America Shouldn’t Blame Its ‘Ills’ on Others

Published in Huanqiu
() on 9 September 2014
by http://opinion.huanqiu.com/opinion_world/2014-09/5131477.html (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Joe Matthews. Edited by Nicholas Eckart.
This is an election year in America, and all kinds of unusual and absurd debates abound. Because of the continually high unemployment rate since the end of the financial crisis, every level of society is filled with a feeling of anxiousness. Many people are asking, “What is wrong with America?” The New York Times released a report on the Aug. 7 that charged that some of the think tanks with the strongest influence on policymakers in Washington, D.C., may be in the pockets of the foreign governments from which they received funds and that, in turn, helped influence the direction of American policy.

Normally, most American academics believe that America’s strategic policy decisions are well-informed, largely due to the role that think tanks play. Since American think tank influences are large, it is vital that they remain independent and that they do not receive benefits from governments, political parties or interest groups. People familiar with think tanks know that they rely on donations from the whole of society to operate. America has relatively generous laws toward the management of these think tanks, but requires them to be not-for-profit in order to accept donations. In addition, their work must produce research reports and policy advice, and not act on behalf of or consult for those who provide donations. These are the key differences between think tanks and consulting and lobbying firms.

If it is true that those who accept donations are beholden to the donors, then American think tanks lose their independence from the get-go. Despite the fact that think tanks can’t completely eliminate political biases, as long as they closely follow the law, they can’t be blamed for any wrongdoing. However, the critical issue from The New York Times report is that the acceptance of these donations from foreigners is a clear transgression; people have no choice but to wonder what think tanks’ real motivations are.

This author believes The New York Times’ real message is that several problems have become apparent in American policy and that these problems are due to the infiltration of foreign money into American think tanks. Of course, if the U.S. wants to disallow foreign funds from entering their own think tanks, then that it is fine. But if it wants to blame America’s policy problems on other countries, well then that’s just unkind.

Actually, if The New York Times report and its logic seem a bit strange, one can look to the many examples in American history of other countries being scapegoated during times of domestic political struggle. For example, the red scare of McCarthyism, or the post-Cold War theory of the Japanese threat, or, even more recently, “China threat theory,” etc. In American academic circles, every time the American domestic situation gets rough, there are always some completely unassociated or seemingly irrelevant countries that will become collateral damage. It seems that these types of accusations are used again and again as a tool for personal gain. Even if it is wrong, it won’t become the target of public criticism, nor is there any expenditure of political or moral costs for using this tool. It seems that for other countries, to oppose American hegemony and dominance is impossible, so they must bite their tongues and let the criticism come. Today, Norway, the U.A.E., and other accused nations have no good recourse for these accusations.

As a paper which has historically touted its emphasis on the principles of freedom and justice, The New York Times is bound to reflect on those serious problems that appear in American society. However, it doesn’t seem that in the future it will continue to be this way. America should not focus its criticisms on other countries, but rather should look to itself. America’s main challenge is that it won’t be considered a role model for the world, but rather an increasingly problem-riddled “sick man.” If only people in America start reflecting on themselves, then perhaps they can find their way once again.


今年是美国中 期选举年,各种奇谈怪论层出不穷。尤其是自2008年金融危机以来,美国失业率居高不下,整个社会弥漫着一种难以名状的焦躁情绪,很多人在追问美国到底怎 么了?正是在此种背景下,《纽约时报》7日公布一份调查,把矛头指向那些在华盛顿政策舞台上十分活跃的智库,认为这些智库由于接受了外国政府的资金,已经 沦为他人“说客”,影响美国政策的制定。

通常,很多美国学者在谈到智库时都认为,美国政府之所以决策英明,智库是一个重要因素。而美国智库之所以影响巨大,最重要的是其独立性,不受政 府、党派和利益集团的左右。熟悉美国智库的人都知道,美国智库就是靠社会捐助生存的。同时,美国对智库的管理也有着比较完善的法律规定,所有智库都必须是 非营利机构,可以接受捐赠,但只能为社会提供研究报告和政策建议,不会按照捐赠人的要求实行订单式咨询,否则就会违反法律。这是智库区别于咨询公司、游说 公司的关键所在。

如果说接受谁的捐款,就会受制于该捐赠人,那么美国智库从一开始就谈不上独立性。尽管智库在提供政策产品时不可能完全排除政治偏好,但只要智库 严格遵守法律,在美国法律框架内活动,就无可指摘。但问题的症结在于《纽约时报》的调查报告,生硬地把接受外国捐款作为一种罪证加以口诛笔伐,不得不令人 猜测其真正的心理动机。

笔者认为,《纽约时报》的真正潜台词是,美国现行政策出现了一些问题,这是因为外国资金对美国智库渗透造成的。当然,要不要规定美国智库拒绝接收外国捐款,那是美国自己的事情,但如果美国借此将自己出现的问题归罪于其他国家,那只能说太不厚道了。

其实,《纽约时报》报道的逻辑丝毫不令人奇怪,在美国历史上也多次出现过将其他国家作为美国国内政治斗争替罪羊的先例。比如曾经令美国上下风声鹤唳的“麦卡锡主义”,冷战后一度泛滥的“日本威胁论”和时下此起彼伏的“中国威 胁论”等等。在美国舆论界,每逢美国国内问题困难重重的时候,一些原本毫无瓜葛的国家不免会有“躺着中枪”的遭遇,这似乎成为一些势力谋取政治私利屡试不 爽的“利器”,因为即便是搞错了,也不会成为美国舆论批评的靶子,更不会为此而支付政治资本和道德账单。对其他国家而言,面对美国超级大国的霸权和威风, 对它也无可奈何,只好忍气吞声。今天挪威、阿联酋和一些被点名的国家也不会好到哪里去。

  作为一份历来以自由公正原则自诩的纸媒,《纽约时报》的报道折射出美国社会存在的深刻问题——对自己长期坚持的原则和制度已不再像以前 那样自信。不过,美国不应将反思的眼神转向其他国家,而应该更多锁定自身,对美国而言,更严峻的挑战是美国不再是世界的榜样,而是一个问题重重的病人,也 许只有美国勇敢承认这一点的时候,才是美国复苏真正到来的时刻。▲(作者是清华大学国际关系学系副教授)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Austria: It’s High Time Europe Lost Patience with Elon Musk

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Germany: Nerve-Wracking Back and Forth

Topics

Germany: Nerve-Wracking Back and Forth

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving toward the Far Right?

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Canada: How To Avoid ICE? Follow the Rules

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Related Articles

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations