While you're cogitating such matters, remember the phrase "China is the prize."
Anytime we do anything which appears to benefit PRC, to our own detriment or not, remember it may not have occurred through inadvertance. I speak not of double agents, but those who see their own interest as being aligned with that of the PRC, which includes many U.S. citizens of substantial means and influence.
There is another related group which may believe PRC must be brought firmly into the First World before it can be or might be willing to be brought into a global governmental structure. A third group (arguing with group #2 from the inside,) may believe mainland China, whatever its governmental structure, because of its longstanding propensity toward xenophobic paranoia, must be appeased to avoid its disrupting global plans, even though it may remain an autonomous entity outside the global structure.
Uh, think I should say < /tinfoil> ?
Naw. I wouldn't say that, LSJohn. China remains the great "mystery" in the piece. For one thing, I can't think of a single reason why the United States should be dealing with that state, cause there's absolutely nothing "in it for us," and probably a great deal that is adverse to the U.S. national interest.
To cut that Gordian Knot, I'd say: Follow the money. It might tell us everything we need to know -- about global politics and economics right about now. I bet there would be some rather surprising "mutually-interested associations" that would come to light. (As in global Mob, Inc.-type stuff.)
Above all, it seems to me that PRC fits the definition of a "terrorist state." If President Bush sincerely wishes to extirpate international terrorism from the face of the planet, sooner or later he (or his successor) will have to deal with China. I'm just wondering how such a scenario would "go down."
Thanks for writing, LSJohn, and for the kind words of encouragement. All my best -- bb.