<p>
[quote]
and features an ideology which the United States have constantly battled all over the world?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Intellectual property piracy? That's pretty much what the U.S. is battling these days.</p>
<p>It's hardly Communism at this point. China doesn't seem to harbor the least bit of interest in spreading Communism--for that matter, it doesn't seem to harbor the least bit of interest in preserving Communism in its own country.</p>
<p>The interest it has in regimes that have bad records in human rights is primarily due to economic necessity--meaning oil. This is why it fraternizes with Sudan and the like. Though, of course, this is partially a function of the U.S. "containment" too--the U.S. buys so much oil from the OTHER human rights violating regimes that China has to settle for the ones that have the worst records.
It's economic, not ideological.</p>
<p>The ruling party might still call itself the "Communist Party", but policy-wise with the demise of the "iron rice bowl" policies and other similar measures, China is actually far LESS of a socialist country than many of the European nations. What they call themselves and what they actually are is a rather wide chasm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and that supporting democratic movements in China could halt its economy
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Eh... not really. The Soviet Union had a distinct unrest within it. It's citizens didn't like it--or at least a large part of it didn't. The U.S. was actually rather admired, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the propaganda that the state pumped out--if it's common knowledge that the State lies, the general population usually believes the exact opposite of its propaganda.</p>
<p>There's a reason defections were, for the most part, one-way during the Cold War.</p>
<p>The Communist Party in China, however, holds a certain mandate to rule. The citizens are fine with them ruling... as long as they continue to create jobs and improve their lifestyles with the policies... which leads back to creation of more jobs.</p>
<p>If you look at it this way, China's more egregious policies in terms of international trade can be understood--all of them try to increase the raw number of jobs, regardless of whether or not the jobs are of high quality. The government is also fostering better jobs for the purpose of creating more sectors, but keeping unemployment low so the population won't kick them out of power is the primarily motivation here.</p>
<p>Speaking of Cuba, any attempt to foster "democratic movements" in China to overthrow the government is much more likely to end in another Bay of Pigs fiasco than another fall of the Berlin Wall.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is Cuba, which has been under an economic embargo since the 60s, really that much worse than the whole of China?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's right off the coast and small enough that we're far more comfortable turning it into a pariah.</p>
<p>America is quite versed in double standards, in terms of its own adherence, or lack thereof, to the Geneva Conventions and support for human-rights violating regimes (before, because they were anti-communist, and now because they have oil--say... Saudi Arabia). There are quite literally countries in the Middle East (Bahrain) where if the U.S. pulled out its supporting troops, the government would fall.</p>
<p>The answer to this is you're right. It is a double standard. But that isn't something that's uncommon in American foreign policy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yesterday, there was the opening of the victims of communism memorial, at which Bush compared communism to terrorism. The monument was copied after the Goddess of Democracy, which was built by Chinese students in 1989 for the Tiananmen Square protests. Should that be taken as a hint of some sort?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Attacking Iraq, a pariah state for a long time, is one thing. Even Iran is one thing, since it as well is isolated from the international community.</p>
<p>Attacking China is QUITE another. There's are VERY good reasons why the President did not add China to his "Axis of Evil".</p>
<p>It's big, and has a strong enough military to hold out at least for a little bit against the U.S.--if nothing else, inflict many casualties upon the American troops.</p>
<p>America would have no support whatsoever in trying to establish a new government, and would have it quickly blow up--very badly--in its face, which is a bad thing considering how many people that would be blowing up and becoming angry at the U.S.</p>
<p>China is NOT a pariah state. The UN would immediately condemn America's actions, and many of China's biggest trading partners would take... erm... umbrage to the issue. The U.S. would also have no good staging areas either.
Japan would NEVER agree to let itself becoming a staging area against China in an American-initiated attack, considering it is a huge trading partner (surpassing the U.S. at this point, if I'm not mistaken).
Taiwan would not be pleased, but would likely be long taken out of play before it could be used as such as staging area.</p>
<p>Europe would condemn it as well. While it might not throw troops AGAINST the U.S., it certainly won't make things easier. Some African and Oceania regimes might even send troops to aid China.</p>
<p>It would be a unholy mess.</p>
<p>Besides that, China is a huge trading partner of the U.S.--probably the most important factor, actually. America is not going to shoot itself in the foot.</p>
<p>Containment naturally chills relations. Although America is NOT likely to initiate military action, no matter how war-mongering an administration we have (for the reasons I outlined above), alienating China is not in its best interest since it has its own international clout on the global stage.</p>
<p>The Soviet Union was an economic basket case. China is something quite different.</p>