As Russia’s special operations continue in Ukraine so does the West’s propaganda war against it. The propaganda is particularly effective but also particularly predictable in terms of who will be drawn in by it and become hysterical because of it.

This includes right-wing extremists from across the Western world but also the many US-sponsored “pro-democracy” movements elsewhere. This includes within the Southeast Asian Kingdom of Thailand.

Reuters in an article titled, “Thai democracy activists sign up to fight ‘tyranny’ in Ukraine,” would claim:

Far-off Thailand might not seem an obvious place for recruits to Ukraine’s efforts to raise an international volunteer force to defend against Russia’s invasion.

But for former Thai Air Force conscript turned political activist Chanaphong “Ball” Phongpai, the cause is a natural fit for members of the pro-democracy movement that emerged in 2020 to protest a military-backed government in the Southeast Asian country.

Reuters would also claim that these Thai “activists” saw Russia as a “superpower and a tyrant,” lifting phrases verbatim from the halls of Western power and from across Western media headlines.

After years of covering up the violent nature of US-sponsored anti-government protest in Thailand, Reuters obliquely admitted in its more recent article that indeed the protests were violent, noting how those interested in fighting in Ukraine claimed they needed to “switch from holding bottle bombs to holding guns.”

The article concluded by quoting one of the so-called activists, claiming:

“We fight for democracy here. They fight for their democracy there,” he said. “We are like friends. Its the same feeling, the same ideology.”

It is without doubt that Thais seeking to fight in Ukraine share a similar ideology with Ukraine’s current regime and those fighting to sustain it. But while Reuters and the Thai “activists” it interviewed attempted to insist that ideology shared is “democracy,” in reality the true common denominator is subordination to US interests, extensive US backing, and belligerent intolerance to alternative views as well as a deep disdain for the primacy of national sovereignty.

Nazis Lead the Fight Thai Volunteers are Joining – So Says the Western Media

Far from “Russian propaganda,” evidence that Ukraine’s current political order is propped up by actual Nazis including those playing a central role in Ukraine’s current security apparatus has been provided by the Western media itself, every single year since the US-backed coup overthrew Ukraine’s last legitimate elected government in 2014.

Scores of articles from each year have covered Nazi military formations folded into Ukraine’s official armed forces.

In 2014, for example, The Guardian in its article, “Azov fighters are Ukraine’s greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat,” would focus on members of the so-called “Azov Battalion,” noting that while they denied they were Nazis, they openly praised Adolf Hitler and used Nazis symbols for their flags and on their uniforms. The article noted the key role Azov played in the ongoing armed conflict already raging at that point in eastern Ukraine.

By 2015 the Western media admitted that Azov Battalion was rolled into Ukraine’s armed forces as part of the National Guard. Reuters in an article that year titled, “Ultra-nationalist Ukrainian battalion gears up for more fighting,” would note:

The 1,000 strong ultra-nationalist militia has a reputation as a fierce pro-government fighting force in the almost year-old conflict with the Russia-backed rebels in east Ukraine, and is disdainful of peace efforts.

But the radical views of the commanders of a group affiliated to Ukraine’s national guard which works alongside the army, and the use of symbols echoing Nazi emblems have caused alarm in the West and Russia, and could return to haunt Kiev’s pro-Western leadership when fighting eventually ends.

Reuters would also point out in its article that Azov had evolved into an organization including infantry, artillery, and even tank forces.

In addition to admissions across the West’s corporate media, are also articles from outlets like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) funded by the US government. A 2016 RFE/RL article titled, “Right-Wing Azov Battalion Enters Ukraine’s Political Arena,” would note that in addition to Azov’s inclusion in Ukraine’s armed forces, the armed organization sought to work its way deeper into the government itself.

The US government-funded outlet would also admit that, “human rights organizations have accused the Azov Battalion of torture,” highlighting the obvious outcome of arming actual Nazis and giving them an increasing amount of power both on the battlefield and off it.

By 2017 the threat Azov Battalion posed to both Ukrainians and Ukraine’s neighbors had raised serious concerns – concerns that many in the halls of Western political power attempted to dismiss as “Russian propaganda.” However, even Western media outlets would contradict this claim. An article that year by The Hill titled, “The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda,” would note:

There are indeed neo-Nazi formations in Ukraine. This has been overwhelmingly confirmed by nearly every major Western outlet. The fact that analysts are able to dismiss it as propaganda disseminated by Moscow is profoundly disturbing. It is especially disturbing given the current surge of neo-Nazis and white supremacists across the globe.

The most infamous neo-Nazi group in Ukraine is the 3,000-strong Azov Battalion, founded in 2014. Prior to creating Azov, its commander, Andriy Biletsky, headed the neo-Nazi group Patriot of Ukraine, members of which went on to form the core of Azov. Biletsky had stated that the mission of Ukraine is to “lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival … against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”

The idea that Thai volunteers are attempting to travel to Ukraine and fight alongside actual Nazis against “tyranny” takes on a particularly contradictory tone in light of such observations made even across the a Western media landscaped mostly committed to covering up the true nature of Ukraine’s post-2014 regime and its increasingly toxic security apparatus.

By 2018 even US government-funded RFE/RL would note the danger Ukrainian military formations like Azov posed to nations beyond Ukraine’s borders. An article that year titled, “Azov, Ukraine’s Most Prominent Ultranationalist Group, Sets Its Sights On US, Europe,” pointed out the concerted effort made by Azov to build ties with ultra-right extremists from across the Western world.

In 2019, Israeli publication Haaretz attempted to draw attention to the growing danger in its article, “Inside the Extremist Group That Dreams of Ruling Ukraine.” The article would elaborate further, claiming:

The Azov movement insists it is not neo-Nazi, yet its members have been captured giving Hitler salutes and being virulently anti-Semitic.

The threat of Nazism in Ukraine’s security forces and as well as within Ukraine’s political structures was pointed out even by the inveterate Russophobic US government-funded think tank, The Atlantic Council.

In a 2020 article titled, “The Azov Regiment has not depoliticized,” the Atlantic Council would admit that even the US government was debating whether or not to designate Azov as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and that Ukrainian Nazis still played a central role in Azov’s political and military activities.

