Off the Beaten Path

I recently attended a Sagamore Institute for Policy Research (www.sipr.org) event with John Watkins (American Chamber of Commerce in China). I also just started Zakaria's "The Post-American World". Both of which have me thinking - is our relationship with China fundamentally different than all previous superpower relationships?

I think the answer is mostly yes because this relationship and/or conflict is primarily economic and cultural, not ideological, religious, or militaristic in nature (other than to protect economic interests). What ideology is China pushing? Communism? It doesn't seem that even China suggests communism as a viable form of government. What religion is China promoting? Buddhism (can a string be pushed)?

Some would argue that all superpower contests are economic in nature, perhaps so, but I would argue that they are often due to other causes and the economics become one form of weapon/defense. What happens when such a conflict is economic in nature? Here are some ideas:

1. military power is important but not omnipotent. It is important relative to a power's ability to protect its economic interests, but the interests themselves can be purchased rather than won by conflict.

2. the rule of law across countries (i.e. multi-jurisdictional arrangements) becomes more important than the rule of law within countries (i.e. a police force, a domestic judiciary, etc.).

3. transportation options (e.g. sea routes, pipelines, etc.), communication channels (e.g. satellites, a multinational presence, etc.), and economic blocs are more important than military alliances.

4. economic forms of organizations (e.g. partnerships, corporations, etc.) become more powerful than political forms of organization (e.g. city, states, nations, etc.).