Huntsman, Former U.S. Ambassador, Says China Denied Him Entry

China was at center of one of the harshest exchanges during the U.S. presidential debate on Tuesday night, with President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, both flashing their tough-on-Beijing credentials. But the politician who knows about China was not on stage, although he had tried to be. Jon Huntsman, who campaigned for Republican nomination, has solid connections to both candidates: He served as the U.S. ambassador to China under Mr. Obama until April 2011, and when Mr. Huntsman abandoned his campaign in January, he immediately endorsed Mr. Romney. As they prep and do role playing for their final debate, both candidates might do well to recruit Huntsman for a lay of the land on China. The debate, set for Monday in Boca Raton, will focus on the foreign policy issues, with China one of the selected topics. In a fascinating new interview with Isaac Stone Fish of Foreign Policy magazine, Mr. Huntsman was asked about the differences between the 2 candidates in their approach to China. “Well, they differ in some senses in the levers of power that are being pulled”. “I think Obama has chosen more soft levers of power, and Romney is at least articulating some of hard levers of power, where in reality, we need combination of both. “During campaign season, you never want to talk about anything except the hard levers of power. But we’re also trying to get over 10 years of war in the Middle East that have set us back enormously economically and diplomatically, and in terms of loss of life. And that’s a reality we’re not having a conversation about.” Beijing canceled Mr. Huntsman’s visa last month, he told Mr. Stone Fish, as he was preparing to travel to China to make a speech. (This probably has not happened very often in peacetime diplomacy, a country refusing entry to a former ambassador, especially for fear that he would give a speech.) “Why? Because I talk too much about human rights and American values, they know that,” said Huntsman, who speaks Mandarin. “And at a time of leadership realignment, biggest deal in 10 years for them, they didn’t want former U.S. ambassador saying stuff might create a narrative that they would have to fight. I understand that. “But when transition is done, crazy American ambassador will be let back in, I can say whatever I want. As they used to say when I was there ‘Women zhongguo ye you zhengzhi’, ‘We have politics too in China.’ ” Huntsman said he was subsequently approved for entry, to attend a board meeting. No speech-making (…..)



Acerca de ignaciocovelo
Consultor Internacional

5 Responses to Huntsman, Former U.S. Ambassador, Says China Denied Him Entry

  1. Professor Uziel Nogueira says: A little bit about Chinese diplomacy in order to understand what is going on with Jon Huntsman Jr. and the visa question. “What was most remarkable about the Chinese approach to international affairs was less its monumental formal pretensions than its underlying acumen and longevity. When the European ‘barbarians’ arrived on China’s shore in force in the nineteen century, Chinese officials described their challenge with the same phases used by their dynastic predecessors: they would ‘use barbarians against barbarians ‘ until they could be soothed and subdued.” (Henry Kissinger – On China – pps. 19, 21). Perhaps, modern Chinese diplomacy is applying the same method described above to “sooth and subdue” unfriendly American politicians as in the case of Jon Huntsman

  2. Watchingchina: Come on, people. Let’s tell this one like it really is, and stop snowing the kiddies. Such cute lies for Huntsman to claim China cancelled his visa because he “talks about American values”. Jon, you haven’t told the truth for a long time now. Huntsman’s visa was refused because of his publicly-declared sedtious war-mongering, arguing publicly on US TV that if elected president, he would use China 500 million internet citizens as a tool “to bring China down”. For anyone who watched, Huntsman refused to stop talking even though the TV interviewer kept insisting they were out of time. Jon just had to explain to “the free world” how he was “going to bring China down.” Jon Huntsman was also instrumental, along with the CIA/NED-financed China Digital Times in Hong Kong, in propagating (or trying to propagate) a “Jasmine Revolution” in China. And he was recognised crawling around Wangfujing like a weasel in sunglasses, hoping to see evidence of his seditious handiwork. When challenged by some people outside McDonald’s, Huntsman put his tail between his legs and ran – like the coward he is. When a US ambassador spends his time openly trying to “bring down” the existing government, to encourage local unrest, sedition, and even revolution, why the hell would any government let him back in the country? I wouldn’t give him a visa, either. And neither would you.

  3. Liao Yiwu, the self-exiled writer, delivered a devastating critique of the Communist Party’s China on Sunday as he accepted the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade, one of the country’s most prestigious awards for writers. So profound were the historical crimes of the current Chinese state that there was only one solution, said Mr. Liao: “This empire must break apart.” He repeated the message six times. (The speech can be viewed here on Youtube, in German.) He was speaking in Frankfurt’s St. Paul’s Church, the Paulskirche, the site of Germany’s first democratic parliament in 1848. It has seen much, including the flowering and destruction of democracy, war and bombing – but probably nothing exactly like this. Mr. Liao, who last year fled China for Germany to escape years of persecution, began his speech by talking about Lü Peng, a third-grader shot dead during the army crackdown on democracy demonstrations in Beijing in June, 1989, according to the Tiananmen Mothers, a support group for the bereaved. “Today I’d like however to announce another death, the death of the Chinese Empire. A country that massacres little children must break up. That corresponds to Chinese tradition,” he said. That wasn’t all. In its report about the speech, German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle, said Mr. Liao “reproached the West for making a common cause with China under the cloak of free trade. In his speech, given in Chinese, he said it would be a mistake to believe that China’s economic upswing would bring reforms.” “The value system of the Chinese state has long ago collapsed, and is only being held together by the elite’s lust for power,” Deutsche Welle reported (…..)

  4. Professor Uziel Nogueira says: Mr. Liao Yiwu, the self-exiled Chinese writer must love his life in Germany and want to live there for a long time. Speaking in public about China in terms of “this empire must break apart ” is not helping the cause of the Chinese people in the West. After all, the unique character of China is its cultural unity that prevailed throughout various dynasties in five thousand years. Mr. Liao Yiwu’s attacks on China can, perhaps, bring him fame and fortune in the West. However, it will not bring him admiration and reverence among the Chinese people.

  5. (…) And U.S. geopolitical ambitions and Germany’s geo-economic agenda are clashing. Eight­een months ago, Germany infuriated the White House by joining Brazil, India, Russia and China in abstaining on the U.N. Security Council proposal to create a no-fly zone over Libya. The decision provoked speculation that Germany wanted to shed its supporting role in the U.S.-led Western alliance in favor of the more independent, non-aligned and mercantilist-driven positions taken by leading emerging powers. But the real rift had begun to open six months earlier, during the Group of 20 summit in South Korea. President Obama, who had spent weeks trying to rally developing countries behind the idea of global rebalancing, was taken by surprise when the German chancellor made common cause with China and other export nations to oppose this stance.

    The German abstention on Libya made no difference to U.S. plans, but at the G-20, Berlin and Washington stood on opposite sides of the most fundamental questions facing world leaders: How can governments rebalance the world’s trade relations, and should they stimulate demand or impose austerity?

    (…) But the biggest challenge posed by the U.S.-German estrangement extends to the foundation of a liberal world order. Since the Cold War ended, the United States and Europe have advanced the principle that democracy, not single-party rule, is key to political stability and that market-driven capitalism, not state-directed development, is crucial for lasting prosperity. If the United States becomes less willing or able to advance these values abroad, and if Germany, Europe’s engine, allies with fellow creditors over fellow democracies, who will be left to advance the principles that have politically and economically empowered hundreds of millions of people since the wall fell?


Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: