Friday, September 6, 2019
Think Tanks in the United States Essay Example for Free
Think Tanks in the United States Essay A think tank (also known as a policy center) is a non-profit research institution that conducts studies on public policy (Columbia University Libraries, n. pag.). Aside from public policy analysis, a think tank also engages in developing solutions for national or commercial problems (Rohrer, n. pag.). Although there are some think tanks that are strictly nonpartisan (their research on public policy issues are not affected by political outcomes), think tanks are generally regarded as organizations that provide intellectual support to political parties and or politicians. Hence, a think tank is considered as an important part of the American political scene (Columbia University Libraries, n. pag.). However, think tanks affect American foreign policy and economic development abroad by coming up with ethnocentric and xenophobic perspectives. In some cases, American think tanks create unsustainable, violent and even genocidal policies, majority of which the US government imposes on Third World countries. Worse, the civilian nature of these organizations allows them to escape accountability for their detrimental ideas (Hayes, 3).            In the article A Litany of Horrors: America’s University of Imperialism (2008), Chalmers Johnson wrote that the RAND Corporation, one of the oldest existing think tanks in the US, was â€Å"the premier think tank for the US’ role as hegemon of the Western world (Johnson, n. pag.). To support his argument, Johnson detailed the history of RAND’s active participation in US military intervention since it was founded after World War II. During the Cold War, RAND perpetuated the â€Å"arms race†between the US and the Soviet Union by urging the latter to create huge demands for weapons such as atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers. In the 1960s and the 1970s, RAND’s anti-Marxist rhetoric heavily influenced the US to get involved in the Vietnam War and to establish puppet governments in Third World countries that included the Philippines, Thailand, Chile and Taiwan (Johnson, n. pag.).            RAND was also heavily involved in the Iraq War in 2002. During 9/11, former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci was the co-chair of the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy Advisory Board and was also a member of the RAND Board of Trustees. However, he was likewise the chairman of the Carlyle Group, a defense contractor with strong connections to the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin Laden clan. Other key players in the Iraq War that held important positions in the RAND Corporation were Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld (Here in Reality, n. pag.).            Aside from the RAND Corporation, other American think tanks that were also occupied with the promotion of American foreign policy and economic development abroad were the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Akin to RAND, the administration of the NIPP and the PNAC are both composed of unilateralist ideologues, most of which are former executives, consultants or major shareholders of the country’s biggest defense contractors. Some of the individuals who were connected to these think tanks went on to become government officials. Hence, it should no longer come as a surprise if US military intervention has increased in the previous decades (Ciarrocca Hartung, n. pag.).            The NIPP has strong ties with the nuclear weapons industry. Most of the members of its advisory board were formerly connected with the arms and nuclear divisions of major defense contractors. Kathleen Bailey, for instance, worked as an analyst for the Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory for six years. Robert Barker, meanwhile, worked for the weapons laboratory of Lawrence Livermore for 30 years. Charles Kupperman was Lockheed Martin’s vice president for its national missile defense programs (Ciarrocca Hartung, n. pag.).            The leadership of the PNAC is made up of William Kristol (editor of the Weekly Standard), Robert Kagan (senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributing editor at the Weekly Standard and columnist for the Washington Post) and Bruce Jackson (a longtime Lockheed Martin executive). Founded in 1997, PNAC’s principles were based on â€Å"the Reagan administration’s success (in ending the Cold War)†and called for the revival of â€Å"a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges†(Ciarrocca Hartung, n. pag.). It must be noted that the founding document of PNAC was signed by major players in the Bush national security team, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Furthermore, PNAC’s deputy director Thomas Donnelly was hired by Lockheed Martin in 2003 (Ciarrocca Hartung, n. pag.).            Given the background of RAND, PNAC and NIPP, it is very clear that there is a conflict between the objectives of think tanks and American foreign policy (which focused mainly on promoting American values abroad). Most of the think tanks that are affiliated with the US government are also connected with companies that benefit financially from war. It is therefore just a matter of common logic to assume that think tanks like RAND, PNAC and NIPP will advise the US government to wage war on other countries (no matter how flimsy the justification is) simply because the defense contractors that they are connected with will earn immensely from doing so.            Furthermore, there are some US politicians who are likewise affiliated with organizations that profit from war. Former President George Bush, Sr., for instance, is a former Senior Advisor in the Carlyle Group. Former Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury James Baker, meanwhile, was former Carlyle Senior Counselor. Carlyle Managing Director Richard Darman also happens to be the White House Budget Advisor (Here in Reality, n. pag.). It is very obvious that their affiliation to Carlyle makes them view war as an avenue for profit, and not as an atrocity that claims countless innocent lives.            While think tanks are excellent sources of information and ideas, conflict of interest arises when these institutions affect government policy. Think tanks doing business and making money while advising the US government at the same time should be considered as a grave cause of concern. Indeed, what will think tanks do when private business clash with public policy? What will be their stand when the very same government official that they supported is criticized for applying the ideas that they have formulated? Works Cited Ciarrocca, Michelle and Hartung, William. â€Å"The Military-Industrial-Think Tank Complex:            Corporate Think Tanks and the Doctrine of Aggressive Militarism.†January-February The Business of War. 9 June 2008 http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03jan-feb/jan-feb03corp2.html. Hayes, Peter. â€Å"The Role of Think Tanks in Defining Security Issues and Agendas.†Nautilus Institute. 21 October 2004. 8 June 2008 www.nautilus.org/collaborative/essay/2004/1021_Hayes.pdf. Johnson, Chalmers. â€Å"A Litany of Horrors: America’s University of Imperialism.†29 April TomDispatch.com. 8 June 2008 http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174925/chalmers_johnson_teaching_imperialism_101. â€Å"Meet the Carlyle Group.†n.d. Here in Reality. 09 June 2008 http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html. Rohrer, Finlo. â€Å"Just What Is A Think Tank?†15 January 2008. BBC News. 08 June 2008            http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7189094.stm. â€Å"The People We Pay to Think.†n.d. Here in Reality. 09 June 2008            http://www.hereinreality.com/news/rand.html. â€Å"Think Tanks Policy Centers.†n.d. Columbia University Libraries – Lehman Social Sciences Library. 08 June 2008 http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/lehman/guides/ttanks.html.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.