In 2003, when the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq, the U.S. government was conducting policy research and advocacy in close proximity...think tankand its researchers. The majority of them are concerned that this war, which could significantly shake the order of the Middle East region, will be asupportThe United States was the first to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2021. Also, in Afghanistan, when the U.S. government, which had been intervening militarily in the country for 20 years since the 2001 invasion, began to withdraw in 2021, most think tanks were against it.oppositionposition. These are just two examples, but this is how American think tanks tend to support wars in other countries andpointing outThe number of people who have been Also, according to one study, of the 25 most influential think tanks in the United States,approximately halfare funded by the military industry. Is it mere coincidence that many American think tanks, which tend to support wars in other countries, have ties to the military industry?

Think tanks are the link between research and policy, or knowledge and power, in each country.existenceIt is said to be the most popular type of food in the world. It originated in the U.S. and has been spreading mainly in Western countries.Chinaand ... andRussiaand others are also growing in strength. However, it is pointed out that think tanks in China, Russia, and elsewhere have not escaped government control.

So, are think tanks that are supposed to have a certain degree of "independence" from their own governments, such as those in Western countries, really distancing themselves from their governments? This article explores how think tanks interact with governments and the military industry in the areas of military and security.

A researcher from the institute and a U.S. military official in conversation at an event at the Brookings Institution in the U.S. (Photo:ResoluteSupportMedia / Flickr [CC BY 2.0])

military-industrial complex

As mentioned in the introduction, the relationship between government and research institutions deserves attention in military and security policy, but before that, the relationship between government and industry is also an important factor. Therefore, before considering the role of think tanks, we must first consider the "military-industrial complexI would like to confirm about

The "military-industrial complex" is a concept that refers to the military and other industries and their close ties to the military and government. Arms manufacturers and other military industries tend to favor security crises, such as armed conflicts and interstate rivalries. The more weapons sold or new weapons developed and manufactured on consignment, the more profitable it is for the company. Arms purchases and development also take place even when there is no conflict or confrontation. However, the arms industry is not only the concern of arms manufacturers. For example, the manufacture of warships requires large amounts of steel, and fighter aircraft use a variety of electronic components. Military operations also require large quantities of oil. Moreover, from the construction of military-related facilities to military uniforms and food for military personnel, many aspects of theprivatizationis progressing. A very large number of industries will profit from increased military budgets and arms exports.

Each country's military budget is supported by the public's taxes, and the public is not always convinced by huge military budgets. However, military budgets can be increased if the politicians who make decisions can be persuaded. Therefore, companies related to the military industry invest enormous amounts of money in lobbying the government and making campaign contributions to politicians. For example, over the past 20 years, the U.S. military industry has spent a total of US$2.5 billion on lobbying activities and US$28.5 million on campaign contributions.useThe company is doing so.

In other cases, the arms industry may pay huge bribes to government officials to arrange the sale of weapons by the government. Western arms manufacturers in Saudi Arabia and South Africa that have been exposed in the past.scandalThese are well-known examples. Furthermore, in Western countries and elsewhere, veterans sometimes move their subsequent careers to the munitions industry and use their military experience and networks for arms sales, while others in the munitions industry sometimes change jobs to become employees of government agencies, thus creating a mutually beneficial flow of personnel between the military and the munitions industry. This situation is often referred to as "revolving doorIt can be likened to "the

As a result, governments,unnecessaryorlow functionalityWeapons.unreasonably highThe amount of money would be used to purchase or develop the product, and the military budget would increase.

F-35 fighter production plant. USA (Photo:Robert Sullivan / Flickr [Public Domain Mark 1.0])

As far as the US is concerned, the military budget is almost never reduced, even in so-called "peacetime," and in the long run, it is alwaysrisingThe United States was in the midst of a crisis. For example, with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military budget began to decline as the major threat of the Soviet Union disappeared, and officials from major arms manufacturers expressed a sense of crisis, urging governments to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).Lobbied for.NATO enlargement enabled the development of Central and Eastern European markets, and a "crisis" for arms manufacturers was averted.

