The danger of a unipolar world is a demogogue sitting on the throne. Christians, like most religious types, are horrendously demogogue prone. They follow the leader mindlessly, and they've followed this leader into a mire. The US can be a decent monopole, but its equally capable of being both an utterly incompetent monopole, and a destructive monopole, depending on the prevailing majority. Not worth it at all.

Let them invite the Chinese in, let'em build a new Iron Curtain around the Dark Continent, and see how they like it when they're under a foreign dictator's heel for a few decades. Pet leaders bowing to Beijing being fed money that Beijing seriously couldn't care less where it goes, and you can bet it won't be going to the people who need it most.

The latest confirmed rumour is that The Decider wants to sell Iraq to China, as is.....that is probably the only way out for him!

"Recent history has shown us that a unipolar world is far worse than a bipolar one."

Oh really? So the 1990s were far worse than the Cold War? The proxy struggles that devastated Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and the Middle East were a good thing? The constant threat of massive nuclear war was no big deal? How about the Korean War and Vietnam War?

Yes, by all means, return us to the halcyon days of the Cold War!

The essential point mad by Ms. Andoni is the difference in approach to international relations between the USA [and to some extent UK, Canada, Australia] Is the Ameriacan arrogance, ignorance and self-centredness [greatly appreciated by the others named above] and the Chinese attempt to speak the language, understand the culture and then try to trade. The USA treats even Canada as a second tier nation, useful for oil and some natural resources, however, these can be imported only on USA terms -- and to hell with international law, NAFTA, or anything else.

Ever since Bretton Wood agreement the USA tried to impose its will on the rest of the world using IMF, World Bank and USA excess capital. Things Changed since China accumulated over a trillion dollar reserves. China has the money to bypass World Bank, IMF and The USA Banks. Africa rejoices. If their standard of living goes up, perhaps they can settle their internal differences among tribes, nations [mostly drawn up by UK/France without reghard to natural barriers and or ethnic issues, just like Iraq, and the ME -excluding Iran].

The USA lost financial power due to irrational actions by the Reagan/Bush administration when they made all the moves to shore up the wealth class, and undermined USA manufacturing. The damage done by the Federal Reserve/Treasury can not be forgotten, for they conspired to print $ to aid those who partook in the recent financial bubbles. This step had the unintended consequence that the citizens of USA lost all incentive to save and went on a borrowing binge aided by the irrational rise in house prices. Most probaly the wars in Iraq and Afganistan help hide the economic malaise within the USA GDP, for the production of war materiel is added is as an economic gain, when in reality such production is a misallocation of funds on a national scale.

Now the USA media is baying for change in Chinese international relations, when the ailment of Africa can be put to the manipulation of IMF and World Bank -- the interst paid on these useless loans over the years far exceeded the constructive aspect of any and all these loans. The USA idea that the interest has to be paid to help the USA Banks, whether the leanding was done in good faith and with proper fiduciary judgement or nopt is symptomatic of the USA's Arrogance and greed.

China on the other hand forgave loans barely a few years after granting the same. While these forgivenesses are not sign of PURE ALTRUISM, they are signs of rational analysis of the financial ailment of Africa at large.

Thus there is an economic incentive for Africa to get closer to China at the expense of USA/UK and the EU.

Now with respect to humanitarism, the record of USA UK EU is rather sad in the last few years. Illegal Wars, subjugation of the Palestinians and North Koreans [we will not aid their famines for political reasons] propping up dictatorships, raping the ecology, collecting interest from nations which are incapable of feeding themselves, selling armaments world wide [then biching if China would do the same on a small scale] etc.
So what is different? Is the problem if China uses some of its foreign reserves to offer aid and investments without strings? Is it that the USA is incapable of generousity - they have the lowest aid as % of GDP among advanced nations]?
Or is it worry that the USA/UK/EU would be cut off from some natural reasources from Africa?