Friday, May 01, 2015

China: The Land of the Dragon!

New Russia-China alliance latest diplomatic, strategic blow to Obama
Analysts see budding ‘bromance’ between Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping
By David R. Sands - The Washington Times
Thursday, April 30, 2015
From the moon to the Mediterranean to the heart of Moscow, China and Russia in recent days have announced a striking number of moves to strengthen military, financial and political ties, raising the specter of a deeper alliance between the U.S. rivals.
Adversaries during the long Cold War, Beijing and Moscow have increasingly found common cause in challenging the U.S. and Western-dominated order in Europe and Asia, finding ways both symbolic and concrete to challenge what they see as Washington’s efforts to contain their rise.
The latest sign of closer ties emerged Thursday with the announcements of the first joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean and that Russia will be one of the biggest outside investors in China’s proposed development bank, which the Obama administration tried to undercut.
“Russia and China are now becoming, as we wanted, not only neighbors but deeply integrated countries,” Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told reporters on a trip to the eastern Chinese city of Hangzhou this week.
The two sides discussed making China the “main partner” in a Russian program to establish a scientific station on the moon by 2024. Russia has been trying to revive the space program carried out under the Soviet Union, and China has been gearing up its own manned lunar mission.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have met five times last year and "will meet at least as many times this year," said Andrey Denisov, Russia's ambassador to Beijing. (Associated Press)
Analysts even see a budding “bromance,” as the BBC recently put it, between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
President Obama and virtually all other Western political leaders declined Mr. Putin’s invitation to attend commemorations in Red Square next week to mark the 70th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, so Mr. Xi is perhaps the most prominent foreign leader who will be there.
The two men met five times last year and “will meet at least as many times this year,” said Andrey Denisov, Russia’s ambassador to Beijing.
“While the Russians and the Chinese expect the United States to continue to be the most powerful nation in the world for several more decades, they see its grip on the rest of the world rapidly loosening,” Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, wrote in a lengthy analysis of the “Sino-Russian entente” in April.
“Both Moscow and Beijing see the world going through an epochal change away from U.S. domination and toward a freer global order that would give China more prominence and Russia more freedom of action,” he wrote. “They also see the process of change gaining speed.”
Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi sparked talk of a major change in bilateral relations in April 2014 with the announcement of a 30-year, $400 billion deal to sell Russian natural gas for the first time to China, followed by the announcement in November of plans to build a second major pipeline to bring Russian oil and gas to Chinese customers.
Going deeper
At the time, some portrayed the deals less as an alliance than a desperation move by Mr. Putin, who is facing international isolation and economic sanctions from the United States and Europe over the clash in Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. But this year has brought a string of signals that the rapprochement between the two capitals is going much deeper.
Those moves include:
• In March, Russia’s state-owned airplane manufacturer announced the production schedule for a joint venture with Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China to build a long-haul wide-bodied commercial airliner by 2025, with the bulk of the $13 billion project coming from China. In April, China became the first foreign customer for the advanced S-400 anti-aircraft missile system, in a $3 billion deal set to be completed by 2017. The S-400 sale “underlines once again the strategic level of our relations,” Anatoly Isaikin, chief executive of the state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, told the Russian business newspaper Kommersant.
• Russia has emerged as a founding member and major backer of Beijing’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a proposed $100 billion development bank widely seen as a challenge to the U.S.-dominated World Bank and other Western-led financial institutions. Russian Deputy Minister for Economic Development Stanislav Voskresensky told reporters this week that Russia could be the third-largest contributor among the dozens of nations — not including the United States or Japan — that have joined the investment bank, and that Russia could be given a seat on the board of directors.
• Mr. Rogozin and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang discussed in depth this week plans to collaborate on space exploration in the decades ahead. Mr. Rogozin said Beijing and Moscow share “deep mutual understanding and mutual interests” in space-related joint ventures. In February, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cheng Guoping said Beijing is planning to boost its cooperation with Russia in a number of spheres, including space, as Beijing develops its Long March-9 rocket ahead of the country’s first manned lunar mission by 2028.
• The Joint Sea 2015 exercises announced Thursday are the latest in a growing web of informal military collaborations between China and Russia, military analysts say. The mid-May, live-ammunition exercises will feature nine surface ships and involve rescue, resupply and other missions, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng told reporters in Beijing.
