A friend of mine used to say: "Managing is nice, being managed is not." This is especially true in academic institutions like the East-West Center.

Dr. Fereidun Fesharaki has been highly critical of the EWC’s present management and its president, Dr. Charles Morrison. I believe that is due largely to the absence of "institutional memory" there. Those who were at the center during the 1995 "Gingrich massacre" greatly appreciate the enormous contribution made by Morrison in saving it from total closure, with the enthusiastic support of the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye.

Not surprisingly, morale at the EWC then was also at the lowest point in its history, and had to be slowly rebuilt.

Simultaneously, Morrison had to undo the damage done in Asia by his predecessor, whose overbearing style had alienated many of the countries where the center worked. Morrison’s low-key style was particularly appreciated in the Asia-Pacific region, and has helped the center win back these friendships.

As a research fellow from 1977 to 1995 at the Environment and Policy Institute, and as special assistant to President Victor Li, I participated in budgetary discussions, and saw firsthand the impacts of reductions. The biggest problem the center had then, as it does today, was in recruiting mid-career research staff. These people work in established institutions like universities and think tanks, and it was nearly impossible to attract them here to an institution with declining funding, and where each year’s budget was unknown until the fiscal year was half finished.

The increasing interdependence of nations today is much larger than it was when the center was established in 1960. Climate change and its impacts, pandemics that threaten large parts of the world, and water shortages are problems that are already severe in many parts of Asia and the Pacific and the United States, and likely to get much worse if nothing is done. With its existing network of institutions and individuals, the EWC could play a very cost-effective and unique role in formulating cooperative strategies to address these.

For instance, the center in 1989 was the first organization worldwide to host a conference on the likely impacts of, and mitigations to, climate change in the Asia-Pacific region. This field still provides a great opportunity for the EWC to utilize its unique network in the Pacific islands, which will be among the largest impactees, and its large interaction in three of the six countries that have contributed most to greenhouse-gas emissions: the U.S., China and Japan.

These are important issues, and people in the next century looking back might wonder why we didn’t put existing institutions such as the EWC to work on these concerns.

Various Republicans in the U.S. House have suggested that the EWC be privatized. For example, Exxon Mobil’s 2013 net profits exceeded $33 billion, and with one day’s net profit, it could pay the equivalent of the annual federal grant to the EWC.

But the center’s mission and approach are completely incompatible with the idea of privatization. Though it could solve the center’s funding problem, it would be reasonable to ask who might be the beneficiary. Not the center’s staff, students or alumni — none of whom would like to have their priorities determined by any private corporation.

Senior administrative positions in academic institutions are thankless assignments. Morrison took on these jobs at a critical time for the center, and has provided much-needed continuity at a place that has always been an institution in change.

What the center needs now are more financial resources to help tackle the challenges of the 21st century, not another administrative change at the top.