What about as an open letter to somewhere like the Economist? It might be a bit long for that, though.

I haven't tried that yet, though I did submit it as an editorial and it was turned down.

Honestly, your best bet is to a decent blog. You have a better chance of it being accepted and more people are likely to read it if it's a popular site.

ok.............in that case, can you name some respectable blogs?

Sure, but before I do, do you actually want to publish this?

That sounded a bit ruder than I intended. I'll give my thoughts on what could be improved in a bit.

ok, that would help

You'll want to make it a little bit more formal. Refer to China as "it" consistently, rather than "they" (same with referring to France rather than "the French").
"Wasted no time in rapidly industrializing" sounds a little strange, why not "rapidly industrialized" etc.
Also, I found some of your ideas presented rather abruptly, you'll want to really introduce your opinions every time you give one.
Last, you'll want to be careful with the comparisons you make with Germany. Nazi Germany is pretty much the default country people compare "threatening" countries to. You may come off as having little historical insight for taking the most obvious of examples, so you may want to look for other nations that were upcoming threats to certain large powers.

It seems, especially the introduction, that you're preaching to the choir. By this I mean that I'm sure people who agree with you will love it, but your prose will be off-putting to people with dissenting views. You use very aggressive language that I'm not sure is conducive to your argument, nor is it always justifiable. It just comes off as a bit alarmist. I understand that's how you feel, but it's not always the best approach when trying to convince others.

I'm not sure why you're trying to accomplish with your comparison of Germany. Sure, it's kind of similar, but are you really trying to imply that China is likely to cause WWIII? Furthermore, I think China is much more similar to post-WWII US than any other country, which is probably not a comparison you want to make...

"Similarly, China’s rapid growth has become a source of comfort and intense worry." This sentence is unclear.

I agree that we should pay off our debt, but I'm unconvinced about the other two. Aren't we already doing the first and, in light of the cluster fuck in the middle east, do you *really* want to start militarizing the Far East as well?

What I find most interesting is that you really don't touch on the Economic risks China poses, which, imho, are much more real. For instance, China is free to interact with US business however they please, but US businesses are very strictly blocked from Chinese businesses. It really is a one-way street that greatly benefits China. A recent example of this is Chinese companies buying out A123, a battery company funded by the US Government, but recently went into bankruptcy.

Thanks for the comments...I have posted an edited version below:

TITLE: Why the world (and the United States in particular) should have reason to worry about China

In a time of fiscal troubles, floundering democracy in the Middle East and a sinking European Union, the last thing for the United States to have to think about is the long-term threat China poses to United States hegemony. The arguments in China’s favor are solid. China’s economy has been the engine behind a decade of growth, and Chinese investments have helped rebuild whole infrastructures (notably that of Angola). However, China does pose a strategic threat in the long term. The heavy-handed condemnations of Japanese nationalism, the jingoistic disputes with the Philippines over rights to minerals in the South China Sea and manipulative usage of China’s own currency are all signs of a boisterous rising power. However, if history has taught us anything, it is that such boisterousness by a rising power poses a sharp threat to the security of the United States. The main question is how the United States chooses to respond to the threat.
China’s economic and military growth draws sharp corollaries to the rise of Imperial Germany after unification in 1871. After defeating the French in the Franco-Prussian War, Imperial Germany rapidly industrialized. However, Germany’s growing strength posed a strategic threat to Great Britain (then the most powerful country in the world). Britain realized the strategic threat of Germany when the Reichstag passed the first of many Naval Budgets that appropriated significant amounts of money for battleships and other big-gun warships. The ensuing arms race was realized in the First World War. China’s growth may not pose threats so dire that nuclear war is inevitable between the it and the United States, but the consequences of letting China rise unabated are numerous and potentially crippling.

