1

Distorting Discourse in DC How an Undercover Lobbyist Fooled The Beltway

by Till Bruckner, PhD

Nuakchott, Mauritania, 2015 tillbruckner@gmail.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tillbruckner HOUSE TESTIMONY 2012 When Representative Dan Burton of Indiana introduced the prettiest gal at the table [sic] to his fellow legislators on the House Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, they perked up. The lady about to testify, Dr Brenda Shaffer, was not only a specialist on the Caucasus, ethnic policies in Iran, Caspian energy, and energy and foreign policy, Burton had told them, but also the former research director of the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard University. Taking the microphone, Dr Shaffer briefly thanked chairman Burton for the opportunity to testify in front of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs. Then she got down to the topic of the day: Iranian influence in the South Caucasus. Shaffer warned the assembled law makers that Iran was extremely active in subversion in the region and destabilizing any of the countries that are pro-Western, particularly its small but oil-rich neighbour Azerbaijan. Washingtons foreign policy towards the region was playing into Irans hands, Shaffer argued. Rather than throw its weight behind Azerbaijan, Congress had in the past been recklessly siding with the countrys arch-enemy Armenia:

*F+or most of its history the Congress has earmarked money to the *Armenian-controlled] secessionist region of Nagorno-Karabakh. That is in violation of U.S. law. It would be as if you were earmarking money for Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, something the Congress even wouldnt do for an ally of the United States like Israel, let alone to earmark money for occupation of a territory that the U.S. law recognize as occupied territory.

It all started with the photo of a business card that somebody posted on Twitter. The picture showed that Brenda Shaffer, better known as an academic specializing in Azerbaijan and Caspian energy politics, had a secret side job with the state oil company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR). I started digging, and it seemed that with every stone I turned, another lead emerged, so I just kept on digging and digging and digging. What finally emerged was a vast network of interlocking lobbyists and lobbying groups bankrolled by an oil-rich dictatorship to push its agenda in D.C. The document below is the result of my research. I hope it proves useful to others studying the hidden machinations of foreign lobbyists and the failure of integrity safeguards in the legal system, academia, the media and think tanks. The document is up-to-date as of early spring 2015 only. For those only interested in a brief overview of the Shaffer case, please refer to the two articles I published on the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) website in June 2015.

2

The time had come to align Americas foreign policy with Americas interests and switch sides, she concluded. *W+e must increase our security cooperation with Azerbaijan to make sure that they dont pay the price for being a neighbor of Iran. Shaffer also included a written statement as part of her testimony, which provides further warnings of Tehrans attempts to undermine the Western-oriented and open society in Azerbaijan and its pro-American government, including through terrorist attacks, and Irans clandestine disinformation campaigns aimed at sabotaging the extensive cooperation and friendly ties between Azerbaijan and Israel. In short, Azerbaijan needs and deserves Americas support. REPRESENTATIVE DAN BURTON Or doesnt it? A closer look at the protagonists of the Congressional hearing of December 5th, 2012, reveals the extent to which foreign interests wield hidden influence over American foreign policy formulation, working from the shadows to distort discourse and steer political debates in desirable directions. Shortly after the hearing the committees chairman, Representative Dan Burton, resigned his seat. Only weeks later, he started a new job chairing a different body, the board of the Azerbaijan America Alliance, a lobby group promoting closer ties between the countries through academic discussion and political discourse. On his profile page, the Alliance approvingly notes that *a+s Chairman of the Subcommittee for Europe and Eurasia Affairs, Burton built strong relationships with the President of Azerbaijan and senior governmental officials while visiting Azerbaijan during his Congressional tenure, and it praises him for having supported Azerbaijans interests since as far back as 2005. DCI GROUP His star witness, Dr Brenda Shaffer, also has a variety of ties to Azerbaijan. Documents filed with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) show that less than two months before she testified, she had been approached by the DCI Group, a large lobbying firm then under contract with Azerbaijans embassy in Washington. DCI Group and its senior partners have a long track record of lobbying on behalf of clients some would consider unsavoury, including tobacco companies and Burmas military junta. The firm has been noted for its skill in idea laundering by pushing out its clients messages via seemingly neutral and independent third parties in a quest to dominate the entire intellectual environment in which officials make policy decisions. According to DCI Groups web page, *t+o reach your constituencies it is crucial to draft the right message; to identify trusted messengers; and to utilize the appropriate medium. DCI Groups contract with the embassy of Azerbaijan explains the lobby outfits plans for shaping the intellectual battlefield in D.C. For 20,000 dollars a month, the firm promised to provide a survey of current scholarship and recommend where and how to productively engage, work to help craft and place op-eds in major online and traditional news outlets, and develop a core group of think tanks for outreach and define new topics for positive engagement that parallel Azerbaijan's strategic goals. The contract, signed by Azerbaijans ambassador Elin Suleimanov, was dated October 1st, 2012, and was to run until March of the following year. (The contract was eventually terminated on February 22nd, 2013.)

3

DCI GROUP AND SHAFFER TESTIMONY Under the heading of activities to influence U.S. policies on behalf of the Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan, DCI Group reports the following interactions with Shaffer:

Description: Email to Dr. Brenda Shaffer, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, University of Haifa and Georgetown University on October 10, 2012, regarding a white paper examining Iran's footprint in the South Caucasus and its ties to Armenia and the importance of Azerbaijan. Met with her on December 5, 2012, to introduce her to media. Also held meeting with her on February 5, 2013, to discuss possible future writings on Azerbaijan issues.

