For some Euro watchers, this arrangement between Europe and China is only the latest example of “the scramble for Europe”. Borrowing the phrase from the 19th century competition between European states to acquire colonies in Africa, skeptics use the term broadly to argue that the surge in Chinese acquisitions of European companies and related investments will undermine European competitiveness. In the words of a French official, “It’s a real war, with highly subsidized companies coming to open markets with unusually low prices and undercutting the competition.” Moreover, this may lead to a split EU policy on China, with “cash-strapped deal-seekers”, like Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain (PIGS), simply seeking investments, while “frustrated market-openers” like Germany and France seek a united European consensus to protect domestic firms both in Europe and abroad in China.

Especially in the eyes of countries like Germany and France, China’s investment patterns in Europe present a concern. A disproportionately large percentage of China’s global investments are in Eastern Europe (10%) and PIGS (30%) – the traditionally weaker EU economies. Combined with the fact that Chinese firms have been beating out European firms for large public-sector contracts in Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia, this leads wealthier EU states to eye China’s intentions warily.

Undoubtedly, this arrangement has real benefits for weaker EU states, which can now obtain infrastructure at fire sale prices. However, the lack of transparency of many Chinese corporations is a cause for concern. Although EU law forbids state-run companies from bidding for public contracts, many Chinese multinationals that bid for these contracts have close ties to government, maintain a shadow party structure, and most importantly, obtain government subsidies, which give them a further leg up on their European competitors. Furthermore, Chinese firms can keep costs lower than their European competitors by importing low-cost laborers from China and paying them significantly less.

Why is this a problem for European unity? While poorer EU members see only the benefits of discounted costs, wealthier EU members see anti-competitive practices as harmful for domestic firms. Furthermore, when European firms from wealthier nations go abroad, they are frustrated by China’s lack of reciprocity. While European firms are nominally allowed to bid for projects in China, they rarely win, as the rules are skewed almost always to favor domestic firms. Therefore, the vast majority of China’s internationally known mega-projects such as the Three Gorges Dam, Olympic stadiums, and bullet trains are administered instead by the National Development and Research Commission (NDRC). So while the “market-openers” cry foul and attempt to overhaul existing EU legislation, the “cash-strapped deal-seekers” do not see it in their interest to comply with any policy to change the status quo.

To argue that China actively seeks to weaken the EU by reaching agreements with individual member states to create a divisive “China lobby” within the union may be a stretch. China has little to gain from the dissolution of the EU. Nonetheless, Europe must put its economic house in order, encourage China to open up its market to foreign firms, and finally mitigate the unfair advantages that Chinese firms have while bidding in Europe. To achieve the first goal, the EU must evolve beyond its original intent and become a monetary and a fiscal union. Though this would most likely face serious resistance from many EU states, the debt crisis in Europe today is a direct result of a failure on the part of the EU states to coordinate fiscal policy. It is important to remember while China demands certain conditions for its purchase of euro bonds, this originated from a lack of European coordination that precipitated this disaster. By allowing each state to pursue its own interest independently, each state ended up collectively worse off than if they had coordinated their policies together. Moving towards a fiscal union will benefit the EU in the present by giving investors confidence in EU bonds, and will benefit the EU in the future by making it easier to head off the type of debt crises that we see today, reducing the need for the type of outside intervention that Europe is soliciting from China now.

In addition, more regulation will be required to prevent foreign firms from using subsidies to gain unfair advantages in bidding. Since there already exist a myriad of regulation in China, the European Financial Stability Fund suggests that the EU should reciprocate, especially in fields such as defense, critical technologies, media, and education.

While Chinese investments have exposed weaknesses in the EU’s structure, these are all manageable issues that, in time, can be resolved. Although the alarmist reports in the media have painted a portrait of newly ascendant China righting past wrongs by reverse-colonizing Europe, the truth is that China is neither belligerent nor friendly – it is simply in pursuit of its own self-interest, and Europe should respond accordingly by strengthening existing ties between states.

