Abstract: The European Union is pouring enormous amounts of money into the United States. Regular multimillion-dollar payments to individuals and organizations in the U.S. raise important questions over Brussels’ interference in U.S. political and social debates—including climate change, the death penalty, and membership of the International Criminal Court. It is also not possible to justify EU human rights budgets being spent in one of the world’s freest nations. The EU budget has become synonymous with profligacy, waste, fraud, and mismanagement. It is beyond time for EU member state governments and European parliamentarians to take action. And it is Congress’s duty to ascertain whether these expenditures are in compliance with U.S. laws, and to ensure that American interests are protected.

Introduction

From 2007 through 2009, the European Union spent $1.23 billion in the United States. A large part of this money funded projects in other foreign nations that were administered by the U.S.-based World Bank and United Nations.[1] However, according to the European Union’s financial records posted online, large amounts of European taxpayer money were spent directly inside the United States and served to give the European Union greater influence, and advance the EU’s favored political causes, in America. Some of America’s wealthiest academic institutions have received millions of dollars in research grants and other contracts to promote a positive view of European integration. U.S. non-governmental groups received large sums of money from the EU’s human rights budget to advance a social agenda that many Americans would consider radical. A number of multimillion-dollar confidential payments were also made inside the U.S. to unidentified “natural persons” (individuals, not corporations) from an array of EU budget lines, including the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

The United States and most European countries have much in common politically and culturally, and EU public diplomacy expenditures inside the U.S. should be minimal compared to spending in countries that do not share the core Euro–Atlantic values of democratic governance, the rule of law, and human rights.

How any foreign entity is spending money inside the U.S. should be of concern to Americans and their elected representatives on Capitol Hill. Congress has a duty to ensure that U.S. laws, sovereignty, and interests are not being undermined from within. Congressional oversight is needed to identify exactly how and where the EU is intervening inside the U.S.

Governments of EU member states and European parliamentarians should also thoroughly investigate EU spending in the United States and determine its appropriateness. The EU’s spending inside the U.S. comes after the EU Court of Auditors refused to sign off on the accounts of the European Union for the 16th consecutive year.

The EU budget was increased by 2.9 percent in 2011, during a time of severe austerity cuts in many EU countries, including cuts to education budgets. The European Commission has requested a budget increase of 4.9 percent for 2012. Governments and parliamentarians should ensure that the European Commission’s existing expenditures are both necessary and prudent before contemplating any increases for 2012.

Methodology

The figures for this Heritage Foundation Special Report are drawn exclusively from the European Commission’s Financial Transparency System (FTS), which allows users to search the commission’s budget for payments made in individual nations from 2007 through 2009.[2] The FTS provides select details of every grant or contract it identifies, including who receives these funds; where the beneficiary is located; the amount and type of expenditure; the purpose of the expenditure; and the percentage of the project’s costs that are covered (co-financed) by the European Union. Each separate grant or contract is identified by a unique “commitment position key”—an individual alpha-numeric code that identifies a particular budgetary commitment.

In some cases, select informational points are either unavailable or deliberately, redacted which the EU claims is for security reasons.[3] In several cases, the EU simply states that the recipient of the grant is a “natural person” or “confidential.” A natural person is an individual, as opposed to a “legal person” which would be a corporation or organization.

Some payments, such as external EU aid administered by another international organization, are not contained within the FTS. The FTS only identifies payments on the basis of the beneficiaries’ address, even though the location of the project activity may differ from the recipients’ address.

Even allowing for these limitations, it is possible to get a clear picture of the scale of EU money which is spent inside the United States. The FTS contains 1,131 records for payments made inside the U.S. from 2007 to 2009, totaling €840.6 million ($1.23 billion).

Hereinafter, expenditures are stated in their euro denomination first. The dollar conversion is given in parenthesis (using the exchange rate of April 25, 2011).[4]

EU Expenditures in the United States

Top recipients of EU money inside the U.S. include: (1) the World Bank; (2) the United Nations; (3) partners in collaborative scientific projects paid from the EU’s research budget (the Seventh Framework Program (FP7)); and (4) U.S. universities and other places of learning. Millions of dollars are also spent on Washington-based non-profit and advocacy organizations. The EU extensively funds U.S. anti-death penalty groups, for example, stating that it is “deeply concerned about the increasing number of executions in the United States of America.”[5] The FTS reveals that the EU gave at least five U.S.-based organizations a total of €2.1 million ($3.1 million) from 2007 to 2009 for anti-death penalty advocacy.[6] Eleven U.S. think tanks and public policy research centers, including the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations, received a total of €1.9 million ($2.8 million) for policy programs in 2010 and 2011 alone.[7]

The EU also spent millions of dollars on advertising, publicity, and educational and promotional activities including campaigns in national newspapers and university-based radio programs. Large-scale programs include €3.42 million ($4.98 million) for “EU Centers of Excellence in the U.S.” (2008–2011)[8] and €1.8 million ($2.7 million) for two iterations of the European Commission’s “Getting to Know Europe” programs, designed to promote greater knowledge of the EU within local and regional communities around the U.S.[9]

Many of the budget lines identified through the FTS are wasteful, questionable, or require further explanation. In particular, several multimillion-dollar payments to confidential sources and “natural persons” inside the United States require additional scrutiny by EU member state governments and European parliamentarians, as well as oversight by the U.S. Congress to ensure that U.S. interests are being protected in such transactions.

Part I

EU Spending in the U.S. that Merits Scrutiny by Congress

Promoting the International Criminal Court (ICC): €970,783 ($1.41 Million). The U.S. is not a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The EU, however, supports the ICC both politically and financially. EU member states are the main contributors to the ICC budget. In 2008, the EU spent €970,783 ($1.41 million) in the U.S. advocating America’s ratification of the Rome Statute, which would formally make America a member of the ICC. The money was allocated from its European Instrument for Democracy & Human Rights (EIDHR) budget, whose key objective is to enhance human rights and fundamental freedoms in countries and regions where they are deemed to be most at risk.[10]

Parliamentarians for Global Action.[11] This New York-based non-profit advocacy group received two separate grants in 2008 for the same objective—totaling €970,783 ($1.41 million)—to “Promote at global level the universality of the Rome Statute (RS) and contribute to the effectiveness of the ICC jurisdictional system, in which States Parties have the duty to exercise their primary jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against huma…”[12] This grant was paid by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, from the EIDHR budget.

