Suchergebnisse

Monday's decision by the International Criminal Court to apply for arrest warrants for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity was denounced by Secretary of State Antony Blinken as "shameful." Blinken, in a lengthy statement, went on to attack the legitimacy of the ICC, saying it "has no jurisdiction over this matter" and "this decision does nothing to help, and could jeopardize, ongoing efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement…"Those attacks on the ICC's legitimacy put A-list actor George Clooney in an awkward position. He is tentatively headlining a huge Biden fundraiser in Los Angeles on June 15 while Biden's administration is actively attacking the work of the ICC's panel of international legal and academic experts who evaluated the evidence leading up to the arrest warrant — experts who include Clooney's wife, Amal Clooney. It also stands in stark contrast with the administration's March 2023 statements urging all members of the ICC to comply with its arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin.Amal and George Clooney are co-founders and co-chairs of the Clooney Foundation for Justice, a group dedicated to "a world where human rights are protected and no one is above the law," according to its website.The foundation published a statement by Amal Clooney on Monday, after the ICC arrest warrant applications were issued.She said:I served on this Panel because I believe in the rule of law and the need to protect civilian lives. The law that protects civilians in war was developed more than 100 years ago and it applies in every country in the world regardless of the reasons for a conflict. As a human rights lawyer, I will never accept that one child's life has less value than another's. I do not accept that any conflict should be beyond the reach of the law, nor that any perpetrator should be above the law. So I support the historic step that the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has taken to bring justice to victims of atrocities in Israel and Palestine.That view of the ICC's work is clearly not shared by the Biden White House but George Clooney is currently advertised as a "special guest" for the major June 15 fundraiser for Biden's reelection campaign in Los Angeles. The event, "An Evening for President Joe Biden with President Barack Obama," also features Jimmy Kimmel, Julia Roberts, in addition to Clooney. Ticket packages range in cost from $250 to $500,000.The last such fundraiser was held in March at Radio City Music Hall in New York City, raising $25 million, but several hundred protesters stood outside the venue while others disrupted the event from inside the venue, shouting "blood on your hands" at Biden, until they were escorted out by security, according to The New York Times.Protesters will likely target the upcoming LA fundraiser as well, an event at which Clooney will be in the uncomfortable role of standing on stage alongside, and actively raising money for, a president who is undermining the Clooney Foundation for Justice's mission and attacking Amal Clooney's work with the ICC.The Clooney Foundation for Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

A New York Times poll released this week found that 13% of voters defecting from President Joe Biden, those who voted for him in 2020 but will not do so in November, cite his handling of foreign policy and Israel's war in Gaza as the reason for pulling their support. But an investigation by Responsible Statecraft finds that those same policies likely benefit the president's re-election campaign in a different way: his biggest funders happen to support them. A review of campaign contributions, philanthropy, and public statements reveals that over one third of the president's top tier funders — those giving in excess of $900,000 to the Biden Victory Fund — appear to see little nuance in the conflict and show overwhelming sympathy for Israel, at times verging into outright hostility to Palestinians and anti-Muslim bigotry.That's in sharp contrast with 13% of defecting 2020 Biden voters who say they won't vote for the president's reelection - a group that could tip the scales this November toward Donald Trump - only 17% of whom sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians."I think many Victory Fund members are in a bubble and out of touch with political reality but they also seem indifferent to the suffering of over 1 million children in Gaza whose lives are treated by Netanyahu and Biden as worth far less than those of Israeli children," said Amed Khan, a former Victory Fund donor who resigned in November over Biden's handling of the war. "The American people see these policies as morally repugnant."Thus, Biden likely isn't hearing those voices opposing Israel's brutal war in Gaza at fundraisers with his top donors.Take for example, billionaire Haim Saban, who contributed $929,599 to the Victory Fund. Saban also serves on the board of Friends of the Israel Defense Forces and contributed $1 million to the United Democracy Project, the independent expenditure arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, that runs ads supporting pro-Israel candidates and ads criticizing candidates deemed insufficiently supportive of Israel. Last week, in an email to Biden apparently forwarded by an intermediary, Saban slammed the president's decision to hold a weapons shipment to Israel, warning, "Let's not forget that there are more Jewish voters, who care about Israel, than Muslims [sic] voters that care about Hamas," suggesting that putting conditions on U.S. weapons transfers to Israel is akin to supporting Hamas.Saban made his priorities clear in a 2004 New York Times interview, saying, "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."Saban's wife, Cheryl Saban, also donated $929,600 to the Victory Fund, gave $2.18 million to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces in 2022 (a gift made alongside her husband), and cheered on pro-Israel provocateur Ben Shapiro's statement that, "If Israel put down its guns tomorrow there would be a second holocaust. If the Palestinians put down their arms tomorrow there would be a Palestinian state." "Bravo," said Cheryl Saban last November.Mobile gaming pioneer Mark Pincus offered even more blunt statements. Pincus, who contributed $929,600 to the Victory Fund, is outspoken on Israel on social media."Why do we only see pro palestinians [sic] in acts of violence? Why has this become an accepted form of protest," he asked in a March 8 post on X."[T]heres [sic] no mention by nyt of baby beheading or Biden speech about it. [B]ut continued coverage of destruction in Gaza and Israeli military failures. [T]hey should rename as 'the new hamas times,'" wrote Pincus in an October 11 post, referencing the claim, walked back by the White House on October 12 that Biden had seen photographic evidence of babies beheaded by Hamas on October 7.LinkedIn co-founder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman also has a history of praising elite IDF units. At the 2022 Aspen Security Forum, Hoffman said the U.S. needed a "digital ROTC" and used the Israeli 8200 signal intelligence unit as an example of what was necessary. (As it turned out, the 8200 unit was not active on October 7 because it doesn't operate on nights and weekends.)Hoffman currently funds a "1-year full scholarship executive excellence program" that is "specially tailored for outstanding alumni of IDF Elite Units," via the Hoffman Kofman Foundation.Attorney and political pundit George Conway, who also contributed $929,600 to the Victory Fund, regularly posts pro-Israel commentary on X while expressing little concern for Palestinians and expresses skepticism about the organizing behind college protests against Israel's actions.Other donors were less vocal but their recent philanthropy and political giving suggests a strong pro-Israel bent in their foreign policy views.Real estate and casino magante Neil Bluhm contributed $929,600 to the Victory Fund, $200,000 to the United Democracy Project, and $225,000 to the American Israel Education Foundation — the fundraising arms of AIPAC that arranges for congressional junkets to Israel, among other activities — via his family's charitable foundation in 2022.Entertainment and sports mogul Casey Wasserman donated $929,600 to the Victory Fund and $25,000 in 2022 to Israel Emergency Alliance (also known as Stand With Us), a pro-Israel group that works to oppose boycotts against Israel. Stand With Us, earlier this month in a press release, called for the resignation of Northwestern University president Michael Schill after he "announced a set of concessions to [student encampment protester] organizers Monday that included pledging to implement full-ride scholarships for Palestinian students and faculty positions for Palestinian academics."Pete Lowy, son of Australian-Israeli billionaire Frank Lowy, contributed $929,600 to the Victory Fund and maintains close ties to hawkish pro-Israel groups. "Retail industry tycoon Peter Lowy inspired and delighted over 100 IAC Supporters at a donor reception toasting Israel's 70th Independence Day on Tuesday, April 24," read a 2018 press release from the Israeli-American Council, a group that describes itself as "wholeheartedly support[ing] the State of Israel." And until 2020, Lowy served as a senior vice president at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank formed by AIPAC. Another Biden Victory Fund supporter, developer Eli Reinhard, who is listed as giving $1.84 million, also contributed $300,000 to WINEP and $50,000 to Friends of the IDF via his foundation in 2022.In total, nine out of the 25 donors who gave more than $900,000 to the Biden Victory Fund had either contributed funds to staunchly pro-Israel groups or made statements that showed a strong pro-Israel bias. Other donors were largely silent on the Israel-Gaza war or, like film director Steven Spielberg, have responded to the conflict by denouncing both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim views.The New York Times warned that, "yearning for change and discontent over the economy and the war in Gaza among young, Black and Hispanic voters threaten to unravel the president's Democratic coalition." But Biden's most important campaign funders appear to offer a very different coalition than those in the broader electorate: donors with a one-sided support for Israel even as it wages a brutal war in Gaza that's incurring a steep political cost on Biden's reelection effort.The Sabans, Pincus, Hoffman, Conway, Bluhm, Wasserman, Lowy and Reinhard did not respond to requests for comment.

