Authoritative and non-authoritative Chinese commentaries on the Trump administration’s foreign policy have tended to avoid making hostile remarks in response to some notable U.S. provocations.
In its clumsy attempt to exploit the vulnerabilities of the Sino-Russian axis, the Trump administration misunderstands not only the strength of relations, but also its own desirability as a useful ally.
The United States has historically had a strong focus on the Middle East. China is also looking to grow its economic engagement in the region, but the two nations have differing approaches to issues like the Iran nuclear deal and the civil war in Syria.
As tensions between the United States and North Korea continue to simmer, questions arise concerning what war with a nuclear-powered North Korea would look like.
While European nations viewed Trump’s victory as a setback for liberalism, nations in the Asia-Pacific took a more pragmatic approach that focused on bracing for greater unpredictability.
Nuclear weapons and missile defense systems have become a point of contention in U.S.-China relations. How will Beijing respond to the perceived growing threat of U.S. nuclear deterrent capabilities?
The common thread in U.S. strategy toward Iran, Syria, and North Korea isn’t changing these regimes so much as it is trying to change their behavior. More than likely, they will all remain hostile to U.S. interests.
Increased risk-taking concerning North Korea’s nuclear ambitions could potentially pay off, but there’s a catch.
Through policy incoherence and not-so-benign neglect, the Trump team risks hollowing out the ideas, initiative, and institutions on which U.S. leadership and international order rest.
International humanitarian law applies only to international and non-international armed conflicts. Most offensive cyber operations to date have not taken place during an armed conflict.