Funding Anti-Death-Penalty Groups in the U.S.: €2.1 Million ($3.1 Million). The EU states that it opposes the death penalty in all cases and supports its universal abolition.[13] The EU has funded more than 30 anti-death-penalty initiatives around the world since 1994, spending a total of €15 million ($21.8 million).[14] In March 2011, the European Union’s High Representative Catherine Ashton congratulated Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn on signing legislation that abolished the death penalty in his state. Lady Ashton’s press release did not note, however, that in 2009, the EU granted €193,443 ($281,305) to an Illinois-based advocacy group in order to influence this debate.

Death Penalty Information Center.[15] In 2009, €193,443 ($281,305) was allocated to this Illinois-based advocacy group. The subject of the grant was “Changing the Course of the Death Penalty Debate: A Proposal for Public Opinion Research, Message Development, and Communications on Capital Punishment in the U.S.” This grant was allocated by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, specifically from the EIDHR budget. The percentage of the project covered by EU funding (co-financed) was 75 percent.

Murder Victim’s Families for Human Rights. [16] In 2009, €495,000 ($719,829) was allocated to this New Hampshire-based advocacy group. The subject of the grant: “Voices of Victims Against the Death Penalty.” This grant was allocated by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, specifically from the EIDHR budget. It was co-financed by the EU at 71.22 percent.

American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education.[17] In 2009, €708,162 ($1.03 million) was allocated to this Washington, D.C.-based organization. The subject of the grant was “The Death Penalty Assessments Project: Toward a Nationwide Moratorium on Executions.” This grant was allocated by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, specifically from the EIDHR budget. It was co-financed by the EU at 80 percent.

The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP). [18] In 2009, €305,974 ($444,947) was allocated to this Washington, D.C.-based group. The subject of the grant was “National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Intensive Assistance Program.” This grant was allocated by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, specifically from the EIDHR budget. It was co-financed by the EU at 60 percent.

Witness to Innocence.[19] In 2009, €395,000 ($574,409) was allocated to this Philadelphia-based group. The subject of the grant was “American DREAM Campaign.” This grant was allocated by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, specifically from the EIDHR budget. It was co-financed by the EU at 60.4 percent.

Promoting the EU’s Views on Climate Change: Total Expenditures Unknown. The EU claims that human activity is primarily responsible for accelerating the rate of dangerous global warming.[20] Brussels wants to see global emissions reduced by at least half of their 1990 levels by 2050. The EU believes that this should be implemented through a legally binding global agreement to reduce and limit greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. did not ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012, and it has not pledged to sign any successor agreement that would mandatorily limit emissions.

Global Footprint Network, Inc.[21] In 2009, €99,970 ($145,376) was allocated to this California-based non-profit from the FP7’s budget line designated “cooperation—environment including climate change.” The subject of the grant is “Open: EU.” Global Footprint Network received their grant as one of six partners from different participating nations who received a total of €1.3 million ($1.9 million).

NASA. [22] NASA is listed as one of several beneficiaries of a €3.5 million ($5.1 million) grant in 2009. The subject of the grant was “Reconcile.” Reconcile is an FP7 program dedicated to “reconciliation of essential process parameters for an enhanced predictability of arctic stratospheric ozone loss and its climate interactions.”[23] The grant was paid from the FP7’s budget line designated “cooperation—environment including climate change.” The amount that NASA received from the total grant is not stipulated.

Eight “Natural Persons.” [24] In 2009, eight U.S.-based “natural persons” received a total of €42,311 ($61,715) from the FP7’s budget line designated “cooperation—environment including climate change.”

Five “Natural Persons.” [25] In 2008, five U.S.-based “natural persons” received funding from the FP7’s budget line designated “cooperation—environment including climate change.” However, it is not possible to determine their exact level of funding since these natural persons received an unidentified amount from a total grant which was allocated to multiple unidentified “natural persons” (often in countries other than the U.S., too).

Promoting Alternative Energy Projects in the United States: €300,868 ($437,522). In 2008, the EU introduced its €60 billion “20 20 by 2020” plan which pledges that by 2020, the EU will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent; increase the use of renewable energies by 20 percent; increase energy efficiency by 20 percent; and increase the use of biofuels in vehicles by 10 percent. The EU wants to globalize its precautionary-based approach to risk management and actively promotes its radical environmental agenda inside the U.S.[26]

Midwest Research Institute. [27] This Kansas City-based institute received a total of nine grants from the European Union from 2007 through 2009, totaling €84,896 ($123,456). Where the subject of the grant or contract was given, the money was allocated for various energy-related activities including “IEA Wind Implementing Agreement,” and “IEA Membership 2007 Co-operation Research Wind Energy Systems.”

International Food Policy Research Institute. This K Street non-profit organization received two grants from the EU totaling €213,155 ($309,970).

In 2007, €199,655 ($290,338) was allocated from the FP7’s “RTD support for community policies on a competitive basis.” No subject of this grant was stated. This project was financed by the EU at 100 percent.[28]

In 2009, the institute received €13,500 ($19,632) for the purposes of “AL PE TOKGOZ 13112 biofules-modelling (sic.),” also from the FP7 budget (specifically “Non-nuclear actions of the Joint Research Centre”).[29]

Millennium Institute Corporation.[30] In 2009, the Virginia-based 501 (c)(3) charitable organization that works on environmental and sustainability issues received €2,817 ($4,096). No subject of the grant or contract was given, which was allocated from the European Commission’s Trade Directorate.

Other Grants to U.S. Non-Profit Organizations: €769,066 ($1.12 Million).

The Carter Center. [31] In 2009, €250,000 ($363,550) was allocated to former President Jimmy Carter’s organization—whose annual budget in 2008–2009 was $88 million—to administer a media freedoms program in Bolivia. The money was allocated from the External Relations budget, specifically “Crisis response and preparedness (Instrument for Stability).” This project was financed by the EU at 100 percent.

