China's economy is slowing as it is the world over. One cause is the dramatic recent drop in U.S. consumption of Chinese imports. But nearly every day now, we are reading of deals struck by China that promise to turn the economic tide in Beijing's favor.

In Latin America and Vietnam, Chinese firms have signed deals to expand natural resource production. The New York Times reports that deals made in recent weeks in Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil include terms designed to decrease demand for the U.S. dollar. From Vietnam, TIME interviews locals fearful that China's plans to mine bauxite will result in devastating environmental and job losses.

China's military is also assuming a more aggressive stance. The state navy hints that it may soon develop an aircraft carrier and expand its global missions along the lines of recent anti-piracy sorties in the Gulf of Aden.

The Economist though predicts China could chart a more peaceful route to recovery. This scenario would include long-term investment in domestic priorities such as public transit and health care. Chinese officials are reportedly "fascinated" by European models of welfare and public health, and could cooperate with the EU on future projects.

Can China achieve economic recovery in a manner that is peaceful and sustainable? Or should we remain skeptical of a world shaped by Chinese priorities?

This week, Global Pulse examines international reaction to North Korea's weekend missile launch. According to most world media, the launch was a failure and resulted in the missile's harmless fall into the Pacific Ocean. But Pyongyang insisted the missile reached outer space as a satellite, using the event to reintroduce Kim Jong Il in his first public appeareance since August.

Photo footage of Kim in front of North Korea's Parliament showed the leader suffering from weight loss, though he appeared more healthy than some had predicted in the wake of a rumored stroke in August. The Financial Times speculated that Kim's actions could push East Asia into a new arms race as South Korea and Japan escalate their military response capabilities. The Washington Post though noted that a similar 2006 missile launch was followed only weeks later by North Korea's willingness to return to diplomatic negotiations.

Is Kim Jong Il a leader to be feared, and perhaps met with military force? Or is this most recent missile launch merely the work of an increasingly frail and marginalized despot?        

As Global Pulse reports this week, US media attention towards Afghanistan has spiked in response to President Obama's recent call for the deployment of an additional 17,000 troops to central Asia. But does this new attention reflect lessons learned from Iraq and other recent US interventions?

In Henry Kissinger's case, his Op-ed in today's Washington Post applies creaky Cold War "containment" metaphors to the Afghan conflict, with the spread of "jihadism" across Asia standing in for communism in a previous era. At Time's Swampland, Joe Klein voices similar doomsday fears of "terrorist infestations" but with a focus on Pakistan, which he claims holds the true key to regional stability.

Meanwhile at Informed Comment, Juan Cole spotlights Al Jazeera English's report on the diverse groups that the US considers to be the "Taliban" in Afghanistan, a conflation that could hinder efforts to improve local tribal and militia cooperation with US forces. Cole further questions how the US plans to restore its military supply route to Afghanistan given current tense relations with nearly every neighboring country.

Will the new US media and military focus on Afghanistan produce a more wise and sensible policy? As always, let us know your comments in the episode section above.