This kind of "containment" policy leads to isolation. You can see for yourself how this worked with Iran... China has the will, power and resources for a more-or-less self-sufficient economy (in a few decades, with the extensive development of green energy), so isolation wouldn't bear much fruit other than a strengthened regime and growing hostility towards the West. No more cold war, please.
You made good point about the jobs. Steady withdrawal from China would be beneficial, as it would lower domestic unemployment and dependence on China at the same time.

"There is a better way to slow the rise of China."....WHY? Go back to basic, why do you want to slow China's rise? Is China's rise a threat or benefit to the US or the World?
American manufacturing jobs are not exported to China. They were drawn to the lowest cost denominators. Now, Bungladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. are eagar to take those jobs away from China. You need to get to the fundamentals....why US fails to up the ladder of making things like the Swiss and the German. That should the question.

Dave I think you mean "Shanghai Cooperation Organisation" but you are right. Today it makes more sense for Indonesia and India to work with them rather than with an American led "alliance' in opposition to China. China's policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations certainly makes them a more agreeable partner than whatever the US has to offer.

Yes I did mean "Cooperation". My mistake!

Which is India's closest and most influential neighbor? It's a no-brainer! Wright's thinking is not only old-school, it is out-dated and has lost its relevance in today's geopolitical landscape. China's rise is already a fact. The west should learn to adapt and work with this power. In case of doubt, read Sun Tze's Strategem of War. Sun Tze, by the way, is Chinese!

You have a good point analyzing "balance", which oriental philosophy prized dearly (ying vs. yang, concept of harmony between heavenly forces and human etc.) But I feel that you have over-rated India in the contribution of a tripartite possibility. India is not ready in all aspects. At the moment US is desperately pulling all tricks - US+Japan+S. Korea; US+ASEAN. None of these combinations seem to work.

Hi Grant,

Thanks for taking the time to address my comments!

What about the Edo period? That was almost three hundred years without major upheaval. It was a peace enforced by coercion and the domination of the samurai, but peace nonetheless. Compare Europe and the United States in the same period. Endless wars in Europe, and the US has been on the warpath off and on during its entire existence. The period since 1945 is basically non-stop war.

China has a contiguous history dating back 3000 years, and is the most stable civilization in history. There is simply no comparison with Europe or the US.

China has had its revolutions, but the revolutions and rebellions of the 20th century were nationalist movements ultimately aimed at throwing off colonialism and establishing China once again as the middle kingdom.

Japan is generally stable and its foreign adventures are the exception to the norm. The so called revolutions and civil wars in Japan have been merely realignments of the status quo among a closed circle of power holders. A real revolution in Japan would be most welcome, same for China. They both need one.

Sorry, but the US has come crashing down. It's a holy mess. The country is hopelessly overextended and the treasury is completely empty, looted to the last drop. You talk about an education system. The population is practically illiterate politically, in its understanding of geography or history and world affairs. The education system has been gutted. It was a deliberate effort to gut it as well. Much like the offshoring of jobs, it has resulted in a hollowed out economy, capable of little else but producing wars. Well, this is not entirely true. The US is still hugely powerful, and it is on the cutting edge of just about every development, but it is in real trouble. The center is weakened. It has a lot of inertia to overcome before it can really be said to be back on its feet again.

The Cold War and Vietnam played a large part in destroying the once unsinkable US economy. The leadership finished it off when they refused to make use of the Cold War peace dividend. It's a horrible disaster.

The US today is incalculably worse off than it was in 1973. No question.

I have no idea where you are going with your comparison of the Soviets and China. It's not an issue of military power, in any case. China doesn't need military power, but it should be able to field a serviceable capacity for projection before long. Why not?

If you look at China's long history, it does not have a record of aggressive military projection. While the Europeans made their way around the world slaughtering the native peoples they met, the Chinese had earlier sent a massive naval fleet all the way to Arabia, on a mission of peace, the only goal of which was to expand trade and gain respect for the Middle Kingdom.

I don't know the figures, but I hardly remember the USSR being the workshop of the entire world as China is today. Again, no real comparison. The soviets could make SSBNs and tanks, but that was about it. The rest of the products were not fit for the market. Different cultures entirely.

Japan is not capable of being a political or economic superpower any more. The real role for Japan is one of a leader, in the sense of using its superior knowhow to lead other countries to a higher level of stability and productivity. It has ceded the role it could be playing, by playing its cards too close to its chest, to the Chinese. Japan utterly lacks leadership. Again, if there is a real revolution in Japan this could all change, and Japan could turn into a real world leader, but not an economic or military superpower. Those days are just over, gone. Japan's golden age has come and gone.

Germany, Brazil, South Africa, France, the UK...are you kidding?

In re. to your responses in order (and thank you for being civil, considering some of the comments I've had thrown at me...and sorry if I was being sharp)

1. The Edo period was indeed a peaceful, but immediately prior was the Japanese Warring states period. At both times Confucianism was present but had little to do with stability. I give far more credit to the Tokugawa military victories and to a growing sentiment among the nobility that it was better to enjoy the good times. Japan was protected from foreign invasions largely because it rarely went to war with its neighbors due to a lack of strength, and China was focused more on the continent. Also as the Mongolian dominated empire discovered, it is very difficult to invade an island nation.

2. China's history might be a long one, but it's also a rather bloody one. Confucianism actually developed during China's own Warring States period, which was one of the most bloody eras in early Asian history. Then we have the wars in the Korean peninsula, the wars with what is now Russia and the Mongols. Suffice to say, China did not enjoy 3000 years of peace.

3. You are correct that China's 20th century revolutionary movements were anti-colonialist, but at that time China was also effectively divided up into warlord states that weren't fully reunified until the late 40s.

4. I'll agree at least in part. At the moment Japan looks like it's set to go through more weak governments that hang on a few years. To use a quote from an observer of Taiwan 'just because these people have elections doesn't mean they have democracy' (paraphrased).

5. Education at lower levels isn't very good (though I note that few people seem to be able to compare anything more than mathematics from Europe or Japan). However U.S higher education is considered some of the best in the world. Even when their government pushes them to Russia or China Iranian students still want to study here. Fareed Zakaria admitted that an Indian engineering degree still wasn't considered as good as an American one.

6. The U.S economy is the largest on the planet, about five or six times larger than the next largest (Japan).

7. China didn't go into foreign adventures largely because they didn't consider anything worth bothering with. You'll note that after the major fleet expedition Europe began to explode in learning and exploration while China made comparatively little progress.

8. The Soviet industry was massive at its peak, while it took China about another 20-some years (dated from the start of Communist rule) to really industrialize. If you want evidence just look at the Soviet space program. Nations can't afford costly programs like that without large reserves to back it with.

9. Japan has the second largest economy in the entire world, and more than a few international companies are based in Japan (Toyota, Mitsubishi, Toshiba and Bandai to name but a few easily recognizable ones). Admittedly Japan also has an absolutely ludicrous amount of debt that it's leaders still won't even consider doing more than window dressing taxes to address, but in sheer economic power do not underestimate the nation.

10. All of those nations have large economies, strong political ties with other strong nations, decent armies, stable politics and fairly firm rule of law. Don't underestimate any of them, it's easy to get caught in the trap of only thinking about super powers and ignoring regional powers.