The Xinjiang riots erupted after two Uighur men died in a racially charged brawl between Han Chinese and Uighurs in a Guangdong toy factory. The mass unrest following the dispute resulted in nearly 200 deaths, thousands of injuries, and 1,500 arrests. While Uighurs mounted the initial protests, Xinjiang’s Han Chinese responded with an armed counter-march a few days later. Twenty-five of those arrested have received death sentences, and although their ethnicities were not officially released, the BBC reported that their names indicate that all were Uighurs. Additionally, Human Rights Watch reported police sweeps rounding up Uighur men in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang province. China is still dealing with the aftermath of this event; approximately 20 Uighur men who fled to Cambodia following the riots were deported back to China. No information on the men has been released, other than the fact that they are being or have been put on trial for what China considers criminal activities. Although it is less visible, the situation has not resolved itself in the months following the riots.

Ethnic tensions are not new in Xinjiang. During the 1990s, a separatist group known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) was blamed for over 200 terrorist attacks. The goal of ETIM was to establish an Islamic state independent of China. While most Uighurs do not sympathize with the ETIM and do not in fact seek to establish an independent East Turkestan, they still resent both the Han population in Xinjiang as well as the Chinese government. Chinese development campaigns like “Open up the West” have brought massive infrastructure projects to the region, allowing more governmental control in the wake of ETIM attacks and strengthening ties to a region of great economic importance for China. But to foster these ties, the government has actively encouraged the migration of Han Chinese to Xinjiang. While Han made up just 5 percent of the Xinjiang population in the 1940s, today they account for approximately 40 percent. The massive influx of Han immigrants has increased competition for jobs and natural resources in the region. Furthermore, the Chinese government has placed tight controls on the practice of Islam. Although the Chinese government is not immediately at fault for the riots in Xinjiang, it set the stage for the violence.

Considering the apparent repression that has occurred in Xinjiang, it is worth asking why there has been so little international interest in the conflict, especially compared to the worldwide outpouring of support for Tibet. On a basic level, the Uighurs lack an effective, recognizable leader. Although Rebiya Kadeer serves as a spokesperson for the group, she lacks the popular support enjoyed by, for one, the Dalai Lama of Tibet.

Of more fundamental concern is the fact that the Uighurs have yet to shake the implicit association with terrorism. ETIM’s attacks during the 1990s complicated outside views of the Uighur community. The Beijing government has used the presence of ETIM to justify its repressive tactics in Xinjiang. In the wake of 9/11, the US and other nations were willing to support that view. The United States labeled ETIM a terrorist organization, and 22 Uighurs from Afghanistan were held in Guantanamo Bay. All have since been cleared of any terrorist affiliation. However, China’s crackdown on ETIM appears to have worked. Experts have expressed doubt that it is still an active organization, although that is not to say that there is no threat. The Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP), believed to be an offshoot of ETIM, organized bombings in the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Nevertheless, these attacks are rare, and much of the unrest in Xinjiang, like July’s riots, is not associated with terrorist activity. In fact, although China continues to link violence to ETIM, many Chinese experts doubt the extent of ETIM’s operations and believe the government relies on the threat of terrorism to mask its hard-line policies in Xinjiang.

Although initially China was praised for allowing journalists fast and fairly wide-ranging access following July’s riots, this may have simultaneously served to deflect attention from the restrictions put in place. Internet and text-ing service began to be reinstated only in January, travel restrictions remain stringent, and no information has been provided about the Uighur men who vanished following police roundups. While China has used counter-terrorism to justify its heavy-handed tactics in dealing with Uighurs before, the lack of activity on the part of ETIM clearly undermines that rationale in this case. The United States, therefore, has no excuse for ignoring the human rights abuses that have occurred in Xinjiang.

China’s repressive actions fail to address the real issues facing the Uighur population in Xinjiang. The Uighurs have legitimate grievances, and the cycle of violence and repression will undoubtedly be repeated. The United States has failed to acknowledge China’s repressive actions in Xinjiang in any meaningful way. In the aftermath, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expressed regret for the loss of life in Xinjiang. US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly gave a slightly stronger answer, calling for the Chinese government to “act to restore order and prevent further violence.” Yet even this avoids the issue of determining what caused the violence and what actions need to be taken to redress the wrongs. The US Commission on Religious Freedom was much closer to giving a response that could have had real impact, with a call for an independent investigation of the riots and targeted sanctions, but its message was not echoed by those with the power to implement those ideas.

Human rights have not been a prominent issue on the Obama administration’s agenda in dealing with China. This is not the first time China has faced internal conflict. Events in Xinjiang are remarkably similar to the ongoing situation in Tibet. The fact that a violent response to human rights abuses has become a recurring phenomenon in China indicates that the US should make this more of a priority in its interactions with China. While the United States’ relationship with China is delicate and complicated, the United States should not have ignored China’s heavy-handed tactics in Xinjiang or any other region that is or that becomes a target. The US’s failure to act undermines the human rights values that the United States claims to uphold and sets a precedent of kowtowing to the Chinese. As China becomes a more assertive world power, both for human rights and its own foreign policy, it is important that the United States remains unafraid to be loudly critical of human rights abuses in China.

Any movement toward reduced emissions cannot ignore the two largest emitters in the world: China and the US. Both industrial powerhouses produce a combined 40% of all greenhouse gases. If neither country is at the heart of climate change efforts from the beginning, global attempts to reduce emissions will be useless. By taking the lead, however, tangible US and Chinese carbon reduction policies will provide the international community with a workable goal. Of the two nations, the US, rather than China, is best positioned to take the lead on climate change. China, then, will do its best to follow the United States. Underdeveloped nations similarly turn towards the US for tangible greenhouse gas emissions reductions, realizing that, without the US, any emission reductions on their part will be a drop in the bucket. Without US leadership, an international climate change movement is impossible.

If the U.S. leads by example, the rest of the world will follow. The EU has already pushed Washington to set clear emissions reduction targets for the next few years and has pressured President Obama to take a more hard-line approach to climate change; they are on board. More importantly, China, surprisingly to some, has also shown its willingness to cooperate. Just a day after Obama announced concrete targets on emissions reductions, President Hu Jintao followed up with China’s own pledge. In the coming years, China will have to walk a fine line between environmental protection and economic growth. China has realized, however, that the two are not mutually exclusive but are, in fact, intertwined; without limiting the effects of climate change now, China stands, as all countries stand, to limit long term growth. As the world’s single largest emitter of carbon, China recognizes that it will shoulder much of the blame for—as well as the negative natural effects of—climate change if it does tangibly limit greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. can expect an increasingly cooperative partner in Europe and China on the issue of climate change.

In particular, U.S. leadership on climate change has the potential to capitalize on China’s increasing willingness to cooperate on this particular issue by creating a precedent for further opportunities for more extensive bilateral cooperation in the future. The President’s recent tour of Asia produced little progress in Sino-American relations, as both countires failed to agree on issues ranging from human rights to China’s consistent devaluation of its currency. Obama, however, did make small breakthroughs on climate change. The series of practical measures announced during Obama’s meeting with Hu Jintao —including an electric-vehicles initiative and energy efficiency plan—suggest that emissions regulation may be a bridge towards stronger alliances with China. Leadership, however, must come first from the U.S., as Hu Jintao will likely be unwilling to act without assistance and promises from developed countries. There is strong public sentiment in China that the U.S. is urging its economic rival to embrace clean energy only as a means to undermine the Chinese economy. If Washington takes the first step in this regard, however, it can reassure the Chinese by debunking any suspicions that the U.S. is trying to gain an economic advantage over their country. Strong U.S. leadership on climate change will likely result in better relations between the U.S. and China.

Another concern that other nations have expressed is that unlike China, a relatively young and still developing industrial power, the U.S. has historically emitted more total climate-altering gasses than any other nation in the world. Therefore, the U.S. has the heavier obligation to take the lead on climate regulation especially since underdeveloped nations, which emit the least carbon, would receive the brunt of climate change’s devastating effects. If the worst offender of climate change is unwilling to step up as the leader, it would be difficult to justify the participation of anyone else.

Obama, as well as the Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, agreed in November that no binding follow-up to Kyoto would be reached in Copenhagen. In reality, what is to be the upcoming failure to act in Copenhagen is just another symptom of general inaction by all countries involved, none of which is willing to make the first move. The U.S. Senate has bound Obama’s hands, refusing to pass the cap-and-trade program unless China and other developing nations make a commitment, too. China and India, on the other hand, will only institute broader and more drastic measures if the U.S. promises substantive emissions reductions. Mutual hesitancy has certainly delayed any prospect of a binding international agreement.

For the U.S. to take leadership, Congress should not make legislation contingent upon the actions of other countries, but instead push the cap-and-trade system through, knowing that other nations will then jump on board. Doing so would demonstrate to the world that the U.S. is serious and committed to combating climate change. The Senate, however, has been particularly resistant to addressing climate change. Obama, already entrenched in difficult battles on health care and Afghanistan, may lack sufficient political capital to persuade reluctant senators. As a result, liberals run the risk of having to water down the current bill even farther than it already has been watered down in order to pass something.

Any reasonable carbon emissions bill that emerges from Congress will provide the U.S. with momentum that will then lead to a global emissions reduction agreement. Copenhagen will test how receptive the world is to American leadership and a global initiative against greenhouse gas emissions, but environmentalists should not expect much. At best, as former vice president Al Gore notes, “a very significant framework … can still be completed.” Instead, policymakers should place their hopes on the US and push for American leadership in a warming world.

President Obama’s decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama indicates a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy in East Asia. After successfully hosting the Olympics last summer and improving its relationship with Taiwan, China is gaining power and influence and is now a member of the honorary “G2”—the ever-shrinking elite group of superpowers whose only other member is the United States. The Obama administration is working with a new—and potentially more dangerous—China and has calculated that the best way to maintain strong ties with the emerging power is to downplay the issue of Tibet and human rights concerns more generally. As part of this broader policy, Obama put off his visit with the Dalai Lama at least until after he meets with Chinese President, Hu Jintao.

The China-Tibet conflict has been a critical human rights and international relations issue for decades. China claims that Tibet has been part of its territory for four centuries, while Tibetans argue that they have been effectively independent for most of their history and possess their own distinct culture and ethnicity. These contentions turned into violent conflict last year during the Beijing Olympics, when a series of anti-Chinese protests broke out in Tibet. The issue even led to worldwide confrontations between pro-Tibetan and pro-Chinese demonstrators in Paris, London, and San Francisco. The U.S. government, as the leading advocate for human rights in the international community, responded to this incident by urging China to respect “the fundamental and universally recognized rights” set out in the Geneva Conventions.

The United States has generally taken a strong stance against violations of human rights in China. Former President George W. Bush awarded the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal in the face of repeated warnings from China, making clear the United States’ support for the ideals of autonomy and freedom. But while Bush unwaveringly supported the expansion of democracy and human rights across the globe, Obama has proven willing to subordinate these ideals to shorter-term concerns. So given China’s meteoric rise to world power, Obama sees a more practical need to win China’s support for crucial economic and environmental policies.

But many in the U.S. rightly oppose this controversial policy shift. Indeed, Obama’s choice to avoid a meeting with the Dalai Lama was harshly criticized at home, especially on the right. Commentators have argued that the Dalai Lama’s visit symbolizes the U.S. influence in the realm of human rights. They claim that by shunning the spiritual leader Obama has demonstrated a lack of concerns for human rights issues, particularly in powerful states like China.

More generally, critics claim that the United States has become too economically dependent on China, and therefore too susceptible to China’s demands. In the current economic climate, this criticism may be the most salient. The economic downturn has created a delicate situation in which the U.S. struggles with national recession while China funds large fiscal deficits by buying U.S. treasury bills. As long as the U.S. remains beholden to China to finance its large national debt, China will have strong leverage over the U.S. on other crucial issues like human rights.

Unsurprisingly, the postponement of Obama’s visit has done nothing to ease tensions between the Chinese government and the Tibetan leader. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said recently that the White House should not allow the Dalai Lama to engage in separatist activities in the U.S. and called the Dalai Lama a “wolf in monk’s robe.” In response, the Dalai Lama accused China of “acting like a child” and claimed his visits are anything but political. He added that he only sought genuine autonomy for Tibetans in China.

Compromises are an inevitable aspect of policymaking. In choosing to put off his meeting with Dalai Lama, Obama had to decide which foreign policy agenda was more important: pursuing human rights or cultivating a stronger relationship with Beijing. From a realist outlook, a nation acts rationally in pursuit of relative power; if China is steadfast in its policies toward human rights, pandering to them will not change their stance. Furthermore, if the U.S. yields to China’s demands it could give an unwarranted impression in the long-term as kowtowing to both U.S. voters and China itself.