The world, however, has been reluctant to condemn any actions by the Chinese. They have good reasons to not condemn China. As it is, China, unlike Iran, is not actively defaming the United States and explicitly threatening U.S. allies. China’s growth has been an anchor for the global economy, and its rapid growth paved the way for economic success in the past decade. The developed world is convinced that China is becoming less authoritarian than it was in the past, and condemning China may be counterproductive to global goals for China. With that in mind, the global economy welcomes the rise of China. However, there are cons to China’s rise. China’s emergence on the global stage was driven by a state capitalist system that kept all “private” sector profits. Any economic activity was closely monitored by the People's Liberation Army and the Communist Party. What is especially nerve-wracking for businessmen is that they are blocked from purchasing any entities that have possible strategic significance, such as telecommunications, energy and the military-industrial complex. However, Chinese businesses are free to invest wherever they please in the United States, as restrictions are not as tight as those in China (by a large margin).Though the United States has invested far more in the military, China has focused their military in the Far East as they seek to achieve regional hegemony. Their government has made incredulous claims over parcels of land in an attempt to achieve regional hegemony. The recent diplomatic row with Japan is only one of numerous diplomatic rows China has kicked up in an attempt to achieve regional dominance over their neighbors. China has retained claims in Taiwan and Vietnam which date back to the Qing Dynasty (which fell in 1912). The diplomatic row that they kicked up with Vietnam and Taiwan over the Paracel Islands this year is just another example of China’s boisterous policies.

With all the signs of a diplomatic storm brewing, it is often surprising to hear that the United States has not found a reasonable solution to China’s growth. The USA’s inaction is well founded. If the United States does nothing, the problem will not go away, but it will not be exacerbated. However, if the United States tries to act too strongly to counter the growth of China, the Chinese government may interpret the actions as imperialistic, and that would inseminate anti-American sentiments in the region. In a time when the United States is at loggerheads with China in the UN Security Council over intervention in Syria, bombastic condemnation of China would be counterproductive to US goals in the Middle East. However, if the United States acts too weakly, the US risks another Munich, where overly conciliatory tones would be interpreted by the Chinese as a sign of the decline of the United States. That would give the Chinese reason to step up the diplomatic pressure on their neighbors to cede territory because it would be the go-ahead signal for China to try to fill in the shoes of global hegemony. With two vastly different consequences, it is believable that the US has found it so hard to compromise such different views.
The United States, however, cannot remain idle.The United States should use a semi-strong approach towards China’s aggressive jingoism, warning the Communist Party that they cannot bully US allies with their military strength. Joint military exercises in neutral locations with Japan and the Philippines would send China a clear message on whose side the United States is on. However, the United States must avoid the impression of being imperialistic when warning the Chinese, as such may give the Communist regime in Beijing reason to antagonize the United States and that would destabilize relations with China (which would have dire consequences). However, the diplomatic overtures are only a piece of the puzzle. The United States must also back up Japan, Vietnam and Taiwan to show China that a threat to allies of the US is a direct threat to the United States. And, above all, the United States must continue to pay off their debt to China and balance the budget before China finds another market to invest in.

The United States is thus faced with a problem that can be solved. If the US adheres to a three step plan of direct overtures, increased military presence and economic growth, the United States can tame the tide of Chinese jingoism. However, American policymakers do not have all of time to act. If China can find other economies to pour substantial investments in, they can demand their money back. Such a move by the Chinese would cripple the US economy for years, even a decade. By then, the Chinese would have achieved their goal of global hegemony, and the United States would only be able to watch from the sidelines, mired in economic calamity. So, quite frankly, the United States of America has a ticking time bomb on their doorstep which policymakers have to defuse before it’s too late.

"boisterousness by a rising power poses a sharp threat to the security of the United States." How does this not describe Israel more than any other nation? Would you describe Israel as a threat?
Avoid sweeping generalisms. They can be turned back by any opponent to discredit your argument.

Also, your paragraphs are much too long to present an essay that is easily published. My personal suggestion is that you may wish to reorganize some of your thoughts.

