-
WAR OF IDEAS
Has the U.S. Reached Peak Car?
-
KILLER APPS
Cyberspies Are Using PRISM for Spearphishing
-
PASSPORT
Remembering Michael Hastings
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, November 20, 2009 - 7:25 PM
Share
I didn't have a chance to comment on the revelations that foreign-policy insider Peter Galbraith received a 5 percent stake in an oil field in the Dohak region of Iraqi Kurdistan, for his role in helping the Norwegian oil company DNO negotiate drilling rights there. Galbraith was also involved in the constitutional negotiations that gave the Kurds substantial autonomy over the region and thus made the proposed deal possible, and the Times reports that he could make roughly $100 million or so for his efforts.
Not surprisingly, the exposure of Galbraith's dealings has caused some controversy in Iraq, though remarkably little in Washington One of the Iraqi participants said "the idea that an oil company was participating in the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution leaves me speechless," and the whole business is bound to reinforce the widespread (and in my view, false) belief that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a "war for oil. "
Galbraith is publicly unrepentant, arguing that his deal with DNO was arranged while he was a private citizen and declaring that "What is true is that I undertook business activities that were entirely consistent with my long-held policy views. . . I believe my work with [DNO and other companies] helped create the Kurdistan oil industry which helps provide Kurdistan an economic base for the autonomy its people almost unanimously desire. . . So, while I may have had interests, I see no conflict."
Of course, as a number of other critics quickly pointed out, the problem is not that Galbraith is in line to receive millions of dollars in compensation; the problem is that he failed to disclose his financial interests while he was busy writing op-eds and articles and engaging in other public activities on behalf of Kurdish autonomy. His behavior is no different than a medical researcher who takes millions of dollars from a pharmeceutical company and then writes articles or offers expert testimony about the efficacy of that company's products. The testimony may be entirely consistent with the scientist's "long-held views," but anyone exposed to the testimony has a right to know about the potential conflict of interest.
The whole sordid business got me thinking: is there any way to clean up the marketplace of ideas here in the United States? We are drowning in information and opinion, much of it claiming to be objective and authoritative when it may in fact be inspired and funded by moneyed special interests eager to sell the public a story that advances their particular objectives. Most "think tanks" in Washington portray themselves as objective, quasi-scholarly institutions (indeed, they increasingly give researchers endowed chairs and other quasi-academic titles), but unlike most universities, most think tanks remain heavily dependent on "soft money" and are bound to be especially sensitive to what potential donors might be thinking. And some of them aren't really scholarly at all; they are just public relations operations or "letterhead organizations" seeking to mold public opinion and push the policy process in a particular direction. But unless you know who's paying for it, it's hard to decide who's giving you an honest opinion and who is just shilling for some powerful interest group.
Can we tame this beast without infringing on free speech?
Here's a suggestion: let's start by asking participants in the war of ideas to provide a lot more information about their financial dealings. The SEC requires companies to make relevant financial information available to investors; why shouldn't those who provide information in the public arena provide a similar level of disclosure to those who "invest" in their alleged expertise? We don't have to pass a law requiring think tanks or pundits to disclose the details of their funding arrangements to the public; as a first step, we could simply rank different organizations and individuals on the level of disclosure they provide, much as other groups help potential donors rate charitable organizations on their administrative efficiency.
For example, think tanks could be ranked according to their willingness to provide lists of their funding sources, specifying both the sources of the funding and the specific projects that the donors paid for. Wouldn't you like to know who is bankrolling the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center for American Progress, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, Hudson Institute, Middle East Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, the Federation of American Scientists, or the New America Foundation?
Such groups shouldn't make us dig for the information; they could just put it all out on their websites. Lord knows that these groups work overtime disseminating reports, testimony, op-eds and policy memos; surely it is not too much to ask them to tell us who is providing the wherewithal. Organizations that come clean could get a 5-star rating, and journalists and citizens who get exposed to their "analysis" could attach the appropriate discount to whatever they were being fed.
Or take this idea a step further: why not ask prominent pundits and commentators to provide similar disclosure, and rate them for their transparency as well? Where do David Brooks, Juan Cole, Ann Coulter, Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Goldfarb, Michelle Malkin, Matt Yglesias, Richard Perle, Steve Clemons, Fred Kagan, or George Will get their money? How much is salary, and how much is derived from honoraria, royalties, or consulting work? And who's paying the bills?
Please understand that I'm not criticizing these organizations for accepting contributions from any legitimate source, and I'm not suggesting that commentators shouldn't supplement their income through various outside activities. This is America, where, making a buck is a perfectly worthy enterprise. Nor am I suggesting that think tanks and pundits are just selling their opinions to the highest bidder; more commonly, outside groups pay for someone's services because they already know what he or she thinks and they want to support it or consume it (i.e., by hiring a well-known pundit to give a talk). My point is simply that consumers of a think tank's products or a public intellectual's work have a right to know who is paying for their activities, so that they can take that fact into account.
Nor am I proposing that full (or even partial) disclosure be a requirement for bloggers, journalists, pundits, or essayists who engage in public debate. Needless to say, that would be a gross infringement of free speech. My proposal is much more modest: we should start asking about their sources of support, and somebody ought to keep track of how different people answer it. Any commentator or public intellectual who wants to keep their financial information strictly private is free to do so. But if they do, then we are entitled to ask if they have something to hide, and to rank them lower than those who are willing to divulge their backers.
Am I willing to practice what I preach? Sure. For the current year, for example, about 80 percent of my income is my salary from Harvard. Harvard pays me to teach courses, advise students, administer a research program, and serve on various school committees, and it also expects me to publish research on various public policy issues. I like to think that I'm pulling my weight in each of these areas.
The remainder of my earnings comes from service as the academic consultant to the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, writing this blog, co-editing a book series, and assorted royalties and honoraria (mostly for giving talks or writing articles). The latter, by the way, is almost all from universities or citizens' groups, although I also got some modest compensation for participating (along with a bunch of other scholars) in a workshop series funded by the National Intelligence Council.
So far, nobody has offered me a stake an oil-field. If anybody does, I'll let you know right away.
It's a very post-Modern proposal
The idea that there are such beings as 'scholars for dollars.'
It's not like we're just waking up to the idea that think tanks are in essence just like cable news outlets.
If you want your conservative and narrow-minded psyche to be reinforced, tune in to Fox.
If you want your smug, holier-than-thou liberalism massaged, Olberman's the man for you.
The same goes for Cato on the right and CAP on the left. Those who choose to garb their personal leanings in intellectual verbage tune in to the think tanks of their desire.
As long as we understand that fact, why bother tracking down where the money comes from?
Think tanks are the holding cells for administration staff in off years. Largely built for people who probably couldn't get hired at their local McDonalds for lack of real world skills.
"For the current year, for example, about 80 percent of my income is my salary from Harvard."
May we please see a disclosure from more than the current year? I think a lot of people would be interested in how much you made off of your books, whether you were more in demand to speak and if your speaking fees increased after your books were published.
Furthermore, if money/popularity is one's goal, an outside interest doesn't necessarily have to be involved. For instance, if The Israel Lobby was more balanced and written in a more academic tone, would it have sold as much or generated as much interest in it and its authors? Highly doubtful. Yet, why does a sitting chair at Harvard inexplicably write such a tendentious and inflammatory book, which is a departure from the tone of all of his other works? Perhaps because books about balance of power wouldn't garner much attention regardless of tone, but a book about Jews and Israel would resonate with a large number of people if written in a more polemical style rather than an academic "these are the facts" tone.
And the fact is, if there were any outside forces pushing for Walt to write his book, any renumeration would have happened in the past, not currently. Also, any "disclosure" is not worth all that much without documentation. Any of these think tanks, if they had something to hide, would simply lie about it if they didn't have to provide proof. While I tend to believe Walt, there is no reason to give him more benefit of the doubt than one would the think tanks, and I think he would agree about that.
While I find your frankness on money interesting Mr. Walt, we shouldn't expect any kind of monetary disclosure rules for think tanks any time in the near future. Why, you might ask. Because it is common practice for an administration to bring in people from these think tanks to serve in the government. In other words, the people that would be viewed under these proposed rules would be also be people in positions of serious power. Wait for a serious reformer to come to the presidency, it happens once every few decades.
Walt Doesn't Benefit from Oil Wealth? Come on!
Am I willing to practice what I preach?...So far nobody has offered me a stake in an oil-field." (Stephen Walt)
That's not entirely true is it Professor Walt?. In fact, aren't you obfuscating at least as much as Peter Galbraith did?
While you may not directly draw your income from oil-field royalties, aren't you the incumbent "Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University?" Is it not true that the family that endowed the chair that you currently hold were the founders and majority shareholders of Belco Petroleum?
Who is Robert Belfer, the man for whom your chair and the Institute at Harvard that employs you is named?
Isn't Belfer, the son of oil magnate, Arthur Belfer and the sibling of the late Anita Saltz Belfer and Selma Rubin?
Didn't the Belfer family’s tremendous wealth came almost entirely from oil? Robert Belfer himself is the founder of Belco Petroleum. In the 1980s Belco Petroleum was merged into Houston Natural Gas, Inc, the Company that in 1985 was renamed Enron. Belfer became a Board member of Enron along with Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. By 2001, Belfer’s Enron stock was worth $750 million. Didn't Belfer along with his wife Renee endow the chair occupied by you in 1997?