Also in 2020 Western media outlets like Buzzfeed in articles like, “This Neo-Nazi Group Is Organizing On Facebook Despite A Year-Old Ban,” would point out how Azov was by then designated by the US State Department as a “nationalist hate group” and that despite a supposed ban of the organization across US-based social media, US corporations like Facebook continued making exceptions for and profits from Azov’s online activities.

TIME Magazine in an eight minute long video report titled, “Inside a White Supremacist Militia in Ukraine,” would showcase Azov Battalion’s nationwide political and military activities including running camps for children indoctrinating them into white supremacist ideology, providing them with military training, and preparing them to be inducted into military formations like Azov in the near future.

By 2022 US-based media outlet NPR in an article titled, “A closer look at the volunteers who are signing up to fight the Russians,” would admit that members of Azov were the ones receiving foreign volunteers precisely like the Thais mentioned by Reuters seeking to fight “tyranny” in Ukraine.

The NPR article would admit in regards to Azov that:

That regiment has a reputation for having the fiercest fighters in Ukraine. The paramilitary is credited with recapturing the southern port city of Mariupol from Russian separatists in 2014. And despite their neo-Nazi affiliations, they were folded into Ukraine’s National Guard. Groups like this are what Putin uses when he tries to paint Ukraine as rife with Nazis. It’s part of his justification for invading.

And according to the Western media itself, these claims by “Putin” are far from “attempts” to “paint Ukraine as rife with Nazis.” Ukraine is actually rife with Nazis – so much so that those who believe they will be joining the fight against tyranny will instead be received by the worst forms of tyranny – actual Nazis of formations like Azov Battalion – an organization now many thousands strong, consisting of infantry, artillery, tank, and other forces with detachments located in every major Ukrainian city – in other words – an organization of Nazis Ukraine is utterly rife with.

It is abundantly clear that these Thais now volunteering to fight alongside Nazis in Ukraine had nothing to do with democracy back home. The organizations behind the protests they had been a part of were not a product of Thai democratic aspirations, but of US government funding and interference within Thailand’s internal political affairs. Duped once at home, and now by Western media reports depicting Ukraine as a “victim” of Russian “aggression,” they are being thrown into harm’s way once again for a cause even more hopeless and delusional than the one they failed fighting for at home.

“Volunteers” fighting in Ukraine have already been given a stark wake-up call – their training facility in western Ukraine targeted by a missile strike wiping out most of them, and sending those few who survived fleeing back home, before ever stepping foot on the battlefield.

Buzzfeed in their article, ““I Thought I Was Going To Die”: US And UK Fighters In Ukraine Described The “Chaos” Of A Russian Missile Attack,” make it abundantly clear Russia’s statements regarding the operation was not propaganda, but the actual fate foreign fighters face.

Nations who do little to prevent their citizens from being tricked into traveling to Ukraine to face what is almost certain death provide an example of how Western foreign policy objectives have compromised the self-interests of nations worldwide.

Thais victimized by Western narratives illustrate once again the absolute danger a population can be placed in when a nation like Thailand categorically fails to secure its information space, allowing foreign interests like the US to dominate that information space and prey upon Thai citizens to the point of recruiting them into an armed conflict thousands of miles away.

US control over global media and also social media has only tightened since Russia’s special operations began in Ukraine, and the danger this control the US possess over information space worldwide has only grown. Now more than ever nations around the world need to secure their information space as a matter of national security – and not in some abstract way – but to literally protect their citizens from toxic disinformation so pervasive and compelling, that it has Thais and many others from around the globe  literally signing up to join Nazis in combat.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The elimination of Russian media across the West and to a greater extent from across US-based social media platforms used worldwide, is a stark demonstration of the power the West still wields within global information space.

It is a wake-up call for nations around the globe regarding the threat of leaving a nation’s information space not only completely undefended, but entirely dominated by foreign interests.

Southeast Asia, for example, counts Russia as a close ally and an important counterweight to maintain a balance in global relations and even as a means of protection against Western influence and even interference.

Yet because Southeast Asian countries are overly dependent on US-based social media giants like Meta (Facebook/Instagram), Google (including YouTube), and Twitter, their respective information spaces have been flooded with anti-Russian sentiment and even outright hostility. Moreover, voices within each respective Southeast Asian country critical of Western claims and sympathetic toward Russia are being suppressed if not outright censored and permanently silenced.

The torrent of disinformation flowing out of US-based social media networks – targeting anyone across the global public dependent on these networks for a lack of local alternatives – is shaping opinions and helping generate support for Western foreign policy objectives even within nations directly threatened by the West and its foreign policy.

Thailand, for example, enjoys a longstanding and positive relationship with Russia. But because the nation has categorically failed to secure its information space, allowing it to be utterly dominated by US-based social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, the Thai public is subjected to a daily barrage of anti-Russian propaganda forced onto users through features like Twitter’s “Twitter Moments” and its “Ukraine: latest news” section.

The feature consists of a stream of content from 55 “members” drawn from US and European government-funded media platforms including (at the time of writing) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office-funded Eurasianet, the EU-funded “EUvsDisinfo” project, and “First Draft” funded by European governments and American corporate-funded foundations like Open Society, the Ford Foundation, and Google.

The Twitter stream also features content from government-funded think tanks like the British government-funded Chatham House, the Center for European Policy Analysis (funded by armed deals, the US NED, and US military), the US government-funded Center of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) as well as other obviously bias media sources including the Kyiv Independent based out of Kiev, Ukraine itself.

What Twitter pushes into the face of its users worldwide as supposed “experts and on-the-ground sources”  couldn’t be more overtly one-sided and politically-motivated – or in other words, such blatant propaganda.

That Western audiences would be subjected to such propaganda is a given – but the failure to secure the information space of nations around the globe far beyond the West and whose interests do not necessarily benefit from Western foreign policy objectives have now put their populations in danger and opened an otherwise easily avoidable vector of influence on each nation’s respective foreign policy decision making processes.

For Thailand, the population is under threat of being grossly manipulated in favor of adopting Western perspectives and demanding action from the Thai government to support Western foreign policy objectives regarding Russia’s ongoing special operations in Ukraine at the cost of Thailand’s long standing relationship with Russia and even at the cost of Thailand’s own long-term security and best interests.

