This reality is that despite its recent rapid development, China faces far more serious challenges than the US does, with its environment, population, and social structure. Any mishap in these areas could easily throw the whole country into turmoil. As to many of its oil endeavors overseas, its policy is not only mercantile, but in some sense also comes out of desperation, realizing that all the cheap sources of oil have been taken by existing big players.

But we are warriors, and we have to find an arch-enemy, don’t we? Now we happen to see a country, which only recently began to feed its population a bit better, and a growing number of people are interested in automobiles (we worry too much here too; let the Chinese do the worry and see how they will stack their cars for parking), we seem to have found one at last. Well, with that mentality, we are not only no fair players, we are essentially imperialists.

The way I look at the relations between the U.S. and China concurs with some of the program’s guests’, which is that it’s a basically a bilaterally intertwined and sustainable relationship, unless we deliberately squander it. I hope the program guests’ views made a dent on that of our host, and hopefully of the audience as well.

For me the two most interesting points raised during the program were Thomas Barnett’s suggestion that given China’s mercantalist program of relatively shallow, extractive relations with countries in L.America, Africa, and the M.East, and their limited ability to spawn broader economic development, they will increasingly be seen in those countries as the negative face of globalization. A number of the China/Africa articles I’ve collected in my bookmarks suggest such reactions are already beginning, particularly in cases where cheap imported Chinese labor is supplanting locals.

Equally important I thought was John Pomfret’s response to my question, where he suggested that the Chinese global ruleset (to use a Barnett-esque turn of phrase) was essentially undefined, outside the basic bottom-line business of business. I would subscribe to Dr. Barnett’s later comment, where he says that we have come to the conclusion that dictatorships are not viable long-term solutions for development; that’s actually part of the reason why a rival “Beijing Consensus” cocerns me, since I think a country with as many unaddressed internal weaknesses as China (whose long- or even mid-term stability I am unassured of) is not a particularly good model for world-wide emulation, at least as long as it retains its current autocratic and form.

America may profess these values, but unfortunately, “shaky” pretty well defines America’s commitment to these values. As always, putting its money where its mouth is (both at home and in foreign policy) would be much more effective than merely professing them. Walk the walk, America; don’t just talk the talk. Provide universal health care. Support only truly democratic nations. Treat all peoples as equals. Doing such things would be great! They would make America into the beacon of freedom that it proclaims to be. But this doesn’t happen. In short:

The difference is that America is a hypocrite and China is not.

I remember seeing a tv news interview with one of China’s leaders round about 1989, probably post Tianenman Square. It was the first and so far the only time I can recall seeing an interview with a world leader who did not in any way speak hypocritically. He openly, shamelessly professed that his party was interested in holding power, period. It was like listening to O’Brian in Orwell’s 1984: the only object of power is power. You’ll never hear an American senator or president be that honest, though. We like our masks of humanity on the faces of our leaders, not lying shattered on the floor.

The blog MountainRunner had a good piece on China’s involvement in Africa a few months back, and I’ve bookmarked a few other pieces on the subject in my delicious feed here. Looking forward to catching the show, but it’s off to work with me now!

But aside from that: what I said above, about China’s increasingly influential example? What the ROS guest just said about Syria’s leader calling China’s approach to authoritarian government an example … very chilling. Not surprising, not at all, but nonetheless terrifying.

Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Russia, any number of -stans…?

How much of the “Washington Consensus” consists of countries with black sites, willing to torture at Washington’s bidding?

No offence intended to mc- masterchef, but the categorization is absurd on the face of it, and sinister beyond. The US has its virtues (however diminishing), but to hold it up as a friend to liberal democracy across the board makes no sense, and does the ideal no favors. I look forward to the show.