American strategists have, since the end of the Cold War, been a day late and a dollar short in appreciating the change in relations with the People’s Republic of China. The first presumption was that, since Beijing had been regarded an ally of convenience against Moscow — the old “triangular diplomacy” was often ranked as Henry Kissinger’s most subtle and successful bit of statecraft — that a “strategic partnership” would continue. This attitude took deeper root during the Clinton years, when “geoeconomics” was to have supplanted geopolitics. The world would remain peaceful because people now preferred wealth to power.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/03/1814022

And when the CFR Report goes on to say

""So, when the council says, “All across Africa today, China is acquiring control of natural resource assets, outbidding Western contractors on major infrastructure projects and providing soft loans and other incentives to bolster its competitive advantages,” it’s a pretty safe bet that this pattern is indisputable. And the report’s conclusion that it is “most disturbing to U.S. political objectives” that China is willing “to use its seat on the UN Security Council to protect some of Africa’s most egregious regimes from international sanction, in particular Sudan and Zimbabwe” is an understatement.""

the two lessons to be learned are:

1. China is beating America at its own game

and

2. China is playing (in Africa) the same game that America has been playing (in South and Central America) for decades.

Ralph Peters' recent article, "War's Irrational Motivators" (AFJ 08/08) should make us all shudder as to which "irrational motivators" China may also soon be subject. China analysts must more seriously consider the possibility that Chinese pride (and hegemonic ambition) requires the United States' humiliation more desperately than Chinese greed requires U.S. trade. Perhaps the China Engagement School faithful should read Ralph Peters' article and extrapolate accordingly.