Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3 VOL.CLXIII .. No. 56,617

VOL. CLXIII . . No. 56,617 © 2014 The New York Times NEW YORK, SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2014

Today, not as warm, lower humid-ity, partly sunny, high 81. Tonight,clear and moonlit, low 64. Tomor-row, sunshine and some clouds,high 76. Weather map, Page 24.

$6 beyond the greater New York metropolitan area. $5.00

Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ

WASHINGTON — At age 4,Marvin Nicholson hit his first golfball on the nine-hole course hisfather had mowed into the frontof the family’s farm in Ontario.By 7, he had won a Canada DryGinger Ale trophy for sinking ahole in one at the local publiccourse. He caddied through col-lege, carried Senator John Ker-ry’s clubs in Nantucket and thenlugged so many of Mr. Kerry’sbags during the 2004 presidentialcampaign that he distributedbusiness cards stamped with“Chief of Stuff.”

A decade later, Mr. Nicholsonhas reached back to his golfingroots to become President Oba-ma’s secretary of swing. Mr.Nicholson, 42, has played golfwith the president about 140times, far more than anyone elsein or out of government.

At a time in Mr. Obama’s presi-dency when political, national se-curity and sartorial critics arechanting, “You’re doing itwrong,” Mr. Nicholson, whose of-ficial title is White House traveldirector, is a trusted source of

good vibes. A nonjudgmental fig-ure who will never question thepresident’s double-bogeys or hisshifting red line in Syria, Mr.Nicholson, a geography majorfrom the University of WesternOntario, rounds out the presi-dent’s foursomes and soothes hisfrayed feelings.

“Every president needs aspace where he can be quiet andlet loose and feel normal,” Mr.

Challenging the President . . . But Only on the Golf Course

Continued on Page 19

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

PINK HILL, N.C. — On manymornings, as tobacco plants tow-er around her, Saray Cambray Al-varez pulls a black plastic gar-bage bag over her 13-year-oldbody to protect her skin fromleaves dripping with nicotine-tinged dew.

When Saray and other workers— including several more teen-agers — get to the fields at 6, theypunch holes through the bags fortheir arms. They are trying toavoid what is known as “greentobacco sickness,” or nicotine poi-soning, which can cause vom-iting, dizziness and irregularheart rates, among other symp-toms.

Saray says that she sometimeshas trouble breathing in the mid-dle of all the heat, humidity andleaves, and that she often feelsweary during her 12-hour shifts,when she moves through therows to pluck unwanted flowersor pull off oversize leaves for theharvest.

“You get very thirsty,” saidSaray, who sometimes waits anhour in 90-plus heat for a drinkuntil her crew returns to the op-posite side of a field, where thewater jugs are parked. “It’s toohard for me, and it’s too hot.”

Saray says she is lucky not tohave become really sick, whereasothers have become visibly ill.“Last week, they made us workwhen it was raining, and I got wa-ter in my mouth and I felt dizzi-ness and nausea,” Ana Floressaid of exposure to wet tobacco

leaves — the plants’ nicotineoften dissolves in rain and dew.At 16, she is spending her thirdsummer in the tobacco fields. “Ididn’t throw up, but other peopledid.”

For years, public health ex-perts and federal labor officials

have sought to bar teenagers un-der 16 from the tobacco fields, cit-ing the grueling hours and theharmful exposure to nicotine andother chemicals, but their effortshave been blocked. Three yearsago, Hilda Solis, then the labor

Just 13, and Working Risky 12-Hour Shifts in the Tobacco Fields

TRAVIS DOVE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Saray Cambray Alvarez, 13, tries to avoid nicotine dripping from plants in fields where she works.


This article is by Eric Lipton,Brooke Williams and NicholasConfessore.

WASHINGTON — The agree-ment signed last year by the Nor-way Ministry of Foreign Affairswas explicit: For $5 million, Nor-way’s partner in Washingtonwould push top officials at theWhite House, at the Treasury De-partment and in Congress to dou-ble spending on a United Statesforeign aid program.

But the recipient of the cashwas not one of the many Beltwaylobbying firms that work everyyear on behalf of foreign govern-ments.

It was the Center for GlobalDevelopment, a nonprofit re-search organization, or thinktank, one of many such groups inWashington that lawmakers, gov-ernment officials and the newsmedia have long relied on to pro-vide independent policy analysisand scholarship.

More than a dozen prominentWashington research groupshave received tens of millions ofdollars from foreign govern-ments in recent years whilepushing United States govern-ment officials to adopt policiesthat often reflect the donors’ pri-orities, an investigation by TheNew York Times has found.

The money is increasinglytransforming the once-staidthink-tank world into a musculararm of foreign governments’ lob-bying in Washington. And it hasset off troubling questions aboutintellectual freedom: Some schol-ars say they have been pressuredto reach conclusions friendly tothe government financing the re-search.

The think tanks do not disclosethe terms of the agreements theyhave reached with foreign gov-ernments. And they have not reg-istered with the United Statesgovernment as representativesof the donor countries, an omis-sion that appears, in some cases,to be a violation of federal law, ac-

Foreign PowersBuy InfluenceAt Think Tanks

Financing of ResearchOften Isn’t Disclosed


ADAM FERGUSON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Children played in a plaza in Al Fawwar, West Bank. Public spaces like the plaza are almost unheard-of in West Bank camps.

AL FAWWAR, West Bank —Up a rutted alley, mothers inhead scarves, seated under flap-ping cloth canopies, sip tea andweave baskets. They’ve gatheredin a dusty, sun-bleached square,

not much biggerthan a pocketpark, made oflimestone andconcrete, shoe-horned into a war-ren of low, con-

crete and cinder-block houses.The square isn’t much to look at.

But, years in the making, it hasstirred some profound debateshere at this old and deeply con-servative Palestinian refugeecamp, about hot-button topicslike the role of women and theright of return. Along with head-line sites like Tahrir Square inCairo and Gezi Park in Istanbul,

it’s another example, small andoff the radar, of how even themost unlikely public space canbecome a testing ground for en-trenched political authority andthe social status quo.

Public space like the plaza in AlFawwar is mostly unheard-of inPalestinian camps across theWest Bank. Architectural up-grades raise fundamental ques-tions about the Palestinian identi-ty, implying permanence, whichrefugees here have opposed forgenerations. The lack of normalamenities, like squares and parksin the camps, commonplace inPalestinian towns and cities inthe West Bank, was originally bydesign: Camps were conceivedas temporary quarters. The ab-sence of public space was thenpreserved over the years to forti-

Refugees Reshape Their Camp,At the Risk of Feeling at Home


MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY

MINNEAPOLIS — It was afriendship that began in highschool and ended in militant ji-had.

As Minnesota teenagers grow-ing up in the 1990s, Troy Kastigarand Douglas McAuthur McCainshared almost everything. Theyplayed pickup basketball onneighborhood courts, wrote free-wheeling raps in each other’sbedrooms and posed together forsnapshots, a skinny white youngman with close-cropped hairlocking his arm around his Afri-can-American friend with a shad-ow of a mustache.

They walked parallel paths totrouble, never graduating fromhigh school and racking up ar-rests. They converted to Islamaround the same time and ex-

alted their new faith to familyand friends, declaring that theyhad found truth and certainty.One after the other, both menabandoned their American livesfor distant battlefields.

