China's tremendous economic growth has transformed the country into a major world power, a fact considered by many scholars and political analyses to be the most important development since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s. China is becoming a country different from what it was at the beginning of the 20th century, when its economic and political weakness exposed it to Western influence. As it is in the process of becoming an economic and military power, China's foreign policy is closely watched.

It is the view of American neo-conservatives in the Bush administration that China's rising power could pose a threat to US dominance in the Pacific region. But there are scholars who say that China is a conservative power, which will be inclined to maintain the status quo "in the foreseeable future." Those scholars based their argument on the fact that China has gained membership in international organizations, including the World Trade Organization, which calls on its members to abide by international rules and to conduct responsible foreign policy. There are at least two interpretations of Chinese foreign policy.

One is by realists who think that it would be useless and counterproductive for the US to try to stop the emergence of China as a superpower and it would be best for the US to develop a strategy to protect and defend its interests. Others believe the US should prepare to compete with China because a rising power will be more aggressive in expanding trade and protecting its economy.

The second interpretation is held by liberals who welcome the emergence of China because of its ability to play an important international role while reforming its economic and political systems. They say China eventually will be transformed into an open and democratic country, as it becomes a major power with a market economy guided by international law. They predict that China will have a middle class that can influence foreign policy decisions. The liberals think that a more prosperous middle class will demand more political freedom and participation in the decision-making process.

With regard to the conflict across the Taiwan Strait, scholars argue that both China and Taiwan should be dissuaded from taking any drastic military action to resolve their dispute.

Liu Ji, a former vice president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, offers strong arguments, and some warnings, to resolve the Taiwan-China dispute. Liu Ji says reunification with Taiwan should be done "the sooner the better" as it is the wish of the Chinese people.

"The day when Taiwan declares independence will be the day war begins," he warns. But he says war can take different forms and does not necessarily mean use of force because it is best to win a war without a single battle. He says a sea and air blockade could ultimately cause the collapse of Taiwan's economy.

Liu Ji offers some strong arguments that China's prosperity and strength will never be a threat to the United States. For thousands of years, China has been a peace loving country and has always instituted a foreign policy of peaceful settlement of conflict.

Wu Xinbo, a professor at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University, and vice-president of Shanghai American Studies, says Chinese foreign policy has many contradictions.

Wu Xinbo says China is a great power, but a poor country, which is the most obvious contradiction. It is a great country because of its long history and civilization. It has a vast territory and the world's largest population. It is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. But China is a poor country and its level of economic and technological development is far behind those of Western and some Asian countries.

He says the Chinese people have a "dual identity syndrome," which has an impact on foreign policy behavior. As a great power, it can respond to any crisis, but in some cases it cannot formulate any concrete measures to deal with the crisis beyond issuing a set of principles. When NATO attacked Kosovo in 1999, China protested but it could not offer any mediation between Yugoslavia and NATO because its geopolitical position is irrelevant in the Balkans.