On the other hand, China has fully secured its information space – leaving China not only in complete control of what comes in and leaves Chinese information space, but what takes place across it. China has developed a diverse ecosystem of platforms ranging from internet search engines, to social media networks, to e-commerce services and online news portals – all working in relative harmony with China’s interests and the interest of China’s allies.

Despite what seems to be the late hour of the West’s growing conflict with both Russia and China, it may not be too late for nations – including in Southeast Asia – to import Russian and Chinese platforms and tools for protecting Southeast Asia’s information space in the same way Southeast Asian nations import weapons from Russia and China to secure their physical domains.

Whether or not it is too late to make a difference regarding ongoing conflicts – such a move made either individually by nations or as a bloc such as through ASEAN – efforts can be made today to prevent the widespread sweeping propaganda campaigns of tomorrow we see today related to Russia and Ukraine.

It is the 21st century. Information space today is as important to protect as a nation’s land borders, shores, and air space. Any nation that is not protecting its information space is a nation that is not protecting itself at all.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

China has been actively pushing the US out of its place as “world hegemon” for a number of years now. Through soft power – lucrative trade agreements, economic aid, generous loans and investments – the PRC gains partners and allies across the world. The scale of China’s “offensive” is such that the PRC is cooperating not only with each state bilaterally, but even with entire blocs of states. The Forum on China–Africa Cooperation, in which almost all African states participate, has been operating for many years. In 2014, the China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) Forum was established with the participation of all independent states in the Americas except the USA and Canada. In 2020, the PRC has surpassed the USA as the main trading partner of the entire European Union.

Interaction with the closest regional bloc, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), is of particular importance to China. The ASEAN countries directly border the PRC, and therefore a successful relationship with them is important not only for China’s economic development, but also for the Celestial Empire’s security.

It is interesting that the states that created ASEAN in the 1960s – Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia – already had a clear pro-Western orientation at the time. In countries such as Thailand and Malaysia, American and British troops were even based there (Thailand not only gave the Americans their land for military installations, but also fought alongside the US in Vietnam). And one of the reasons these states established ASEAN was the fear of the spread of communist ideology in the region. The main “spreaders of communism” located in East and South-East Asia (SEA) at the time were China, North Vietnam, the Burmese rebels and North Korea. Accordingly, friendship with these countries was not originally on the ASEAN agenda. However, as time went on, the ASEAN countries evolved, realized their own and regional interests and worked out their own course. In the meantime, China was emerging as a leading regional power, with which it was not profitable not to cooperate. In 1991, the PRC and ASEAN formally established a relationship that has evolved steadily since then. In 2003, China became a strategic partner of ASEAN by entering the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. In the next decade, the China-ASEAN Free Trade Zone was established, and in 2020, ASEAN became China’s main trading partner, reaching more than $731bln in trade.

In September 2021, 179 agreements worth more than $46bln were signed during the next China-ASEAN Business and Investment Summit.

In November the same year, Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced the establishment of the China-ASEAN Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

In 2021, ASEAN was once again China’s main trading partner, increasing trade with it by almost 20% compared to 2020.

While the successes of China’s economic cooperation with ASEAN are impressive, the PRC’s bilateral relations with each individual ASEAN member state are more complicated. As Chinese-American competition has intensified, SEA has also become a superpower battleground, and within ASEAN the distinction between pro-Chinese and pro-Western states has become more pronounced. Thus, it is quite natural that China’s main trading partner in ASEAN is Vietnam, which is close to the PRC in socialist ideology and still remembers the terrible war with the US in 1964-1975.

China’s other important partner in ASEAN is Myanmar, formerly Burma. This country has a long history of civil wars and coups d’état, and has long been under Western sanctions that made China its main partner. After a long process of democratization, the West has begun easing sanctions on Myanmar. In 2015, the National League for Democracy, whose leader Aung San Suu Kyi enjoyed great success in the West, came to power in the country. It would seem that Myanmar has found a balance between China and the West. However, already in 2016, members of the Myanmar Rohingya ethnic minority committed a series of terrorist attacks, the reaction of the authorities to which affected many Rohingya and was seen by the West as genocide. As a result, sanctions have begun to be imposed against Myanmar again. In 2021, the country experienced a new coup and the military came to power again, resulting in continued sanctions. Despite disagreements with the new Myanmar regime, Beijing has blocked UN resolutions condemning its actions. Myanmar appears to be headed for further rapprochement with the PRC.

Another ASEAN state that is developing close relations with China is Laos. In 2015, the PRC financed the construction of a railway connecting this isolated landlocked country to the Chinese railway system. The US has tried to convince the Lao leadership that by allowing the PRC to build the road, it will drive its country into a Beijing “debt trap”. However, Vientiane chose to listen to Beijing, and in December 2021 the new Chinese-Laotian road was officially commissioned. Of course, China will have to repay the debt, but Laos and the PRC hope that the road will pay for itself and help develop mutually beneficial economic cooperation between them, which will offset the costs for both sides.

However, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines – i.e. 3 of the 10 ASEAN countries – have US military bases and, of course, the American positions in these countries are very strong, hence the American influence is quite strong throughout SEA.

The US supports its ASEAN partners in territorial disputes with the PRC (the Philippines and Vietnam, for example) in an effort to prevent them from moving closer to the Celestial Empire, and offers cooperation, including military cooperation, to all regional states that are dissatisfied with China’s growing influence.

In December 2021, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken conducted a tour of SEA. Speaking to an audience in ASEAN’s largest country, Indonesia, Blinken said the US was investing billions of dollars in Indo-Pacific states (which includes SEA) to reduce China’s regional influence. As a result of the US Secretary of State’s visit, Indonesia and the US have concluded a number of agreements, including one on maritime cooperation. It should be noted that Indonesia has a fairly strong navy by ASEAN standards, which periodically participates in joint exercises with the US Navy and which, of course, Washington would like to use in its fight against growing Chinese influence.

It can be concluded that both China and the US have fairly strong positions in ASEAN. It is argued that by showing unity, ASEAN could stand firm under the pressure of PRC and US pulling its members in different directions and benefit from cooperation with both sides. However, this unity seems to have cracked: in February 2022, another ASEAN foreign ministers’ summit was held in Cambodia. This time there was no Myanmar representative at the event. As mentioned above, there was a military coup in that country and the diplomat appointed by the new leadership refused to be received at the ASEAN ministerial meeting. The new Myanmar government then withdrew from the event. If the new Myanmar leadership retains power and ASEAN leaders continue their line (probably approved by Washington), Myanmar will break away from ASEAN and drift towards China.

