Since its economic opening in 1978, China has taken advantage of a remarkably friendly economic and political environment. In the 1980s, Washington didn’t obsess overmuch about China, given its focus on the “Evil Empire.” In the 1990s, it was easy for China to pass inconspicuously in global markets, as China was still a relatively small player. Moreover, with all the commodities from the former Soviet Union hitting the global market, prices for everything from oil to copper neared historic lows. No one seemed to fight against China’s booming demand for commodities or rising exports. The 2000s looked like they would be more turbulent, and early in the administration of George W. Bush the EP-3 incident landed the Chinese in Washington’s crosshairs, but then the Sept. 11 attacks happened and U.S. efforts were redirected toward the Islamic world.
Stratfor has an interesting take, concluding:
STRATFOR sees a race on, but it isn’t a race between the Chinese and the Americans or even China and the world. It’s a race to see what will smash China first, its own internal imbalances or the U.S. decision to take a more mercantilist approach to international trade.
I've had other reasons based on Soviet experience for not projecting Chinese past growth into the indefinite future, notwithstanding the global integration that sets China's experience apart from Moscow's path. Stratfor's analysis is another reason not to get your panties in a twist over the rise of China theme we've had lately. China can be a real threat in Asia, as Japan and Germany were "regional" threats in the 1940s (and even the Soviets during the Cold War didn't manage to be a global peer, though nukes evened the scales a great deal), but I doubt China will be a global peer competitor.
Don't write America off so quickly. I'll give the Obama administration credit if they throttle back the Chinese economic engine that has relied on their taking advantage of rules we set long ago that simply cannot apply to China anymore.