While denying that the first Mediterranean joint mission was aimed at any other country, Mr. Geng used the same briefing to harshly condemn the far-reaching U.S.-Japanese defense pact signed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on his U.S. visit this week.
“What kind of impact will it have on world and regional peace and stability to beef up the U.S.-Japan military alliance and expand their defense cooperation to the whole world?” Mr. Geng asked, according to an Associated Press report. “That is a question that needs to be asked by all sides.”
Analysts caution that past predictions of a closer Moscow-Beijing axis have proved to be overstated dating back to the days when the Soviet Union and Mao Zedong’s People's Republic of China clashed repeatedly and even fought a brief but bloody border war in 1969. Russian strategists openly fear that Moscow would be relegated to a “junior partner” in any alliance, given China’s rising wealth and economic clout.
But Carnegie’s Mr. Trenin said the warming may prove more significant because neither side has other obvious major allies as they seek to expand their clout and challenge the U.S.-designed global order in Asia and Europe. Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, he added, have the incentive, clout and job security to move an alliance forward.
“From its new levels reached in 2014, the relationship between Moscow and Beijing is likely to move forward in a number of key areas,” he wrote. “In lieu of a Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, a Greater Asia from Shanghai to St. Petersburg is in the making.”
David R. Sands
Raised in Northern Virginia, David R. Sands received an undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia and a master’s degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He worked as a reporter for several Washington-area business publications before joining The Washington Times.

China: The Key to The New World Order
By SGT Report
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Investigative Journalist James Corbett of the Corbett Report joins me with some very bad news about the New World Order. James says that despite the formation of the BRICS Banks, the Shanghai Gold Exchange and the new Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the International Banker's plans to usher in their New World Order remain firmly in place and on track. How could that be when the evidence suggest that the world is moving away from the Dollar as wealth moves from West to East? Because, James says, "At the very top of this Bankster pyramid, the Chinese elite is connected directly in with the U.S. Western elite."
James has carefully documented the "8 Immortal Families" in his report on China and the New World Order which shows how the 8 Immortals are totally connected to Henry Kissinger and the Rockefeller-Rothschild banking elite. This is the way they will lead us into a New WORLD Order.
 "The West is being engineered into a world system of governance and government that can only come about through the rise of the East. It's been puppeteered from the very start. There is no doubt that China's rise right now is something that has been long planned for and carefully engineered."
Subscribe to SGT Report's YouTube Channel
Gattaca Is Here: the World’s First Recorded Genetic Modification of a Human Embryo
By Melissa Dykes
Via Science Daily
28 April 2015
Chinese researchers are claiming the world’s first genetic modification to enhance a human embryo.
Chinese scientists say they’ve genetically modified human embryos for the very first time. The team attempted to modify the gene responsible for beta-thalassaemia, a potentially fatal blood disorder, using a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR/Cas9. Gene editing is a recently developed type of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, replaced, or removed.
Of course it would start with something positive, like attempting to cure a fatal blood disorder. The road to Hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions…at least on the surface.
Back to reality, however, and many of us have long ago realized that our world is run by a genocidal, technocratic elite: billionaires like vaccination-obsessed Bill Gates who modeled his enormous global population-controlling foundation after the global population-stabilizing Rockefeller Foundation and who meets secretly with one-child policy worldwide advocate Ted Turner and others of similar minds in the “Billionaires Club” who discuss global “concerns” in regard to that pesky problem of “overpopulation” in the face of “finite resources” — otherwise known as artificial scarcity.
Eugenics fell out of favor hard with Hitler after World War II. Today these people are, as author Jurriaan Maessen would say, Crypto-Eugenicists. It’s the new eugenics under a public relations strategy to hide that it is actually eugenics in plain sight. In essence, “You seek to fulfill the aims of eugenics without disclosing what you are really aiming at and without mentioning the word.” This is how the Eugenics Society conceived of its funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation, wrote Matthew Connelly in Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population.
To these elite, there is a disposable “us” and a superior “them.” While they feel the world is vastly overpopulated, none of them are willing to go first. (Turner who continues to rally for that one-world, one-child policy has what, five kids? Again, one rule for us, one rule for them.) They feel entitled to creating the rules for everyone else to live by which they will dictate simply because they have more money and perceived power than the rest of us. They can buy up research. They can purchase policy. When we live in a world where the richest 67 people have more money than the 3.5 billion poorest — half the planet — we are no longer talking about a society where everyone’s voice is equal by any stretch of the imagination.
