The Obama administration’s pivot to Asia has not emboldened America’s regional partners, nor has U.S. reluctance to directly intervene in territorial disputes signaled waning support for U.S. allies.
The concept of “conflict control” should play a key role in bilateral relations at a time when China’s rise is driving a sea change in the world order.
China has a nearly insatiable thirst for energy. The investments and oils pursued to meet this demand will have global economic, environmental, and security implications.
The United States has spent $1 billion on a weapon that has no mission and has started an arms race with China in the process.
Manufacturing costs in China have dropped sharply in recent months. Instead of just trying to undercut other suppliers on price, Chinese manufacturers ought to invest the surplus in building more meaningful relationships with their Western customers and creating value that can only come from such ties.
Adjusting GDP for differences in purchasing power makes a great deal of sense in certain cases, but the way it is done is so filled with problems that it is extremely difficult to find any economist who takes these measures very seriously.
The idea that the United States at some point left Asia and only now is pivoting back to it under President Obama is inaccurate and unhelpful.
Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed this year to increase China’s soft power and cultural diplomacy and to promote a favorable image of the country abroad.
China cannot win the battle for regional sentiment so long as the debate is about security and sovereignty, on which Beijing’s hard position leaves little room for compromise.
Heightened tensions in the Asia-Pacific, coupled with China’s adjustment of its regional security policy, has meant that the results of the U.S. rebalance to Asia are not as good now as they were two years ago.
Obama and Abe need to privately hammer out a coordinated response to a possible skirmish between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.
China’s dramatic rise in economic power and international clout presents Beijing and Washington with the challenge of how to manage relations between a rising power and a status quo power.
While the collective economic power of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa may be waning, the foundation of the group’s political partnership remains strong.
A primary focus of China’s next era of foreign policy will be emerging powers in Southeast Asia. Indonesia in particular will take center stage in China’s new approach to the region.
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s upcoming Brussels visit signals a concerted Chinese effort to support the role of the EU as a major global actor in international affairs.
The mystery and confusion surrounding Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have been the subject of intense scrutiny. The resulting portrait, of Malaysia specifically and Southeast Asia more generally, has revealed multiple deficiencies in credibility, capacity, cooperation, and trust.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea and possible future incursions into eastern Ukraine could reshape the geopolitical map of Europe and derail cooperation between Moscow and the West for years to come.
Beijing has struck an ambivalent posture regarding the Ukrainian crisis and the severing of Crimea, but it is not hurting China’s interests.
Mutual indifference has long characterized relations between India and Australia, but the two countries’ interests are increasingly converging.
China’s energy sector had a potentially watershed year in 2013. Reforms that could have a profound impact on China’s environment and energy policy were floated.
Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!