The USG could learn much from GM on this: the Detroit automaker sought out SAIC about 15 years ago, which is when the US should have made its moves as well. They embraced genuine partnership with the Chinese automaker, and worked hard to bring it up to global standards. In the process, GM became the biggest foreign player in China's exploding auto market.
But yeah, now SAIC wants to go global with GM and somewhat on its own at the same time, and that's where the relationship gets trickier.
But my point is, GM has the right problems to manage right now, while the USG is still stuck in a host of aging issues with Beijing.
As the piece says, "SAIC wants more from its partnership with GM; GM has yet to decide how far it will go."
The great quote from GM chief exec Dan Akerson:
It's kind of like a marriage. We have a good and viable relationship and partnership. But to make it work, you have to have needs on both sides of the table, not just wants.
That, in a nutshell, is the big constraint on Washington's approach to Beijing: we constantly focus on our wants and denigrate China's needs.
Would that national security strategists had the breadth of vision that GM has so ably demonstrated in this long-term engagement.
Again, that's where the US and China should be: we facilitated China's rise and then got scared right when we should have moved closer in.