And as concerned about our population as these elite openly are (never mind the data shows global population is set to stabilize then drop dramatically in the near future), it quickly becomes obvious that when they discuss the transhumanist future of scientifically upgraded humans living forever, they do not mean everybody. In short, it’s a club and the vast majority of us are not in it.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari’s recent book Sapiens discusses the brave new world we are trekking straight into. Harari notes that the future will include body “enhancements” — chemical, mechanical, electronic, and biological upgrades — that will only be available to the very rich among us, leading to an even more unequal society on a much larger scale than ever before. The gap between rich and poor will continue to widen to unseen levels. Imagine sports teams of the future where only the rich kids can jump higher, run faster… and that’s just the very tip of the science-fiction-turned-reality iceberg we are about to crash into.
“In the 21st century medicine is moving onwards and trying to surpass the norm, to help people live longer, to have stronger memories, to have better control of their emotions. But upgrading like that is not an egalitarian project, it’s an elitist project. No matter what norm you reach, there is always another upgrade which is possible,” Harari told the London Guardian. As we’ve reported before, when you hear what Bill Gates has to say about who should be allowed to get what treatment and that we should be “careful about whether you want to make those innovations available to everyone,” you realize his own rules don’t actually apply to him and his family, only to you and yours.
In the world these technocrats are ever so busy creating where man replaces God, who buys, shapes, controls, and essentially owns the science that would see a future of genetically altered humans? The same billionaires and big money that can be traced back to eugenics. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. In America, we already live in a country where the “greater good” philosophy has been used to advance medical tyranny. Where people are forced to vaccinate themselves and their children for the greater good even though the science is not settled because by its very nature science is never settled. A country where we have been forced to purchase medical insurance for the greater good or else we are forced to pay what is known as an “Individual Shared Responsibility Payment.” Never mind that, even though America spends more of its GDP on healthcare than any other nation on the planet, we are by far not the healthiest. Also try to ignore the fact that one of the Obamacare architects said it should not be our choice whether or not we get to live past the age of 75 because no one should. (Death panels, anyone?)
Is mandated genetic testing for all — which will at first be rolled out to help cut medical costs under the banner of preempting costly diseases down the road “for the greater good” — really such a stretch? Hardly. People in high places are already demanding that all babies are genetically profiled at birth, and back in 2009, researchers claimed that in a mere decade, all babies could have their entire genomes mapped. What will be done with all that data? Think of all the potential flaws someone could get labeled with in the eyes of a cruel technocracy and how that will impact their entire life start-to-finish. Remember when futurist Richard Dawkins claimed it would be “immoral” to give birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome if genetic testing of the fetus showed the baby carried the gene for it, and that the pregnant woman should just “abort it and try again”?
Now imagine a world where the government can mandate just such an order… “for the greater good.” And more orders! Down’s is just a starting point on that road to Hell paved with those good intentions. Remember, it always begins with a hardcore example to get people on board before the bar is moved up. What is the value of someone’s life when rendered down to their genetic map in the face of the technocracy’s “overpopulated world” with “finite resources”?
The United Kingdom has recently approved a controversial three-parent mitochondrial gene therapy where the DNA of an embryo would be altered in a way that will be passed on to future generations. We have no idea what that’s actually going to look like in reality a few generations from now, but it sounds an awful lot like a genetically superior hybrid race is being bred. While it will start under the guise of freeing children of mitochondrial disease, where exactly will it end?
And what will happen if your children or their children cannot afford their genetic upgrades?
It won’t just be a better world for those who can afford them; it will be a world of penalization in every way imaginable for those who cannot.
The bottom line is that not everyone will be able to afford genetically enhanced embryos in a world of lunatic technocratic elites and their artificial limitations, a world where many cannot even afford to fill their bellies as an insane wealth gap continues to widen. Because what we are seeing today was previously considered science fiction before now, let’s look to science fiction to show us what the future will actually bring. The 1997 movie Gattaca immediately comes to mind.
If you haven’t seen this movie, now is the time to watch it. If you have, maybe you should watch it again. In Gattaca’s (not-too-distant) future world, humans are commonly subjected to genetic engineering and one’s DNA is the primary determinant of one’s social class. Thus, prejudice and discrimination against those perceived as genetically inferior are rampant. Everything about a person from their job and position in society to how they are treated by everyone else is based on testing done on them and genetic upgrades made (or not made) before they were even born.
