Pentagon: China’s Military Strengthening

Well, I don't think China's rise is necessarily preordained (as Stalin said "everything in the world may change").  Egypt used to be very powerful yet that is not in the cards for the foreseeable future.  I think the Chinese will also have a hard time continuing their rapid rise indefinitely (kind of like what happened to Japan, they plateaued after a few decades).  That in my opinion doesn't make them any less of a threat.  A country that has gotten a taste of power might be violent in trying to get more.  Or like Japan, China is becoming very dependent on foreign raw materials like Arab oil, which like Imperial Japan could be bad for the world. 

To deal with this threat, I think initiatives like demanding currency reform to harm the Chinese economy are needed.  Political and military containment is needed to stop any military adventurism through alliances with India and the remilitarization of Japan.  Actions to inflame domestic tensions like those in Tibet and Xinjiang, and those current riots by workers and farmers  and undermining of the CCP would also be helpful.  If China does go through another revolution it would also be imperative to use the opportunity to lop off areas of China like Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, etc. and perhaps create a general fracturing of China into minor states as has happened in the past.  That's certainly not all that should be done, but I think you get the picture.

Constantine:

I would not be too concerned about "blocs" forming power centers.  Islamic states have been looked upon as a possible force such as this for some time, and there are so many tribal, ethnic and religious differences that it seems most unlikely.  Also, only one relatively concentrated geographical area holds most of the Islamic "world's" wealth, that being just one commodity.

Europe cannot agree on a fundamental form of organization, much to the frustration of elitist bEUROcrats who like to have others do what they say and acknowledge their exalted positions.  Western Europeans look down their snoots at Eastern Europeans (the Polish plumber syndrome), and the French, as usual, want to run everyTHING and succeed in annoying everyONE.  There is no way the British are going to be told what to do by Italians and Danes meeting in Brussels, Belgium.

Latin America has one of the largest states in the world in Brazil, but their official reality is in Portuguese, and the rest of them exist in Spanish.   Latin America has had 200 years with few (and no disastrous) wars to set them back, and they have not accomplished that much in the way of integration or cooperation.  Too many conflicting interests.

Asia......well that is the point of the thread.  In north Asia, I would see a Sino-Confucian power center with China and any dependencies (Korea, possibly Vietnam if they don't go to war with each other).  In south Asia, I would see an Indian-Hindu power center and these powers would inevitably be rivals.  Both are incompatible with 'militant' Islam.......there will be much conflict over all this.  It may be that all these powers will be busy with their own security concerns, and not as concerned with fighting the United States.  We are NOT going to invade China or India. 

Africa is a sad case.

It seems to me that the U.S. will mend the fences it needs to in order to contain any Chinese expansionism in Asia (which isn't very likely anyway considering their history).  Japan economically, and Australia culturally are attached to America.  They would be threatened by such expansionism, and both of them are certainly unsinkable aircraft carriers.

As with Pikeshot, I don't see much of a threat from the limping European Union who seem to have merely taken a 50 year break from their thousand year old tradition of rivalry because of the Cold War.  The Middle East as well seems unlikely to form any such union.  I'm surprised to see that you think that Southeast Asia could organize itself into a bloc given the ancient rivalries between the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Burmese, etc. 

With regards to your saying that it will not be economically expedient to thwart the rise of China, I admit that is true, but I don't think it's impossible.  Nations fear danger more than they like money.  The British hurt their own economy with the Navigation Acts of 1651 because it hurt the Dutch more.  America today refuses to trade with Cuba or North Korea, and we refused to trade with the Soviet Union.  America is also now a competitor for the juicy global marketplace and will, IMHO, further chill our lukewarm relations.

In my anthropology class we talked much about globalization, which I don't think is only a force for integration, it can be a force for separation.  It exposes people to others who they are different from and compete with for resources and prestige and in a sense is a vehicle for the "othering" of foreign peoples.  Look at how the Arab nations and the West have been driven further apart in the time of globalization, and how the Eastern and Western Europeans turn cold shoulders to one another.  In a sense, the old equilibrium is maintained and I don't see a blending of states into provinces within regional blocs. 

As for domestic unrest in China, I don't think China's government and it's current state can remain in disharmony much longer, unless the Communist Party decides to just because fascist and capitalist.  Even if that happened it would almost certainly schism the party between hardliners and reformers.  About labor, I read in the report to Congress that is the subject of this thread, that in 2004 there were 58,000 riots by farmers and workers over mistreatment by local authorities.  I think a massive upheaval in the government of China is extremely likely, the question is how violent it will be.  If I were in charge of America, I would seek to make sure it was as violent as possible.  As you put in lightly "not noble", but necessary nonetheless.

As for your assertion that many other "Chinas" may form, that is certainly a possibility.  The only one I think could perhaps fit that description is India at the moment.  I don't really see them challenging us for global hegemony in the foreseeable future.  They still have much to do to get their house in order and will probably be worried more so with Pakistan than with making enemies with the US.  The Chinese GDP-PPP is also at this moment  is also about 52% that of the US (according to nationmaster.com), the Indian figure is only 25% of the American one and would take enormous growth relative to the US GDP for a very long amount of time to even come close to matching the US GDP.  A powerful India I also don't think would be bad for the US.  The Indian Ocean is not an important region to the US and having an ally there would be good for us.  We also both have much the same enemies, Jihadists (India in Kashmir and America across the globe) and the the Chinese.  Other than a very powerful India in the very distant future assuming there is a massive cooling off of our mutual relations, I see China as the only present or foreseeable threat to American hegemony for many years.