I see what you are saying about how China should work harder to get people on its side. That they should talk nice to keep alliances from forming against them. But does that matter if they hold the tangible assets of power (economic strength, large population, strong military)?

It seems more like they are just making bad strategic communications. Arguably this could be a bad move but large powers often say things that anger other countries. This is typical. While maybe an idealist would want a friendlier dialog, in contrast a realist would know that it doesn't matter so much.

Pew just released a survey showing just how angry many of the citizen within the G20 are at China:

http://pewglobal.org/2010/06/17/obama-more-popular-abroad-than-at-home/6/

I partially agree with your assessment: China right now is in a difficult position in the world. But I would argue that it has nothing to do its strategy.

The dispute on climate change and the Copenhagen Summit between China and Europe is about the baseline of the Chinese economy development. China will protect that interest at all costs. In this sense, Beijing achieved its goal. Could it do better? Well, Beijing could have promised much less before the meeting and then committed the same concession in the meeting. Maybe that negotiation would make Europe feel better.

Then the issue of the Sinking Cheonon accident is quite different. First, let’s just say South Korean’s accusation on North Korea is not very credible here in China. In my opinion, if Kim II did it, he would have surely taken credit of it, for one. The second point, even if Kim II wanted to sink Cheonon, North Korea just did not have such technical ability to do so. But the most important point is that China’s tolerance of North Korean’s bad behaviors is pretty high: the stability of North China is at the stake in short term; neither China nor Japan wants a more aggressive and united Korea in the long run. North Korea is already in the corner. I am not sure that Beijing wants to push more. Beijing’s keeping the status quo and waiting for Kim II’s death is the best strategy now. Even South Korean people know this, they just gave their president a defeat in local elections.

Then there is U.S. The most difficult part is the trade and currency. Apparently Beijing is waiting for the trade surplus to decrease before it has to move the value of RMB. Chinese trade surplus is going to decrease because EUR has depreciated against RMB by 20% since the beginning of 2010—means Chinese export to Europe (its largest trade partner) is not competitive. Demand from U.S. customers is going to drop—just take look at the current negative economic news. The bad news has not shown up in the trade data yet since trade numbers are lag indicators. Beijing probably is betting that the trade surplus will largely disappear before any big trade war breaks. You then read tons of news of labor strikes in China and Beijing is tolerating them. Well, it really needs some wage increase to boost domestic consumption.

On India, I would say that it is India that has the key on China-India relationship. The most important issue: India provides protection for Dalai---does this look good in Chinese eye? What did U.S. do when Taliban said they would not give Ben Laden to American?

Mr. Drezner is right that strategy does NOT matter in foreign policy for a country especially if that country is super rich and is on its way to becoming a sole super power of the world like China is.

China can easily ignore the pressure of all the countries listed by Mr. Drezner since all those countries including US need China more than vice a versa at this point in time.

Even US Congress will not have stomach to impose higher duties on Chinese imports except bare minimum because US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them. China has a very powerful business lobby in Washington to counter any stiff tariffs on Chinese imports.

So this one way trade in China’s favor will continue for still quite sometime with ever increasing forex reserves of China that China can lend to many a companies and many a countries in the world while buying up world‘s resources.

Little could Mao or even Deng have imagined that by wearing a capitalist mask, their followers will beat capitalists at their own game. Let us toast the genius of Nixon-Kissinger for getting China to join the community of nations in 1972.

Afterall China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until anti-Communist Nixon’s 1972 visit when Mao‘s cultural revolution was still going on killing millions of innocent Chinese. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. Bush Senior had no problem sending his national security advisor to Beijing within two months after Tiananmen massacre. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting. US also promoted China to a super power status by accepting it as a permanent UNSC member.

Now China has US by the tail - US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Sears or Home Depot filled with cheap Chinese goods attests to and US government is hooked to huge investments that Chinese government makes in US treasuries.

Nixon’s China embrace to counter Soviet Union has come back to haunt US with the rise of China to challenge US just as Reagan‘s embrace of Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan came back to haunt US in the form of 9/11 attacks.

Reagan must be squirming in his grave for his Republican predecessor Nixon being responsible for the rise of dictatorial China as a threat to US after Reagan was supposed to have vanquished Soviet Union.

The West will desperately try to reverse the rise of China but will be largely unsuccessful. Second cold war has already started, this time between US and China, with creditor China having upper hand against debtor US unlike the first one between US and Soviet Union.

If there is one country on this planet that can ill afford a poor strategy or ill behavior, that is China.

To understand why Beijing ignores the implications of a poor strategy at its peril, it is necessary to emphasize three facts.

First, the rise of China is perhaps the most important development in international politics of the 21st century. But while China’s economic and military capabilities have been growing at an astounding pace, considerable suspicion and distrust remain about its intentions. The values, interests, and capabilities of China and the West remain mismatched. And it is not yet clear whether Beijing will become a responsible stakeholder or a dangerous revisionist power. So how the country behaves on the world stage matters. The international community has been closely following China’s behavior in order to infer insights about its potential future development. And the early signs hinted at peaceful prospects. But the aftermath of the global financial crisis in general and several episodes in 2009 in particular have revealed the ugly side of the growing Chinese power.

Second, China's rise has already reached a stage in which how it behaves is more relevant. Mr.Drezner may be right in pointing out that good fundamentals are more important. But now it's not about China’s material capabilities anymore. On the contrary, it's about how and for which ends China will use its massive economic and military resources. At this stage China's intentions, not its capabilities, matter. The fundamental issue is that China’s forceful advent on the international arena is threatening to undermine several pillars of the Western-built postwar order. The United States and its allies Western Europe and Japan actually went to great lengths to integrate China into the liberal postwar order, based on the assumption that engagement, not containment, is the best strategy for advancing economic and politic liberalization in China. Yet a widespread consensus is now emerging that the bet hasn’t paid off. Indeed, while China’s staggering economic growth continues unabated, the autocratic Communist Party still holds sway over the country. And on the foreign policy front, signs of a “peaceful rise” are vanishing at an alarming pace.

Third, 2009 saw a turning point in the world’s relations with China. The country is not yet perceived as a major threat. Nonetheless, many countries are reviewing their threat assessments. And most of them are now eager to take an “insurance policy,” with Uncle Sam as the most preferred security provider. It’s not about mismatched values and interests today. Rather, it’s about China’s unabashed assertiveness, often bordering on arrogance now. From climate change to North Korea, and trade to nonproliferation, most foreign policy issues of the day reveal not only Beijing’s diverging interests, but also its willingness to shed its smile diplomacy. For the historically minded, the parallels with Imperial Germany at turn of the 19th century are eerily similar. Structural changes, of course, set the stage, but it was mainly Germany’s rise and behavior that triggered mistrust and enmity and created “the German problem.” If China refuses to change course , future historians will write about “the Chinese problem.”

In sum, structure matters, but “it’s the process, stupid.”

"Which is why greater attention needs to be paid to U.S.. grand strategy now than before. "

- So when is Professor Drezner your call from White House reaching to you for that grand strategy?

“If we allow the G20 to turn into a process of finger-pointing, then it will certainly send out a very confusing and misleading signal to the markets,”

- Did any media person dare to ask why Chinese Communist Party bothers about what Capitalist Markets think?

In the end I believe that is the weakest link of China - the intellectual contradiction between their economic system and the political system. The country which does not bother about IP rights cannot eventually hope to be a winner in the Knowledge Economy.

That is for the longer term. In short to medium term, I think comment by 'MORGENTHAU' is most relevant. That is what is happening here.