I'm sorry, thirdly, China is far from being a military threat to United States hegemony. If they launched everything they could muster in an invasion fleet today, the United States would see to it that they reached the bottom of the Pacific tomorrow. The strongest air force in the world is the United States Air Force. The close runner up is the United States Navy Air Force.

I think that any military argument seems unnecessarily alarmist, especially when it crumbles.

What? You mean....you mean Red Dawn was a lie???? If the Korean's can do it, I mean, surely China....

DAMN YOU HOLLYWOOD!!!!!

I'd jist like to dissent a little bit... Not sure it will be helpful to yoir article, but aside from lovng to play devil's advocate i actually hold my own opinion as below.

China's inexorable growth to the top is not one of great perip, for one thing the Chinese internal market has been suppressed for years and is now being stimulated only hecause the world economy (and the US in particular) suffered a major recession.

However along with stimulating internal consumption the creation of a free-er society pushes for political freedoms enjoyed elsewhere. How the political institutions of the People's Republic manages these internal issues will be tricky and may stifle external investment and internal development.

Never-the-less if predictions of the inevitable rise of Chinese power to threaten US hegemony come to pass then so be it; all empires fall and the current US political system is already in turmoil, powerless leaders fail to marshal public for major policy changes; the country has consistantly failed to elect a president and give him a friendly congress+house. The failures of capitalism and free markets as demonstrated by the massive abuses in the financial sectors across the western world in 2008 demonstrate a fundamental weakness in the system which is apparent to most observers; even those who continue to ignore these facts as they have no alternative but to pretend that the system can be repaired.

Nationalism in the US continues to weaken the country, with no major 'conventional' foe to fight nationalism turns on cheap immigrant labourers who might otherwise push the US toward being able to compete economically with emerging Asian economies. Nationalism erodes relationships with about 1 billion muslims (or 1 in 7 of the global population) The patriotic zeal which may have uses in a world dominated by militrary power finds itself lacking in a world where trade and goodwill are paramount.

The US militrary machine is unbeatable but the cost will continue to drag the US economy down. Meanwhile social services, in the form of education, medical care, and unemployment assistance all suffer and lead to internal dissaffection.

Meanwhile Long-term Chinese rival India continues to grow, massive increases in the middle class there also affect world food supply; European integration continues to stall, and stagnate. This could provide a third counter balance to US power. With a population of 450 million and the worlds largest combined economies the EU manages with two security council vetos and two nuclear powers to survive with considerable smaller militrary spending. And continues to expand it's own borders while investing heavily in poorer neighbouring economies.

Whether the US will lose it's place as a single Super-power is not a question I would ask, the only question is which emerging powers will have the largest impact on the future world economies.

The dissent does provide an interesting view, and my comment in regard to it is that the post-US world is unknown, but we know that both China and India's policies cannot be superimposed to the rest of the world ( that is, unlike Westernization, ther is no such this as Sinoization or Indianization which seems probable for the future) .

I've taken in your input and revised the essay. It is pasted below:

TITLE: Why the world (and the United States in particular) should have reason to worry about China

In a time of fiscal troubles, floundering democracy in the Middle East and a sinking European Union, the last thing for the United States to want to think about is the long-term threat China poses to United States hegemony. The arguments in China’s favor are solid. China’s economy has been the engine behind a decade of growth, and Chinese investments have helped rebuild whole infrastructures (notably that of Angola). However, China does pose a strategic threat in the long term. The heavy-handed condemnations of Japanese nationalism, the jingoistic disputes with the Philippines over rights to minerals in the South China Sea and manipulative usage of China’s own currency are all signs of a boisterous rising power. However, if history has taught us anything, it is that a country like China poses a threat to the long-term security of the United States. The main question is how the United States should respond to the threat.
China’s economic and military growth draws sharp corollaries to the rise of Imperial Germany after unification in 1871. After defeating the French in the Franco-Prussian War, Imperial Germany rapidly industrialized. However, Germany’s growing strength posed a strategic threat to Great Britain (then the most powerful country in the world). Britain realized the strategic threat of Germany when the Reichstag passed the first of many Naval Budgets that appropriated significant amounts of money for battleships and other big-gun warships. The ensuing arms race was realized in the First World War. China’s growth may not pose threats so dire that nuclear war is inevitable between the it and the United States, but the consequences of letting China rise unabated are numerous and potentially crippling.