No white papers or other writings related to the topic of Iran's footprint in the South Caucasus and its ties to Armenia and the importance of Azerbaijan mentioned by DCI Group are listed in Shaffers extensive publication record for the year following her initial email exchange with DCI Group on the topic. However, when she testified in front of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs less than two months later, the written statement she submitted was entitled Iranian Influence in the South Caucasus and the Surrounding Region. In addition to Azerbaijans importance to U.S. policy in the region, Irans ties to Armenia featured prominently in the paper:

Iran is actually an ally of Christian Armenia in its struggle against Azerbaijan, and in fact the war effort, the occupation of Armenia, of 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory could not have taken place without Iranian supplies, Iranian support.

Even more intriguingly, the day on which Shaffer delivered her testimony to Congress December 5th, 2012 is the same day on which DCI Group reports meeting with her to introduce her to the media. Barring a highly improbable coincidence, the timing of the two events suggests that there was some degree of coordination between the lobbying firm and the professor related to Shaffers appearance in front of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Furthermore, a DCI Group FARA filing specifically identifies legislators as a target group for informational materials about Azerbaijan. (I emailed DCI Group twice asking the firm to clarify four issues: whether it had ever paid Shaffer, the fate of her white paper, whether the Congressional testimony had been discussed with her in advance, and the timing of her testimony and media introduction. I forwarded the same questions to Shaffer with an invitation to comment. Both parties chose not to respond to any of the four questions.) At the bottom of her written testimony to Congress, Shaffer portrayed herself as an independent academic pursuing a conventional scholarly career:

Dr. Shaffer is a faculty member in the School of Political Science in the University of Haifa. From January 2013, she will be a visiting scholar at Georgetown University's Center for Eurasian, Russian and Eastern European Studies. Dr. Shaffer previously served as the Research Director of the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard University.

In the Congressional Truth in Testimony disclosure form she submitted before testifying, Shaffer left the field Organization or organizations you are representing blank. And indeed, there is no public record of DCI Group ever paying Brenda Shaffer for the provision of lobbying services on its clients behalf.

4

SOCAR AND ISRAEL However, Shaffer was under direct contract by SOCAR, the state-owned State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic, which had hired her as an advisor at an unknown date. (Neither Shaffer nor SOCAR responded to emails asking for details on their relationship.) Her work for the notoriously corrupt company, which is closely tied to Azerbaijans regime, became public knowledge only two years later, when the media obtained a copy of her SOCAR business card and broke the story in September 2014. In addition to advising SOCAR, Brenda Shaffer has also worked as an advisor to various Israeli government bodies, including its committee on natural gas policy. Last but not least, she is a member of the Steering Committee that oversees the master plan of Israels energy sector. (One pro-Iranian commentator has publicly speculated that she may have links to Israels intelligence services, but there is no evidence to support that claim in that document, or in any other material reviewed for this article. One bio there are dozens of Shaffer mini-bios online, but not a single full CV claims she worked for a number of years as a researcher and policy analyst for the Government of Israel.) Azerbaijans and Israels interests are so strongly aligned on many issues that diplomats from the two nations recently conducted a joint lobbying tour of Jewish communities in the U.S. During the tour, the Israeli ambassador to Baku, echoing a standard theme of pro-Baku lobbyists, praised Azerbaijan as a model of tolerance because its government does not persecute its small Jewish minority. This improbable narrative appears have gained some traction, judging by a recent article on the romance by the Conneticut Jewish Ledger, for which the ambassador lined up with local Jewish community leaders to sing the praises of Aliyev and his regime. In contrast to her SOCAR connection, Shaffer never kept her advisory work for Israeli public bodies secret. However, she did not actively disclose it during her Congressional appearances. In hindsight, it seems that such disclosure may have added valuable context, especially during her 2012 testimony, in which she advised the Committee on Foreign Affairs to instruct Voice of America to stir up Irans ethnic minorities. Equally, when Shaffer testified in front of Congress for the third time in July 2014, this time to the Senates Committee on Foreign Relations, the assembled lawmakers may have wished to know about her relationship with Azerbaijans state oil company SOCAR. Speaking in front of the committee, Shaffer advised that as part of improving the security of supply, Europe must foil Moscows effort to prevent new supplies from reaching Europe. Her accompanying written statement is worth citing at length:

The most promising new source of gas into Europe is the Southern Gas Corridor. Beginning in 2019, this project will bring natural gas from Azerbaijan to southern Europe It will bring significant investment and create tens of thousands of jobs... This project, however, needs continued support to ensure that Russia does not succeed in undermining it along the route the EU needs to separate its climate change policy and renewable energy policy.

Shaffer could also have chosen to disclose her role in guiding Israels energy master plan, as her written testimony discussed offshore natural gas discoveries in Israel and informed Senators that Iran had zero potential as a gas supplier to Europe.

