In the two days since the Soros Open
Society Foundation hack by the DCLeaks collective, several notable
revelations have emerged among the data dump of over 2,500 documents exposing
the internal strategy of the organization, which expose some of Soros’ tactics
to influence and benefit from Europe’s refugee crisis, the opportunistic funding
and influence of media organizations, providing cash for assorted
“pro-democracy” groups including the infamous La Raza, Soros’ funding of
various “social justice” organizations while paying to track unfavorable media
coverage including that of Pamela Geller.
One particular leaked memo, profiled earlier
by the Daily Caller, argues that Europe’s refugee crisis should be accepted
as a “new normal,” and that the refugee crisis means “new opportunities” for
Soros’ organization to influence immigration policies on a global scale. OSF
program officer Anna Crowley and program specialist Katin Rosin co-authored the
May 12 memo, titled “Migration
Governance and Enforcement Portfolio Review.”
The nine-page review makes three key
points: OSF has been successful at influencing global immigration policy;
Europe’s refugee crisis presents “new opportunities” for the organization to
influence global immigration policy, and the refugee crisis is the “new normal.”
As the authors write in the introduction,
one of the purposes of the review “consider the effectiveness of the
approaches we have used to achieve change at the international level.” A
section of the review titled “Our Work” describes how America’s least transparent
think tank has worked with “leaders in the field” to “shape migration
policymaking and influence regional and global processes affecting the way
migration is governed and enforced.”
This may be of particular interest to
Germans, the majority of whom are displeased with Merkel’s “open door” policies
in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks on German soil.
In a section titled, “Our Ambitions,” the
authors explain: “Our premise for engaging in work related to governance was
that, in addition to mitigating the negative effects of enforcement, we should
also be supporting actors in the field proactively seeking to change the
policies, rules, and regulations that govern migration.”
They write that “we also believed that
advances at the regional or international levels could create the impetus for
policy change or implementation of existing norms at the national level. We
deliberately avoided the term ‘global governance’ because there is no single
system at the global level for managing migration.”
The same section later states that IMI “has
had to be selective and opportunistic, particularly at the global level, in
supporting leaders in the field to push thinking on migration and better
coordinate advocacy and reform efforts. We have supported initiatives,
organizations, and networks whose work ties directly to our aims in the
corridors.”
“Early on, IMI identified a handful of
organizations able to engage on migration globally and transnationally,
elevating IMI’s corridor work beyond the national level,” reads another section
of the memo, entitled “Our Place.”
“These included key think tanks such as the
Migration Policy Institute (MPI) and advocacy networks such as the
International Detention Coalition (IDC).” (The authors later note that MPI, a
strong advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants in America, “is sometimes
criticized for its closeness to governments, [but] flexible funding from OSF
has allowed it to maintain some independence from the governments it advises.”)
The memo also notes that “IMI played a
central role in establishing and influencing the goals of two new [European
Programme for Integration and Migration] sub-funds on the Common European
Asylum System (CEAS) and immigration detention.
More importantly, the memo explains how
Europe’s refugee crisis is opening doors for Soros’ organization to further
influence global immigration policy.
The authors note that “the current refugee
crisis is creating space to reconsider the governance of migration and the
international refugee regime.” One reason for this is that the developing
countries that make up the Group of 77 at the United Nations were motivated by
the refugee crisis to keep immigration issues on the “global agenda,”
the memo states. “The refugee crisis and the fear that the interests of
migrants fleeing poverty, climate change, generalized violence, or natural
disaster would be overlooked at these fora have generated a push from G77
countries to ensure other migration issues remain on the global agenda.”
They also explain that the current crisis
provides “new opportunities” for influencing immigration policy on a global
scale.
“The current climate presents new
opportunities for reforming migration governance at the global level, whether
through the existing multi-lateral system, or by bringing together a range of
actors to think more innovatively. Our long-standing interest and investment in
global work means we have many of the right partners and are positioned to help
others navigate this space.”
The review states, “The refugee crisis
is opening new opportunities” for “coordination and collaboration” with
other wealthy donors.
It is almost as if Europe’s refugee crisis
was planned and prepared, not just by the Soros organization, but others who
would benefit from a shift in the change of regional “migration governance”,
i.e., the reimposition of sovereignty terms, as Greece found out the hard way
several months ago when its sovereignty was relegated to the country’s
willingness to participate in Europe’s refugee scheme.
It will hardly come as a surprise that
according to the review, immigration policy-makers need to accept the refugee
crisis as a “new normal.” One of the conclusions listed in the memo is, “Accepting
the current crisis as the new normal and moving beyond the need to react.”
“Observing our partners as they respond and
adjust to the new reality in light of the crisis in Europe and the
Mediterranean, we see little attention given to long-term planning or
fundamentally new approaches to advocacy.”
The conclusion also stresses the need to
fight back against “growing intolerance toward migrants.” It is unclear just
how Soros plans on “fighting back.”
* * *
Needless to say, in order to promote its
European refugee agenda, the Soros organization needs close European allies.
Conveniently, it has a memo prepared just for that titled “Reliable allies
in the European Parliament (2014 – 2019)” in which it notes the
importance of building “lasting and trustworthy” relationships with European
MEPs “likely to support Open Society’s work.”
This mapping provides the Open Society
European Policy Institute and the Open Society network intelligence on Members
of the 8th European Parliament likely to support Open Society values during the
2014–2019 legislature.
It spans 11 committees and 26 delegations,
as well as the European Parliament’s highest decisionmaking bodies: 226 MEPs
who are proven or likely Open Society allies.
