WTF? I suppose that with the Spring Festival and the relative lack of interesting news, foreign media organizations have taken the opportunity to take stock in the US-China relationship. There have also been some recent developments in the bilateral relationship that have provoked a lot of comments.

The perfect storm, resulting in a deluge of Op/Eds in my Inbox. Instead of going through all of these in separate posts, here’s a sample of three of the most thought-provoking articles:

Pei Minxin, a heavy hitter from Carnegie, writes in the New York Times: “The Tension is Overstated.” His argument is fairly obvious, that some of the panic over the state of US-China relations is a bit inflated.

In many ways, the sudden worsening of ties between Beijing and Washington really means that U.S.-China relations are returning to “normalcy.” Because of the deep and unbridgeable differences between the two countries in terms of their political values, conceptions of international order and geopolitical interests, constant frictions, even minor conflicts, should be the rule.

I’m not sure I agree that differences are deep and unbridgeable, but he’s right that some of the discussion of a bilateral rift has been overstated. That’s kind of what the press does, though, isn’t it?

Next up is David Shambaugh, head of the excellent China program at George Washington University, writing in the FT: “The Year China Showed Its Claws.” (I actually rather like the holiday-inspired headline. Clever but not too cute.) Shambaugh offers several explanations for what appears to be a more aggressive Chinese foreign policy, stating at the end of his piece that there is a bit of truth to all of these theories:

So what is going on? Conservatives in the west argue that we are merely seeing the true colours of an aggrieved rising power that wishes to challenge the status quo. Many Chinese commentators point instead to a western-triggered global financial crisis that has vindicated China’s development model and given it new confidence. Meanwhile, analysts who have argued that the country is moving inexorably towards greater openness and reform are beginning to re-examine long-held assumptions.

Alternative explanations also exist, which are not mutually exclusive. One is that a leadership transition is under way in the run-up to the 2012 Party Congress, and that during such periods China becomes more caustic while candidate leaders try to prove their nationalist credentials. A related hypothesis is that China’s rulers believe the country is beset by numerous socio-economic problems and feel their rule is fragile – thus they divert attention with nationalistic rhetoric.

Another interpretation is bureaucratic: that the security services and conservative party factions have trumped reformers and are trying to exert renewed authoritarian control over several policy spheres. Others believe that China’s foreign policy “realists” have won a long-running debate about China’s international posture and that those in favour of multilateralism and international co-operation are in eclipse (the realists argue that China should protect its own narrow national interests). Then there are those who hold that China’s “netizens” and hyper-nationalist citizens are pushing the government to be tougher internationally – especially vis-à-vis the US.

Martin Jacques, fresh off his book tour, is in the Christian Science Monitor with “US vs. China: A Dangerous Phase Has Begun.” Despite the hyperbolic title, this is quite a good column, perhaps my favorite of the day. Jacques focuses on the US perception of China as the wild card in the relationship and suggests that the American view needs to change:

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 stubborn refusal to understand China on anything other than American terms.

Relations between the two could steadily deteriorate with negative implications for the rest of the world. It will make things more difficult for China and might slow its progress, but the United States could suffer even more.

China must not be confused in the American mind with a Soviet Union Mark 2. It is a very different and 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.

All I can say in conclusion is that I hope all of these China experts were able to make deadline prior to the holiday. Speaking from experience, hanging around and working while everyone is out having fun is a real bummer.