The Asia Foundation Corporation. This California-based group received two grants from the EU in 2008—€149,784 ($217,816) was allocated for the purposes of “Sopporting (sic.) female commune councilors in Cambodia,” by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, specifically from the EIDHR budget line.[32] A further €369,282 ($537,010) was allocated as a “change of payment class,” from the same budget line, for a project that was co-financed by the EU at 65 percent.[33]

U.S. Think Tanks: €3.4 Million ($4.95 Million). The FTS indicates that from 2007 to 2009, U.S. think tanks received a total of €3.4 million ($4.95 million) from the European Commission.

In 2009, the EU constituted a Policy Research and Debate (PRD) program, to take place from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. The European Commission provided €1.9 million ($2.8 million) to 11 U.S. think tanks and public policy research centers to implement projects with topics including the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility; promoting the sustainability of the euro; and making climate change a priority in underprivileged U.S. communities.[34] Many of the think tanks designated for funding from the PRD (2010–2011) had received additional funding in prior years, too, according to FTS.

Peterson Institute for International Economics.[35] The Peterson Institute was allocated €200,000 ($290,840) in PRD funding in 2009 (for 2010–2011 activities) to disseminate the concept of economic multipolarity. This project was co-financed by the EU at 73.13 percent.[36]

In 2008, the Washington, D.C.-based non-profit received an additional €200,000 ($290,840) for an event entitled “The Euro at 10.” The event was funded by the EU’s External Relations directorate, which has a financing “instrument for co-operation with industrialized and other high-income countries and territories (ICI).”[37] It was funded from the specific budget line “Cooperation with industrialised non-member countries.” It was financed by the EU at 100 percent. The promotional material advertising this conference stated, somewhat prematurely: “The euro recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of its successful launch on January 1, 1999. In the midst of the current financial crisis, the world’s only transnational major currency has delivered price stability to the eurozone and has retained its value in international markets.”[38]

Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies , Center for Transatlantic Relations (SAIS). [39] SAIS received €200,000 ($290,840) in PRD funding in 2009 (for 2010–2011 activities). SAIS was tasked with organizing policy initiatives in multiple issue areas including international law; conflict prevention and management; transatlantic economic relations; and energy security. This project was co-financed by the EU at 66.67 percent.

SAIS had already received €200,000 ($290,840) in 2007, under the ICI, specifically for “Cooperation with industrialized non-member countries.” This project was co-financed by the EU at 50 percent. No subject of the grant was given.[40]

The German Marshall Fund of the United States. The German Marshall Fund received two separate grants from the European Commission totaling €300,000 ($436,260). In 2007, €100,000 ($145,420) was allocated under the ICI, specifically for “Cooperation with industrialized non-member countries.” The subject of the grant was not given. The EU funded the unidentified project at 9.99 percent.[41]

In 2009, the German Marshall Fund received €200,000 ($290,840) in PRD money (for 2010–2011 activities) and was tasked with holding an annual “Brussels Forum” of high-level EU and U.S. officials. This project was funded by the EU at 25.76 percent.[42]

Heinrich Böll Foundation.[43] The U.S. office of this German political foundation (which is associated with the Green Party)[44] received €200,000 ($290,840) in 2009 from the PRD (for 2010–2011). The Böll Foundation was tasked with “Build[ing] a transatlantic climate network to provide the framework conditions for maximizing policy exchanges and mutual learning, focusing on convincing economically disadvantaged regions of the US and EU to see climate change as a priority and job creation opportunity. To include expert tours, policy roundtables, and publications, with the cooperation of several EU and US based partners.” The EU co-financed the project at 66.6 percent.[45]

Brookings Institution. The Washington-based think tank—which has an annual budget of $80 million—received three grants from the EU between 2007 and 2009 totaling €398,265 ($579,157).

Brookings received €198,735 ($289,000) in PRD funding in 2009 (for 2010–2011). Brookings was tasked with producing papers and hosting conferences on global energy issues. The EU co-financed the project at 69.12 percent.[46]

In 2009, Brookings also received €4,420 ($6,428)—a portion of a grant which totaled €35,698 ($51,912). Brookings was just one of 17 partners who shared the total grant. The grant was funded by the European Commission’s External Relations Department. The largest grant recipient was the Belgium-based catering company Compass Group which received €19,843 ($28,856).[47]

In 2007, €195,110 ($283,729) was allocated to Brookings from the ICI, although no subject of the grant was given. The EU funded the unidentified project at 46.95 percent.[48]

Middle East Institute.[49] The Middle East Institute received €194,688 ($283,115) in PRD funding in 2009 (for 2010–2011). The institute was tasked with drawing attention to the plight of Iraqi refugees, and highlighting the challenges of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The institute pledged to “bring EU and US policy makers together through a series of off the record workshops, briefing sessions and a seminar.” The EU funded the project at 71.58 percent.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).[50] In 2007, €191,407 ($278,344) was allocated to the Washington, D.C.-based think tank under the ICI, specifically for “Cooperation with industrialized non-member countries.” The subject of the grant was not given. The unidentified project was co-financed by the EU at 50 percent.[51]

Bertelsmann Foundation.[52] In 2009, €178,755 ($259,946) was allocated to the Washington D.C.-based Bertelsmann Foundation (the U.S. arm of the German media conglomerate) in PRD funding (for 2010–2011). Bertelsmann was tasked with establishing an exchange fellowship between 10 staffers from the U.S. Congress and 10 staffers from the European Parliament, and facilitating better cooperation between staff of the two legislative bodies. The EU funded the project at 71.39 percent.[53]

The European Institute (EI). This Washington-based public policy organization received two EU grants totaling €315,000 ($458,073). In 2007, EI received €140,000 ($203,588) from the ICI, specifically for “Cooperation with industrialized non-member countries.” The subject of the grant was not given, and the EU funded the unidentified project at 38.73 percent.[54]

In 2009, EI received an additional €175,000 ($254,485) from the PRD (for 2010–2011). EI was tasked with engaging the Administration and Congress, and holding high-level meetings on the issues of security, energy, and the transatlantic economy. The EU funded the project at 49.45 percent.[55]

Woodrow Wilson International Center . [56] The Woodrow Wilson Center received €171,138 ($248,869) of PRD funding (for 2010–2011), to establish a working group on transatlantic cooperation in the Western Balkans. The EU funded the project at 73.55 percent.

