After the United States officially withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that the country hopes to deploy medium-range missiles in Asia. This remark quickly sparked widespread controversy, and most countries don’t want to see the terrible scene of a missile race in the region.

China may not have been the start of the China-US trade war, but it is a key factor in finishing it. Beijing must consider serious reform if it wants to repair its ties with the U.S. and preserve its ties with the rest of the globe.

America’s apparent willingness, as part of a deal aimed at forestalling the rise of a new long-range missile threat, to accept a North Korea armed with short- to medium-range missiles is giving Japan the jitters.

From trade tension between South Korea and Japan to China’s positive outlook, the topics discussed at the most recent ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting spanned a variety of affairs. With the growing importance of the ASEAN region in global politics, it is important to analyze and understand the group’s discussions.

The United States’s intention to establish missile sites in Asia has the potential to escalate into a new arms race. Does the US have the ability to build adequate missiles, where would the missiles be stationed, and how will such missiles influence security in the Asia-pacific region?

Xi’s recent visit to Kim Jong-un affirmed China-North Korea ties—Beijing will not break with Pyongyang to appease the US. However, China can still play a constructive role in encouraging a new round of Xi-Trump talks to lay the foundations for peace on the Korean Peninsula.

US withdrawal from the INF provokes anxiety in Europe and Asia and threatens to unleash a renewed global arms race. But all is not lost — there are still opportunities to rebuild trust and salvage the treaty.

While unable to alter Duterte’s diplomatic strategy towards China, the influential and largely autonomous Philippine defense establishment is conducting a parallel China policy of its own. The result is a dualistic foreign policy, combining both engagement and deterrence.

Maritime legal controversies in the South China Sea are not as bad as they are often characterized. However, divides are exacerbated by American unwillingness to accept international standards such as the UN Law of the Sea — and made worse by the Eurocentric bias of current international law, which has long ignored Asian cultures and traditions.