5

SHAFFER AND TRUTH IN TESTIMONY FORM The Congressional Truth in Testimony forms prime purpose is to disclose federal grants and contracts, rather than broader conflicts of interest, so Shaffers omission of her outside interests seems unlikely to have legal consequences. There have been recent moves towards closing this loophole for lobbyists, but their effectiveness remains to be proven. Responding to growing concerns about foreign lobbying in D.C., Representative Jackie Speier recently proposed a new rule requiring some Congressional witnesses to disclose funding received from foreign governments. The American people have a reasonable expectation that these links will be transparent and allow for the appearance of a conflict of interest to be aired publicly, she told a House Rules subcommittee. *This+ would be a common sense reform to increase the integrity of the information Congress receives. In early January, the House passed a resolution incorporating Speiers suggestions:

In the case of a witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed testimony shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of any contracts or payments originating with a foreign government, received during the current calendar year or either of the two previous calendar years.

However, even under the tighter new rules, Shaffer would not have been required to disclose money received from SOCAR, for two reasons. First, she was ostensibly testifying as a Georgetown University scholar, and thus arguably not appearing in a nongovernmental capacity (the wording was intended to cover experts working for think tanks). Second, SOCAR is a state-owned enterprise, not a government per se. To close these loopholes, Bill Allison, Editorial Director of the Sunlight Foundation, proposed a single rule covering all Congressional witnesses and all sources of money. Witnesses could simply be required to list all sources of earned income of more than, say, $10,000 over the last two years he suggested via email. SHAFFER AND FARA Equally, it seems unlikely that Shaffer can be charged under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which bans lobbying activities for foreign clients without officially registering as their agent first. Shaffer has not registered under FARA, but SOCAR has done so, as have nine other Azerbaijani players, including Anar Mammadov, an oligarch closely tied to Aliyevs regime. Experts caution that FARA is a complex and rarely applied piece of legislation, and that its applicability depends on the exact details of the case in question details that are unlikely to be forthcoming unless Shaffer herself chooses to reveal them. Bill Allison from the Sunlight Foundation agreed to review a draft version of this article to determine whether Shaffer might have violated FARA. He concluded that it was questionable, explaining that:

*T+here isnt enough information to say either way. It depends on what she is doing as an adviser to SOCAR. If shes in any way facilitating meetings between SOCAR employees and U.S. government officials, if shes writing articles that advance SOCARs interests, then she should register with FARA. If shes just recommending restaurants in Georgetown That

6

said, the fact that shes testifying before Congress and no doubt has had many other contacts with congressional staff (you dont just show up at a hearing), and that shes paid by SOCAR, either she or SOCAR (since they are registered and are paying her) should disclose her contacts with those officials. But whether she has to under the law is difficult to say.

The lobbying firm DCI Group seems even less likely to have violated FARA in the course of the events outlined above, he added. Experts have long noted that FARA is riddled with ambiguities and loopholes. For example, the powerful Armenian lobby flies completely under the FARA radar. Once described by an insider as the third most effective foreign lobby in D.C., it is largely financed by American citizens of Armenian descent but routinely promotes what it sees as the national interests of Armenia. Not a single entity seems to have filed a return under FARA to report lobbying on Armenias behalf. Similarly, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), arguably the most powerful foreign policy lobby group in D.C., does not file FARA returns despite calls on the Department of Justice to compel it to do so. A recent letter from Representative Frank R. Wolf has called on the Justice Department to review its enforcement of FARA and to consider possible changes needed in the law. Sunlight Foundation has also developed detailed proposals for reform. *W+ed like electronic filing, better specific requirements of what has to be reported when making contacts and how it has to be reported and other improvements to the disclosure system, Bill Allison sums up his groups suggestions. THE STORY DOES NOT END HERE And thus the story could end: another sordid tale of oil, greed and corruption in D.C. that illustrates the need to tighten up a couple of lobbying safeguards. But the real story began much earlier and it did not end when Brenda Shaffer walked out of Representative Dan Burtons subcommittee either. The real story is about the glaring vulnerability of the American foreign policy establishment to manipulation by foreign agents. In order to tell that story, this article will trace how one single individual, supported by a foreign regime and an assorted network of over- and undercover lobbyists, first used oil money to build her academic credentials and then used those credentials to promote that regimes agendas through three Congressional testimonies, dozens of newspaper op-eds and media appearances, countless think tank events, and even scholarly publications and continues to do so today. SHAFFERS 2001 CONGRESS APPEARANCE In 2001, Brenda Shaffer walked into Congress for the first time to testify in front of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations. Shaffer was introduced as the Director of the Caspian Studies Program and a post-doctoral fellow in the international security program at the Belfort [Belfer] Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Addressing lawmakers, Shaffer asked them to repeal a section of the Freedom Support Act that barred any kind of direct United States aid to the Azerbaijani government. *B+eing under U.S. sanctions firmly hurts the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan, she argued. They have extended their hand to the U.S. They have huge expectations that the policy of this country is based on some sort of morality and high ideals. (Her written testimony covers similar themes.) Challenged about