“This is the real Disneyland,”Mr. Kastigar said with a grin in avideo shot after he joined Islam-ist militants in Somalia in late2008. Mr. McCain wrote on Twit-ter this past June, after he left theUnited States to fight with the Is-lamic State in Iraq and Syria,“I’m with the brothers now.”

Today, both are dead. Whiletheir lives ended five years andover 2,000 miles apart, their in-tertwined journeys toward mil-itancy offer a sharp example ofhow the allure of Islamist ex-

For Jihad Recruits, a PipelineFrom Minnesota to Militancy


The day-old cease-fire in Ukraine ap-peared in danger, with several artillerybarrages reported in Mariupol, in thesoutheast. PAGE 9

INTERNATIONAL 6-16

Shaky Cease-Fire in UkraineUnder Jack Ma’s direction, the e-com-merce company Alibaba, which is goingpublic this month, has become a symbolof China’s economic rise. PAGE 1

SUNDAY BUSINESS

The Face of a Web Giant Maureen Dowd PAGE 1

SUNDAY REVIEW

U(D5E71D)x+%!.!_!=!&A memo released by the government of-fers insight into the warrantless wire-tapping and data collection authorizedby President George W. Bush. PAGE 17

NATIONAL 17-25, 28

More Details on Surveillance

CHANG W. LEE/THE NEW YORK TIMES

Japan’s Kei Nishikori, below,beat No. 1 Novak Djokovic,and Marin Cilic defeated Rog-er Federer. SportsSunday.

Upsets at U.S. Open

Brandon Steiner, a force in the sportsmemorabilia business, has been instru-mental in the selling of Derek Jeter’s fi-nal season with the Yankees. PAGE 1

SPORTSSUNDAY

He Turns Pinstripes Into Gold

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

WASHINGTON — PresidentObama will delay taking execu-tive action on immigration untilafter the midterm elections, bow-ing to pressure from fellow Dem-ocrats who feared that actingnow could doom his party’schances this fall, White House of-ficials said on Saturday.

The decision is a reversal ofMr. Obama’s vow to issue broaddirectives to overhaul the immi-gration system soon after sum-mer’s end, and sparked swift an-ger from immigration advocates.The president made the promiseon June 30, in the Rose Garden,where he angrily denounced Re-publican obstruction and said hewould use the power of his officeto protect immigrant familiesfrom the threat of deportation.

“Because of the Republicans’extreme politicization of this is-sue, the president believes itwould be harmful to the policy it-self and to the long-term pros-pects for comprehensive immi-gration reform to announce ad-ministrative action before theelections,” a White House officialsaid. “Because he wants to dothis in a way that’s sustainable,the president will take action onimmigration before the end of theyear.”

Cristina Jimenez, the manag-ing director for United WeDream, an immigration advocacygroup, accused Mr. Obama of“playing politics” with the lives ofimmigrant families and said,“The president’s latest brokenpromise is another slap to theface of the Latino and immigrantcommunity.”

Administration officials insistthat Mr. Obama is more deter-mined than ever to take action —

OBAMA TO DELAYEXECUTIVE ACTION

ON IMMIGRATION

FEARS OF LOSING SENATE

Party Pressured Himto Wait Until After

the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3

WASHINGTON

THe agreement signed last year by the Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs was explicit: For $5 million, Norway’s part-

ner in Washington would push top officials at the White House, at the Treasury Department and in Congress to double spending on a United States foreign aid program.

But the recipient of the cash was not one of the many Beltway lobbying firms that work ev-ery year on behalf of foreign governments.

It was the Center for Global Development, a nonprofit research organization, or think tank, one of many such groups in Washington that lawmakers, government officials and the news media have long relied on to provide indepen-dent policy analysis and scholarship.

More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

The money is increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington. And it has set off troubling questions about intel-lectual freedom: Some scholars say they have been pressured to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research.

The think tanks do not disclose the terms of the agreements they have reached with foreign governments. And they have not registered with the United States government as represen-tatives of the donor countries, an omission that appears, in some cases, to be a violation of fed-eral law, according to several legal specialists

who examined the agreements at the request of The Times.

As a result, policy makers who rely on think tanks are often unaware of the role of foreign governments in funding the research.

Joseph Sandler, a lawyer and expert on the statute that governs Americans lobbying for foreign governments, said the arrangements between the countries and think tanks “opened a whole new window into an aspect of the influ-ence-buying in Washington that has not previ-ously been exposed.”

“It is particularly egregious because with a law firm or lobbying firm, you expect them to be an advocate,” Mr. Sandler added. “Think tanks have this patina of academic neutrality and ob-jectivity, and that is being compromised.”

The arrangements involve Washington’s most influential think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strate-gic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council. each is a major recipient of overseas funds, producing policy papers, hosting forums and organizing private briefings for senior Unit-ed States government officials that typically align with the foreign governments’ agendas.

Most of the money comes from countries in europe, the Middle east and elsewhere in Asia, particularly the oil-producing nations of the United Arab emirates, Qatar and Norway, and takes many forms. The United Arab emirates, a major supporter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quietly provided a dona-tion of more than $1 million to help build the cen-ter’s gleaming new glass and steel headquarters not far from the White House. Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle east nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation

By ERIC LIPTON, BROOKE WILLIAMS and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE




Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ









































MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY










INTERNATIONAL 6-16


SUNDAY BUSINESS


SUNDAY REVIEW


NATIONAL 17-25, 28




Upsets at U.S. Open


SPORTSSUNDAY


By MICHAEL D. SHEAR







ON IMMIGRATION



the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3




Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ









































MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY










INTERNATIONAL 6-16


SUNDAY BUSINESS


SUNDAY REVIEW


NATIONAL 17-25, 28




Upsets at U.S. Open


SPORTSSUNDAY


By MICHAEL D. SHEAR







ON IMMIGRATION



the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3




Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ









































MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY










INTERNATIONAL 6-16


SUNDAY BUSINESS


SUNDAY REVIEW


NATIONAL 17-25, 28




Upsets at U.S. Open


SPORTSSUNDAY


By MICHAEL D. SHEAR







ON IMMIGRATION



the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3




Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ









































MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY










INTERNATIONAL 6-16


SUNDAY BUSINESS


SUNDAY REVIEW


NATIONAL 17-25, 28




Upsets at U.S. Open


SPORTSSUNDAY


By MICHAEL D. SHEAR







ON IMMIGRATION



the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3




Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ









































MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY










INTERNATIONAL 6-16


SUNDAY BUSINESS


SUNDAY REVIEW


NATIONAL 17-25, 28




Upsets at U.S. Open


SPORTSSUNDAY


By MICHAEL D. SHEAR







ON IMMIGRATION



the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3




Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ









































MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY










INTERNATIONAL 6-16


SUNDAY BUSINESS


SUNDAY REVIEW


NATIONAL 17-25, 28




Upsets at U.S. Open


SPORTSSUNDAY


By MICHAEL D. SHEAR







ON IMMIGRATION



the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3




Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ









































MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY










INTERNATIONAL 6-16


SUNDAY BUSINESS


SUNDAY REVIEW


NATIONAL 17-25, 28




Upsets at U.S. Open


SPORTSSUNDAY


By MICHAEL D. SHEAR







ON IMMIGRATION



the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3




Late Edition

By JASON HOROWITZ









































MICHAELKIMMELMAN

CRITIC’SNOTEBOOK

By JACK HEALY










INTERNATIONAL 6-16


SUNDAY BUSINESS


SUNDAY REVIEW


NATIONAL 17-25, 28




Upsets at U.S. Open


SPORTSSUNDAY


By MICHAEL D. SHEAR







ON IMMIGRATION



the Midterms


C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,001,Bs-BK,E3

to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brook-ings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.

