You are here

Russian Cash flows to Clinton Foundation

The story in the New York Times isn't about fundraising for a worthy cause but the acquisition of Uranium mining facilities by Russia 

As a military conflict drags both Russia and the US into Ukraine its a pretty scary scenario to be handing Russia the material for nuclear weapons, but then as we've said in the past, "profit and numbers have no conscience". .

Politicians and their foundations are no strangers to controversy.  An Ukrainian oligarch has been sponsoring both the Clinton foundation and that of Tony Blair. Another is a sponsor of  Ukrainian studies at Cambridge University. 

It's the latter who's recently gained the support of 3 members of the House of Lords who seem to be putting the cart before the horse in trying to rebuild Ukraine's economic infrastructure while it's still being destroyed.

It's all part of what's known as the Nonprofit Industrial Complex as Incite! describes:

The state uses non-profits to:

  • Monitor and control social justice movements;
  • Divert public monies into private hands through foundations;
  • Manage and control dissent in order to make the world safe for capitalism;
  • Redirect activist energies into career-based modes of organizing instead of mass-based organizing capable of actually transforming society;
  • Allow corporations to mask their exploitative and colonial work practices through "philanthropic" work;
  • Encourage social movements to model themselves after capitalist structures rather than to challenge them

The point about profit and numbers having no conscience had been made in an interview about P-CEDs work in Russia to source the Tomsk Regional Initiative. Ironcally with the support of Clinton.

"I was impressed with Ukraine's willingness to remove their nuclear force early in their new independence. Part of why Tomsk was approved for the regional initiative was their status as a major research and development center for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. It was a swords-to-plowshares sort of thing. Ukraine, by contrast, disarmed quickly and consequently got less transitional development assistance. To me, it seemed extremely unfair that Ukraine opted for peace and got little assistance, while Russia quietly threatened that its nuclear arsenal might leak out unless the US paid billions to prevent it."

In 2007,we'd helped scientists at Kharkiv National University where Russia had developed their H Bomb, leverage US support for an education centre for fundamental science. The following year we'd called on USAID and the Senate to support a 'Marshall Plan' to prevent what seemed to be inevitable conflict.  

"We are grossly underfunded in favor of missiles, bombs, and ordnance, which is about 100% backwards. Now, with even the US Pentagon stating that they’ve learned their lesson in Iraq and realize (so says top US general in Iraq ten days or so ago) that winning hearts and minds is the best option, I and others shall continue to think positive and look for aid budgets and funding spigots to be opened much more for people and NGOs in silos, foxholes and trenches, insisting on better than ordnance, and who understand things and how to fix them. We can do that. We can even do it cost-effectively and with far better efficiency than the ordnance route. Welcome to our brave new world. Except it’s not so new: learn to love and respect each other first, especially the weakest, most defenseless, most voiceless among us, then figure out the rest. There aren’t other more important things to do first. This message has been around for at least two thousand years. How difficult is it for us to understand?"

In our efforts to raise awareness of our cause we'd engaged regularly in the social innovation networks funded by both Skoll and Omidyar, founders of the Ebay empire who'd declared their intention to help create a better world.

Kyiv Post had lauded Omidyar's efforts as a philanthropis comparing him to what they described as "Ukraine's Scrooges"    These were the oligarchs who'd done precious little for those in their own country while demonstrating such generosity to foundations run by Western politicians  

It was only a year ago that we learned from Pando of another agenda

"According to the Kyiv Post, Pierrie Omidyar’s Omidyar Network (part of the Omidyar Group which owns First Look Media and the Intercept) provided 36% of “Center UA”’s $500,000 budget in 2012— nearly $200,000. USAID provided 54% of “Center UA”’s budget for 2012. Other funders included the US government-backed National Endowment for Democracy.

In 2011, Omidyar Network gave $335,000 to “New Citizen,” one of the anti-Yanukovych “projects” managed through the Rybachuk-chaired NGO “Center UA.” At the time, Omidyar Network boasted that its investment in “New Citizen” would help “shape public policy” in Ukraine:"

Pando also reported the Omidyar funded member of Ukraine's "Rada" 

Omidyar soon closed his network to grassroots organsiations leaving many who'd been led to believe there would be funding opportunities feeling betrayed for what they'd contributed. 

While USAID were geting money from Omidyar, neither they or he were willing to support the cause of abused children abandoned to the state or the social enterprise development centre we'd planned with Kharkiv National University.  USAID told us there was no budget for these vhildren when we applied to a grant program for community initiatives.

The British Council subsequently created their own social enterprise development initiative with USAID had solicited partners. According to cheif exec Martin Davidson, we'd been disregarded because partners were expected to make a financial contribution. 

The Clinton Foundation tells us that we are all in this together. but it seems some are more in than others.