The United Arab Emirates has one of the most repressive governments in the world. The Gulf dictatorship brutally cracks down on internal dissent and enables abusive conditions for its massive migrant labor force. It also plays a key role in the bloody war in Yemen, running a network of torture prisons in the “liberated” parts of the country.
That makes it all the more shocking that the UAE is so rarely criticized by leading U.S. think tanks, who not only ignore the Gulf dictatorship’s repression, but give a privileged platform to its ambassador, Yousef al-Otaiba. Otaiba is a deeply influential voice in U.S. foreign policy circles, and is known in Washington for using his pocketbook to recruit allies.
Last month, hackers began releasing screenshots of emails from a Hotmail account that Otaiba used for official business. The hackers have sent the screenshots to various news websites, including the The Intercept, the Daily Beast, Al Jazeera, and HuffPost. The hackers refer to themselves as “GlobalLeaks,” and have previously claimed to be affiliated with the website “DCLeaks.” The U.S. intelligence community has accused the Russia government of operating DCLeaks, and it’s unclear if the “GlobalLeaks” hackers are affiliated with Russia or just trying to give that impression. When asked about their motivations for an earlier Intercept story, the hackers responded in broken English by email that they were “not affiliated with any country or religion,” but added that their goal was to “make America great again.”
The latest batch of hacked emails passed to The Intercept and other outlets by “GlobalLeaks” provide insight into how Otaiba manages to find — or buy — so many friends in D.C. think tanks. The documents offer a glimpse into how a small, oil-rich monarchy can obtain such an outsized influence on U.S. foreign policy, showing the ambassador obtaining favors from Obama administration veterans — including Hillary Clinton’s presumptive Defense Secretary — and making large payments in return.
One of the documents obtained by The Intercept was an invoice from the Center for New American Security, an influential national security think tank founded in 2007 by alumni from the Clinton administration. The invoice, dated July 12, 2016, billed the UAE embassy $250,000 for a paper on the legal regime governing the export of military-grade drones. It was signed by Michele Flournoy, a senior Pentagon official under President Barack Obama; Hillary Clinton was widely expected to name Flournoy as her secretary of defense. Flournoy co-founded CNAS and, in addition to outside work as a management consultant, currently serves as the think tank’s CEO.
Think tanks are independent institutions, but they are often funded by weapons companies, Wall Street banks, and even foreign governments. CNAS is transparent about the fact they have received money from the UAE, and even list the country’s embassy on website as a donor. These institutions, including CNAS, often assert that their scholars are independent of their donors, and that their analysis reflects their personal beliefs, not the interest of powerful donors.
The invoice, however, as well as emails obtained by The Intercept, portray a different picture: a close relationship between CNAS and Otaiba, with Otaiba paying for specific papers and discussing the views in the papers with the authors. Otaiba later explained to those responsible for creating the policy papers how the documents would be used to push the UAE’s drone program.
In its description field, the invoice reports that the payment was made for “Support for the Center’s Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Study.” The MTCR refers to a 35-nation agreement that governs the export of certain large military-grade weapons. Countries can apply for membership in the MTCR and become eligible to buy these weapons. The MTCR has been a headache for the drone industry because some of its products are classified as missiles, which makes them more difficult to export. The agreement has also irritated U.S. allies, who would love to get their hands on sophisticated, American attack drones.
The UAE is one of the countries that ran into a roadblock in the MTCR. The Obama administration blocked the sales of some weapon systems to the Emirates because the MTCR prohibits their sale beyond close allies. Some lawmakers have pushed the Trump administration to allow for the sales.
Part of the campaign to allow the UAE to buy these drones has involved think tank work. According to emails obtained by The Intercept, Otaiba commissioned a private paper on the MTCR from CNAS. In a June 24, 2016, email to Otaiba, Flournoy wrote, “Yousef: Here is the CNAS proposal for a project analyzing the potential benefits and costs of the UAE joining the MTCR, as we discussed. Please let us know whether this is what you had in mind.”