It should be noted that it is not only Myanmar that has serious internal problems in SEA. Many ASEAN states may, under certain conditions, break away from the Association, and then there will be no joint resistance to superpower pressure: each country that breaks away from ASEAN will be forced to choose its own patron. As mentioned above, the positions of the PRC and the US are still equally strong. However, the PRC is geographically close, and it is costly for the US to maintain a military presence so far from its shores. Meanwhile, the PRC’s economy continues to grow rapidly, while the US has faced domestic problems in recent years that could call into question its economic dominance after a while. So it can be assumed that eventually Southeast Asia, if not truly united, will fall firmly into the PRC’s sphere of influence.

Petr Konovalov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On February 28, 2022 the EU ambassador to Thailand, David Daly, would declare in a social media post that Thailand “should speak up to save our rules based international order,” demanding the Kingdom of Thailand vote at the UN with the West regarding Ukraine.

Accompanying his comments were the flags of the United States, the UK, France, Germany, and Canada among others who visited Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to lecture Thailand over what its reaction to the growing crisis should be.

A Bangkok Post article titled, “Neutral on Russia-Ukraine: PM,” would note, however, that Thailand would remain neutral. The article reported:

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has insisted Thailand will maintain its neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a government source said.

The article also noted:

Speaking after the cabinet meeting, Gen Prayut [Chan-o-cha] said Thailand will adhere to Asean’s stance on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as the grouping has called for dialogue among parties concerned to resolve the Ukraine crisis. 

Thailand’s position mirrors that of China – Thailand largest investor, trade partner, and infrastructure partner.

Thailand’s relationship with Russia, like many Southeast Asian countries, is also close and long-standing. The Russian Federation represents for the region a reliable counter-balance to Western influence and interference.

In recent years Thailand has begun replacing aging American aircraft with European and Russian alternatives. This includes 3 Sukhoi Superjets used by the Royal Thai Airforce for transportation, as well as several Mil Mi-17 and Kamov Ka-32 helicopters used for military transport, humanitarian assistance, and disaster response.

Conversely, ties with the West have frayed particularly with the United States who for years now funded and encouraged violent protesters in their bid to overthrow the current China (and also Russia) friendly government from power and replace it with leadership backed by and working for Washington, London, and Brussels.

These same representatives recently lecturing Thailand on its stance regarding Russia and Ukraine have regularly injected themselves into the internal political affairs of Thailand, meeting with opposition leaders, accompanying them to police stations, and regularly condemning the Thai government for policing the often violent protests the Western-backed opposition organizes in Bangkok’s streets.

A 2019 Bangkok Post article titled, “Don slams diplomats for accompanying Thanathorn,” would note:

Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai has accused foreign envoys of breaching diplomatic protocol and intervening in the justice system by being present when Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit reported to Pathumwan police on a sedition charge.

“That could not happen in their own countries, but they did it in our country. We will ask them to cooperate and not to do that again. It was against the diplomatic protocols of the United Nations,” Mr Don said at Government House on Tuesday

These same representatives blatantly violating Thailand’s sovereignty and interfering in the nation’s internal political affairs in recent years, now want to recruit Thailand to support them and their efforts to do likewise – undermine peace, stability, and sovereignty – in Eastern Europe.

In a bid to pressure the Thai government over Ukraine and Russia, the same Western-backed opposition groups and media platforms attempting to overthrow the current Thai government for years, is now being mobilized to poison the Thai public against Russia and the Thai government for not taking a firm stance alongside (or perhaps at the feet of) the West.

This includes Prachatai, funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and whose director is an NED fellow. Prachatai has published multiple articles promoting recent anti-Russian protests carried out by US-backed opposition groups and Ukrainian expatriates.

However, the Western-backed opposition in Thailand has made itself incredibly unpopular, particularly from 2019 onward. The fact that the Thai opposition is compromised by its Western backers and financiers is widely known among politically-conscious Thais and the reality behind Ukraine-Russian tensions is openly discussed from a Russian point of view among at least some prominent Thai media platforms.

While US-funded and influenced media will parrot Western talking points regarding Russia, much of Thailand’s media will remain neutral with at least some prominent media platforms presenting the conflict from Russia’s points of view. This includes a recent interview by Thai journalist Suthichai Yoon of Russian Ambassador to Thailand Evgeny Tomikhin.

Thailand’s political and information space could have been more favorably positioned ahead of the current conflict to protect Thai neutrality from Western pressure but for the time being, the hysteria sweeping the West has so far not made any significant inroads in Thailand.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Chinese companies have secured a major contract to begin building the first phase of a new inter-city railway across the Philippine island of Luzon. The railway will connect the capital city, Manila, to cities and ports across the island.

China’s Xinhua in an article titled, “Chinese contractors to build Philippines’ fastest, longest railway: ambassador,” would report:

The Philippine government has signed a commercial contract worth 2.8 billion US dollars with Chinese contractors to build the “fastest and longest railway” in the country that connects southern Luzon provinces.

The article also reported:

The first 380 km stretch of the PNR Bicol project, spanning Calamba town in Laguna province to Legazpi town in Albay province, is one of the flagship projects under the Build, Build, Build program launched by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to promote infrastructure development in the Southeast Asian country.

It is estimated that the project will cut up to 8 hours off of current journeys and serve up to nearly 15 million travelers annually. Passenger trains will travel up to 160 kph while freight trains will run at approximately 100 kph.

Chinese Building versus US Blustering

The infrastructure project represents a major leap forward in relations between China and the Philippines. China already constitutes the Philippines’ largest trade partner making up nearly 21% of all Philippine exports and accounting for up to 31% of all imports.

The project also helps illustrate how detached from reality Washington’s policy across the Indo-Pacific region is – one in which the US continues attempting to recruit the region’s nations into a unified front against China. Rather than improve American competitiveness in trade or offering alternatives to Chinese-built infrastructure projects, the US has focused on generating animosity between China and its partners by cultivating anti-China opposition groups, militarizing various points of tension in the region, and the selling of copious amounts of weapons.

