In June of this year, I was privileged to attend a series of discussions at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis between retired four-star Generals from both China and the US. The discussions covered a range of topics relevant to the American and Chinese military, including counter-terrorism operations, the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the South China Sea dispute. But a recurring point of contention and debate was America’s “pivot to Asia”, that is the strategic military refocus on Asia which was announced in 2011.

The Obama administration has been at pains to point out that the so-called pivot is not aimed at containing China. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, speaking in Singapore earlier in June 2012, likewise insisted that the shift of focus to the Asia-Pacific is not intended to contain or challenge China, saying that “increased US involvement in this region will benefit China as it advances our shared security and prosperity in the future”.

However, despite such reassurances, my impression from the Chinese Generals I met in Annapolis was that the pivot to Asia is widely regarded in Chinese military circles as indicative of American mistrust and suspicion towards China and its regional aspirations, and thinly veils America’s intention to assert its power and dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, including by means of military influence.

So I was interested, in last night’s Presidential debate on foreign policy, to note that in the segment dedicated to “The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World” President Obama took the surprising step of referring to China as an adversary: “China is both an adversary, but also a potential partner in the international community if it is following the rules.” This characterization of China is inconsistent with the rhetoric deployed by the Obama administration, but is sure to resonate with many in China as indicative of the true nature and intent of America’s military pivot.

The European Union was last week awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. Previous institutional recipients of the award include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), the United Nations (2001), and the Red Cross (1944). While the announcement was met with pride and applause by many within and without Europe, the Euroskeptics have been equally vocal in their derision of the award, pointing to ongoing social instability in many regions of Europe due in part to the Eurozone economic crisis, and the ongoing existentialist crisis the EU seems to be facing.

Such objections somewhat miss the point of the accolade, which has clearly been granted in reference to a longer-term contextualization of the ‘European project’ – after a century of continental turmoil, the creation of the European Communities in the 1950s, which eventually led to the birth of the European Union, was a watershed moment, marking the beginning of a new era of intergovernmental cooperation, an unprecedented single market project, and supranational implementation and enforcement of a new legal order for the benefit of European citizens.