This article was co-published with the Guardian.Top Republican donor and TikTok investor Jeff Yass is connected to over $16 million in funding to anti-Muslim and pro-Israel groups that have advocated for a U.S. war with Iran and other militaristic policies in the Middle East, according to an investigation by the Guardian and Responsible Statecraft.Media reports on Yass, the billionaire co-founder of Susquehanna International Group, a trading and technology firm, have focused on his outsized role in the Republican Party, to which he is now the largest political donor in the 2024 election cycle, contributing more than $46 million thus far.Yass has also emerged as the biggest funder of a group targeting progressive representative Summer Lee (Pa.) in her primary race, suggesting an interest in influencing Democratic primary outcomes, not just in boosting Republicans.But little has been reported about his involvement in funding groups advocating a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy, hawkish U.S. policies in the Middle East and support for theorists whom experts described as extreme anti-Muslim conspiracists.Leading Yass's philanthropy in the foreign policy space is $7.9 million contributed to Jerusalem Online University between 2014 and 2019 by a grant-making group at which he once served as one of three directors.A Jewish Daily Forward investigation into the group in 2011 found that the website promotes itself as a source of educational materials about the Middle East and Israel, but the website's actual message is far more biased, the Forward found."On its website and its promotional materials, Jerusalem Online U hardly portrays itself as a center for neutral academic inquiry," the Forward wrote. "In fact, it boasts an explicitly pro-Israel mission that seems distinctly at odds with academic principles. In one advertisement for its services, the Jerusalem Online U site's blog features a video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling Congress last May that 'Israel is what is right' about the Middle East. The words 'Be a Part of What's Right' appear on screen as he speaks."The contributions came from the Claws Foundation, an entity at which Yass served as a director alongside Arthur Dantchik, a co-founder of Susquehanna and attorney Alan P Dye. Dye did not return calls for comment. The Kids Connect Charitable Fund — which does not list Yass or Dantchik as directors but listed the Claws Foundation as a "related tax-exempt organization" in an IRS filing and was identified as an arm of both men's philanthropy by Haaretz — contributed another $3.48 million to Jerusalem Online University's parent organization, Imagination Productions.The Claws Foundation also issued a $10,000 grant to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces in 2011 and $35,000 in grants, between 2010 and 2011, to the Center for Security Policy, an anti-Muslim and conspiracy theory-promoting group founded by Frank Gaffney, whom the Southern Policy Law Center describes as "one of America's most notorious Islamophobes" and the Anti-Defamation League describes as a chief promulgator of the conspiracy theory "that the US government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and that a number of political figures have actual ties to the group." The Center for Security Policy vice-president, Clare Lopez, has said: "When Muslims follow their doctrine they become jihadists."In 2013 to 2014, the Claws Foundation sent $250,000 to the David Horowitz Freedom Center, another central promoter of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Horowitz, whom the group is named after and who serves as its president, once complained that Muslims are a "protected species in this country" and said he's "wait[ing] for the day when the good Muslims step forward," at a Brooklyn College event in 2011."The fact Yass is donating to Gaffney and Horowitz's organizations shows how extreme his politics are," said Tommy Vietor, former National Security Council spokesperson under President Obama. "They are beyond Trump. They are OG conspiracy theorists. Gaffney in particular."The Claws Foundation also donated $100,000 to the Central Fund of Israel in 2014, a group that the New York Times described as a "clearinghouse" for settlement development in the Israeli-occupied West Bank."The Claws Foundation has contributed more than $300 million, overwhelmingly to children's hospitals, adult healthcare, education and the arts in the United States, and has never sought to influence U.S. foreign policy," said a spokesperson for Yass and Dantchik. "Moreover, $31 million of Claws contributions went to the Shalom Hartman Institute, one of whose important apolitical initiatives is building bridges between Jewish and Muslim communities. Focusing on a few de minimis contributions promotes a false narrative that fits a biased agenda."Yass's philanthropy also appears to bring Yass into close contact with efforts to influence U.S.-Israel and U.S.-Iran relations via advocacy and lobbying campaigns. A non-profit group, QXZ Inc, is the largest identifiable source of funding for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) efforts to obstruct the White House's nuclear diplomacy with Iran during Barack Obama's second presidential term.In 2015, QXZ Inc contributed $1.5 million to Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, AIPAC's advocacy group opposing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security council plus Germany and Iran to impose restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for Iran receiving some relief from nuclear-related sanctions.Vietor was dismissive of AIPAC's work opposing the Obama-era JCPOA but suggested that electing and influencing Trump became a goal of some Iran-deal opponents."[Funders of the anti-JCPOA campaign] lit that money on fire in 2015. They were incapable of beating Obama politically in terms of defeating the JCPOA in Congress so they changed tactics and went all in for Trump," said Vietor. "Trump chose to pull out of the JCPOA despite many of his advisers saying it would be a disaster and it has been. Iran is closer than ever to getting a nuclear weapon."Yass's ties to a group providing significant financial support to AIPAC's effort were unreported until now. QXZ's links to Yass were revealed when Strong Economy for Growth, a Massachusetts-based group, spent $1.2 million supporting a failed 2016 ballot question regarding lifting caps on charter schools. State campaign finance officials required the group to disclose the identity of its donors. Yass, via QXZ, was the largest funder of Strong Economy for Growth.QXZ's involvement in well-concealed funding of foreign policy advocacy continued in 2015 with a $250,000 contribution to neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol's Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), a group that ran ads attacking Obama as "caving to Iran" with the JCPOA.The New Yorker's Connie Bruck profiled the group's strategies and reported that the ECI "sought to intimidate critics of Netanyahu, and Israel's most powerful American backers, for the escalating drive to war with Iran, and to damage Obama."Underscoring QXZ's commitment to the most militaristic and pro-Israel wings of the Republican party, the group contributed $1.05 million between 2018 and 2019 to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a club of hawkishly pro-Israel megadonors.A spokesperson for Yass did not comment on Yass's ties to QXZ but denied Yass's involvement in donations to the Emergency Committee for Israel, the Republican Jewish Coalition or Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran."Jeff Yass has never directed QXZ to fund any such groups and any statement otherwise is false," said the spokesperson.Yass has said nothing about his foreign policy agenda in public remarks but the timeline of his meeting with Trump and Trump's subsequent reversal of his position on banning TikTok offers an early indication that Yass may already be an influential figure for the Republican nominee for the presidency.Trump has a track record of shifting positions on Israel and Iran to align with political megadonors. Only after securing the nomination in 2016 did Trump pivot to more militaristic positions in the Middle East — committing to withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and supporting an unconditionally pro-Israel U.S. approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — positions in lockstep with his biggest political patrons in the general election, the late Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam.Yass's spokesperson denied that Yass seeks influence with Trump on foreign policy matters."Jeff Yass has never discussed foreign policy with Donald Trump, has never contributed to Mr. Trump and has no plans to do so," said the spokesperson. "Mr. Yass's philanthropy is largely focused on school choice and has nothing to do with foreign policy.""As a libertarian, Jeff generally opposes American involvement in foreign affairs as evidenced by his support for Rand Paul and Thomas Massie," the spokesperson said.

