Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
The potential for the United States and China to have conflict over trade and foreign investment is now greater, not because of differences in political systems and cultural norms, but because of commonalities in Trump’s and Xi’s personal aspirations.
The 19th Party Congress holds particular consequence for U.S.-China relations. President Trump will make his inaugural visit to the Asia-Pacific region and to China early next month, becoming among the first world leaders to meet with Xi under his new mandate.
At the 19th Party Congress, Xi Jinping explained how China will move to the center to the world stage through modernization. Yet how Xi defines the roles of the state and the market remains unclear.
China has a unique economy where both state and market play an important role. Western observers often misunderstand issues such as China’s growth model, debt problems, and potential housing bubbles.
Comparing Xi Jinping’s report at the 19th Party Congress to earlier such documents provides an excellent indicator of continuities and recent changes in Chinese foreign policy.
As Europe becomes a preferred playing field for Chinese foreign direct investment, leaders of bloc nations have been drawn into a debate on the creation of a long-anticipated screening mechanism.
The upcoming 19th Party Congress and top political appointments will determine what course China will take in the future under President Xi Jinping’s leadership.
It is imperative that the United States not abandon international development out of the mistaken sense that it is removed from America’s core economic, political, and security interests.
Chinese and Russian leaders won’t always agree, but their deepening cooperation and mistrust of the U.S. is here to stay. Unfortunately, American leaders have shown few signs that they know how to navigate this new reality, let alone manage the competition among great powers as non-Western countries grown in stature.
China’s increasingly sophisticated approach to managing and mitigating multiple forms of investment risk shows that its economic role around the world will evolve and perhaps become more conservative over time. Headline pledges of billions of dollars in project finance don’t tell the whole story.
As a nuclear weapon state and an emerging global power, China can and should take steps to respond constructively to the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons and to help mitigate the growing international division.
Washington and Pyongyang will eventually need to resume direct talks. With neither party ready for that yet, at first secret contacts will have to be organized in third countries. In the meantime, de-escalation is the order of the day, and Russia one of its unlikely brokers.
China’s rise poses a strategic challenge to India on multiple fronts. The best way for New Delhi to respond is to pursue a deeper partnership with the United States.
The United States needs a proactive and smart strategy to address the imbalances and asymmetries in its economic and trade relationships with China.
India is increasingly seeking partnerships with like-minded countries with similar foreign policy goals, looking beyond the scope of South Asia to counter China’s looming influence in the region.
The risks of a military conflict with North Korea is growing day by day. Not talking has not slowed North Korea’s advance, and sanctions alone will not achieve the desired result.
It has repeatedly been shown that the main source of U.S. policy instability is President Trump. Chinese leaders should work prudently and constructively with people around the administration.
Daniel Drezner’s book Ideas Industry should be read as a call to thoughtful action.
As tensions rise between North Korea and the United States, the European Union has strongly condemned and implemented new sanctions on Pyongyang. Yet Europeans are divided over North Korea’s threats and the United States’ unpredictable responses.
The North Korean nuclear crisis is far from over, and foreclosing escalation pathways is in the best interests of the United States, its allies, and Pyongyang.