On July 11, Flournoy followed up with Otaiba, writing, “We believe the study could be done for $250K. We are happy to send you a revised proposal along those lines this week if that is acceptable.” In a November 2016 email to Otaiba, Ilan Goldenberg, the director of CNAS’s middle east security program, was blunt about the UAE’s support for the think tank’s MTCR work. “One administrative item,” he noted. “We’d initially agreed that you would provide the second tranche of your financial support for the project when we are at the midpoint, which I think is about now. So I will have someone from our development team send you bank details/invoice over the next few days.”
Goldenberg is an Obama administration veteran who led the Office of the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy’s work on Iran. He currently serves as a senior fellow at CNAS.
In February of this year, Goldenberg sent the MTCR study to Otaiba by email. Otaiba circulated it to some high-level officials in the UAE government and military. In May, Otaiba sent an email to Flournoy and Goldenberg praising the study — and for its utility in moving the Gulf dictatorship’s agenda forward. “And thank you for the report,” he wrote. “I think it will help push the debate in the right direction. Some of the UAV” — unmanned aerial vehicles — “manufacturers are pushing for a similar conclusion, so this report might reaffirm their arguments.”
In June, CNAS produced a public paper echoing the same conclusions, arguing that the United States’s “reluctance to transfer U.S. drones harms U.S. interests in tangible ways.” Namely, the public report asserted that some countries are now turning to China to get the technology instead. The Emirates is listed as one of those countries that has been denied some drone sales, and has instead turned to China. The stated goal of the paper was to push the Trump administration on the policy.
In a statement to The Intercept, CNAS spokesperson Neal Urwitz confirmed that the institution accepted $250,000 to produce the private paper for UAE officials. “This research also supported an already ongoing CNAS project on drone proliferation policy,” he added. Urwitz insisted that the scholars’ own views were represented, and that both the public and private study complied with CNAS’s intellectual independence policy, which states that CNAS scholars “retain intellectual independence and full control over any content funded in whole or in part by the contribution.”
Urwitz also pointed out that CNAS is upfront in disclosing that it has received money from the UAE, both on its website and even in its experts’ congressional testimony. Additionally, according to Urwitz, CNAS did not take any money from the UAE prior to 2016.
In another series of emails dated between February and March 2013, Flournoy uses a private gmail account to contact Otaiba and ask him to help promote the sale of electronic surveillance technology from a U.S.-based firm to the UAE.
The UAE government is a voracious consumer of surveillance technology, and has repeatedly bought up electronic spying tools from Western countries to spy on political dissidents. In October, The Intercept reported that the UAE is recruiting a small army of Western hackers, who are helping to turn the Emirates into the world’s most sophisticated surveillance state.
In a February 2013 email to Otaiba, Flournoy expresses dismay that du, a major Emirati telecom company, chose not to purchase location-based services technology from Polaris Wireless, a company that specializes tracking electronic devices. On its website, Polaris advertises “wireless location intelligence” that can be used in “locating and tracking known suspects,” “detecting and monitoring crowds,” and allowing users to “stay ahead of those who pose a threat.” Polaris Wireless has an office in Dubai. In 2012 its CEO credited sales in the region with a growth in revenue.
Flournoy told Otaiba that she is “most interested in seeing the UAE have this capability as a key security partner.” She asked him to intervene with the ministry of interior and help set up a meeting for a senior executive with Polaris.
In a reply, Otaiba wrote to Flournoy, “Would be happy to but MOI is quite large.” He added, “Our intel agency is legally under MOI so basically what I am asking is where this issue lives so I can assist.” Flournoy responded: “If you could help get them an opportunity to simply brief a senior MOI leader on the state of play and the national security capabilities of their system, that would at least ensure that the right people are aware of the opportunity that may be missed here. In my view, this would be nothing short of a game changing capability for you all.”
Nicholas McGeehan, Human Rights Watch’s researcher for the UAE, told The Intercept by email that activists in the country are convinced the government is using electronic surveillance to track them. “When we were last able to get into the UAE — in January 2014 — the local activists we met were leaving their mobile phones at home whenever they traveled, and didn’t want the authorities to know where they were going,” McGeehan said. “They were confident that the authorities were using their mobile phones to track them.”
