笨狼發牢騷

發發牢騷,解解悶,消消愁
個人資料
笨狼 (熱門博主)
  • 博客訪問:
正文

文學城惹上了美國智庫

(2019-03-09 08:48:34) 下一個
我老朽,蝸居在文學城,但感覺是周圍人氣不佳,起哄的都中氣不足。不過說起嚴打,文學城並沒有因此逃過被登上黑名單的厄運。
 
這黑名單是所謂“胡佛報告”:
 
 
(胡佛研究所:Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University。此報告是胡佛研究所和亞洲協會聯合寫作。亞洲協會研究院頭頭是澳大利亞的另一個中國通陸克文。)
 
胡佛報告說中國政府正在滲透、影響西方研究機構、媒體,利用西方開放社會的優越性來擴大中國的影響力,采用的往往是中國式意識形態黨組織手段,不僅有違美國社會常情,還有違法的嫌疑。
 
說中國政府試圖大力西方影響西方研究機構、媒體,大概有這個意思,我覺得是習近平專製下浮躁無能的舉動,中國政府覺得資助與影響並行不悖,本身不是問題,但一旦采納粗暴的手段,那就是失策。當然中國政府之所以有市場,卻是因為美國國內機構暗中歡迎的結果,這才有今天的局麵。習近平咄咄逼人自然讓大家覺得是個威脅。結果這一嚴打,胡佛報告定論海外中外媒體基本都被中國政府控製,連文學城都難逃一劫。
 
 
(林文先生的口才是打不過美國精英的,得學習學習美國中學生辯論技巧。)
 
我雖然沒用全讀通篇胡佛報告,但相應的章節是讀了,感覺是此報告很惡劣。
 
如果說中國政府的不是,確實證據十足,中國政府的舉動無知無能,也許未必真的粗魯放肆,但給人的感覺卻如此。不過這隻是一個方麵。此報告的口氣是逼華裔表態、站隊,基本上是必須表忠,我認為那是個不可接受的條件。一個人從美國公民的角度來說,必須把美國放在第一位,你反對專製,甚至反華,反好了,不過如果任何人必須表態,這違背了美國憲法精神。所以此報告是篇號召意識形態大分裂,世界陣營大對立的宣言,是違背世界潮流的。
 
中國政府近幾年的政策確實讓西方許多同情中國的精英轉了態,是習近平外交政策失敗的體現,不過不少撰文者敵對態度漸強,未必極端,此報告真正叫嚷打打殺殺,我覺得與夏偉(Orville Schell)關係極大。
 
夏偉在亞洲協會大概是個“中國研究部主任”,是個中國通,以前大概對中國改革開放還有希望,但近幾年完全變了調,是個反華先鋒。我看過夏偉十幾個公開講話,他是個普世價值的衛道者,這本事好事,我也要普世價值,隻不過老百姓的普世價值與精英的普世價值不是一回事兒(參見:索羅斯無聊在哪兒?)。對此,最有代表性的莫過於看看美國政府當局(淳樸( 美國總統Donald Trump,人稱特朗普或川普)政府)的政策。
 
美國政府的政策本身就是要打爛美國自己的世界體係,這不是別人逼的,甚至也不是淳樸無能的體現,而是反應美國國內民粹國家主義的民意,有廣泛的群眾基礎,美國民眾對普世價值是模棱兩可,沒放棄,但也不強調,結果美國政府的具體政策給人有一種跟中國政府的有異曲同工感覺,所以美國精英的立場本身就是反民主的。不過,西方從柏拉圖就知道,刁民無知,得管著,精英出來捍衛真正的價值,也是意料之中,中國也是這一套。可是如果中國是個問題,美國能說一套做一套嗎?
 
對此,夏偉的說法是“希望大家忽略(也許是原諒)我們這幾年的倒退行為”。你可以忽略,大家可是要活得,美國政府的“倒退行為”就是“暫時性的”,別人的就不是?對我來說,這是個矛盾,是個悲劇。
 
【推薦】
 
 
【資料】
《人民日報》五評“把握我國發展重要戰略機遇新內涵述評”
 
美國智庫《美國進步研究中心》Mapping China’s Global Governance Ambitions
Democracies Still Have Leverage to Shape Beijing’s Reform Agenda
Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States is leaning out at the multilateral level, creating a leadership vacuum that China is stepping in to fill
 
Pew Research Center survey found that the global community had less confidence in U.S. President Trump than in Chinese President Xi or Russian President Vladimir Putin to “do the right thing” in global affairs
 
One expert who was interviewed for this report stated that “President Trump makes the Western democratic narrative more complex”
把美國政策簡單當成“不盡完美”是狡辯。
 
【附錄】
Jan 21, 2019 Yoichi Funabashi
 
Without the high-quality research that independent think tanks provide, there can be no effective policymaking, nor even a credible basis for debating major issues. Insofar as funding challenges, foreign influence-peddling, and populist attacks on truth pose a threat to such institutions tanks, they threaten democracy itself.
 
TOKYO – The Brookings Institution in Washington, DC – perhaps the world’s top think tank – is under scrutiny for receiving six-figure donations from Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, which many consider to be a security threat. And since the barbaric murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi last October, 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. In fact, traditional think tanks are 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 also must negotiate rising geopolitical tensions, especially between the United States and China. And 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 argues 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 both 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-à-vis the political establishment have been facing fundraising 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 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.
 
According to a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations, 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. These include networks such as SiLKS 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.
 
But the most significant threat to think tanks is coming from the global populist backlash against “experts” and evidence-based research. As Michael D. Rich and Jennifer Kavanagh of the RAND Corporation have argued, we are currently 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 both 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 also should 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 may seem like a luxury, the role of think tanks in promoting evidence-based policymaking is indispensable.
Let us not forget that think tanks emerge and thrive during times of crisis. Just as World War I gave rise to the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster led to the formation of the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation (now the Asia Pacific Initiative, which I lead). 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.
 
[ 打印 ]
閱讀 ()評論 (3)
評論
老農民說兩句 回複 悄悄話 此文本身就是中共授意下寫的吧?或者就是大外宣的一部分。
外國輿論陣地你們占不到,事倍功半!
Malinlin 回複 悄悄話 文學城就是共產黨辦的吧?
錦川 回複 悄悄話 反共反華都分不清楚。
登錄後才可評論.