The world, however, has been reluctant to condemn any actions by the Chinese. They have good reasons to not condemn China. As it is, China, unlike Iran, is not actively defaming the United States and explicitly threatening U.S. allies. China’s growth has been an anchor for the global economy, and its rapid growth paved the way for economic success in the past decade. The developed world is convinced that China is becoming less authoritarian than it was in the past, and condemning China may be counterproductive to global goals for China. With that in mind, the global economy welcomes the rise of China. However, there are cons to China’s rise. China’s emergence on the global stage was driven by a state capitalist system that kept all “private” sector profits. Any economic activity was closely monitored by the People's Liberation Army and the Communist Party. What is especially nerve-wracking for businessmen is that they are blocked from purchasing any entities that have possible strategic significance, such as telecommunications, energy and the military-industrial complex. However, Chinese businesses are free to invest wherever they please in the United States, as restrictions are not as tight as those in China (by a large margin).Though the United States has invested far more in the military, China has focused their military in the Far East as they seek to achieve regional hegemony. Their government has made incredulous claims over parcels of land in an attempt to achieve regional hegemony. The recent diplomatic row with Japan is only one of numerous diplomatic rows China has kicked up in an attempt to achieve regional dominance over their neighbors. China has retained claims in Taiwan and Vietnam which date back to the Qing Dynasty (which fell in 1912). The diplomatic row that they kicked up with Vietnam and Taiwan over the Paracel Islands this year is just another example of China’s boisterous policies.

With all the signs of a diplomatic storm brewing, it is often surprising to hear that the United States has not found a reasonable solution to China’s growth. The USA’s inaction is well founded. If the United States does nothing, the problem will not go away, but it will not be exacerbated. However, if the United States tries to act too strongly to counter the growth of China, the Chinese government may interpret the actions as imperialistic, and that would inseminate anti-American sentiments in the region. In a time when the United States is at loggerheads with China in the UN Security Council over intervention in Syria, bombastic condemnation of China would be counterproductive to US goals in the Middle East. However, if the United States acts too weakly, the US risks another Munich, where overly conciliatory tones would be interpreted by the Chinese as a sign of the decline of the United States. That would give the Chinese reason to step up the diplomatic pressure on their neighbors to cede territory because it would be the go-ahead signal for China to try to fill in the shoes of global hegemony. With two vastly different consequences, it is believable that the US has found it so hard to compromise such different views.
The United States, however, cannot remain idle. The United States should use a semi-strong approach towards China’s aggressive jingoism, warning the Communist Party that they cannot bully US allies with their military strength. Joint military exercises in neutral locations with Japan and the Philippines would send China a clear message on whose side the United States is on. Joint military exercises would be a part of the US transition from the Middle East to the Far East, pulling troops from Afghanistan for duty in the Pacific Theater. However, the United States must avoid the impression of being imperialistic when warning the Chinese and while deploying troops, as such may give the Communist regime in Beijing reason to antagonize the United States and that would have consequences for the US (notably a possible Chinese demand for their money). However, the diplomatic overtures are only a piece of the puzzle. The United States must also back up Japan, Vietnam and Taiwan to show China that a threat to allies of the US is a direct threat to the United States. And, above all, the United States must continue to pay off their debt to China and balance the budget before China finds another market to invest in.

The United States is thus faced with a problem that can be solved. If the US adheres to a three step plan of direct overtures, increased military presence and economic growth, the United States can tame the tide of Chinese jingoism. However, American policymakers do not have all of time to act. If China can find other economies to pour substantial investments in, they can demand their money back. Such a move by the Chinese would cripple the US economy for years, even a decade. By then, the Chinese would have achieved their goal of global hegemony, and the United States would only be able to watch from the sidelines, mired in economic calamity. So, quite frankly, the United States of America has a ticking time bomb on their doorstep which policymakers have to defuse before it’s too late.