President Obama is known for his diplomacy and commitment to peace. He should have used this skill for diplomacy to convince Chinese officials that the Dalai Lama’s visit was irrelevant to U.S.-China relations or perhaps even beneficial in resolving China’s conflict with Tibet. The Dalai Lama has historically maintained his role as a religious figure and not assumed a political position during his visits to the White House. The Dalai Lama has visited Washington ten times over the past eighteen years with no adverse affects on U.S.-China relations. President Obama should have pointed this out in defending the visit rather than acceding to Chinese interests on the issue.

China now has a powerful voice in international affairs that U.S. should not ignore. And though prudence is a desirable approach in politics sticking to the one’s belief and ideals is equally important. In the wake of his postponed visit with the Dalai Lama, Obama must maintain a balance between these two competing goals. He must not be afraid to stand on principle, even when it has short-term costs in international politics.

Almost as if on cue, columns of foreign men come marching down from their hilltop encampments, invading every joint in sight in search of a good time. These, however, are not the colonizers of old (in fact, Ethiopia remained a singularly free country throughout the continent’s dark history of colonialism), but rather, a new breed of pioneers. The hardened, but eager, faces of these expatriates signify the rise of a new kid on the African block – the People’s Republic of China.

These men are vastly different from the conquerors who scrambled for Africa’s riches centuries earlier. Instead of the safari suits and velvet top hats that their European predecessors donned, the Chinese frontiermen of the 21st century come decked in loose overalls and somber hardhats. Unlike the infantrymen who arrived bearing rifles and muskets before them, the newcomers are contractors, technicians and engineers equipped with cranes and bulldozers. Nor do they live in exorbitantly fancy villas and seclude themselves in exclusive neighborhoods. When not toiling at their work sites or resting in their Spartan dormitories, most prefer the same (cheap) pleasures that their local counterparts enjoy.

It is men like these who have breathed life into the economies of little towns like Sekoru and surrounding areas, not only in their patronage of local hangouts, but in the big things they are accomplishing all around them. In this remote corner of the Great Rift Valley, several dozen Chinese engineers and construction workers are busy constructing East Africa’s biggest hydroelectric dam, Gilgel Gibe IV. Upon completion, it is expected to supply the urban centers and rural peripheries of southern Ethiopia and even neighboring Kenya, Djibouti and Sudan. This dam will not only bring electric power to hundreds of villages for the first time, but it will also be an indispensable catalyst for rapid industrial growth in the region.

This mammoth project, jointly financed by the Ethiopian and Chinese governments and the World Bank, is merely one of many similar undertakings that have sprung up all across Africa in the past decade. In its unfettered ambition to join the highest ranks of world powers, China has set its sights on Africa, aiming to establish deep, friendly relations with the continent. In countries like Angola, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Sudan, the Chinese government has been hard at work providing much-needed developmental assistance, not only embarking on comprehensive projects to build schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and dams, but also training the robust human resources needed to maintain them. Nor is China’s largesse limited to the mobilization of fleets of engineers, architects and construction workers.

The People’s Republic has had to reach deep into its pockets to finance its expensive relationship with Africa. According to the terms of a robust assistance package announced by Chinese President Hu Jintao at a summit of African Heads of State and Government in Beijing in 2006, China pledged to double aid to Africa by the year 2009 and provide $3 billion in preferential loans for development ventures, further establishing an Africa development fund expected to reach $5 billion. At this watershed event, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao also proposed that China and Africa take steps to strengthen their commercial ties, bringing trade volumes up to $100 billion dollars by the year 2010. Indeed, since 2006 trade has grown even faster than the premier expected, reaching the $100 billion mark in 2008, a whooping 45 percent increase from a year earlier. According to figures released by China’s General Administration of Customs for the 2008 fiscal year, China imported $56 billion worth of goods and services from Africa, while exports to the continent reached a staggering $50.8 billion. This makes China Africa’s second biggest trade partner, behind only the United States and ahead of both Britain and France.