The Diplomat in a mid-2021 article titled, “US Clears F-16 Sale to Philippines as South China Sea Tensions Brew,” would claim:

The U.S State Department last week cleared billions of dollars in potential arms sales to the Philippines, the latest indication that Washington is ready to back its treaty ally against Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. 

The proposed deal includes the transfer of 12 F-16 Block 70/72 fighter jets, along with Sidewinder air-to-air and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The Philippines has been seeking multirole fighters to help bolster its presence in the contested South China Sea.

Bolstering the Philippine presence in the South China Sea and receiving “backing” from Washington against “Chinese aggression” emerges from a narrative that stands in stark contrast to a China that serves as the Philippines’ largest trade partner who will now be building an extensive modern railway stretching out from the Philippine capital.

The Philippines, like many nations across Southeast Asia, seeks to balance its relations between East and West, enjoying access to markets worldwide. Siding with either the US or China decisively in any sort of regional confrontation remains strictly out of the question for governments pursuing their nations’ best interests.

Much of the disputes the Philippines or any other claimant in the South China Sea have with China, are also had with each other as well. These disputes, while heated at times or leveraged as political distractions amid domestic politics, are minor and easily remedied through bilateral talks.

Yet the Diplomat would claim:

The United States sees the Philippines as crucial to combating Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Duterte, however, has been heavily criticized for taking a stance seen as too soft on China.

A report last week by the USintelligence firm Simularity said more than 100 additional ships were spotted in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Philippines in the South China Sea. These were “likely Chinese ships,” the report said.

The US seeks to insert itself into these disputes and escalate them into a regional or even global flashpoint, much in the same way the US has done in Eastern Europe.

Just as the US does regarding “security concerns” in Europe, the US is intent on having Manila interpret minor disputes in the South China Sea as instead, “major threats” and “aggression,” all to help justify Washington’s growing desire to militarize the region toward encircling and containing China.

Rather than engage in bilateral talks with Beijing, Washington would have Manila turn to the United States and “international” mechanisms the US can use to single out and isolate China on the global stage.

The likelihood of the Philippines jeopardizing its economic prosperity owed to its close and growing ties with China over claims in the South China Sea are extremely remote as long as Philippine leadership can prevent the levers of power from being seized by US-sponsored opposition groups and their corresponding political parties.

Upcoming elections offer the United States another opportunity to put into power political circles that will represent and pursue Washington’s interests at the cost of the Philippines. It is clear that provocations will be sought in such a scenario to serve as an excuse to cancel the rail project and leave the Philippines without modern infrastructure and instead with US missiles pointed at Manila’s largest trade partner, China.

China has already demonstrated in recent years that cooperation between itself and nations throughout the region can be mutually beneficial and spur development denied to the region by generations of first European and then American domination. This upcoming rail project represents the potential future that awaits both the Philippines and the region amid growing ties with China. Conversely, the US has left three nations in the region covered in unexploded ordnance, serving as an enduring reminder of what uncontested US influence over the region has to offer.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Indonesia is the largest country in South East Asia (SEA), with a population of over 270 million. It is one of the leading states in the region, with considerable weight within ASEAN, and the world powers vying for influence in South East Asia are forced to pay a great deal of attention to Indonesia. The US and China, the two mighty superpowers and the world’s first economies, are now vying for influence in South East Asia, and Indonesia has close ties with both states.

Of course, Indonesia’s relationship with China is much longer than that with the US: two ancient civilizations, located in close geographical regions, have been interacting for more than a thousand years. In recent history, the interaction has gone through periods of highs when Indonesia under Sukarno quickly recognized the fledgling People’s Republic of China, established diplomatic relations with it in 1950 and began to work with the PRC to counter American influence in the region, as well as lows when Suharto, who deposed Sukarno in 1967, suspended relations with the PRC until 1990. Even after the restoration of Indonesian-Chinese diplomatic relations, the Chinese in Indonesia were discriminated against until 1998, when Suharto, after bloody riots, was forced to resign. After that, Chinese-Indonesian relations took off again, and in 2005 the countries announced their strategic partnership. The PRC is now Indonesia’s main trading partner and trade between the two countries continues to grow, from over $58bn in 2017 to $53.5bn in 2021 in just the first half of the year.

Nevertheless, Chinese-Indonesian relations can hardly be considered serene: as a booming economy, Indonesia is inevitably affected by competition with Chinese industry. There is a marked export bias in favor of China in the trade turnover between the two countries. In addition, Indonesia is concerned about Chinese activity in the South China Sea (SCS): the PRC is vigorously contesting its waters from neighboring countries, building artificial islands there and actively building up its military presence.

Indonesia’s interests are also affected. For example, there are the Natuna Islands in the southern part of the SCS. They are part of Indonesia and have a population of about 100,000. Under international law, every state with access to the sea has the right to consider part of the water area adjacent to its coast as its territorial waters, and another, more distant strip of sea as its exclusive economic zone. As a consequence, due to its sovereignty over the Natuna Islands, Indonesia owns an area of the South China Sea with significant natural gas reserves beneath the seabed. Indonesia produces this gas and sells it to Singapore, among others.

Although it has no rights to the Natuna Islands, the PRC has nevertheless challenged Indonesia’s right to extract gas from the surrounding waters, citing, as usual, some ancient maps the authenticity of which is very difficult to determine. This significantly complicates Chinese-Indonesian relations and fuels anxieties in Indonesian society about Chinese strengthening. It would be difficult for Indonesia to contain Chinese expansion on its own, so it has to rely on its relationship with the US.

The US is now Indonesia’s second largest trading partner after the PRC. Trade between the two countries was about $30bn in 2020. Compared to the Chinese-Indonesian trade figures cited above, these figures show that China clearly leads in trade with Indonesia.

On the political-ideological front, however, the US may be more pleasant for the Indonesian leadership: Washington periodically reports that Indonesia and the US are “close” on the political order and market economy, and that Indonesia plays a “central role” in ASEAN.

There are also Washington’s claims that Indonesia is “the third democracy in the world” (in the sense that it is the third most populous country among those that Washington recognizes as “democratic”. The first and second highest ranking “democracies” were India and the US itself).

