Beijing faces a real challenge in determining how to put both the economic and political China-Latin America relationship on more sustainable, longer-term footing.
Any comparative exercise that contrasts the Chinese model of state–economy relations with that of the United States is inherently political and prone to various angles of critique
The Strategic and Economic Dialogue, scheduled to be held in May 2012, will mark the first formal U.S.-China bilateral dialogue since the United States announced its strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific region last year.
With advantages in labor, productivity, and geography, China has the potential to displace many Southeast Asian nations from their niche in the global production chain.
China's growing involvement in conflict-affected states has been criticized for being focused on profits at the expense of stability and accountability. At the same time, China's investments in infrastructure especially can have a stabilizing effect. These different perspectives arouse a debate on China's aid and investment model and the implications of this model for other actors.
Despite common views on international affairs and economic interests, the Russian-Chinese relationship is weak—even in the sphere of energy trade—and needs to be strengthened.
Mitt Romney's tough talk on China conceals some assumptions that, if translated into policy, could set the two great powers on a collision course.
As China's power continues to grow, Russians need to rediscover themselves as a Euro-Pacific nation and strengthen ties to East Asia in order to avoid becoming Beijing's junior partner.
Although the U.S.-China relationship benefits from deep economic and trade ties, the military-to-military relationship between the two nations is not as strong as it should be.
The nature of the climate challenge in the immediate future will be determined by China and the world’s largest carbon emitters—not U.N. summits.