The benefits of closer ties with China for Africa are clear. China’s financial and technical resources allow for the construction of much-needed infrastructure, the gleaning of valuable expertise and the growth of trade and industry, among other things, all at a much lower cost than arrangements with Western countries would entail. Furthermore, the “no-conditionality” nature of Chinese assistance allows aid to be used to meet the priorities identified by African governments, as opposed to the dictates of Western governments and monetary institutions.

Moreover, China has striven to demonstrate its deep commitment not only to the economic well-being of the continent, but also to its peace and security. In the last two decades, the Chinese government has mobilized thousands of its armed forces and civilian observers to conflict zones in Southern Sudan, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. More recently, China has deployed a formidable naval contingent to the East African coast, where piracy has threatened to cripple international shipping.

All these generous overtures, however, have raised western eyebrows, perhaps because China’s newfound zeal may be reminiscent of a bygone era in which Africa was overrun by the imperial and commercial ambitions of different foreign powers. Because of a rapidly booming economy insatiable in its appetite for raw materials and markets for finished goods, Chinese multinationals have demonstrated their capacity and willingness to go to great lengths to secure both. In particular, they have demonstrated a strong desire to gain sustainable access to the sources of crude oil and natural gas in places like Angola, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, where the culture of good governance and strength of civil institutions are still lacking in maturity. Consequently, the unrivalled spending power and political clout of Chinese businesses has occasionally bypassed the needs of local populations and served to exacerbate their already impoverished conditions. Unrestrained drilling and loose safety practices by Chinese energy companies in the oil-rich Niger Delta and elsewhere have led to the pollution of drinking water sources, dislocation of inhabitants and rife corruption.

China’s willingness to overlook gross violations of democratic practices and human rights by its African trade partners has also made it the target of much criticism. China has played an obstructionist role in the UN Security Council in implementing resolutions targeting the Sudanese government for gross violations of human rights committed by government-backed rebels in Darfur, including the dislocation, rape and mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Moreover, the high prevalence of Chinese small arms and light weapons in several conflicts zones abets the further deterioration of peace and security in Africa. Either through the medium of international arms dealers or corrupt African governments, these arms fall into the possession of rebel groups in places like the DRC, where they are used to inflict serious harm upon civilians.

In spite of all this, however, there is no denying China’s invaluable contribution to the economic development of African states and its increasing assistance in bringing about peace and security. Nonetheless, the government of the PRC needs to re-evaluate the precise nature of its objectives on the continent and the extent to which its own interests are served by maintaining the policy of near complete “non-interference” in the domestic affairs of the nations it deals with. China could play an immensely constructive role by joining the international community of nations in demanding that African governments live up to the principles of transparency, accountability and respect for human life that they supposedly espouse. Pulling the weight of its enormous economic leverage and its permanent status on the UN’s Security Council, China could exert decisive pressure to facilitate the end of some of the most tragic human catastrophes of this decade. Not only would such a strategy pay dividends in creating political stability in the states that are increasingly vital to China’s economic interests, but it would also shine positively on the image of an emerging superpower that aims to be taken more seriously on the global stage. China has the unprecedented opportunity to be the catalyst of much-needed change on a continent that has been starving for it. It is an opportunity that the Chinese government and businesses need to seize for their own interests and for those of their African friends.

China’s prosperity should be welcomed. It benefits the Chinese people through better living standards, social mobility, economic freedom and improved government safety nets. China’s growth will also increase demand for foreign products and spur trade.

Despite its strengths, China still lags far behind the U.S.—especially in economic freedom and its capacity for innovation. Its GDP per capita is relatively low and its government inhibits innovation. While China should be recognized for its progress and strong economy, it is ridiculous to discount the U.S.’ economic potential or prematurely pontificate about American decline. The U.S.’ diverse population and capacity for innovation will keep it economically competitive and geopolitically strong for years to come.

Proponents of America’s decline make it appear as if China outperforms the U.S. both economically and educationally. In China, however, more than 20 million college students have few job prospects and half of its engineering graduates only have associate degrees. Naturally, given China’s massive population, it will eventually overtake the U.S. in its population of scientists. The U.S. though, educates more engineers per capita than does China and in its 2008-2009 report, the World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. as the most competitive economy. Minxin Pei, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that despite China’s rapid growth, it will take nearly 50 years for the average income in China to equal the average income in America.

