Follow us on social

Arms industry titan poised to sit on Council on Foreign Relations board

Arms industry titan poised to sit on Council on Foreign Relations board

Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet's nomination to this prestigious foreign policy post raises numerous questions.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations are currently voting on a slate of ten board candidates put forth by the “Nominating and Governance Committee.” That slate includes what is arguably the world’s largest arms dealer, the chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, James Taiclet, according to a document circulated to CFR members and obtained by Responsible Statecraft.

The board of directors of CFR, a New York-based think tank that focuses on U.S. foreign policy and international relations, isn’t a stranger to embracing the weapons industry. CFR’s chairman is David Rubenstein, a co-founder and co-chairman of the private equity firm and defense-industry-focused Carlyle Group, and the board currently includes Raytheon board member Meghan L. O’Sullivan, and Frances Townsend, a director at Lenoardo Systems, a Virginia based weapons systems company. (CFR’s biography of Townsend omits any mention of her role at the weapons firm but Leonardo Systems lists her CFR board membership in her biography on their website.)

By proposing Taiclet for board membership, CFR’s leadership is effectively bringing an individual into their ranks whose company, and personal $24 million in annual compensation, is highly dependent on the U.S. defense budget. In 2018, 70 percent of Lockheed’s revenue came from the U.S. government.

CFR members are being asked to vote on the entire slate, created by the “Nominating and Governance Committee,” and cannot vote for or against an individual candidate. Voting is currently underway and ballots must be cast by June 12. 

“It's deeply disturbing to me that CFR has nominated a defense industry executive to oversee the work of the organization,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy in the Arab World Now and a current CFR member. “His election would create an apparent conflict of interest as CFR produces policy recommendations regarding ongoing military sales and armed conflict.”

“It would also be quite distasteful to have a titan of the weapons industry in a leadership role for what many members hope will be an organization committed to fostering diplomacy, not war,” added Whitson.

Whitson was not the source of the slate of candidates shared with Responsible Statecraft but replied to questions about the CFR election.

Last year, Responsible Statecraft asked Taiclet whether receiving $75 billion in Pentagon contracts in fiscal year 2020, one and a half times the State Department and Agency for International Development budgets, was a reasonable balance of expenditure and if it was reflective of U.S. national priorities. Taiclet defended the budget allocation that benefited the company he leads, responding that it was “up to the U.S. government” and claimed “it’s only up to us to step to what we’ve been asked to do and we’re just trying to do that in a more effective way, and that’s our role.”

His claim doesn’t explain why Lockheed spent over $13 million lobbying the federal government last year and focused their lobbying power on the defense budget, according to OpenSecrets.

CFR’s mission is to serve as an “independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.”

Indeed, Taiclet is a business executive and would fit within CFR’s target audience, but his outsized interest in weapons sales — 90 percent of Lockheed’s sales are in the weapons sector — and status as head of the world’s largest arms-producing and military services company, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, raises questions about how Taiclet will use his influence as a board member at CFR. How will the think tank handle potential conflicts between Taiclet’s interest in weapons sales and other CFR members’ interests in diplomacy, non-armaments forms of international trade, reducing the ballooning U.S. defense budget, or finding areas of cooperation between the U.S. and other great powers? 

In a 2022 earnings call, Taiclet assured investors that the “evolving threat level” from North Korea, Iran, Russia and China would lead the U.S. to “not sit by and just watch it happen” and that policymakers would respond by increasing the defense budget, over half of which goes to defense contractors like Lockheed. A year earlier, Taiclet suggested that regulators should allow greater consolidation of the industry in order to more closely mirror the largely-state owned weapons industry in China.

His explicit favoring of ongoing growth of the defense budget and less regulatory oversight of an already consolidated weapons industry certainly serves his and Lockheed’s interests, but it may pose conflicts of interest and thorny questions for CFR as its staff and members grapple with geopolitical challenges and attempt to produce independent research on a host of topics that directly impact Lockheed’s and Taiclet’s profits.

CFR and Lockheed did not respond to requests for comment about Taiclet’s selection for CFR board membership or how conflicts of interest between CFR’s work and Taiclet’s interests as the CEO of the world’s largest weapons company will or will not be addressed.

President Joe Biden participates in a tour with Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet Tuesday, May 3, 2022, of the Lockheed Martin facility in Troy, Alabama. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)|
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
||
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: How close were Russia and Ukraine to a deal in 2022?

QiOSK

The RAND corporation’s Samuel Charap and Johns Hopkins University professor Sergey Radchenko published a detailed timeline and analysis of the talks between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators just after the Russian invasion in February 2022 that could have brought the war to an end just weeks after it had begun.

Much of the piece confirms or elucidates parts of the narrative that had previously been reported. In the spring of 2022, the two sides appeared relatively close to a deal, one that, according to the authors, would “have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU.”

keep readingShow less
Blinken ignores State recommendation to sanction Israeli units: Report
L-R: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after their meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, on Monday, January 30, 2023. DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS

Blinken ignores State recommendation to sanction Israeli units: Report

QiOSK

State Department leadership is ignoring a recommendation from an internal panel to stop giving weapons to several Israeli military and police units due to credible allegations of serious human rights abuses, according to a major new report from ProPublica.

The alleged violations, which occurred before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, include extrajudicial killings, sexual assault of a detainee, and leaving an elderly Palestinian man to die after handcuffing and gagging him. Secretary of State Antony Blinken received the recommendation in December but has yet to take action to prevent the units involved from receiving American weapons.

keep readingShow less
What will NATO do with its giant Arctic footprint?

US Army Special Forces soldiers assigned to 10th Special Forces Group move out on skis into the Swedish Arctic on 23 February 2022. (NATO)

What will NATO do with its giant Arctic footprint?

Global Crises

As NATO commemorated its 75th anniversary this month, the direction of the alliance’s posture toward the Arctic region has been called into question.

The recent accession of Sweden means that seven of eight of the world’s Arctic nations fall under NATO’s security umbrella, with Russia being the outlier. While some analysts see the addition of Sweden and Finland as an opportunity for NATO to “increase its footprint” and “deter Russia,” the last thing the alliance needs is to scour for another avenue for confrontation with Russia.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest