Index > 100+
Back
Thursday, July 29, 2021
An Assessment on American Think Tanks
Chan Kung

On July 26, quoting a report from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) nuclear experts, the New York Times reported that the experts have used Planet Labs satellite images and confirmed China is constructing missile site at Hami, Xinjiang region. The site is said to have 110 new silos for launching nuclear missiles, and it is about to be completed. This supposedly brings the number of nuclear missile silos under construction in China to 250.

The research report on China's alleged new missile silo mentioned by the New York Times is the second time in a month where the U.S. media discussed about China building a large number of nuclear missile silos. The Washington Post published an exclusive coverage on June 30, claiming that China is building 119 almost identical construction sites in the desert near Yumen, Gansu. The features of these construction sites are supposedly similar to China's existing missile launching facilities. After Washington Post's article was published, FAS's report was featured again in New York Times on June 26, claiming that another 110 missile silos have been discovered in China. The U.S. military and U.S. lawmakers have expressed their concern on the expansion of China's nuclear weapons power.

The U.S. Strategic Command also said in a tweet linked to the New York Times report that, "this is the second time in two months the public has discovered what we have been saying all along about the growing threat the world faces and the veil of secrecy that surrounds it".

Mike Turner, a Congressman of the Republican Party and ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, has recently said that China's nuclear build-up was "unprecedented" and it was "deploying nuclear weapons to threaten the United States and our allies". He also said China's refusal to negotiate arms control "should be a cause for concern and condemned by all responsible nations". Another Republican, Mike Rogers, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, also stated that the Chinese build-up showed the need to rapidly modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

After the New York Times and Washington Post covered this issue, other influential media around the world also covered it extensively. That said, after analyzing the relevant photographic evidence disclosed, my conclusion is that the so-called "large number of nuclear weapons silos" constructed in China are actually wind power infrastructure, and it is the foundation construction of wind power towers that are being carried out on the site.

This begs the question: how could have FAS had such a misunderstanding? I believe these are the reasons:

1. American think tanks are often unfamiliar with the economic development in Jiuquan and Hami areas in Xinjiang; they are uninformed of China's largest wind power industry base is located there. Therefore, without even utilizing the logic of exclusionary analysis, conclusion was made that these structures were nuclear missile silos.

2. It appears that some American think tanks took the words of Hu Xijin, the editor-in-chief of the Chinese a state-owned tabloid Global Times seriously. Hu has previously suggested that China should develop nuclear weapons in large numbers. His logic is simple, that China should imitate Russia and use nuclear weapons as threats. Apparently, some American think tanks fail to understand that Hu has actually no influence in China's core policy decision makers.

3. A study by Tsinghua University in 2020 of a similar nature is influential abroad, as it was produced by the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, in which it also advocates China to expand its nuclear arsenal.

4. The research standard of think tanks in the United States is uneven. There are some high-quality think tanks, such as the RAND Corporation, yet many others do not belong to the same level. Certain global think tank rankings in the United States are largely unreliable, as many low-quality think tanks are on the list as well. FAS claims itself to be long-established, has no evidence to prove this, and it is an obscure think tank busy raising funds to survive.

5. The statements of many American scientific figures are usually bold, but the veracity of their claims often cannot be measured and judged merely by their professional titles, status, and industries. For example, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, some medical experts believed that masks are useless. There are doctors in the medical field, which are not necessarily experts in infectious disease, became panic when facing the pandemic. There are also many university professors whose research predicts that millions of people will die in the United States, etc. In the United States, scholars are generally recognized through the awards they won for their books, ideas, works, papers, etc. Without these, scholars would not be taken seriously.

6. American academia is characterized by its integration, inheritance of the colonial tradition, as well as Eurocentrism. It emphasizes the level of information and paradigms, but lacks its own thought and is incomplete in its logics. The same is true of the research alleging the construction of nuclear missile silos in China. While such report can look impressive on the façade, the accuracy is wanting.

7. As is often the case, the findings of the U.S. intelligence community are often handed over to so-called think tanks for publication. Such report has the objective of proving China as a threat.

8. American think tanks could cater to the needs of strategic policies. Because of the presence of some officials in these think tanks, they tend to produce research that responds to the needs of politics. The report mentioned earlier clearly demonstrates such a process.

A good think tank must have its own unique research methodology, system, and positioning. RAND's research, for example, adheres to the principle of transparency, which means its research results stand up to scrutiny. ANBOUND's unique positioning as an "independent think tank that maximizes public welfare" is also one of its kind in China. In addition, a good think tank is usually one with a long history, as time can tell its values and functions. Think tanks are policy research institutions; regardless how good the research results of a think tank are, they could still be some mistakes. A think tank is permitted to make mistakes, as core policy cycle would tolerate with that, as the cycle understands the raison d'être of think tanks. To achieve such status, time will be the only judge.

The functions and essence of think tank is not generally well understood, this is true for China, the U.S., and the rest of the world. The Hoover Institution at Stanford University is a well-known research institution, and one of their research reports on China was written by a large number of experts in China studies. That said, ANBOUND concluded that the report is of a lesser quality. Soon after, some scholars of China Studies revealed that they had reservations about the report.

Although the U.S.'s National Defense Strategy Report confirmed the competitive relationship between the United States and China several years ago, Chinese companies such as Didi Chuxing still aspire to be listed in the United States, while American companies continue to invest in Mainland China and Hong Kong, ignoring warnings and signs from U.S. officials. This was what happened in the late 1930s. The reason that capital fails to understand geopolitics, and sometimes neither do officials, is that the geopolitical and academic research communities are filled with information researchers who might be able to impart skills, but are ultimately unable to provide real education to the society. What had happen in the past appears to be repeating itself again in our present time.

ANBOUND
Copyright © 2012-2024 ANBOUND