Critics of American foreign policy often attribute economic motives to why the U.S. take a specific position or action on a global issue. The most obvious example is Iraq, on which the Bush administration, in particular, has been portrayed as a cabal of oil-hungry mercantilists who invaded Iraq for its oil wealth.

In reality, American political motives are often a jumble of the pragmatic (e.g. geopolitics, national security, counter-terrorism) and the idealistic (e.g. spreading democracy, rule of law, human rights). Some within administration even believe the two coincide in many cases (and I share that view).

But the same critics, usually on the Left, are usually silent about a bona fide mercantilistic (some say, imperalistic) nation that is pursuing foreign policy based on extracting resources to feed its hunger for such resources — China. The latest news of increased Chinese investment in Venezuela’s oil industry is no surprise in this regard.

China has been aggressively pursuing acquisition of new energy sources in places like Kazakhstan, Burma, Sudan and Iran. It has been extending its politico-economic, and even military, influence far beyond Asia to Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. Its foreign and economic policy has been decidedly mercantilist in the 19th Century and early 20th Century sense. Indeed, it has all the vibes of, say, Imperial Japan c. 1930’s (indeed, I once wrote a column arguing that China’s strategic direction resembles that of Imperial Japan prior to the fateful decision to “go south”).

The pro-China engagement crowd argues that China will grow less belligerent, more democratic and more responsible as its economy grows, and that the U.S. must “nurture” or “manage” this relationshp into a long-term friendly one. That is certainly possible. But just as it takes two to dance, the Sino-American relationshp only can work on a friendly footing if both parties seek a positive long-term relationship.

Unfortunately, China’s political and military establishment seems to view the United States as a future competitor, and even enemy, one with which it is avoiding confrontation for the time being due to its presently inferior military and technological prowess, not from any lack of hostile intentions. Given that type of long-term strategic thinking in Beijing of “biding its time to fight,” China will likely become more aggressive, not less, as its economy and technology advance, raising the prospect of a future Sino-American conflict.

And this prospect ought to be some food for thought, not just in Washington, but in Seoul.