Can you imagine such a world? Because we are about to live in it.
Melissa Dykes (formerly Melton) is a co-founder of, where this article first appeared. She is an experienced researcher, graphic artist and investigative journalist with a passion for liberty and a dedication to truth. Her aim is to expose the New World Order for what it is — a prison for the human soul from which we must break free. 
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
SOFT POWER For America, the best response to China is to put our own house in order., © M. Garfat/MGP (Feather), © Gino's Premium Images (Leaves), both from Alamy; © Cary Anderson (Wing), © Michael Nolan/SpecialistStock (Eagle'sHead), © Aaron Joel Santos (Bamboo Forest), all from Aurora Photos; © Getty Ellis/Globio/Minden Pictures/Corbis (Panda and Grass); Photo Illustration by Vanity Fair
Without fanfare—indeed, with some misgivings about its new status—China has just overtaken the United States as the world’s largest economy. This is, and should be, a wake-up call—but not the kind most Americans might imagine.
When the history of 2014 is written, it will take note of a large fact that has received little attention: 2014 was the last year in which the United States could claim to be the world’s largest economic power. China enters 2015 in the top position, where it will likely remain for a very long time, if not forever. In doing so, it returns to the position it held through most of human history.
Comparing the gross domestic product of different economies is very difficult. Technical committees come up with estimates, based on the best judgments possible, of what are called “purchasing-power parities,” which enable the comparison of incomes in various countries. These shouldn’t be taken as precise numbers, but they do provide a good basis for assessing the relative size of different economies. Early in 2014, the body that conducts these international assessments—the World Bank’s International Comparison Program—came out with new numbers. (The complexity of the task is such that there have been only three reports in 20 years.) The latest assessment, released last spring, was more contentious and, in some ways, more momentous than those in previous years. It was more contentious precisely because it was more momentous: the new numbers showed that China would become the world’s largest economy far sooner than anyone had expected—it was on track to do so before the end of 2014.
The source of contention would surprise many Americans, and it says a lot about the differences between China and the U.S.—and about the dangers of projecting onto the Chinese some of our own attitudes. Americans want very much to be No. 1—we enjoy having that status. In contrast, China is not so eager. According to some reports, the Chinese participants even threatened to walk out of the technical discussions. For one thing, China did not want to stick its head above the parapet—being No. 1 comes with a cost. It means paying more to support international bodies such as the United Nations. It could bring pressure to take an enlightened leadership role on issues such as climate change. It might very well prompt ordinary Chinese to wonder if more of the country’s wealth should be spent on them. (The news about China’s change in status was in fact blacked out at home.) There was one more concern, and it was a big one: China understands full well America’s psychological preoccupation with being No. 1—and was deeply worried about what our reaction would be when we no longer were.
Of course, in many ways—for instance, in terms of exports and household savings—China long ago surpassed the United States. With savings and investment making up close to 50 percent of G.D.P., the Chinese worry about having too much savings, just as Americans worry about having too little. In other areas, such as manufacturing, the Chinese overtook the U.S. only within the past several years. They still trail America when it comes to the number of patents awarded, but they are closing the gap.
The areas where the United States remains competitive with China are not always ones we’d most want to call attention to. The two countries have comparable levels of inequality. (Ours is the highest in the developed world.) China outpaces America in the number of people executed every year, but the U.S. is far ahead when it comes to the proportion of the population in prison (more than 700 per 100,000 people). China overtook the U.S. in 2007 as the world’s largest polluter, by total volume, though on a per capita basis we continue to hold the lead. The United States remains the largest military power, spending more on our armed forces than the next top 10 nations combined (not that we have always used our military power wisely). But the bedrock strength of the U.S. has always rested less on hard military power than on “soft power,” most notably its economic influence. That is an essential point to remember.
Tectonic shifts in global economic power have obviously occurred before, and as a result we know something about what happens when they do. Two hundred years ago, in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain emerged as the world’s dominant power. Its empire spanned a quarter of the globe. Its currency, the pound sterling, became the global reserve currency—as sound as gold itself. Britain, sometimes working in concert with its allies, imposed its own trade rules. It could discriminate against importation of Indian textiles and force India to buy British cloth. Britain and its allies could also insist that China keep its markets open to opium, and when China, knowing the drug’s devastating effect, tried to close its borders, the allies twice went to war to maintain the free flow of this product.
