中国智库应发挥好桥梁作用，让外界更好地了解中国人为什么这样思考和行为。

　　当今时代，智库驱动着国际思想跳动的脉搏。它是国家战略、政策的储备库，又是社会思潮的引领者；是培养教育人才的基地，还是国际交流对话的平台。可以说，智库构成了各国判断形势和决策的重要智力支撑。

　　我与智库学者有过不少交往，工作中也从智库成果里大量汲取信息和智慧，深深感到，包括中国在内的新兴经济体，在智库发展上还有巨大潜力和空间，尤其是对中国关注的重大课题和在国际交往中，需要做和可以做的有很多。

　　比如，中美两国看问题的角度和方式不同，在如何建立新型大国关系这个问题上，就需要智库针对两国现实和思想动态，开展深层次和宽领域的研究，提出好的政策建议。美国有些人认为中国是想当超级大国。事实上，中国人崇尚和而不同，相互尊重的观念植根于文化传统，中国国家主席访问特多就体现了大小国家一律平等相待的理念。中国提出建立“新型大国关系”，指的是中美不走对抗的老路，对“大国”二字采用“Major Countries”。而美国智库常用“Great Powers”，这在中文通常译为强国甚至强权。在中国，大多数人不认为中国现在已经成为世界强国，更不认同强权。

　　中美在“大国”二字认识上的距离，增加了理解上的微妙差异。这样的情况并不少见，也源于文化传统、发展阶段和政治基础等诸多不同。中国的成长需要世界理解，也需要多了解世界，才能走得稳当。对于我国智库来说，需要多研究和考察中国与世界其他国家在看法和理念上的共性和差异，逐步形成自己的理论，并且鼓励包容互鉴，避免或者减少误解。

　　我曾与基辛格博士共同主持一个关于中国话题的研讨会，讲到中国紧跟世界和平与发展大势的必然性和成功之处，大势的“势”字在英文里找不到契合的相应词，基辛格博士解释得透彻。他说，“SHI（势）”是中国政治哲学中的一个概念，指的是世界大事的发展方向，就像水从高处飞流直下，没有什么力量可以阻挡。政治家的任务就是判断“势”在哪里，带领人民沿着这个方向前进。智库在世界大趋势方面的深入研究和观点理论，对决策参考无疑是非常需要的，尤其中国在这方面有成功的实践，更可以大有所为。

　　在美国和周边国家最常听到的意见是，希望中国对最新的政策和动态多提供权威解释和国际包装。我国智库应发挥好桥梁作用，让外界更好地了解中国人为什么这样思考和行为，介绍中国的成功道路，我们面临什么样的挑战，等等。我们需要一大批善于向外界说明中国的人才。

　　中国智库是随着改革开放的步伐兴盛起来的，不仅为决策提供思想和建议，也发挥着引领社会思考的重要作用，但与国际上的差距也是存在的。一项国际研究显示，在全球智库分布中，中国排第二名，有429个智库；而美国拥有1823个智库，是中国的4倍多。在前50个顶级智库中，43个在西方国家，中国有3家，俄罗斯有1家。在国际学术评估中，中国等新兴经济体国家的智库无论从数量还是质量上都靠后，在思想创新和国际影响力上差距是相当大的。在最具创新性政策建议、最佳利用互联网和社会媒体、最佳利用多媒体技术、最佳对外关系与公众参与等项目的全球排名中，均无中国智库。

　　当然，国际评估并不完全反映中国智库水平，多年来中国智库的各种研究成果对决策做出许多贡献，国际上对此还缺乏了解，需要多翻译成外文增进外界的了解。中国智库固然要学他人之长、加强国际联系，不断提高国际化水平，也要坚持走符合国情和服务国家决策需要的道路；既离不开国家和各级政府的关心和扶持，也需要培育社会对智库思想产品的重视和尊重，对智库争论的宽容和鼓励。当然，智库也要多一些建设性的观点和提议，多关注国家重大政策方向和决策动向。

　　（作者为第十二届全国人大常务委员会委员，外事委员会主任委员）

Thinking big

The time has come for China`s think tanks to play a greater role in domestic policymaking and contribute to a greater global understanding of China and its mindset.

