Chinas sanctions on the prominent Washington-based think-tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has prompted a greatwailing and wringing of hands__. While I empathize with those affected, I do take issue with some of their specific concerns.

Chinassanctionson the prominent Washington-based think-tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has prompted a greatwailing and wringing of hands. This was at least the fifth US think tank to achieve this distinction. While I empathize with those affected, I do take issue with some of their specific concerns.

The proximate reason for the domestic blocking of CSIS website a ban which may extend to individuals is thought to be an opinion piece by four CSIS researchers in support of the Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), which itself was sanctioned by China.

The Global Timeswhich often reflects government thinking–claimed MERICShas actually been colluding with anti-China forces over the years since it was established in 2013 and was sanctioned not only because of its research but because it is the largest Chinese research center in Europe. Cutting off ties with China means its research channel will hardly be sustainable and its influence will be critically hit.

Apparently MERICS cardinal sin in Beijings eyes was to support the claim that China is engaged in genocide in Xinjiang. This is a controversial allegation andshould be examinedobjectively. As for the article published by CSIS, it should have been possible to stand with MERICS while maintaining balance or distance from such a controversial claim.

Nevertheless, I get it. For Western scholars it hurts in a personal visceral way. State bans on research institutions and individual scholars because of their views attacks the basic premise of a free society. It also potentially disrupts or damages the careers of those who will have to analyze their chosen country of focus remotely and in isolation from primary sources, undermining the credibility of their work.

But Western China specialists might have anticipated that the Chinese government would lash out against attacks that could affect its hold on power. As Shi Yinhong, director of the American Studies Institute at Renmin University,explains, [The government has to] make Chinese people believe that the Chinese government, the central committee of the CCP, is the best defender of Chinas national interests and honor.

As one analyst put it, Beijing apparently decided that it is better to lose friends but look strong than to show weakness and threaten public legitimacy at home.

This latest backlash goes with the territory of being an expert on a country that the US has designated a strategic competitor and a threat to the US-led international order and, some believe, the very American way of life.

US-China competition has become for many even some analysts aclash of ideologiesgenerating dysfunctional mistrust and suspicion on both sides.

The US and China are engaged in a soft-power war. They are vying for the hearts and minds of Asia. The implications for scholarly exchange have been building for some time. Both countries monitoring individuals sub rosa for decades. But public US government China-bashing reached a crescendo under president Donald Trump and his secretary of state Mike Pompeo.According to Pompeo, China has sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools and colleges.

This focus on individual Chinese in academia and their affiliated home institutions has been continued under President Joe Biden. Chinese students are under particular suspicion and those studying in particular science and technology fields must undergo additional screening, sometimes resulting in delayed visas.

Republicans introduced legislation in Congress that would deny visas to Chinese researchers affiliated with Chinese military institutions. US intelligence agencies are encouraging American research universities to develop protocols formonitoring students and visiting scholarsfrom Chinese state-affiliated research institutions which includes some of the leading research institutions in China.

But many US educational institutions and think-tanks particularly those inside the Washington Beltway have been silent or even complicit as this China-phobia has swept the nation. In such a political environment, it is not surprising that fear and mistrust have spilled over into civil society and academia. Both sides share responsibility for this sad state of affairs.

As for blocking individuals because of their views, I think that also happens in US think tanks. Indeed, I believe I and some like-minded colleagues have been denied invitations to conferences and publishing opportunities by individuals at establishment think-tanks because of our contrarian views and affiliations with China think-tanks. I dont like it. I think such institutions and US policy decisions suffer from not considering views contrary to the stove piped conventional view. But I accept the risk as part of my chosen contrarian academic territory in these times.I learned the hard way during the Vietnam War era that contrary to idealistic notions, the exercise of free speech has consequences. Perhaps it is time these analysts recognized this reality rather than bemoaning their fate.

Also denying reality, the CSIS articles authors greatly overestimate the value and influence of academic input to decisions in both governments.

Decision-makers in both systems– and their numerous government advisers –understand their adversaries and their intentions very well based on personal interaction and public diplomacy. They just fundamentally disagree. That is the reality, and no amount of academic interchange is going to change that. In fact, familiarity may be breeding contempt.

Many academics on both sides simply echo or justify their governments views. Rather than help countries avoid conflict, they often facilitate or amplify it. Indeed, contrary to welcoming the perspectives of our Chinese counterparts, I have personally witnessed many times American analysts and even officials rudely confronting and embarrassing Chinese scholars and officials, bashing them with US-centric views.

Moreover, there is a big difference between objective analysis and that based on implicit assumptions that further a particular countrys interests. For CSIS, which collaborates with MERICS, this article may have only been the straw that broke the Chinese camels back.

Critics have beenpointing out CSIS biasagainst China for years to no avail. Aprime examplehas been CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Institute (AMTI). It has been accused of biasby Asian and Western researchersboth in its research focus and in its conclusions.

Lost amid the fear of damage to their own institutions and careers is concern for the chilling effect of this soft-power war on Chinese scholars and students particularly those with broad and deep Western ties.

I have been interacting with Chinese academics for almost half a century. I have seen them and their successor generation open and close like flowers depending on the political light. Caution has always been there, and now it is again dominant.

Indeed, I have observed a recent growing self-restraint by formerly outspoken scholars and an increasing reticence to interact with their Western colleagues, particularly those who publicly criticize China. This is a natural response to the spreading and deepening mistrust.

To close, I respond to the authors closing red herring that If Chinas precondition for stable relations with the West is that scholars all agree with Beijings position on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, other red lines, and its broader narrative then China is unfortunately choosing to close the door to genuine scholarly exchange.

I would argue that if the US and its analysts think that Chinese scholars must agree to continued American hegemony in Asia and the South China Sea as a precondition for discussions of the issues, then they are closing the door to genuine scholarly exchange as well as to peace and stability in the region.

A longer version of this piece appeared in the Asia Times https://asiatimes.com/2021/05/examining-chinas-attacks-on-western-think-tanks/

Mark J. Valencia is an internationally known maritime policy analyst focused on Asia and currently Adjunct Senior Scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China