Atlantic Council of the United States. The Council received two EU grants totaling €249,420 ($362,707). In 2007, €152,727 ($222,096) was granted from the ICI, specifically for “Cooperation with industrialized non-member countries.” The subject of the grant was not given. The EU funded the unidentified project at 49.99 percent.[57]

In 2009, the Atlantic Council also received €96,693 ($140,611) from the PRD (for 2010–2011). The council was specifically tasked with holding high-level workshops and producing publications “to further a transatlantic dialogue on international law with emphasis on the closing of Guantanamo and detainee/rendition policy.” The EU funded the project at 73.8 percent.[58]

Council on Foreign Relations.[59] In 2007, €141,140 ($205,246) was allocated to the Washington, D.C.-based think tank from the ICI, specifically for “Cooperation with industrialized non-member countries.” The subject of the grant was not given. The EU funded the unidentified project at 34.54 percent.

National Democratic Institute (NDI).[60] The Washington-based Institute received €105,368 ($153,226) in PRD funding in 2009 (for 2010–2011) for the purposes of “engaging US and EU democracy assistance policymakers to explore best practices.” The EU funded the project at 72.83 percent.

Migration Policy Institute Corporation. [61] In 2007, €104,105 ($151,389) was allocated in to this Washington-based non-profit from the ICI, specifically for “Cooperation with industrialized non-member countries.” The subject of the grant was not given. The EU funded the unidentified project at 47.9 percent.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. [62] In 2007, €55,000 ($79,981) was allocated to the private, nonprofit organization although no subject of the grant is given. It was funded by the External Relations department, specifically from the “Information programmes for non-member countries” budget. It was 100 percent financed by the EU.

Teaching the EU in the U.S.: €3.9 million ($5.7 million). The FTS reveals that at least €3.9 million ($5.7 million) was committed by the European Commission to educational expenditures inside the U.S. from 2007 to 2009. The EU’s largest educational funding stream is its €3.42 million ($4.98 million) EU Centers of Excellence (EUCE) in the U.S. program (for 2008–2011), which promotes educational instruction on the EU inside the U.S.[63] EUCE is administered by the EU delegation in Washington, D.C., and is considered a public diplomacy program as opposed to an academic program.[64] The EUCE provide syllabi for academic institutions, hold conferences, and even provide K-12 lesson plans that incorporate the EU’s take on political, social, and cultural issues.[65]A number of other educational activities were funded by the EU in addition to its EUCE program, including the Jean Monnet Program for understanding European integration, and the Euro Challenge annual competition for high school students.

EU Centers of Excellence in the U.S. Currently, 10 U.S. institutions are designated as EU Centers of Excellence and receive funding for activities taking place from 2008 to 2011:[66]

1. University of California, Berkeley: €298,384 ($433,910)[67]
2. University of Colorado: €299,757 ($435,907)[68]
3. Florida International University and the University of Miami: €298,221 ($433,673)[69]
4. Georgia Tech: €300,000 ($436,260)[70]
5. University of Michigan: €276,499 ($402,085)[71]
6. University of North Carolina: €419,884 ($610,595)[72]
7. University of Pittsburgh: €300,000 ($436,260)[73]
8. University of Washington (Seattle): €299,691 ($435,811)[74]
9. University of Wisconsin: €300,000 ($436,260)[75]
10. Washington, D.C., Consortium (American University, George Mason University, George Washington University, Georgetown University, The Johns Hopkins University): €288,565 ($419,631)[76]

Although it is not listed as an EUCE on the European Commission’s Web site, the FTS states that in 2008, the University of Texas at Austin was also allocated €295,258 ($429,364) for EUCE activities (for 2008–2011).[77]

Jean Monnet Programme. Six U.S. universities were selected to partake in the European Commission’s Jean Monnet Programme in 2009, which “stimulates teaching, research and reflection on European integration in higher education institutions worldwide.”[78]

1. Temple University: €43,794 ($63,878 )[79]
2. George Mason University: €44,665 ($65,148)[80]
3. The University of Florida: €21,000 ($30,538)[81]
4. Texas A&M University: €21,000 ($30,538)[82]
5. Scripps College: €45,000 ($65,637)[83]
6. University of Pittsburgh: €21,000 ($30,538)[84]

Three further FTS records exist for Jean Monnet grants that were allocated to U.S. institutions in 2007. The University of Wisconsin received €21,000 ($30,538) to teach a module titled “The European Information Society in a Global Context”;[85] the University of Florida received €20,825 ($30,375) to teach a module titled “European Economic Integration: Politics and Policy”;[86] and the University of Florida further received €74,305 ($108,381) for hosting a Jean Monnet Center of Excellence.[87]

European Union Studies Association.[88] In 2008, €47,642 ($69,281) was allocated to this Pittsburgh-based association by the European Commission’s Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) department, specifically from the “Lifelong learning programme” budget line. No details are given on this grant. The unidentified grant was co-financed by the EU at 42.11 percent.

NAFSA–Association of International Educators.[89] In 2009, €24,329 ($35,379) was allocated for the EU’s participation in the 2010 NAFSA Annual Conference in Kansas City. NAFSA is a Washington, D.C.-based organization that specializes in promoting international education. It is unclear how many people attended the 2010 conference. The Education and Culture department paid the expense from the budget line “Cooperation with non-member countries on education and vocational training—Expenditure on administrative management.”

Euro Challenge.[90] In 2007, €60,000 ($87,252) was allocated to the New York-based organization Working in Support of Education to administer the Euro Challenge 2008. The Economic and Financial Affairs department allocated the funds from the budget line “Prince–Communication on economic and monetary union, including the Euro.” PRINCE is the European Commission’s Information Programme of the European Citizen—meant to focus on providing information to “European citizens” about the euro.

