New Delhi, Canberra, and Wellington did not appreciate China’s aspirations to become a great global power and thus did not assess the strategic consequences for their own respective regions.
China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil, and arguably its most important political relationship. What do Trump’s statements mean for China’s relationship with Iran, and the greater Middle East?
The construction of the Gwadar port and the Chinese presence on the shores of the Arabian Sea highlight a new geostrategic dynamic that is likely to affect the regional balance of power.
Some analysts say a major and direct cause of the imbalance in bilateral trade is the high level of expenditure by American consumers.
The threat of trade conflict with Americans could be good for the Chinese economy if it encourages the government to accelerate the domestic rebalancing that has been occurring since 2012.
Don’t place bets that a divided EU can successfully navigate a delicate balancing act between a disruptive Trump and an assertive China.
While the U.S. argues that its deployment of the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea is necessary to counter the nuclear threat from North Korea, Chinese experts worry that U.S. missile defense assets in the region could undermine China’s strategic nuclear deterrent capability.
Europe has concerns about China’s trade policies. But the two countries may want to unite for a more rules based global trade system.
Some White House advisors see trade deficits as a threat to growth and security. But no one wins in a trade war, certainly not U.S. and Chinese consumers who will have to pay higher prices.
Most of the discussions among economists about the impacts of tariffs and trade intervention are more ideological than logical. While tariffs may cause households to pay more for tradable goods, there are many other ways households, and the overall economy, are affected, positively and negatively. What matters are the conditions under which trade intervention policies are made.