Beneath the surface of improving political ties lie persistent concerns over Chinese strategic investments in the Philippines.

Negativity about China-U.S. relations are only part of a bigger picture. Widespread as they are, the downbeat commentaries do not capture the whole picture. Many factors need to be taken into account to make an accurate analysis.

The American president may have some method in his madness, as seen in the way he approaches matters regarding Moscow. While acts impulsively and in diametric opposition to his predecessor, his motives can be deciphered.

A rising China has changed the bilateral balance, but neither China nor the United States has sufficient experience or approaches for dealing with the other. Competition could easily lead to confrontation.

When I told a friend I had just written a book on morality and foreign policy, she quipped: “It must be a very short book.” Such skepticism is common. An Internet search shows surprisingly few books on how US presidents’ moral views affected their foreign policies. As the eminent political theorist Michael Walzer once described American graduate training in international relations after 1945, “Moral argument was against the rules of the discipline as it was commonly practiced.”

The humanitarian crisis has opened a new window of opportunity, despite Western criticism, after the United States pressured the country into cutting back on its commitments to China.

As the president of the Republic of Korea reaches the halfway mark of his tenure, he has acquired some valuable experience for helping bring peace to the peninsula. It’s time to shift into high gear.

While a partial trade agreement has been reached between the US and China, few believe that a full truce is underway. For 2020, the two countries should focus on managing interdependence and “smart competition” instead of being consumed by exaggerated fears.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to order the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful military commander, has raised the specter, albeit still distant, of all-out war between the United States and the Islamic Republic. There is only one winner in this situation: China.

The U.S.’ commitment to back Japan in a conflict should not be extended to Japan’s vague claim of the Senkaku Islands. The territorial dispute between Japan and China is far too precarious, and one in which the U.S. should avoid in order to prevent further conflict with Beijing.