Some scholars say the donations have led to implicit agreements that the research groups would refrain from criticizing the donor govern-ments.

“If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware — they are not getting the full story,” said Saleem Ali, who served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar and who said he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatari government in papers. “They may not be getting a false sto-ry, but they are not getting the full story.”

In interviews, top executives at the think tanks strongly defended the arrangements, saying the money never compromised the in-

tegrity of their organizations’ research. Where their scholars’ views overlapped with those of donors, they said, was coincidence.

“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objec-tive criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk, vice president and director of the Foreign Poli-cy Program at Brookings, one of the oldest and most prestigious think tanks in Washington.

“Our currency is our credibility,” said Fred-erick Kempe, chief executive of the Atlantic Council, a fast-growing research center that focuses mainly on international affairs and has accepted donations from at least 25 countries since 2008. “Most of the governments that come to us, they understand we are not lobbyists. We are a different entity, and they work with us for totally different purposes.”

22 Ø N NATIONALTHE NEW YORK TIMES SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2014

cording to several legal specialists whoexamined the agreements at the re-quest of The Times.

As a result, policy makers who rely onthink tanks are often unaware of therole of foreign governments in fundingthe research.

Joseph Sandler, a lawyer and experton the statute that governs Americanslobbying for foreign governments, saidthe arrangements between the coun-tries and think tanks “opened a wholenew window into an aspect of the influ-ence-buying in Washington that has notpreviously been exposed.”

“It is particularly egregious becausewith a law firm or lobbying firm, you ex-pect them to be an advocate,” Mr. Sand-ler added. “Think tanks have this patinaof academic neutrality and objectivity,and that is being compromised.”

The arrangements involve Washing-ton’s most influential think tanks, in-cluding the Brookings Institution, theCenter for Strategic and InternationalStudies, and the Atlantic Council. Eachis a major recipient of overseas funds,producing policy papers, hosting for-ums and organizing private briefingsfor senior United States government of-ficials that typically align with the for-eign governments’ agendas.

Most of the money comes from coun-tries in Europe, the Middle East andelsewhere in Asia, particularly the oil-producing nations of the United ArabEmirates, Qatar and Norway, and takesmany forms. The United Arab Emirates,a major supporter of the Center forStrategic and International Studies, qui-etly provided a donation of more than $1million to help build the center’s gleam-ing new glass and steel headquartersnot far from the White House. Qatar, thesmall but wealthy Middle East nation,agreed last year to make a $14.8 million,four-year donation to Brookings, whichhas helped fund a Brookings affiliate inQatar and a project on United States re-lations with the Islamic world.

Some scholars say the donations haveled to implicit agreements that the re-search groups would refrain from crit-icizing the donor governments.

“If a member of Congress is using theBrookings reports, they should beaware — they are not getting the fullstory,” said Saleem Ali, who served as avisiting fellow at the Brookings DohaCenter in Qatar and who said he hadbeen told during his job interview thathe could not take positions critical of theQatari government in papers. “Theymay not be getting a false story, butthey are not getting the full story.”

In interviews, top executives at thethink tanks strongly defended the ar-rangements, saying the money nevercompromised the integrity of their or-ganizations’ research. Where theirscholars’ views overlapped with thoseof donors, they said, was coincidence.

“Our business is to influence policywith scholarly, independent research,based on objective criteria, and to bepolicy-relevant, we need to engage pol-icy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk, vicepresident and director of the ForeignPolicy Program at Brookings, one of theoldest and most prestigious think tanksin Washington.

“Our currency is our credibility,” saidFrederick Kempe, chief executive of theAtlantic Council, a fast-growing re-search center that focuses mainly on in-ternational affairs and has accepted do-nations from at least 25 countries since2008. “Most of the governments thatcome to us, they understand we are notlobbyists. We are a different entity, andthey work with us for totally differentpurposes.”

In their contracts and internal docu-ments, however, foreign governmentsare often explicit about what they ex-pect from the research groups they fi-nance.

“In Washington, it is difficult for asmall country to gain access to powerfulpoliticians, bureaucrats and experts,”states an internal report commissionedby the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Min-istry assessing its grant making. “Fund-ing powerful think tanks is one way togain such access, and some think tanksin Washington are openly conveyingthat they can service only those foreigngovernments that provide funding.”

The think tanks’ reliance on fundsfrom overseas is driven, in part, by in-tensifying competition within the field:The number of policy groups has mul-tiplied in recent years, while researchgrants from the United States govern-ment have dwindled.

Foreign officials describe these rela-tionships as pivotal to winning influenceon the cluttered Washington stage,where hundreds of nations jockey for at-tention from the United States govern-ment. The arrangements vary: Somecountries work directly with thinktanks, drawing contracts that define thescope and direction of research. Othersdonate money to the think tanks, andthen pay teams of lobbyists and publicrelations consultants to push the thinktanks to promote the country’s agenda.

“Japan is not necessarily the most in-teresting subject around the world,”said Masato Otaka, a spokesman for theJapanese Embassy, when asked why Ja-pan donates heavily to American re-search groups. “We’ve been experienc-ing some slower growth in the economy.I think our presence is less felt than be-fore.”

The scope of foreign financing forAmerican think tanks is difficult to de-termine. But since 2011, at least 64 for-eign governments, state-controlled enti-ties or government officials have con-

tributed to a group of 28 major UnitedStates-based research organizations,according to disclosures by the institu-tions and government documents. Whatlittle information the organizations vol-unteer about their donors, along withpublic records and lobbying reportsfiled with American officials by foreignrepresentatives, indicates a minimumof $92 million in contributions or com-mitments from overseas governmentinterests over the last four years. Thetotal is certainly more.

After questions from The Times,some of the research groups agreed toprovide limited additional informationabout their relationships with countriesoverseas. Among them was the Centerfor Strategic and International Studies,whose research agenda focuses mostlyon foreign policy; it agreed last monthto release a list of 13 foreign govern-ment donors, from Germany to China,though the organization declined to dis-close details of its contracts with thosenations or actual donation amounts.

In an interview, John J. Hamre, presi-dent and chief executive of the center,acknowledged that the organization’sscholars at times advocate causes withthe Obama administration and Con-gress on the topics that donor govern-ments have funded them to study. ButMr. Hamre stressed that he did not viewit as lobbying — and said his group ismost certainly not a foreign agent.

“I don’t represent anybody,” Mr.Hamre, a former deputy secretary ofdefense, said. “I never go into the gov-ernment to say, ‘I really want to talk toyou about Morocco or about UnitedArab Emirates or Japan.’ I have con-versations about these places all thetime with everybody, and I am neverthere representing them as a lobbyist totheir interests.”

Several legal experts who reviewedthe documents, however, said the tight-ening relationships between UnitedStates think tanks and their overseassponsors could violate the ForeignAgents Registration Act, the 1938 fed-eral law that sought to combat a Nazipropaganda campaign in the UnitedStates. The law requires groups that arepaid by foreign governments with theintention of influencing public policy toregister as “foreign agents” with theJustice Department.

“I am surprised, quite frankly, at how

explicit the relationship is betweenmoney paid, papers published and pol-icy makers and politicians influenced,”said Amos Jones, a Washington lawyerwho has specialized in the foreignagents act, after reviewing transactionsbetween the Norway government andBrookings, the Center for Global Devel-opment and other groups.

