<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-top-anchor"></div>
<div id="gmail-toolbar" class="gmail-toolbar-container">
</div><div class="gmail-container" dir="ltr" lang="en-US">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<a class="gmail-domain gmail-reader-domain" href="https://orinocotribune.com/six-war-mongering-think-tanks-and-the-military-contractors-that-fund-them/">orinocotribune.com</a>
<div class="gmail-domain-border"></div>
<h1 class="gmail-reader-title">Six War Mongering Think Tanks and the Military Contractors That Fund Them</h1>
<div class="gmail-credits gmail-reader-credits">Orinoco Tribune 2</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><div>
<div>
<span src="https://orinocotribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Raytheon_DSC04284-2-scaled-1200x630-cropped-1024x538.jpeg">
<img src="https://orinocotribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Raytheon_DSC04284-2-scaled-1200x630-cropped.jpeg" alt="Raytheon missiles on display. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/David Monniaux." style="margin-right: 0px;" width="428" height="225">
</span>
</div>
<p><span>
</span></p><p>
<font size="1">Raytheon missiles on display. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/David Monniaux.</font>
</p>
<p></p></div><div id="gmail-content">
<div>
<p>By Amanda Yee – Mar 7, 2023</p>
<p>From producing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/world/asia/china-muslims-xinjiang-detention.html">reports</a> and <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/the-longer-telegram/">analysis</a> for U.S. policy-makers, to enlisting representatives to write <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/op-ed-the-us-must-focus-on-three-enduring-issues-in-china-relationship.html">op-eds</a> in corporate media, to providing talking heads for corporate media to interview and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/forget-chinese-spy-balloon-china-linked-hackers-collect-far-informatio-rcna72583">give quotes</a>,
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 <a href="https://www.airandspaceforces.com/think-tank-leaders-recommend-top-focus-areas-for-house-intelligence-committee/">to set focus priorities</a> 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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-new-york-times-deceived-the-public-on-north-korea/">conferences</a> 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 <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Spies-for-Hire/Tim-Shorrock/9780743282253">contracted out</a> 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!</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>1 – Center for Strategic and International Studies</strong><br>
<em>According to their </em><a href="https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/corporations"><em>2020 annual report</em></a></p>
<p>$500,000+: Northrop Grumman Corporation</p>
<p>$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)</p>
<p>$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)</p>
<p>$65,000-$99,999: Hyundai Motor (produces weapons systems), Oracle</p>
<p>$35,000-$64,999: BAE Systems</p>
<p><strong>2 – Center for a New American Security</strong><br>
<em>From </em><a href="https://www.cnas.org/support-cnas/cnas-supporters"><em>fiscal year 2021-2022</em></a></p>
<p>$500,000+: Northrop Grumman Corporation</p>
<p>$250,000-$499,999: Lockheed Martin</p>
<p>$100,000-$249,000: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Neal Blue (Chairman
and CEO of General Atomics), Qualcomm, Inc., Raytheon, Boeing</p>
<p>$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</p>
<p><strong>3 – Hudson Institute</strong><br>
<em>According to their </em><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Hudson%20Annual%20Report%202021.WEB-300.pdf"><em>2021 annual report</em></a></p>
<p>$100,000+: General Atomics, Linden Blue (co-owner and Vice Chairman
of General Atomics), Neal Blue, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman</p>
<p>$50,000-$99,000: BAE Systems, Boeing, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries</p>
<p><strong>4 – Atlantic Council</strong><br>
<em>According to their </em><a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/2021-annual-report-honor-roll-of-contributors/"><em>2021 annual report</em></a></p>
<p>$250,000-$499,000: Airbus, Neal Blue, SAAB (provides defense equipment)</p>
<p>$100,000-$249,000: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon</p>
<p>$50,000-$99,000: SAIC</p>
<p><strong>5 – International Institute for Strategic Studies</strong><br>
<em>Based in London. From </em><a href="https://www.iiss.org/governance/funding---membership-sponsorship-and-royalties"><em>fiscal year 2021-2022</em></a></p>
<p>£100,000+: Airbus, BAE Systems, Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, Rolls Royce (provides military airplane engines)</p>
<p>£25,000-£99,999: Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Northrop Grumman Corporation</p>
<p><strong>6 – Australian Strategic Policy Institute</strong><br>
<em>Note: ASPI has been one of the primary purveyors of the “Uyghur genocide” narrative</em></p>
<p><em>From their </em><a href="https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2023-02/ASPI-Funding_2021-2022.pdf?VersionId=uBgzvRFMWrzTqZfbQldVtdteieW95Ns1"><em>2021-2022 annual report</em></a></p>
<p>$186,800: Thales Australia (aerospace and defense corporation)</p>
<p>$100,181: Boeing Australia</p>
<p>$75,927: Lockheed Martin</p>
<p>$20,000: Omni Executive (aerospace and defense corporation)</p>
<p>$27,272: SAAB Australia</p>
<p>(<a href="https://www.liberationnews.org/six-war-mongering-think-tanks-and-the-military-contractors-that-fund-them/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Liberation News</a>)</p>
<div id="gmail-mab-3583740605">
<a href="https://orinocotribune.com/author/yullma/">
<span src="https://orinocotribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/OTlogoMini-1.png">
</span>
</a>
</div>
<h2>Continue Reading</h2>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>