Читать книгу How Sentiment Matters in International Relations: China and the South China Sea Dispute - David Groten - Страница 33

Generally speaking, the most prestigious Chinese FPTTs are directly affiliated to, and to a significant extent funded by governmental and/or CPC party bodies. Therefore, these institutions and most of their staff rely on official bodies in terms of funding, patronage, attention of senior level decision-makers and licenses to operate. As Chen Kaimin, a CICIR scholar himself, admits, “chasing funds has become a major obstacle for Chinese think tanks in their global move” (2014, p. 93). To be sure, such close affiliation and reliance is a double-edged sword from a researcher’s perspective. On the one hand, party oversight and governmental budget control may hamper the articulation and quantity of viewpoints⁹¹ deviating from the official party line, at least with respect to more sensitive issues such as the status of Taiwan, China’s legal claims in the South China Sea or the East China Sea, or related topics. On the other hand, strong ties and interaction between think tanks and government/CPC branches provide the researcher with a good opportunity to gain valuable insights into foreign policy debates in China and prevailing perception patterns, point of views and clues about “China’s future path” (Chen Kaimin, 2014, p. 100). These common characteristics of Chinese FPTTs are underscored by Zhu Feng, also a think tank scholar, yet turned into a point of criticism:

“Currently, Chinese think tanks only have one [influence] –that is to take instructions from government. But actually they should have three. The first is to take instructions from government and seek official information and guidance in the form of government reports and advice. The second influence is society. US think tanks occupy a space in society according to their political leanings, and are influenced by social forces and community voices. The third one is international; that is they need to work globally, and exchange ideas” (2016, pp. 16).

In terms of overall political influence, Chinese and non-Chinese scholars commonly distinguish between different sources, levels of political influence and structural access points of Chinese FPTTs. According to Morrisson, FPTTs obtain their influence through three sources of access to foreign policy [61] decision-making in China, being their “bureaucratic position, personal connections, and issue-specific knowledge or experience” (2012, p. 80). Further examples of the direct relationship between think tanks and the Chinese administration involve existing patterns of revolving-door mechanisms, denoting the (temporary or permanent) staff exchange between members of think tanks, government bodies and university research institutes (Li, 2009, 2017). In addition, Zhu Xufeng, a well-known expert on think tanks in China, recognizes two further dimensions on which FPTTs can exert its policy influence, apart from its direct influence on decision-makers and political bodies; these are “social elite influence, and public influence” (2009, p. 336). Furthermore, numerous other scholars also draw attention to the special role, history and significance of Chinese think tanks:

“With improved knowledge, Chinese scholars have attained an influential position in foreign policy debates. While transmitting their views through publications and the media, scholars and think-tank researchers participate in policy consultation with Chinese policymakers, they lead training courses for officials, and they sponsor public forums to extend their influence and lead public opinion” (Wu Baiyi, 2010, pp. 173–174).

“Unlike other research institutions, think tanks are political in nature; and they are responsible for policy research, training skills in political analysis and having political influence. When a think tank has political influence it means that it has influence in academic circles, the society, and the world” (Zhao Minghao, 2016, pp. 36–37).

“During imperial China, the emperor had his own ‘think tanks’ and ‘brain trusts’, which have often been overlooked because they did not look like modern-day think tanks in the west. They also practiced both top-down and bottom-up consultations and suggestions. Even today, government officials often set up a temporary consultation group on major issues, because it is a part of Chinese traditional culture” (Yuan Peng, 2016b, p. 23).

As a result, given its special role and the sources of access derived, FPTTs represent vital foreign policy actors (Jakobson & Knox, 2010) deeply rooted in Chinese culture, capable of shaping predominant patterns of perception and framing the scope of Chinese foreign policy behavior and strategy in a certain issue area. Briefly, they perform a whole range of roles and tasks. Its traditional role (decision-maker influence) is the publication of (written) content, particularly on issues of interest to the PRC government. Such content includes reports, books and journals as well as other formats. While these different types greatly differ in terms of their level of distribution, the frequency of publication, the language of publication, topical focus as well as accessibility⁹² [62] and circle of recipients⁹³, they naturally serve a number of different objectives ranging from scientific advice and policy briefings, engaging with public opinion in China, to joining the international debate or informing certain international audiences of foreign policy experts about issues of Chinese foreign policy. In addition to publication and written analysis and commentary, FPTTs conduct and present scientific advice and consulting activities with government officials on a direct and personal level (in both institutionalized and ad-hoc frameworks) (Mc Gann, 2012). In this vein, particularly with respect to ad-hoc frameworks, personal ties between scholars and high-ranking government officials are crucial for FPTT staff when decision-making influence is concerned. Furthermore, the enhancement of academic exchange is another core objective. Thus, FPTTs maintain close ties to scientists and policy experts abroad, for instance by attending and organizing international conferences or establishing institutionalized cooperation frameworks with external bodies (abroad and domestic). The most prestigious think tanks⁹⁴ in China with a (special) focus on international politics include:

- China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) (affiliated to Ministry of State Security, overseen by CPC Central Committee),

- China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) (affiliated to Ministry of Foreign Affairs),

- Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) (affiliated to State Council),

- Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS) (affiliated to Ministry of Foreign Affairs),

- Academy of Military Sciences (AMS) (affiliated to Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

In addition, several other smaller institutes⁹⁵ are directly related to famous Chinese universities, yet still being subject to governmental oversight:

- Tsinghua University [63] (e.g. Institute of International Studies/Modern International Relations),

- Beijing University (e.g. Center for International and Strategic Studies),

- Renmin University,

- China Foreign Affairs University,

- Fudan University,

- Shanghai International Studies University.

Altogether, Chinese FPTTs, due to their omnidirectional and multidimensional influences on foreign policy-making and debate, constitute a particularly interesting research subject. At the same time, their significance is substantially and continuously increasing given their rapidly growing role in China’s scientific advisory system. This development is associated with China’s foreign policy decision-making, the special structure of FPTTs therein, and the PRC’s increasing dependence of and reliance on such expertise (see box below). That said, foreign policy-making in China is neither transparent nor does it follow transparent rules and procedures. Hence, several alternate research subjects such as parliamentary debates on issues of foreign policy are either largely absent or not accessible from the outside. At the same time, reproducibility and identification of decisive decision-making processes and negotiations in China remain almost impossible tasks for researchers. Against this backdrop, a close look at FPTTs, given their special affiliation with government and/or party bodies and their official function to inform and advise the political elite as well as their ability to influence political agendas, constitutes a viable option for gaining insights into Chinese debates, perception patterns, preferences, and interpretations on foreign policy issues regardless⁹⁶.