The Euro Challenge is a 100 percent EU-financed project targeting American high school students. They compete in a challenge to learn and convey information about the euro. A financial prize is given along with a trip to Washington, D.C.; €5,000 ($7,271) was allocated for air travel for the Euro Challenge Competition for 2008, paid to the Washington, D.C.-based company, Around the World Travel, Inc.[91]

A further €60,000 ($87,252) was allocated in 2008 for the same Euro Challenge project to occur in 2009.[92] The Euro Challenge is now an annual event with its own dedicated Web site.[93]

Production of EU Lesson Plans for Secondary School Teachers in USA.[94] In 2009, €22,682 ($32,984) was allocated to the Georgia Council on Economic Education Cooperation to produce lesson plans on the EU for U.S. students. This expense was funded by the External Relations department, specifically the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries.”

Getting to Know Europe: €1.8 Million ($2.7 Million). The FTS records two separate groups of payments for the “Getting to Know Europe” program (for 2008–2009 and 2011–2012).[95] U.S.-based non-governmental, nonprofit organizations are selected to “promote a greater knowledge of the EU within local and regional communities around the US.” These programs are also designed to promote the EU’s role as “an international actor in the economic and political field.”[96]

Getting to Know Europe (2008–2009). Ten institutions received a total of €859,533 ($1.3 million) between them:

1. The Foreign Policy Association: €100,000 ($145,420)[97]
2. The Southern Center for International Studies: €60,313 ($87,707)[98]
3. The University of Illinois: €100,000 ($145,420)[99]
4. The University of Oklahoma: €92,718 ($134,831)[100]
5. Boston University: €99,982 ($145,834)[101]
6. World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh: €98,840 ($144,168)[102]
7. Texas A&M Research Foundation: €97,686 ($142,485)[103]
8. Vanderbilt University: €92,994 ($135,641)[104]
9. Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools: €67,000 ($97,726)[105]
10. Concordia College Corporation: €50,000 ($72,930)[106]

Getting to Know Europe (2011–2012). Eleven institutions received a total of €985,019 ($1.43 million) between them:[107]

1. Old Dominion University Research Foundation: €98,998 ($143,963)
2. Cornell University: €95,000 ($138,149)
3. World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh: €97,613 ($141,949)
4. Indiana University: €97,612 ($141,947)
5. Five Colleges, Inc.: €100,000 ($145,420)
6. Center for Education in Law and Democracy: €59,189 ($86,073)
7. Rutgers University: €59,184 ($86,065)
8. R. D. and Euzelle P. Smith Middle School: €77,428 ($112,596)
9. Montana World Trade Center: €100,000 ($145,420)
10. University of Illinois: €99,995 ($145,413)
11. Friends of British Council: €100,000 ($145,420)

Unidentified Recipients: €6.8 Million ($9.9 Million). A “natural person” is a human being, as opposed to an “artificial person” which would be a corporation or organization. The EU has allocated a number of high-value grants to unidentified natural persons inside the U.S. from a variety of its budget lines including its foreign policy budgets. U.S. congressional leaders should investigate these payments and ensure that they are consistent with U.S. laws and America’s broader interests.

“Natural Person.” [108] In 2007, €2.45 million ($3.57 million) was allocated to an unidentified “natural person” by the European Commission’s External Relations department, specifically from the Common Foreign and Security Policy’s Special Representatives fund. This was a project financed 100 percent by the EU and no subject of the grant or contract is given.

“Confidential.” [109] In 2009, €410,000 ($596,222) was allocated to a confidential recipient by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. The money was taken specifically from the “Financial cooperation with the Mediterranean countries” budget line. The subject of the grant was given as “confidential.” Its action location, the address of the beneficiary, and level of co-financing are not given.

Again in 2009, a further €1.09 million ($1.59 million) was allocated to a confidential recipient by the same department, under the same budget line. Its commitment position key is identical, and identified as a second grant to the same confidential source by the last digit.[110]

“Confidential.” [111] In 2007, €960,520 ($1.4 million) was allocated to a confidential recipient by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, specifically from the “food security” budget line. The subject of the grant was given as “confidential.” Its action location and the address of the beneficiary are not given. This was a project co-financed at 84.67 percent by the EU.

The European Commission funded a total of seven U.S.-administered food security projects (2007–2009) totaling €12.9 million ($19.1 million)—including the one outlined above.[112] The majority of these projects were administered by third parties including the UN, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Inter-American Development Bank, for projects related to Africa, Haiti, and other impoverished regions. It is unusual to see such little information for a project where the EU traditionally flaunts its generosity.

“Confidential.” [113] In 2008, €720,000 ($1.05 million) was confidentially allocated to a confidential recipient by the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, specifically from the “EIDHR” budget line. The subject of the grant was given as “confidential.” Its action location and the address of the beneficiary are not given. This was a project co-financed at 52.55 percent by the EU.

“Financing of the Operating Costs of the ECHO Offices on the Ground in Russia.” [114] In 2008, €650,000 ($945,230) was allocated between five separate confidential sources, one of which was the European Commission. The grant was allocated from the European Commission Humanitarian Aid department, specifically from the budget line of the same name. This was a 100 percent EU-financed project where the country or territory involved was classified as “Commission Department.” It also involved partners in France, Germany, Belgium, and the U.S.

“Confidential.” [115] In 2009, €400,000 ($581,680) was allocated to a confidential recipient by the European Commission’s External Relations department, specifically from the budget line “Crisis response and preparedness (Instrument for Stability).” The subject of the grant was given as “confidential.” The address of the beneficiary is not given and the location of the action was classed as confidential. This project was 100 percent financed by the EU.

“Confidential.” [116] In 2009, €85,000 ($125,996) was allocated to a confidential recipient by the European Commission’s Economic and Financial Affairs Department, specifically from the budget line “other management expenditures.” The subject of the grant was given as “study on resilience of emerging market economies to financial and economic developments in advance economies.” The name and address of the beneficiary is not given.

“Confidential.” [117] In 2009, €8,573 ($12,467) was allocated to a confidential recipient by the European Commission’s Economic and Financial Affairs department, specifically from the budget line “Coordination and Surveillance of economic and monetary union.” The subject of the grant is given as “Visiting fellows programme 2009 07–22/09/09–Proliferation of systemic risk and macroeconomic policy responses in the EU Member States.” Its action location, the address of the beneficiary, and its co-financing rate are not given.