I disagree with you, but I think your argument has improved. I'd still be careful about the comparison to Germany, though. I think it's going to back-fire on you terribly.

I think you have a point there...maybe I'll delete the paragraph and replace it with a generic about rising powers.

My edited version after accepting abgemacht's advice:

TITLE: Why the world (and the United States in particular) should have reason to worry about China

In a time of fiscal troubles, floundering democracy in the Middle East and a sinking European Union, the last thing for the United States to want to think about is the long-term threat China poses to United States hegemony. The arguments in China’s favor are solid. China’s economy has been the engine behind a decade of growth, and Chinese investments have helped rebuild whole infrastructures (notably that of Angola). However, China does pose a strategic threat in the long term. The heavy-handed condemnations of Japanese nationalism, the jingoistic disputes with the Philippines over rights to minerals in the South China Sea and manipulative usage of China’s own currency are all signs of a boisterous rising power. However, if history has taught us anything, it is that a country like China poses a threat to the long-term security of the United States. The main question is how the United States should respond to the threat. China’s growth may not pose threats so dire that nuclear war is inevitable between the it and the United States, but the consequences of letting China rise unabated are numerous and potentially crippling.

The world, however, has been reluctant to condemn any actions by the Chinese. They have good reasons to not condemn China. As it is, China, unlike Iran, is not actively defaming the United States and explicitly threatening U.S. allies. China’s growth has been an anchor for the global economy, and its rapid growth paved the way for economic success in the past decade. The developed world is convinced that China is becoming less authoritarian than it was in the past, and condemning China may be counterproductive to global goals for China. With that in mind, the global economy welcomes the rise of China. However, there are cons to China’s rise. China’s emergence on the global stage was driven by a state capitalist system that kept all “private” sector profits. Any economic activity was closely monitored by the People's Liberation Army and the Communist Party. What is especially nerve-wracking for businessmen is that they are blocked from purchasing any entities that have possible strategic significance, such as telecommunications, energy and the military-industrial complex. However, Chinese businesses are free to invest wherever they please in the United States, as restrictions are not as tight as those in China (by a large margin).Though the United States has invested far more in the military, China has focused their military in the Far East as they seek to achieve regional hegemony. Their government has made incredulous claims over parcels of land in an attempt to achieve regional hegemony. The recent diplomatic row with Japan is only one of numerous diplomatic rows China has kicked up in an attempt to achieve regional dominance over their neighbors. China has retained claims in Taiwan and Vietnam which date back to the Qing Dynasty (which fell in 1912). The diplomatic row that they kicked up with Vietnam and Taiwan over the Paracel Islands this year is just another example of China’s boisterous policies.

With all the signs of a diplomatic storm brewing, it is often surprising to hear that the United States has not found a reasonable solution to China’s growth. The USA’s inaction is well founded. If the United States does nothing, the problem will not go away, but it will not be exacerbated. However, if the United States tries to act too strongly to counter the growth of China, the Chinese government may interpret the actions as imperialistic, and that would inseminate anti-American sentiments in the region. In a time when the United States is at loggerheads with China in the UN Security Council over intervention in Syria, bombastic condemnation of China would be counterproductive to US goals in the Middle East. However, if the United States acts too weakly, the US risks another Munich, where overly conciliatory tones would be interpreted by the Chinese as a sign of the decline of the United States. That would give the Chinese reason to step up the diplomatic pressure on their neighbors to cede territory because it would be the go-ahead signal for China to try to fill in the shoes of global hegemony. With two vastly different consequences, it is believable that the US has found it so hard to compromise such different views.
The United States, however, cannot remain idle. The United States should use a semi-strong approach towards China’s aggressive jingoism, warning the Communist Party that they cannot bully US allies with their military strength. Joint military exercises in neutral locations with Japan and the Philippines would send China a clear message on whose side the United States is on. Joint military exercises would be a part of the US transition from the Middle East to the Far East, pulling troops from Afghanistan for duty in the Pacific Theater. However, the United States must avoid the impression of being imperialistic when warning the Chinese and while deploying troops, as such may give the Communist regime in Beijing reason to antagonize the United States and that would have consequences for the US (notably a possible Chinese demand for their money). However, the diplomatic overtures are only a piece of the puzzle. The United States must also back up Japan, Vietnam and Taiwan to show China that a threat to allies of the US is a direct threat to the United States. And, above all, the United States must continue to pay off their debt to China and balance the budget before China finds another market to invest in.

