In Trade has the world taken advantage of the US and laughs at it, or has the US traded economic might and held the world in thrall? It would seem that the US has won tremendously by using butter (as in guns v butter) and in doing so contributed to the World's economic well being. With good economies come strong democracies, and with trade vassal states. The skill of the US fisherman is the use of artificial baits not live worms. Great Negotiators take note.

Can someone at the NYT do a more critical analysis of this? For example, look at the quality of the trade and investment. On any visit to SE Asia, China's economic influence is almost invisible compared to the West. Also, the US, EU and Japan have service industries and high-tech factories all over SE Asia, transferring skills and important technology and have been doing so for decades. These companies, like Intel, are part of the local economies. Can't really say the same for Chinese trade and investment. We need to see the real impact of this trade on locals and the local economy.

Thank you for a clearly written, easy to understand article and informative article.

"China is converting its economic power into military power — and, in poorer democracies, into political influence." Reading from America's playbook...turnabout is fair play, no?

"growing scandals in Australia and New Zealand over Chinese influence-buying"?? The 'scandals' exist entirely in the minds of politicians seeking campaign contributions and media seeking readers. Beyond that, there is not a shred of information supporting the allegations that China has abandoned its promise of non-interference in other nations' internal affairs , nor has anyone advanced a motive for its so doing. If China wants to influence another country, it does so by picking up the phone or arranging a visit in person. And BTW, in 2010, in Foreign Policy Magazine, Nobelist Robert Fogel predicted that, by 2040, China's economy will be twice as big as ours and Europe's combined. Thus far, his prediction remains on track.

Every country in Asia(& world) will shift away from USA, if we bribed the government with money instead of principal. Our current occupant of WH - reflects negative moral values/principal and only works with money for himself. China has more cash and so we will loose those characterless government.. in due course.

GHOSTS OF VIETNAM .... is this what was meant by the DOMINO THEORY Z ?

Why is it taken for granted that America should challenge China in "Asia?" The idea is ridiculously arrogant. China has long been at peace and is determined to remain so. America has no possible reason to challenge China in Asia and as far as I can tell China is not about to be occupying Canada or Mexico anytime soon. Why is it that America cannot consider China a partner in peace?

Arms sales? How long will countries waste resources on US weapons given Russia’s new dominance?

Don't the chinese hold a huge pile of our debt? Doesn't this affect our thinking about trade or relationships on any level?

Both China and US are capitalist countries. The old cold war thinking will not work in this new world.

China is a former colony. It still understands very well what it means to be dominated by the old imperial powers, even if it won its freedom 1949. On the 6oth anniversary of the founding of the PRC, I stood on a Beijing street as wheel-mounted ballistic missiles drove by. I asked people of all ages what they thought of the display of arms. The answer from young and old alike was, "No foreigner will ever dominate China again; we can solve our own problems." In spite of its growth, China has not invaded other countries and hatched coup-d'etat as western countries like the US and France still do. They form partnerships with favorable loans and engineering advice. The maps show how they move strategically, not tactically, to isolate powers hostile to them. Like it or not that's what they do, and that's how they out-maneuver the USA.

Repeatedly China has made clear that America is not to be taken as an adversary but rather a partner, however American leaders and opinion makers appear to consider China only an adversary. The American adversarial stance can only be self-defeating. What drives the American stance is beyond my understanding, seemingly beyond rationality.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush initiated the current situation with the a free trade agreement that provided the cash that fueled China’s ascent and the power that they now wield. Their mistaken belief that China would embrace democracy and simply join the Pax Americana system as a junior partner, was beyond naïve. It was dangerously arrogant and negligent. The only option for Trump and future presidents is to minimize the strategic damage caused by China’s ascent.

It is interesting how the West always view things from the adversarial perspective. For countless centuries, the West, as represented by Europe, engaged in endless infighting that even intermarriage among royalties failed to mitigate. China, on the other hand, may have its intermittent share of turbulent times. Yet, for over a thousand years, it had the compass, gunpowder and ocean-going ships but it did not go around conquering and colonizing, unlike the West centuries later. Instead, it had commerce and cultural exchanges with places as far as Africa, India and the Middle East. Even actions decried by western liberals, such as those with regards to Tibet and South China Seas, can be interpreted as a belated response to the disadvantage of being absence from the land-grab by the west during the western colonizing era. Look at the remnants of those grabs: Ryukyu Kingdom, Falklands, Diego Garcia, the French overseas territories, and so on. A short quote typifies the issue: The US sends its soldiers around the world to fight and kill. China sends its engineers around the world to design and build. Will the West ever changes its adversarial mindset and overcome the deadweight of its history that sees everything in terms of war and power influence? Is this the fate of humankind - that we will never ever live peacefully with each other as long as skin colors are different?

A choice between Chinese wealth and American security? Are you asking ...get rich with trade or go broke playing policeman to the world?