Manila’s just-completed Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) consisted of two parts. The official summit agreed on the need to fight terrorism, enhance economic growth, reduce poverty and increase climate change resiliency. Unofficially, the huge political gulf between the U.S. and China over the South China Sea was on display.

The U.S. must shoulder the responsibility of uniting the civilized world against terrorists and extremists, leading an effort to set aside differences among allies so that they can focus on a whole-hearted effort to eliminate this global threat.

The Chinese government believes that development is key in solving all problems in China: Development is the foundation for security, and security is the guarantee for development while China seeks political solutions through peaceful consultations, opposes intervention into other countries’ internal affairs, and promotes the global governance system to be more equitable and reasonable.

There must be a fundamental policy shift embraced by all countries to eliminate the breeding ground of terrorism and violent extremism. Eradicating poverty, achieving balanced global development, strengthening the effectiveness and inclusiveness of global governance mechanisms, and showing respect for the rights of peoples to choose the development road are the essential policy objectives.

Mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity is the basic norm of international relations. The US is duty-bound to make a careful study of China’s solemn position on this vital issue and show proper respect for China’s sovereignty instead of taking provocative actions based on contrived legal interpretations.

If big powers show courage and set aside their differences, and work together in a just, balanced intervention under the framework international law, they will not only help the Syrians out of hardship and avoid long-term instability in the region, they may also find a new way to prevent similar armed conflicts in the future.

Richard Weitz reviews the recent speech of U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who describes China’s potential to challenge the U.S.-built international order through its assertive stance in the South China Sea, and finds his approach sensible, given the mixed and fluid strategic relationship between the two countries.

In October, the USS Lassen sailed within twelve nautical miles of an artificial Chinese island in the South China Sea as a “freedom of navigation patrol.” Benjamin Reynolds argues that China should not risk a military confrontation by responding to American patrols.

US naval actions in the South China Sea are about hegemony and power politics, a prevailing pursuit in the world in the 19th century, under the cloak of a 21st century pretense to safeguard freedom of navigation and international justice. The reality is: The US wants to check any expansion of Chinese power in the South China Sea.

If Washington embraces cooperation instead of pursuing rivalry, all partners can harvest good results, and the US can still be a powerful partner. Why not do so?