carefully avoid the problems such an approach will provoke when it comes to the real security of the United States or the planet. A new cold war is likely to be dangerous and costly in an America gripped by a pandemic, its infrastructure weakened, and so many of its citizens in dire economic straits. Still, for foreign lobbyists, Pentagon contractors, and Washington’s many influential think tanks, a “rising China” means only one thing: rising profits.
Defense contractors and foreign governments are spending millions of dollars annually funding establishment think tanks (sometimes in secret) in ways that will help set the foreign-policy agenda in the Biden years. In doing so, they gain a distinctly unfair advantage when it comes to influencing that policy, especially which future tools of war this country should invest in and how it should use them.
Not surprisingly, many of the top think tank recipients of foreign funding are also top recipients of funding from this country’s major weapons makers. The result: an ecosystem in which those giant outfits and some of the countries that will use their weaponry now play major roles in bankrolling the creation of the very rationales for those future sales. It’s a remarkably closed system that works like a dream if you happen to be a giant weapons firm or a major think tank. Right now, that system is helping accelerate the further militarization of the whole Indo-Pacific region.
In the Pacific, Japan finds itself facing an increasingly tough set of choices when it comes to its most significant military alliance (with the United States) and its most important economic partnership (with China). A growing U.S. presence in the region aimed at counterbalancing China will allow Japan to remain officially neutral, even as it reaps the benefits of both partnerships.
To walk that tightrope (along with the defense contractors that will benefit financially from the further militarization of the region), Japan spends heavily to influence thinking in Washington. Recent reports from the Center for International Policy’s Foreign Influence Initiative (FITI), where the authors of this piece work, reveal just how countries like Japan and giant arms firms like Lockheed Martin and Boeing functionally purchase an inside track on a think tank market that’s hard at work creating future foreign-policy options for this country’s elite.
How to Make a Think Tank Think
Take the prominent think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which houses programs focused on the “China threat” and East Asian “security.” Its Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, which gets funding from the governments of Japan and the Philippines, welcomes contributions “from all governments in Asia, as well as corporate and foundation support.”
Unsurprisingly, the program also paints a picture of Japan as central “to preserving the liberal international order” in the face of the dangers of an “increasingly assertive China.” It also highlights that country’s role as Washington’s maritime security partner in the region. There’s no question that Japan is indeed an important ally of Washington. Still, positioning its government as a lynchpin in the international peace (or war) process seems a dubious proposition at best.
CSIS is anything but alone when it comes to the moneyed interests pushing Washington to invest ever more in what now passes for “security” in the Pacific region. A FITI report on Japanese operations in the U.S., for instance, reveals at least 3,209 lobbying activities in 2019 alone, as various lobbyists hired by that country and registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act targeted both Congress and think tanks like CSIS on behalf of the Japanese government. Such firms, in fact, raked in more than $30 million from that government last year alone. From 2014 to 2019, Japan was also the largest East Asian donor to the top 50 most influential U.S. think tanks. The results of such investments have been obvious when it comes to both the products of those think tanks and congressional policies.
Think tank recipients of Japanese funding are numerous and, because that country is such a staunch ally of Washington, its government can be more open about its activities than is typical. Projects like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s “China Risk and China Opportunity for the U.S.-Japan Alliance,” funded by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are now the norm inside the Beltway. You won’t be surprised to learn that the think tank scholars working on such projects almost inevitably end up highlighting Japan’s integral role in countering “the China threat” in the influential studies they produce. That threat itself, of course, is rarely questioned. Instead, its dangers and the need to confront them are invariably reinforced.
Another Carnegie Endowment study, “Bolstering the Alliance Amid China’s Military Resurgence,” is typical in that regard. It’s filled with warnings about China’s growing military power — never mind that, in 2019, the United States spent nearly triple what China did on its military, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Like so many similarly funded projects inside the Beltway, this one recommended further growth in military cooperation between the U.S. and Japan. Important as well, it claimed, was developing “the capability to wage combined multidomain joint operations” which “would require accelerating operational response times to enhance firepower.”
The Carnegie project lists its funding and, as it turns out, that foundation has taken in at least $825,000 from Japan and approximately the same amount from defense contractors and U.S. government sources over the past six years. And Carnegie’s recommendations recently came to fruition when the Trump administration announced the second-largest sale of U.S. weaponry to Japan, worth more than $23 billion worth.
If the Japanese government has a stake in funding such think tanks to get what it wants, so does the defense industry. The top 50 think tanks have received more than $1 billion from the U.S. government and defense contractors over those same six years. Such contractors alone lobby Congress to the tune of more than $20 million each election cycle. Combine such sums with Japanese funding (not to speak of the money spent by other governments that desire policy influence in Washington) and you have a confluence of interests that propels U.S. military expenditures and the sale of weapons globally on a mind-boggling scale.
A Defense Build-Up Is the Order of the Day
An April 2020 report on the “Future of US-Japan Defense Collaboration” by the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security offers a typical example of how such pro-militarization interests are promoted. That report, produced in partnership with the Japanese embassy, begins with the premise that “the United States and Japan must accelerate and intensify their long-standing military and defense-focused coordination and collaboration.”