Think tanks play an important role globally in terms of influencing opinion and policy. They are reserves for national strategies; they lead public opinion and also educate the younger generation. Think tanks are a useful mechanism which can help governments assess complex situations and serve as platforms for international dialogue where necessary.

I have had contact with various think tank scholars, whose information and wisdom have benefited my work. I am convinced that China`s think tanks have great development potential and this is also true for think tanks in other emerging economies.

Beijing and Washington clearly differ in terms of philosophy and action; so on an issue such as building a new kind of relationship between the two countries, think tanks can play an important role in terms of providing research-based insight.

Some in the United States think that China has ambitions to become a global superpower, whereas China actually places value on achieving harmony despite differences, a notion of mutual respect rooted in traditional Chinese culture. Chinese President Xi Jinping`s visit to Trinidad and Tobago typified Beijing`s commitment to treating all countries fairly, regardless of their size.

Another example of the difference between Chinese and U.S. perspectives can be seen in China`s proposal to build new relationship patterns between major countries. The proposal aims to prevent China and the U.S. falling into the same patterns of opposition in future.

The China-proposed concept of "major countries" is often interpreted as "great powers" by U.S. think tanks, which in turn implies supremacy and even hegemony when translated back into Chinese. This interpretation is viewed negatively in China due to the fact that most Chinese reject the idea that China is already a "world power." Most also reject the contention that China is seeking to become a world power.

A developing China requires a better understanding of China by the world and also needs to better understand the world. In light of this, China`s think tanks should conduct more cross-culture research to determine where differences and common ground exist between China and the rest of the world.

Through such research, China`s think tanks will form their own independent theories, which will in turn promote tolerance and mutual respect while negating the possibility of future misunderstandings.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger and I once jointly chaired a seminar on China-related topics. I spoke about how it was inevitable that China would follow the already successful international trend of peace and development, although the Chinese word "trend" in my original speech did not quite have an equivalent term in English.

At this moment, Dr. Kissinger shared his thorough understanding and told the audience that "trend" (Shi, in Chinese pinyin) is a Chinese philosophic concept which means the direction in which major international affairs will develop. It is like water falling from above, an unstoppable force.

Politicians should therefore analyze and understand "trends" before leading a nation in a particular direction. The job of think tanks is also to follow international trends through research. Their interpretations of opinions and theories are always invaluable to policymakers.

I have heard many voices from both the U.S. and China`s neighboring countries calling on Beijing to provide more authoritative interpretations of its latest decisions and policies. This is an opportunity for China`s think tanks to bridge the knowledge gap and also let the world know why Chinese people are prone to certain outlooks and behaviors.

Introducing China to the world – including its pattern of successful growth and existing challenges – requires talented people and, without question, accurate translations.

The growth of think tanks in China mirrors that of the country, particularly in the wake of the Reform and Opening-up policy implemented some three decades ago. Despite the fact that Chinese think tanks are playing a leading role in facilitating policymaking and leading public opinion, China still lags behind its international counterparts in this respect.

China maintains 429 active think tanks, less than a quarter of the U.S. figure of 1,823. Among the world`s 50 top think tanks, 43 were based in Western countries, whereas only three were based in China and one in Russia.

In international academic evaluations, China`s think tanks are hampered by their limited innovation capabilities and negligible international influence. In categories such as "best innovative policy proposal" "best use of Internet and social media," and "best use of multi-media technology," Chinese think tanks are simply nowhere to be seen.

It is fair to say, however, that international evaluations cannot necessarily reflect how China`s think tanks have developed, since the world does not yet know a great deal about how their research-based recommendations have influenced policymaking.

While China`s think tanks are urged to follow others` successful patterns, they must also develop in a way that meets the country`s condition and serves its policymaking objectives. There is no question that China should focus more attention on its think tanks and their research. For their part, the country`s think tanks should contribute more constructive ideas towards policymaking.

The author was vice foreign minister of China and now is chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the 12the National People`s Congress.