The RAND report recommends that the United States "abandon Taiwan"? The actual situation is--

Recently, some domestic self-media and individual news websites reported that the well-known American think tank RAND Corporation recently submitted a report to the U.S. government, suggesting that the U.S. government "substantially abandon Taiwan" and not intervene in the Sino-Japanese territorial dispute. The general themes of such reports are as follows:

▲Screenshots of some self-media report titles

Out of "traffic impulse", some self-media often deliberately misinterpret information and create gimmicks. Such phenomena are not uncommon. However, this "gimmick" is of great importance and may cause misleading consequences. Therefore, we chose to interpret and clarify on the first day of the New Year of the Ox. I hope that readers can obtain more high-quality and accurate information while the Year of the Ox is auspicious.

The aforementioned RAND report mentioned by the media is titled "Implementing Restraint-Changes in U.S. Regional Security Policies towards the Implementation of Realistic Restraint Strategy" (hereinafter referred to as "Restraint Strategy"). The long-form report released on the 21st, with a Chinese translation of approximately 120,000 words.

▲Screenshot of RAND's website

"Strategy of Restraint" is not a "recommendation report" of RAND. RAND uses this report to summarize the main views of the advocates of the "restraint strategy" in the United States in recent years and analyze how the US regional security policy will change if such views are implemented. The main purpose of the report is for readers to understand the idea of ​​"restraint strategy" and evaluate its costs, benefits and risks, rather than recommend or evaluate such strategies.

One of the authors of the report, Miranda Pribe, director of the RAND Center for American Grand Strategy Analysis, made it clear: "We do not evaluate whether the arguments of those who advocate restraint are correct, or whether this strategy is desirable." From the report Looking at the full text, it really focuses more on explaining the "restraint strategy" regional security policies, rather than evaluating and judging these policies.

"Strategy of Restraint" contains four chapters on specific regions, which are Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East and South Asia in order. The report did not merge Asia-Pacific and South Asia into the "Indo-Pacific region" for analysis. In terms of length, the Asia-Pacific chapter accounts for less than a quarter of the total report.

In the Asia-Pacific chapter, the report believes that American restraint strategists have the greatest differences in Asia-Pacific policy."Some restraint strategists believe that Asia-Pacific policy should be roughly similar to European policy—that is, the United States should seek minimal military intervention in the region; however, other restraint strategists believe that there are important differences between Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, and there must be Different policies; some restraint strategists believe that the continued existence of the United States is an insurance policy to prevent China from dominating the region." Based on this, the report summarizes different views on overall perceptions of China, policies in various fields, and policies on other issues in the Asia-Pacific region.

In the paragraph on the Taiwan issue in this chapter, the report summarizes the views of some restraint strategists on the Taiwan issue. It mentioned that some people advocated avoiding armed interference in China's reunification process. However, this paragraph is one of the many viewpoints listed in the report. It is neither a recommendation in the report itself nor the consensus view of American restraint strategists.

Regarding the Diaoyu Islands issue, the report mentioned that “a person who advocates restraint” once said that the United States should abandon its existing policy on the Diaoyu Islands issue, but also mentioned “In view of the existence of those who advocate restraint in the region Opinions are divided and it is not clear whether this represents a consensus."

From the above content of the report, we can see that some recent reports from the media, if not deliberately misinterpreted, are at least a misunderstanding.

So, what do you think of this report?

There is a background worth noting: The Restraint Strategy was completed in November 2020 (US election time), and its initial funding came from the Charles Koch Institute with the Koch family background; subsequent funds came from other RAND companies sponsor. As some readers know, the Charles Koch Institute tends to be liberal (as defined by the United States) in general, conservative economic policy in economic policy, and non-interventionism in foreign policy. The Koch family has always attached importance to influencing policies and public views through think tanks, and the Cato Institute, another top think tank in the United States, was also led by it.

Since November last year, major US think tanks have issued various policy reports in an attempt to influence the direction of the United States under the Biden administration. Judging from the content of the report, after the turmoil in the past few years, major US think tanks generally believe that the US domestic and foreign policies have reached a point where major adjustments are needed.Moreover, in the future adjustments, domestic and foreign policies must be organically unified. It is necessary to solve deep-seated political, economic, and social issues at home, but also to compete on a global scale; it is necessary to solve current urgent tasks and focus on long-term national strength. Construction to maintain the long-term position and advantages of the United States. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to understand the various possible policy options.

The Koch family lives in the core circle of the U.S. political and economic relations network. The report commissioned by the RAND Corporation at the current node is undoubtedly the trend that needs attention.

edit | Li Sai

review | Yang Sihan Feng Lingyi

final review | Liu Hua

article selection

Carnegie series report: How does US foreign policy serve the country?

Since September 2020, the Carnegie Institute for International Peace has successively released a series of reports "Let U.S. Foreign Policy Better Serving the Middle Class". The report is based on the "domestic basis of international grand strategy" and analyzes the previous US grand strategy. The pros and cons are pros and cons. It is believed that the success of the US grand strategy depends on the in-depth integration of domestic and foreign policies and serving its domestic middle class to strengthen economic and social mobilization capabilities and build a solid domestic political foundation for the grand strategy. click to see more >>

American scholar: Biden’s biggest foreign policy challenge-avoiding a cold war with China Foreign Policy Challenges: Avoiding the Cold War with China" article stated that although there is a possibility of conflict between China and the United States, conflict is not the only option. The Cold War will bring high costs to the United States, and the United States cannot win. The government of President Joe Biden faces a series of problems, but in terms of foreign policy, the most difficult problem will be how to deal with relations with China. click to see more>>