Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States, which could signal a new configuration for U.S.-China relations. Three options appear possible. First, Trump’s Administration could end up confusing China through a mixture of respect and intimidation. Second, Trump’s Administration could opt to preserve the status quo of economic engagement but American military superiority in East Asia. And Third, Trump’s Administration could seek to orient the bilateral relationship towards respect and mutual benefit, avoiding “self-damaging” competition. Which path will be taken will largely rest on the sort of people Trump appoints to his Administration.

Democracies aim to improve their democratic system while learning from the best of meritocratic practices, and meritocracies aim to improve their meritocratic system while learning from the best of democratic practices. There is no more talk about which system is superior: both political systems recognize each other as morally legitimate even though they are built on different foundations. The United States is the dominant power in the West, China in East Asia, but they strive to cooperate in areas of common concerns.

Reacting to issues from Korea to the South China Sea, the next president of the United States should carefully build mutual confidence and reduce the possibility of risks. Holding the annual summit between the two leaders as early as possible in 2017 would be a great first step.

The organization BRICS faces challenges defining a mutual mission. Although these five emerging economies pride themselves on forming the first important non-Western global initiative with the aim to end the era of Atlantic dominance, the grouping is still searching to define a common identity and build institutionalized cooperation. Additionally, the Goa summit indeed was a reminder of China’s lengthening shadow over BRICS. China’s motives reflect a domineering power in the organization through its efforts to assert regional dominance, and the BRICS organization, coupled by a lack of common interest, struggles to establish legitimacy.

The International Criminal Court faces an issue of legitimacy as the Nations of South Africa, Gambia, and Burundi announces their withdrawal from the institution. This move was endorsed by China, and came after allegations of the courts acting in Western interest. China should cut off its ties to Burundi and Gambia, minor players on the African and international chessboards of diplomacy, and chastise South Africa – not sanction their inexcusable errors. Additionally, the ICC is the only method of war crimes prosecution; so challenging it is potentially dangerous to the system of international law, the success of future cases, and the security of nations.

Forty percent of China’s total ten vetoes ever casted at the UN Security Council have been on Syria, making it the most-vetoed issue of all time for China. The four vetoes and most recent abstention from the French-drafted resolution underscore China’s increasingly assertive stance on state sovereignty, territorial integrity and its repulsion to foreign interference.

China has experienced significant cultural and economic developments since the late 1990’s. Because of China’s growing dominance on the international stage and changing internal politics, the significance of Chinese public opinion is becoming more significant in policy decisions. American policymakers, too, should pay attention to Chinese public opinion. The dynamic worldview of Chinese opinion is illustrated through these statistics, which Washington can use in developing its policy toward Beijing. The U.S.-China relationship obviously matters for the two nations, and also affects the rest of the world.

Based on conversations Kaiser Kuo and his wife Fanfan have had with Chinese and Chinese Americans since moving to North Carolina in person and on WeChat groups, the chief reasons behind the popularity of Trump with first-generation immigrants from the PRC are: affirmative action, sexual conservatism, racism, schadenfreude, and Clinton’s hawkishness, taxation, immigration, and personality.

Too much military muscle-flexing, interference in domestic affairs and Washington’s failure to treat Manila as an equal have combined to shape the new leader’s new direction.

As tensions escalate, the players will eventually go against US national interests, with potential for conflict and instability. The only viable path to peace and security is deepening strategic cooperation and pursuing common security across the region.