The big news at the end of last week for those who follow China or have an interest in bipartisanship was the appointment of Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) to be ambassador to China.  I’ll explore here both the political angle on Huntsman’s appointment and also propose one idea on the approach that Huntsman might consider as Ambassador to China.

Many people are still trying to figure this appointment out.  Just a bit over a week ago, Chris Cillizza of the Washingtonpost.com was pointing to Huntsman as one one to watch for 2012.  Barack Obama’s campaign manager said that Huntsman made him a “wee bit queasy”.  What’s more, Huntsman recently returned from a trip to Michigan, an important Republican primary state.  So, amidst all of this speculation about Huntsman’s 2012 plans, Obama named Huntsman, John McCain’s campaign co-chair, to be his next Ambassador to China.  How’s that for an unexpected pick?

However, upon further consideration, it makes a lot of sense when looking at Huntsman’s background.  Huntsman has been a moderate Republican who has regularly pushed the party to expand its tent.  He has been a champion of bipartisanship in Utah, which also meshes well with Obama’s approach to governance.  He is fluent in Mandarin Chinese, served as Ambassador to Singapore, and did missionary work in Taiwan.  Anyone looking for a strong candidate (Democrat or Republican) would want to consider someone like Huntsman for such an important relationship.  China isn’t a job for a wealthy or well connected donor.  It’s going to be one of the most important relationships for the US in the decades to come.

But what about the political angle?  In this case, I think that both Obama and Huntsman come out big winners.  Obama gets a well qualified ambassador and strengthens his bipartisan credentials at the same time.  Although there was talk about Huntsman running in 2012, he was going to have a hard time against the other Mormon in the race, Romney.  At his age, he’d probably be better suited for a run in 2016 after strengthening his foreign policy credentials in a country that is of incredible importance to the US.  Although governors are usually good bets in presidential elections, their one weakness generally is foreign policy.  That certainly won’t be the case for Huntsman. Huntsman also gets to strengthen his bipartisan credentials and his centrist, pragmatic approach by working both in a Republican administration (George H.W. Bush) and a Democratic administration.  If the party lurches right in 2012, which wouldn’t be a surprise if Cheney and Limbaugh continue to take center stage, Huntsman will be the moderate centrist ready to rescue the party in 2016.

So, what is the approach that Huntsman should be taking with China? As I’ve argued before on this blog, the U.S. relationship with China should attempt to engage China to be a responsible stakeholder in the international community.  What this means is getting China to buy into the the understanding that its self-interest is aligned with the mutual interests of the community of nations that benefit from mutually agreed upon standards of behavior.  It will benefit in the long term by working in concert with other countries.

Thinking about this, I was struck by two pieces that I recently read pertaining to China.  The first was an op-ed by Paul Krugman about the incredible challenge facing China related to its greenhouse gas emissions and the reluctance of the Chinese to do anything about it.  They argue that Western countries had free rein for so long on pollution, why should China enact constraints that were never there for Western countries.  As Krugman pointed out, one can make such an argument, but in the end, it doesn’t really benefit China to be right….  on a dead and barren planet.

What gave me some hope, and what I think would be useful reading for Ambassador Huntsman, is a recent report produce by the International Crisis Group that examined China’s contributions to UN peacekeeping operations.  I was surprised to learn that China was playing such an active role in these activities.  In fact, back in 1971 it completely rejected the entire concept of UN peacekeeping.  Apparently opinions can change and progress can happen.  China now has over 2000 peacekeepers serving in 10 conflict areas around the world.  Certainly it’s much lower than the contributions made by countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India.  But, it’s a dramatic increase over that provided by the US – just 91 in December 2008.  What’s even more interesting is that the report points out that China’s contribution of peacekeepers in Sudan have actually made China more proactive in pressuring the Sudanese for a viable political process in Darfur.  It seems clear that strengthening China’s engagement in UN peacekeeping operations is exactly the type of arrangement that can increase China’s stake in international institutions and standards.  Perhaps there are lessons that can be learned from the UN experience that could be useful for Chinese engagement in other forums.

So, what about the global warming?  In the case of UN peacekeeping, it seems that China felt that it benefitted from participating in such activities.  The challenge with regard to the environment is to engage the Chinese in a similar manner that shows how issues such as global warming can be catastrophic to so many countries – including China.  For example, global warming has the potential to disrupt life dramatically in many of the countries that consume Chinese exports.  Perhaps it’s time for a comprehensive study on what exactly the impact of global warming would be on the Chinese economy?  One study may not make the difference, but it would be a step in the right direction.  Clearly China is ready to act in concert with other countries when it sees its self interest at stake.  Global warming seems to be the type of issue that could easily be portrayed as a key domestic concern for China.

No related posts.