New legislation introduced by three Republican members of Congress would set a new bar for transparency in funding from think tanks receiving foreign funding. The legislation — “Think Tank and Nonprofit Influence Disclosure Act of 2021” — aims to “root out foreign funding behind America’s policy research institutions” by requiring disclosure of foreign governments and foreign political parties that contribute in excess $50,000 per year to think tanks.
The requirement for think tanks to disclose their foreign sources of funding is particularly focused on revealing the extent of Chinese government-linked funding of think tanks, but the bills sponsors — Reps. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) — emphasized that the extent of foreign influence in U.S. think tanks is a far reaching problem.
“Experts believe there are numerous foreign governments backing American think tanks and nonprofits, and that the Chinese Communist Party and Russian government are among those who seek to influence U.S. policymakers in this way,” said a press release from Gooden’s office.
The Republican bill closely closely reflects the policy recommendations in last year’s report by Ben Freeman, director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, which found that $174 million in foreign funding went to top U.S. think tanks between 2014 and 2018, and advised that “think tanks should be required, by law, to publicly disclose funding from foreign powers.”
A Responsible Statecraft and American Prospect investigation in January found that the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which Wilson is a member, was regularly briefed by experts affiliated with think tanks that refuse to provide transparency into their funding sources.
Of the 237 think tank–affiliated witnesses who spoke before the House Foreign Affairs Committee over the past two congresses, under 30 percent of them appeared on behalf of institutions that fully disclose their major donors.
Eli Clifton is a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Large at Responsible Statecraft. He reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C) talks to reporters with U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) (L), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (2nd L), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (2nd R) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) (R) after Netanyahu's speech before Congress at the Capitol in Washington May 24, 2011. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
On September 12, 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu — then a private citizen — was invited to Congress to give “an Israeli perspective” in support of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Netanyahu issued a confident prediction: “if you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” adding, “and I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.”
In 2015, Netanyahu returned to Congress — this time as Israel’s prime minister — to undermine the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) negotiations led by the Obama administration along with key U.S. allies the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. After a tepid acknowledgement of President Obama’s support for Israel — Obama ultimately gave Israel $38 billion, the largest military aid package in history — Netanyahu spent the remainder of his speech attacking what would become one of the sitting president’s signature foreign policy achievements.
In both cases, Netanyahu’s advice was catastrophically wrong. America’s invasion of Iraq was a bloody disaster that killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions more, creating massive instability in the region and paving the way for ISIS’s rise.
Meanwhile, Obama’s deal with Iran had succeeded in rolling Iran’s nuclear program back and blocking its pathways to a bomb — that is until the Trump administration followed Netanyahu’s advice and backed out of the deal in 2018, thus forfeiting our capability to contain Iran’s nuclear program while torpedoing prospects for productive engagement with Tehran on reducing regional tensions.
When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran was at least one year away from being able to produce enough enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon. Thanks to that withdrawal, Iran can produce a nuclear weapon in less than two weeks.
Tomorrow, Netanyahu is set to address Congress again — this time, as he prosecutes a campaign of mass carnage and destruction in Gaza that has killed more than 39,000 Palestinians — to ask for continued support for his efforts to “defeat Hamas.” Meanwhile, the Israeli Defense Forces themselves call Netanyahu’s pursuit of “total victory” against Hamas impossible and “misleading to the public.”
By now, Netanyahu is used to coming to Washington, telling U.S. leaders what to do, and seeing them oblige. The consequences of abiding his arrogant approach have been nothing short of disastrous. So will Washington allow itself to be bullied by Bibi again? Will Congress and the administration put his selfish demands ahead of the American people’s interests in avoiding a regional war, and ending our complicity in the destruction of Gaza?
Unfortunately, U.S. leaders appear ready to do just that. Meanwhile, Netanyahu likely plans to repeat the same playbook from his last Washington visit: offering the Biden administration nominal praise for their nearly unconditional support of Israel’s war in Gaza before pivoting to put his thumb on the scale for hawkish U.S. politicians during an election year, in a bid to quash any criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
If the last nine months have taught us anything, a large, bipartisan majority in Washington will be happy to oblige Netanyahu’s request for silence on Gaza — even as scores of Americans descend on the Capitol complex to protest Netanyahu and continued U.S. support for this war.
To be clear, the problem neither starts nor ends with Netanyahu’s far-right government. The Knesset's recent overwhelming vote to reject a two-state solution underscores the major political challenges that remain to any Israeli role in securing Palestinian self-determination. There are systemic roadblocks throughout the Israeli government and military which consistently entangle the U.S. in regional conflicts and erode any prospects for a viable Palestinian state; however, by continuing to provide unconditional support, the U.S. only undermines the conditions necessary to resolve the conflict.