The United States is thus faced with a problem that can be solved. If the US adheres to a three step plan of direct overtures, increased military presence and economic growth, the United States can tame the tide of Chinese jingoism. However, American policymakers do not have all of time to act. If China can find other economies to pour substantial investments in, they can demand their money back. Such a move by the Chinese would cripple the US economy for years, even a decade. By then, the Chinese would have achieved their goal of global hegemony, and the United States would only be able to watch from the sidelines, mired in economic calamity. So, quite frankly, the United States of America has a ticking time bomb on their doorstep which policymakers have to defuse before it’s too late.

I do agree that the dissent (as voiced so eloquently by orothaic) has some good points, but I still hold to my core beliefs that China's rise is something that the US shouldn't take lying down.

I just don't think this article is going to convince anyone to take troops out of the Middle East only to relocate them to the Pacific.

Paying of the Chinese debt? Sure. Making stricter laws to counter Chinese non-compete practices? Sure. Mobilizing troops against China? No fucking way.

Maybe you have a point there...war mongering in an essay isn't always a good thing.

EDITED VERSION 4.0:

TITLE: Why the world (and the United States in particular) should have reason to worry about China

In a time of fiscal troubles, floundering democracy in the Middle East and a sinking European Union, the last thing for the United States to want to think about is the long-term threat China poses to United States hegemony. The arguments in China’s favor are solid. China’s economy has been the engine behind a decade of growth, and Chinese investments have helped rebuild whole infrastructures (notably that of Angola). However, China does pose a strategic threat in the long term. The heavy-handed condemnations of Japanese nationalism, the jingoistic disputes with the Philippines over rights to minerals in the South China Sea and manipulative usage of China’s own currency are all signs of a boisterous rising power. However, if history has taught us anything, it is that a country like China poses a threat to the long-term security of the United States. The main question is how the United States should respond to the threat. China’s growth may not pose threats so dire that nuclear war is inevitable between the it and the United States, but the consequences of letting China rise unabated are numerous and potentially crippling.

The world, however, has been reluctant to condemn any actions by the Chinese. They have good reasons to not condemn China. As it is, China, unlike Iran, is not actively defaming the United States and explicitly threatening U.S. allies. China’s growth has been an anchor for the global economy, and its rapid growth paved the way for economic success in the past decade. The developed world is convinced that China is becoming less authoritarian than it was in the past, and condemning China may be counterproductive to global goals for China. With that in mind, the global economy welcomes the rise of China. However, there are cons to China’s rise. China’s emergence on the global stage was driven by a state capitalist system that kept all “private” sector profits. Any economic activity was closely monitored by the People's Liberation Army and the Communist Party. What is especially nerve-wracking for businessmen is that they are blocked from purchasing any entities that have possible strategic significance, such as telecommunications, energy and the military-industrial complex. However, Chinese businesses are free to invest wherever they please in the United States, as restrictions are not as tight as those in China (by a large margin).Though the United States has invested far more in the military, China has focused their military in the Far East as they seek to achieve regional hegemony. Their government has made incredulous claims over parcels of land in an attempt to achieve regional hegemony. The recent diplomatic row with Japan is only one of numerous diplomatic rows China has kicked up in an attempt to achieve regional dominance over their neighbors. China has retained claims in Taiwan and Vietnam which date back to the Qing Dynasty (which fell in 1912). The diplomatic row that they kicked up with Vietnam and Taiwan over the Paracel Islands this year is just another example of China’s boisterous policies.

