Can China be a true global leader?

This morning I read a letter in the FT from a Chinese woman living in Hong Kong that says, along the lines, that China is not interested in being a global leader, not interested in any action that is driven by "values" and is instead focused only on an "exchange of needs" driven by national interest. And so, she continued, with Europe and Japan having problems of their own, America will be without any real allies and should therefore retreat from global leadership.

I am uncomfortable with her conclusion. Firstly, I think leadership abhors a vacuum - if America stays home there will be some power (even if its not China) will be more than willing to fill it. Secondly, I dare say that in the scope of history America has (largely) been benign power. From a historical perspective of the dominant empires through the ages, it says something that people can openly complain about America - or even work to undermine America - and not worry about their families being enslaved, imprisoned or slaughtered.

But her view on China actually caused me even more discomfort, mainly because I worry it has some semblence of reality.

My observation is that China has a classic international policy i.e. there are no allies/enemies, only national interest; heavily leavened with a strong emphasis on national sovereignty (as a proxy for absolute internal control by the State/Party), the effects of which makes China popular to smaller countries or weaker governments because China treats all sovereign states as equals and without questioning anyone's political legitimacy so long as they are in power. China stands up for others rarely and only when it serves as a proxy for its own issues such as national sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs.

China is used to being an authoritarian empire but is less adept at being a team player. Without question China is a real player in many arenas of the world - especially in economics and trade - but it picks and chooses only those where it stands to benefit. It invests reluctantly in the responsibilities to the 'global system' or in global institutions makes it possible. However its dealings, while shrewed and often effective, often reflects purely a power relationship. Where it really matters, China does not seek to build coalitions or institutions rather it would rely on its own bargaining position and power.

In many ways, this is a reflection of reality that there are limits to China's resources and ability to contribute. Premier Wen's statements that China 'is a still a developing country and we should be sober minded". But I suspect even when it is more powerful, it will still be more comfortable dealing with power relationships than being a team player, either in concert with other global powers or within global frameworks or institutions especially one based on rules and law.

I suspect China is fine with global systems so long as it is winning and hear praises but it will have a hard time accepting criticism of "peers" or be subject to limitations under a rules based system. China will say its a question of sovereignty but at its heart China has not learnt to share power or responsibilities. For China, one is either a loyal supplicant/vassel state or a rival power to be deftly managed and defeated. I am not sure Chinese statecraft has a tradition of dealing with a multi-polar world with "peer" states; much less be willing to give up benefits in order to protect and respect the rights of the weaker party purely on the ground of righteousness (otherwise known as "values").

It took the major powers in Europe many centuries of warfare to learn co-existance and cooperation, even though in Europe no power was ever dominant since the Roman Empire hence has a deeper tradition in dealing with a multi-polar world of diplomacy and compromise.

I am concerned that the rise of China, unless accompanied by a willingness to strengthen the global system, will weaken global institutions and international governance - which was after all founded on Western ideals of equality, fairplay, democracy, respect for rules including acceptance of majority decisions after open debate.

It would be tragic if the arrivial of the world's oldest continuous civilization on the world stage will be to set the clock back on human progress and to a less enlightened age.