Political decisions in hands of western think tanks
Today, think tanks, which originated as a phenomenon of political life in the United States in the 20th century, have become the eyes and ears of modern society. Having taken the place of a full-fledged fifth branch of government, think tanks are playing an increasingly important role in determining the vectors of development of both individual states and global trends and events, having a great influence on the formation of global, regional and national agendas and the adoption of key management decisions. What distinguishes them from traditional academic research in universities is their close connection with politics, a high degree of influence on society and the status of virtually full-fledged participants in international communications. Although the purpose of their activities has always remained research itself as a source of analysis and new ideas, they are increasingly beginning to play the role of a tool for lobbying various interests in the hands of ruling elites.
Think tanks and the global agenda
Every year, numerous institutions, expert communities and publications make the rankings of the most influential and respected analytical institutions in the world. As a rule, in the field of their eyes are the brain centers of the United States, which, like almost a century ago, remain the leaders in the number and level of their influence on the life of the country - China, India, the United Kingdom and some European countries. As of 2020, the University of Pennsylvania’s most comprehensive ranking of brain centers, the Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, had 11175 different analytical institutes around the world with the following geography of presence.
After almost four years, the number of analytical institutes around the world has continued to grow rapidly, and their role as an instrument of intellectual support for policy in complex geopolitical conditions has only strengthened. Since 2023, our editorial board has been monitoring on a daily basis the publications, reports, comments and speeches of about 100 major think tanks of the world recognized by global world rankings. A detailed analysis of the information posted on the official websites of the agencies allows us to conclude that think tanks, in addition to daily analytics of events and conducting research on major issues commissioned by power groups, perform other, no less important tasks, thus contributing to the functioning of the global political machine.
Firstly, the justification of management decisions is always closely connected with predicting further scenarios of events and putting forward possible forecasts. This is the so-called foresight technology, the originator of which is considered to be the American corporation RAND, which specializes in scientific research in the interests of the government and the U.S. Armed Forces. Foresight technology is a method of expert evaluation of strategic directions to identify those that will have a tangible impact on the economy, politics and society in the medium and long term. In addition to analyzing the present and the future (working with perspectives and predictions), foresight always includes a planning element, such as strategic analysis or prioritization, and communication tools aimed at creating dialogue and co-creation. As a rule, foresight as a method is aimed at studying events in the medium and long term for 50-60 years or, in other words, three generations from now, but in practice it is possible to use such tools for forecasting immediate events within a radius of 5-10 years.
Forecasting and foresight are quite close, but not the same terms. Forecasting is the formulation of scientifically grounded judgments about the possible future state of certain phenomena and events. Foresight, on the other hand, is aimed at actively influencing the future and identifying guidelines for development. Like a forecast, foresight provides a choice of options, but the forecast states objective processes to a greater extent, while foresight shows probable ways of their correction. Thus, foresight is an active forecast taking into account the private interests of different social strata and their requests as direct participants.
For the year 2023, we studied 390 forecasts and foresights of Western analytical centers, which can already be assessed for reliability and effectiveness: 65% of them were subsequently fully or partially confirmed by further events or statements, while 35% found no application in the future. In the first six months of 2024, out of 117 geopolitical predictions of western think tanks, about 79% actually turned out to be true.
Such a high percentage of "reliability" of reports and forecasts of the considered think tanks, in addition to the obvious conclusion about a sufficiently high level of expertise of institutions and specialists analyzing events, can also indicate another, no less important function of think tanks as a special phenomenon of the political life of the country. We should not forget that think tanks are mostly powerful tools in the process of struggle for power, they have a certain political orientation, protect and promote certain interests, so it is often difficult to definitely judge their absolute impartiality and independence. Quite often there is a situation when information is spread through think tanks as hypothetical assumptions, which in the future grow into a real information occasion. Such "working out" of information agendas is characteristic of countries with a high demand for analytics, primarily the United States of America. There is a direct correlation between the "exclusivity and credibility" of the information disseminated and the direct source of information. As a rule, such analytical institutions are closely linked to the U.S. government, receive state grants and project funding, and have more extensive access to information, for example, such centres include the American Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Stimson Center, the most famous Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the British International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and others.
