DOCSLIB.ORG

Normalizing and Accepting the Use of Private Military and Security Companies in the United States of America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Normalizing and Accepting the Use of Private Military and Security Companies in the United States of America UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES & UNIVERSITY LUISS GUIDO CARLI Department of Political Science Normalizing and Accepting the Use of Private Military and Security Companies in the United States of America presented by MACHI, Julien (638982) In the framework of Master Thesis - Double Degree in International Relation (120 ECTS) Supervisors: Mulas, Roberta, Wasinski, Christophe Co-supervisor: Magrassi, Carlo Academic Year 2018-2019 Table of Contents List of Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... I Summary ................................................................................................................................ III Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter I – Private Military and Security Companies: A General Overview .................. 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 1. The Resort to PMSCs in the United States of America .......................................................................... 5 1.1 An Inherent Tradition? .................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 PMSCs and the New American Way of War .................................................................................. 7 1.3 Political Ties and Affiliations ........................................................................................................ 13 2. The Study of Private Military and Security Companies ....................................................................... 16 2.1 Terminologies, Definitions and Concepts ..................................................................................... 16 2.2 Related Theories and Topics ......................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Approach and Methodology .......................................................................................................... 24 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 26 Chapter II – Transforming the DoD: The Doorway to Normalization ............................ 29 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 29 1. Transforming America’s Military Capability ....................................................................................... 30 1.1 Reshaping the Defense Enterprise ................................................................................................. 30 1.2 The Logistics Transformation ....................................................................................................... 35 2. The Entrepreneurial Approach and the Market-Based Model .............................................................. 41 2.1 Adopting and Adapting the Lessons of the Private Sector ............................................................ 41 2.2 Establishing a Corporate Culture within the Department of Defense ........................................... 47 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 54 Chapter III – The Private Military and Security Industry: The Legitimization Discourse ................................................................................................................................................. 57 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 57 1. Private Military and Security Companies as Legitimate Actors .......................................................... 58 1.1 Ethics, Standards and Professionalism .......................................................................................... 58 1.2 Legitimate Customers and Valuable Affiliations .......................................................................... 62 2. The ISOA: Legitimizing the Peace and Stability Industry ................................................................... 65 2.1 Recasting the Mercenary Label ..................................................................................................... 65 2.2 Setting a Rational Regulatory Framework .................................................................................... 71 3. Towards International Normalization and Acceptance ........................................................................ 74 3.1 Developing International Legal Tools ........................................................................................... 74 3.2 Europe and Private Military Security Companies ......................................................................... 78 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 84 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 87 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 90 Appendix............................................................................................................................... 109 List of Acronyms ASG Alexander Strategy Group BRS Brown and Root Services BUR Bottom-Up Review CIA Central Intelligence Agency CRS Congressional Research Service CSDP Common Security and Defense Policy DoD Department of Defense DoS Department of State EEAS European External Action Service EU European Union FARC Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia FTE Full Time Equivalent GAO Government Accountability Office ICoC International Code of Conduct ICoCA International Code of Conduct Association ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IMET International Military Education and Training program ISOA International Stability Operations Association KBR Kellogg Brown and Root LOGCAP Logistics Civil Augmentation Program MEJA Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act MEP Member of the European Parliament I MPRI Military Professional Resources Incorporation NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NPR National Performance Review OMB Office of Management and Budget PART Program Assessment Rating Tool PGI Patriot Group International PMA President’s Management Agenda PMC Private Military Company PMF Private Military Firm PMSC Private Military and