Of course, from a propaganda and political point of view, such statements by the US must be pleasant for the Indonesian leadership. However, it is well known that politics is a superstructure of economics. And in economic relations with Indonesia, as mentioned above, the PRC leads the way.

As long as Indonesia’s trade turnover with the PRC exceeds Indonesia’s trade turnover with the US, there is no question of the US winning the battle for Indonesia.

On the other hand, while Indonesia is under pressure from the PRC over the gas fields around the Natuna Islands, it cannot expect to be in full harmony with the PRC either.

Recently, however, the PRC seems to have found some leverage over Indonesia, which has begun to show a certain bias in the Chinese direction.

For example, in September 2020 the Central Bank of Indonesia and the People’s Bank of China signed a memorandum of understanding to promote the use of their national currencies, the rupiah and the yuan, in mutual settlements. In other words, Indonesia has joined the global de-dollarization movement led by China.

In less than a year, the parties completed all the necessary technical work, and in July 2021 Indonesia and the PRC began to settle accounts in their national currencies in practice. At the time, Perry Warjiyo, Indonesia’s Central Bank Governor, said this development should lead to an increase in Indonesian exports to China.

Of course, such a move could not but reduce the regional influence of the US to a certain extent and strengthen Chinese-Indonesian relations.

However, the situation in the South China Sea worsened simultaneously with the launch of settlements in national currencies: in the summer of 2021, Indonesia began drilling in the area of deposits near the Natuna Islands. This was followed by the appearance of Chinese warships in the Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone. Indonesia has also stepped up its naval activity there, and for a long time Chinese and Indonesian ships have been around the Natuna Islands, keeping an eye on each other.

At the end of 2021, it was reported that the Chinese leadership sent a letter to the Indonesian Foreign Ministry asking it to stop gas production in the Natuna Islands area.

Such a demand, of course, could not help the mutual trust between the two countries. However, communication continued and as early as January 11, 2022 a telephone conversation took place between Joko Widodo, Indonesian leader, and Xi Jinping, Chinese leader. Colleagues discussed countering the COVID-19 pandemic, Indonesian coal exports to the PRC and the situation in the South China Sea.

The outcome of the talks seems to have satisfied the PRC, because as early as the end of January 2022, the People’s Bank of China announced an extension of the $40bn currency swap agreement with the Central Bank of Indonesia, which will help deepen Chinese-Indonesian monetary, financial, trade and investment cooperation.

Thus, it can be concluded that Indonesia has enough reasons both to cooperate with the PRC and to distance itself from it towards the US. The two superpowers need to conduct a very deliberate policy towards Indonesia because, as mentioned above, the country carries significant weight within ASEAN and a strong relationship with it can contribute to success throughout South East Asia. Indonesia itself also needs to strike a sensible balance in its foreign policy so as not to become overly dependent on any one actor, while benefiting from both superpowers.

Petr Konovalov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The United States has elected to lock itself in a zero-sum conflict with China, attempting to stop China’s inevitable rise as the world’s largest, most powerful economy and thus nation. The narrative the US employs to justify political, economic, and even military measures it is targeting China with, revolves around US claims that China’s rise represents an unprecedented threat to the entire world.

A 2020 US State Department document titled, “The Elements of the China Challenge,” would actually claim:

Awareness has been growing in the United States — and in nations around the world — that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has triggered a new era of great-power competition. Yet few discern the pattern in China’s inroads within every region of the world, much less the specific form of dominance to which the party aspires. 

The CCP aims not merely at preeminence within the established world order — an order that is grounded in free and sovereign nation-states, flows from the universal principles on which America was founded, and advances US national interests —but to fundamentally revise world order, placing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) at the center and serving Beijing’s authoritarian goals and hegemonic ambitions.

The paper also accuses China of wielding its economic power “to co-opt and coerce countries around the world; make the societies and politics of foreign nations more accommodating to CCP specifications; and reshape international organizations in line with China’s brand of socialism.”

And yet there is absolutely no evidence that China is actually doing this. However there is an abundance of evidence that the United State government is and has for decades been doing this. The approach by both nations is visibly evident upon the global stage in nations like Southeast Asia’s Laos.

US Brings Destruction and Destabilization

Laos is a perfect example of US and Chinese foreign policy in action. The impoverished landlocked nation suffers from geographical isolation owed to mountainous terrain. During a regional war waged by the US, not China, stretching from the 1950’s to the 1970’s, Laos had more bombs dropped on it by US warplanes than any other nation in human history.

The United Nations under a post titled, “Unexploded Ordnance (UXO),” explains:

During the Second Indochina war (1964-1975), more than 2 million tons of bombs were dropped on Lao PDR, making it one of the most heavily bombed countries in the world. Today cluster sub-munitions and other UXO continue to kill and injure dozens of people a year. Large areas of Laos are contaminated with UXO. The presence of UXO negatively affects the socio-economic development of the country, preventing access to agricultural land and increasing the costs, through land clearance, of all development projects. In 2016, Lao PDR launched a localised Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 18 on reducing the UXO obstacle to development.

US aid in removing UXOs in Laos is so small that at the current rate of removal it will be centuries before Laos is safe again.

It is a gruesome example of US foreign policy in action – both in the past and in the present where US “aid” to Laos involves cleaning up deadly UXOs the US itself dropped on the country in one of its many wars of aggression last century.

In addition to the ongoing threat US UXOs pose to the population of Laos, while the US openly accuses China of attempting to “co-opt and coerce countries around the world; make the societies and politics of foreign nations more accommodating to CCP specifications; and reshape international organizations in line with China’s brand of socialism,” the US itself funds and directs opposition groups from Laos for the expressed purpose of overthrowing Laos’ system of governance and replacing it with one more to Washington’s liking.

Recently a member of the US-backed Laotian opposition was arrested in Bangkok, Thailand, US State Department media Radio Free Asia reported. The US mobilized its media as well as fronts posing as “human rights organizations” to decry the arrest and demand the release of the so-called activist. This included France-based International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) who includes multiple Western governments as financial sponsors including the US government.

The irony of the US dictating to nations like Laos and Thailand regarding who they can and cannot arrest within their territory while accusing China of attempting to coerce and control its neighbors is highlighted by not only this most recent incident, but the deep connections between the Laotian opposition and the US government.

