Pragmatism and Strategy
Structural differences will, of course, persist in China-France and China-EU relations. Yet as long as both sides uphold mutual respect and engage in dialogue on an equal footing, no problem is insurmountable.
Structural differences will, of course, persist in China-France and China-EU relations. Yet as long as both sides uphold mutual respect and engage in dialogue on an equal footing, no problem is insurmountable.
Japan should correct course, reaffirm commitments, and contribute positively to a stable, predictable and cooperative East Asia.
Europe and China reject decoupling as an economic or civilizational project. They oppose the nihilistic notion that interdependence is a vulnerability rather than an asset.
The fight for a livable planet was always a global one; now, the initiative to win that fight had finally become multipolar, led by the willing, with or without the United States.
The fact that differences exist does not mean that the two sides cannot work together. Collaboration is essential for the interests of both sides, and is essential for maintaining stability in the international system.
Most significantly, none of the peace deals brokered by the U.S. actually delivered peace.
Japan’s hope for U.S. intervention appears to be a path that leads nowhere.
Japan joins U.S.-driven strategy for China containment.
The scramble for critical minerals is fast becoming one of the defining geopolitical dramas of our era.
The overwhelming majority of nations around the world recognize and adhere to the one-China principle. For Japan to act against this principle is to act against the world.
Looking ahead, China’s COP30 performance signals a dual strategy: advancing low-carbon technologies while exercising diplomatic leadership.
Trade and development have by and large provided Japan with a certain degree of prosperity. It would indeed be foolish to sacrifice that prosperity for a policy that will only create tensions in the region, and even military conflict.