This article is disingenous. It's not "all countries vs China" like the author naively implies. It's more along the lines of:
-Some countries supporting China's economic policies, mainly military allies like Pakistan or high-tech manufacturing powers like Germany and Australia, who depend and benefit off the Chinese market.
-Countries that oppose Chinese policies, because they are trying to maintain or regain their low-quality manufacturing exports, like America and the BRIC countries (excluding China).
-And the majority of the countries in the world, who really don't care how China or America acts, unless it affects economic aid.
There's also the problem of not mentioning the fact that countries often switch alliances, depending on the issue, like when BRIC sided with China during Copenhagen. It's disappointing how much this article ignores the complexities of its subject.

China's exports grew last year at twice the rate of its GDP, sounds bad right? Until you see that China's imports grew last year at an even faster rate than exports. In terms of absolute values, the surplus is getting bigger, but in terms of the surplus growth rate, it's slowing down.

China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until Nixon’s 1972 visit. 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. 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.

Had it not been for that Nixon embrace in 1972, China’s rise to super power status would have been far more slower with all the US, West European and East Asian markets closed to cheap Chinese products. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s technological progress would have been far slower in the absence of West’s technology transfers. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s military progress would have been far slower in the absence of huge forex reserves that China accumulated from the massive exports of cheap Chinese products and China used those forex reserves to acquire latest military technology.

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, Home Depot, Sears and Macy’s filled with Chinese goods prove and US government is hooked to huge investments that China makes in US treasuries from the sales of cheap Chinese products to US businesses.

China’s rise to super power status to challenge US is a fitting monument to the much-celebrated far-sightedness of Nixon-Kissinger to embrace China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 just as 9/11 attacks is a fitting monument to Reagan embracing Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan.

Market players need a lot more detail on how the crisis mechanism will work, but it's a step in the right direction. Monitoring and enforcing fiscal targets will be more straightforward

At first I thought this is just doing China-bashing.
But now I decided it's a China lobby piece.

Naturally, over-expecation always leads to frustrations....and this is particularly true when people are trying to create this propaganda based on such a revived cold-war mentality --- that is, unfairly counting on China for every major issue which is supposed to be an outcome of multilateral reconciliations. Whilst it is universally easy to understand the need of someone, not to mention these authors, to reignite the bygone cold war era, for the sake of their own political interests, one has to be fair enough to substantiate his arguments by proper finger-pointing, in a more masterful way. I don't however see any masterful approach being adopted here, which merely delivers the image of an eager China-blamer.......so here is my two cents: be more creative next time, dude.

China's success is a proof that authoritarian government can do better than democratic governments. That SOE (state owned enterprises) can successfully compete against free corporations. This is making a lot of Western folks nervous because it completely with against what they have been indoctrinated with since young.

Of course, the fact that China is made up of Asians doesn't help either.