Published in partnership with The Intercept.Sen. Robert Mendendez (D-N.J.) is fighting charges that he accepted money in exchange for assisting foreign governments. That legal defense is being paid in part by donors with links to a former terrorist organization, a sign of the senator's need for fast cash.In September, federal prosecutors hit Menendez and his wife with a raft of bribery charges and, more recently, obstruction of justice. (Menendez and his wife pleaded not guilty to the charges.) With a trial scheduled for May, Menendez stands to rack up staggering legal fees. His legal defense fund, according to public disclosures, had already spent $373,223 as of the end of January.Much of the cash in the fund — he has raised over $400,000 — comes from sources one might anticipate. New Jersey and New York donors with various business and political interests in his home state, including the real estate firm led by Jared Kushner's family, have given the fund money. There are, however, many lesser-known donors. One is Ahmad Moeinimanesh, an electronic engineer from Northern California. Another is Hossein Afshari, also from California.At first blush, these smaller contributions to Menendez Legal Defense Fund might appear to come from a smattering of individual donors. An analysis of the donor rolls by Responsible Statecraft and The Intercept, however, shows that about 15 percent of the people who gave to Menendez — including Moeinimanesh and Afshari — are linked to an Iranian exile group called the Mojahedin e-Khalq, or MEK.Menendez and the MEK have a relationship going back a decade. Shortly after the group was removed from a State Department list of "foreign terror organizations," Menendez advocated for the MEK following an attack on its members by the Iraqi government.Menendez's elevation of the group as a viable alternative to the Islamic Republic continued since then. The senator met with its leader, Maryam Rajavi, last May and heaped praise on the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a so-called political wing indistinguishable from the MEK, at a 2022 Capitol Hill event organized by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, a group allied with the MEK."Let me start off by thanking the Organization of Iranian Communities for putting together today's event on Capitol Hill," said Menendez. "I'm thrilled to see so many Iranian Americans from across the country, and I'd like to thank and recognize the National Council of Resistance of Iran for their commitment to elevating your voices, the voices of Iranians inside of Iran and constantly advocating for the freedom of the Iranian people."Moeinimanesh, the chair of OIAC's California chapter, who contributed $2,500, was one of a dozen Iranian Americans with links to the MEK or its affiliates that gave to Menendez's fund. (Neither Moeinimanesh nor OIAC responded to a request for comment.) Afshari gave $1,000. "Giving money to people I think are nice is not illegal," Afshari told Responsible Statecraft and The Intercept, of his contributions to Menendez's legal fund. "He is a man with principle and integrity and I don't believe all of the negative things some media put out."In total, MEK-affiliated individuals made up approximately 5 percent of the total funds raised, over $20,000, by the end of January. (Seven other donors, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the OIAC, and Menendez's office did not respond to requests for comment.)Responsible Statecraft and The Intercept established links between the MEK and most of these donors by cross-referencing their names with signatories on OIAC and National Council of Resistance of Iran letters and affiliations. Court records linked Afshari to the MEK.Menendez and the MEKMenendez's perch atop the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made him one of the most influential Democrats on foreign policy. He was an attractive friend for Egypt, one of the two foreign governments now accused of bribing him for political favors. The dramatic federal indictment claimed cash, gold, and expensive gifts from Egypt were linked to a weapons sale and the release of a hold on $300 million in aid to Cairo. An updated indictment in January alleged that Menendez also accepted Formula One tickets and other gifts from Qatar in exchange for favors.The sway Menendez held in Washington — and his hawkish stances on Iran — also made him a valuable ally for the MEK. The group had made an arduous journey from its early days as a student-run radical Marxist group in the late 1960s. Anti-monarchists, the MEK fought on the winning side of the 1979 Iranian Revolution but faced a crackdown as the young Islamic Republic consolidated power. Forced into exile, the MEK fought on the Iraqi side of the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s, giving rise to antipathy against the group inside its home country.The exile in Iraq also brought an inward turn, leading the Rand Corporation to conclude that the MEK, due to its aggrandizement of its late-leader Massoud Rajavi and his wife, Maryam, was a "cult." Human Rights Watch, Rand, and The Intercept have reported that MEK leaders abused group members' human rights.In 1997, the MEK was placed on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations for, among other things, its role in the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s and an attempted attack on the Iranian mission to the United Nations in 1992. The designation would last for a decade and a half. Following a successful lobbying campaign by its supporters in the U.S., the group won a major victory when it was removed from the American terror rolls in 2012.The shift in the U.S. stance meant American politicians, including Menendez, could grow close to the militant outfit without controversy about the terror label. Prominent figures were more regularly seen speaking at the group's annual conference outside Paris, casting the MEK and Maryam Rajavi as a viable political force within Iran if the Islamic Republic were overthrown. The appearances were often well remunerated; former Vice President Mike Pence, for example, received $430,000 from the MEK following the end of the Trump administration.Though he had been quiet on the MEK while it was designated as a terror organization, once it was delisted Menendez consistently expressed concern for the group and its members. In 2013, the MEK began a frantic lobbying push in Washington after its encampment in Iraq — the former base from which it mounted military attacks — came under attack from Iranian-backed groups; the Iraqi government, which was close to Iran, was unwilling or unable to guarantee MEK members' security.Menendez, a top recipient of campaign contributions from donors with ties to the MEK, stepped in. A month after the attack, he held up a sale of Apache helicopters to Iraq that were meant to be part of efforts to push back the Islamic State group. Speaking at a 2014 MEK rally in Paris, Menendez said, "I told Prime Minister Maliki" — Nouri al-Maliki, of Iraq — "in person last year that his commitment to the safety and security of the MEK members at Camp Liberty is a critical factor in my future support for any assistance to Iraq."Menendez has continued to address MEK convenings and speaks about the group in terms hinting at accepting its self-image as a government-in-exile. And he is quick to point out that he is a friend to the MEK. In a video message to the OIAC in 2021, Menendez wished the group a happy Nowruz, the Persian New Year, and reiterated his support for their work. "You know, that you have friends in Congress and throughout the U.S. government, as well as a host of international NGOs who will continue to shine a light on these abuses" — by the Iranian government — "and continue to press for accountability," Menendez said. "We will continue highlighting the plight of Iran's people at the regime's expense."Now, Menendez also appears to have friends among the MEK who are willing to help him with his plight — at their own expense.

Nuclear weapons aren't just a threat to human survival, they're a multi-billion-dollar business supported by some of the biggest institutional investors in the U.S. according to new data released today by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands. For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S."As for the U.S., while there is, like past years, indeed a dominance, and total financing from U.S.-based institutions has increased, the total number of U.S. investors has dropped for the third year in a row (similar to our global findings), and we hope to see this number will continue to fall in the coming years," Alejandar Munoz, the report's primary author, told Responsible Statecraft.In 2023, the top 10 share and bondholders of nuclear weapons producing companies are all American firms. The firms — Vanguard, Capital Group, State Street, BlackRock, Wellington Management, Fidelity Investments, Newport Group, Geode Capital Holdings, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley — held $327 billion in investments in nuclear weapons producing companies in 2023, an $18 billion increase from 2022.These companies are also profiting from the enormous government contracts they receive for developing and modernizing nuclear weapons. "All nuclear-armed states are currently modernizing their nuclear weapon systems," says the annual "Don't Bank on the Bomb" report from PAX and ICAN. "In 2022, the nine nuclear-armed states together spent $82.9 billion on their nuclear weapons arsenals, an increase of $2.5 billion compared to the previous year, and with the United States spending more than all other nuclear powers combined."American weapons companies are some of the biggest recipients of contracts for nuclear weapons. Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics are "the biggest nuclear weapons profiteers," according to the report. Combined, the two American weapons manufacturers have outstanding nuclear weapons related contracts with a combined potential value of at least $44.9 billion.Those enormous government contracts for nuclear weapons, alongside contracts for conventional weapons, have helped make nuclear weapons producers an attractive investment for American investment banks and funds. "Altogether, 287 financial institutions were identified for having substantial financing or investment relations with 24 companies involved in nuclear weapon production," says the report. "$477 billion was held in bonds and shares, and $343 billion was provided in loans and underwriting."The report notes that while the total amount invested in nuclear weapons has increased, the number of investors has fallen and trends toward firms in countries with nuclear weapons.ICAN and PAX suggest that concentration may be a result of prohibitions on nuclear weapons development for signatories to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a 93 signatory treaty committing to the ultimate goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The report says:The TPNW comprehensively prohibits the development, manufacturing, testing, possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as assistance with those acts. For companies that build the key components needed to maintain and expand countries' nuclear arsenals, access to private funding is crucial. As such, the banks, pension funds, asset managers and other financiers that continue to invest in or grant credit to these companies allow for the production of inhumane and indiscriminate weapons to proceed. By divesting from their business relationships with these companies, financial institutions can reduce available capital for nuclear weapon related activities and thereby be instrumental in supporting the fulfilment of the TPNW's objectives.Susi Snyder, managing director of the Don't Bank on the Bomb Project, told Responsible Statecraft that even U.S. banks, like Pittsburgh based PNC Bank, are facing shareholder pressure to divest from nuclear weapons and that the tide may be shifting as shareholders in U.S. companies grow increasingly sensitive to investments in nuclear weapons. "For three years shareholder resolutions have been put forward at PNC bank raising concerns that their investments in nuclear weapon producers are a violation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and that they are not in line with the bank's overall human rights policy guidelines," she said.

On Thursday night, President Joe Biden — acting without congressional approval — ordered airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, an escalation in the regional spillover from Israel's war in Gaza that now directly involves US military personnel.Biden chose to escalate the conflict and bomb Yemen in response to Houthi fighters' Red Sea attacks. His unconditional support and steady flow of weapons to Israel appears to be increasing the likelihood of a regional war. Instead of using the U.S.'s considerable leverage over Israel to push for a ceasefire, Biden is enabling a brutal war that has killed more than 23,000 Palestinians, and ties his administration to Israel's decisions as it inches toward an all out war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.Biden should be honest with Americans: the longer Israel's siege of Gaza persists, the greater the chances of a regional conflagration that will put American lives in danger.

News media, pundits and, indeed, Responsible Statecraft itself, may give the impression that opaque funding and refusal to disclose potential conflicts of interest are pervasive in Washington's policy circles. But that's not always the case.
On Wednesday, the New York Times highlighted the funding of a source quoted in an article about new allegations made by the Justice Department against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), taking the unusual step of weaving the funding disclosure into the article as an example of how Washington's think tanks are awash in foreign cash.
The Times reported that "prosecutors accused Mr. Menendez of using his influence and connections — a byproduct of his powerful position as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to help a New Jersey developer get financial backing from an investment fund run by a Qatari royal family member in exchange for lucrative bribes," and interviewed Hussein Ibish, a widely respected expert on Middle East politics.
Times journalists Vivian Nereim and Tariq Panja, wrote:
"Gulf countries like Qatar view cultivating relationships with politicians like Mr. Menendez as a sort of 'cynical statecraft,' said Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. Like many Washington think tanks, his research organization has received funding from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — a sign of the depth of Gulf influence in the United States."Both Ibish and his employer as well as the Times deserve credit for this disclosure.First, Arab Gulf States Institute discloses its corporate sponsors and, at its inception in 2015, disclosed that it was primarily funded from Saudi and UAE donors. Second, the Times decided that the funding of their source was an important piece of context to pass along to readers. Indeed, they even took it as an opportunity to highlight the widespread role of foreign governments in funding DC policy shops.Last year, Responsible Statecraft highlighted the Times' refusal to alert readers to the Arab Gulf States institute's funding sources when publishing an op-ed by Ibish and in 2020, when Ibish was quoted as a critic of a new initiative — Democracy in the Arab World Now — to promote human rights and democracy in the Arab world.The Times' decision to highlight these facts this week falls closely in line with guidance given by Margaret Sullivan, the Times' public editor from 2012 to 2016."These days, with lobbyists coming under more public criticism, some like to use a 'surrogate' — like a supposedly neutral person from a think tank — to promote an idea that they can then email-blast out or have their client endorse in a press release," wrote Sullivan in 2014. "The Times can't let itself be used in that way."
"For its readers to evaluate ideas, they need to know where they're coming from — and who might be paying for them," she added.Nereim and Panja appear to be heeding Sullivan's advice.

A senior Democratic lawmaker recently said that its easier to back Israeli government policy, in many instances at the expense of the Palestinians, because pro-Israel lobbyists have a relatively more influential presence on Capitol Hill. "The Palestinians have very legitimate claims" and have been "subject to brutal injustice," Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a meeting with constituents on October 23. But he added, pro-Israel groups — including J Street and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — make many members of Congress reflexively pro-Israel simply because it is "the path of least resistance." While polling shows that most Americans consider themselves pro-Israel, their support is not entirely unconditional when it comes to how the Israelis are waging the war against Hamas in Gaza.A recent survey of likely American voters found that 61% support the call for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, where weeks of intense bombing by the Israel Defense Forces have caused widespread devastation. Despite this widespread support, only 14% of the U.S. House of Representatives have come out publicly in favor of a ceasefire.But pro-Israel groups make significant campaign contributions, visit members of Congress frequently, and pressure them to back the activities of the Israeli government, critics who spoke with RS say. Rep. Himes held an online meeting to discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict with constituents on October 23, led by the Connecticut chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. According to a recording of the event obtained by Responsible Statecraft, when asked about his tendency to reflexively begin his statements with support for Israel, Himes responded with several answers, one of which addressed the near-constant presence of pro-Israel lobbyists:"[I]n this office, I get 6-8 visits a year by AIPAC, which is a fairly right-wing pro-Israeli group, and J Street, which is a left-leaning pro-Israeli group. I have never had a visit — never once, I've been doing this for 15 years — by a pro-Palestinian group. And again, I'm not criticizing anybody, I'm just sort of explaining the facts as they appear. And I think, therefore, the path of least resistance for an awful lot of members of Congress is to be reflexive the way you were concerned about. And the reason I would love to talk more about that is because, you know, the Palestinians have very legitimate claims, and in times and places have been subject to brutal injustice, and yet there is nobody telling their story."Himes pointed to the influence of AIPAC to help explain the lopsided support for Israel in congress: "AIPAC has been doing this for 60 years. They come in and they sit in the office, and they say, you know, 'Here's three things that we would really like you to consider doing, are you going to do it?' And I'm not saying AIPAC is good or bad, I'm just saying that I know what is effective in educating members of Congress, and honestly it breaks my heart that there isn't a Palestinian group that comes in and says, 'Look, let us tell you what our aspirations are, let us tell you some stories, let us tell you what the settlers are doing outside of, you know, Ramallah.'""I'd be curious to know what he means by 'path of least resistance,'" Foundation for Middle East Peace President Lara Friedman told Responsible Statecraft. "Does he mean, 'this is the path that gets me rewarded in terms of campaign support,' or, on the other hand, 'how I avoid other possible negative consequences like someone giving massive support to my primary opponent?'"Rep. Himes has not traditionally received much financial support from pro-Israel groups. However, last year saw the most campaign spending by pro-Israel donors of any congressional cycle in the last 30 years. Amid this wave of money, the largest contributor to Himes' campaign committee in 2022 was AIPAC. The group has recently clashed publicly with several critics in Congress, ranging from Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) to Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Next year, AIPAC-affiliated groups are expected to spend upwards of $100 million on primary elections in an effort to oust Democratic lawmakers they view are insufficiently supportive of Israel or too vocal about Palestinian rights. The influence of this campaign spending is well-known among congressional insiders. "Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you're with them, and significant amounts against you if you're not with them," former Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) told The New Yorker in 2014. "When key votes are cast, the question on the House floor, troublingly, is often not 'What is the right thing to do for the United States of America?' but 'How is AIPAC going to score this'"?In his congressional votes and public statements, Rep. Himes has charted a course in between his party's biggest supporters and biggest critics of Israel. He explained during the Oct. 23 meeting his reasons for not supporting the calls for a lasting ceasefire. "Unless somebody can convince me that there is an alternative mechanism for bringing these terrorists that perpetrated this grave, grave crime against Israel… to justice, I will not do that," Himes said in reference to Hamas's attacks on October 7. Yet the congressman also opposed the move to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for her advocacy on the issue."My theme has been two-fold," said Himes, "which is that we will support Israel in the face of this disgusting attack, and number two, that we need to make sure that the Israeli response is moderated, that they abide by the laws of armed conflict, that they come off of their rhetoric of leveling Gaza, of a siege, and that everything be done with an eye towards what is right from a humanitarian standpoint."The eight-term congressman attended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress in 2015 where he bashed President Obama's diplomacy with Iran and received a standing ovation. But Rep. Himes had harsh words for the controversial leader during the Oct. 23 constituent meeting."This problem will not go away until there is a two-state solution," he said. "Very sadly, the current Israeli prime minister has been doing pretty much everything he can to make that an impossibility. And, of course, that's a part of the reason why the rage and anger rose to the levels that it did" prior to Hamas's Oct. 7 attacks. More than two months after the attacks, members of Congress are increasingly voicing concern about Israel's bombardment of Gaza and President Biden called Israel's bombing campaign "indiscriminate," positions that appear to have become more acceptable weeks after the call in which Himes referred to pro-Israel positions as the "path of least resistance."Friedman credits that shift, at least partially, to growing engagement by voters concerned about the civilian death toll in Gaza."Constituent engagement matters, especially since the Gaza war started," said Friedman. "Members are now talking about ceasefire and other things we didn't hear in the first few weeks. Members are starting to show a bit more empathy and concern for what is happening in Gaza."Rep. Himes' office did not respond to requests for comment.

This article was co-published with the Guardian.Nine of the 12 members of a high-level congressional committee charged with advising on the U.S.'s nuclear weapons strategy have direct financial ties to contractors that would benefit from the report's recommendations or are employed at think tanks that receive considerable funding from weapons manufacturers, the Guardian and Responsible Statecraft can reveal.While the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (CCSPUS) purports to recommend steps to avoid nuclear conflict, it does nothing to disclose its own potential conflicts of interest with the weapons industry in its final report or at rollout events at think tanks in Washington.The United States will soon face "a world where two nations [China and Russia] possess nuclear arsenals on par with our own," warned the commission's final report, released in mid-October. "In addition," the report charged, "the risk of conflict with these two nuclear peers is increasing. It is an existential challenge for which the United States is ill-prepared."According to the CCSPUS, this potential doomsday scenario requires the U.S. to make "necessary adjustments to the posture of US nuclear capabilities – in size and/or composition," a policy shift that would steer billions of taxpayer dollars to the Pentagon and nuclear weapons contractors."What we've consistently seen is the nuclear weapons industry buying influence and that means we cannot make serious decisions about our security when the industry is buying influence through think tanks and commissioners they are skewing the debate," said Susi Snyder, program coordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons."Instead of having a debate about the tools and materials we need to make ourselves safe," she added, "we're having a debate about which company should get the contracts. And that doesn't make the American people safe or anyone else in the world."The CCSPUS was established two years ago via the annual defense policy bill, and conflicts of interest on the commission were apparent from the beginning. But an analysis by the Guardian and Responsible Statecraft found deep ties between the commission and the weapons industry.The most recognizable member of the CCSPUS is its vice-chair, Jon Kyl, who served as a senator from Arizona from 1995 to 2013 and again in 2018, after the death of John McCain. While this, and more, is included in his biography in the commission's report, what's left out is his more recent employment as a senior adviser with the law firm Covington & Burling, whose lobbying client list includes multiple Pentagon contractors that would benefit from the commission's recommendations.In 2017 Kyl, personally, was registered to lobby for Northrop Grumman, which manufactures the B-21 nuclear bomber that the commission recommends increasing the number the U.S. plans to buy, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700 million each.Kyl did not respond to questions about his employment status with Covington & Burling, but the former senator was listed as a "senior adviser" on the firm's website until at least December 1, 2022, nearly 10 months after the commissioner selections for the CCSPUS were announced in March 2022.Another commissioner, Franklin Miller, is a principal at the Scowcroft Group, a business advisory firm that describes Miller as having expertise in "nuclear deterrence," and acknowledges its work in the weapons sector."The Scowcroft Group successfully advised a European defense leader on a strategic acquisition opportunity," says the consulting firm in the "Defense/Aerospace" section of its website. "We have also assisted a major defense firm in pursuing global partnerships and co-production opportunities."Miller did not respond to a request for comment about the identity of the Scowcroft Group's clients.Kyl and Miller are joined on the CCSPUS by retired general John E Hyten, who previously served as the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the second-highest-ranking member of the U.S. military.While Hyten's biography in the commission's report lauds his extensive military service, in retirement he has worked closely with a number of firms that could benefit immensely from the commission's recommendations.This March he was appointed as special adviser to the CEO of C3 AI, an artificial intelligence company that boasts of working with numerous agencies at the Department of Defense. In June 2022, Hyten was named executive director of the Blue Origins foundation, called the Club for the Future, and as a strategic adviser to Blue Origin's senior leadership. Blue Origin is wholly owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and works directly with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the air force and the space force on space launch-related capabilities.Hyten's ties to these firms are notable given the CCSPUS report's repeated overtures for improving and investing in space and artificial intelligence capabilities. Specifically, the report recommends the United States "urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture" and take steps to ensure it is "at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI)."Hyten did not respond to a request for comment.The CCSPUS also included think tank scholars whose employers receive significant funding from the arms industry. Two commission members work at the Hudson Institute, which, according to its most recent annual report, received in excess of $500,000 from Pentagon contractors in 2022. This includes six-figure donations from some of the Pentagon's top contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.On Monday, October 23, the Hudson Institute held an event to highlight the CCSPUS's report that included the two Hudson Institute employees who also served as commissioners. The event unabashedly promoted recommendations from the report that would be a financial windfall for Hudson's funders. The landing page for the event features a photo of a B-21 stealth bomber, the same photo used in the commission report that also recommended that the U.S. strategic nuclear posture be modified to "increase the planned number of B-21 bombers and tankers an expanded force would require."Neither at the event nor in the report is it noted that the plane's manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, is in the Hudson Institute's highest donor tier, contributing in excess of $100,000 in 2022.The Hudson Institute staff who served as commissioners did not respond to requests for comment.Another commissioner, Matthew Kroenig, is a vice-president at the Atlantic Council, a prominent DC think tank which, according to the organization's most recent annual report, is funded by several top Pentagon contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon (now RTX), General Atomics, Saab and GM Defense. The Atlantic Council also receives more than $1 million a year directly from the Department of Defense and between $250,000 and $499,999 from the Department of Energy, which helps manage the nation's nuclear arsenal.These seeming conflicts of interest were not mentioned at any point in the CCSPUS's report or at an Atlantic Council event promoting the report and featuring the same photo of the B-21 used by the Hudson Institute and the commission.Kroenig did not respond to a request for comment.Even commissioners whose careers had included positions that were notably critical of nuclear weapons had recently established ties with firms that profit from the nuclear and conventional weapons industry.Commissioner Lisa Gordon-Hagerty worked for years at the pinnacle of nuclear weapons policy in the U.S., including positions on the national security council, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Department of Energy. She was also the director of the Federation of American Scientists, a non-profit organization known for advocating for reductions in nuclear weapons globally. Her last government position prior to joining the commission was serving as the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is responsible for military applications of nuclear science. She resigned from the post in 2020, allegedly after heated disagreements with the secretary of energy, who tried to cut NNSA funding.While much of her career is mentioned in the commission report, what's left out is that Gordon-Hagerty has also been cashing in on her nuclear expertise. After leaving the NNSA, in 2021 she joined the board and became director of strategic programs at Westinghouse Government Services, a nuclear weapons contractor that has been paid hundreds of millions of dollars for work with the Department of Defense and Department of Energy.Gordon-Hagerty did not respond to a request for comment.Like Gordon-Hagerty, fellow commissioner Leonor Tomero had a distinguished career at the highest levels of nuclear weapons policy. According to her bio in the commission report, she was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy and served for over a decade on the House Armed Services Committee as counsel and strategic forces subcommittee staff lead, where her portfolio included the establishment of the U.S. space force, nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear cleanup, arms control and missile defense.Outside government, Tomero was Director of Nuclear non-proliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, an organization that has repeatedly called for reductions in the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. Tomero is also on the board of the Council for a Livable World, which explicitly states that its goal is to eliminate nuclear weapons.Yet, in September, Tomero became a vice president of government Relations at JA Green & Company, a lobbying firm whose client list includes a host of military contractors that could see revenues soar if the CCSPUS's recommendations are adopted. Space X, for example — which pays $50,000 every three months to JA Green for lobbying related to "issues related to national security space launch" — would probably benefit mightily from the commission recommendation that "the United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure US access to and operations in space.""No clients of JA Green & Company sought to influence the work of the Commission or the Commission's recommendations in any way," said Jeffrey A Green, president of JA Green, in an email. "We follow all applicable ethics rules and there are no conflicts of interest."None of the potential conflicts of interest between commissioners' financial interests and the policy proposals laid out in their final report were disclosed by the CCSPUS itself within its final report or at any public event highlighting its findings.While many commissioners did not respond to requests for comment, the commission's executive director, William A Chambers, provided a statement on behalf of the CCSPUS and its members."Members of [the commission] were chosen and appointed by Members of Congress based on their national recognition and significant depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law enforcement, the Armed Forces, law, public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce, or foreign affairs," wrote Chambers. "Before they began performing their role as Commissioners, they were instructed on the ethics rules that govern congressional entities and were required to comply with rules set forth by the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate and the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives."Chambers did not respond to a request for a copy of the ethics rules.But the opacity about potential conflicts of interest leaves some experts questioning the CCSPUS's recommendations."There's a huge argument raging over what is security, how much does it rely on transparency and, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons, there is a call for greater transparency," said Snyder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. "That light they're asking to shine on China, North Korea and Iran is a light they also need to shine on their own decision-making."

What if the chair of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee that oversees legislation impacting war powers, treaties, troop deployments, and military aid, was illegally acting as a foreign agent of Egypt, one of the biggest recipients of U.S. aid and military sales?That scenario is exactly what the Department of Justice alleged last month when it accused Sen. Bob Menendez (D—NJ) of using his influence to increase U.S.-taxpayer funded aid to Egypt in exchange for gold bars, a Mercedes and stacks of cash.The Justice Department and Menendez are making history. This is the first time a sitting U.S. senator has been accused of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (or FARA), a law that prohibits Members of Congress from acting as an agent of a foreign principal.The Justice Department's FARA investigations into a high profile politician, think tank president and hip hop star sends a clear message that no one is above the law, says a new video by the Quincy Institute's Senior Video Producer Khody Akhavi and Democratizing Foreign Policy Program Director Ben Freeman.

This article was co-published with The Guardian.The United Nations warned that there was "clear evidence" that war crimes may have been committed in "the explosion of violence in Israel and Gaza." Meanwhile, Wall Street is hoping for an explosion in profits.During third-quarter earnings calls this month, analysts from Morgan Stanley and TD Bank took note of this potential profit-making escalation in conflict and asked unusually blunt questions about the financial benefit of the war between Israel and Hamas.The death toll — which so far includes over 7,000 Palestinians and over 1,400 Israelis — wasn't top of mind for TD Cowen's Cai von Rumohr, managing director and senior research analyst specializing in the aerospace industry. His question was about the upside for General Dynamics, an aerospace and weapons company in which TD Asset Management holds over $16 million in stock.Joe Biden has asked Congress for $106 billion in military and humanitarian aid for Israel and Ukraine and humanitarian assistance for Gaza. The money could be a boon to the aerospace and weapons sector which enjoyed a 7-percentage point jump in value in the immediate aftermath of Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel and the beginning of Israel's bombardment of Gaza in response."Hamas has created additional demand, we have this $106 billion request from the president," said von Rumohr, during General Dynamics' earnings call on October 25. "Can you give us some general color in terms of areas where you think you could see incremental acceleration in demand?""You know, the Israel situation obviously is a terrible one, frankly, and one that's just evolving as we speak," responded Jason Aiken, the company's executive vice president of technologies and chief financial officer. "But I think if you look at the incremental demand potential coming out of that, the biggest one to highlight and that really sticks out is probably on the artillery side."That next day, von Rumohr assigned a "buy" rating to General Dynamics' stock.Morgan Stanley's head of aerospace and defense equity research, Kristine Liwag, took a similar approach to the conflict during Raytheon's October 24 earnings call."Looking at [the White House's $106 billion supplemental funding request], you've got equipment for Ukraine, air and missile defense for Israel, and replenishment of stockpiles for both. And this seems to fit quite nicely with the Raytheon Defense portfolio," said Liwag, whose employer holds over $3 billion in Raytheon stock, a 2.1% ownership share of the weapons company."So how much of this opportunity is addressable to the company and if the dollars are appropriated, when would be the earliest you could see this convert to revenue?"Greg Hayes, Raytheon's chairman and executive director, responded: "I think really across the entire Raytheon portfolio, you're going to see a benefit of this restocking … on top of what we think is going to be an increase in the [Department of Defense] top line [budget]."The comments are seemingly in contradiction of each company's "statement on human rights" and explicit endorsements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.Aside from the callousness of casually discussing the financial benefits of far-off armed conflict, the comments raise questions about whether these major institutional shareholders of weapons stocks are abiding by their own human rights policies."We exercise our influence by conducting our business operations in ways that seek to respect, protect and promote the full range of human rights such as those described in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights," says Morgan Stanley's "Statement on Human Rights." "Although we believe that governments around the world bear primary responsibility for safeguarding human rights, we acknowledge the corporate responsibility to respect human rights articulated in the United Nations' Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.""TD's commitment to respect human rights is made in accordance with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights as set out in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP)," says TD's "Statement on Human Rights." "Since 2018, we have been undertaking a review of current practices and procedures and continue working towards integrating the UNGP across the Bank."But just three days into the Israel-Hamas war, the United Nations' Human Rights Council issued a warning that "there is already clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed in the latest explosion of violence in Israel and Gaza, and all those who have violated international law and targeted civilians must be held accountable for their crimes, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, said today.""The Commission has been collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes committed by all sides since 7 October 2023, when Hamas launched a complex attack on Israel and Israeli forces responded with airstrikes in Gaza," said the Human Rights Council, assessments shared by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch."[The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights] are clear in their expectation of companies to respect human rights throughout their value chain," said Cor Oudes, programme leader of humanitarian disarmament, business conflict and human rights at PAX for Peace, a Netherland based non-governmental organization advocating for the protection of civilians against acts of war."For banks, this includes ensuring that their clients or companies they otherwise invest in do not cause or contribute to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law," said Oudes. "If a bank invests in an arms producer that supplies weapons to states which use these in serious violations of human rights or IHL, according to the UNGPs, the bank has a responsibility to act to prevent more violations as well as to mitigate the existing impact on human rights."But the UN won't be the legal arbiter of whether US companies have participated in human rights violations, a key loophole for institutional investors and the weapons firms."The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is only as good as how it's interpreted by the host government, which in this case would be the US," Shana Marshall, an expert on finance and arms trade and associate director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University explained."These analysts can feel safe in the knowledge that the US government is never going to interpret that law in such a way that they will be prevented from exporting weapons to a country that the US doesn't have an outright embargo on, which probably won't have anything to do with human rights law anyways."Morgan Stanley and TD Bank did not respond to requests for comment.

The military coup in Gabon this summer marked the eighth such revolt in Africa since 2020, a shocking number that is raising questions about the role and impact of US military training in these countries.While each coup has many local dynamics and political actors, a Responsible Statecraft article by Nick Turse found that since 2008, at least 15 U.S.-trained officers have been involved in coups in West Africa and the Sahel.Evidence suggests that Washington's counter-terrorism, military first, strategy in West Africa and the Sahel is actually weakening African states and failing to serve African or American interests on the continent. Isn't it time for a serious reassessment of U.S. military assistance in Africa and a change in policy that shows civilians that the U.S. can make their lives better?(Video production by Khody Akhavi)

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that "Israeli officials are quietly working with the Biden administration on a polarizing proposal to set up a U.S.-run uranium-enrichment operation in Saudi Arabia as part of a complex three-way deal to establish official diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern countries," according to U.S. and Israeli officials. The article, authored by Dion Nissenbaum and Dov Lieber, largely showcases Israeli opposition to the deal. Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group whose mission includes providing "education to enhance Israel's image in North America…" was quoted opposing a uranium enrichment program on Saudi soil. He warned that "we're one bullet away from a disaster in Saudi Arabia," adding, "What happens if, God forbid, a radical Islamist leader takes control?"Israeli sources speaking to the WSJ acknowledged concerns about nonproliferation safeguards and the potential for a regional nuclear-arms race. But the one expert who was reported as thinking "the idea is worth exploring," is an executive at an organization that depends heavily on Saudi funding, a potential financial conflict of interest that wasn't disclosed by the WSJ to its readers.The WSJ quoted Brian Katulis, described as "vice president of policy at the Middle East Institute think tank in Washington," supporting the controversial idea.Nissenbaum and Lieber reported:"The concerns of a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East are very serious and real, indeed," [Katulis] said. "The question is whether the U.S. sitting on the sidelines, crossing its arms and scolding countries in the region for pursuing civilian nuclear energy is a more effective strategy than starting a discussion that aims to build trust and confidence among key actors in the region like Israel and Saudi Arabia."Katulis said, "The risk of some hostile leader getting these capacities is one we've seen and managed in a number of places around the world, including Pakistan.""It's not an ideal situation in those instances," he said, "but the risks can be managed."The WSJ didn't provide readers with the context about MEI that is provided on MEI's very own website: the organization's biggest funders are linked to the Saudi government, a government which, in this case, is pushing for the very nuclear deal that the WSJ was reporting on.MEI's website discloses that in the first seven months of 2023, its single largest contribution was $833,456 from Saudi Research and Media Group, a publishing group with close ties to the Saudi ministry of information. MEI also collected $200,000 from Aramco, the Saudi largely-state-owned oil company and $25,000 from the Saudi embassy in Washington.To its credit, MEI has been transparent about its funding and makes the information readily available on its website. The WSJ, on the other hand, did not inform readers that its only pro-Saudi-nuclear-deal source's work is partially funded by Saudi sources, a potential conflict of interest that may be of interest to readers seeking to better understand the benefits and pitfalls of the Saudi-Israeli normalization framework.The WSJ did not respond to a request for comment.

The New York Times picked September 11th as an opportune day to publish an essay praising "President Joe Biden and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia exchang[ing] a warm handshake" at last week's G20 summit, and celebrating the possibility of the U.S. giving formal security guarantees to Riyadh in exchange for Saudi Arabia establishing diplomatic ties with Israel.
Plenty is missing from the essay, including any discussion of how a security commitment might compel U.S. soldiers to fight on behalf of Saudi Arabia, a country whose de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman, was responsible for ordering the operation that killed Washington Post columnist Jamal Khahoshoggi and has overseen a brutal war in Yemen. The U.S. government also continues to withhold an unredacted memo detailing ties between 9/11 hijackers and Saudi Arabia.
But perhaps even more noticeably, the Times failed to acknowledge the potential financial conflicts of interest between the essay writer's employer and the essay's arguments for security guarantees that would be highly beneficial to Saudi Arabia.
Those potential conflicts, first flagged by journalist Adam Johnson, lie in the fact that the author, Hussein Ibish, is an employee at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, a group founded in 2015. "To its credit, the organization acknowledges that its sole sources of funding so far have been a think tank in Abu Dhabi and the Saudi Embassy in Washington, though it is looking for private sector support 'to further diversify funding,'" reported Julian Pecquet for Al Monitor at the time.
Little more has been revealed about the institute's funding but the website does acknowledge corporate sponsors, suggesting a degree of success in diversifying its funding but also posing further potential financial conflicts of interest. The "Corporate Circle" includes: Raytheon, the world's second largest weapons manufacturer; the Saudi state owned petroleum and natural gas company, Aramco; Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a registered foreign agent of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund and the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and General Electric, which has billions of dollars of projects in Saudi Arabia.
The Institute, where Ibish is a full time employee, revealed that it "...has received financial support from a wide variety of individual donors and governments, in addition to grants received from a number of different private and educational foundations," according to its most recent financial disclosures.
The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington did not respond to questions about which foreign governments have funded the organization, how much the organization has received from its "Corporate Circle," or whether the organization believes that funding from companies with a financial interest in Saudi Arabia pose a potential conflict of interest that readers of Ibish's essay should have been made aware.
RS asked the Times whether contributors are asked to supply any information about potential conflicts of interest between their funding and the subject matter on which they are providing analysis and whether the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington's funding posed a potential conflict of interest of which readers should have been made aware.
"Dr. Ibish's place of employment is clearly indicated in the guest essay you linked as well as his past publications in The New York Times," said Charlie Stadtlander, the Times's director of external communications for Newsroom and Opinion.
While it's unclear whether that conforms with the Times's current ethics guidelines, the newspaper's public editor took issue with the lack of transparency when think tank employees are quoted as sources or contribute op-eds to the newspaper back in 2014.
"These days, with lobbyists coming under more public criticism, some like to use a 'surrogate' — like a supposedly neutral person from a think tank — to promote an idea that they can then email-blast out or have their client endorse in a press release," wrote Margaret Sullivan, who served as public editor from 2012 to 2016. "The Times can't let itself be used in that way.""For its readers to evaluate ideas, they need to know where they're coming from — and who might be paying for them," she added.

Concerns about foreign governments seeking influence over U.S. foreign policy are seemingly in headlines every day. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, earned millions in fees from Chinese partners between 2013 and 2018; Brookings Institution President Ret. Gen. John R. Allen resigned after being accused of secretly lobbying for Qatar (no criminal charges were brought); and a cloud of suspicion that Donald Trump was influenced by foreign interests in Russia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel, among other countries, hung over his presidency, even after the Mueller investigation failed to provide conclusive evidence that Trump's campaign criminally conspired with Russian officials in the 2016 election campaign.But some of the candidates in the Republican presidential primary field appear to have few if any concerns about collecting six-or seven-figure paydays from foreign sources, according to a review of the candidates' financial disclosures.Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump tops both the polls and as recipient of foreign money, taking between $2 million and $10 million from his companies in the United Arab Emirates, over $5 million from his company in Oman, among other foreign payments totaling well in excess of $25 million and potentially exceeding $50 million. He also received at least $2 million in speaking fees at events connected to the Unification Church, a South Korean evangelical congregation with politically far-right leanings that also owns the conservative Washington Times. Former Vice President Mike Pence also collected $550,000 in speaking fees from a group founded by the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon – who founded the Unification Church. Pence's biggest foreign payments came from groups associated with Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). This Iranian militant group spent time on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations from 1997 to 2012 due to its role in the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s and an attempted attack against the Iranian mission to the UN in 1992. Following the 1979 Iranian revolution, the group fell out with the Islamic Republic and fled to Iraq, from which it fought alongside Saddam Hussein's army during the Iran-Iraq war. During the U.S. occupation of Iraq, Human Rights Watch and the Rand Corporation reported on human rights abuses conducted by the MEK against its own members. The MEK had become increasingly insular, focused on the aggrandizement of its late-leader Masoud Rajavi and his wife, Maryam Rajavi, leading outside observers, including the Rand Corporation, to characterize it as a "cult."Since its delisting as a terrorist organization in 2012 the group worked to rehabilitate its image by featuring high-profile politicians at its conventions, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile, and former defense official and WestExec and Center for a New American Security co-founder Michèle Flournoy, seeking to frame themselves as a legitimate dissident group and a viable political force in Iran if the Islamic Republic undergoes regime change.Those appearances were often incentivized by lucrative speaker fees, a trend underscored in the former vice president's finances. Pence has received $430,000 from three groups affiliated with the MEK.Former South Carolina governor and former U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley reported between $50,000 and $100,000 from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a New York-based pressure group that opposed the legal sale of medical supplies to Iran early in the COVID-19 pandemic and regularly calls for for heightened sanctions against Iran and against diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran's nuclear program. It's possible those donations are linked to foreign governments as UANI and its affiliated organizations have a number of links to Gulf monarchies. Emails that appear to have originated from the United Arab Emirates' ambassador in Washington, Yousef Al Otaiba, exposed a UANI advisory board member soliciting "support" from the UAE. In another email, Republican Party fundraiser and Saudi lobbyist Norm Coleman provided the tax status of UANI's umbrella group to Otaiba — suggesting a donation from the UAE was forthcoming — and offered to answer any questions from the ambassador. Haley also collected between $100,000 and $1,000,000 each from Canadian Friends of the Jerusalem College of Technology, Barclays Capital Asia, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.Pence and Haley's financial disclosures show a clear trend: foreign-linked groups with an interest in a hawkish U.S. role in the Middle East and regime change in Iran have taken a particular interest in funneling payments to these two candidates. Whether these were one-off payments for speaking appearances or down payments on influencing U.S. foreign policy remains to be clarified.