This is a problem: "None of their researchers disclose the potential conflict of interest between Taiwanese funding and advocating for more security guarantees for and trade with Taiwan."

Let's talk about it. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/06/17/taiwan-funding-of-think-tanks-omnipresent-and-rarely-disclosed/

I respect the work of some of the scholars highlighted in this report, esp. @ryanl_hass. It is likely most of them genuinely espouse their views on the Taiwan issue & are not producing content favorable to Taiwan because they're being directly asked or prodded to do so by TECRO.

But that's not how conflicts of interest usually work.

First of all, the fact is, a scholar or think tank that argues the US needs to rethink its commitment to Taiwan, modify the Six Assurances, etc., is probably not going to get money from TECRO.

That makes perfect sense from a TECRO perspective, of course. But given how much money TECRO pumps into DC think tanks, it can't be denied that this leads to a distortion in the DC policy conversation on the Taiwan issue.

Otherwise, why would TECRO spend so much money funding think tanks? They view this as an effective way to spend their money, coupled with intensive lobbying on the Hill.

But beyond this first-order effect, there are other subtle ways abundant Taiwan $$ influences think tanks.

When I worked at @CarnegieEndow for 4 yrs as a research analyst, we also received general TECRO funds. TECRO never directly tried to influence our written product, as far as I was aware. They didn't tell us what to write about, where to publish, or what conclusions to draw.

However, we did organize more events on the Taiwan issue than we would have without TECRO funding. And the topics we addressed and people we invited to speak and attend were often chosen with TECRO in mind or even involved.

And since the sums they provided were not insignificant, it would be naive to say there was no unobservable, indirect, long-term effect, bounding what we might have been willing to say on the Taiwan issue, lest that funding spigot be shut off.

I get it, raising $$ to fund think tank work is hard. The default approach is to take the $$, compartmentalize the writing work of scholars, and call it good. But we need to do more to acknowledge that direct pressure on recommendations is not the sum total of improper influence.

Starting with upfront acknowledgments of potential conflicts of interest in our written work, incl. acknowledgement of general or project-specific funding from foreign governments, defense companies, or other companies w/ more than a philosophical interest in what we're writing.

I also respect Taiwan; I admire democracy & do not envy their existentially challenging geopolitical position. I understand why TECRO seeks to exert this influence. And although I believe US policy needs rethinking, I do not personally believe the US should 'abandon' Taiwan.

But as US think tanks deliberating on the best policy for (1) US interests, and (2) the interests of the world as a whole, we shouldn't be providing special attention to or deference to Taiwan's interests over and above US interests and those of broader regional peace/stability.

We must be willing to talk frankly about the Taiwan issue. Abundant TECRO funding in US think tanks, without upfront acknowledgement of the conflict of interest that entails, impedes such frank conversation and keeps the Overton window on the Taiwan issue dangerously narrow.