Drezner isn't impressed with China's soft power that is supposed to charm neighbors or their hard power which is supposed to scare us off from acting in Asia:
Now, it is possible that Beijing has simply decided that its internal growth is so big that it can afford the friction that comes with a rising power. My assessment, however, is that they're vastly overestimating their current power vis-a-vis the United States, and they're significantly undererstimating the effect of pushing the rest of the Pacific Rim into closer ties with the United States (and India).
More significantly, and to repeat a theme, China is overestimating its ability to translate the economic interdependence of the Asia/Pacific economy into political leverage. With these misperceptions, however, China is risking some serious conflicts down the road.
I've addressed these concepts before, with several links in this post.
Remember, China isn't loved by their neighbors and China is close enough to do real damage to those Asian countries if China is allowed to get their way.
America, on the other hand, is too far away to do much damage even if Asian countries thought we were out to get them. China has to be surprised that classic balance of power thinking hasn't led major powers to ally against us over the last twenty years. Add to this the fact that our power is still great enough--even from a distance--to help these Asian nations resist Chinese efforts to dominate the region.
The Pacific century will surely shape the world. We will be a major part of those doing the shaping.
And China's neighbors will relieved we are there.
UPDATE: More on the relationship between China, America, and the rest of the countries in east Asia:
I heard things like this: "We see the Obama administration forming close relationships with other countries against China," said Liu Guijin, an advisor to China's Ministry of Foreign Commerce. "I think it will be destabilizing."
Or this: "Suddenly, the United States is behaving aggressively toward China," complained Fan Gang, a leading Beijing economist and former government official.
And, in the middle of what increasingly sounds like Cold War-era saber-rattling — or, worse, the military rivalries of the late 19th century — smaller countries in East Asia are trying to figure out what it means for their future.
Some, like Vietnam and Singapore, have asked the United States to keep a big military force in Asia to counterbalance Chinese power. "America plays a role in Asia that China cannot replace," Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told the Wall Street Journal last week.
On Friday, President Obama met with Southeast Asian leaders at the United Nations, and aides said he would reaffirm the U.S. position opposing the use of force in the South China Sea.
The Chinese actually seem unaware that they are contributing to the trend of Asian nations seeking our help against China.
Let me offer China a bit of advice, that "Asia for the Asians" thing didn't pan out before and China won't manage to make it work today.
UPDATE: I wouldn't be surprised if the need for US help should it come to war influences India's choice about new fighter aircraft they are planning to buy. Buying American F-16s or F-18s would increase our inter-operability and overall defense cooperation between the United States and India. China would have to worry that in a crisis between India and China, a wing of American aircraft might stage to Indian bases already capable of supporting those aircraft.
And really, the Swedes, French, Russians, and EU might be able to provide fighters, too, but can they really be a counter-weight to China?
More UPDATE: Instapundit, linking to a post that notes that China is creating allies for us, says "It’s always a relief to know that our leaders aren’t the only idiots out there." We, at least, can vote our leaders out if they persist in idiocy beyond the bounds of decency.
But, hey! Maybe now, when our leaders eff up a wet dream or something, in a nod to Tom Friedman, we can say they "are acting like China for a day!"
