我老朽，蜗居在文学城，但感觉是周围人气不佳，起哄的都中气不足。不过说起严打，文学城并没有因此逃过被登上黑名单的厄运。
这黑名单是所谓“胡佛报告”：
（胡佛研究所：Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University。此报告是胡佛研究所和亚洲协会联合写作。亚洲协会研究院头头是澳大利亚的另一个中国通陆克文。）
胡佛报告说中国政府正在渗透、影响西方研究机构、媒体，利用西方开放社会的优越性来扩大中国的影响力，采用的往往是中国式意识形态党组织手段，不仅有违美国社会常情，还有违法的嫌疑。
说中国政府试图大力西方影响西方研究机构、媒体，大概有这个意思，我觉得是习近平专制下浮躁无能的举动，中国政府觉得资助与影响并行不悖，本身不是问题，但一旦采纳粗暴的手段，那就是失策。当然中国政府之所以有市场，却是因为美国国内机构暗中欢迎的结果，这才有今天的局面。习近平咄咄逼人自然让大家觉得是个威胁。结果这一严打，胡佛报告定论海外中外媒体基本都被中国政府控制，连文学城都难逃一劫。
（林文先生的口才是打不过美国精英的，得学习学习美国中学生辩论技巧。）
我虽然没用全读通篇胡佛报告，但相应的章节是读了，感觉是此报告很恶劣。
如果说中国政府的不是，确实证据十足，中国政府的举动无知无能，也许未必真的粗鲁放肆，但给人的感觉却如此。不过这只是一个方面。此报告的口气是逼华裔表态、站队，基本上是必须表忠，我认为那是个不可接受的条件。一个人从美国公民的角度来说，必须把美国放在第一位，你反对专制，甚至反华，反好了，不过如果任何人必须表态，这违背了美国宪法精神。所以此报告是篇号召意识形态大分裂，世界阵营大对立的宣言，是违背世界潮流的。
中国政府近几年的政策确实让西方许多同情中国的精英转了态，是习近平外交政策失败的体现，不过不少撰文者敌对态度渐强，未必极端，此报告真正叫嚷打打杀杀，我觉得与夏伟（Orville Schell）关系极大。
夏伟在亚洲协会大概是个“中国研究部主任”，是个中国通，以前大概对中国改革开放还有希望，但近几年完全变了调，是个反华先锋。我看过夏伟十几个公开讲话，他是个普世价值的卫道者，这本事好事，我也要普世价值，只不过老百姓的普世价值与精英的普世价值不是一回事儿（参见：索罗斯无聊在哪儿？）。对此，最有代表性的莫过于看看美国政府当局（淳朴（ 美国总统Donald Trump，人称特朗普或川普）政府）的政策。
美国政府的政策本身就是要打烂美国自己的世界体系，这不是别人逼的，甚至也不是淳朴无能的体现，而是反应美国国内民粹国家主义的民意，有广泛的群众基础，美国民众对普世价值是模棱两可，没放弃，但也不强调，结果美国政府的具体政策给人有一种跟中国政府的有异曲同工感觉，所以美国精英的立场本身就是反民主的。不过，西方从柏拉图就知道，刁民无知，得管着，精英出来捍卫真正的价值，也是意料之中，中国也是这一套。可是如果中国是个问题，美国能说一套做一套吗？
对此，夏伟的说法是“希望大家忽略（也许是原谅）我们这几年的倒退行为”。你可以忽略，大家可是要活得，美国政府的“倒退行为”就是“暂时性的”，别人的就不是？对我来说，这是个矛盾，是个悲剧。
【资料】
《人民日报》五评“把握我国发展重要战略机遇新内涵述评”
之一：加快经济结构优化升级
之二：提升科技创新能力
之三：深化改革开放
之四：加快绿色发展
之五：参与全球经济治理体系变革
美国智库《美国进步研究中心》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”
把美国政策简单当成“不尽完美”是狡辩。
【附录】
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.
