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：小喬恩·米德·亨茨曼，1960年3月 26日－），共和黨人，第9任美國駐華大使，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國猶他州州長。2009年8月起擔任美國駐華大使，會說漢語普通話。2011年美國當地時間6月20日正式宣布參與2012年美國大選。

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《華爾街日報》副主編穆瑞同前任駐華大使洪博培就美國政府應如何處理美中關係，才能做到不僅提振美國經濟，又能在人權和知識產權等關鍵問題上爭取到中國領導人的支持這一問題展開探討。...

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

洪博培

據《華爾街日報》報道，該報副主編艾倫•穆瑞（Alan Murray）同美國前任駐華大使洪博培（Jon Huntsman）就此問題展開探討。洪博培曾任猶他州州長，現為共和黨總統候選人之一。以下是訪談的主要內容：

穆瑞：基辛格（Henry Kissinger）撰寫的有關中國的書籍提出了這樣一種可能，美中之間可能發生類似英國和德國在20世紀出現的足以載入史冊的對抗，你認為發生這種情況的可能性大嗎？

洪博培：我認為這完全可以避免。正如我任駐華大使期間曾多次聽到的那樣：中國也講政治。想要在中國政壇取得成功，你得有某些重要“選民”的支持，在黨代會召開前，你得做出某些能讓你上位的表態，這和美國的政治情況類似。

明年是美國的大選年。而在中共十八大上，中國的領導層也將出現重大變化。十八大召開前，你預計將聽到什麼聲音？恐怕不會是“美國是一個可靠友好的合作夥伴”之類的話，而是“我們不喜歡美國的軍事存在”，“我們不喜歡這種貿易關係”，“我們不喜歡單邊主義及美國人的道德態度”等論調。

洪博培：我們在美中關係中要做的事情就是給這種關係注入共同價值觀，使它牢固起來、穩定下來，在未來幾十年裡取得成功。十八大過後，習近平將上位。在用一年時間鞏固勢力之後，到了2013或 2014年初，習近平將開始三年的執政期間。對美國來說，這是一個機會。如果我們的領導人思路清晰，那麼我們將開始着手進行與中國的戰略對話。

穆瑞：可這要等很長的時間。

洪博培：這就是我們所處的現實。這意味着美國在貿易方面有某些政治現實。在國家安全方面，爭取中國在伊朗或朝鮮問題上的合作將變得更加困難，尤其是在當下某些總統候選人還在大談要因匯率操縱而對中國徵收單邊報復性關稅。

穆瑞：你指的是馬薩諸塞州前州長羅姆尼（Romney）？

洪博培：是的，我指的正是羅姆尼。有好幾件事情可能讓美國面臨的情況變得非常糟糕，而眼下我們容不得這樣的事情發生。在我看來，匯率問題的解決會水到渠成。

穆瑞：匯率操縱問題真正存在嗎？

洪博培：當然，已經操縱很久了。人民幣在過去幾年升值30%，它將繼續升值，速度可能是在5%到8%之間。因為中國是受自身利益驅動、根據市場現實重估人民幣匯率的，幾年過後，他們的貨幣將更以市場為基礎。不管我們是否要求他們這樣做，他們都會實現這一點。

徵收關稅肯定是行不通的。作為一位曾經的貿易使節，我不知道你怎麼通過世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization，簡稱WTO)徵收關稅。沒有條款允許某個國家通過WTO徵收。這沒有先例。徵收後又會發生什麼呢？中國人會訴至WTO。兩年時間就浪費在無意義的事情上了。有這些精力，還不如用來解決知識產權保護、金融服務與保險業市場准入擴大、地區安全等問題。

穆瑞：你認為有沒有人會根據候選人對中國的觀點而投票？

洪博培：在我們舉行的那些交流活動中，我們談到怎樣重建美國的製造實力。怎麼重建？我們談到必要的稅收改革，談到為了創建更透明、更可預測的環境，需要做出哪些監管調整。跟大家講，要利用長期盲目流入中國的投資來重建我們的製造實力。

這種情況正在變化。中國的失業率將會升高。失業之中，會有更多農民工在農村地區遊蕩。這給東部大城市帶來壓力，進而帶來政治上的不穩定和不確定。我認為，一直只降落在中國的投資資金會另尋他處。如果我們不做好準備成為這個他處，那就完全不可理喻了。

這不會一夜之間發生，但我們可以着手採取措施在本地生產產品。

穆瑞：但你需要有一個強勁的中國市場來接收這些產品。

洪博培：當然。中國市場擁有近期歷史上最大的消費者群體，它將像真空一樣吸收我們的產品。

穆瑞：如果企業覺得自己的知識產權在海外不安全，我們怎樣才能實現你所說的情況呢？

洪博培：我們可以下更大力氣接觸中國新興的企業家階層，跟他們講，這不是美國的問題，這是你們的問題，這是你們自己的知識產權，你們正在越來越多地開發這些知識產權，它們在國際經濟舞台上是有生存能力的。然後再有選擇地接觸那些真正想在這個問題上跟你合作的省市。

穆瑞：人權問題呢？

洪博培：我認為這當中是有機會的。習近平是一個比較講究實際的人，他將會整合權力。他將有兩三年，或許是四年的準備期。那麼我們在美中關係中要做的事情就是給這種關系注入共同價值觀，使它牢固起來、穩定下來，在未來幾十年裡取得成功。

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