The current fuzzy state of geopolitics in the Asia-Pacific has prompted some middle powers in the region to explore new ties. In the foreseeable future, as long as the US remains in the Asia -Pacific, and China sticks to its peaceful foreign policy, US allies and partners will be reluctant to build informal or formal alliances.

Bhutan has protested that China is chipping away at its territory by building a strategic highway near the Tibet-India-Bhutan tri-junction in the Himalayas. Bhutan has security arrangements with India, and the construction has triggered a tense standoff between Chinese and Indian troops at the tri-junction while Chinese state media warns of the possibility of war.

With little prospect that the Navy will grow at the rates its leaders say are required to stem an eroding advantage over great power competitors like China, the U.S. Pacific Command, which uses the largest share of the forces the U.S. Navy provides, is moving aggressively to build alternative capabilities to establish sea control without relying on additional ships or submarines.

Achieving denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula should be the priority. The major concerns of all parties regarding national security should be understood, and an equilibrium point should be sought regarding security. Effectively managing concerns regarding THAAD is necessary to solve this difficult problem.

The fruitful Xi-Trump meeting at Mar-a-Lago and the Mattis speech at the Shangri-la Dialogue give us reason to believe that “freedom of navigation” may not be the totality of the US’ South China Sea policy or that of its Asia-Pacific strategy. China-US relations are still on the track of steady development.

Philippine President’s Rodrigo Duterte’s trip to China and Russia in half month, try to reduce the Southeast Asian country’s historical dependence on the United States. All of a sudden, however, the imperative of counterterrorism has brought the Duterte administration and its old allies, particularly Washington, back together.

Both China and the US have begun to deliberate on ways of dealing with each other in the next few decades, and are willing to set a positive course for the future development of bilateral ties over the long term.

Expecting the People’s Republic of China to destroy its ally while the U.S. was busy elsewhere in the region seeking to contain Chinese military power, and to do so without receiving anything in return, never was realistic. Unspecified trade concessions simply weren’t enough to make a deal. Washington should revive the North’s proposal for a freeze on its activities in return for an end to annual military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea.

It should be clear to all stakeholders in Northeast Asia that China alone cannot solve the North Korean nuclear issue because it has never been a Beijing-Pyongyang issue. It was created by Pyongyang and Washington in the first place, and now it is the US that holds the key to a final solution.

During a week when the world has again been reminded of the depravity of the North Korean regime, given its likely role in the death of Otto Warmbier, it is important nonetheless to evaluate any possible opportunity for capping and ultimately dismantling North Korea’s nuclear and long-range missile forces with an open mind.