7

Azerbaijans democratic record, she replied that there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of democratization. However, every six months, every year things are getting better and better. USACC, ALLISON AND THE CASPIAN STUDIES PROGRAM What the lawmakers listening to Shaffer did not know was that the Caspian Studies Program that she headed at Harvard had been established in 1999 through a one million dollar grant from the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC) and a consortium of oil and gas companies led by Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, all of which had commercial interests in the region. USACC is a pro-Azerbaijan pressure group whose Board of Directors includes a vice president of SOCAR as well as the top lobbyists of BP and Chevron. A press release issued by the USACC to celebrate the launch of the Caspian Studies Program noted its emphasis on outreach activities designed to help to shape informed policy. The Kennedy School of Governments parallel press release announced that [t]he Program will be launched with a panel presentation and discussion chaired by Graham T. Allison and featuring Ilham Aliyev, First Vice President of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) Plans are underway to host a day-and-a-half session for leading members of the U.S. Congress. Professor Allison was and remains the Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a prominent foreign policy think tank based at Harvard. SOCARs Ilham Aliyev in 2003 succeeded his father Heydar Alivey as the President of Azerbaijan. The decision to appoint Brenda Shaffer as the director of the Kennedy Schools new program back in 1999 was made by Graham T. Allison based on merit, according to a Belfer Center spokesman who explained that:

As director, Graham [T. Allison] is ultimately responsible for all hiring decisions. Consistent with our policies to seek out the most qualified candidates, Brenda [Shaffer] was hired because she was the best suited to direct the Caspian Studies Program.

However, it seems that the position was not openly advertised, as the then primary listserv for academic and policy-related jobs related to Eurasia, which was hosted at Harvard.edu, does not list any such vacancy related to the Caspian Studies Program. At an event hosted by the lobby group USACC in 2000, Graham T. Allison introduced Azerbaijans then president Heydar Aliyev, who told his listeners that I cheer the opening of a new chair at Harvard University relating to Azerbaijan and Caspian area. I am thankful for the assistance of American-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce rendered for it. USACC GOVERNANCE Until early December 2014, the USACC website listed Graham T. Allison, the former dean of the Kennedy School and a noted scholar in the field of political science, as a member of USACCs Board of Trustees. Questioned about the scholars relationship with the lobbying group, the Belfer Center spokesman replied that:

To the best of our knowledge, we had no awareness that Graham was listed as a member of the Board of Trustees of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. After your note arrived, we contacted the chamber and asked them to remove Grahams name. They have agreed to do so. Graham was never compensated for this apparently in-name-only role and he never, to the best of our knowledge, did any work on behalf of this organization.

8

On the same day, USACC removed all references to Allison and his supposed role from its website. Further research revealed that USACCs supposed Chairman Emeritus, Dr Don Stacy, died several months ago. (The author was unable to verify whether Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James A. Baker III, Brent Scowcroft and John Sununu are aware that they are members of USACCs Honorary Council of Advisors, as the organizations website claims. If so, it would make USACC one of the best-connected foreign lobbying groups in D.C.) Formally being a chamber of commerce, USACC is incorporated as a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization, which allows it to conceal its donors from the public. In its 2011 tax filing, USACC reported paying over a hundred thousand dollars in other salaries and wages, but without providing a detailed breakdown of who received this money, and for what purposes. Neither its 2011 nor its 2012 filing report any direct expenditures for lobbying services by external actors. USACC claims in its tax filings that it makes its governing documents, and financial statements available to the public upon request. However, repeated requests for these documents emailed to USACCs executive director, Susan Sadigova, remained unanswered. AZ LOBBYING GROUPS AND DARK MONEY Other Azerbaijani lobbying groups also seem to prize confidentiality. Assembly of Friends of Azerbaijan (AFAZ), a heavyweight outfit with strong Congressional ties and traction, is also registered as a 501(c)(6), an IRS category originally intended to cover business leagues. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan America Alliance, the outfit chaired by Dan Burton, is registered as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. This form of incorporation, allows the Alliance to shield its donors from public view while allowing it to attempt to influence legislation and even participate in political campaigns and elections, including by supporting individual candidates. The Center for Responsive Politics, a lobbying watchdog group, groups the 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) forms of incorporation together under the term political non-profits, noting that they

have become a major force in federal elections over the last three cycles. The term dark money is often applied to this category of political spender because these groups do not have to disclose the sources of their funding These organizations can receive unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions that they do not have to make public, and though their political activity is supposed to be limited, the IRS which has jurisdiction over these groups by and large has done little to enforce those limits.

AZ LOBBY GROUPS AND FARA Whether these groups need to register as foreign agents under FARA is not entirely clear. Azerbaijan America Alliance has formally registered. AFAZ has not, but says it plans to do so soon. USACC has not registered, and does not intend to appear to do so. Many nonprofits are surprised to learn that there is no FARA exemption for nonprofit, tax-exempt entities, noted two legal experts following a 2010 scandal. Penalties for failing to comply with FARA can include a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for up to five years. However, they hedge that *d+etermining the types of activities that trigger the need to register under FARA (or the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption) is a challenge, made even more difficult by the dearth of DOJ *Department of Justice+ guidance on the subject.

9

Contacted with a request to comment on the specific case of USACC, one of the experts, Ed Wilson, concluded that the organization is very probably not obliged to register under FARA under current rules. In his opinion, USACC does not meet the legal test of foreign ownership/control:

I know of no Am-Cham that has registered with the FARA Unit Review of its *USACCs+ web site does not lead me to conclude that it is either owned by a foreign principal or acting on behalf of the government of Azerbaijan or any organizations owned or controlled by that government. The membership is a whos who of multi-national energy companies. Most of them have good FARA programs, from what I know.

SHAFFER OP-EDS WHILE AT CASPIAN STUDIES PROGRAM Brenda Shaffer led the USACC-funded Caspian Studies Program until 2005. During that time, her output included not only scholarly research papers, but also 14 op-eds for leading U.S. and Israeli newspapers including the International Herald Tribune and the Jerusalem Post. Most of her opinion pieces called on American policy makers to pay greater attention to the region. While one of them did exhort the U.S. to stop funding for disputed Nagorno-Karabakh, taken as a whole, these early Shaffer op-eds seem more balanced in tone and content than her later commentary.) KEN SILVERSTEIN ON ACADEMICS FOR HIRE Then, in May 2006, journalist and lobbying expert Ken Silverstein dropped a bombshell in the form of a short piece entitled Academics for Hire in Harpers Magazine. The piece accused several prominent academics of performing intellectual acrobatics on behalf of the [Caspian] region's rulers, among them Dr Svante Cornell, Research Director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute (CACI), who in parallel to his think tank work also ran a consulting firm that offered to link up investors seeking to operate in the region with officials on the ground. And indeed, DCI Groups FARA filing for 2012 shows that its employees had met with Svante Cornell, who was still at CACI, to discuss *f+uture collaboration on Azerbaijan issues. (Note that the firms lobbyists met with many people, including noted regime critics like former U.S. ambassador Richard Kauzlarich. However, they did not discuss future collaboration with those. They did not suggest that I do any work for them, remembers Kauzlarich.) However, it was Brenda Shaffer that Silverstein singled out for especially harsh criticism. His article highlighted the connection between Harvard and the USACC, alleged that the Caspian Studies Programs scholarship lacked intellectual integrity, and unearthed Shaffers 2001 plea to Congress to repeal sanctions against Azerbaijan. Silverstein concluded his piece by warning that the region was full of compromised academics:

Caspian watchers beware: the next time you see or hear an independent American expert talking about how the region's rulers are implementing bold reforms, check the expert's credentials to see just how independent he or she truly is.

POST-SILVERSTEIN OP-EDS BY SHAFFER AND CORNELL The very next month, the International Herald Tribune ran its third Shaffer op-ed, about ethnic Azerbaijanis and other minorities in Iran. In total, in the years since Silverstein outed her as an academic for hire whose career was fuelled by Azerbaijani lobbying outfits and Western oil

10

companies invested in Azerbaijan, Shaffer has managed to place 13 additional op-eds, ten of these in U.S. media outlets. Did the editors of Americas opinion pages not know about Shaffers reputation, or did they not care? After her SOCAR connection became public, I contacted the four U.S. publications that had run Shaffer opinion pieces over the course of the preceding two years to find out. I emailed the New York Times, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post a link to the article that broke the story, asked them to explain how they screened op-ed contributors, and encouraged them to publish a clarification beneath Shaffers op-eds, all of which were still online. NYT AND WAPO REACTIONS The New York Times responded quickly, and in depth. It posted a clarification on the web page that contained Shaffers opinion piece:

This Op-Ed, about tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, did not disclose that the writer has been an adviser to Azerbaijans state-run oil company. Like other Op-Ed contributors, the writer, Brenda Shaffer, signed a contract obliging her to disclose conflicts of interest, actual or potential. Had editors been aware of her ties to the company, they would have insisted on disclosure.

The Times Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, shortly after published a long and thoughtful blog outlining how the paper seeks to safeguard the integrity of its opinion pages. It explained that op-ed contributors were required to sign a document that states that they are abiding by the Timess guidelines on integrity, including conflicts of interest, and assured readers that in future, editors would be taking more care to vet such contributors. The Times cant let itself be used in that way, the blog concluded. For its readers to evaluate ideas, they need to know where theyre coming from and who might be paying for them. Media pundits applauded Sullivans frank post. Michael Larabee, the Op-ed Editor at the Washington Post, also replied to my message. We make inquiries about possible conflicts of interest with all writers prior to publication, he wrote in an email. (He did not provide further details on this process.) The Washington Post subsequently also published a clarification above Shaffers original op-ed on its website:

Clarification: The following commentary should have noted that the author has consulted for a number of oil and gas companies and governments on their energy policies, including Azerbaijans state-run oil company, SOCAR. A reference to a SOCAR project was added to the piece during the editing process at the request of Post editors.

REUTERS REACTION Reuters had run three op-eds by Shaffer over the course of 2013. Two pieces identified her as a visiting researcher at Georgetown and University of Haifa professor. The third item was not accompanied by any information on her background. Instead, it stated simply that The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are her own. One of these op-eds furnished advice to U.S. policy makers on how to handle Syria. Even though Syria and Israel are technically in a state of war, readers were not informed that the author was the member of an Israeli government steering committee; the responsible Reuters editor could easily have found this information online.

11

Reuters also ran a Shaffer piece that spoke at length about the thorny subject of Azerbaijans human rights record. Bakus regime persecutes its critics mercilessly; democracy activists routinely get beaten up or thrown into jail on patently absurd charges. In 2013 alone, the State Department reported, the list of human rights violations in Azerbaijan included the beating to death of military conscripts, the use of torture (including threats of rape) to coerce confessions, and detention conditions that were sometimes life threatening. Writing towards the end of that year, Brenda Shaffer offered an alternative perspective:

Protection of human rights is not necessarily better under illiberal elected regimes Many new populist governments do not support the rights of women and minorities Washington should not only support religious freedom. Freedom from religion is the key.

(Around the same time, the man who had introduced Shaffer to Congress in 2012, Representative-turned-lobbyist Dan Burton, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times extolling Azerbaijans free society enjoying a prosperous economy as a democratic republic. Azerbaijans government silenced nearly all of the few critical voices remaining inside the country during the following year.) Even after being notified of the corrective actions that two other media outlets had previously taken, Reuters declined to add a clarification about Shaffers outside interests to any of her three pieces. After a lengthy exchange of emails in which I flagged the SOCAR and Israeli government links, it issued the following statement:

The columns by Ms. Shaffer were opinion pieces, not news stories, and were identified as such, and in that context we feel she has a right to express her personal [sic] views. Following assertions made by Transparify about Ms. Shaffers consulting work with SOCAR, we are currently seeking to confirm her affiliation independently. In the event we do, we will update her biography on the columns.

Over a month later, Shaffers original op-eds are still online, without any accompanying clarification by Reuters. WALL STREET JOURNAL REACTION The Wall Street Journal seemed equally uninterested in setting the record straight. Shaffers opinion piece there had managed to simultaneously discourage U.S. support for Azerbaijans beleaguered opposition the U.S. should not contribute to state failure and then call that democratization slam Armenia for its stance over disputed Nagorno-Karabakh, and take a sideways swipe at Palestine, all within less than a thousand words. Judi Walsh, the papers News Editor, Newsroom Standards, notified me that my email requesting a reaction had been passed on to the papers Editorial Department, which she wrote had been responsible for disseminating Shaffers op-ed. Several reminders emailed to both Walsh and the Editorial Department remained unanswered. Then, on November 30, 2014, the Wall Street Journal posted yet another Shaffer op-ed online. (To be fair, that piece her op-ed number 27 to date does not seem to offer any policy prescriptions that promote the interests of SOCAR, Azerbaijan or Israel.) As usual, the newspaper only identified her as a a visiting researcher and professor at Georgetown Universitys Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, rather than as a part-time academic who also works for an oil company and the Israeli government.

12

Neither Reuters nor the Wall Street Journal responded to repeated queries about their internal mechanisms to screen op-ed contributors for conflicts of interest, if any. MEDIA QUOTES SHAFFER AFTER HER OUTING Meanwhile, other media outlets continue to cite Shaffer as an independent expert. Ten days after her SOCAR connection was revealed by Radio Free Europe, Bloombergs Businessweek ran a story quoting her, without mentioning her link with the state-owned company. Shaffer is quoted praising Azerbaijans dependability as an oil supplier. Azerbaijan is very serious about the sanctity of contracts, she tells Businessweek readers. It has never reopened its international contracts in the energy sector. The responsible editor, Hellmuth Tromm, did not reply to an email requesting an explanation, and the article remains online in its original version. Veteran journalists Jackie Northam from National Public Radio and Roger Boyes from the London Times have also recently quoted Shaffer as an expert in their publications, at a time when even the most cursory Google search throws up her links with SOCAR. THINK TANKS CARNEGIE PERFORMANCE In parallel to penning op-eds and advising SOCAR, Brenda Shaffer over the years also ran many laps around the D.C. think tank circuit. Think tanks have assumed an important role in the Caspian countrys lobbying strategy. Azerbaijan has long been one of the top foreign spenders on lobbying in D.C., with some of that money flowing directly into think tanks. Theres a noticeable change in Azerbaijans lobbying, comments Gerald Robbins, a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who specializes in Turkey, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. A new generation, educated in Western marketing methodology has taken the reins [in Baku]. They understand that academia and think tanks are important contact points for conveying ideas. Shaffers participation in a panel discussion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace about Azerbaijans future prospects, held shortly after the countrys 2013 presidential vote, may be a case in point. The elections under discussion had turned from dreary routine into high comedy when the election commission accidentally released the final results a day before polling had even begun. Otherwise, there were no surprises: the incumbent won by a large margin. According to an official U.S. State Department report,

Flaws in the conduct of the presidential election included a repressive political environment leading up to election day, lack of a level playing field among candidates, [and] significant shortcomings throughout all stages of election-day processes.

(Earlier that year, Aliyevs government had apparently also tried to manipulate voting in the Eurovision song contest, albeit with less success.) Brenda Shaffer opened her appearance at the Carnegie Endowment by telling her audience that the very fact that so much was known about electoral and other abuses in Azerbaijan demonstrated just how open a society it was because it is an open society, there is information. She then lauded Azerbaijans vibrant press, its fierce political debates, and even its realistic voters. She expressed

13

the hope that now the elections were over, Azerbaijan would take even more bolder steps towards democracy. It will do a better job if it has the U.S. on its side If you really care about democracy in Azerbaijan be a partner there, be a friend there. THINK TANKS REACT While Shaffers discourse at Carnegie Endowment, preserved for posteriority as an audio recording, may not have stretched her audiences credulity more than the tunes played by other pipers for Baku a 2013 op-ed by former CIA director James Woolsey and Tbilisi-based lobbyist David J. Smith sets a very low baseline in this regard but it does raise the question why she kept getting re-invited to such events. According to Professor Donald Abelson from the University of Western Ontario, a noted expert on think tanks, policy shops can have their own reasons for hosting experts whose neutrality is questionable:

First, their presence could help to highlight the independent posture of the host relative to the more biased guests... Alternatively, the think tank inviting these people might simply want them there to create controversy or generate media attention. Or, it's possible that they are there for whatever expertise they possess.

However, in contrast to much of the U.S. media, many think tanks seemed keen to distance themselves from Shaffer once her SOCAR connection became public knowledge. For example, the Wilson Center, which lists her as an expert on its website, explained in an email that Ms. Shaffer is actually not affiliated with the Wilson Center but came to the Center as a speaker at a few events. The way that our website lists people can be misleading Ms. Shaffer has no Wilson Center affiliation. The think tank added that it is currently amending the way in which it presents outside experts on its website. ACADEMIA FOREIGN AFFAIRS While think tanks appear to be withdrawing from Shaffer and some media outlets have fully retreated, the academic institutions that have lent her credibility over the years have dug in their heels. For example, the highly respected Foreign Affairs journal, which is often noted for its strong influence among policy-makers, had published a contribution by Shaffer that discussed a proposed pipeline to carry gas from Azerbaijan to Europe as follows:

[I]t will edge out coal once more and help lower pollution and carbon emissions Europes efforts to increase eastern pipeline gas are a good start toward addressing the continents energy woes And hopefully the United States will hold off on fast-tracking exports until the benefit of those extra supplies for Europe becomes clearer.

The journals editor did not respond to three separate emails that pointed out Shaffers apparent conflict of interest and asked for a reaction. HAIFA AND GEORGETOWN When Shaffers side job in Baku first became public, the reporter who broke the story publicly challenged Georgetown Universitys Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies (CERES) via a Twitter campaign to disclose her SOCAR affiliation. (Confirming the reputation of Azerbaijans

14

officialdom for involuntary comedy, Bakus ambassador to D.C. joined the campaign, presumably by accident.) Georgetown never reacted, and Shaffers profile page at Georgetown continues to make no reference to her commercial interests. (Both Haifa Universitys press office and several points of contact within Georgetown University did not respond to repeated emails requesting a comment for this article.) Shaffers recent media appearances, in which she continues to identify as a scholar from Georgetown, suggests the university has not instructed her to stop using its name, let alone tried to distance itself from her. To the contrary, Georgetown has recently added an In the news section to her profile in which it showcases her latest public commentary. During December 2014 alone, identifying herself as an academic expert from Georgetown University, Shaffer appeared on TV screens via Fox Business and Al Jazeera America, and commented on energy issues in print via the Jerusalem Post, London Times, The Australian, National Public Radio and Foreign Policy magazine. (Only weeks earlier, Foreign Policy itself had run a piece on Azerbaijans lobbying efforts by a different author that had mentioned Shaffers SOCAR connection.) GEORGETOWNS ADJUNCT FUNCTION Georgetown and its Adjunct Assistant Professor, as the universitys website describes Brenda Shaffer, seem to consider their mutual association in the eyes of the public beneficial. However, the SOCAR advisors links with the institution may be far more tenuous than her title suggests. (Shaffers title has changed during the past few months. In September 2014, before her SOCAR connection hit the headlines, Georgetown had listed her as a Visiting Researcher.) A tenured scholar based at an American university, who asked not to be identified, explained that:

As American universities' financial structure changes, so do faculty appointments [Shaffer] holds an adjunct appointment with Georgetown Having an affiliation with a university does not necessarily require one to teach a course. It is not unheard of for individuals to hold affiliate positions, unpaid, with research centers and departments on university campuses Sometimes adjuncts are virtually invisible to the faculty and administration.

This academic reported having personal knowledge of several cases in which PhD holders had successfully pitched themselves to university departments in a similar fashion. *A+fter a few phone calls and perhaps an interview, the scholar is hired as an adjunct, teaching a course or two each term at his or her leisure. OUTSIDE FUNDING AND SCHOLARSHIP INTEGRITY Other academics caution that external funding need not compromise independent scholarship. "Many academics have 'outside' funding. The question is when that line is crossed to having outside interests. I think these are questions of professional responsibility and integrity, though transparency in declaring interests (and proper sanction against those who don't) is also key," argued UK-based Professor Timothy Edmunds, editor in chief of the European Journal of International Security.

