Thread by @isaacstonefish

Bob Iger would be the most disastrous ambassador to China in U.S. history. Here’s why he would be terrible for American interests. (Thread).
wsj.com/articles/disne…

First is the leverage Beijing has over Iger. As of July 2020, Iger was the largest individual shareholder in Disney. But even if Iger fully divests, Disney is his legacy, and Disney needs the Chinese market to succeed.

And Disney has closer partnerships with the CCP than any foreign entertainment company. It’s Shanghai Disneyland is roughly 55 percent state-owned, as is Hong Kong Disneyland. Disney has long partnered with United Front linked organizations and other state-owned entities.

Iger understands the power the Party has over his company. “Over the eighteen years it took to complete the park,” Iger writes in his autobiography, “I met with three presidents of China, five mayors of Shanghai, and more party secretaries than I can remember.”

How secure is Iger’s personal communications? How extensive is the file that the Ministry of State Security has on him? I have no idea. But it’s not hard to imagine it being quite thorough.

Then there is human rights. I cannot imagine Iger speaking up for human rights in China, or even pay lip service to the plight of the Uyghurs, who have seen upwards of a million of their people imprisoned in concentration camps.

Disney and Iger had plenty of chances. But instead, they went the opposite direction: shamefully working with propaganda departments in Xinjiang. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…

Iger also cautioned silence during the China NBA scandal. Taking a position that “could harm our company in some form would be a big mistake.” This was over a tweet. What could one expect Iger to say about a cultural genocide?

Then there is his lack of experience in diplomacy. His work in China was about pleasing the Party, not advancing U.S. interests. It’s a radically different job. It worked terribly for Rex Tillerson, and would work terribly for Iger as well.

It’s not just that Iger is particularly problematic. Appointing a businessman also sends the message that business, not politics, dominates the relationship. The CCP, an intensely political organization, like to pretend the relationship is apolitical. It’s not.

Iger has political ambitions. Maybe, if appointed, he'd use this as a stepping stone to elected office, and toughen up.

But since the financial crisis, Hollywood has become one of the most pro-Beijing sectors of American society. Iger won’t turn his back on all of his peers and push Beijing. This sends the exact wrong message to China, and would be a train wreck. (End).