Another case in point would be Russia's invasion of Ukraine again in 2022. This conflict, which is also behind the aforementioned NATO enlargement and the Russian invasion, will be a "major factor" for each country's military industry.bonanzaThe company's sales were up by 1.6% from the same period last year, to $3.5 billion. Some arms manufacturers are sending a message to their shareholders that profits are expected in the future.reportThe article was published in the Israeli newspaper "The Ukrainian War. In addition, a major Israeli newspaper, in an article, stated that the Ukrainian war "winner" advanced the claim that it is an Israeli arms manufacturer. Western countries, Japan, and other governments have already decided or are considering large increases in their military budgets (*1). In addition, the U.S. has been working on a plan for Ukraine toUS$40 billionThe amount of aid announced exceeds the total amount of aid, more than half of which is military aid, with the funds going mainly to U.S. arms manufacturers. In addition, the total amount of emergency aid from all countries to humanitarian crises worldwide through the United Nations in 2021 isApprox. 20 billion U.S. dollarsThe first time the company was in

However, in light of Russia's huge losses in the invasion of Ukraine and the lack of significant progress in the invasion, this war has shown more weakness than strength in Russia, and Russia is no longer a threat.Conclusion.It is not surprising that we arrived at the following. In other words, it was shown that there is no need for countries to increase their military budgets, but rather to reduce themhow to look at something (e.g. noh, train schedule)can be done. Nevertheless, the threat of Russian nuclear weapons is one important factor to consider in military and security policy. On the other hand, it is difficult to say that a military solution to nuclear weapons exists. The strategy of "nuclear deterrence" is often mentioned, but it is a strategy that would discourage the use of nuclear weapons by states that possess them in order to avoid the devastation that would result from their use against each other, so-called mutual assured destruction (MADprinciples of nuclear deterrence. However, many experts believe that nuclear deterrence is not an effective military solution to nuclear weaponspointing outThe possession of nuclear weapons is an act of terrorism. Even if effective, a nation must be prepared to take the lives of 100,000 or even a million innocent people, and in that sense the possession of nuclear weapons is itself an act of terrorism.falling underIt could also be said that the "new" is a "new".

Looking ahead to the conflict, Lloyd Austin, an arms manufacturer executive turned U.S. defense secretary, said the purpose of his involvement in the Ukrainian war was to weaken Russiaacceptanceand seem to be encouraging the prolongation of the conflict. In the case of the war in Ukraine, more than four months have passed since Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, yet no serious diplomatic efforts toward a peaceful resolution have been seen. One could say that this situation is due to the close relationship between the governments of various countries and the military industry.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and IISS Chief Executive Officer John Chipman (photo:VoidWanderer / Flickr [CC BY 2.0])

Think tanks to encourage military buildup and hard-line diplomacy

So how are think tanks connected to the military-industrial complex? In fact, many think tanks can often be seen as either echoing or amplifying the views of the government, the military, or the military-industrial complex.

First, think tanks in various countries have published many reports that point to the need to increase the military budgets of their respective countries. In the United States, the Center for a New American Security (CNASYa and the Land Institute (RAND CorporationIt has been noted that think tanks, such as the German Institute for International Security Studies (SWP), are constantly urging an increase in the country's military budget and the strengthening of its armed forces. In addition, the German Institute for International Security Studies (SWP), while arguing that Germany should take a leadership role in the field of international politics, recommends a policy of strengthening military capabilities and the use of force if necessary, according to the 2013(written) reportare also mentioned. In Japan, the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) is considered the top foreign affairs and security think tank in the country,Strategic Annual Report(2021), the government supports raising military spending to at least 2% of GDP, in line with the Japanese government's policy. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) had pledged in the 2021 Lower House election to follow NATO in aiming for 2% of GDP.