America must use its considerable leverage with Tel Aviv to push for both an end to this war and for security and peace for Israelis and Palestinians.
Instead, the Biden administration has aided and abetted Israel’s reckless behavior during this war at every turn, from approving more than 100 arms sales to Israel and vetoing various efforts to push for a ceasefire at the United Nations, to rejecting legitimate findings that Israel violated international law during its war in Gaza. This unconditional support for Israel — a public “bearhug” meant to open space for difficult conversation in private — has utterly failed to restrain Israel in its war, while making Americans a party to the slaughter of Palestinian civilians.
This approach has not just been a moral failure — it’s a serious strategic mistake. Netanyahu has repeatedly proven that he is not a reliable partner for the United States. He has been a major obstacle to a ceasefire with Hamas; he is deeply divisive and it is widely accepted, even within Israel, that Netanyahu needs the Gaza conflict for his political survival.
As Netanyahu prolongs the war in Gaza while ramping up conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, he has made it abundantly clear that he is willing to drag the U.S. into yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East: a war that would not serve American or even Israeli interests, but only his continued pursuit of power.
The prime minister’s visit offers the White House and Congress an opportunity to turn the page on this failed strategy, to press Israel to end its war, and to prevent a wider regional war that would put U.S. troops in the line of fire. U.S. leaders must use their time with Netanyahu to deliver a clear message: enough is enough. Reach a deal, bring the hostages home, and end the bloodshed before it spirals into a wider war.
Washington likes to talk a lot about America’s power and prestige on the world stage. It is well past time to bring these assets to bear to end the assault on Gaza and begin building a durable peace. Israel’s government should not be able to count on a blank check from Washington for more war.
keep readingShow less
Gen. Laura Richardson, the commander of Southern Command, speaks at an Atlantic Council event on March 19, 2024. (Screengrab via atlanticcouncil.org)
Gen. Laura Richardson, the commander of Southern Command, speaks at an Atlantic Council event on March 19, 2024. (Screengrab via atlanticcouncil.org)
A top U.S. military general wants a "Marshall Plan" for Latin America but is likely more concerned about China's encroachment into America's backyard with "dual use" infrastructure than about what poor people in the Global South actually need.
But then again, Gen. Laura Richardson, SOUTHCOM commander, is a military officer,not a diplomat or humanitarian program lead at USAID.
Richardson told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum last week that the U.S. has been MIA in the region while Russia and especially China has been exploiting the post-COVID economic downturn with both military outreach (Russia recently in Cuba) and development projects (Beijing's Belt and Road). That is why Washington needs to offer its own "Marshall Plan" to Latin America, which it views as it its own sphere of influence.
She said 22 of the 31 countries in the region have signed on to the Belt and Road development program.
“How are we competing Team USA and Team Democracy with the tenders that are coming out from [other] countries? How are we getting our U.S. quality investment and talking about our U.S. companies investing in the region? We have a lot of companies in the region. I don’t think we’re branding Team USA as we should. It should be better. We’ve got to be bragging about what U.S. quality investment does,” she said.
The Marshall Plan, proposed by Secretary of State George C. Marshall in a speech at Harvard University in 1947, was launched by President Harry S. Truman in 1948 to help Europe rebuild after World War II. The plan provided $13.3 billion in aid to 16 countries through 1951, about $150 billion in today's dollars.
“I really believe that economic security and national security are going hand-in-hand here in this hemisphere,” she said.
Security of course, is the optimal word here. "If (Belt and Road is) for doing good in the hemisphere, then I’m all for it. But it makes me a little suspicious when it’s in the critical infrastructure … deep water ports, 5G, cybersecurity, energy, space … I worry about the dual use nature of that,” Richardson said.
“These are state-owned enterprises by a communist government and I’m worried about the flipping of that to a military application very quickly if something were to happen, maybe in the Indo-Pacom region,” she said.
Therein lies the crux of the situation. On one hand she is absolutely right. As in Africa, Global South countries are reacting to economic outreach from China and Russia because a) they need it and America (private nor public) isn't in the game and b) help from China and Russia doesn't appear to come with as many strings as U.S. assistance might demand. She may also be on point that there are a dearth of high-level visits and attention to the region, giving the very real impression that Latin America is an afterthought.
But we should also ask why the military is taking the lead on asking the real questions here. Where are the diplomats? Is this just another argument for putting more military eyes and assets in the region?
