The Brookings Institution in Washington — perhaps the world’s top think tank — is under scrutiny for receiving six-figure donations from Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies Co (華為), which many consider to be a security threat, and since the barbaric murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October last year, many other Washington-based think tanks have come under pressure to stop accepting donations from Saudi Arabia.
These recent controversies have given rise to a narrative that Washington-based think tanks are facing a funding crisis.
Traditional think tanks are actually confronting three major challenges that have put them in a uniquely difficult situation. Not only are they facing increased competition from for-profit think tanks such as the McKinsey Global Institute and the Eurasia Group; they must also negotiate rising geopolitical tensions, especially between the US and China.
Complicating matters further, many citizens, goaded by populist harangues, have become dismissive of “experts” and the fact-based analyses that think tanks produce, or at least should produce.
With respect to the first challenge, Daniel Drezner of Tufts University says in The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas that for-profit think tanks have engaged in thought leadership by operating as platforms for provocative thinkers who push big ideas.
Whereas many non-profit think tanks — as well as universities and non-governmental organizations — remain “old-fashioned” in their approach to data, their for-profit counterparts thrive by finding the one statistic that captures public attention in the digital age.
Given their access to public and proprietary information, for-profit think tanks are also able to maximize the potential of big data in ways that traditional think tanks cannot.
Moreover, with the space for balanced foreign-policy arguments narrowing, think tanks are at risk of becoming tools of geopolitical statecraft. This is especially true now that US-China relations are deteriorating and becoming more ideologically tinged.
Over time, foreign governments of all stripes have cleverly sought to influence policymaking, not only in Washington, but also in London, Brussels, Berlin and elsewhere, by becoming significant donors to think tanks.
Governments realize that the well-connected think tanks that act as “power brokers” vis-a-vis the political establishment have been facing fund-raising challenges since the 2008 financial crisis. In some cases, locally based think tanks have even been accused of becoming fronts for foreign authoritarian governments.
In terms of shadowy influence-peddling, China’s actions have been particularly concerning.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has explicitly encouraged his country’s think tanks to “advance the Chinese narrative” globally, and in many cases, China-based think tanks have become instruments for expanding the country’s sphere of influence.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, with its need for complex coordination, has created the perfect policy space for think tanks that “tell a good China story” to prosper, a European Council on Foreign Relations report said.
These include networks such as the Silk Road Think Tank Network and individual think tanks, such as the Charhar Institute, which also recently established a National Committee for China-US Relations.
Given their links to the Chinese government, these organizations threaten to muddy the waters in which genuinely independent think tanks operate.
However, the most significant threat to think tanks is coming from the global populist backlash against “experts” and evidence-based research.
As Michael Rich and Jennifer Kavanagh of RAND Corp have said, we are living through a period of “truth decay.”
The line between fact and opinion has become blurred, and people have increasingly grown distrustful of respected sources of information and data.Populist politicians have exploited and accelerated this phenomenon by depicting experts as “enemies of the people” and think tanks as “ivory institutions” that are out of touch with the concerns of everyday citizens.
These pressures are combining to erode civil discourse, critical thinking, and thus, the foundations of liberal democracies.
To survive, traditional think tanks must innovate while staying true to their principles. As a start, they should draw on their unique power to convene thinkers from across the political spectrum. By creating a forum for members of civil society to debate major policy issues, think tanks can help to build a consensus and encourage cross-party cooperation.
The need for think tanks to reaffirm their core purpose of validating evidence-based arguments has never been more urgent.
Whereas corporate interests often sway the conclusions of for-profit think tanks, non-profit think tanks can and must offer independent and accurate analyses to help the public understand an increasingly complex world.
Think tanks should also maximize the potential of technology to unmask authoritarian influence. As matters stand, the shortage of information about authoritarian governments benefits such regimes.
One promising model for addressing this problem is the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, which has used satellite imagery to track and expose China’s militarization and construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea.
Finally, governments of like-minded democracies must come together to protect the status of independent think tanks as a vital pillar of the liberal order.
Even in hard financial times, when supporting independent research might seem like a luxury, the role of think tanks in promoting evidence-based policymaking is indispensable.
At the end of the day, there can be no liberal international order without critical policy debates. The contributions of think tanks are vital to those debates’ success.
Yoichi Funabashi is chairman of the Asia Pacific Initiative (formerly the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation), a Tokyo-based independent think tank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
As Taiwan is engulfed in worries about Chinese infiltration, news reports have revealed that power inverters made by China’s Huawei Technologies Co are used in the solar panels on the top of the Legislative Yuan’s Zhenjiang House (鎮江會館) on Zhenjiang Street in Taipei. However, what is even more worrying is that Taiwan’s new national electronic identification card (eID) has been subcontracted to the French security firm and eID maker Idemia, which has not only cooperated with the Chinese Public Security Bureau to manufacture eIDs in China, but also makes the new identification cards being issued in Hong Kong. There might be more