The tone and intensity from the speech are much milder than what’s been characterized in the Post. It is a blunt but articulate speech that is still consistent with existing US policy. However, if one reads the Post article alone, the speech sounded adruptly confrontational.

Couple of things to watch:
1. Is the Bush admin ready to resume its focus back on China? Given the status of War on Terror, a couple of isolated speeches may not be effective. The fact the speech was delievered by Zoellick not Rice may reflect this reality as well.
2. US is absolutely correct in pressing China for more transparency on both domestic and foreign policies. But ONLY IF the Chinese themselves know what they are. I believe the leadership in China are not bold or capable enough to grow out of Deng Xiaoping Doctrine: focus on economic development like a laser beam and, hopefully, when you regain peripheral vision, all other matters will sort out by themselves.
3. However, US still lacks credit to warn China of its “Mercantilism” while itself is undermining international institutions in the name of “national interests”. Japan, Europe and Canada all had to resort to retaliatory methods to force US back to negotiation table after several WTO rulings were ignored in succession.
4. One has to view China’s “wrongdoings” in perspective. Japan and Korea are far more restrictive in openning their domestic markets to the Americans. That was a hot topic during the late last-Bush and 1st half of the Clinton era. Now they both fell from grace so they are OK to keep their markets closed. The Chinese are doing better (although still 1/3 of Japan in GDP), so it becomes target #1? Without a proper context to address this issue, few would lend their apathy or support to US.