At least one of the research groupsconceded that it may in fact be violatingthe federal law.

“Yikes,” said Todd Moss, the chief op-erating officer at the Center for GlobalDevelopment, after being shown dozensof pages of emails between his organ-ization and the government of Norway,which detail how his group would lobbythe White House and Congress on be-half of the Norway government. “Wewill absolutely seek counsel on this.”

Parallels With LobbyingThe line between scholarly research

and lobbying can sometimes be hard todiscern.

Last year, Japan began an effort topersuade American officials to acceler-ate negotiations over a free-trade agree-ment known as the Trans-Pacific Part-nership, one of Japan’s top priorities.The country already had lobbyists onretainer, from the Washington firm ofAkin Gump, but decided to embark on abroader campaign.

Akin Gump lobbyists approachedseveral influential members of Con-gress and their staffs, including aides toRepresentative Charles Boustany Jr.,Republican of Louisiana, and Repre-sentative Dave Reichert, Republican ofWashington, seeking help in establish-ing a congressional caucus devoted tothe partnership, lobbying records show.After those discussions, in October 2013,the lawmakers established just such agroup, the Friends of the Trans-PacificPartnership.

To bolster the new group’s credibility,Japanese officials sought validationfrom outside the halls of Congress.Within weeks, they received it from theCenter for Strategic and InternationalStudies, to which Japan has been a long-time donor. The center will not say howmuch money the government has given— or for what exactly — but an exami-nation of its relationship with a state-funded entity called the Japan External

Trade Organization provides a glimpse. In the past four years, the organ-

ization has given the center at least $1.1million for “research and consulting” topromote trade and direct investmentbetween Japan and the United States.The center also houses visiting scholarsfrom within the Japanese government,including Hiroshi Waguri, an executivein the Ministry of Defense, as well asShinichi Isobe, an executive from thetrade organization.

In early December, the center held anevent featuring Mr. Boustany and Mr.Reichert, who spoke about the impor-

tance of the trade agreement and thesteps they were taking to pressure theWhite House to complete it. In addition,at a Senate Foreign Relations Commit-tee hearing later that month, MatthewP. Goodman, a scholar at the center, tes-tified in favor of the agreement, his lan-guage driving home the very messageJapan’s lobbyists and their congression-al allies were seeking to convey.

The agreement was critical to “suc-cess not only for the administration’s re-gional economic policy but arguably forthe entire Asia rebalancing strategy,”Mr. Goodman said.

Mr. Hamre, the center’s president, ac-knowledged that his organization’s re-

searchers were pushing for the tradedeal (it remains pending). But he saidtheir advocacy was rooted in a beliefthat the agreement was good for theUnited States economy and the coun-try’s standing in Asia.

Andrew Schwartz, a spokesman forthe center, said that language in theagreements the organization signs withforeign governments gives its scholarsfinal say over the policy positions theytake — although he acknowledged thoseprovisions have not been included in allsuch documents.

“We have to respect their academicand intellectual independence,” Mr. Ota-ka, the Japanese Embassy spokesman,said in a separate interview. But oneJapanese diplomat, who asked not to benamed as he was not authorized to dis-cuss the matter, said the country ex-pected favorable treatment in return fordonations to think tanks.

“If we put actual money in, we wantto have a good result for that money —as it is an investment,” he said.

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates— two nations that host large UnitedStates military bases and view a contin-ued American military presence as cen-tral to their own national security —have been especially aggressive in theirgiving to think tanks. The two PersianGulf monarchies are also engaged in abattle with each other to shape Westernopinion, with Qatar arguing that Mus-lim Brotherhood-style political Islam isthe Arab world’s best hope for democra-cy, and the United Arab Emirates seek-ing to persuade United States policymakers that the Brotherhood is a dan-gerous threat to the region’s stability.

The United Arab Emirates, which hasbecome a major supporter of the Centerfor Strategic and International Studiesover the past decade, turned to thethink tank in 2007 after an uproar inCongress about the nation’s plan to pur-chase control of terminals in severalUnited States ports. After lawmakersquestioned whether the purchase wouldbe a national security threat to the Unit-ed States, and the deal was scuttled, theoil-rich nation sought to remake its im-age in Washington, Mr. Hamre said.

The nation paid the research organ-ization to sponsor a lecture series “toexamine the strategic importance” ofthe gulf region and “identify opportuni-ties for constructive U.S. engagement.”It also paid the center to organize annu-al trips to the gulf region during whichdozens of national security expertsfrom the United States would get pri-vate briefings from government offi-cials there.

These and other events gave theUnited Arab Emirates’ senior diplomatsan important platform to press theircase. At a round table in Washington inMarch 2013, Yousef Al Otaiba, the am-bassador to the United States, pressedGen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairmanof the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about wheth-er the United States would remain com-mitted to his country given budget re-ductions in Washington.

Mr. Dempsey’s reply was quicklyposted on the Facebook page of theUnited Arab Emirates Embassy: Thecountry, he assured Mr. Al Otaiba andothers in the crowd, was one of Ameri-ca’s “most credible and capable allies,especially in the gulf region.”

Access to PowerSmall countries are finding that they

can gain big clout by teaming up withAmerican research organizations. Per-haps the best example is Norway.

As one of the world’s top oil pro-ducers, a member of NATO and a playerin peace negotiations in spots aroundthe globe, Norway has an interest in abroad range of United States policies.

The country has committed at least

“I am surprised, quite frankly, at how explicit the relationship is between money paid, papers published and policy makers and politicians influenced.”

Amos Jones, a Washington lawyer who has specialized in the Foreign Agents Registration Act

Foreign Governments Buy Influence at Think Tanks From Page 1

STEPHEN CROWLEY/THE NEW YORK TIMES

EXAMINING TIES Borge Brende, the foreign minister of Norway, in June at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He said the relationship betweenhis nation and the think tank, to which it had just committed $4 million, had “been mutually beneficial for moving a lot of important topics.”

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT NETWORK

SPEAKING OUT Michele Dunne re-signed as the head of the AtlanticCouncil’s center for the Middle Eastafter calling for the suspension ofmilitary aid to Egypt in 2013.

DREW ANGERER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

ON REPRESENTATION John J. Hamre, the president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, saidthat he did not view as lobbying his scholars’ advocacy on topics foreign donors have funded them to study.

C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2

In their contracts and internal documents, however, foreign governments are often ex-plicit about what they expect from the research groups they finance.

“In Washington, it is difficult for a small country to gain access to powerful politicians, bureaucrats and experts,” states an internal report commissioned by the Norwegian For-eign Affairs Ministry assessing its grant mak-ing. “Funding powerful think tanks is one way to gain such access, and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.”

The think tanks’ reliance on funds from overseas is driven, in part, by intensifying com-petition within the field: The number of policy groups has multiplied in recent years, while research grants from the United States govern-ment have dwindled.

Foreign officials describe these relation-ships as pivotal to winning influence on the clut-

tered Washington stage, where hundreds of na-tions jockey for attention from the United States government. The arrangements vary: Some countries work directly with think tanks, draw-ing contracts that define the scope and direction of research. Others donate money to the think tanks, and then pay teams of lobbyists and pub-lic relations consultants to push the think tanks to promote the country’s agenda.

“Japan is not necessarily the most inter-esting subject around the world,” said Masato Otaka, a spokesman for the Japanese embas-sy, when asked why Japan donates heavily to American research groups. “We’ve been expe-riencing some slower growth in the economy. I think our presence is less felt than before.”