In addition to the formal organizational views disseminated by think tanks, influential researchers affiliated with think tanks also frequently call for increases in military budgets, individually and through the media. For example, a New York Times article on increasing the U.S. military budget (2017) quotes an analyst from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) who points out the underfunding problem of the U.S. military. At the time, the U.S. military budget was outstanding, and the world's military budget36%.The company accounted for a large share of the total. In Japan, an interview published in the Nihon Keizai Shimbun in 2021articleand contributions to the Mainichi Shimbun electronic editionarticleA researcher at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation calls for raising Japan's military spending in the

In some cases, think tanks emphasize international issues that may not directly prompt an increase in the military budget, but may result in an increase. For example, in addition to arms manufacturers who have supported NATO expansion since shortly after the end of the Cold War,RAND Corporationand other American think tanks were also encouraging NATO expansion through workshops and research activities.

Headquarters of the RAND Institute. California, USA (Photo:Coolcaesar / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0])

In many cases, think tanks emphasize the threat posed by other countries, or even incite unrest. For example, in 2002, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in the United Kingdom(written) reportIn the "The Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program," we speculated that Iraq was likely in possession of a large number of biological and chemical weapons at the time, and could have perfected a nuclear weapon within a matter of months. In fact, Iraq possessed none of these weapons. In Japan, as of 2022, a number of think tanks have issued arguments encouraging nuclear sharing and possession of nuclear weapons in preparation for an attack by China or North Korea. A post on "e-ronban" sponsored by the Japan International Forum, which published arguments such as "the option" of possessing nuclear weapons for self-defense "should not be ruled out.article(2022) is one example.

Also, Israel's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), 2020.Strategic Assessment Annual Reporthighlighted the Iranian "threat" and published claims that Israel is increasingly likely to face a major war. Another Israeli think tank, the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA), opposes the eradication of Islamic State (IS) forces(written) reportin 2016, which claimed that IS is a "useful tool" for Syria, Iran, and other countries Israel views as enemies.

It is not uncommon for think tanks to distort the facts to emphasize the threat posed by other countries. For example, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a think tank whose analysis of the situation and views on the war in Ukraine are frequently used in the media, has been criticized for bias in its analysis, which prevents an objective understanding of the facts.pointing outThere is a In addition, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has frequently highlighted China as a "threat" to Australia and urged a hardline stance toward China, but many erroneous and unsubstantiated claims in China studies andpointing outThe company has been

Although there are exceptions, think tanks and their researchers, who have a certain amount of influence in the government and media in all of these countries, tend to emphasize the threat posed by other countries and encourage the strengthening of military forces.

A house being blown up by U.S. troops. Iraq (Photo:Sergeant James McCauley / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 2.0])

Structural problem: financial resources for think tanks

Why do think tanks and many of their researchers encourage the strengthening of a nation's military power? To understand why, we need to explore the structural characteristics of think tanks. There are various types of think tanks. First, their policies and activities differ according to the role they were envisioned to play at the time of their establishment and other factors. For example, think tank models include institutions like universities that conduct research activities but have no students, institutions that conduct commissioned research for the government or other entities, institutions that provide advocacyused to express emotional involvementare listed below. Think tanks are not necessarily limited to just one of these roles, and often operate in a combination of roles. Also, depending on how far from affiliation, affiliation, or power they areclassificationThey can also be. They can be government-funded, or affiliated with a government or political party, corporate-funded, affiliated with a university, or a non-profit organization created as part of civil society.

Regardless of the model, one key to understanding the policies and activities of an organization is its financial resources. Many think tanks do not accurately disclose their financial resources, and it is not easy to obtain sufficient information from publicly available information (*2). However, from publicly available information, we can see the scale of funds flowing in from the military and military industries. For example, the 50 most influential U.S. think tanks in 2014-2019 received at least US$1 billion in funding from the U.S. military and other security-related government agencies and military industries, according to the 2020surveyThis was revealed in the

Financial links between governments, the military industry, and think tanks can also be found at more specific levels. For example, CNAS in the United States is a military contractor in the battlefield (private military companyIn 2009, a report was issued by several private military companies that praised thecapitalThere have been instances in which it has obtained The think tank also receives funds from Boeing and Lockheed Martin while encouraging loans to these companies(written) reportwas also announced in 2019.