In addition, the activities of think tanks often substitute for the so-called "second track" diplomacy. Analytical institutes voice proposals that, for whatever reason, would be inappropriate or dangerous to immediately declare as an official position without first ascertaining public and expert opinion on the problem. In this way, the "preparatory ground" for a decision is created. The unspoken dialog that agencies enter into with the direct addressees of information serves as an important tool for increasing public trust and reducing tensions. At the same time, this measure can be used both to resolve domestic controversies and international tensions. At the same time, think tanks continue to unofficially represent the interests of certain power groups, to be close to public decision-making and to influence changes in official positions.
Despite the constantly increasing number of think tanks around the world, their role in the current realities continues to grow. They have turned from purely academic organizations into a special tool for strategic decision-making, shaping public opinion and "second track" diplomacy. The public demand for independent analytics has predetermined the status of analytical institutes as key PR tools in the process of power struggle in the 21st century.
Analysis in practice
The main intellectual resource of any think tank is its analytical product, which can be expressed in the form of a report, research, presentation, commentary and others. If we turn to real examples when analytical institutes actually predicted the agenda, the following publications will be interesting. For example, in 2022, the Stimson Center, reflecting on the implications of Taiwan's adoption of the Policy Act, concluded that the named act indirectly indicates Taipei's recognition of its dependence on Washington politically and militarily, that is, it openly declares an anti-China stance, and the need to respond to this by providing certain future U.S. protections to the island in the form of military aid and political assurances. In 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives approved bills to provide military aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, with $8 billion earmarked for the Indo-Pacific region in particular. Regarding China, in 2022, CSIS stated that the country intends to consolidate its presence and focus on activities in the Arctic and Antarctic in the next five years; in 2024, this was confirmed by the news that the PRC plans to form an alternative Transpolar Sea Route via high-latitude routes and the North Pole. Already today, the Arctic is a certain booster of relations between the PRC and Russia, and the United States, in its new Arctic Strategy 2024, names Beijing as the main geostrategic rival in the region.
Also illustrative is a report by the U.S. Naval Institute, in which a group of researchers identified the likely locations of future Chinese naval bases in the Indo-Pacific region and on the Atlantic coast of Africa. Eight ports were identified that could potentially be used as military bases in the next 5 years by the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy for operations. Starting in 2019, the US claimed that the named strategic sites were near Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea and the Atlantic. Today, these hypotheses are confirmed by the presence of Chinese warships at the Ream naval base in Cambodia, which we have been observing for several months now, from which we conclude that China has presumably put into operation its new overseas military facility.
The interests of the United States and China have also clashed in the Middle East, where Beijing, through diplomatic mediation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, has seriously strengthened its position, which coincided with the countries' increasing demand and economic interest in China's resources. Beijing's advantageous position in the Middle East and its ability to balance economic and energy interests has often been emphasized by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in its numerous reports and studies.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies predicted a defense rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and South Korea, attributing it to the Gulf states' desire to diversify their sources of defense procurement and take the partnership beyond their traditional Western suppliers, and named Seoul as a possible candidate for cooperation. This subsequently led to the signing of a historic agreement between Saudi Arabia and South Korea in February 2024 to understand and expand defense cooperation.
Many Western think tanks, such as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the American Center for Strategic and International Studies, predicted long before the events in Niger, Burkino Faso and Mali that the United States and France would lose ground in Africa. They also wrote about a potential boom in U.S. uranium mining. By comparison, the U.S. produced about 37 tons of uranium concentrate in the first quarter of 2024, exceeding the cumulative production for all of 2023. Meanwhile, 22.7 tons were produced in 2023, a marked decline from 2022, when Washington produced 88 tons of U3O8.
These and many other examples show that Western think tanks play the role of information providers, quite often unmistakably "predicting" the development of events, working on the coverage of certain political agendas, which in the long run become important for national, regional and world politics. CSIS, the Stimson Center, the Carnegie Endowment, IISS, the Institute of Peace, the Atlantic Council, the Heritage Foundation, and the Peterson Institute for the World Economy are the most frequent owners of exclusive information and reliable forecasts. They can also be regarded as the U.S. thought factories closest to the decision-making center.