Urwitz, the CNAS spokesperson, did not deny that Flournoy’s conversations promoting Polaris took place, but said that they were unrelated to her work at CNAS. Polaris did not respond to requests for comment from The Intercept.
“Michele Flournoy has known H.E. Yousef al-Otaiba for years, both in and out of government,” Urwitz said in a statement. “The conversation concerning UAE security capabilities occurred while she was working in the private sector, not at CNAS.” While on the board of directors at CNAS, Flournoy has also worked as a senior adviser to the Boston Consulting Group, specializing in “public sector” and “security and defense” consulting work. The Intercept obtained correspondence between her and Otaiba from her email address with the consulting group, but is choosing not to publish it because it is not newsworthy.
In March, the Harbour Group, a D.C.-based of public relations firm registered to work with the Emirates, sent a memo to Otaiba outlining the details of a sponsored trip to the UAE for a wide set of leading think tank researchers.
“We have been working with Brian Katulis at CAP” — the Center for American Progress — “and Ilan Goldenberg at CNAS to plan and execute an Embassy-supported study tour of national security experts to the UAE this spring,” the memo noted. The Center for American Progress, where Katulis is a senior national security fellow, is widely considered to be the most influential think tank aligned with the Democratic Party. (One of the authors of this post, Zaid Jilani, worked at the Center for American progress from 2009 to 2012.)
Katulis and Goldenberg are cited as the organizers of the trip; other confirmed attendees included Kim Kagan, a top hawk at the Institute for Study of War, and Daniel Pletka of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, an influential Republican-aligned think tank.
Additional attendees invited but not confirmed included CNAS president John Fontaine and John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and former chief of staff to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
The memo laid out an agenda for the trip. “In addition to senior UAE national security and FP officials, we propose to expose the group to some new elements which may include the national service program; the space program; and a glimpse of the cultural scene in the country,” it said.
One of the officials who was scheduled to meet the group was Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and deputy supreme commander of the UAE armed forces. No dissidents, activists, or human rights lawyers were listed among participants in the meetings.
Financing for the trip was apparently subsidized by the UAE, according to the memo. “The Embassy will cover business class fares for the group estimated at US$150K. We will request that CPC cover hotels, meals and local transportation.” CPC refers to the Crown Prince Court, a government-backed entity in the UAE.
CNAS’s Urwitz confirmed that its experts had traveled to the UAE a part of “two separate trips for think tank experts,” and described them as “fact-finding missions.”
“The UAE, in conjunction with a partner think tank, organized this fact-finding mission,” said Urwitz. “Dozens of other nations organize similar missions to their countries for U.S. security experts.”
In internal emails to Otaiba, UAE officials are very clear that the goal of these trips is to influence U.S. policymakers to be sympathetic to the UAE. In an email dated April 18 of this year, Saghira Al Ahbabi, head of political affairs at UAE’s Washington embassy, described importance the trip organized with Katulis and Goldenberg by noting that “many of these experts have served in senior U.S. government positions, and continue to inform policymakers.” She went on, “The goal of trip is to educate these influential policy analysts on the UAE’s policies regarding key regional issues, and underscore the close military cooperation between the two countries.”
Neither the Center for American Progress nor the UAE embassy in Washington responded to requests for comment about the revelations of the emails and documents.
A separate email indicates that Katulis had played a role coordinating trips to the UAE with the Harbour Group in the past as well. In October 2015, Katulis organized a group of Republican and Democratic experts on a junket, noting they were “all plugged into campaigns in various ways.” He noted they are “pretty much next generation as Amb. Otaiba discussed.”
Following the May trip this year, Katulis wrote to Richard Mintz of the Harbour Group to offer his congratulations for helping organize it. “Thank you again to you and your team. Your team has done a great job out here, as usual,” he wrote.
Katulis complimented the UAE’s government on the message it was trying to portray. “Topline of the trip: It hit all the key points and having a diversity of meetings was a good thing, and it was great to see the top leadership,” he wrote. “For me, the space agency and national service trips were new and I thought helped send the core message of unity, inclusion, and tolerance.”