The scope of foreign financing for Ameri-can think tanks is difficult to determine. But since 2011, at least 64 foreign governments, state-controlled entities or government officials have contributed to a group of 28 major United States-based research organizations, according





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2

to disclosures by the institutions and govern-ment documents. What little information the or-ganizations volunteer about their donors, along with public records and lobbying reports filed with American officials by foreign representa-tives, indicates a minimum of $92 million in con-tributions or commitments from overseas gov-ernment interests over the last four years. The total is certainly more.

After questions from The Times, some of the research groups agreed to provide limited additional information about their relationships with countries overseas. Among them was the Center for Strategic and International Studies, whose research agenda focuses mostly on for-eign policy; it agreed last month to release a list of 13 foreign government donors, from Germa-ny to China, though the organization declined to disclose details of its contracts with those na-tions or actual donation amounts.

In an interview, John J. Hamre, president and chief executive of the center, acknowledged that the organization’s scholars at times advo-cate causes with the Obama administration and Congress on the topics that donor governments have funded them to study. But Mr. Hamre stressed that he did not view it as lobbying — and said his group is most certainly not a for-eign agent.

“I don’t represent anybody,” Mr. Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense, said. “I nev-er go into the government to say, ‘I really want to talk to you about Morocco or about United Arab emirates or Japan.’ I have conversations about these places all the time with everybody, and I am never there representing them as a lobbyist to their interests.”

Several legal experts who reviewed the documents, however, said the tightening rela-tionships between United States think tanks and their overseas sponsors could violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the 1938 feder-al law that sought to combat a Nazi propaganda campaign in the United States. The law requires groups that are paid by foreign governments with the intention of influencing public policy to register as “foreign agents” with the Justice Department.

“I am surprised, quite frankly, at how ex-plicit the relationship is between money paid, papers published and policy makers and politi-cians influenced,” said Amos Jones, a Washing-

ton lawyer who has specialized in the foreign agents act, after reviewing transactions be-tween the Norway government and Brookings, the Center for Global Development and other groups.

At least one of the research groups conced-ed that it may in fact be violating the federal law.

“Yikes,” said Todd Moss, the chief operating officer at the Center for Global Development, after being shown dozens of pages of emails between his organization and the government of Norway, which detail how his group would lobby the White House and Congress on behalf of the Norway government. “We will absolutely seek counsel on this.”

Parallels With LobbyingThe line between scholarly research and

lobbying can sometimes be hard to discern.Last year, Japan began an effort to per-

suade American officials to accelerate negotia-tions over a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of Japan’s top priorities. The country already had lobbyists on retainer, from the Washington firm of Akin Gump, but decided to embark on a broader campaign.

Akin Gump lobbyists approached sever-al influential members of Congress and their staffs, including aides to Representative Charles Boustany Jr., Republican of Louisiana, and Representative Dave Reichert, Republican of Washington, seeking help in establishing a con-gressional caucus devoted to the partnership, lobbying records show. After those discussions, in October 2013, the lawmakers established just such a group, the Friends of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

To bolster the new group’s credibility, Japa-nese officials sought validation from outside the halls of Congress. Within weeks, they received it from the Center for Strategic and Internation-al Studies, to which Japan has been a longtime donor. The center will not say how much money the government has given — or for what exactly — but an examination of its relationship with a state-funded entity called the Japan external Trade Organization provides a glimpse.

In the past four years, the organization has given the center at least $1.1 million for “re-search and consulting” to promote trade and di-rect investment between Japan and the United

States. The center also houses visiting scholars from within the Japanese government, including Hiroshi Waguri, an executive in the Ministry of Defense, as well as Shinichi Isobe, an executive from the trade organization.

In early December, the center held an event featur-ing Mr. Boustany and Mr. Reichert, who spoke about the importance of the trade agree-ment and the steps they were taking to pressure the White House to complete it. In addi-tion, at a Senate Foreign Rela-tions Committee hearing later that month, Matthew P. Goodman, a scholar at the center, testified in favor of the agreement, his language driving home the very message Japan’s lobbyists and their congressional allies were seeking to convey.

The agreement was critical to “success not only for the administration’s regional economic policy but arguably for the entire Asia rebalanc-ing strategy,” Mr. Goodman said.

Mr. Hamre, the center’s president, acknowl-edged that his organization’s researchers were pushing for the trade deal (it remains pending). But he said their advocacy was rooted in a be-lief that the agreement was good for the United States economy and the country’s standing in Asia.

Andrew Schwartz, a spokesman for the cen-ter, said that language in the agreements the organization signs with foreign governments gives its scholars final say over the policy po-sitions they take — although he acknowledged those provisions have not been included in all such documents.

“We have to respect their academic and in-tellectual independence,” Mr. Otaka, the Japa-nese embassy spokesman, said in a separate interview. But one Japanese diplomat, who asked not to be named as he was not authorized to discuss the matter, said the country expected favorable treatment in return for donations to think tanks.

“If we put actual money in, we want to have a good result for that money — as it is an invest-ment,” he said.

Qatar and the United Arab emirates — two nations that host large United States military bases and view a continued American military presence as central to their own national security — have been especially aggressive in their giving to think tanks. The two Persian Gulf mon-archies are also engaged in a battle with each other to shape Western opinion, with Qatar arguing that Muslim Brotherhood-style political Islam is the Arab world’s best hope for democracy, and the United Arab emirates seek-

ing to persuade United States policy makers that the Brotherhood is a dangerous threat to the region’s stability.

The United Arab emirates, which has be-come a major supporter of the Center for Stra-tegic and International Studies over the past decade, turned to the think tank in 2007 after an uproar in Congress about the nation’s plan to purchase control of terminals in several Unit-ed States ports. After lawmakers questioned whether the purchase would be a national secu-rity threat to the United States, and the deal was scuttled, the oil-rich nation sought to remake its image in Washington, Mr. Hamre said.

The nation paid the research organization to sponsor a lecture series “to examine the stra-tegic importance” of the gulf region and “iden-tify opportunities for constructive U.S. engage-ment.” It also paid the center to organize annual trips to the gulf region during which dozens of national security experts from the United States would get private briefings from government officials there.

These and other events gave the United Arab emirates’ senior diplomats an important platform to press their case. At a round table in Washington in March 2013, Yousef Al Otaiba, the ambassador to the United States, pressed Gen. Martin e. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about whether the United States would remain committed to his country given budget reductions in Washington.

Mr. Dempsey’s reply was quickly posted on the Facebook page of the United Arab emirates





























































C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,022,Bs-BK,E2

embassy: The country, he assured Mr. Al Otaiba and others in the crowd, was one of America’s “most credible and capable allies, especially in the gulf region.”

Access to PowerSmall countries are finding that they can

gain big clout by teaming up with American re-search organizations. Perhaps the best example is Norway.

As one of the world’s top oil producers, a member of NATO and a player in peace negotia-tions in spots around the globe, Norway has an interest in a broad range of United States poli-cies.

The country has committed at least $24 mil-lion to an array of Washington think tanks over the past four years, according to a tally by The Times, transforming these nonprofits into a powerful but largely hidden arm of the Norway Foreign Affairs Ministry. Documents obtained under that country’s unusually broad open records laws reveal that American research groups, after receiving money from Norway, have advocated in Washington for enhancing Norway’s role in NATO, promoted its plans to expand oil drilling in the Arctic and pushed its climate change agenda.

