Well That's Helpful.... Jackass

(AP) WASHINGTON — The United States urged China to undertake a transition to democracy Wednesday, saying its existing one-party system "is simply not sustainable.''

In a major policy address on China, the State Department's No. 2 official, Robert Zoellick, also warned about possible retaliatory U.S. action against China, unless the U.S. trade deficit with that country shrinks.

Zoellick brought together in one speech all elements -- both negative and positive -- of the U.S. relationship with China, which officials call the most complex of any in the world.

If possible, the actual text of the speech is even worse than it sounds in the AP article. First off, get a load of this steaming pile:

Seven U.S. presidents of both parties recognized this strategic shift and worked to integrate China as a full member of the international system. Since 1978, the United States has also encouraged China’s economic development through market reforms.

Our policy has succeeded remarkably well: the dragon emerged and joined the world. Today, from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization, from agreements on ozone depletion to pacts on nuclear weapons, China is a player at the table.

Your policy? YOUR POLICY??? I wasn't aware that Republicans sat on the Politburo, you moron. Is it actually possible for American politicians to admit that they aren't in fact responsible for every good thing that happens in the world? Zoellick continues:

For the United States and the world, the essential question is – how will China use its influence?

To answer that question, it is time to take our policy beyond opening doors to China’s membership into the international system: We need to urge China to become a responsible stakeholder in that system. [emphasis in orginal]

Gee... responsible stakeholder? You mean, like defusing a major international crisis?

AP - BEIJING Sep 21, 2005 — China's success in orchestrating a landmark six-nation accord on ending North Korea's nuclear program has clinched its role as a major peacemaker in the region regardless of the challenges ahead for the deal, analysts say.

It seems to me Beijing doesn't need lessons on being a responsible stakeholder, Bob. Back to your speech:

For example, China’s rapid military modernization and increases in capabilities raise questions about the purposes of this buildup and China’s lack of transparency. The recent report by the U.S. Department of Defense on China’s military posture was not confrontational, although China’s reaction to it was. The U.S. report described facts, including what we know about China’s military, and discussed alternative scenarios. If China wants to lessen anxieties, it should openly explain its defense spending, intentions, doctrine, and military exercises.

Ah yes, because the Pentagon is the definition of openness and transparency. In fact, the Chinese have been relatively (important qualifier) open about their intentions - the US is just being willfully obtuse about them. In fact, the real reason that Zoellick is sweating comes earlier in the speech:

As Secretary Rice has stated, the United States welcomes a confident, peaceful, and prosperous China, one that appreciates that its growth and development depends on constructive connections with the rest of the world. [emphasis mine]

Notice a word missing there? Confident, peaceful, prosperous... and poweful, maybe? Whatever regime controls Beijing, the US is afraid of Chinese power - friendly or not, there can be only one superpower, if the US had it's way.

There's some good stuff in the speech too - Zoellick tries to fight the image of a new Cold War with China. This would be a bit more convincing if the US wasn't in fact replaying "containment" around China's borders, but it's nice to hear all the same. However, the majority of the speech is heavy-handed, crude, and likely to strain US-China relations even further.