I've noticed a lot of press recently on China. Criticisms of its export-led model. Lack of investment in its own social welfare. And also that hacking issue that Google took up, which led to a political onslaught by Hilary Clinton. Any questions on the power of Google should be answered there. While the typical areas of unrest between the US and China are back on the table - Taiwan, Tibet and Human Rights - most of the unrest is focused on economic disparity and responsibility.

There are several sensationalist articles on this subject but I share two good articles that I thought were well thought through from IHT (NYTImes Euro edition) http://nyti.ms/bIzOqN and http://nyti.ms/cPKS5X.

One particular quote I found interesting from one of the articles said "The major concern is not China getting too big for its boots — at least in the short term — but a growing sense of American frustration that its boots are no longer as big as they were or should be, together with an unwillingness or refusal to understand China on anything other than American terms. China must not be confused in the American mind with a Soviet Union Mark 2. It is a far more formidable adversary whose ultimate strength is not its military hardware but its economic prowess, and whose diplomatic weapon is not saber rattling but great patience."

I also found an interesting article in the FT about China's Li Keqiang at Davos http://bit.ly/9NCP39 (Look for the article - Keeping its Distance)

I thought these two quotes from that article were interesting by Yan Xeutong, director of the Institute of International Studies at Tsinghua University, “In the last 30 years, Chinese leaders have firmly believed China is a developing country, Davos is for rich countries.”  Of Beijing’s continuing reticence, in spite of China’s growing wealth, he adds: “The rest of the world regards China as a superpower. But we say: ‘No. This is a trap to exhaust our limited resources.’”

What worries me about this focus on China's approach to the economy, which is being praised by even the likes of George Soros, is that it's a distraction from a more important debate about China's responsibility to the world's welfare. There's no doubt that China's patience, which is part of their cultural DNA, has led to a very positive response to the economic crisis - it hardly effected them. However, the question of whether they are in a position today to help the world, including the welfare of their own citizens, seems to me to be a mute argument. They are claiming a poorer status than other members of the Davos elite but if you look at their economic performance, this just does not seem to add up - certainly in the long term. 

Let's hope in the coming years China will start to play a more important role in the world's welfare even if in truth this will be very uncomfortable for the US.