Norway paid the Center for Global Develop-ment, for example, to persuade the United States government to spend more money on combat-ing global warming by slowing the clearing of forests in countries like Indonesia, according to a 2013 project document describing work by the center and a consulting company called Climate Advisers.

Norway is a major funder of forest protec-tion efforts around the world. But while many environmentalists applaud the country’s lob-bying for forest protection, some have attacked the programs as self-interested: Slowing defor-estation could buy more time for Norway’s oil companies to continue selling fossil fuels on the global market even as Norway and other coun-tries push for new carbon reduction policies. Oilwatch International, an environmental ad-vocacy group, calls forest protection a “scheme

whereby polluters use forests and land as sup-posed sponges for their pollution.”

Kare R. Aas, Norway’s ambassador to the United States, rejected this criticism as ridicu-lous. As a country whose territory extends into the Arctic, he said, Norway would be among the nations most affected by global warming.

“We want to maintain sustainable living conditions in the North,” Mr. Aas said.

But Norway’s agreement imposed very specific demands on the Center for Global De-velopment. The research organization, in return for Norway’s money, was not simply asked to publish reports on combating climate change. The project documents ask the think tank to persuade Washington officials to double United States spending on global forest protection ef-forts to $500 million a year.

“Target group: U.S. policy makers,” a prog-ress report reads.

The grant is already paying dividends. The center, crediting the Norwegian government’s funding, helped arrange a November 2013 meet-ing with Treasury Department officials. Schol-ars there also succeeded in having language from their Norway-funded research included in a deforestation report prepared by a White House advisory commission, according to an April progress report.

Norway has also funded Arctic research at the Center for Strategic and International Stud-ies, at a time when the country was seeking to expand its oil drilling in the Arctic region.

Mr. Hamre, of the center, said he was invit-ed to Norway about five years ago and given a presentation on the Arctic Circle, known in Nor-way as the “High North.”

“What the hell is the High North?” he said in an interview, recalling that he was not famil-iar with the topic until then.

But Norway’s government soon began sending checks to the center for a research pro-gram on Arctic policy. By 2009, after the new Norway-supported Arctic program was up and running, it brought Norway officials together with a key member of Congress to discuss the country’s “energy aspirations for the region.”

Ø N 23NATIONALTHE NEW YORK TIMES SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2014

$24 million to an array of Washingtonthink tanks over the past four years, ac-cording to a tally by The Times, trans-forming these nonprofits into a power-ful but largely hidden arm of the Nor-way Foreign Affairs Ministry. Docu-ments obtained under that country’sunusually broad open records laws re-veal that American research groups, af-ter receiving money from Norway, haveadvocated in Washington for enhancingNorway’s role in NATO, promoted itsplans to expand oil drilling in the Arcticand pushed its climate change agenda.

Norway paid the Center for GlobalDevelopment, for example, to persuadethe United States government to spendmore money on combating globalwarming by slowing the clearing of for-ests in countries like Indonesia, accord-ing to a 2013 project document describ-ing work by the center and a consultingcompany called Climate Advisers.

Norway is a major funder of forestprotection efforts around the world. Butwhile many environmentalists applaudthe country’s lobbying for forest protec-tion, some have attacked the programsas self-interested: Slowing deforesta-tion could buy more time for Norway’soil companies to continue selling fossilfuels on the global market even as Nor-way and other countries push for newcarbon reduction policies. Oilwatch In-ternational, an environmental advocacygroup, calls forest protection a “schemewhereby polluters use forests and landas supposed sponges for their pollu-tion.”

Kare R. Aas, Norway’s ambassadorto the United States, rejected this crit-icism as ridiculous. As a country whoseterritory extends into the Arctic, hesaid, Norway would be among the na-tions most affected by global warming.

“We want to maintain sustainable liv-ing conditions in the North,” Mr. Aassaid.

But Norway’s agreement imposedvery specific demands on the Center forGlobal Development. The research or-ganization, in return for Norway’smoney, was not simply asked to publishreports on combating climate change.The project documents ask the thinktank to persuade Washington officials todouble United States spending on globalforest protection efforts to $500 milliona year.

“Target group: U.S. policy makers,” aprogress report reads.

The grant is already paying divi-dends. The center, crediting the Norwe-gian government’s funding, helped ar-range a November 2013 meeting withTreasury Department officials. Scholarsthere also succeeded in having lan-guage from their Norway-funded re-search included in a deforestation re-port prepared by a White House advi-sory commission, according to an Aprilprogress report.

Norway has also funded Arctic re-search at the Center for Strategic andInternational Studies, at a time whenthe country was seeking to expand itsoil drilling in the Arctic region.

Mr. Hamre, of the center, said he wasinvited to Norway about five years agoand given a presentation on the ArcticCircle, known in Norway as the “HighNorth.”

“What the hell is the High North?” hesaid in an interview, recalling that hewas not familiar with the topic untilthen.

But Norway’s government soon be-gan sending checks to the center for aresearch program on Arctic policy. By2009, after the new Norway-supportedArctic program was up and running, itbrought Norway officials together witha key member of Congress to discussthe country’s “energy aspirations forthe region.”

In a March 2013 report, scholars fromthe center urged the Obama administra-tion to increase its military presence inthe Arctic Circle, to protect energy ex-ploration efforts there and to increasethe passage of cargo ships through theregion — the exact moves Norway hasbeen advocating.

The Brookings Institution, which alsoaccepted grants from Norway, hassought to help the country gain accessto American officials, documents show.One Brookings senior fellow, BruceJones, offered in 2010 to reach out toState Department officials to help ar-range a meeting with a senior Norwayofficial, according to a governmentemail. The Norway official wished todiscuss his country’s role as a “middlepower” and vital partner of the UnitedStates.

Brookings organized another event inApril 2013, in which one of Norway’s topofficials on Arctic issues was seatednext to the State Department’s seniorofficial on the topic and reiterated thecountry’s priorities for expanding oilexploration in the Arctic.

William J. Antholis, the managing di-rector at Brookings, said that if hisscholars help Norway pursue its foreignpolicy agenda in Washington, it is onlybecause their rigorous, independent re-search led them to this position. “Thescholars are their own agents,” he said.“They are not agents of these foreigngovernments.”

But three lawyers who specialize inthe law governing Americans’ activitieson behalf of foreign governments saidthat the Center for Global Developmentand Brookings, in particular, appearedto have taken actions that merited reg-istration as foreign agents of Norway.The activities by the Center for Stra-tegic and International Studies and theAtlantic Council, they added, at leastraised questions.

“The Department of Justice needs tobe looking at this,” said Joshua Rosen-stein, a lawyer at Sandler Reiff.

Ona Dosunmu, Brookings’s generalcounsel, examining the same docu-ments, said she remained convinced

that was a misreading of the law.Norway, at least, is grateful for the

work Brookings has done. During aspeech at Brookings in June, Norway’sforeign minister, Borge Brende, notedthat his country’s relationship with thethink tank “has been mutually benefi-cial for moving a lot of important top-ics.” Just before the speech, in fact, Nor-way signed an agreement to contributean additional $4 million to the group.

Limits on ScholarsThe tens of millions in donations from

foreign interests come with certain ex-pectations, researchers at the organ-izations said in interviews. Sometimesthe foreign donors move aggressively tostifle views contrary to their own.

