Follow us on social

DC think tank addresses undisclosed conflicts of interest

DC think tank addresses undisclosed conflicts of interest

The Atlantic Council retroactively acknowledged content it was producing on energy and climate change had a connection to a major funder.

Reporting | Washington Politics

Washington-based think tanks have been notoriously slow to implement the same conflict of interest policies and disclosures commonly implemented by journalists, academics, and scientists. But a rush of retroactive disclosures of conflicts of interest in written materials published by Atlantic Council CEO and President Frederick Kempe, another Council staffer, and an un-bylined column published by the Council over the past week, raises questions about whether the Council and other think tanks are poised to more vigilantly disclose potential conflicts of interest between their funders and work products.

The Atlantic Council receives funding from foreign countries — including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Japan, and South Korea — and weapons manufacturers — including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing — which poses numerous potential conflicts of interest for a think tank that characterizes itself as “a nonpartisan organization that galvanizes US leadership and engagement in the world.”

Disclosing some of those conflicts of interest appeared to become an institutional priority for the Atlantic Council starting on January 16.

On January 14, Kempe published a column heaping praise on Abu Dhabi National Oil Company’s CEO Sultan Al Jaber who was appointed president-designate of the COP28 Climate Summit to be hosted by the UAE from November 30 to December 12. Al Jaber’s appointment was met with concern by climate activists, including ActionAid’s Teresa Anderson who told CNBC, “This appointment goes beyond putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.”

“Like last year’s summit, we’re increasingly seeing fossil fuel interests taking control of the process and shaping it to meet their own needs,” she added.

Kempe pushed back on Anderson’s criticisms in his column on the 14th, writing, “What that overlooks is that Al Jaber’s rich background in both renewables and fossil fuels makes him an ideal choice at a time when efforts to address climate change have been far too slow, lacking the inclusivity to produce more transformative results.”

Two days later, the Council updated his article with an editor’s note at the top that read, “This article was updated on January 16 to reflect the fact that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar, where Sultan Al Jaber serves as CEO and chairman, respectively, are sponsors of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum.”

Also on the 16th, an article by Council Deputy Managing Editor Daniel Malloy highlighting remarks made by Al Juber at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum, received a similar update two days after its January 14 publication date. “This article was updated on January 16 to reflect the fact that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, where Sultan Al Jaber serves as CEO, is a sponsor of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum,” said the update.

Yet another article on the Council’s Global Energy Forum published on January 14, this one without a byline, was updated on January 18 with 10 editor’s notes retroactively disclosing to readers that numerous panel participants were also sponsors of the event.

While the three updates on the Council’s website were relatively short and simply provided the relevant information that had been withheld from readers, a January 14 column by Kempe on CNBC.com titled, “Making the case for oil CEO Sultan Al Jaber to lead the UN Climate conference this year,” received a far harsher correction by CNBC after the network became aware of financial conflicts between Kempe and the recipient of his praise.

A January 17th update said:

Editor’s note: This article and headline were updated to reflect the fact that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar are major sponsors of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum. Sultan Al Jaber is CEO of ADNOC and chairman of renewable energy investing firm Masdar. The financial relationship between the companies and Atlantic Council as well as the obvious conflict of interest were not disclosed to CNBC prior to publication of this column and does not meet our standards of transparency.

When reached for comment, the Council’s director of strategic communications, Richard Davidson, told Responsible Statecraft:

We’ve been transparent about our donors on our website, annual report and in Global Energy Forum collateral and signage at the event. No effort to conceal — the opposite.

Along with our rigorous intellectual independence and editorial standards, our financial transparency has been consistently recognized with the industry’s highest four-star-rating in Charity Navigator. Like everyone, we make mistakes, and when we do we correct them.

Transparency into funding, however, is not a requirement for a four-star rating on Charity Navigator. Many nonprofits achieve four-star ratings on Charity Navigator while revealing no information about their donors. For example, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research reveal no donor information to the public but hold four star ratings.  

The Atlantic Council, for its part, is less than completely transparent about its sources of funding. The think tank’s 2021 “honor roll of contributors” list three “anonymous” $250,000-$499,999 contributions, two “anonymous” $50,000-$99,999 contributions, one “anonymous” $10,000-$24,999 contribution, one “anonymous” $5,000-$9,999 contribution, and two “anonymous” contributions less than $1,000.


|Image screen grab via cnbc.com|Image via screen grab, cnbc.com
Reporting | Washington Politics
remittance tax central america
Top photo credit: People line up to use an automated teller machine (ATM) outside a bank in Havana, Cuba, May 9, 2024. REUTERS/Alexandre Meneghini

Taxing remittances helps make US neighbors poorer, less stable

Latin America

Among the elements of the budget bill working its way through the U.S. Congress is a proposal for a 3.5% tax on all retail money transfers made by all non-citizens residing in the United States (including those with legal status) to other countries.

Otherwise known as remittences, these are transfers typically made by immigrants working in the U.S. to help support family back home.

keep readingShow less
US capitol building washington DC
Top image credit: U.S Capitol Building, Washington, DC. (Bill Perry /shutterstock)

Congress moves to put the brakes on Trump's unilateral bombing

Washington Politics

As a fragile ceasefire takes hold between Israel, Iran, and the United States, many questions remain.

With Iran’s nuclear program unquestionably damaged but likely not fully destroyed, will the Iranian government now race towards a bomb? Having repeatedly broken recent ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza, will Prime Minister Netanyahu honor this one? And after having twice taken direct military action against Iran, will President Trump pursue the peace he claims to seek or once again choose war?

keep readingShow less
Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Ira
Top photo credit: Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran speaking at an event hosted by the Center for Political Thought & Leadership at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Israeli-fueled fantasy to bring back Shah has absolutely no juice

Middle East

The Middle East is a region where history rarely repeats itself exactly, but often rhymes in ways that are both tragic and absurd.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current Israeli campaign against Iran. A campaign that, beneath its stated aims of dismantling Iran's nuclear and defense capabilities, harbors a deeper, more outlandish ambition: the hope that toppling the regime could install a friendly government under Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last Shah. Perhaps even paving the way for a monarchical restoration.

This is not a policy officially declared in Jerusalem or Washington, but it lingers in the background of Israel’s actions and its overt calls for Iranians to “stand up” to the Islamic Republic. In April 2023, Pahlavi was hosted in Israel by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.

During the carefully choreographed visit, he prayed at the Western Wall, while avoiding the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount just above and made no effort to meet with Palestinian leaders. An analysis from the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs described the trip as a message that Israel recognizes Pahlavi as "the main leader of the Iranian opposition."

Figures like Gila Gamliel, a former minister of intelligence in the Israeli government, have openly called for regime change, declaring last year that a "window of opportunity has opened to overthrow the regime."

What might have been dismissed as a diplomatic gambit has, in the context of the current air war, been elevated into a strategic bet that military pressure can create the conditions for a political outcome of Israel's choosing.

The irony is hard to overstate. It was foreign intervention that set the stage for the current enmity. In 1953, a CIA/MI6 coup overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s last democratically elected leader. While the plot was triggered by his nationalization of the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the United States joined out of Cold War paranoia, fearing the crisis would allow Iran's powerful communist party to seize power and align the country with the Soviet Union.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.