With all the signs of a diplomatic storm brewing, it is often surprising to hear that the United States has not found a reasonable solution to China’s growth. The USA’s inaction is well founded. If the United States does nothing, the problem will not go away, but it will not be exacerbated. However, if the United States tries to act too strongly to counter the growth of China, the Chinese government may interpret the actions as imperialistic, and that would inseminate anti-American sentiments in the region. In a time when the United States is at loggerheads with China in the UN Security Council over intervention in Syria, bombastic condemnation of China would be counterproductive to US goals in the Middle East. However, if the United States acts too weakly, the US risks another Munich, where overly conciliatory tones would be interpreted by the Chinese as a sign of the decline of the United States. That would give the Chinese reason to step up the diplomatic pressure on their neighbors to cede territory because it would be the go-ahead signal for China to try to fill in the shoes of global hegemony. With two vastly different consequences, it is believable that the US has found it so hard to compromise such different views.
The United States, however, cannot remain idle. The United States should use a semi-strong approach towards China’s aggressive jingoism, warning the Communist Party that they cannot bully US allies with their military strength. Joint military exercises in neutral locations with Japan and the Philippines would send China a clear message on whose side the United States is on. However, the United States must avoid the impression of being imperialistic when warning the Chinese and while deploying troops, as such may give the Communist regime in Beijing reason to antagonize the United States and that would have consequences for the US (notably a possible Chinese demand for their money). However, the diplomatic overtures are only a piece of the puzzle. The United States must also back up Japan, Vietnam and Taiwan to show China that a threat to allies of the US is a direct threat to the United States. And, above all, the United States must continue to pay off their debt to China and balance the budget before China finds another market to invest in.

The United States is thus faced with a problem that can be solved. If the US adheres to a three step plan of direct overtures and economic growth, the United States can tame the tide of Chinese jingoism. However, American policymakers do not have all of time to act. If China can find other economies to pour substantial investments in, China can demand its money back. Such a move by the Chinese would cripple the US economy for years, even a decade. By then, the Chinese would have achieved their goal of global hegemony, and the United States would only be able to watch from the sidelines, mired in economic calamity. So, quite frankly, the United States of America has a ticking time bomb on their doorstep which policymakers have to defuse before it’s too late.

So, now that I've revised the article 4 times, does anyone know how to submit an article for publication in a blog or journal?

I'm not too familiar with political publications, but you could try the following:


Letter to the Economist Editors:

http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21569001-obesity-gun-control-syria-bankers-marriage

A dedicated Political Forum, such as:

http://www.politicalforum.com/forum.php

An Op-Ed on a Newspaper's online site, such as:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/25global-op-ed.html?_r=0


I do still think this could use a lot of work if you want it taken seriously. It took my professor and I months to get our last paper accepted into a journal. You really have to get your shit together if you want your work to hold up against a large audience.

I have to agree with Orthaic. And +1, by the way.
Where South Korea once caused many in the U.S. to sound the alarms due to near unprecedented economic growth, they've since leveled out.
Realistically, China's growth and political oppresionism is likely to be blunted by the success it has achieved, as its people become wealthier and more educated, they will retake control of their nation.
And such steep economic growth is unsustainable in its current form, and must level out, as dictated by the fact that there is only so much wealth present in the world, and their populace can only produce so much.

djakarta, I still find the tone of the essay to be an overarching and unresolved problem. Lots of very bold statements, heavy language, etc. without proper back up.

^Agreed

Are you thinking of submitting it to an academic journal? It reads more like an opinion piece which is why abgemacht's suggestions are sensible, only that is too long for a letter to the editor in my opinion.

In that case, I'll submit it as an op-ed