Specifically, it urges the United States to “take measures to incentivize Japan to work with Lockheed Martin on the F-2 replacement program,” known as the F-3. (The F-2 Support Fighter is the jet Lockheed developed and produced in partnership with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for the Japanese Defense Forces.) While the report does acknowledge its partnership with the embassy of Japan, it fails to acknowledge that Lockheed donated three quarters of a million dollars to the influential Atlantic Council between 2014 and 2019 and that Japan generally prefers to produce its own military equipment domestically.
The Atlantic Council report continues to recommend the F-3 as the proper replacement for the F-2, “despite political challenges, technology-transfer concerns,” and “frustration from all parties” involved. This recommendation comes at a time when Japan has increasingly sought to develop its own defense industry. Generally speaking, no matter the Japanese embassy’s support for the Atlantic Council, that country’s military is eager to develop a new stealth fighter of its own without the help of either Lockheed Martin or Boeing. While both companies wish to stay involved in the behemoth project, the Atlantic Council specifically advocates only for Lockheed, which just happens to have contributed more than three times what Boeing did to that think tank’s coffers.
A 2019 report by the Hudson Institute on the Japan-U.S. alliance echoed similar sentiments, outlining a security context in which Japan and the United States should focus continually on deterring “aggression by China.” To do so, the report suggested, American-made ground-launched missiles (GCLMs) were one of several potential weapons Japan would need in order to prepare a robust “defense” strategy against China. Notably, the first American GCLM test since the United States withdrew from the Cold War era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019 used a Lockheed Martin Mark 41 Launch System and Raytheon’s Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile. The Hudson Institute had not only received at least $270,000 from Japan between 2014 and 2018, but also a minimum of $100,000 from Lockheed Martin.
In 2020, CSIS organized an unofficial working group for industry professionals and government officials that it called the CSIS Alliance Interoperability Series to discuss the development of the future F-3 fighter jet. While Japanese and American defense contractors fight for the revenue that will come from its production, the think tank claims that American, Japanese, and Australian industry representatives and officials will “consider the political-military and technical issues that the F-3 debate raises.” Such working groups are far from rare and offer think tanks incredible access to key decision-makers who often happen to be their benefactors as well.
All told, between 2014 and 2019, CSIS received at least $5 million from the U.S. government and Pentagon contractors, including at least $400,000 from Lockheed Martin and more than $200,000 from Boeing. In this fashion, a privileged think tank elite has cajoled its way into the inner circles of policy formation (and it matters little whether we’re talking about the Trump administration or the future Biden one). Think about it for a moment: possibly the most crucial relationship on the planet between what looks like a rising and a falling great power (in a world that desperately needs their cooperation) is being significantly influenced by experts and officials invested in the industry guaranteed to militarize that very relationship and create a twenty-first-century version of the Cold War.
Any administration, in other words, lives in something like an echo chamber that continually affirms the need for a yet greater defense build-up led by those who would gain most from it.
Profiting From Great Power Competition
Japan is singled out in this analysis because the Center for International Policy’s Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative, where we work, had striking access to its influence data. There are, however, many other nations with defense agendas in the Indo-Pacific region who act similarly. As a Norwegian think tank document put it, “Funding powerful think tanks is one way to gain such access, and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.” A Japanese official publicly noted that such funding of U.S. think tanks “is an investment.” You can’t put it much more bluntly or accurately than that.
Foreign governments and the defense industry debate the nitty-gritty of how best to arm a region whose continued militarization is accepted as a given. The need to stand up to the Chinese “aggressor” is a foregone conclusion of most thought leaders in Washington. They ought, of course, to be weighing and debating the entire security picture, including the potential future devastation of climate change, rather than simply piling yet more weaponry atop the outdated tools of war.
To be sure, think tanks don’t make U.S. foreign policy, nor do foreign lobbyists and defense contractors. But their money, distributed in copious amounts, does buy them crucial seats at that policymaking table, while dissenters are generally left out in the cold.
What’s the solution? For starters, a little transparency in Washington foreign-policy-making circles would be useful so that the public can be made more aware of the conflicts of interest that rule the roost when it comes to China policy. All think tanks should be required to publicly disclose their donors and funders. At least the Atlantic Council and CSIS report their funders by levels of donations and note certain sponsors of events or reports (a basic level of transparency that makes a piece like this possible). Such a standard of transparency should minimally be practiced by all think tanks, including prominent organizations like the American Enterprise Institute and the Earth Institute, neither of which releases any information about its funders, to highlight potential conflicts of interests.
Without transparency, the defense contractors and foreign governments that donate to think tanks help create foreign-policy thinking in which this world is, above all, in constant need of more weapons systems. This only increases military tensions globally, while helping to perpetuate the interests and profits of a defense industry that is, in truth, antithetical to the interests of most Americans, so many of whom would prefer diplomatic, peaceful, and coordinated solutions to the challenges of a rising China.
Unfortunately, as foreign policy is now made, a rising China is also guaranteed to lift all boats (submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface ships) as well as fighter planes aiding the military-industrial complex on a planet increasingly at war with itself.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.