The latest advertisements in The Economist’s “Where do you stand?” series – currently placed throughout the subway system in the U.K. – present two contrasting posters on China’s relationship to the West. One poster displays a menacing panda with devilish red eyes under the headline “CHINA IS A THREAT TO THE WEST”; the other, a gentle and naïve panda with the headline “CHINA IS A FRIEND TO THE WEST.”[1]

       The Economistreasons that China is a threat because A) China spends about $100 billion on defense, almost three times as much as a decade ago, and nearly twice as much as Britain; B) (Some political reasons); and C) China’s hunger for raw materials is exhausting the earth and bolstering corrupt regimes in the developing world. On the other hand, China could also be considered a friend because A)China makes a fifth of all the world’s goods, kitting out the West’s consumers and finances the West’s borrowers; B) China goes out of its way to emphasize that it wants a “peaceful rise”; and C) China is the world’s biggest investor in green technology.

       This question “Is China a friend or a foe” stands as a matter of debate for non-Chinese people. But for the Chinese people, we consider a related inquiry: Should China act as a friend or a foe? Let’s take a look at the possible roles China can take on in the international arena. China could choose to act as A) an enemy; B) a friend; C) both a friend and an enemy; or D) neither a friend nor an enemy. In fact, the two questions of what China “is” and “should be” are inextricably linked; whenever we identify with a goal, we strive to achieve it. As a child, former South Korean President Kim Young-Sam stuck a banner to his headboard reading “President Kim Young-Sam” – clearly, his self-encouragement and dedication paid off.

       A closer analysis of China’s four possible roles offers more insight. Obviously, China should not play the role of an enemy on the international stage, so we can eliminate roles A and D. Therefore, there are only two answers left: Should China act as a friend? If not, what role should China choose to play?

       It is tempting to suggest that China should simply befriend everyone, offering unbridled support to as many nations as possible. But history has repeatedly reminded us that this mentality entails, firstly, a high financial cost (for example, we have suffered great losses from investing in failed overseas projects); second, an overstepping of our own abilities (in the past, we have been unable to maintain the loyalty of our so-called “friends”); and third, an overstepping of other nations’ abilities (in light of inevitable conflicts of interest, we cannot count on other countries to always treat us as a friend). As the old saying goes, countries have neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies.  What role then should China choose to play? I propose that China should act as neither a friend nor an enemy to the world, but rather as a pragmatic businessman.

       This practical approach to international relations protects China’s own interests – by building strategic trade relationships, we bolster our economic standing and benefit our position in world politics. A wise businessman maintains both his own interests and the interests of his partners, creating a win-win situation for all. And successful businessmen keep their promises – they create strong ties to establish long-term stability for their economic interests. This brings me to another old adage: Only interest permanently joins two countries. Let me present the United States as a case study.

       The recent economic crisis prompted President Obama and executive officials to draft formal legislation directly targeting international trade. Last year’s National Export Initiative explicitly states a goal of doubling American exports over the next five years through increased export financing and the removal of trade barriers.[2] The Department of Commerce’sInternational Trade Administration (ITA)[3]leads the effort to bolster exports, working to “directly connect U.S. businesses to more customers abroad” and “knock down barriers – ranging from tariffs to lax intellectual property protections – to make U.S. businesses more competitive in foreign markets.”[4]American exports increased by 17 percent in 2010,[5] an indication that these efforts have already paid off.

       In addition to its prominent international trade, the United States’ foreign diplomatic ties also promote economic growth. America’s long-standing close political relations with the United Kingdom are validated by great market benefit – the two nations “share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership… [an investment that] sustains more than 1 million American jobs.[6] Close ties with Canada prove even more economically beneficial: Since 1994’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States and Canada have built the world’s most extensive trading relationship.[7] Every day, the two nations bilaterally trade $1.6 billion worth of goods, supporting employment in both countries.[8]

       Like the United States, China’s strongest position is that of a businessman. The Chinese government should focus not on whether to act as an enemy or a friend, but rather on how to avoid being taken advantages of, how to serve the nation’s interests, and how to strategically deal with friends in order to earn benefits. (Note: These benefits include improvements for the economy, political standing, international relations, and other vital aspects to the nation’s well-being.) In other words, we must not forget that our relationships ultimately serve to benefit the Chinese people – people who will then become a permanent friend to the nation and its government.

       A few years after China adopts this businessman policy, perhaps The Economist will draw another panda: a panda wearing glasses, holding an abacus, positioned under the headline “CHINA IS A BUSINESSMAN TO THE WEST.” By that time, China’s relationship with the West will be more than just friendly – it will be practical and realistic. Of course, it would be nice if The Economist could justifiably add  the adjective “WISE” in front of “BUSINESSMAN.” But if The Economist could add the adjective “SLY,” I would be even more pleased.  As children, we watched many civil war movies where the troops of the Communist Party of China (“CPC”) fought the troops of Kuo Min Tang (“KMT”).  After losing many battles one by one, a KMT military officer exclaimed that: “It is not that we are too stupid; it is CPC troops who are too sly!” Indeed, sly can be high praise coming from the mouth of your opponent.