These financial relationships are not limited to one country but cross national borders. For example, the IISS in the United Kingdom does not disclose the sources of funding for its activities, but it has a budget of at leasta quarteris also said to have flowed from the Bahraini government, and this has influenced research on Yemen and the Gulf countries.pointing outThere are Other Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar, have also sought to influence the tone and policies toward their countries, with severalAmericaand ... andUnited KingdomThe U.S. is funding think tanks in the U.S. Taiwan has likewise been funding an American think tank over its policy toward China and other issues.fundingThe Chinese are also beginning to fund think tanks in other countries, but at this point in time, their China is also beginning to fund think tanks in other countries, but at this point, itsscaleare relatively few.

Then-U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis (pictured) addresses a conference on U.S. Middle East policy sponsored by the IISS at a Bahrain-funded conference:U.S. Secretary of Defense / Flickr [CC BY 2.0])

The benefits of government funding of think tanks are varied, but most likely lie in gaining congressional and public support for their policies and budget allocations. The "research" by think tanks, which appear to be "independent" of the government, may be used to determine the need for government policy proposals.supportand legitimize the government. It is likely that companies in the military industry may also fund think tanks in order to lobby governments. If think tanks support their arguments for the necessity and usefulness of weapons developed and manufactured by their own companies, they may eventually reach the ears of government officials involved in decision-making for the adoption and financing of weapons development. Even if not directly linked to the sale of the weapon, the increased connections with government officials may justvalueThere seems to be a

In such a situation, think tanks need to obtain funds from the government and military-related companies in order to stabilize and increase their financial resources, and they conduct research activities required for this purpose and publish views and analyses in line with the wishes of the government and military-related companies.trendThe first is considered to be in the

Structural problem: human resources in think tanks

In addition to financial resources, the personnel that think tanks hire also provide a glimpse into the policies and interests of the organization. As with the government/military and the military industry, the flow of human resources between the government/military and think tanks is "arevolving doorThe analogy can be drawn to the "government". Researchers who study and advise on policies at think tanks are an immediate asset to the government, and many of them change jobs to work in government. In some countries, when the opposition party changes to the ruling party, researchers who were "on standby" at think tanks with close ties to the new ruling party are sucked into the government.trendIt is also seen in the United States. In the U.S.Republican PartyalsoDemocratic party This pattern is also seen in

Conversely, think tanks can also be receptacles for former government officials and veterans. For example,America, ,Germany, ,JapanIn the United States and elsewhere, retired military officers and former Japan Self-Defense Forces personnel are often found on the boards of think tanks that deal with security issues. In addition, think tanks are often staffed by active duty military personnel and others.secondmentmay also be done.

CSIS and Japan Institute for International Studies officials speak at a conference on U.S.-Japan security (photo:CSIS / Flickr [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0])

Think tanks also network with external organizations through research activities such as holding seminars and study groups and publishing reports and other materials, and cooperate and collaborate with current and former government officials, military and Self Defense Force personnel in Japan and abroad, military industry personnel, and university faculty. In Japan, for example, in 2022, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation will publish a book on the Taiwan Strait contingency.publicationMost of the authors have served in the Self-Defense Forces, and some of them hold current positions as advisors to arms manufacturers.

The "revolving door" of think tanks offers a variety of benefits to think tanks. When think tank researchers move into government positions, their ties to the government are strengthened and they are more likely to be able to influence its policies. Hiring people who have built up their careers in government and the military to staff think tanks also strengthens their ties to government and the military and expands their networks. Increased access to active government and military personnel will also help to raise funds through research projects and other activities.

