Even anti-China think tanks left in the lurch

After US President Donald Trump signed an executive order, on Jan 20, announcing the suspension of all foreign aid programs for a period of 90 days, stemming the tide of "international aid", certain "think tanks" that were using the money for anti-China "research" are suddenly finding themselves in the lurch.

Funding from US institutions such as the State Department, the US Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for Democracy has been suspended.

Among those hit by the decision is the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which recently complained to The Wall Street Journal that the US government's suspension of funding has prompted them to stop their "research" and "data" projects related to China. These projects, worth approximately $1.2 million, focused on cybersecurity and technology issues.

The topics the ASPI conducted research on — such as "forced labor" in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region — show how their conclusions were foregone. China and local officials have more than once debunked the "forced labor" accusations with facts, but the think tanks have stuck to their prejudices and continued reaching "conclusions" although they lacked any proof.

For long it has been pointed out that such research institutes received money from certain US agencies precisely because they would dutifully demonize China.

Which is why they went about their jobs without even once visiting Xinjiang despite the local government always extending open invitations to visit the place and see for themselves. Now, with the funding from certain US agencies halted, their business is no longer going to be sustainable.

If these think tanks want to continue their research, maybe they should change their approach.

China is a huge and varied topic that requires serious academic research, and the suspension of funding gives such think tanks an opportunity to get rid of their colored glasses and do some unbiased, serious research to arrive at fair instead of foregone conclusions.

That way their reports can be unbiased and they may not face problems finding funding.