[News] Six War Mongering Think Tanks and the Military Contractors That Fund Them

Mon Mar 13 11:34:21 EDT 2023

orinocotribune.com
<https://orinocotribune.com/six-war-mongering-think-tanks-and-the-military-contractors-that-fund-them/>
Six War Mongering Think Tanks and the Military Contractors That Fund Them
Orinoco Tribune 2
------------------------------
[image: Raytheon missiles on display. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/David
Monniaux.]

Raytheon missiles on display. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/David Monniaux.

By Amanda Yee – Mar 7, 2023

>From producing reports
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/world/asia/china-muslims-xinjiang-detention.html>
 and analysis
<https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/the-longer-telegram/>
for
U.S. policy-makers, to enlisting representatives to write op-eds
<https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/op-ed-the-us-must-focus-on-three-enduring-issues-in-china-relationship.html>
in
corporate media, to providing talking heads for corporate media to
interview and give quotes
<https://www.nbcnews.com/news/forget-chinese-spy-balloon-china-linked-hackers-collect-far-informatio-rcna72583>,
think tanks play a fundamental role in shaping both U.S. foreign policy and
public perception around that foreign policy. Leaders at top think tanks
like the Atlantic Council and Hudson Institute have even been called upon to
set focus priorities
<https://www.airandspaceforces.com/think-tank-leaders-recommend-top-focus-areas-for-house-intelligence-committee/>
for
the House Intelligence Committee. However, one look at the funding sources
of the most influential think tanks reveals whose interests they really
serve: that of the U.S. military and its defense contractors.

This ecosystem of overlapping networks of government institutions, think
tanks, and defense contractors is where U.S. foreign policy is derived, and
a revolving door exists among these three sectors. For example, before
Biden-appointed head of the Pentagon Lloyd Austin took his current
position, he sat on the Board of Directors at Raytheon. Before Austin’s
appointment, current defense policy advisor Michèle Flournoy was also in
the running for the position. Flournoy sat on the board of Booz Allen
Hamilton, another major Pentagon defense contractor. These same defense
contractors also work together with think tanks like the Center for
Strategic and International Studies to organize conferences
<https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-new-york-times-deceived-the-public-on-north-korea/>
attended
by national security officials. On top of all this, since the end of the
Cold War, intelligence analysis by the CIA and NSA has increasingly
been contracted
out
<https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Spies-for-Hire/Tim-Shorrock/9780743282253>
to
these same defense companies like BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin, among
others — a major conflict of interest. In other words, these corporations
are in the position to produce intelligence reports which raise the alarm
on U.S. “enemy” nations so they can sell more military equipment!

And of course these are the same defense companies that donate hundreds of
thousands of dollars each year to think tanks. Given all this, is it any
wonder the U.S. government is simultaneously flooding billions of dollars
of weaponry into an unwinnable proxy war in Ukraine while escalating a Cold
War into a potential military confrontation with China?

The funding to these policy institutes steers the U.S. foreign policy
agenda. To give you a scope of how these contributions determine national
security priorities, listed below are six of some of the most influential
foreign policy think tanks, along with how much in contributions they’ve
received from “defense” companies in the last year.

All funding information for these policy institutes was gathered from the
most recent annual report that was available online. Also note that this
list is compiled from those that make this information publicly available —
many think tanks, such as the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, do not
release donation sources publicly.

*1 – Center for Strategic and International Studies*
*According to their **2020 annual report*
<https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/corporations>

$500,000+: Northrop Grumman Corporation

$200,000-$499,999: General Atomics (energy and defense corporation that
manufactures Predator drones for the CIA), Lockheed Martin, SAIC (provides
information technology services to U.S. military)

$100,000-$199,999: Bechtel, Boeing, Cummins (provides engines and
generators for military equipment), General Dynamics, Hitachi (provides
defense technology), Hanwha Group (South Korean aerospace and defense
company), Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (largest military
shipbuilding company in the United States), Mitsubishi Corporation, Nippon
Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (provides intelligence and information
technology services to U.S. military), Qualcomm, Inc. (semiconductor
company that produces microchips for the U.S. military), Raytheon, Samsung
(provides security technology to the U.S. military), SK Group (defense
technology company)

$65,000-$99,999: Hyundai Motor (produces weapons systems), Oracle

$35,000-$64,999: BAE Systems

*2 – Center for a New American Security*
*From **fiscal year 2021-2022*
<https://www.cnas.org/support-cnas/cnas-supporters>

$500,000+: Northrop Grumman Corporation

$250,000-$499,999: Lockheed Martin

$100,000-$249,000: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Neal Blue (Chairman and
CEO of General Atomics), Qualcomm, Inc., Raytheon, Boeing

$50,000-$99,000: BAE Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, Intel Corporation
(provides aerospace and defense technology), Elbit Systems of America
(aerospace and defense company), General Dynamics, Palantir Technologies

*3 – Hudson Institute*
*According to their **2021 annual report*
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Hudson%20Annual%20Report%202021.WEB-300.pdf>

$100,000+: General Atomics, Linden Blue (co-owner and Vice Chairman of
General Atomics), Neal Blue, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman

$50,000-$99,000: BAE Systems, Boeing, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

*4 – Atlantic Council*
*According to their **2021 annual report*
<https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/2021-annual-report-honor-roll-of-contributors/>

$250,000-$499,000: Airbus, Neal Blue, SAAB (provides defense equipment)

$100,000-$249,000: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon

$50,000-$99,000: SAIC

*5 – International Institute for Strategic Studies*
*Based in London. From **fiscal year 2021-2022*
<https://www.iiss.org/governance/funding---membership-sponsorship-and-royalties>

£100,000+: Airbus, BAE Systems, Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin,
Raytheon, Rolls Royce (provides military airplane engines)

£25,000-£99,999: Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Northrop Grumman
Corporation

*6 – Australian Strategic Policy Institute*
*Note: ASPI has been one of the primary purveyors of the “Uyghur genocide”
narrative*

*From their **2021-2022 annual report*
<https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2023-02/ASPI-Funding_2021-2022.pdf?VersionId=uBgzvRFMWrzTqZfbQldVtdteieW95Ns1>

$186,800: Thales Australia (aerospace and defense corporation)

$100,181: Boeing Australia

$75,927: Lockheed Martin

$20,000: Omni Executive (aerospace and defense corporation)

$27,272: SAAB Australia

(Liberation News
<https://www.liberationnews.org/six-war-mongering-think-tanks-and-the-military-contractors-that-fund-them/>
)
  <https://orinocotribune.com/author/yullma/>
Continue Reading
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20230313/2752dbce/attachment.htm>