thenation--2020-11-20--Representative Ilhan Omar: ‘I Hope President Biden Seizes This Opportunity.’

This month , we begin the transition away from a Trump era and toward a new presidency based on peace and cooperation .
There is no area where this renewed vision is needed more than foreign policy .
Trump has taunted , mocked , and burned bridges with our allies , while simultaneously cozying up to some of the most brutal dictatorial regimes around the world—especially those in the oil-rich Middle East .
The damage done by the Trump administration runs deep , and it will take hard work and a clear understanding of the extent of the damage to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driven by the Executive Branch , President Biden has a tremendous opportunity to reorient our foreign policy in the region .
Trump began his presidency by backing out of the Iran nuclear deal , which had been a major feat in diplomacy with buy-in from all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China , France , Russia , the United Kingdom , the United States—plus Germany and Iran .
The deal was not only notable for the countries that it brought to the table , but for what it prevented : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States and risk a global nuclear war .
Nearly every action taken under President Trump has made armed conflict more instead of less likely .
Trump imposed crippling sanction after crippling sanction on the Iranian people—depriving them of much-needed medical supplies during a pandemic and further tightening the brutal authoritarian regime ’ s grip on power .
He ordered the assassination of an Iranian commander—risking all-out war—earlier this year .
As a result of these actions , Iran finally backed out of the nuclear pact that Trump himself had torn up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uranium than would have been permitted under the agreement .
Meanwhile , Trump has cozied up to some of the most notorious human rights abusers in the world , including Saudi Arabia , a regime responsible for some of the worst atrocities of our young century .
Under absolute monarch Mohamad bin Salman ( “ MBS ” ) , Saudi Arabia regularly imprisons , tortures , and kills advocates for human rights and political reform in their own country—especially women ’ s rights advocates .
Using US weapons , Saudi Arabia has bombed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of Yemeni civilians in its war in Yemen .
After resolutions to end US arms sales to Saudi Arabia passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities , Trump vetoed all of them .
When MBS was linked to the murder of exiled Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018 , Trump bragged that he “ saved his ass.
” But the shameless celebration of human rights abuses didn ’ t end with Saudi Arabia .
In the run-up to the election , Trump brokered so-called “ peace deals ” between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bahrain , Sudan , and Israel .
Besides the very well-documented war crimes in Yemen , the UAE has also been credibly accused of committing war crimes in Libya .
It is also reportedly paying for child soldiers from the same militia that committed the Darfur genocide , badly undercutting the transition to democracy in Sudan .
Bahrain is a brutal dictatorship that summarily executes political dissidents and protesters , including religious leaders ; routinely uses torture and arbitrary detention ; and targets human rights defenders and women .
Are these the regimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , these aren ’ t peace deals as much as they ’ re arms sale deals to human rights abusers .
And they ’ re less about normalizing relations with Israel than they are about forming military alliances against Iran .
Proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran continue to rage in Yemen , Syria , and , to some extent , Libya .
And these alliances only further align the United States and Israel with the Gulf states in these conflicts .
Soon after the UAE deal went through , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms sales to the UAE , which the administration admitted was linked to the deal .
( I introduced resolutions this week to ban these sales . )
And we must ask : What do these agreements mean to the millions of Palestinians who continue to live under Israeli military occupation ?
Rather than make statehood or self-determination more likely , they have normalized the occupation and made real peace for Israelis and Palestinians increasingly unlikely .
In exchange for recognition , Israel supposedly agreed to halt its planned annexation of Palestinian land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of State Mike Pompeo visited an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank and ordered that imports from these settlements be labeled “ Products of Israel , ” suggesting that de facto annexation will move forward apace .
The autocrats in the Gulf seem to be OK with this arrangement .
As former director of the US Office of Israeli human rights group B ’ Tselem Mitchell Plitnick wrote , “ The motivations of the Gulf states are as clear as they are indifferent to the concerns of the Palestinians.
” President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
Instead of siding with one group of dictators over another , we should position ourselves at an equal distance from both , allowing ourselves to be honest brokers , protecting our national security and interests while promoting human rights and democracy .
We can hold Iran accountable for its human rights violations while also holding Saudi Arabia , Yemen , and the UAE accountable .
This applies to the occupation as well .
Ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians runs counter to our most basic values .