Security Company PSC Private Security Company PSD Personal Security Detail QDR Quadrennial Defense Review RBA Revolution in Business Affairs RMA Revolution in Military Affairs SAIC Science Applications International Corporation SSR Security Sector Reform UN United Nations USAF United States Air Force USAID United States Agency for International Development II Summary Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has over-relied on private contractors to carry out military and security functions. The United States has reached a situation where the use of private military and security companies (PMSCs) in contingency operations has become an ordinary phenomenon. From the Gulf War to the War on Terror, the U.S. military has revealed to the world its growing reliance on PMSCs. The goal of this study is to understand how and why the use of these actors has become normalized and politically accepted in the United States of America. Our main assumptions suggest that a fusion of two distinct discourses have allowed to normalize and legitimize the resort to PMSCs in the United States. The first discourse is promoted by the U.S. Federal Government. The second discourse is supported by the private military and security industry. Both actors are considered as our major units of analysis. By leading a comprehensive and qualitative discourse analysis we have identified several arguments composing their discourses. Firstly, a general discourse embraced by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations has paved the way for the normalization and political acceptance of PMSCs. This discourse aiming at transforming the U.S. Department of Defense was based on two main arguments. The first part of the discourse consisted in transforming America’s military capability. Reshaping the defense enterprise and leading a logistics transformation within the Pentagon were two urgent national defense priorities. Achieving these goals contributed to the consolidation and the normalization of resorting to PMSCs in both administrations. The second part of the discourse consisted in adopting an entrepreneurial approach and in establishing a market- based model within the Federal Government. This discourse was characterized by a glorification of the private sector. This led to a cultural change within the bureaucracy. Businesses and private companies were welcomed and accepted within the Federal Government and in particular within the DoD. In sum, the normalization and acceptance of the use of PMSCs is located at the intersection of these two arguments. Secondly, the private military and security industry has promoted a discourse aimed at legitimizing its essence and identity. This discourse is shared
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Minority Views
    MINORITY VIEWS The Minority Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 26, 2018 submit the following Minority Views to the Majority-produced "Repo11 on Russian Active Measures, March 22, 2018." Devin Nunes, California, CMAtRMAN K. Mich.J OI Conaw ay, Toxas Pe1 or T. King. New York F,ank A. LoBiondo, N ew Jersey Thom.is J. Roonev. Florida UNCLASSIFIED Ileana ROS·l chtinon, Florida HVC- 304, THE CAPITOL Michnel R. Turner, Ohio Brad R. Wons1 rup. Ohio U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, DC 20515 Ou is S1cwart. U1ah (202) 225-4121 Rick Cr.,w ford, Arka nsas P ERMANENT SELECT C OMMITTEE Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 0A~lON NELSON Ellsr. M . S1nfn11ik, Nnw York ON INTELLIGENCE SrAFf. D IREC f()ti Wi ll Hurd, Tcxa~ T11\'10l !IV s. 8 £.R(.REE N At1am 8 . Schiff, Cohforn1a , M tNORllV STAFF OtR ECToq RANKIN G M EMtlER Jorncs A. Himes, Connec1icut Terri A. Sewell, AlabJma AndrC Carso n, lncli.1 na Jacki e Speier, Callfomia Mike Quigley, Il linois E,ic Swalwell, California Joilq u1 0 Castro, T exas De nny Huck, Wash ington P::iul D . Ry an, SPCAl([ R or TH( HOUSE Noncv r c1os1. DEMOC 11t.1 1c Lr:.11.orn March 26, 2018 MINORITY VIEWS On March I, 201 7, the House Permanent Select Commiltee on Intelligence (HPSCI) approved a bipartisan "'Scope of In vestigation" to guide the Committee's inquiry into Russia 's interference in the 201 6 U.S. e lection.1 In announc ing these paramete rs for the House of Representatives' onl y authorized investigation into Russia's meddling, the Committee' s leadership pl edged to unde1take a thorough, bipartisan, and independent probe.
    [Show full text]
  • February 19, 2020 VIA EMAIL U.S. Department of State Office Of
    February 19, 2020 VIA EMAIL U.S. Department of State Office of Information Programs and Services A/GIS/IPS/RL SA-2, Suite 8100 Washington, DC 20522-0208 [email protected] Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Dear FOIA Officer: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the implementing regulations of your agency, American Oversight makes the following request for records. According to press reports, allies of the Trump administration have used numerous back channels to advance personal interests during recent upheaval in Venezuela. For example, former Rep. Pete Sessions and President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani reportedly participated in a phone call with Venezuela’s leader Nicolas Maduro in September 2018, which followed a trip of Sessions’ to Caracas the previous spring that had been at least partly coordinated with the State Department.1 Their interests reportedly aligned with U.S. energy interests in Venezuela, including those of Harry Sargeant III and Lev Parnas— both implicated as well in the matters at the core of President Trump’s impeachment.2 Giuliani has also lobbied the Department of Justice on behalf of Venezuelan energy executive Alejandro Betancourt Lopez, arguing that he should not be charged in a money- laundering case—in fact staying at Betancourt’s estate in Madrid on the same trip in August 2019 when he met with Ukrainian official Andriy Yermak to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political opponent of the President.3 1 Rosalind Helderman et al., Trump’s Lawyer and the Venezuelan President: How Giuliani Got Involved in Back-Channel Talks With Maduro, WASH.
    [Show full text]
  • TESTIMONY of ERIK PRINCE Thursday, November
    1 UNCLASSIFIED TESTIMONY OF ERIK PRINCE Thursday, November 30, 2017 U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:05 p.m., in Room HVC-304, the Capitol, the Honorable Mike Conaway presiding. Present: Representatives Conaway, King, LoBiondo, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Turner, Wenstrup, Stewart, Crawford, Gowdy, Stefanik, Hurd, Schiff, Himes, Speier, Quigley, Swalwell, Castro, and Heck. Also Present: Representative Calvert. UNCLASSIFIED 2 UNCLASSIFIED CHAIRMAN CONAWAY: All right. A quorum being present, I call the meeting to order. I'd like to welcome our witness, Mr. Erik Prince. Thank you for speaking with us today. As a reminder to our members, we are and will remain in open session. This hearing will address only unclassified matters. Although the hearing is closed, a transcript will be produced and released to the public. Before we begin, I'd like to take care of a few housekeeping matters. First, without objection, I move that each side shall be given 30 minutes to ask Mr. Prince questions. At each 60-minute interval, I will ask unanimous consent to continue the alternating 30-minute rounds. Without further objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. At this time, I would like the witness to raise his right hand. Thank you, sir. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? MR. PRINCE: I do . CHAIRMAN CONAWAY: Thank you .
    [Show full text]
  • Ex-Spies Recruited in Push to Attack Liberal Groups
    C M Y K Nxxx,2020-03-08,A,001,Bs-4C,E3 Late Edition Today, plenty of sunshine, a milder afternoon, high 58. Tonight, partly cloudy, low 45. Tomorrow, mostly sunny, turning even milder, high 67. Details, SportsSunday, Page 6. VOL. CLXIX .. No. 58,626 © 2020 The New York Times Company NEW YORK, SUNDAY, MARCH 8, 2020 $6.00 Ex-Spies Recruited in Push To Attack Liberal Groups Former Blackwater Chief Tapped Operative to Help Infiltrate Union, Suit Says By MARK MAZZETTI and ADAM GOLDMAN WASHINGTON — Erik Prince, Both Project Veritas and Mr. the security contractor with close Prince have ties to President ties to the Trump administration, Trump’s aides and family. has in recent years helped recruit Whether any Trump administra- former American and British tion officials or advisers to the spies for secretive intelligence- president were involved in the op- gathering operations that includ- erations, even tacitly, is unclear. ed infiltrating Democratic con- But the effort is a glimpse of a vig- gressional campaigns, labor orga- orous private campaign to try to nizations and other groups con- undermine political groups or in- sidered hostile to the Trump dividuals perceived to be in oppo- agenda, according to interviews sition to Mr. Trump’s agenda. and documents. Mr. Prince, the former head of One of the former spies, an ex- Blackwater Worldwide and the MI6 officer named Richard Sed- brother of Education Secretary don, helped run a 2017 operation Betsy DeVos, has at times served to copy files and record conversa- as an informal adviser to Trump tions in a Michigan office of the administration officials.
    [Show full text]
  • War Markets: the Neoliberal Theory
    WAR MARKETS: THE NEOLIBERAL THEORY AND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ___________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The College of Arts and Sciences Ohio University ____________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for Graduation with Honors in Political Science ____________________________________ by Kiersten Lynn Arnoni June 2011 This thesis has been approved by the Department of Political Science and the College of Arts and Sciences ____________________________________ Professor of Political Science ____________________________________ Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Barry Tadlock for his support and guidance as my thesis advisor. Dr. Tadlock’s suggestions were valuable assets to this thesis. Abstract The neoliberal theory threatens permanent damage to American democracy. One guiding principle of theory is that the political marketplace is guided by market rationality. Also concentration of power resets with business and governing elites. As business norms begin to dominate politically, democratic ideals and laws equate only to tools and hurdles. Can the neoliberal theory help explain the situation of privatization and our military? Since the end of the Cold War, military size has been reduced, however, the need for military presence has not. The private war industry has begun to pick up the slack and private contractors have increased in areas needing military support. In Iraq, contractors make up the second largest contingent force, behind the U.S. military. Blackwater, or currently Xe Services LLC, is a powerful organization within the private war industry. Blackwater has accumulated over one billion dollars in contracts with the U.S. government. With the expanding use of private war contractors, their constitutionality comes into question.
    [Show full text]
  • Africa at LSE: Transformation Euphoria in the Horn of Africa Page 1 of 4
    Africa at LSE: Transformation Euphoria in the Horn of Africa Page 1 of 4 Transformation Euphoria in the Horn of Africa As political transformation occurs across the Horn of Africa at an unprecedented pace, Abukar Arman provides a comprehensive analysis of the rapidly changing situation. The political transformation in the Horn of Africa is arguably the most counterintuitive development in the 21st century so far. Ethiopia has steered away from implosion and, for the first time in its history, appointed an Oromo Prime Minister with an Islamic name and heritage, ending the 20-year-long conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Nonetheless, Abiy Ahmed, the charismatic new Prime Minster from the intelligence sector, is yet to find a firm footing and harmony within the deeply rooted and ethnically-dominated domestic political apparatus. The sporadic ethnic- targeting violence raging in the Oromo and the oil-rich Somali region is an ominous preview. This enormous strategic achievement and the peace and economic development potential that it inspires cannot be underestimated. Neither can the value of the psychological and emotional liberation resulting from the Ethiopia- Eritrea peace agreement that reconnected families and old friends. Having said this, from the strategic or policy perspective, it is too naïve not to question the real impetus driving this, the subsequent dramatic changes and the possible implications for each country and the region. So far, all we have got is a bellyful of sound-bites seasoned with euphoric cheers. There has been little clarification as to the actual context; who and what is the driving force, and why with such unprecedented haste? If one must drive on the fast-lane, it is critical to keep hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES (Pmcs): LOOKING BACK on EXECUTIVE OUTCOMES
    THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES (PMCS): LOOKING BACK ON EXECUTIVE OUTCOMES Burgert Senekal1 Abstract Amidst arguments that the nature of war has changed, notably by Kaldor (2006), Keegan (2004), Münkler (2005), and Van Creveld (2008), Private Military Companies (PMCs) have received increasing media and scholarly attention over the past decade. South Africa is no stranger to the media storm evoked by Blackwater USA during the recent conflict in Iraq Executive Outcomes (hereafter referred to as EO) caused a comparable controversy during the 1990s, first through their involvement in Angola after the withdrawal of the SADF, and later through their contract in Sierra Leone. At the time, PMCs were still a relatively new phenomenon, and thus research was scarce and it was difficult to discuss EO properly in the context of PMCs rather than as mercenaries. In the wake of the war in Iraq, the rapid growth of research into the PMC phenomenon has however provided a wealth of information that facilitates a better understanding of EO’s role in the post-Cold War conflict environment. This article aims to discuss EO in this global debate by using recent research into the phenomenon, arguing that Executive Outcomes was part of a global trend in warfare. 1. INTRODUCTION During the last two decades, numerous arguments have been made that the nature of war is changing and has been since 1945, notably by Kaldor (2006), Keegan (2004), Münkler (2005) and Van Creveld (2008). Although the validity of arguments for low-intensity conflicts (LICs), new wars, postmodern wars, hybrid wars, or fourth generation warfare has been challenged by scholars such as Smith (2005), Curtis (2006), Kinross (2004) and others, there is concurrence that the majority of conflicts fought during and after the Cold War have been intrastate conflicts rather than the European model of conventional (interstate) wars found in the developed world, particularly as exemplified by the two World Wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Libya: the First Totally Privatized War in Modern History
    LIBYA: THE FIRST TOTALLY PRIVATIZED WAR IN MODERN HISTORY A report by Javier Martín Only Turkey has officially sent troops, THE FIRST although not for combat. And the LNA has a structure that could bring it closer to that of a regular armed force, with uniforms and TOTALLY a clear consolidated chain of command. The rest of the combatants are native PRIVATIZED militias and local and foreign PMSCs contracted by both rival governments in a sort of outsourcing that offers multiple WAR IN advantages, especially for foreign powers. MODERN COSTS, WITHDRAWALS HISTORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY Javier Martín The existence of mercenaries and PMSCs is nothing new, true. They have existed since ancient times, but their pattern has changed in the last forty years. From the Alsa Masa, the anti-communist forces A victim of chaos and war since March created in the Philippines in 1984 during 2011, when NATO -pushed by France- the presidency of the controversial decided to intervene and contribute with its Ferdinand Marcos, to the armed groups missiles to the victory of the different rebel "the awakening", promoted by the United factions over the long dictatorship of States in 2006 to fight the insurgency in Muammar Al Gaddafi, Libya has been since the Sunni regions of Iraq, to the Janjaweed then the scene of an armed conflict that in tribes in the Darfur region of Sudan, the ten years has evolved from a rudimentary Community Guards in Mexico and even the civil war conditioned by the terrorism of LAGs in Spain, the militias and jihadist ideology to a highly sophisticated paramilitary organizations associated with multinational conflict, becoming the first governments have been a planetary totally privatized armed conflict in constant since at least the end of World contemporary history.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire and Fury in the Gulf Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates
    www.ssoar.info Fire and Fury in the Gulf Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Ulrichsen, K. C. (2018). Fire and Fury in the Gulf. IndraStra Global, 4(2), 1-8. https://nbn-resolving.org/ urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-55716-2 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de Fire and Fury in the Gulf www.indrastra.com/2018/02/Fire-and-Fury-in-Gulf-004-02-2018-0002.html By Dr. Kristian Coates Ulrichsen Advisor at Gulf State Analytics Image Attribute: IndraStra Creatives Amid the fire and fury of Michael Wolff’s explosive account of the Trump presidency so far, readers hoping for greater insight into some of the international controversies of his first year in office were left wanting more than the few pages on the president’s May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Wolff suggests that the ‘Trump Doctrine’ boiled down to a transactional ‘If you give us what we want, we’ll give you what you want’, and that Saudi Arabia had become a test case to put it into action. Yet beyond a few platitudes about the ties between Jared Kushner and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Wolff did not dwell on the runup to and the aftermath of the Riyadh Summit that Trump attended in May 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraqi Reconstruction: Reliance on Private Military Contractors and Status Report
    IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION: RELIANCE ON PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTORS AND STATUS REPORT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 7, 2007 Serial No. 110–11 Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36–546 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:54 Aug 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DOCS\36546.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Columbia BRIAN P.
    [Show full text]
  • Business and Human Rights
    BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS Findings • As the Chinese Communist Party and government engage in increasingly egregious human rights violations, domestic and international businesses are increasingly at risk of complicity in abuses committed by the Chinese government. Of particular concern are: reports that companies are involved in the govern- ment’s suppression of ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), including through the use of forced labor; companies’ complicity in government surveillance of individuals throughout China; and companies engaging in censorship on behalf of Chinese authorities. • In the XUAR, the actions of the Party and government may constitute crimes against humanity according to scholars and rights groups, and companies that work in the region are at great risk of complicity in those crimes. Experts have docu- mented the rapid expansion of a network of mass internment camps in which authorities have arbitrarily detained over a million individuals from predominantly Muslim ethnic minor- ity groups. Commercial entities have been directly involved in the construction of these camps and supplied them with a wide range of goods and services. The company Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, in particular, has supplied surveillance systems to the camps as part of a public-private partnership with XUAR authorities. U.S.-based firms such as Intel, Ambarella, and Nvidia reportedly continue to supply Hikvision with critical components. According to a March 2019 report, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System and the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System both continued to own Hikvision stock. • The Commission observed numerous reports this past year of forced labor associated with government repression of ethnic minority groups in the XUAR.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix to Considering Collusion: a Primer on Potential Crimes October
    APPENDIX TO CONSIDERING COLLUSION: A PRIMER ON POTENTIAL CRIMES OCTOBER 31, 2018 BARRY H. BERKE, DANI R. JAMES, NOAH BOOKBINDER, AND NORMAN L. EISEN* This document lists in chronological order the key known facts relating to the Russia investigation that are potentially relevant to the collusion crimes discussed in our paper. The items in this chronology are drawn from public sources, including legal filings, newspaper articles, congressional testimony, social media posts, and interview transcripts that were available at the date of publication. Abbreviated chronology of key facts 2014: According to a federal indictment filed on February 16, 2018, beginning as early as 2014, Internet Research Agency LLC conducts operations to interfere with the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election. These efforts are financed by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controls, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering. 13 individuals allegedly worked at Internet Research Agency to carry out its interference operations.1 “In or around” 2015: Internet Research Agency and its agents begin to purchase social media advertisements as part of their efforts to influence American politics.2 June 16, 2015: Donald J. Trump announces his candidacy for president.3 Early-to-Mid 2016: According to court filings, Internet Research Agency LLC develops “a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential 1 Indictment, U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2018) (henceforth “Russian Interference Indictment”) at ¶¶ 1-3, https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download. 2 Id.
    [Show full text]