There's something unsettling about the might makes right amd post-hoc justifications dor colonialism. Especially considering the colonialists did not have those "noble" goals in mind. No one lauds Google the way they laud the British empire, yet the same exploitation vs. public benefit arguments apply.
To dismiss the Romans, the colonials, &c, as of no benefit, however, is to deny reality. The Roman roads were genuinely of value to peoples besides the Romans. Perhaps the Chinese, to, will create institutions and a scope of activity that is of value to peoples outside of China. Probably not in Asia...
At no point did I dismiss the knowledge-transfer as being of no benefit. The point I was making is that it is very easy to be on a high horse and say "It was worth it" when you were not on the sharp end of the stick. By reframing the set-up with China as the imperial power, I hope to show the readers that the cost of "upliftment" might be something the unwilling subjects may consider culturally valuable (like democracy)[1]. Such one-dimensional analysis is intellectually lazy.
1. Imperialism has been dissected many times over the centuries, in fiction and otherwise, but it bears repeating.
Maybe the Pax Sinica won't play out that way at all -- who knows.
Is it arguing in good faith to consider other perspectives outside of our own? Yes it is, and I consider the reverse to be in bad faith.
While I don't fully agree with Kant, I find the Universability of an approach to be a good filter for identifying not-okay actions that are justified by the perpetrators - sometimes me (a.k.a. the Silver Rule: "Don't do to unto others what you don't want to be done unto you")
My high school history teacher would share historical accounts and encourage us to analyze the authors motivations and biases.