Lucjan T. Orlowski, professor of economics at Sacred Heart University, has authored a study in which he acknowledges having received a grant from the European Commission for his work, stating that he was a visiting fellow at the European Commission in September 2009 “under VFP contract number 180/2009/SI2.538776”—which is the same commitment key position given for this confidential grant.[118]

“Natural Person.” [119] In 2008, €5,000 ($7,271) was allocated to a “natural person,” by the European Commission’s Regional Policy department, specifically from the “Cohesion fund.” The subject of the grant was: “Seminar ‘Expert hearing on the future of European cohesion policy and social inclusion’ 19/09/2008.”

The online agenda of this hearing states that “the question will be discussed how to combine the territorial agenda of cohesion policy and the social agenda which emphasizes individuals’ personal features.”[120] A list of participants is given on the agenda.

Part II

Particular Concerns for EU Member State Governments and Parliamentarians

Luxury Hotels and BMW’s: €2.3 Million ($3.3 Million).

Peninsula New York.[121] In 2009, €28,050 ($40,790) was committed for the luxury Fifth Avenue hotel from the “policy coordination and legal advice” budget line. Additional travel expenditures from Belgium-based companies were included in this commitment position key which totaled €2.3 million ($3.35 million), including American Express Corporate Travel (€1.39 million / $2.03 million); Carlson Wagonlit Travel Company (€600,898 / $873,826); and Abelag Aviation, which describes itself as a premier private jet company (€249,460 / $362,765).

New York and California Real Estate and Realty Fees.[122] In just one of several expenditures under the External Relations Administrative expenditures for “buildings and related expenditure of the delegations of the Commission of the European Communities,” €1.02 million ($1.48 million) was spent in 2009 on various pieces of real estate, realtors’ fees, and parking spaces. New York and California addresses are given for the various beneficiaries including €80,961 ($117,733) for 40 Park Avenue, LLC; €113,695 ($165,335) for Anniski, LLC; €144,798 ($210,565) for Donna Dixon Aykroyd; and €68,462 ($99,557) for River Place I Holdings, LLC.

In 2009, a further €164,727 ($239,546) was authorized for a series of additional realty charges and hotel expenses, including €6,385 ($9,285) for the exclusive “premier all-suite hotel” Washington Suites Hotel, located in Georgetown in Washington, D.C.[123]

The EU’s New K Street Embassy in Washington, D.C. [124] In 2009, €933,055 ($1.36 million) was paid to let the EU mission move into its new headquarters at the prestigious 2175 K Street location. The new Delegation Headquarters were appropriated from the External Relations Administrative budget for “buildings and related expenditure of the delegations of the Commission of the European Communities.”[125]

The Juilliard School, the New York Public Library, and a Fine-Wine Shop. [126] In 2009, €52,743 ($76,697) was allocated by the External Relations department of the European Commission, from the budget line “Other management expenditure of the delegations of the Commission of the European Communities,” for an unidentified event or project. The delegations of the Commission of the European Communities are otherwise known as the EU embassies and consulates around the world. The beneficiaries paid from this invoice were Bestype Digital Imaging, a promotional materials company, (€671 / $976); M. Kohles and Associates, an insurance company (€1,654 / $2,405); Sherry–Lehmann’s, a New York fine-wine shop (€1,689 / $2,456); the Juilliard School (€1,285; $1,869); the New York Public Library (€21,182 / $30,803); and Elderberry Catering, whose Web site boasts that its past clients include the UN Secretary-General and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (€26,261 / $38,189).

The Waldorf-Astoria and The New York Public Library.[127] In 2009, €7,563 ($10,998) was spent at the Waldorf, and a further €2,165 ($3,131) at the New York Public Library. The money came from the EU’s External Relations budget, specifically the “Information programmes for non-member countries” budget line. The expenditures were contained in an invoice totaling €28,220 ($41,038)—which also included €1,490 ($2,167) for an unidentified U.S. “natural person” and €11,745 ($17,080) for an Italian printing company (Reggiani Spa).

BMW Financial Services.[128] In 2009, €14,760 ($21,464) was paid by the “Buildings and related expenditure of the delegations of the Commission of the European Communities,” on BMW Financial Services, LLC, based in Ohio. This charge was included in an invoice totaling €50,207 ($73,011) for various transport-related expenses. Other expenditures within this invoice include Admiral Limousine Transportation Service (€6,611 / $9,614); Alexandria Volkswagen Partnership (€1,006 / $1,463); Standard Leasing Corps (€5,393 / $7,843); and Victorious, Inc., Nationwide Limo Services (€3,370 / $4,901).

A separate invoice states that a further €777 ($1,130) was spent at the same BMW Financial Services, along with additional minor expenditures at the Limo and Leasing companies mentioned above. However, those monies were taken from the EU’s research budget for “other management expenditure for research,” despite sharing a near-identical commitment position key.[129]

Publicity, PR, and Propaganda: € 671,150 ($976,036).

The Washington Post.[130] €55,302 ($80,420) was allocated by the External Relations Department, specifically the budget line: “Information programmes for non-member countries.” The subject of the grant was “2010 National Publicity and Awareness-Raising Activities: EU Focus.”[131] EU Focus is a bimonthly newsletter produced by the Delegation of the European Union to the United States. It is available online free and subscribers can sign up for email alerts.[132] This publicity exercise was done again in 2009 at a cost of €50,000 ($72,710).[133]

The Congressional Quarterly.[134] In 2007, €55,000 ($79,981) was allocated to the Congressional Quarterly for an unidentified project. It was funded by the External Relations Department, specifically the budget line: “Information programmes for non-member countries.” It was 100 percent financed by the EU.

The Hill (Newspaper).[135] In 2008, €49,997 ($72,706) was allocated for a “Specialized Capitol Hill Outreach Program: Distribution of EU Insight.” It was funded by the External Relations department, specifically from the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries.” A further €55,300 ($80,417) was allocated in 2009 to repeat this exercise from the same budget line, both of which were 100 percent financed by the EU.[136]

Direct Mail.[137] In 2007, €49,872 ($72,524) was allocated to a direct mail company identified as “Envelopes Unlimited, Inc.” No subject of the grant or contract was given. This contract was funded by the External Relations department, specifically the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries.” This was a 100 percent EU-financed project.

