Speak Victorian, Think Pagan: Exhibit A

What should we do about China? The BBC sums up the debate this way:

Opinion in Washington is divided. Some Republicans want to pressure China on human rights issues while others – the more business-orientated – want to pursue an active engagement. The dichotomy in US policy has been neatly described as a struggle between “panda huggers” and “dragon slayers”.

The difficulty is not just in framing policy but in finding language to describe it.

“Managing China’s rise” sounds patronising and affords the US an ability to shape China’s destiny which it simply does not have. “Containing China” hankers back to Cold War terminology which is equally unhelpful.

Reconciling these tensions is Mr Bush’s task. He hopes to demonstrate on this trip that despite the problems of Middle East peace or of security in Iraq, and irrespective of the so-called global war on terror, Asia matters.

“Managing China’s rise” sounds patronising and affords the US an ability to shape China’s destiny which it simply does not have. “Containing China” hankers back to Cold War terminology which is equally unhelpful. Reconciling these tensions is Mr Bush’s task. He hopes to demonstrate on this trip that despite the problems of Middle East peace or of security in Iraq, and irrespective of the so-called global war on terror, Asia matters.

Besides the usual BBC silliness (like, Asia actually matters!), the article almost hits the mark. Mr. Bush need not reconcile these two points—he has to consider both. Containing China should be one of the goals of US policy for the next few decades. However, no US politician or policymaker should ever say this. The consequences of such an assertion would damage bilateral relations and help the CCP shore up support with China’s rabid future voters. But like it or not, that should be one of our primary goals in the decades to come.