A recent article in the New York Times suggests that job opportunities for American graduates in China are plentiful and that so are the Americans seeking these positions as evidence of American economic decline. It recounts stories of Americans and their successful jobs in China; yet, it cites no research and provides no concrete figures. Some Americans may easily find work in China like the Americans in the article. Shaun Rein, founder and managing director of the China Market Research Group thinks not. Jobs for recent college grads are scarce in China. And Rien says that Chinese companies would rather hire Chinese employees who understand both American and Chinese cultures than American applicants. Rein says that Americans have to convince employers that they are more valuable than the Chinese applicants—hundreds of thousands of whom have the same western education as the Americans.

Jobs are scarce in China. Unemployment in cities is officially 4.3 percent, but unemployment among last year’s Chinese graduates is about 12 percent. And the number of Chinese college students is growing. The bottom line is that Americans will struggle to find jobs in China just as they will in the U.S.

Both countries suffer slow growth and high unemployment rates in this tough economy. The difference between the U.S. and China is that American culture and its government fosters innovation. The U.S. is home to a majority of the world’s most innovative companies and people. In 2003 IBM, an American company garnered five times as many patents as China and India gained combined. In 2008 the U.S. still greatly outpaced China in the number of patents generated.

Former Woodrow Wilson School dean and current Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department, Anne Marie Slaughter talks about America’s creativity in “America’s Edge,” published in Foreign Affairs this year. She says that the U.S.’ capacity for networking will “renew its power and restore its global purpose.” Slaughter says that China’s economic and political policies will prevent it from becoming an international leader in economics.

American companies and even American universities are experts at networking and marketing themselves and their products. Slaughter explains how American multinationals use networking to create well-selling products in markets around the world. A recent article in The Economist points to America’s history to show how important marketing has been for American innovation: “Edison did not invent the light bulb and Ford did not think up the motor car, but both came up with the business-model innovations required to profit from those marvels.”

American universities also market themselves to draw foreign students who contribute greatly to innovation in America. Fareed Zakaria, author of “The Rise of the Rest,” says that nearly half of all science researchers in the U.S. are either foreign students or immigrants. Foreign nationals made up 62% of all PhDs in the 2006 in the U.S., but they only comprised 7% of all B.S. degrees. Although the stay rate—percentage of foreign students who stay in the U.S. upon graduation—decreased slightly over the past few years, it remains high. A little over two-thirds of foreign PhD students stayed in the U.S. for at least 2 years after graduation. The stay rate will depend on America’s economy and immigration policies and whether foreign students and researchers have job prospects there in the future. As of 2009, the U.S. State Department is reworking its policies to reduce the time it takes to process Visas to two weeks.

For now though, as a 2008 RAND corporation report says, “America accounts for 40 percent of the total world’s spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners and is home to three-quarters of the world’s top 40 universities.” Diversity helps America discover new markets. Like Henry Chesbrough of the Berkeley Haas School of Business says, Americans are so successful at marketing because of their “ability to listen to, and learn from, customers in new markets.”

The Chinese government is trying to increase its capacity for innovation through state-created communities that consist of University campuses and research centers of International and Asian firms. These state-planned centers of innovation will not recreate the dynamic environment that encourages innovation in the U.S. because innovation comes from what Slaughter describes as “positive conflict”—the ability to challenge the status quo. China wants to produce more innovative citizens yet it controls the simplest aspects of their lives.

During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China exposed how strictly its censors media. Foreign journalists were appalled by how much the government censored the internet. Chinese journalists also face tough restrictions—China leads the world in number of Journalists imprisoned. The Chinese government controls foreign trade just as strictly. On August 12th, 2009 the WTO ruled that China has been violating trade rules by restricting imports of media—movies, music etc. The state film distribution organization, China Film Corp., can decide for example that this summer the Chinese people will watch Harry Potter and not Star Trek. Unless China allows its people more freedom, both personal and economic, its private sector will remain stifled and small.

China has a strong and growing economy that is helping many people escape poverty and improve their lives. The U.S. and the world though, should not lose confidence in America. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google’s reminds us that, “innovation is how America works…creative destruction, this constant process of layoffs and new jobs and new companies and so forth is key to America’s competitiveness.” That mentality will make America the world’s most competitive economy for decades to come.