Although Belfer himself did nothing illegal, wasn't the vast wealth that allowed him to fund your chair based almost entirely on Enron’s fraudulent activities?
Don't get me wrong; it's widely known that the Belfer's don't approve of your views and wish they had never funded the chair you occupy. You've behaved with the utmost integrity in not allowing the donors whose gift underwrites your salary to influence your academic work. You should be commended for this. Like Galbraith you are a man of integrity.
But isn't it a bit much to say that you don't benefit from oil wealth when in fact it's plain that you do if only indirectly?
And in the interest of full disclosure that you say should be he rule, was the Belfer Family contribution to Harvard to endow your salary and the Institute that you work for funded with appreciated Enron stock?
It seems to me that if you want to be follow your own advice, this is something you need to disclose.
Whether or not you do will say alot about whether you are in a position to criticize (however gently) others like Galbraith.
you just have no idea how universities work
I will leave you a homework. Search the meaning of the word "tenure", and what it is for. And then learn the enormous difference between and professor with "tenure", and a mere mercenary such as Galbraith.
It is the same difference that lies between Galbraith Sr, a great scholar, and Galbraith Jr., a intellectual mercenary. His father would be ashame.
What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander
Yes, Aparicio, I know what tenure is, and even though I almost never agree with him, I am glad that Professor Walt has it. Whether you think that the book he co-wrote with Professor Mearsheimer was notorious or long overdue, after it was published, the leadership at Harvard (including Dean Kalb) ridiculed Walt and demoted him; but for tenure, I don't doubt that they would have fired him. The fact that tenure exists is manifestly good because it protects academic freedom, and academic freedom is a pillar of liberal democracy. Of course it is ironic that Walt denigrates supporters of Israel for availing themselves of another pillar of liberal democracy, the right to petition their government. In fact, the same system that protects Walt's right to say what he wants without fear of losing his job is what allows supporters of Israel to request that their government do things like reject the Goldstone Report.
The reality is that Professor Walt is being disingenuous when he adopts the "aw shucks, I'm just a little old Harvard professor" line. He's not just a Harvard professor; he is the incumbent who occupies an endowed and named chair. These chairs are highly sought after because they are very prestigious for those of have them. The type of chair that Professor Walt has, frequently comes with travel funds and stipends for graduate students. Whether Professor Walt's chair comes with these benefits will only be known if he chooses to engage in the kind of disclosure that he advocates for Peter Galbraith, Steve Clemons, David Brooks, Michele Malkin, Andrew Sullivan and the rest.
Even if Professor Walt's chair does not come with these added benefits, his professional career and reputation are clearly enhanced by being part of a prestigious "center" at Harvard. As a result of the $7.5 million provided to Harvard by the Belfer family, Harvard unquestionably was willing to do certain things for the center like provide enhanced physical infrastructure, additional faculty and the like. All of these things accrue to Walt's benefit even if they don't directly increase his remuneration.
It seems to me that if Walt really wants to hold himself to the same standard that he is recommending for everyone else he is obligated to acknowledge that the chair he holds and the center he works for were paid for by a family that derived their wealth from the oil business and went on to see their wealth explode (and later collapse) because of Enron.
Like Galbraith, Walt is benefiting from the oil business (albeit less directly) and he should come out and admit it. At the very least, he should disclose whether or not his chair was funded with appreciated Enron stock..
Professor Walt is a smart guy; he can't possibly think that others should be held to a level of disclosure that he is not willing to make himself.
Remember you talk about this in Barcelona
I remember when I ask you about this in Barcelona, two years agor, and your answer really made me think on the issue of think-tanks "academic" production. I am really glad you came with this proposal now, it is worth trying. The worst of all is that the think-tank model of "markets of ideas" is spreading also in Europe, and is also creating the same problem, specially here in Spain, where think-tanks are aligned with Political Parties.
To tell you the truth Prof.Walt.
One is actually glad that there is still money for research or even, pseudo-research, irrespective of whom comes up with the finance. Personally I enjoy reading as many reports as possible [have plenty of time], and the more contradictory the findings the better it is.
Of course, thank you Sir for your integrity, but if we ask the same of others, whom are we going to abuse and criticise in these blogs?. Not to mention also, that countries pay each other, blackmail or even cajole, so that they do the bidding for each other. Why not interest groups?
khairi janbek.paris/france
It's good that you keep an eye on this type of behavior. It's surprising how people are drawn to money/ fortune. It appears they rationalize their behavior and are unrepentant when it is exposed. It is a strange phenomenon.
It would be great to have a disclosure system, something like a green forestry practice rating, for journalists, pundits, think tank folks around the source of their income.
It would be great if I could put a person's name into a web site and see a pie graph with an approximation of their annual income with each slice representing the percentage they receive from each source. It would give a reader a deeper understanding of their motivations.