EU Promotional Items.[138] In 2008, €49,806 ($72,428) was paid to the Minnesota-based Creative Resources Agency for the production of EU promotional items. This contract was funded by the External Relations department, specifically from the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries.” This was a 100 percent-financed EU project.[139]

Electronic Distribution of EU Information.[140] In 2008, €49,800 ($72,419) was paid to the Maryland-based Blue Sky Factory, Inc., for “Electronic Distribution of EU Info/News Alerts.” This expense was funded from by the External Relations department, specifically the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries.” This was a 100 percent EU-financed project.[141]

CMGRP, Inc. [142] Despite employing multiple press officers in the Washington, D.C. Delegation of the European Union, and nearly 1,000 PR people in the European Commission overall, seven separate payments were made to this New York-based public relations firm in 2007, and one in 2008, totaling €220,445 ($320,571). None of the payments in 2007 contained details of the grant, although the monies were administered by the External Relations department. The 2008 project was titled “Design & Production of Digital Business Cards” at a cost of €44,982 ($65,413).

Harvard University’s Marleen de Smedt.[143] In 2009, €13,854 ($20,146) was granted to Harvard University’s Weatherhead Center (in the prestigious Kennedy School of Government) to support the fellowship of senior European Commission civil servant Marleen de Smedt. The funding came from the European Commission’s Personnel and Administration department, specifically the budget line “Other management expenditure.”

On-Air Radio Campaigns at U.S. Universities. In 2009, American University in Washington, D.C., received €5,000 ($7,271) from the External Relations department, specifically the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries,” for an “on air underwriting campaign to commemorate Europe Day and to celebrate Europe week.”[144] Boston University received €4,835 ($7,031) from the same budget line for “a two week radio campaign in the Boston Metro Area.”[145]

On-Air Radio Campaigns in Major U.S. Cities. In 2009, the Greater Washington Educational Telecommunications Association received €4,914 ($7,146) from the External Relations department, specifically the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries,” for an “on air radio campaign.” [146] The Atlanta Educational Telecommunications Collaborate, Inc., received the same amount for a “radio underwriting campaign.”[147] The Friends of WLRN, Inc., corporation received €4,775 ($6,944) from the same budget line for an “on air underwriting campaign in the Miami Metro Area.”[148]

French–American Cultural Foundation. [149] The French–American Cultural Foundation in Washington, D.C., received €2,250 ($3,272) in 2008 to host an “EU Open House” on May 3, 2008. The money was taken from the External Relations department, specifically from the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries.” EU Open House Days are hosted annually at the EU Delegation in the United States and at EU embassies across Washington.

Media and Film Companies: Expenditure Unknown.

Sony.[150] Sony is listed as a partial beneficiary of a €700,000 ($1.02 million) grant given in 2009 to seven companies in both EU and non-EU nations. The money was allocated under the Information Society and Media budget, specifically “Preparatory action on the implementation of the MEDIA 2007 programmes in third countries.” The MEDIA program is an EU initiative aimed at supporting the European audiovisual sector. No details are given as to how much Sony received individually. This project was financed by the EU at 50 percent.

American Film Institute (AFI).[151] From 2007 to 2009, AFI received three separate EU grants totaling €14,914 ($21,688). In 2007, AFI received €5,000 ($7,271) from the EU’s External Relations budget, specifically “Information programmes for non-member countries.” In 2008, AFI received another €5,000 ($7,271) from the same budget line. The subject of that grant was “European Union Film Showcase 2008,” and was 100 percent financed by the EU. In 2009, AFI received €4,914 ($7,146) from the same budget line, and the subject of that grant was given as “Distribution of EU film Showcase Program Guide.”

Teza. [152] €1,393 ($2,026) was granted to the Mahogany bar and restaurant in Washington, D.C., to host a reception for the U.S. premiere of the drama film Teza. The movie was funded by the European Development Fund, and the money for the reception was paid by the External Relations department, specifically from the budget line “Information programmes for non-member countries.”

Other Notable Expenditures: €3.6 Million ($5.3 Million).

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.[153] In 2009, €832,500 ($1.21 million) was allocated for “operations and logistical support to the office of the quartet representative (Mr. Tony Blair) and staff based in Jerusalem.” This money was administered through the UN and came from the EU’s Instrument for Stability.

Special Representative Francesc Vendrell.[154] In 2008, two separate payments were made to a “natural person” from the Common Foreign and Security Policy Special Representatives fund totaling €1.65 million ($2.44 million). €975,000 ($1.45 million) and €678,000 ($985,948) were paid, respectively, from the Common Foreign and Security Policy Special Representatives fund. In both instances, the subject of the grant was given as “CFSP/2008/11/EUSR Afghanistan–Vendrell.” Both entries have identical commitment position keys with differing last digits, indicating two payments to the same source in the same year.

Francesc Vendrell was appointed as the EU’s Special Representative for Afghanistan in July 2002 and stepped down in 2008.[155]After his departure, Ambassador Vendrell became a visiting professor at Princeton. Even though Ambassador Vendrell is not American, the FTS designates spending based solely on location. Therefore, any payment sent to Ambassador Vendrell inside the United States would be revealed by the FTS.

An Illinois Zoo. [156] The Niabi Zoological Society received €42,685 ($62,073) in 2009 under the FP7 for “capacities—science in society.” This was part of a collaborative project for which 100 percent EU funding was provided. The grant for all participants totaled €758,178 ($1.1 million). Other recipients included the University of Edinburgh in the U.K.

Phenomenological Appearance.[157] New York University (NYU) shared a €254,849 ($370,601) grant with the Parisian research institute Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (it is not revealed what portion of the grant each recipient received) in 2009 to study “Appearance in Action: The interplay of perception and action as revealed by attention-related changes in phenomenological appearance.” The money was allocated from the FP7 under the budget line described simply as “People.” This project was 100 percent EU-funded.

Zebrafish Development.[158] Stanford University shared a €241,291 ($350,885) grant in 2009 with a German molecular biology lab (it is not revealed what portion of the grant each recipient received) to study “Alpha-Catenin regulatory properties and functions during Zebrafish development.” The money was allocated from the FP7, under the budget line description of “People.”[159] The project was 100 percent EU-funded.