However, it is difficult to believe that the state of affairs in which research results favored by the government and the military industry are produced by think tanks, which are supposed to maintain a certain distance from the government, is the result of researchers' research being suppressed within think tanks and their inability to speak freely. Individual researchers who emphasize the need to strengthen their own country's military power and take a hard-line stance toward other countries are the same ones who have been working in think tanks since before they belonged to them.opinionand that they are convinced that it is a wise policy for their country.possibilityis high. The think tanks also need to first determine, at the hiring stage, whether the candidate is capable of fulfilling the research projects required by the client or donor, both in terms of ability and ideology.see throughIt will be. At the same time, the ideology of the researcher will be taken into consideration when deciding who will be given projects and who will be promoted within the think tank. Power welcomes talented people who share its ideology, while those who flock to places where power is concentrated will be assimilated into the ideology that permeates there.

Beyond the Military-Industrial-Think Tank Complex

As we have seen, there is a tendency in the world for governments, militaries, military industries, and think tanks to influence each other in war and peace and security issues, forming a single complex. Other actors are also involved in this system. In many cases, think tanks call on university faculty and others who are suited to the organization's research activities and appoint them as visiting researchers or members of research projects.

News organizations also have close relationships with think tanks. In some cases, the views of think tank researchers are quoted to support the information and claims provided by the media, and their views are brought to the forefront in interviews, contributed articles, and so on. For the media, which is supposed to pursue objective facts, the views obtained from think tanks and their researchers who are close to governments and the military industry are likely to involve various biases and interests and should not normally be overly dependent on the researchers' views. However,ExceptionAlthough it is extremely rare for a news organization to introduce the views of a think tank researcher with a note such as "This think tank is funded by the government and the military industry," it is not uncommon for a news organization to include a statement such asvery little. It is simply taken as an objective "expert opinion" and reported in the media.

Missiles on display at an arms fair. Ukraine (Photo:VoidWanderer / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0])

In the United States, this network that extends beyond the "military-industrial complex" and the "military-industrial-think tank complex" is referred to by some as the "military-industrial, congressional, intelligence, media, academia, think tank complex" (MICIMATT.(called "the ."military-industrial propaganda complexAlso referred to as "the

Whatever the term may be called, there is an "ecosystem" among stakeholders in global military and security affairs that emphasizes threats, amplifies conflicts, and encourages the strengthening of military power in response to problems and conflicts in international relations. This is not an environment in which stakeholders are in agreement with each other or in which speech is controlled by power, but rather an environment in which various interests of various organizations, including those with financial incentives, are intertwined. The presence of think tanks in this environment is by no means small.

1 Postwar Japan has adopted a position of "exclusive defense" under its Constitution, and the units it maintains are not referred to as the National Defense Force or the Armed Forces, but as the Self-Defense Forces. For this reason, the Japanese government has set the general military budget at ".defense budgetHowever, since the said budget is used for salaries of SDF personnel, purchase and maintenance of military equipment such as fighter jets, warships, and tanks, etc., and is similar to the use of military budgets of other countries, this article considers the defense budget to be a de facto military budget and uses the notation "military budget" in unison with that of other countries such as the United States and is therefore referred to as the "military budget" in this article, in line with the notation used in the United States and other countries.

2 For example, the website of the Japan Institute of International Affairs statesInstitute OverviewAt the bottom of the "Organization and Financial Resources" page, there is a section titled "Organization and Financial Resources," which states in a smaller font than the rest of the text, "Financial resources consist mainly of revenues from government and other research contracts, membership fees from members, publications, and special grants. From the "Disclosure Materials" page, you can see the following data for each year.budgetary statementshows that the majority of the financial resources come from government subsidies, but it is unclear where other sources of funding, such as contract revenues, come from.United Kingdom, ,Canada, ,AustraliaIt was also noted that there is a significant lack of public information on financial resources at think tanks such as (For American think tanks, donors and approximate grant sizes can be found on their websites.used to express emotional involvementThere are some, but information on the exact source of funding is often not specified.

Writer: Virgil Hawkins

Follow @GNV_tweets