Top photo: U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy during a meeting in Beijing on Dec. 7, 2011.
Could this be why democrats don’t go after Trump for emoluments (foreign bribes & conflicts of interest)? They’re guilty of it as well …
Podesta was never chief of staff for Obama. Just a senior advisor
Reading the comments on this article, I’m at a loss to say whether the subject attracted (1) a large number of readers who authentically despise democrats or (2) trolls and bots targeting specific organizations and individuals as part of a larger campaign to demoralize and create doubt among activists and voters.
On the one hand, it’s valid to berate the Obama admin and Ms. Clinton for revealed connections to the UAE. On the other, singling them out as epitomes of corruption seems disingenuous in a political field that favors our present Congress and the Trump Administration. Electing more independents, progressives and liberals — people like Sanders and Warren — seems a better strategy for minimizing corruption than castigating democrats en masse.
For me, it’s a red flag when comment threads contain apparently knowing exchanges between people who specifically damn individual members of institutions of which the general public is unaware; e.g., the exchange about the “CAP” and “shoving” this article in Neera Tanden’s face. I had to look up her name even though I have passing familiarity with the Center for American Progress. I definitely didn’t know of Tanden’s loyalist relationship to HRC, let alone her history.
Those kinds of comment exchanges usually read like a single poster using more than one address. You seem them on Amazon when one manufacturer is targeting their competition. On the other hand, who better than the Intercept to detect and trace internet discrepancies? If there were any, we probably wouldn’t be reading those comments.
I can’t see ordinary posters who hate democrats and liberals referring to the CAP with an acronym that they expect each other to know, let alone producing acronym-specific exchanges. On the other hand, nearly everyone who despises ALEC uses the acronym when referring to that organization, so who knows?
As an avid viewer of C-SPAN and a consumer of all politics all the time, I can conjure Neera Tanden’s name and voice without blinking.
Of course I would refer to it as CAP.
I do not hate democrats and liberals, although I despise and ridicule them all the time.
Sublimate your suspicion – there are many knowledgeable people whose names show up repeatedly. Yours is familiar…
While “Russian hacking” remains a fishing expedition by the Clintonistas/CIA, the US has suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity, thanks to the blackmailed Congressional Democrats:
‘”The Awan brothers had complete and direct access to information of three extremely sensitive committees: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Homeland Security Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-23/congressional-aides-fear-suspects-it-breach-are-blackmailing-members-their-own-data
“…on March 22, 2016, eight Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a letter, requesting that their staffers [Awan brothers] be granted access to Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI).”
https://californiajimmy.com/2017/05/22/muslim-awan-bros-may-blackmailing-dem-congress-members-may-22-2017/
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/httpsconsortiumnewscom20170724intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence
Your blog sucks “Anna”
“The Center for American Progress, where Katulis is a senior national security fellow, is widely considered to be the most influential think tank aligned with the Democratic Party. (One of the authors of this post, Zaid Jilani, worked at the Center for American progress from 2009 to 2012.)”
Thanks for the background. Explains a bit why Jilani’s views are warmed-up Democratic Party talking points at times, especially on Syria.
This is not about republicans or democrats…it is about America generally and what the government and authorities do in DC. It is about how the gangs in white collars and suits do that support dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is about how they collude with dictators to suppress democratic yearnings from their citizens. To you, everything should not be about democrats and republicans.
Just a stupid comment fr Zaid the journalist who is paid by Qatar …the journalist who does not have any integrity….keep telling lies .
So great to see CAP scumbags hanging out with one of the Kagans. It’s the perfect distillation of a diseased system.
No kidding. Would love to see this piece shoved in Neera Tanden’s face and demand her response on the spot.
The term “Think Tank” is a euphemism for
warmongering deceitful opportunists.
The CAP is “progressive” in the same way that cancer is progressive.
Again with the unsubstantiated innuendo against Russia. Has any credible evidence been presented of Russia being behind either DCleaks or GlobalLeaks? No? Then don’t bother implying it or giving any credibility to those making the implication. Why is it so difficult to believe that leaks could have—and very likely did—come from inside? Does everyone in the establishment media, which now unfortunately includes The Intercept, think that there is no one of conscience in D.C.? Apparently not.
