If the United States could return to a policy of public friendliness and private skepticism—a combination we winningly used in, for instance, the 1980s—we might see a lot of pointless tension between us and China diminish.

I agree this would be good. But your logic is circular. It posits that diminished tension is a worthy goal in and of itself. Well, I happen to agree, but many don't and you offer no arguments to convince them otherwise.

So let me play the devil's advocate and argue the other side. In 20 years max, China will be the world's largest economy, and the US's only comparative advantage will be the ability to project hard power (which will last at most another generation). Now in order to keep US hegemony alive (which seemed to have been now-defunct America Abroad's persistent wet dream), the US needs to encircle China by building alliances with India and Pacific rim countries.
Otherwise, we can kiss that cherished hegemony good-bye.

Now I disagree with that, but it's got logic on its side. So I'd like the people who believe in the continued virtues of US hegemony (the people euphemistically referred to as "centrists" on this blog) to argue cogently how the US can be hegemonic without containing what will soon be the world's leading power, China.

And as a preemptive move, let me add that any argument based on the irresistible attraction of America's moral virtues will be greeted with guffaws and an order to memorize the entire 133-page 06/27/07 Pew Survey.

A fable of two minds, stolen borrowed from Robert Louis Stevenson 

And I agree entirely Rachel Kleinfeld’s summary of the state of affairs in China today—“What China appears to be doing is raising its own people out of poverty and into an unfair, unaccountable, cronyist system”—as well as with everything else she writes in her post.

Dr. Jekyll:

• When enough of them have been raised out of poverty and connected to the parts of the world which might be considered liberal, they won't be satisfied with an "unfair, unaccountable, and cronyist system".  They'll unravel it themselves.

Mr. Hyde:

• Meanwhile, our own system becomes more unfair, unaccountable, and cronyist.

I haven't quite figured out the forces which change me from Jekyll to Hyde or back again.  If I do, I'll sell the formula to big Pharma (if I'm Hyde when I discover it) or give it to the World Health Organization (if I'm Jekyll when I discover it).

aMike

here's a news flash for you -- most flag-waving patriots don't believe America is a hegemon at all. These ideas are advanced by nations that see US influence as a hindrance to their own ambitions, but it doesn't equal the US being the shot-caller. The foreign policies of Russia and China are far more unilateral, bullying, and yes hegemonic than the US. Neither of these nations use int'l institutions as a tool of policy like the US does.

In fact, being the #1 power has huge negative connotations, because leaders of smaller nations will always worry about being seen as a poodle (like Blair) if they happen to agree with our policies on principle and act accordingly. Canada is a good example of that -- a close ally but one that keeps us at arm's length.

Take a look at the major trade negotiations going on. The US has made huge concessions on subsidies -- far more than the EU was willing to make. A hegemonic nation would simply dictate terms.

With regard to China -- resentment of their nation will grow as their power and wealth grows. It's human nature. We're already seeing that in African nation's where Chinese businesses set up shop -- and treat their employees horribly with nothing but the bottom line in mind. Word is getting out what it is like to work for a Chinese company, and it's not positive.

We should remember the China presented to us via the media is the spun version their government wants us to see. The truth is protests and riots break out in China all the time (reportedly thousands last year). If one were to view these on an uncensored media, you could get the impression that China is actually very unstable politically. Chinese poor are well aware of their circumstances, and they are beginning to stand up for themselves.

I don't agree that our policy is hostile towards China. We have expressed concern over their military build-up, but we also have an official policy of engagement, where Chinese military officers regularly visit US bases and interact with US military personnel. We've also allowed billions worth of dual-use technology to be transferred.

We disagree on some trade issues, but we have these same kinds of issues with many other nations. Where's the hostility?

Brook Dataski -- "...Where's the hostility?"

I thought this was about power and influence over third parties, the competition between the USofA and China, rather than overt hostility to China.

Anyway, apologies for mispelling your name the last post.

I'll catch up later. Got to go.

My point was that we actually use international institutions. China and Russia don't bother. Do you think China's going to go to the Security Council asking for a resolution to invade Taiwan, which they threaten to do? We asked Russia and China at least for their help.

As for Kyoto, NONE of the nations that signed the agreement are complying with the standards. It's the illusion of action. Emissions continue to increase unabated. It's the most successful propaganda campaign this side of a North Korean anniversary celebration. At least we're not participating in the hypocrisy on that front.

you didn't address my point that the US really isn't a hegemon at all -- and I used several examples to prove it. The US has never had control of the UN. You should study the history of Cold War UN. It was always a stalemate with the US/UK on one side Russia/China on the other and France on either side, depending on the issue. The UN has also been a forum for ideological opponents to vent their fury at the "imperialists" without any censorship or recriminations.

While your at it, do a bit of reading on Taiwan. Your analysis is straight out of the Beijing Taiwan playbook.

Brook: You've missed the point. The issue is not whether the US is a hegemon. It is whether US leaders believe that it is and that it should remain so.

Also, you seem confused about the meaning of the word "hegemonic." It's got nothing to do with being unilateral and a bully. The US is all of the above but that's got nothing to do with hegemony.