Moreover , it threatens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure than Trump ’ s former defense secretary said that the United States pays “ a military price every day ” for our role in perpetuating the occupation .
As I have said before , we must reinsert the call for a two-state solution with full human rights and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians back into the public debate with urgency .
More broadly , we must recognize that keeping tens of thousands of troops in the region is a failed endeavor .
When people ’ s only interaction with the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military presence , they see us as an imperialist occupying force .
It also sends a signal to the rest of the world that we care more about material interests like oil than we do about democracy or human rights .
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reorient our foreign policy away from shortsighted military alliances and toward justice .
We can create an America that means what it says when we claim to stand for human rights and democracy .
An end to arms sales to dictators .
An end to collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for multilateralism and accountability .
I hope President Biden seizes this opportunity .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
This month, we begin the transition away from a Trump era and toward a new presidency based on peace and cooperation. There is no area where this renewed vision is needed more than foreign policy. Trump has taunted, mocked, and burned bridges with our allies, while simultaneously cozying up to some of the most brutal dictatorial regimes around the world—especially those in the oil-rich Middle East. The damage done by the Trump administration runs deep, and it will take hard work and a clear understanding of the extent of the damage to fix it. With foreign policy primarily driven by the Executive Branch, President Biden has a tremendous opportunity to reorient our foreign policy in the region.
Trump began his presidency by backing out of the Iran nuclear deal, which had been a major feat in diplomacy with buy-in from all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States—plus Germany and Iran. The deal was not only notable for the countries that it brought to the table, but for what it prevented: a nuclear-armed Iran that could threaten the United States and risk a global nuclear war.
Nearly every action taken under President Trump has made armed conflict more instead of less likely. Trump imposed crippling sanction after crippling sanction on the Iranian people—depriving them of much-needed medical supplies during a pandemic and further tightening the brutal authoritarian regime’s grip on power. He ordered the assassination of an Iranian commander—risking all-out war—earlier this year. As a result of these actions, Iran finally backed out of the nuclear pact that Trump himself had torn up in 2018—and now has 12 times more enriched uranium than would have been permitted under the agreement.
Meanwhile, Trump has cozied up to some of the most notorious human rights abusers in the world, including Saudi Arabia, a regime responsible for some of the worst atrocities of our young century. Under absolute monarch Mohamad bin Salman (“MBS”), Saudi Arabia regularly imprisons, tortures, and kills advocates for human rights and political reform in their own country—especially women’s rights advocates. Using US weapons, Saudi Arabia has bombed, blockaded, starved, and slaughtered thousands of Yemeni civilians in its war in Yemen. After resolutions to end US arms sales to Saudi Arabia passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities, Trump vetoed all of them. When MBS was linked to the murder of exiled Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018, Trump bragged that he “saved his ass.” Current Issue View our current issue
But the shameless celebration of human rights abuses didn’t end with Saudi Arabia. In the run-up to the election, Trump brokered so-called “peace deals” between the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Israel. Besides the very well-documented war crimes in Yemen, the UAE has also been credibly accused of committing war crimes in Libya. It is also reportedly paying for child soldiers from the same militia that committed the Darfur genocide, badly undercutting the transition to democracy in Sudan. Bahrain is a brutal dictatorship that summarily executes political dissidents and protesters, including religious leaders; routinely uses torture and arbitrary detention; and targets human rights defenders and women. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Are these the regimes we want to be empowering?
In truth, these aren’t peace deals as much as they’re arms sale deals to human rights abusers. And they’re less about normalizing relations with Israel than they are about forming military alliances against Iran. Proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran continue to rage in Yemen, Syria, and, to some extent, Libya. And these alliances only further align the United States and Israel with the Gulf states in these conflicts. Soon after the UAE deal went through, Trump proposed a staggering $23 billion in arms sales to the UAE, which the administration admitted was linked to the deal. (I introduced resolutions this week to ban these sales.) A New World Reimagining American Foreign Policy Andrew J. Bacevich
And we must ask: What do these agreements mean to the millions of Palestinians who continue to live under Israeli military occupation? Rather than make statehood or self-determination more likely, they have normalized the occupation and made real peace for Israelis and Palestinians increasingly unlikely. In exchange for recognition, Israel supposedly agreed to halt its planned annexation of Palestinian land. But just this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank and ordered that imports from these settlements be labeled “Products of Israel,” suggesting that de facto annexation will move forward apace. The autocrats in the Gulf seem to be OK with this arrangement. As former director of the US Office of Israeli human rights group B’Tselem Mitchell Plitnick wrote, “The motivations of the Gulf states are as clear as they are indifferent to the concerns of the Palestinians.”