Actually, if it’s from a computer group alleged to be aligned with Russia, I’d be more inclined to trust them. Unlike RT, the hackers tend to favor fair play, going after people from both sides, and from many fields. Plus, reporters outside those hacker groups have a tendency to prove them right, from DNC stacking the deck for Hillary to Team Sky (cycling) being linked to doping.
Of course, as many others, any claims of Russian involvement are just that, without any public evidence (and as several independent investigators have found, in spite of evidence).
Congress passed the latest Russia sanctions BASED ON A LIE. What good do these do? Nothing whatsoever. How many of these soon to be expelled personnel are deep cover CIA?
2nd, the US needs to listen to what it says. Russia, NKorea and Iran are not threats in any way except maybe to an elderly motorcycle gang, but the scaredcats know this– want a real man fight, then go pick on China. The China renmimbi is more wanted than the usd!
American foreign policy is a scam.
Did you hear thte Putin was going to dismiss 800 US personel from the US embassy in Moscow? And that would leave 400 remaining? WTF ARE WE DOING WITH 1200 PEOPLE IN MOSCOW!? Thats more than both houses of CONgress. That’s like a regiment. What do they do, make cars? fix watches? grow food and farm? And we are paying these fools?
Americans are being robbed – plain and simple. The US will NEVER get money out of politics because the elected whores are like pirhanna in a feeding frenzy. Seth Rich was shot in the back. 99% of the elected whores have signed a pledge of allegiance to israel so that israel can rob America of $38 billion dollars, to buy and resell weapons to foment wars that get Americans killed and America bankrupt. That is their gameplan. Life Liberty and pursuit of Happiness? Not happening. Kill rob and plunder? According to the US foreign policy whores the Yinon Plan is something they will use to beat up Americans and America.
But what about rebuilding America? WON’T HAPPEN. The FP whores want all the money for themselves and their wars and America be damned. THEY CANNOT HEAR US because THEY DONT WANT TO.
Muslims selling their own to get out and never return.
Duuuuuuhhhh…
It is revealing to see definite proof of paid opinions that aim to influence an administration. Well done.
However, administrations surely know how this works, so why wouldn’t an administration just ignore all publications from think tanks. So that is the missing link for me: what are the consequences if an administration just follows its own policies and ignores the think tanks and other so-called independent institutions?
Great article adding to the “social registry of backroom monied relationships”.
Maybe off topic always, but in the same area
New doc. on Vimeo; “This is Palestine ” approx 45 min.
https://vimeo.com/221868603
The bottom line is: If foreign nations want something from America they are required to hire lobbyists to conduit bribes to our conservative (republican and democrat) politicians and, they are required to play nice with Israel.
Outstanding research and article
Gareth Porter has a good new article explaining how this game is played, detailing how Obama got sucked into disasters like Libya and Syria:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/29/how-obama-fell-into-the-syrian-trap/
It is just about money. Dems are little too greedy because they are from the poor side of the family and constantly want more. Republicans are no better because they still want to make more money.
Foreign governments, including those completely opposed to basic American values, took the measure of our government a long time ago. It is all about money. Bush, Clinton, Obama, or Trump … nothing has changed. Anyone who thinks things have changed has only to do his research on Trump’s recent trip abroad.
“Foreign governments” are not our problem. Venal billionaires and corporate puppet masters are. If you doubt it, look at ALEC, Robert Mercer, Peter Thiel, the Koch Brothers, etc., etc.
It’s bad enough when these women, gay hating dictatorships fund think-tanks, but even worse when they give naked bribes, excepting favors from cabinet members, as they did with crooked Hillary:
United Arab Emirates: $5,000,000 – State Dept. approval for U.S. weapons sales to the UAE.
They don’t have to bribe Trump…they get it for free.
forget about Russia, this is the BIG BIG BIG story.
how about this, when this site stops promoting or minimizing an ongoing attack by ruthless foreign power maybe i’ll take some interest in a pipsqueak little dictatorship like the UAE.
