We are a Pacific nation living in a Pacific Century, and our vital interests in that region cannot be compromised. It is time for countries such as Japan and India to play a greater role in regional security matters. We must also throw out the old map and forge new security arrangements with regional partners such as Vietnam and Brazil. ----Jon Huntsman

洪博培（Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr.，漢譯：小乔恩·米德·亨茨曼，1960年3月 26日－），共和黨人，第9任美国驻华大使，在2011年4月30日離任。他是摩門教教徒，在加州帕羅奧圖出生，曾在台灣傳道，亦曾任美國駐新加坡大使和美国犹他州州长。2009年8月起担任美国驻华大使，會說漢語普通話。2011年美国当地时间6月20日正式宣布参与2012年美国大选。

CNN editor's note: Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and U.S. ambassador to China, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. (Republican presidential candidates take on national defense, the economy, international relations and terrorism issues in the CNN Republican National Security Debate in Washington, D.C.., moderated by Wolf Blitzer at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday, November 22, on CNN, the CNN mobile apps and CNN.com/Live.)

日前《华尔街日报》副主编穆瑞同前任驻华大使洪博培就美国政府应如何处理美中关系，才能做到不仅提振美国经济，又能在人权和知识产权等关键问题上争取到中国领导人的支持这一问题展开探讨。...

Adm.add("268", "350", "250", "ad_news_detail_new_1", "margin:5px auto; padding:2px; text-align:center", "", "");

洪博培

据《华尔街日报》报道，该报副主编艾伦•穆瑞（Alan Murray）同美国前任驻华大使洪博培（Jon Huntsman）就此问题展开探讨。洪博培曾任犹他州州长，现为共和党总统候选人之一。以下是访谈的主要内容：

穆瑞：基辛格（Henry Kissinger）撰写的有关中国的书籍提出了这样一种可能，美中之间可能发生类似英国和德国在20世纪出现的足以载入史册的对抗，你认为发生这种情况的可能性大吗？

洪博培：我认为这完全可以避免。正如我任驻华大使期间曾多次听到的那样：中国也讲政治。想要在中国政坛取得成功，你得有某些重要“选民”的支持，在党代会召开前，你得做出某些能让你上位的表态，这和美国的政治情况类似。

明年是美国的大选年。而在中共十八大上，中国的领导层也将出现重大变化。十八大召开前，你预计将听到什么声音？恐怕不会是“美国是一个可靠友好的合作伙伴”之类的话，而是“我们不喜欢美国的军事存在”，“我们不喜欢这种贸易关系”，“我们不喜欢单边主义及美国人的道德态度”等论调。

洪博培：我们在美中关系中要做的事情就是给这种关系注入共同价值观，使它牢固起来、稳定下来，在未来几十年里取得成功。十八大过后，习近平将上位。在用一年时间巩固势力之后，到了2013或 2014年初，习近平将开始三年的执政期间。对美国来说，这是一个机会。如果我们的领导人思路清晰，那么我们将开始着手进行与中国的战略对话。

穆瑞：可这要等很长的时间。

洪博培：这就是我们所处的现实。这意味着美国在贸易方面有某些政治现实。在国家安全方面，争取中国在伊朗或朝鲜问题上的合作将变得更加困难，尤其是在当下某些总统候选人还在大谈要因汇率操纵而对中国征收单边报复性关税。

穆瑞：你指的是马萨诸塞州前州长罗姆尼（Romney）？

洪博培：是的，我指的正是罗姆尼。有好几件事情可能让美国面临的情况变得非常糟糕，而眼下我们容不得这样的事情发生。在我看来，汇率问题的解决会水到渠成。

穆瑞：汇率操纵问题真正存在吗？

洪博培：当然，已经操纵很久了。人民币在过去几年升值30%，它将继续升值，速度可能是在5%到8%之间。因为中国是受自身利益驱动、根据市场现实重估人民币汇率的，几年过后，他们的货币将更以市场为基础。不管我们是否要求他们这样做，他们都会实现这一点。

征收关税肯定是行不通的。作为一位曾经的贸易使节，我不知道你怎么通过世界贸易组织(World Trade Organization，简称WTO)征收关税。没有条款允许某个国家通过WTO征收。这没有先例。征收后又会发生什么呢？中国人会诉至WTO。两年时间就浪费在无意义的事情上了。有这些精力，还不如用来解决知识产权保护、金融服务与保险业市场准入扩大、地区安全等问题。

穆瑞：你认为有没有人会根据候选人对中国的观点而投票？

洪博培：在我们举行的那些交流活动中，我们谈到怎样重建美国的制造实力。怎么重建？我们谈到必要的税收改革，谈到为了创建更透明、更可预测的环境，需要做出哪些监管调整。跟大家讲，要利用长期盲目流入中国的投资来重建我们的制造实力。

这种情况正在变化。中国的失业率将会升高。失业之中，会有更多农民工在农村地区游荡。这给东部大城市带来压力，进而带来政治上的不稳定和不确定。我认为，一直只降落在中国的投资资金会另寻他处。如果我们不做好准备成为这个他处，那就完全不可理喻了。

这不会一夜之间发生，但我们可以着手采取措施在本地生产产品。

穆瑞：但你需要有一个强劲的中国市场来接收这些产品。

洪博培：当然。中国市场拥有近期历史上最大的消费者群体，它将像真空一样吸收我们的产品。

穆瑞：如果企业觉得自己的知识产权在海外不安全，我们怎样才能实现你所说的情况呢？

洪博培：我们可以下更大力气接触中国新兴的企业家阶层，跟他们讲，这不是美国的问题，这是你们的问题，这是你们自己的知识产权，你们正在越来越多地开发这些知识产权，它们在国际经济舞台上是有生存能力的。然后再有选择地接触那些真正想在这个问题上跟你合作的省市。

穆瑞：人权问题呢？

洪博培：我认为这当中是有机会的。习近平是一个比较讲究实际的人，他将会整合权力。他将有两三年，或许是四年的准备期。那么我们在美中关系中要做的事情就是给这种关系注入共同价值观，使它牢固起来、稳定下来，在未来几十年里取得成功。

Adm.add("892", "", "", "ad_news_details_news3", "", "", "1");

Gov. Jon Huntsman

Bring U.S. military in line with new reality

By Jon Huntsman, Special to CNN

updated 10:21 AM EST, Tue November 22, 2011

Republican presidential hopeful Gov. Jon Huntsman speaks to students at George Washington University in October.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Jon Huntsman: Presidents must place priority on protecting America
He says new threats and budget cuts will make the task harder for next presidency
Huntsman says smarter strategy could enable U.S. to make do with fewer troops, bases
He says America alone cannot police the world

(CNN) -- A president's most solemn duty is to protect America and her people -- a responsibility that, in a time of evolving security threats and unsustainable debt, will only grow harder for the next administration.

In the aftermath of the failure of the super committee, we are facing cuts in defense. Yet there has still been little discussion about overall defense spending priorities and how we must transform our defense infrastructure for the 21st century.

Some of my opponents suggest maintaining the status quo, thus avoiding the tough decisions. Others advocate retrenchment and isolationism through draconian across-the-board cuts, which brings greater instability and risks.

Still others revert to the oft-repeated pledge to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse from the Pentagon -- a worthy cause yet one of minimal consequence. Cutting wasteful spending alone amounts to only pennies on the dollar and leaves in place the same archaic defense infrastructure.

These approaches miss the target in two respects. First, they let resources drive strategy, rather than using strategy to drive force structure and capabilities. Second, they fail to fundamentally alter our defense posture -- so any short-term savings will be quickly erased.

In recognition of the growing asymmetrical threats we face and the evolving requirements of counterterrorism, we need a different set of capabilities. The world may have seen its last heavy armor battle between two nation-states. The relative importance of counterterrorism, intelligence, training and equipping foreign security forces, and special forces operations will continue to grow.

Our forces must be designed appropriately. This means a greater focus on intelligence gathering and more agile special forces units, which can respond swiftly and firmly to terrorist threats in any corner of the globe. We must be prepared to respond to threats -- from al Qaeda and other terrorist cells -- that emanate from a much more diverse geography, including Yemen, the Horn of Africa, Pakistan and the Asia-Pacific region.

We must also transform our orientation. By almost any objective measure -- population, economic power, military might, energy use -- the center of gravity of global human activity is moving toward the Asia-Pacific region. Embracing this reality may bring a dramatic change to the look of our military.

The Asia-Pacific region is a maritime theater whereas Europe was mostly a land theater. For the U.S., the Asia-Pacific features a collection of bilateral military alliances in contrast to our involvement with the multilateral NATO in Europe. We are a Pacific nation living in a Pacific Century, and our vital interests in that region cannot be compromised.

We can cut our base force and transition more responsibility for contingency operations to our National Guard and Reserve. In addition to being our most precious and valuable resource, our troops are also the most expensive part of our military.

If we simultaneously transform our capabilities and posture while enhancing our Guard and Reserve, our active duty army could be reduced to around 450,000 troops, from the approximately 565,000 we now have. Our Department of Defense civilian work force can also be cut by 5% to 7% of its current size.

At the same time, we should conduct a global posture review with the goal of closing at least 50 overseas military installations. The U.S. military maintains more than 700 installations outside the United States, the vast majority of which were opened during the Cold War. With a more mobile and flexible force, we simply don't need as many facilities overseas.

We must risk American blood and treasure overseas only when there exists a vital national security interest. I have consistently called for our troops to return from Afghanistan as soon as possible. But I also believe President Barack Obama has been too quick to commit forces to other missions not core to our security interests.

Within the same week of announcing a troop drawdown in Iraq, the president announced a deployment of a small number of combat forces to Africa -- an unnecessarily risky and costly mission.

America alone cannot police the world. We should increase burden-sharing for the protection of the global commons among countries that share our values and security objectives. Unfortunately, we are not the only democracy stuck in a Cold War mentality. It is time for countries such as Japan and India to play a greater role in regional security matters. We must also throw out the old map and forge new security arrangements with regional partners such as Vietnam and Brazil.

As we prepare to fight in the new battle spaces, we need to let go of old "sacred cows." Our military and defense establishment must be effective in the cybersphere, dominant in space and able to handle the increasingly lethal and accurate ballistic and cruise missiles being acquired by many of our potential foes. This will likely mean trade-offs away from heavy armor units, fighter air wings and aircraft carriers toward a more advanced cyberwarfare infrastructure, more capable unmanned aerial vehicles and more flexible sea-based assets.

For America to remain a global force for good, we must maintain the world's most capable military. And being the best is not simply a function of spending the most. Staying on top will increasingly depend on our willingness to adapt to the realities of the 21st century security environment.

@CNNOpinion on Twitter