15

Shaffer has denied crossing the line from outside funding to outside interests. During an October 2014 public discussion at Columbia University during which Shaffer shared the podium with an official SOCAR representative, a participant asked Shaffer about her links with the state-owned oil and gas company, and whether Congress had been aware of that relationship when she testified there. During the testy exchange that followed, Shaffer insisted that her scholarly independence had not been compromised, and that her private sector engagement had added value to her academic work. I think my students benefit from the fact that I have been on every side of the table, she said. She also asserted her right to privacy, and suggested that academics should be judged by their output rather than by their backgrounds. Where do you see the bias of Big Bad Oil in my views? she challenged her interlocutor. Tell me: What about this [NYT op-ed] article actually really upset you so much? In email exchanges, several regional experts reported having detected bias in Shaffers output in the past. "Scholars in academia do not regard her work as really academic", declared Manouchehr Shiva, who conducted research in Azerbaijan under a Fulbright scholarship during 2005-2006 and continues to follow developments there. (Other researchers expressed similar views, but asked not to be named or cited verbatim.) ACADEMIC DUE DILIGENCE So should Georgetown have been more cautious about inviting the SOCAR advisor on board? The sponsoring institution has a responsibility to prevent cases like Shaffers, insisted Gerald Robbins of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. However, at the same time, he cautioned that due diligence is a challenging feat when confronting such matters as academic tenure and intellectual freedom. Inevitably its an ethical issue where checks and balances would have questionable impact. Furthermore, Shaffer did have genuine and strong academic credibility markers to her name: books published at university presses, articles in respected peer-reviewed journals, and active membership in an academic association. And while some of Shaffers books have been very critically received, this in itself should not raise any red flags. FEEDBACK LOOPS Ironically, just as her academic titles facilitated her placing of op-eds in major newspapers, those media pieces strengthened Shaffers academic kudos. She also is fairly frequently quoted in mainstream media publications, adding to her credibility, commented one academic. The same feedback loop seems to apply to Congressional appearances. The first time she appeared in front of Congress back on 2001, lawmakers were told that Dr. Shaffer's op-eds have appeared also in the International Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe. To sum up: SOCAR funded a programme at Harvard that furnished Shaffer with an impressive academic title, which in turn opened doors to the media, which in turn maybe with a little help from Azerbaijans friends on the inside opened doors to Congress. Closing the loop, the homepage of her academic department at Georgetown currently contains a prominent link to the latest Congressional testimony by CERES Visiting Researcher Shaffer, and Shaffers profile page lists all her op-eds and recent media appearances, while the Georgetown

16

University page titled Media: Find a Subject Matter Expert encourages journalists who type in Azerbaijan or energy to contact Brenda Shaffer for commentary. It seems that in D.C., each lap around the policy circle of media, think tanks, academia, and politics further builds credibility, but nobody is responsible for checking credentials along the way. TRACES OF SOCAR ONLINE Because if anyone had bothered to look, Brenda Shaffer could have been outed a long time ago. As noted above, Shaffer had first been identified as an academic for hire with SOCAR connections back in 2006. Then, in 2008, it became public knowledge that lobbyists on Azerbaijans payroll had acquired the habit of placing op-eds in the U.S. media. Either of these factoids taken alone should have rung alarm bells in any editorial office receiving an op-ed by Shaffer, or an op-ed about Azerbaijan let alone an op-ed by Shaffer about Azerbaijan. Similarly, Azerbaijans lobbying efforts in D.C. have been the staple fodder of investigative journalism over many years, and the resulting articles should have caused members of Congressional committees to proactively challenge witnesses in general, and Shaffer in particular, to verbally disclose their outside interests when testifying on matters related to Azerbaijan. 2013 CONFERENCE PRG AND NYT FEATURE The SOCAR connection itself had leaked online in 2013, in the form of the draft programme of a workshop in Budapest that announced a talk on Energy policy of resource-owning countries and the choice of the contractual structure by Dr. Brenda Shaffer, Advisor to the President of SOCAR. Nobody noticed. Finally, the New York Times itself had run a brief interview with Shaffer less than a month before it published her latest op-ed. The feature on frequent travellers opens with the following quote:

Ive been flying most of my career. Im a professor, focusing on energy, especially natural gas policy and energy security. I serve as an adviser to a number of governments on their energy policies and frequently speak at international conferences.

(SOCAR is not a government; it remains unknown which governments in addition to that of Israel have Shaffer on their payroll. Her mini-bio at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies also mentions governments in the plural.) MYSTERY OF MEDIA SILENCE It may tempting to conclude that Brenda Shaffers conflicts of interest are so rare that she took the media by surprise, or else that the editors responsible were too overwhelmed by their workload to perform adequate due diligence on their respectable-seeming contributor. However, neither explanation withstands scrutiny. As Brenda Shaffer herself has pointed out, and researchers have repeatedly documented, domestic and foreign lobbyists alike including a former U.S. ambassador to Baku, Matthew Bryza routinely place op-eds in leading publications in the United States and beyond, so hers is hardly an isolated

17

case. And time pressures in newsrooms cannot explain why Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, and Bloombergs Businessweek all seem so reluctant to set the record straight post factum. MYSTERY OF ACADEMIC SILENCE Georgetown Universitys reluctance to add a sentence to Shaffers bio to publicly disclose her relationship with SOCAR also seems confusing, especially in the face of a sustained Twitter campaign and its internal conflict of interest rules. According to Georgetowns faculty handbook,

If a person possesses a significant financial interest in a business, the person may not publish or give a public oral presentation on the results of research sponsored by such a business without first disclaiming in the publication or presentation any endorsement by the University. The person must also disclose the significant financial interest to the potential publisher or sponsor of the public presentation, regardless of whether the publisher requires such a disclosure.

In addition, according to the handbook, Shaffer would have been obliged to fully and promptly disclose her consulting work for SOCAR to the university when she joined its faculty. At the same time, Georgetowns conflict of interest policy explicitly states that disclosure forms will be considered confidential and that the information on the disclosure forms will be shared only with those who have a need to know. Had Georgetown had been aware of Shaffers financial relationship with to the Azerbaijani state-owned enterprise all along? As noted above, both Georgetown University and its adjunct scholar have kept up a wall of silence throughout the whole affair, so there is no way to tell. I asked an American political consultant with an academic background who often works for foreign clients himself whether he thought that Brenda Shaffers apparent decision to wait quietly for the storm to blow over was a wise crisis management strategy. She just kind of got caught doing what many many people do, the consultant, who asked not to be publicly identified, replied by email. All those people want to minimize this too.