Britain’s dominance was to last a hundred years and continued even after the U.S. surpassed Britain economically, in the 1870s. There’s always a lag (as there will be with the U.S. and China). The transitional event was World War I, when Britain achieved victory over Germany only with the assistance of the United States. After the war, America was as reluctant to accept its potential new responsibilities as Britain was to voluntarily give up its role. Woodrow Wilson did what he could to construct a postwar world that would make another global conflict less likely, but isolationism at home meant that the U.S. never joined the League of Nations. In the economic sphere, America insisted on going its own way—passing the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and bringing to an end an era that had seen a worldwide boom in trade. Britain maintained its empire, but gradually the pound sterling gave way to the dollar: in the end, economic realities dominate. Many American firms became global enterprises, and American culture was clearly ascendant.
World War II was the next defining event. Devastated by the conflict, Britain would soon lose virtually all of its colonies. This time the U.S. did assume the mantle of leadership. It was central in creating the United Nations and in fashioning the Bretton Woods agreements, which would underlie the new political and economic order. Even so, the record was uneven. Rather than creating a global reserve currency, which would have contributed so much to worldwide economic stability—as John Maynard Keynes had rightly argued—the U.S. put its own short-term self-interest first, foolishly thinking it would gain by having the dollar become the world’s reserve currency. The dollar’s status is a mixed blessing: it enables the U.S. to borrow at a low interest rate, as others demand dollars to put into their reserves, but at the same time the value of the dollar rises (above what it otherwise would have been), creating or exacerbating a trade deficit and weakening the economy.
For 45 years after World War II, global politics was dominated by two superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., representing two very different visions both of how to organ­ize and govern an economy and a society and of the relative importance of political and economic rights. Ultimately, the Soviet system was to fail, as much because of internal corruption, unchecked by democratic processes, as anything else. Its military power had been formidable; its soft power was increasingly a joke. The world was now dominated by a single superpower, one that continued to invest heavily in its military. That said, the U.S. was a superpower not just militarily but also economically.
The United States then made two critical mistakes. First, it inferred that its triumph meant a triumph for everything it stood for. But in much of the Third World, concerns about poverty—and the economic rights that had long been advocated by the left—remained paramount. The second mistake was to use the short period of its unilateral dominance, between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Lehman Brothers, to pursue its own narrow economic interests—or, more accurately, the economic interests of its multi-nationals, including its big banks—rather than to create a new, stable world order. The trade regime the U.S. pushed through in 1994, creating the World Trade Organization, was so unbalanced that, five years later, when another trade agreement was in the offing, the prospect led to riots in Seattle. Talking about free and fair trade, while insisting (for instance) on subsidies for its rich farmers, has cast the U.S. as hypocritical and self-serving.
And Washington never fully grasped the consequences of so many of its shortsighted actions—intended to extend and strengthen its dominance but in fact diminishing its long-term position. During the East Asia crisis, in the 1990s, the U.S. Treasury worked hard to undermine the so-called Miyazawa Initiative, Japan’s generous offer of $100 billion to help jump-start economies that were sinking into recession and depression. The policies the U.S. pushed on these countries—austerity and high interest rates, with no bailouts for banks in trouble—were just the opposite of those that these same Treasury officials advocated for the U.S. after the meltdown of 2008. Even today, a decade and a half after the East Asia crisis, the mere mention of the U.S. role can prompt angry accusations and charges of hypocrisy in Asian capitals.
Now China is the world’s No. 1 economic power. Why should we care? On one level, we actually shouldn’t. The world economy is not a zero-sum game, where China’s growth must necessarily come at the expense of ours. In fact, its growth is complementary to ours. If it grows faster, it will buy more of our goods, and we will prosper. There has always, to be sure, been a little hype in such claims—just ask workers who have lost their manufacturing jobs to China. But that reality has as much to do with our own economic policies at home as it does with the rise of some other country.
On another level, the emergence of China into the top spot matters a great deal, and we need to be aware of the implications.
First, as noted, America’s real strength lies in its soft power—the example it provides to others and the influence of its ideas, including ideas about economic and political life. The rise of China to No. 1 brings new prominence to that country’s political and economic model—and to its own forms of soft power. The rise of China also shines a harsh spotlight on the American model. That model has not been delivering for large portions of its own population. The typical American family is worse off than it was a quarter-century ago, adjusted for inflation; the proportion of people in poverty has increased. China, too, is marked by high levels of inequality, but its economy has been doing some good for most of its citizens. China moved some 500 million people out of poverty during the same period that saw America’s middle class enter a period of stagnation. An economic model that doesn’t serve a majority of its citizens is not going to provide a role model for others to emulate. America should see the rise of China as a wake-up call to put our own house in order.
Second, if we ponder the rise of China and then take actions based on the idea that the world economy is indeed a zero-sum game—and that we therefore need to boost our share and reduce China’s—we will erode our soft power even further. This would be exactly the wrong kind of wake-up call. If we see China’s gains as coming at our expense, we will strive for “containment,” taking steps designed to limit China’s influence. These actions will ultimately prove futile, but will nonetheless undermine confidence in the U.S. and its position of leadership. U.S. foreign policy has repeatedly fallen into this trap. Consider the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free-trade agreement among the U.S., Japan, and several other Asian countries—which excludes China altogether. It is seen by many as a way to tighten the links between the U.S. and certain Asian countries, at the expense of links with China. There is a vast and dynamic Asia supply chain, with goods moving around the region during different stages of production; the Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like an attempt to cut China out of this supply chain.
Another example: the U.S. looks askance at China’s incipient efforts to assume global responsibility in some areas. China wants to take on a larger role in existing international institutions, but Congress says, in effect, that the old club doesn’t like active new members: they can continue taking a backseat, but they can’t have voting rights commensurate with their role in the global economy. When the other G-20 nations agree that it is time that the leadership of international economic organizations be determined on the basis of merit, not nationality, the U.S. insists that the old order is good enough—that the World Bank, for instance, should continue to be headed by an American.
Yet another example: when China, together with France and other countries—supported by an International Commission of Experts appointed by the president of the U.N., which I chaired—suggested that we finish the work that Keynes had started at Bretton Woods, by creating an international reserve currency, the U.S. blocked the effort.
And a final example: the U.S. has sought to deter China’s efforts to channel more assistance to developing countries through newly created multilateral institutions in which China would have a large, perhaps dominant role. The need for trillions of dollars of investment in infrastructure has been widely recognized—and providing that investment is well beyond the capacity of the World Bank and existing multilateral institutions. What is needed is not only a more inclusive governance regime at the World Bank but also more capital. On both scores, the U.S. Congress has said no. Meanwhile, China is trying to create an Asian Infrastructure Fund, working with a large number of other countries in the region. The U.S. is twisting arms so that those countries won’t join.
The United States is confronted with real foreign-policy challenges that will prove hard to resolve: militant Islam; the Palestine conflict, which is now in its seventh decade; an aggressive Russia, insisting on asserting its power, at least in its own neighborhood; continuing threats of nuclear proliferation. We will need the cooperation of China to address many, if not all, of these problems.
We should take this moment, as China becomes the world’s largest economy, to “pivot” our foreign policy away from containment. The economic interests of China and the U.S. are intricately intertwined. We both have an interest in seeing a stable and well-functioning global political and economic order. Given historical memories and its own sense of dignity, China won’t be able to accept the global system simply as it is, with rules that have been set by the West, to benefit the West and its corporate interests, and that reflect the West’s perspectives. We will have to cooperate, like it or not—and we should want to. In the meantime, the most important thing America can do to maintain the value of its soft power is to address its own systemic deficiencies—economic and political practices that are corrupt, to put the matter baldly, and skewed toward the rich and powerful.
A new global political and economic order is emerging, the result of new economic realities. We cannot change these economic realities. But if we respond to them in the wrong way, we risk a backlash that will result in either a dysfunctional global system or a global order that is distinctly not what we would have wanted.

Also See:
China - the Sleeping Giant Starts to Awaken!
(Part 1)
08 June 2008
(Part 2)
15 May 2009
(Part 3)
02 September 2011
(Part 4)
02 July 2012
How Long Before China Crushes Taiwan?
17 December 2009
China is Stocking Up on Gold!
01 January 2014
Economic Collapse! How Did We Get Here?
(Part 3)
23 January 2014
China Today!
28 January 2014
Japan and Shanghai, a Haven for European Jews!
01 July 2014
Illegal Organ Trafficking is World Wide!
12 August 2014