Michele Dunne served for nearly twodecades as a specialist in Middle East-ern affairs at the State Department, in-cluding stints in Cairo and Jerusalem,and on the White House National Secu-rity Council. In 2011, she was a natural

choice to become the founding directorof the Atlantic Council’s Rafik HaririCenter for the Middle East, named afterthe former prime minister of Lebanon,who was assassinated in 2005.

The center was created with a gener-ous donation from Bahaa Hariri, his eld-est son, and with the support of the restof the Hariri family, which has remainedactive in politics and business in theMiddle East. Another son of the formerprime minister served as Lebanon’sprime minister from 2009 to 2011.

But by the summer of 2013, whenEgypt’s military forcibly removed thecountry’s democratically elected presi-dent, Mohamed Morsi, Ms. Dunne soonrealized there were limits to her inde-pendence. After she signed a petitionand testified before a Senate ForeignRelations Committee urging the UnitedStates to suspend military aid to Egypt,calling Mr. Morsi’s ouster a “militarycoup,” Bahaa Hariri called the AtlanticCouncil to complain, executives with di-rect knowledge of the events said.

Ms. Dunne declined to comment onthe matter. But four months after thecall, Ms. Dunne left the Atlantic Council.

In an interview, Mr. Kempe said hehad never taken any action on behalf ofMr. Hariri to try to modify positions thatMs. Dunne or her colleagues took. Ms.Dunne left, he said, in part because shewanted to focus on research, not man-aging others, as she was doing at the At-lantic Council.

“Differences she may have had withcolleagues, management or donors onMiddle Eastern issues — inevitable insuch a fraught environment where opin-ions vary widely — don’t touch ourfierce defense of individual experts’ in-tellectual independence,” Mr. Kempesaid.

Ms. Dunne was replaced by Francis J.Ricciardone Jr., who served as UnitedStates ambassador to Egypt during therule of Hosni Mubarak, the longtimeEgyptian military and political leaderforced out of power at the beginning ofthe Arab Spring. Mr. Ricciardone, a ca-

reer foreign service officer, had earlierbeen criticized by conservatives and hu-man rights activists for being too defer-ential to the Mubarak government.

Scholars at other Washington thinktanks, who were granted anonymity todetail confidential internal discussions,described similar experiences that hada chilling effect on their research andability to make public statements thatmight offend current or future foreignsponsors. At Brookings, for example, adonor with apparent ties to the Turkishgovernment suspended its support aftera scholar there made critical statementsabout the country, sending a message,one scholar there said.

“It is the self-censorship that reallyaffects us over time,” the scholar said.“But the fund-raising environment isvery difficult at the moment, and Brook-ings keeps growing and it has to sup-port itself.”

The sensitivities are especially im-portant when it comes to the Qatari gov-ernment — the single biggest foreigndonor to Brookings.

Brookings executives cited strict in-ternal policies that they said ensuretheir scholars’ work is “not influencedby the views of our funders,” in Qatar orin Washington. They also pointed toseveral reports published at the Brook-ings Doha Center in recent years that,for example, questioned the Qatari gov-ernment’s efforts to revamp its educa-tion system or criticized the role it hasplayed in supporting militants in Syria.

But in 2012, when a revised agree-ment was signed between Brookingsand the Qatari government, the QatarMinistry of Foreign Affairs itselfpraised the agreement on its website,announcing that “the center will as-sume its role in reflecting the bright im-age of Qatar in the international media,especially the American ones.” Brook-ings officials also acknowledged thatthey have regular meetings with Qatarigovernment officials about the center’sactivities and budget, and that the for-mer Qatar prime minister sits on thecenter’s advisory board.

Mr. Ali, who served as one of the firstvisiting fellows at the Brookings DohaCenter after it opened in 2009, said sucha policy, though unwritten, was clear.

“There was a no-go zone when itcame to criticizing the Qatari govern-ment,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a profes-sor at the University of Queensland inAustralia. “It was unsettling for the aca-demics there. But it was the price wehad to pay.”

“The scholars are their own agents. They are not agents of these foreign governments.”

William J. Antholis, the managing director at the Brookings Institution

Foreign Government Contributions to Nine Think TanksForeign governments and state-controlled or state-financed entities have paid tens of millions of dollars to dozens of American think tanks in recent years, according to a New York Times investigation. While the think tanks argue that the relationships do not compromise the integrity of their research, foreign officials say the contributions are pivotal in furthering their policy priorities, as many groups produce papers and host forums or briefings that are typically consistent with foreign government interests. Here are examples of the contributors to nine major think tanks in recent years.

DONOR COUNTRIES RECIPIENTS

Sources: Think tanks; U.S. Department of Justice; government of Norway. Joseph Malochée contributed to data collection. BROOKE WILLIAMS, ERIC LIPTON AND ALICIA PARLAPIANO/THE NEW YORK TIMES

Democratic Republic of Congo

AFRICA Gabon

Azerbaijan

ASIA/PACIFIC

EXAMPLES

EUROPE

MIDDLEEAST/NORTHAFRICA

AMERICAS

China

Japan

Kazakhstan

Singapore

South Korea

Taiwan

Vietnam

Australia

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

European Union

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Montenegro

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Romania

Serbia

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

Bahrain

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

United Arab Emirates

Canada

Mexico

Colombia

Guatemala

Jamaica

Panama

Middle East Institute

Established in 1946, the institute takes up hot topics such as the rise and fall of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Its stated mission is to “increase knowledge of the Middle East among the citizens of the United States.” But money funding this work comes from some of the same nations it writes about, such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Amounts not disclosed

Only limited amounts disclosed

German Marshall Fund of the United States

This foundation and think tank was created through a gift of the German government, as a thank you for help the United States provided after World War II. It continues to receive significant donations from European nations.

Amounts not disclosedInter-American Dialogue

This group, which focuses most of its research on Latin America, has been a strong advocate of free trade agreements negotiated with the United States — and it has received donations from countries like Colombia, which spent several years advocating passage of its own trade deal by Congress.

$17 millionCenter for Global Development

The group conducts research into “how policies and actions of the rich and powerful affect poor people in the developing world,“ focusing on topics such as global health policies and how to spend foreign aid money more effectively. But money it takes from Norway has also been used to try to push the United States government to adopt policies that Norway prefers.

$7.8 million in grants from Norway

$27 million+World Resource Institute

The group works to identify solutions to environmental problems — such as carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants in China. Its foreign donors come from all over the world, with the largest amounts from the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Germany.

$8.6 million from the Netherlands in the 2013 fiscal year

Amounts not disclosedStimson Center

A think tank that focuses largely on military and other security-related issues, it has taken money from many of the United States’ military allies from around the world — nations that benefit from a strong commitment to military spending here.

$220,000 from Norway in 2013

Amounts not disclosedCenter for Strategic and International Studies

The center focuses much of its research on foreign policy and defense issues and hasa particularly large number of donors from Asia, including China. It runs programs on topics important to many of those nations, such as trade agreements with the United States, and defense issues, in an era of growing tension between Japan and China.

$1 million from U.A.E. for new headquarters

$41 millionBrookings Institution

The think tank, which has one of the highest profiles in the world, receives about 12 percent of its annual funding from foreign governments. Oil-rich nations such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Norway are among its biggest foreign donors.

$17.8 million from Qatar over three years

Amounts not disclosedAtlantic Council

The think tank has received contributions from more than two dozen countries since 2008, a fact that drew attention in 2013 after former Senator Chuck Hagel, who was then chairman of the council, was nominated to serve as secretary of defense. Foreign government donors have made up between 5 and 20 percent of its annual budget in recent years, according to its president.

