Today, from American voters in an ugly U.S. election season to the rhetoric of newly elected Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, we are hearing widespread anger against the governing structures of our time, against inequality and elitism. This sense of disempowerment is real and understandable. But is globalization really the root of this? Our challenge, as individuals in this era of discontent, is to ensure that we can still come together to move forward and improve the lives of all.

With the election of Donald Trump to the White House, the Obama Administration has finally accepted the inevitable and has announced that it will cease efforts to push the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) forward in the waning days of the Lame Duck session. Over the long term, Washington will need to re-assert its trade presence in the Asia-Pacific region. The supply chains are too interwoven and interdependent for the U.S. to go at it alone, despite the isolationist rhetoric emanating from the U.S. election.

Traditional hands-off posture toward foreign entanglements could well be the hallmark of the incoming administration, as it pursues the new president’s call to put “America first”. It remains to be seen whether that is a formula for isolation or trade wars in the modern era.

A president-elect’s promises and actual policies are always two different things. “Putting America first”, Trump’s chief consideration, means that a quick expansion of the U.S. role in international affairs doesn’t look likely in the near future. But remarkable shrinkage in U.S. diplomatic and military activities in the world will not happen very soon either.

Compared with diplomatic issues, the new administration is facing more challenges in domestic affairs, which is also more critical for Trump’s re-election four years from now. For a Trump administration, with the edge of the Republican-controlled Congress, it is urgent to promote domestic policies and reforms. The alliance system, therefore, is not among the top priorities or issues, and its institutional nature insulates it from the whims of a single individual.

The fine momentum of deepening China-US cooperation in various areas will inevitably extend into the upcoming new US presidency. Donald Trump and his team, who have won the election under the banner of “Make America Great Again”, should see that joining hands with China in the Asia-Pacific will result in a win-win scenario for both counties.

It remains to be seen whether the Trump-led US will be more self-confident, or more suspicious; continue embracing (though no longer enthusiastically) globalization, or nervously shrink back. The notion that businessman Trump will be more interested in cutting deals, and that his foreign policy will forsake persistent American values and criteria, is overly naive.

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.

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.

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.