The presence of an MEP in this mapping
indicates that they are likely to support Open Society’s work. They should be
approached with an open mind: although they will most likely want to work on
areas they’re already interested in, they could also welcome hearing about new
issues.
Beyond discussing individual topics, Open
Society should seek to build lasting and trustworthy relationships with these
European lawmakers.
Much more in the full 177-page
memo.
* * *
Aside from Europe’s refugee crisis, the
data leak provides other important glimpses in Soros’ influence in global
affairs.
One memo, which is an overview of the “Ukraine Media
Project” exposes how Soros influences media coverage of events
in Ukraine, something previously touched upon in a June 2015 post titled “Hacked Emails
Expose George Soros As Ukraine Puppet-Master.”
In the memo which reveals how Soros hopes
to “cover” events in Ukraine, the authors admit that “this isn’t proper
independent journalism and we may damage our credibility with
journalists” and admit that “journalists may produce stories that
have no relevance for the narrative we seek to inform or stories that are
counterproductive (enforcing narratives of fascism etc.)”
Investigative Journalism:Select journalists from the 5 target countries (Germany,
France, Spain, Italy, Greece) and
offer them long stay reporting trips in
Ukraine. Rather than specify what they should
write about they should make suggestions for articles; we retain a veto on
stories we think are counterproductive. Suggestion that we liaise directly
with journalists to determine interest.
Pros:
Similar approach to what we have done for
other press trips Opportunity to build relationships with journalists and news
outlets Opportunity to diversify reporting on Ukraine into longer form content
examining non-breaking news angles
Cons:
Credibility: the “veto” approach means this
isn’t proper independent journalism and we may damage our credibility with
journalists Control: Journalists may produce stories that have no
relevance for the narrative we seek to inform or stories that are
counterproductive (enforcing narratives of fascism etc.)Interference:
however nuanced this is packaged, we may enforce the narrative of GS/OSF
manipulation Placement: publication of the articles is not guaranteed and
presents a significant barrier to success
* * *
We then turn our attention to the US,
where we find a memo
that “provides a brief overview of state/local funding by U.S. Programs in the
last three years.”
Throughout its 15-year history, U.S.
Programs has complemented its national work with state and local grantmaking.
The Emma Lazarus Fund, the Southern Initiative, the Program on Reproductive
Health and Rights, and the Youth Initiative all had a strong presence in states
like Louisiana, North Carolina, Texas, New York, and California. In this way,
U.S. Programs has not only advanced core priority issues at the national level,
but it has also worked to enable local and state actors to play a more critical
role in shaping discussions around criminal justice, drug policy, immigrants’
rights, government security, and other key issues at the state level.
The memo indirectly hints at Soros funding
for BLM:
To provide support to the Baltimore
Education Research Consortium, including for the creation of an executive
director position/$196,000/OSI-Baltimore/2009
To support the American Journalism Review’s
series of articles on the crisis in American journalism with a focus on, among
other things, coverage of federal agencies and state governments, including
Maryland /$200,000/Strategic Opportunities Fund/2009
Furthermore, here is confirmation of Soros’
funding and support for Social Justice organizations, taken from a memo
revealing the “Democracy and
Power Fund“, which explains its desire for building “state-based
power”
Advance social justice in critical states
through state-based issue advocacy and organizing where the opportunities to
advance (or the threats to) open society are particularly significant.
It is almost surprising how cheap control over
SWJ causes is.
* * *
Another memo provides further details on
the funding of an additional five organizations, including the infamous La
Raza.
* * *
Among the leaks we also find a document on the
Center for American Progress, or CAP, whose purpose is “To support
the Examining Anti-Muslim Bigotry Project.” We are confident various
conservative organization will be curious about this because as part of its
activities the CAP is expected to “research and track the activities of the
most prominent drivers of Islamophobia” including Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney,
David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Cliff May, Liz Cheney and so forth:
1. Outreach to Subject Experts
CAP’s first step will be to interview and
engage in the Project the journalists, researchers, academics, and leaders in
the anti-hate movement who are researching and writing on Islamophobia, and to
develop a roster of knowledgeable and credible experts to whom journalists and
policymakers can turn for information. As part of this process, CAP will reach
out to Media Matters for America, FAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the
American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute, Muslim Advocates, the Interfaith
Center of New York, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the cohort of emerging
Muslim leaders in CAP’s Young Muslim American Voices Project that is run by
CAP’s Faith and Progressive Policy Institute.
2. Audit of Islamophobic Activities and
Strategy Convening
CAP will research and track the activities
of the most prominent drivers of Islamophobia, including Stop Islamization of
America, led by Pamela Geller; the Center for Security Policy, led by Frank
Gaffney; David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, which sponsors Robert Spencer’s Jihad
Watch; the Middle East Forum, led by Daniel Pipes; the Foundation for Defense
of Democracies, led by Cliff May; and Keep America Safe, led by Liz Cheney. In
addition, CAP will examine the role played by right-wing media, the Tea Party
movement, prominent politicians, pundits, and conservative donors in spreading
anti-Muslim hysteria. This research will form the basis of a CAP audit of
Islamophobic activities that will inform a strategy convening of around two
dozen researchers and advocates, including representatives of progressive
organizations and the AMEMSA community. Participants will be asked to formulate strategies for combating
anti-Muslim bigotry. The convening is planned for the first quarter of 2011.
We continue to dig through the filings for
further ties, financial or otherwise, between Soros and the various branches of
the US government as well as the 4th estate.
