Remember the old days when China was a terrible pariah on the international scene? Not anymore. People are increasingly looking to this wholly un-democratic country to solve the world’s woes. It is a bizarre turn-around that can be heavily attributed to the United States’ reduced sway over international politics as a result of President Bush’s botched Iraq adventure.

It was only a few weeks ago that the China blogs went nuts about Tom Friedman’s visit to Dalian during which he leveled scathing criticism about Beijing’s hands-off approach to problems around the world. Yet while people were busy pointing out that the NY Times columnist/know-everything had a flawed grasp about virtually everything in international relations, people have begun looking at the crucial role that China is already playing.

This weekend’s NY Times featured an article in its Weekend Review about how China has become the go-to polity for problems ranging from those the Korea Peninsula to Sudan and Iran. (What was not mentioned was their role in letting these situations reach crisis-level before getting involved, but that’s a column for another day.) On the heels of that piece was another, on the Op-Ed page of the very same newspaper, arguing that China holds the key to solving the last few hurdles of the nuclear negotiations with North Korea. Specifically the authors say that if China were willing to work as a neutral third-party to hold Pyongyang’s nuclear material in order to ensure that it would stay out of the hands of terrorists, the outstanding issues could be resolved more quickly.

So how did China become such an upstanding member of the world community? It has not resolved its human rights record, sorted out the Taiwan issue, nor done much to combat its image as the world’s pollution factory. And yet Beijing finds itself as the virtual Don Corleone of international negotiations: it is suddenly a murky, yet feared and oddly respected, leader.

I would argue that it was inevitable that someone, or something, would rise up to offer an alternative to the US in a post-Soviet world. While Americans see themselves as the benevolent savior, many others view them suspiciously and need a broker that is not seen as being tied to Washington, in order to complete deals that they can believe will be enforced fairly. The fiasco in Iraq has done nothing but speed up this process since the US can no longer project the type of power that would be needed to force through agreements.

China’s influence is rising, both due to its own economic strength and in response to nations looking for a foil to American domination. Yet it is not without limits, nor a distinctly self-serving agenda. Steven Lee Meyers points out in his Week in Review piece that China may not have an aversion to Iran having a nuclear weapon (although that could change quickly if the two countries had a falling out, like the PRC did with its one-time ally the Soviet Union). However, the reality that a US attack on Iran would cut off the supply to the country’s vast natural resources is enough to motivate Beijing to serve as a mediator.

China has long avoided delving into political matters beyond its borders, both because it did not want countries to do the same in return, and also because it was content to let others fight its battles. This is what has so enraged the misguided Friedman. However, as China’s strength, and more importantly its national interests, has spread around the globe, it can do little to avoid being drawn into the debates. China may not want to be interventionist, and the world may hope it can solve its problems without help from the reclusive government, but for now the two seem stuck together.