There’s a major brouhaha roiling in the US over the appointment of Charles (Chas) Freeman, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and his appointment as Director of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Many, particularly conservatives, are severely disappointed with his appointment and believe that the US deserves better.

Arguments against him tend to fall into three categories:

1. He is a ‘Realist’ in terms of international relations;
2. He has worked with/for China and;
3. He has worked with/for Saudi Arabia.

‘Realism’ in international relations is an antithesis of ‘Neo-Conservatism’. It is based on the belief that countries will always do that which most promotes the well-being of those countries, to the exclusion of all other interests, including world peace and global prosperity. As a result, other countries should be careful and modest in their criticisms of those countries’ actions, seeing them as inevitable, rational, and sovereign.

There’s a point to that, but I do not believe that it can be considered a hard and fast rule, a fact, upon which to base one’s own country’s policies at all times.

Freeman, in whose name a chair for Chinese studies has been endowed at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has had some powerful—and to my mind, ugly—things to say about Chinese politics, here in reference to the Chinese government’s reactions to Tianamen Square. I’m not a ‘China expert’ by any means, so I cannot fully assess this statement. I can, however, say that I don’t like it very much at all.

When it comes to allegations about being in the pocket of Saudi Arabia, however, I think little is being blow up to extraordinary—but not uncommon—proportions. The allegations stem from the fact that Freeman is President of the Middle East Policy Council (MEPC). [Disclosure: I receive payment for occasional book reviews in the MEPC's Journal.] Critics see Freeman’s strong criticism of Israel and Zionism as a direct result of his position at MEPC and the fact that Saudi Arabia (through either King Abdullah or Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, depending on your source) has given funds to the organization.

Personally, I don’t like Freeman’s politics. I think he tends to pander to all thing Arab, assuming the best of intentions for any Arab government or group and assuming the worst of anything related to Israel, including American support for Israel. I’ve felt sufficiently insulted by Freeman’s remarks to walk out of conferences when he spoke.

Whether or not he should hold the position to which he has been named, however, is a different and difficult question. It’s one that the Obama Administration has to answer and to answer for.

I do protest, however, the bashing of Freeman—and Saudi Arabia—over the donation of Saudi money to a Middle East-oriented think tank. The simple fact is that think-tanks solicit funds. They may sell reports, they may earn fees from speaking engagements, but they cannot exist without donations from outside sources. For Middle Easter Studies, whether at universities or independent think-tanks, the sources for funding are limited and largely restricted to those who see merit in supporting those studies.

Who is that? Well, obviously it will include Middle Eastern governments. It will especially include Middle Eastern governments that have discretionary funds available to do just that. And that, equally obviously, will include Saudi Arabia. Some think-tanks are Israeli-funded, such as the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, for which Amb. Chris Dennis Ross—nominated to be the US special envoy concerning Iran—works. Others, such as MEPC or the National Council on US-Arab Relations (NCUSAR) receive Arab funding. This fact is ‘realist’: governments put their money where they think it will do them some good.

This does not mean, however, that organizations receiving such funding are ‘bought and paid for’ by foreign governments. There is a risk that organizations will pander to the politics of their donors. Admittedly, some do do that. Most, however, tend to do honest reporting and studies. One can argue that people go to organizations that support their pre-existing political preferences, of course, and that, too, is likely to be true to some extent. The area of Middle Eastern Studies, though, is broad. It includes many different opinions and many different ways of analyzing the politics of the Middle East. Some are clearly better than others—at least according to my political preferences! They all add to the discussion of the problems that face the Middle East as well as US relations with the region. That is an important fact if we seek to avoid ‘echo chambers’ that tell us only what we want to hear.

[UPDATE: I've received a mailing from the Middle East Policy Council that sheds some new light on the issue of Chas Freeman and the MEPC's fundraising. The article it seeks to refute appeared in The Washington Times and is not substantially different from that appearing in "The Weekly Standard," linked above.]

In response to the Washington Times newspaper’s ongoing assault on Ambassador Chas Freeman, the Council’s executive director wrote a letter to the editor to correct the record on their inaccurate and misleading reporting on the Middle East Policy Council. The letter is in today’s Washington Times, available online here.

This is the unexpurgated version:

Eli Lake’s hyperbolic hatchet job on Chas Freeman was riddled with errors, at least in regard to the Middle East Policy Council.

Lake writes that in 2006 “11 donors contributed a total of more than $2.7 million that year”. But the Council’s 990 form for 2006 says no such thing. Total contributions for 2006 (a very successful fundraising year, by the way), as stated on line 1b reads, “$841,459″. The $2.7 million figure Mr. Lake cites happens to be a cumulative of 5 years worth of donors from our Schedule A! The exact figure on the form is $2,015,275.

Over the past decade, scheduled contributions to the Council from the Saudi government have amounted to less than one-twelfth of our annual budget of roughly $600,000. Hardly the windfall Lake suggests.

In the 1990s the Saudi Foreign Ministry pledged annual support for a five-year period, which the Ministry never provided – a pledge made years before Ambassador Freeman’s tenure with the Council began. This past year, the Council unexpectedly received a check for the arrearages. Most of the money went directly into an endowment account.

In 2005, the Council received an unsolicited contribution from King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia to a then-non-existent endowment. The $1 million contribution opened the Council’s endowment account. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al-Saud, though a donor to the Council, is not the source of the $1 million as Lake incorrectly states. Nor did Prince Alwaleed say “he had provided a gift of $1 million to the MEPC for its endowment.”

For the record, not once did any donor – governmental or private, domestic or foreign – ever ask Ambassador Freeman or the Council to do anything specific on his or its behalf. The Middle East Policy Council is not a lobby. It is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

And, on a personal note, it has been an honor and a privilege to work with Ambassador Freeman over the years. His intelligence, analytic mind and bravado make him an oddity in Washington: he is not afraid to speak truth to power. If I were part of a lobby that traded in fear, I’d be afraid of Ambassador Freeman’s appointment as well.

Jon Roth
Acting Executive Director
Middle East Policy Council