Microdynamics of Rebellions: An Inquiry Into the Role of Mid-Level Commanders in Chad . [160] Berkeley University shared a €222,180 ($323,094) grant in 2009 with the Institute of Political Studies in Paris (it is not revealed what portion each recipient received) to study the Microdynamics of Rebellions. The money was allocated from the FP7 under the budget line description of “People.” It was 100 percent funded by the EU.

Berkeley University shared in a number of other research grants with both EU and non-EU nations.[161]

How-to-Stop-Eating Research.[162] Cornell University shared a €216,824 ($315,305) grant in 2009 with the Dutch Wageningen University (it is not revealed what portion each recipient received) to study “Environmental factors increasing consumers’ food intake: developing effective intervention strategies to facilitate consumers’ self-control.” The money was allocated from the FP7, specifically from the budget line described as “People.” It was 100 percent funded by the EU.

Cornell also received a second shared study grant, working with the Israel Institute of Technology to study ways of increasing scientific learning through general TV programming.[163]

Williams–Sonoma. [164] The European Commission’s administrative expenditure budget allocated €15,933 ($23,170) to the U.S. luxury home-goods store Williams–Sonoma in 2009. The money was allocated under the EU’s budget for “Buildings and related expenditure of the delegations of the Commission of the European Communities.” The address of the beneficiary was given as Williams–Sonoma’s Van Ness Avenue store in San Francisco. However, the expense was contained within an invoice designating Trinidad and Tobago as the destination country of the grant, which is also where the EU keeps a substantial delegation.

Galileo.[165] Galileo is an EU global navigation satellite system that will be able to act as an alternate system to American GPS systems—if it is ever built. In 2009, €5,000 ($7,271) was allocated by the Commission’s Energy and Transport department, specifically from the “Galileo Programme” budget line for the purposes of “Coverage by contractor of Galileo topics to be discussed at the June 09 Citadel Meeting in Ottawa.” The grant was paid to Business Consulting International, which is based at a residential address in Washington, D.C.

Executive Education Training at Harvard University.[166] Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government received a total of €51,889 ($75,457) from the European Commission in 2009.

€10,000 ($14,542) was allocated for a training program titled “Leadership for the 21st Century.” This executive education program at the prestigious Cambridge campus is designed for people “to learn how to act courageously and skillfully when exercising leadership.”[167] Two designated individuals were the subject of the grant—D. Spatharis and P. Sourmelis—who are listed in the European Commission’s trade directory.[168] The funding came from the European Commission’s Trade department, specifically the budget line “Other management expenditure of ‘Trade’ Directorate-General.”

€20,222 ($29,407) was also granted, again by the Trade department, for “External training–30/08 TO 11/09/09.” No individuals were listed in the invoice.[169] Another €4,624 ($6,724) was allocated from the commission’s External Relations department.[170] €7,777 ($11,309) was granted from the commission’s Personnel and Administration department.[171] €4,642 ($6,750) was granted from the Environment department.[172]And €4,624 ($6,724) was granted for the training of G. Frontini to undertake a training course entitled “Mastering Negotiation–Building Agreements Across Boundaries,” which was financed from the Trade budget.[173]

Around the World Travel, Inc. [174] In 2009, this company was paid €90,254 ($131,247) from the European Commission’s Administrative expenditures. The budget line was designated as “management expenditure of the delegations of the Commission of the European Communities.” No subject of the grant or contract is given for this D.C.-based company which does not have a readily identifiable Web site.

Part III

Recommendations

What the U.S. Congress Should Do

• Leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives responsible for oversight should demand disclosure of all EU payments made inside the United States. All payments, including those currently classified as confidential, should be disclosed to all relevant Committee Chairmen to ensure that U.S. interests and national sovereignty are being protected; and
• Congress should investigate EU funding streams in the U.S. to ensure that recipients, and the EU itself, are obeying all applicable public disclosure and lobbying laws, and that these laws are adequate to ensuring the full disclosure by private recipients of all foreign funding, including that received from the EU.

What EU Governments and European Parliamentarians Should Do

• EU heads of state and governments should be informed of all past and future confidential payments to individuals, corporations, or “natural persons” in both EU and non-EU states. A designated EU official should be responsible for disclosing all confidential payments via member states’ permanent representatives in Brussels;
• The House of Lords European Union Committee should conduct an inquiry into the effectiveness of EU spending in the United States and prepare an official report for the British Government; and
• As part of its pledge to “reform and change how the European Union works,” the European Parliament’s European Conservatives and Reformists Group should launch a wholesale investigation into the effectiveness of all EU spending in third countries.

Conclusion

The scale of EU money pouring into the United States is enormous. It is important that Congress ascertain whether these expenditures are in compliance with U.S. laws, and to ensure that American interests are protected. Congressional leaders should demand answers from Brussels about its secret multimillion-dollar payments to “natural persons” inside the U.S. Members of Congress should raise important questions over Brussels’ interference in U.S. political and social debates, such as climate change, the death penalty, and the International Criminal Court. It is impossible to justify EU human rights budgets being spent in one of the world’s freest nations.

The EU budget has become synonymous with profligacy, waste, fraud, and mismanagement. It is beyond time for EU member state governments and European parliamentarians to take action.

The EU’s lavish expenditures in the United States comport badly with the sacrifices that millions of ordinary Europeans are being asked to make. EU member states who are making deep cuts to their education budgets will further question the vast grants that are being contracted to many of America’s wealthiest academic institutions on a regular basis. Member states and European parliamentarians should lay out the appropriate role for the EU, and determine where it is simply over-reaching its competencies to absurd degrees.

About the Author

Sally McNamara is Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

Ms. McNamara concentrates on American relations with the European Union and European countries, with particular focus on economic reform policy, trade issues, and the war on terrorism. She also analyzes NATO’s evolving role in post-Cold War Europe.

She is grateful to Mats Persson, Director of Open Europe; Dr. Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom; and Janice A. Smith, Special Assistant and Policy Coordinator to the Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy in the Davis Institute, for their advice. She is also grateful to Erica Munkwitz, Administrative Assistant in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, for her assistance.