Technology makes many things possible that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Keep up the good work Mr. Walt.
WigWag, I am not sure what you want from Professor Walt. I am sure he uses his title in all of his official correspondence and at this blog he mentions his Belfer Center affiliation and his named professorship. What other disclosure should he make?
Anyone can google "Belfer and Walt" to get the details on the history that you relate so what else is there for Walt to reveal.
What exactly is your point?
People in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones.
Matteus, I am making two points.
1) In his post, Steve Walt said that unlike Peter Galbraith, his livelihood was not connected to any "stake in an oil-field."
Walt is being too clever by half. While his remuneration from Harvard may not be directly tied to any "oil-fields" his endowed chair was paid for by oil money. Don't you think that Walt met with the Belfers at least once before they decided to name the professorship that was awarded to him? Do you doubt that the Development Department staff at Harvard that helped solicit the funds from the Belfers explained to Walt ahead of time exactly who the Belfers were and where their wealth came from?
Steve Walt's soliciting funding from the Belfer family knowing that they were oil barons has many similarities to Galbraith soliciting oil contracts from the Kurds.
Obviously the situations are not exactly alike; clearly there are many differences. But Walt's fantasy that neither he nor Harvard is tainted by oil money is just not true.
2) One of the points in Professor Walt's post is that diplomats like Galbraith and pundits like him should disclose potential conflicts of interest so their readers can decide how much weight to ascribe to those conflicts.
Obviously everyone knows that Walt occupies a chair funded by the Belfer family and works at a "center" funded by the Belfer Family. What we don't know is whether the Belfer Family satisfied their pledge to Harvard (it was probably a multiyear pledge but we don't know for sure) by donating appreciated Enron stock. Whether or not the Belfers paid for Walt's chair with appreciated Enron stock matters for three reasons: (a) while neither Walt nor Belfer are implicated in what happened to Enron, the stock of Enron increased in value because of fraud. If the pledge was paid for in Enron stock, a case can be made that the University should return the money. (b)Walt comments extensively on the Middle East; Enron had numerous dealings with the Middle East including the trading of oil futures. It is entirely in keeping with the recommendations that Walt himself made in this post to suggest that there is a putative conflict of interest here that Walt should have disclosed. If the pledge was not paid by the Belfers with appreciated Enron stock than a simple statement to that effect would clear everything up. (c)Depending on your point of view, Walt is either famous or infamous for his writing about the "Israel Lobby." Enron had one of the most active lobbying shops in Washington, D.C. and its executives contributed enormous amounts of money to political figures. It is entirely possible that actions that Israel did or did not take could have affected Enron’s positions. Is it unreasonable to question whether Walt's assertions about the "Israel Lobby" could have been affected by connections that the donor who paid for his chair had to Enron?
I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that Walt wrote this post to advocate that pundits err on the side of reasonable disclosure. Shouldn't this apply to him as well?
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, should they?
great article... my hat's off to you, stephen
A good start, but incomplete.
You have to dig deeper; for example, just to take the example of academia, what groups are financing what department chairs? Are we, to take your own example, to simply believe that it was a coincidence that a certain Saudi prince gave $10m each to your and Mersheimer's respective universities right after your book was published? And that this hasn't played a role in how your employers value you? Or look at Yale, where they have admitted that oil money has played a part in what they publish. I mention these just as examples; I'm sure there are many many other examples of interest groups (including the Israelis) using endowments and other payments to influence academia. It is more subtle than simply who cuts the paychecks, although it is a good start.
A wonderfully wicked satire, or unintended irony? This "common sense" approach - should we read it as Swift wrote his common sense "modest proposal"? I find it hard to believe that the good doctor was not aware of the cultural meaning of his post's title, so why such an apparently earnest argument? This relates to a long-held opinion of mine - modern academia needs more satire! There are few jokes that one can find in IR books these days, and when present they are always prefaced by "there is an old joke/saying..."
Unless...
Galbraith is a Scottish name, not an Irish one, but is there a hidden suggestion that John Kenneth Galbraith should have followed Swift's "advice"?
Professor Walt, I think you are right on. My own pet peeve is coverage of some of the former Soviet states by the "experts" (some of whom are in fact very expert if not honest) at Washington think tanks, including some of the ones you mention in your post. It is the strong suspicion of many people -- and some facts are known as well -- that some of the people covering Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan are indirectly funded by those three governments. If these governments have learned how to play the game, I think we can assume that dozens of others have as well.
The problem is very much down to the individual pundit. A think tank can disclose its overall funders but the key is who actually pays the salary of individual experts -- which is generally money they go out and raise themselves. So just asking Brookings, Heritage etc to publish their funding wouldn't do the trick.
“Transparency Intellectual”?
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(16)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE