It's hard to be sure as closed as Chinese society has always been, even before the geopolitical aspect that played right into the governments traditional attitudes, but I hear a great deal from Chinese citizens angry at "US imperialism" and virtually nothing about their own governments imperialism within its borders or the region, let alone globally.

From the perspective of Western policy though we have seen and continue to see a carrot without a stick. The whole premise is that showing China democracys benefits will induce them to embrace it, applying it to individual citizens rather than the government doesn't change that approach. And I frankly do not see it; the government is too successful at promoting skepticism of outside information sources when they don't stop them entirely (hence encouragement of democracy is more often viewed as imperialist propaganda than as sincere. ) This actually dovetails nicely with snoops link below; without widespread WiFi and satellite links it's quite simple for the government to control information access online, easier than with radio since fiberoptics and telephone lines aren't exactly broadcasting. Google et alia have had their problems with Chinese authorities, too, y'know.

The conceit is that access is predicated on exchange, that in order to share the benefits of Western or global society Chinas government must adopt the policies that make them possible, that access to Western markets will invariably create access to Chinese ones, with all that flows from that. The problem is that Western policy makers are so fixated on that means to the end of reforming China that they'll do anything and everything to enable it--including providing the benefits of democracy directly, themselves, instead of China producing them as the dividends of democracy. Why should China allow and encourage large scale private enterprise when America offers up capital and manufacturing, even when it means importing human quality food and toothpaste laced with poison (both of which have occurred)? Why should it be any less belligerent when capture of US military aircraft in international airspace results in our "Cowboy" President BEGGING for the return of plane and crews (which only happened after the former was disassembled and the latter debriefed)? What does China, as a government or people, have to gain from democracy...? That's the question there as much as on the CMB.

China really shouldn't be singled out; it's symptomatic of a deeper problem with "free" trade falsely so called, as an end run around regs in the developing world that were only won at the cost of lives, but outside of Burma and the African dictatorships China's probably the worst offender, and the sheer volume of their impact in every arena only magnifies the problem; their stated goal of displacing the US in every arena punctuates their unique "contributions. "