Hegemony simply means having the last word on an issue; being the predominant influence. That's a position that every centrist and everyone right of center espouses. On this blog, the bulk of AA subscribes to the thesis that the US should be a liberal hegemon. In fact, while the AEI crowd supports unilateralism and bullying, the Ikenberry crowd (or the centrist crowd, if you will) argues cogently how successful US hegemony requires multilateralism, depends on our willingness to let others in to play the game -- our game.

Here's the catch. China will dominate us economically in 20 years and in 40 years China will tower over us (its GDP will then be twice ours). Read this week's The Economist if you don't believe me.

Now you don't get the last word when someone in the room is twice your weight. Unless you rein him in by military means.

So, what gives?

A meta comment: this is rather typical of foreign affairs discussions on this blog: abstractions and lofty platitudes about values and whether China will be good for the poor and how neat it'd be if we learned other languages, blah, blah, together with a total unwillingness to examine the underlying assumptions behind the arguments being made and an apparent inability to connect the dots.

So, again, let me repeat.

1. Hegemony is the dogma of US foreign policy from Hillary to Obama to McCain. It is the dominant ideology of AA.

2. US hegemony is incompatible with friendly behavior toward China.

3. Is TA Frank willing to tell us he doesn't believe in US hegemony and, if not, will he explain the contradiction in his position?

Brook: There is very little hostility -- yet. But the US's friendliness towards China to date is due to 2 things: first, the chief US relationship with China was trade, and our stance on that was dominated by big-business interests who wanted a friendly relationship; and second, China was not a player in international geostrategic terms, so our interests there did not come into conflict.

Joshua Kurlantzick's book is about how factor 2 has changed: China is now an international geostrategic player, and our interests are sometimes in conflict. And factor 1 is being changed by increasing working-class hostility to outsourcing of jobs to China (though the horses have long left the barn on this one), and by consumer antagonism to unsafe Chinese goods. In this context, certain underlying sources of potential hostility -- the conflict over our visions of human rights and democracy, and over Taiwan -- are coming to the fore. And the issue is, to what extent should we foreground that kind of antagonism, vs. to what extent should we stick with "constructive engagement".

Accumulating Peripherals

There's no question we were a hegemon post-WWII. We pushed the Russians out of a lot of countries like Iran and Japan, and Eisenhower staunchly opposed colonialism. The rest of the world was in ruins and dependent on us -- they couldn't disagree.

The Cold War changed that. We had no influence at all over the Communist world which was half the globe at that time.

If we are hegemonic today, it's not working very well. We can't get resolution on any of the world's most serious crises, and getting a global trade deal is herding cats.

We are already just one player among many. Our wealth and military power have limits. If China becomes more dominant, I would predict a much closer EU/American relationship to counter that.

Charles De Gaulle was very worried about US power in Europe, which is why he shifted France away from NATO. They had Communists in their parliament. France played footsie with Russia throughout the Cold War. They more or less saw themselves as the arbiter in between the two sides. On issues like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, France always avoided harsh criticism of Russian policy.

You pointed out we haven't been able to reduce corruption and exploitation in foreign countries. the question is -- do we even have the ability to do that? Take a look at the money and aid given to Haiti by ourselves and a large int'l contribution. Nothing has changed there. Afghanistan isn't looking too good either, despite 6 years of assistance.

No, the "constructive engagement" philosophy is that better things will happen, across the board, if we maintain a positive relationship with China than if we demonize them and treat them explicitly as an adversary. China already has "opened up" its political process to a far greater degree than in the 1970s and 1980s. I am not convinced that China will move to a multiparty democratic system in the foreseeable future. I am not sure that Chinese citizens think a shift to a multiparty system would answer any of the pressing issues in China at the moment, and I am not sure that the instability which democracy can bring in developing nations might not cause more problems in China at the moment than solutions. I also think that those who argue that East Asian societies may be inherently more comfortable than European ones with consensual elite-run governments may have a point. But mainly, I do not think that anything the United States can do will have very much influence on whether or not China moves to a multiparty democratic system in the foreseeable future.

I think that the U.S. can have a substantial influence on whether or not China enforces health and environmental standards on its products and in the workplace, simply by insisting on such standards, as a consumer of Chinese products. I also think that U.S. citizens' groups can have a very positive influence on China's international stances on issues such as Darfur, through initiatives like the "Genocide Olympics" campaign which leverage China's strong desire to protect its international brand. The U.S. government can to a limited extent engage in the same kind of pressure on China to take responsible international positions.

But I think it is delusional to believe that the U.S. can have a more positive influence on the development of Chinese democracy if it adopts a confrontational stance towards the Chinese government. I certainly do not see how the U.S. can coherently take a confrontational stance towards China while it remains our Number 2 trading partner; and a dramatic disruption in that trade relationship is not only a political and economic impossibility at this point, but would be undesirable because of the terrible economic impact it would have on the American and Chinese working classes. Finally, there is a very large class of smart young Chinese intellectuals coming up who could help Americans and Europeans to build a better and more sane and orderly world, if we cultivate them rather than demonizing them. So that's why I think "constructive engagement" is the right path at this time.

One final way to put this: if China invades Taiwan, let's make sure the world sees it as their fault, not ours.

Accumulating Peripherals

Maybe I'll say something after I get to Beijing in the fall (if my passport ever arrives).

nobody has a crystal ball on these things, and if you go back and read predictions of Japan's rise in the 70's and the rise of the EU, most of the analysts were way off the mark. They're about as accurate as a stock-advisory newsletter.