A 2018 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) document illustrates in-depth how closely Laotian opposition groups work with the US – including multiple meetings in Washington DC where opposition members discuss directly with the US government their efforts “to change the current Lao communist system into democracy.”

Beyond bombing and meddling – the US has very little to show for its relations with Laos. The same could be said for many other nations in Southeast Asia and goes far in explaining why despite the threat the US claims China represents to the region and the world, Southeast Asia prefers doing business with China nonetheless.

China Builds Where the US has Destroyed 

Conversely, China has addressed directly and completely the cause of Laos’ poverty. Over the last two decades China has invested heavily in building highways and now the nation’s first railway to help Laos overcome limitations imposed upon it by geography.

The most recently completed project, a high-speed railway connecting the China-Laos border region of Botan to the Laotian capital of Vientiane, has already begun benefiting not only China and Laos but also neighboring Thailand.

There is additional irony considering US accusations against China and its intentions toward other nations around the globe that while China constructed Laos’ first ever railway, it cleared US UXOs all along the route.

Chinese media outlet Xinhua in a 2017 article titled, “UXO clearance of China-Laos railway’s 1st phase almost completed,” would report:

The clearance of unexploded ordnances (UXOs) from land allocated along the China-Laos railway and its two small stations, Boten immigration checkpoint and Natuay, a loading station in Lao northern Luang Namtha province, has been almost completed, reported Lao state-run news agency KPL on Thursday.

China has also invested in dams producing enough energy that it has transformed Laos into a regional energy exporter. In this case, China used Laotian geography as an asset to help bring prosperity to the country and renewable energy to the region.

Laos is experiencing development today that was impossible before the rise of China, when the United States and other Western nations still exercised unwarranted influence over Southeast Asia and even waged wars and sponsored political instability in an attempt to reassert what had been generations of exploitative Western colonialism over the region.

It is not that China poses a threat to Southeast Asia or any other region of the planet that it works with, trades with, or builds infrastructure for, it is the threat China poses to US and Western European hegemony that has spurred this otherwise irrational and dangerous confrontation between West and East.

If Laos in the 20th century represents what the West has to offer the rest of the world – and Laos in the 21st century represents what China has to offer – the decision is clear, and that Southeast Asia, Africa, and many other regions of the world are eagerly working with China at the expense of Western influence should come as no surprise. It should also come as no surprise that a nation that ruled in the past with injustice will attempt to cling to its power through ways equally unjust.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The term “tilt” that stands for UK’s need to double down on the Indo-Pacific region (IPR) in general and China in particular in terms of foreign policy, was first used in late 2020 in a Chatham House research. This research was conducted on the eve of (a long-drawn-out) ending UK’s push to leave EU when one question was becoming increasingly urgent: “What will happen next?”

The above-mentioned work by one of the leading British think tanks had some effect on the government document (also featuring the prime-minister’s extensive foreword article) ambitiously dubbed “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”. This article appeared four months later.  In this visionary document, the issue of a tilt (the term itself, however, was not used) is pretty much present.

Sidestepping not an idle question (why should the UK in its present condition care about what is going on the other side of the globe), an apparent tilt in the same direction within the nation’s political practice should be noted. This tilt, now pretty multifaceted, became evident when the UK government announced (in March 2017) the start of Brexit. Six months later, then-PM Theresa May made a landmark visit to Japan. At the same time, Elizabeth “Liz” Truss, the head of the newly established Department for International Trade and now UK Foreign Secretary, also stepped up her activity in the IPR.

She orchestrated to a great extent the launch of the UK’s ascension to the regional organization CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) that for now includes 11 Asian and American countries, with Japan being the unofficial leader. It is understood, that this process is now at its final stage. Its successful completion was apparently capped by the signing (by the same Elizabeth Truss and then-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan Toshimitsu Motegi) of a bilateral UK-Japan free trade agreement.

In mid-December of last year, a similar agreement was concluded with Australia that is subject to subsequent ratification by the parliaments of both countries. There have also been reports about probing talks on the same agenda with India.

And yet, against the backdrop of debates in the UK on the practical significance of the trade and economic component of the tilt in question (particularly, its ability to offset Brexit ramifications), a defense and security component deserves to be highlighted. This component was the key issue raised during the talks between Theresa May with then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that were held in the course of the above-mentioned visit.

Three months later (in December 2017), the agreements reached by the prime-ministers were spelled out in detail at ministerial level talks within the so called 2 + 2 format. The next similar 2 + 2 meeting took place in February 2021 as the stemming from it Joint Statement was pretty specific (especially in the Regional affairs section) about the main source of concern for both countries which China is swelling itself into. Directly or implicitly, the set of conventional among Western “gentlemen” grievances that encompasses certain issues outside and within the Chinese territory, was delivered to China.

There was room, of course, for expressing discontent regarding the situation the much-vaunted “Russian politician” Alexei Navalny got mixed up into. His name has been mentioned in the connection with the non-proliferation of chemical weapons and its use.

The line about the need of “reforming” the UN as a whole and (“early”) reform of the UN Security Council also grabbed the attention. At the same time, the UK voiced its support for Japan’s claim to become permanent member of the UNSC.

Among the various practical measures of bilateral defense cooperation, the document made a reference to the planned visit by the state-of-the-art aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group to the East Asia sub-region. The key element of the protracted (seven-months long) trip of the group that started in May 2021 was the joint exercises with the Japanese Navy, with both fleets demonstratively sailing through the Taiwan Strait on the way home.

The UK’s strengthening positions in the region are further enhanced by the formation of a new configuration AUKUS comprising also the US and Australia. The development of defense and security cooperation with the latter was discussed during the same 2 + 2 format, the first-ever such meeting in the bilateral relations, that took place offline (a rare sight for these times) in Sydney on 21 January.

The Joint Statement that was drawn up as a result of this event basically reaffirms everything that the United States, the UK, Japan, Australia had been recently prone to highlight in the bilateral documents regarding the Indo-Pacific. The statement regarding “the alignment of QUAD configuration (which includes the US, Japan, India and Australia) with many of the UK’s Indo-Pacific priorities”, also caught the author’s eye. Broadly speaking, so far this configuration has not showcased its defense and security potential, and it is unclear what will happen next.

