Jared McKinney uses three historical analogies to illustrate his point that it is a reductionist proposition that the U.S., as the ‘champion’ of democracy, and China, as a rising ‘revisionist’ state, are locked into an existential struggle in which one will lose and one win.

Optimism about this turn of events must be tempered with cautious realism. North Korea is the nuclear problem from hell. Neither South Korea nor the United States can control the narrative; definitions of success or failure are highly relative; and Trump must enter the talks with no exit strategy.

Fears of serious conflict between China and the U.S. are the result of hasty conclusions, superficiality, one-sidedness, and claptrap.

Competition can be healthy for both China and the US, provided it doesn’t get out of hand.

Regarding China, Pompeo is likely to offer more of the same mixed approach that has thus far characterized the Trump administration’s policy. On the one hand, Pompeo has endorsed the notion that China is an economic threat to the United States, and on the other hand, Pompeo has spoken positively of Xi Jinping, particularly with reference to China’s role in helping to place pressure on North Korea.

China will prove itself a positive factor for world peace and development.

Parties concerned should seize the opportunity to resume dialogue on denuclearization.

Can the Olympic spirit lead to a diplomatic process that will effectively promote peace and development in Northeast Asia?

Zainab Zaheer argues that with the Belt and Road’s development, the next few years may be slightly reminiscent of the Cold War, where two rival nations both well equipped with resources and manpower fought for influence and dominance, while smaller nations were left playing a game of strategy, trying to maximize the benefits of fraternizing with giants.

Will the proposed meeting between Trump and Kim be "possible progress" or "false hope"?