Donations from state oil companies in four countries

HARALD PETTERSEN/STATOIL, VIA SCANPIX, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS

FOCUS ON THE U.S. A drilling rig in the Barents Sea in 2012. Norway, which as a top oil producer has an inter-est in United States policy, has committed at least $24 million to Washington think tanks in recent years.

C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,023,Bs-BK,E2















































AFRICA Gabon

Azerbaijan

ASIA/PACIFIC

EXAMPLES

EUROPE


AMERICAS

China

Japan

Kazakhstan

Singapore

South Korea

Taiwan

Vietnam

Australia

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

European Union

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Montenegro

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Romania

Serbia

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

Bahrain

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia


Canada

Mexico

Colombia

Guatemala

Jamaica

Panama





























C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,023,Bs-BK,E2

In a March 2013 report, scholars from the center urged the Obama administration to in-crease its military presence in the Arctic Circle, to protect energy exploration efforts there and to increase the passage of cargo ships through the region — the exact moves Norway has been advocating.

The Brookings Institution, which also ac-cepted grants from Norway, has sought to help the country gain access to American officials, documents show. One Brookings senior fel-low, Bruce Jones, offered in 2010 to reach out to State Department officials to help arrange a meeting with a senior Norway official, accord-ing to a government email. The Norway offi-cial wished to discuss his country’s role as a “middle power” and vital partner of the United States.

Brookings organized another event in April 2013, in which one of Norway’s top officials on Arctic issues was seated next to the State De-partment’s senior official on the topic and reit-erated the country’s priorities for expanding oil

exploration in the Arctic.William J. Antholis, the managing direc-

tor at Brookings, said that if his scholars help Norway pursue its foreign policy agenda in Washington, it is only because their rigorous, independent research led them to this position. “The scholars are their own agents,” he said. “They are not agents of these foreign govern-ments.”

But three lawyers who specialize in the law governing Americans’ activities on behalf of foreign governments said that the Center for Global Development and Brookings, in particu-lar, appeared to have taken actions that merited registration as foreign agents of Norway. The activities by the Center for Strategic and Inter-national Studies and the Atlantic Council, they added, at least raised questions.

“The Department of Justice needs to be looking at this,” said Joshua Rosenstein, a law-yer at Sandler Reiff.

Ona Dosunmu, Brookings’s general coun-sel, examining the same documents, said she















































AFRICA Gabon

Azerbaijan

ASIA/PACIFIC

EXAMPLES

EUROPE


AMERICAS

China

Japan

Kazakhstan

Singapore

South Korea

Taiwan

Vietnam

Australia

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

European Union

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Montenegro

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Romania

Serbia

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

Bahrain

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia


Canada

Mexico

Colombia

Guatemala

Jamaica

Panama





























C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,023,Bs-BK,E2















































AFRICA Gabon

Azerbaijan

ASIA/PACIFIC

EXAMPLES

EUROPE


AMERICAS

China

Japan

Kazakhstan

Singapore

South Korea

Taiwan

Vietnam

Australia

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

European Union

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Montenegro

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Romania

Serbia

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

Bahrain

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia


Canada

Mexico

Colombia

Guatemala

Jamaica

Panama





























C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,023,Bs-BK,E2















































AFRICA Gabon

Azerbaijan

ASIA/PACIFIC

EXAMPLES

EUROPE


AMERICAS

China

Japan

Kazakhstan

Singapore

South Korea

Taiwan

Vietnam

Australia

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

European Union

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Montenegro

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Romania

Serbia

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

Bahrain

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia


Canada

Mexico

Colombia

Guatemala

Jamaica

Panama





























C M Y K Nxxx,2014-09-07,A,023,Bs-BK,E2

remained convinced that was a misreading of the law.

Norway, at least, is grateful for the work Brookings has done. During a speech at Brook-ings in June, Norway’s foreign minister, Borge Brende, noted that his country’s relationship with the think tank “has been mutually benefi-cial for moving a lot of important topics.” Just before the speech, in fact, Norway signed an agreement to contribute an additional $4 million to the group.

Limits on ScholarsThe tens of millions in donations from for-

eign interests come with certain expectations, researchers at the organizations said in inter-views. Sometimes the foreign donors move ag-gressively to stifle views contrary to their own.

Michele Dunne served for nearly two de-cades as a specialist in Middle eastern affairs at the State Department, including stints in Cairo and Jerusalem, and on the White House National Security Council. In 2011, she was a natural choice to become the founding director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle east, named after the former prime minister of Lebanon, who was assassinated in 2005.

The center was created with a generous donation from Bahaa Hariri, his eldest son, and with the support of the rest of the Hariri family, which has remained active in politics and busi-ness in the Middle east. Another son of the for-mer prime minister served as Lebanon’s prime minister from 2009 to 2011.

But by the summer of 2013, when egypt’s military forcibly removed the country’s demo-cratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, Ms. Dunne soon realized there were limits to her independence. After she signed a petition and testified before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging the United States to suspend military aid to egypt, calling Mr. Morsi’s ouster a “military coup,” Bahaa Hariri called the Atlan-tic Council to complain, executives with direct knowledge of the events said.

Ms. Dunne declined to comment on the mat-ter. But four months after the call, Ms. Dunne left the Atlantic Council.

In an interview, Mr. Kempe said he had never taken any action on behalf of Mr. Hariri to try to modify positions that Ms. Dunne or her

colleagues took. Ms. Dunne left, he said, in part because she wanted to focus on research, not managing others, as she was doing at the Atlan-tic Council.

“Differences she may have had with col-leagues, management or donors on Middle eastern issues — inevitable in such a fraught environment where opinions vary widely — don’t touch our fierce defense of individual ex-perts’ intellectual independence,” Mr. Kempe said.

Ms. Dunne was replaced by Francis J. Ric-ciardone Jr., who served as United States am-bassador to egypt during the rule of Hosni Mubarak, the longtime egyptian military and political leader forced out of power at the be-ginning of the Arab Spring. Mr. Ricciardone, a career foreign service officer, had earlier been criticized by conservatives and human rights activists for being too deferential to the Mubarak government.

Scholars at other Washington think tanks, who were granted anonymity to detail confi-dential internal discussions, described similar experiences that had a chilling effect on their research and ability to make public statements that might offend current or future foreign spon-sors. At Brookings, for example, a donor with apparent ties to the Turkish government sus-pended its support after a scholar there made critical statements about the country, sending a message, one scholar there said.

“It is the self-censorship that really affects us over time,” the scholar said. “But the fund-raising environment is very difficult at the mo-ment, and Brookings keeps growing and it has to support itself.”

The sensitivities are especially important when it comes to the Qatari government — the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings.

Brookings executives cited strict inter-nal policies that they said ensure their schol-ars’ work is “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in Qatar or in Washington. They also pointed to several reports published at the Brookings Doha Center in recent years that, for example, questioned the Qatari government’s efforts to revamp its education system or criti-cized the role it has played in supporting mili-tants in Syria.

But in 2012, when a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari gov-

ernment, the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, an-nouncing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the inter-national media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and bud-get, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.

Mr. Ali, who served as one of the first visit-ing fellows at the Brookings Doha Center after it opened in 2009, said such a policy, though un-written, was clear.

“There was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. “It was unsettling for the academics there. But it was the price we had to pay.” n