President Biden has a tremendous opportunity to reverse this. Instead of siding with one group of dictators over another, we should position ourselves at an equal distance from both, allowing ourselves to be honest brokers, protecting our national security and interests while promoting human rights and democracy. We can hold Iran accountable for its human rights violations while also holding Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the UAE accountable.
This applies to the occupation as well. Ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians runs counter to our most basic values. Moreover, it threatens our national security. No less a figure than Trump’s former defense secretary said that the United States pays “a military price every day” for our role in perpetuating the occupation. As I have said before, we must reinsert the call for a two-state solution with full human rights and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians back into the public debate with urgency.
More broadly, we must recognize that keeping tens of thousands of troops in the region is a failed endeavor. When people’s only interaction with the United States is through weapons sales and our military presence, they see us as an imperialist occupying force. It also sends a signal to the rest of the world that we care more about material interests like oil than we do about democracy or human rights.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reorient our foreign policy away from shortsighted military alliances and toward justice. We can create an America that means what it says when we claim to stand for human rights and democracy. An end to arms sales to dictators. An end to collective punishment of innocent civilians. And renewed support for multilateralism and accountability. I hope President Biden seizes this opportunity.


thenation--2020-11-20--The GOP Is in a State of Terminal Decay

The GOP Is in a State of Terminal Decay

More than two weeks after the election , Donald Trump is showing no signs of recognizing Joe Biden ’ s win .
To the contrary , this week he fired Chris Krebs , the national security official who has spent much of the past several months working on election security issues and , post-election , debunking Trump ’ s conspiracy claims .
The tweets in which Trump announced Krebs ’ s firing were so misleading that Twitter flagged them , disputing Trump ’ s claim that the election had been rigged against him .
Meanwhile , the General Services Administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving forward .
In the race for unadulterated political cowardice and buffoonery , the GSA ’ s Emily Murphy is surely a front-runner at this point .
She will , I sincerely hope , have to live the rest of her life being made constantly aware of the fact that she , out of fear of becoming the butt of Trump ’ s Twitter trolling , collaborated in a fascist attempt to demolish the results of an election in which more Americans participated than ever before .
This week , news reports surfaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transition process , she was looking for a new job .
Best of luck with that effort , Ms. Murphy .
Rather than qualifying as the poster child for the “ Good American ” of this fascist moment , you ’ d be lucky , frankly , to be hired as a sewer worker or a rat-catcher after the stunt you ’ ve pulled .
And on Tuesday , two GOP election officials in Wayne County , Mich. , attempted to block certification of Detroit ’ s vote count , so as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes , roughly 15 times the margin that Trump secured over Clinton there in 2016—of that state ’ s 16 electoral votes .
That single act of antidemocratic vandalism may well be the most outrageous attempted mugging of the American electorate since the height of Jim Crow .
While the Wayne County officials were forced by a torrent of public outrage to backpedal , the threat to America ’ s democratic infrastructure remains acute .
On Wednesday , Trump claimed that the officials were coerced into retracting their refusal to certify the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a majority of Republicans now believe the election was stolen , he announced , “ I win Michigan !
” Responding to the continuing pressure from Trump and other Republicans , the two GOP officials have since claimed in affidavits that Democrats unfairly pressured them and reneged on a promise to audit Detroit ’ s election results .
And Trump himself , who personally telephoned at least one of the Wayne County officials to lobby them to retract their certification , is not letting up on the pressure he is putting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invited the leaders of Michigan ’ s GOP-controlled legislature to visit him in the White House on Friday , with the explicit purpose of convincing them to overturn their state ’ s popular vote and appoint their own electors .
Trump and the GOP Intensify Their Assault on Democracy Good Riddance to Trump : A Political Obituary I Have Waited 5 Years to Write This is unprecedented in the history of US presidential elections , and it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that this president is intent on clinging to power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a tyranny and breaks the entire US political system beyond repair .
Trump has been enabled in this assault on democracy by an array of unsavory players .
The odious Rudy Giuliani argued in court in Pennsylvania this week that the state should simply toss the votes of more than a million people in Philadelphia and its environs .