Richardson is right to raise the issue: it is past time that Washington stop whining about China's influence and apply some elbow grease to nurturing productive relations with its neighbors that aren't just about military or political ideological influence. In other words, a two-way street, that if paved well, will mean security and prosperity for everyone. But we should also ask why the military is taking the lead on asking the real questions here, and who, in the end will be providing the answers.
keep readingShow less
Protesters, mainly Houthi supporters, hold weapons as they rally to show solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Sanaa, Yemen July 19, 2024. REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah
Israeli forces attacked “vital civilian infrastructure” at the port of Hodeidah in Yemen on Saturday in response to a Houthi drone strike in Tel Aviv, according to Mwatana, a leading independent Yemeni human rights organization.
The Israeli military claimed that it hit “military targets,” but Mwatana reports that the strikes did extensive damage to oil facilities, fuel tanks, and the port’s wharf and cranes, all of which are critical to supplying the civilian population in north Yemen with much-needed fuel and food.
The group also said that the strikes knocked out the central power station providing power to the entire city. Houthi authorities say that the strikes killed at least three people and wounded 87. Yemen researcher Nick Brumfield commented on the Israelis’ choice of targets: “The Israeli attack on Hudaydah’s oil storage was not an example of the Houthis hiding weapons in civilian infrastructure and it getting bombed. As best as I can tell, this is Israel purposefully targeting vital civilian infrastructure in and of itself.”
The Israeli government used the same tactics in Yemen that it has employed to such devastating effect in Gaza.
The Israeli response represents a major escalation against the Houthis, who have been launching drones and missiles at Israeli targets without success since shortly after the war in Gaza began. The attacks have taken their toll: Israel’s Eilat port is now bankrupt as all shipping has been redirected elsewhere, to safer routes, and the U.S. Navy has spent over $1 billion in resources intercepting the Houthis’ far less expensive weapons in the Red Sea.
Like the ineffective U.S.-U.K. bombing campaign against the Houthis that began in January, these Israeli strikes play into the hands of the Houthis, the armed militia group and political movement that has been the de facto government of north Yemen for the last ten years. Direct conflict with both the U.S. and Israel is a significant boost for the Houthis’ domestic political standing, and their opposition to the war in Gaza has likewise raised their international profile.
Journalist Iona Craig observed on BlueSky that the strikes are a gift to the Houthis: “For a group whose existence, evolution and expansion depends on being at war they’re being gifted everything they need.”
In addition to being a disproportionate response to the drone attack, the strikes on Hodeidah seem certain to provoke the Houthis to launch more attacks on Israel. Hodeidah was a frequent target of Saudi coalition airstrikes before the 2022 truce took effect, but this did nothing to stop Houthi attacks on Saudi and UAE targets. After more than nine years of foreign governments bombing Yemeni cities, it should be clear that it doesn’t achieve anything except to inflict misery and death on Yemeni civilians.
According to Haaretz, the Israeli military knows that striking Yemen is unlikely to deter the Houthis from launching more drones and missiles. Escalation against the Houthis isn’t going to make Israel more secure, but it will further strain Israel’s resources as it brings the region closer to a wider war. As long as the U.S. continues backing Israel’s war in Gaza and wages its own military campaign in Yemen, the U.S. is at considerable risk of becoming further embroiled in that wider war.
The people that will suffer the most from Israel’s strikes are, as always, the civilian population of Yemen that has already endured a decade of war and deprivation. Craig added, “While helping the Houthis, the only damage such performative strikes do is to the Yemeni people by targeting the main entry point of food in a country that imports more than 70% of its food supplies and 90% of its wheat.”
Indeed, the U.S. has refrained from targeting the port in its bombing campaign because of concerns that doing so would worsen the country’s ongoing humanitarian crisis.
The Israeli strikes in Yemen will make it harder for the Biden administration to pretend that Houthi attacks on Red Sea commercial shipping have nothing to do with the war in Gaza. The administration wants to keep these conflicts in separate boxes to maintain the illusion that it has prevented the war in Gaza from destabilizing the region, but they are all obviously connected. It does no one any favors to ignore this reality.
If the U.S. wants to see an end to the Houthi attacks on shipping and those directed at Israel, it should stop trying to bomb its way to de-escalation and put real pressure on the Israeli government to end its campaign in Gaza. The war in Gaza is the main driver of all these other conflicts, and none of them will be successfully resolved until there is a lasting ceasefire and an end to the blockade that has been strangling the Palestinian people there.
At the very least, the U.S. should be pressing the Israeli government to avoid any further escalations against other countries in the region. Among other things, that requires delivering a clear message to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when he comes to Washington this week that the U.S. will not bail him out if he goes to war in Lebanon. The region cannot afford any more conflicts, and the U.S. must stop stoking existing ones with more weapons and support.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.