Bribery is bribery, it doesn’t matter who is doing it, it’s still blatant corruption. And if you can point to any U.S. think tank staffed by wannabe Secretaries of State that sent $250,000 bills to the Russian government, well please do.
Interestingly, many Trump Administration members (Mattis, McMaster) seem to have close ties to Flournoy. Perhaps a special prosecutor and congessional hearings are merited?
Likewise McMaster just gave a talk with Flournoy at the CNAS.
This is why most Americans who know anything about how many corrupt relationships with foreign governments your average Washington foreign policy insider has view the Russia probe/allegations as little more than a PR issue.
The real issues facing the U.S. – energy, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. – neither the Clintonites or the Trumpsters have anything to offer the public on that. They’re both corrupt tools of plutocratic interests.
EVERYBODY in your coffee klatch knows about Russia. Nobody here does, because it’s only on 99% of the corporate media 90% of the time.
I haven’t read it yet but I’m betting Center For American Progress is on that list. Heritage Foundation is an easy guess. Off to read!
A closely related question is, how much did it cost the Center for New American Security to no longer be able to sell its influence on the expected Hillary Administration? What was it worth to be the expected SecDef?
Was UAE really paying for those papers, or for influence it expected to get later?
close relationships are good for flowers and other living things
This will be all over C.N.N. Tonight, sarc
Keep up the terrific work, or until APPLE helps government to censor your content
Not CNN, nor FOX either. The only other coverage so far is from a couple of Middle East newspapers, such as:
http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/27/07/2017/Leaked-documents-show-relation-between-UAE-envoy-in-US-and-witness-testifying-to-Congress-Committee
Basically the same story, nowhere near as in-depth as this Intercept article. Some additional information, though: Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, seems to be involved; a look into her financial ties with the UAE might be interesting. Also, Lockheed Martin seems to have been a player as well.
It’s pretty hilarious, the level of corruption – and just imagine if someone high in the Trump Administration had been running a think tank that sent $250,000 bills to the Russian government, this would be all over every news outlet in the U.S. right now. But I guess UAE, Saudi and Israeli intereference in domestic U.S. politics is no problem, as long as the checks are good. What a pack of criminals.
Given how the Saudis were found to be linked to 9/11, per the 9/11 Commission, one wonders why nobody is shouting about this.
Then again, the media is free to treat wackos and liars who allege that Russia is behind terrorism, from Alexander Litvinenko to Louise Mensch.
Hmmm, in the article text the vote is 6 for MTCR, 4 for MCTR. The firm invoicing the UAE seems to prefer the first option. ;)
Good catch.
P6, last sentence, “believes” instead of beliefs.
No doubt that the Obama and Clinton tunnel-vision limousine liberals are starting their motors: “crank…crank…oh…but…oh…but…ohbut…ohbut ohbut…rrrrrRUSSIAAAA…”
Good!
I’m pleased to see the UAE is cultivating influence in Washington the proper way, by funding security think tanks. This provides a much needed paycheck for political players currently out of a job, due to the poor judgment of US voters. This allows them to lick their wounds and build alliances for their political come-back. For Washington to be sustainable, a continual infusion of money is required, and the UAE appears to be doing its share.
Too many countries are trying to short cut the process by directly influencing the results of US elections. This is tempting in the short run, due to the poor security of US elections, but if everyone does it, eventually the whole system will run out of fuel. In return for its infusion of cash, the US has much to offer the UAE in terms of drones, weapons and surveillance technology. This is an example of international cooperation that is mutually beneficial.
Hopefully, other countries will also see the benefit of cooperation.
This reminds me of an old poem, written in protest to a major military misadventure, one hundred years ago. Relevant portions below.
“Our dead shall not return to us while Day and Night divide–
Never while the bars of sunset hold.
But the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died,
Shall they thrust for high employments as of old?
Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour:
When the storm is ended shall we find
How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power
By the favour and contrivance of their kind?
Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends,
Even while they make a show of fear,
Do they call upon their debtors, and take counsel with their
friends,
To conform and re-establish each career?”
-Rudyard Kipling, “Mesopotamia” (1917)
Apparently, the answer is “yes.”