It ’ s a nonsense argument , but Giuliani , who is reportedly being paid $ 20,000 per day for his services , no longer seems to care about the cogency or coherence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing the role of a lawyer ; in reality , he ’ s simply a well-remunerated propagandist , a shill , a peddler of bizarre conspiracies and blatant lies .
In Nevada , Trump attorneys are arguing against recognizing that state ’ s vote count and have gone to court to ask a judge , in true Orwellian fashion , to either declare Trump the winner—of a state that Biden won by more than 30,000 votes—or throw out the entire Nevada election results .
Given that the state ’ s vote has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clearly a strategy intended to block that process from advancing .
In Georgia , where Biden won the election by some 12,000 votes , election officials are facing a barrage of interventions from senior Republicans , including reputed efforts by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham to get the state to throw out legally cast ballots .
Through the exacting process of a hand-recount , the Republican secretary of state has resisted this sabotage , but that hasn ’ t stopped the Trump campaign from making clear that they will be demanding yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Similarly , on Wednesday the Trump campaign ponied up $ 3 million to fund a recount in Milwaukee and Dane Counties in Wisconsin , both of which are overwhelmingly African American and overwhelmingly Democratic .
As with the actions in Nevada , this strategy seems less about changing the vote count than blocking the ability of the states to certify the outcome .
( In Wisconsin ’ s case , the recount will likely last until month ’ s end . )
All of this adds up not to a Signal so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party in terminal intellectual and moral decay , unmoored from any principle other than holding on to power .
Remember , Biden won nearly 6 million more votes than Trump , has legitimately secured 74 more Electoral College votes than Trump , triumphed in more counties than Trump , and ended up with a higher percentage of the total eligible electorate than any challenger to an incumbent president since FDR in 1932 .
In any normal reckoning , this wasn ’ t a close presidential contest ; yet the GOP is largely marching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to delegitimize the election .
The GOP did far better in down-ballot races than expected in 2020 , ending up with at least 50 Senate seats and narrowing the Democratic House majority .
So for a while the Republicans ’ strong congressional presence may camouflage the odor of political and moral gangrene .
But in the long run , a party that has so little confidence in the people , so little respect for democracy , and so much cowardice in the face of the ranting of its lunatic leader will putrefy @ @ @

More than two weeks after the election, Donald Trump is showing no signs of recognizing Joe Biden’s win. To the contrary, this week he fired Chris Krebs, the national security official who has spent much of the past several months working on election security issues and, post-election, debunking Trump’s conspiracy claims. The tweets in which Trump announced Krebs’s firing were so misleading that Twitter flagged them, disputing Trump’s claim that the election had been rigged against him.
Meanwhile, the General Services Administration continues to block the transition process from moving forward. In the race for unadulterated political cowardice and buffoonery, the GSA’s Emily Murphy is surely a front-runner at this point. She will, I sincerely hope, have to live the rest of her life being made constantly aware of the fact that she, out of fear of becoming the butt of Trump’s Twitter trolling, collaborated in a fascist attempt to demolish the results of an election in which more Americans participated than ever before. This week, news reports surfaced that even while she was stonewalling on the transition process, she was looking for a new job. Best of luck with that effort, Ms. Murphy. Rather than qualifying as the poster child for the “Good American” of this fascist moment, you’d be lucky, frankly, to be hired as a sewer worker or a rat-catcher after the stunt you’ve pulled.
And on Tuesday, two GOP election officials in Wayne County, Mich., attempted to block certification of Detroit’s vote count, so as to deprive Biden—who won Michigan by 148,000 votes, roughly 15 times the margin that Trump secured over Clinton there in 2016—of that state’s 16 electoral votes. That single act of antidemocratic vandalism may well be the most outrageous attempted mugging of the American electorate since the height of Jim Crow.
