Given all the media attention given to our "new and improved" dialog with China as outlined by Secretary of State Clinton and Treasury Secretary Geithner, we should take care to monitor the developments outlined in this piece. 

"Such an approach reveals a crucial dilemma in America's strategy towards China. The U.S. has pursued what some have called "strategic hedging," seeking to induce Chinese cooperation on a range of shared interests, while simultaneously preparing for the possibility that China will choose confrontation. Yet, given the desire to preserve relations with Beijing and to avoid feeding tensions, the U.S. prefers that its military deterrent be more implicit than explicit. The hope is that sober minds in Beijing, who understand the need for a peaceful international environment for economic growth, will prevail.

However, American strategy in this instance fails to appreciate Chinese calculations in the South China Sea. The primary concern is not that China would make a strategically disastrous choice to confront the United States head-on there. Rather, China might act aggressively -- perhaps through economic and military pressure on its southern neighbors -- if it believes that it can limit U.S. opposition and international fallout.

Elements in the Chinese government are clearly emboldened by recent trends. The Global Times, a central government mouthpiece, recently ran an article stating that 92 percent of internet users think the South China Sea dispute will have to be resolved by force, suggesting that military action would be an attractive option for distracting from any eventual domestic troubles. A think tank subordinate to the PLA General Staff Department called this month for mounting a military campaign that would "strike at the arrogance of one or two small nations, realistically recover a few strategic islands and reefs, including with strikes against illegal oil wells." The decisive factor, in their view, was that the United States lacked the will to oppose military action. If not disabused of these notions, the PLA and others will continue to see opportunity where there is only danger."

I have said and continue to believe that, for the moment, we have a symbiotic relationship with China due predominately to economic concerns.  That relationship will continue is some way for a very long time as the costs to both nations of a dramtic rupture would be extremely high.  However, we cannot ignore that there are things in life more important than economics, especially since the Sino-American relationship is a key factor in our continued drive towards almost mindless consumerism.

Therefore, we should definitely signal our intentions not be lax in this area.  Power never likes a vacuum and we cannot allow one to develop in East Asia that might incentivize too much adventurism by the Chinese or aggressive reactions by Japan.  This is actually more important over time than even our economic relationship with China.