While the Wayne County officials were forced by a torrent of public outrage to backpedal, the threat to America’s democratic infrastructure remains acute. On Wednesday, Trump claimed that the officials were coerced into retracting their refusal to certify the vote count. Presumably buoyed by polls showing that a majority of Republicans now believe the election was stolen, he announced, “I win Michigan!” Responding to the continuing pressure from Trump and other Republicans, the two GOP officials have since claimed in affidavits that Democrats unfairly pressured them and reneged on a promise to audit Detroit’s election results. And Trump himself, who personally telephoned at least one of the Wayne County officials to lobby them to retract their certification, is not letting up on the pressure he is putting on Michigan officials: On Thursday, he invited the leaders of Michigan’s GOP-controlled legislature to visit him in the White House on Friday, with the explicit purpose of convincing them to overturn their state’s popular vote and appoint their own electors. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann More From Sasha Abramsky Trump and the GOP Intensify Their Assault on Democracy Sasha Abramsky Good Riddance to Trump: A Political Obituary I Have Waited 5 Years to Write Sasha Abramsky Is Trump Planning a Coup d’État? Sasha Abramsky
This is unprecedented in the history of US presidential elections, and it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that this president is intent on clinging to power even if doing so converts the presidency into a tyranny and breaks the entire US political system beyond repair.
Trump has been enabled in this assault on democracy by an array of unsavory players. The odious Rudy Giuliani argued in court in Pennsylvania this week that the state should simply toss the votes of more than a million people in Philadelphia and its environs. It’s a nonsense argument, but Giuliani, who is reportedly being paid $20,000 per day for his services, no longer seems to care about the cogency or coherence of his interventions. He’s playing the role of a lawyer; in reality, he’s simply a well-remunerated propagandist, a shill, a peddler of bizarre conspiracies and blatant lies.
In Nevada, Trump attorneys are arguing against recognizing that state’s vote count and have gone to court to ask a judge, in true Orwellian fashion, to either declare Trump the winner—of a state that Biden won by more than 30,000 votes—or throw out the entire Nevada election results. Given that the state’s vote has to be certified by November 24, this is clearly a strategy intended to block that process from advancing. Current Issue View our current issue
In Georgia, where Biden won the election by some 12,000 votes, election officials are facing a barrage of interventions from senior Republicans, including reputed efforts by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham to get the state to throw out legally cast ballots. Through the exacting process of a hand-recount, the Republican secretary of state has resisted this sabotage, but that hasn’t stopped the Trump campaign from making clear that they will be demanding yet another recount once this one is concluded. Similarly, on Wednesday the Trump campaign ponied up $3 million to fund a recount in Milwaukee and Dane Counties in Wisconsin, both of which are overwhelmingly African American and overwhelmingly Democratic. As with the actions in Nevada, this strategy seems less about changing the vote count than blocking the ability of the states to certify the outcome. (In Wisconsin’s case, the recount will likely last until month’s end.)
All of this adds up not to a Signal so much as a Stench—the stench of a party in terminal intellectual and moral decay, unmoored from any principle other than holding on to power. Remember, Biden won nearly 6 million more votes than Trump, has legitimately secured 74 more Electoral College votes than Trump, triumphed in more counties than Trump, and ended up with a higher percentage of the total eligible electorate than any challenger to an incumbent president since FDR in 1932. In any normal reckoning, this wasn’t a close presidential contest; yet the GOP is largely marching in lockstep with Trump in his escalating efforts to delegitimize the election.
The GOP did far better in down-ballot races than expected in 2020, ending up with at least 50 Senate seats and narrowing the Democratic House majority. So for a while the Republicans’ strong congressional presence may camouflage the odor of political and moral gangrene. But in the long run, a party that has so little confidence in the people, so little respect for democracy, and so much cowardice in the face of the ranting of its lunatic leader will putrefy beyond rescue.


thenation--2020-11-20--Want to Know Who Influences US Foreign Policy? Follow the Money.

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 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 linchpin in the international peace ( or war ) process seems a dubious proposition at best .
CSIS is anything but alone when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever more in what now passes for “ security ” in the Pacific region .
A FITI report on Japanese operations in the United States , 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 US 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 United States 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.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as it turns out , that foundation has taken in at least $ 825,000 from Japan and approximately the same amount from defense contractors and US 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 US 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 billion from the US 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 US 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coffers .
A 2019 report by the Hudson Institute on the Japan-US 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 US government and Pentagon contractors , including at least $ 400,000 from Lockheed Martin and more than $ 200,000 from Boeing .
In this fashion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 21st century version of the Cold War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 powerful think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 US 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 US 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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
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. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
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 US 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.” Current Issue View our current issue
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 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 linchpin 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 United States, 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 US 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 United States 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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-US 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 US 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 21st 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 US 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 US 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.