Equally remarkable is Australia’s formalized commitment to permanently support the deployment of two UK patrol vessels that would contribute to it “re-establishing” an Indo-Pacific naval presence. These vessels will be largely undertaking “maritime domain awareness activities in the Pacific”. The increasingly noticeable and diverse ingression by China into these “domains” in recent years is raising red flags both in the United States and in Australia. The same worries have now been sparked in the UK.

French regional presence is becoming equally visible. Earlier NEO noted that France had put an increased focus on India. Especially in such delicate sphere as procuring Delhi with advanced weaponry (fighter jets, submarines). When French Defense Minister Florence Parly visited India in September 2020, some statements were made that China was not really happy about. Especially considering that those statements were made on India’s border with China that at the same time (summer 2020) was facing a dangerous escalation.

It is also unlikely that Beijing was excited by the multilateral joint naval exercises that took place from 11 to 16 May 2021 off the Japanese coast with the participation of naval group Jeanne d’Arc (including a Mistral-class amphibious assault ship and a La Fayette-class frigate). The drill was based on the scenario of parrying the threat of an “unexpected landing by enemy troops on remote islands.”

The author would like to recall that the last two words represent a Japanese euphemism designating five uninhabited Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. Those islands are de-facto controlled by Japan but disputed by China which calls them Diaoyu Dao.

In recent years, Diaoyu Dao/Senkaku islands saw an increase in various incidents with the involvement of Japanese and Chinese coast guard ships. Meanwhile, during the regular (online) session of the Japanese-French format 2 + 2 that took place on 20 January those drills were touted as one the most significant exercises that shape the bilateral defense and security cooperation.

In other words, France signals its presence in IPR zones, a touchy subject in the relations between the leading Asian countries. Why France needs all of this remains unclear. No less puzzling is the similar activity by the UK. Nonetheless, it does not seem that both European countries are so bored that they started looking for trouble on the other side of the globe.

For the current global political lunacy is an abundant source of concerns even without this additional initiative.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The West’s propaganda campaign against China is attempting to convince the world that Beijing and its policies pose a global threat. China is accused of everything from presenting an outright military threat to its neighbors and the world, to sinisterly trapping nations in debt for infrastructure projects the West insists are unnecessary in the first place.

However, the West’s war of words is not adding up with the reality on the ground. No example could make this clearer than the progress made with the China-Laos-Thailand high-speed railway.

Articles across the Western media have focused on debt incurred building the railway and the “influence” Beijing is suspected of seeking through financing and constructing the railway. Missing from the commentary was mention of what the US did with its own window of opportunity spanning a period of time between the end of World War 2 and the turn of the century where it exercised significant influence over the region.

Rather than build essential infrastructure for Laos and other Southeast Asian nations – the United States saturated the region with war and political instability for decades. Laos itself was more heavily bombed during the US war on Vietnam than any other nation in history with unexploded ordnance (UXOs) dropped by US warplanes still crippling and killing people in Laos to this day.

In fact, part of the construction process of the Chinese-built China-Laos railway involved clearing American UXOs along the route. Xinhua in a 2017 article titled, “UXO clearance of China-Laos railway’s 1st phase almost completed,” would report:

The clearance of unexploded ordnances (UXOs) from land allocated along the China-Laos railway and its two small stations, Boten immigration checkpoint and Natuay, a loading station in Lao northern Luang Namtha province, has been almost completed, reported Lao state-run news agency KPL on Thursday.

There is a certain irony about the US criticizing ongoing Chinese infrastructure projects in Southeast Asia which involve China cleaning up Washington’s mess from campaigns of past destruction amid a modern day campaign of construction.

A Promising Start

Construction for the China-Laos section began in 2016 and was completed last year. The line went operational, ready to move people and freight between China and the Laotian capital, Vientiane starting in December of last year.

Only two months in operation – the benefits of the major infrastructure project are already more than obvious not only for China and Laos but for Thailand as well whose own leg of the railway – which will eventually connect Bangkok to Kunming – is still under construction.

Articles like the Bangkok Post’s, “Focus on Laos-China rail amid fruit export hopes,” illustrates how Thailand is attempting to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new railway. The article notes:

Thailand looks set to negotiate with the Lao and Chinese governments for closer logistic and freight transport cooperation through the Laos-China high-speed train project, in the hope that it will boost fresh fruit exports.

In addition to exporting fruit to China, Thailand is looking to tap the potential of the railway to boost tourism in the nation’s northeast, a region often not associated with tourism because it is somewhat isolated and remote. This is all changing not only with the opening of the Laos-China railway but also because the Thai leg of the railway’s extension will travel through Thailand’s northeast region.

The Nation Thailand in an article titled, “Thailand lures Chinese rail tourists with Isaan delights,” would report:

Three northeastern provinces will be promoted as a major domestic and international destination, with a focus on luring Chinese visitors via the China-Laos railway. 

Udon Thani, Nong Khai and Bueng Kan will be promoted as secondary tourism provinces on the Tourist Authority of Thailand (TAT)’s “Nakara-Thani” tourism route, according to TAT Udon Thani chief Thanaporn Poolperm. 

To put this plan’s viability into perspective, before COVID-19 stifled global tourism, more tourists arrived in Thailand from China than from all Western nations combined, constituting the largest source of tourism for Thailand annually. As movement throughout the region returns to normal, the Laos-China railway and soon the Thailand-Laos-China railway will move more tourists into Thailand and economically boost regions that have yet to benefit from tourism.

Beyond prospects already taking shape, the Laos-China railway has already begun moving Thai exports northward into China.

Bangkok Post in its article, “First Thai rice shipment delivered using Laos-China railway,” would report:

A first shipment 1,000 tonnes of Thai rice has been delivered using the Lao-Chinese railway to Chongqing, marking a new chapter in exports to China, the Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry announced on Thursday. 

Exports of other farm products using the new rail link would follow, Alongkorn Polabutr, adviser to the agriculture minister, said. He said the initial shipment of rice was carried in 20 carriages and had already reached Chongqing. More would follow.

The article would also note that in addition to the railway facilitating shipments to Chongqing, future routes would extend to other Chinese provinces as well as destinations in “Central Asia, East Asia, the Middle East, Russia and Europe,” all part of China’s ever-expanding Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Thailand will not be the first nation whose goods reach destinations as distant as Europe via rail thanks to China’s BRI. Vietnam is already benefiting from the China-Europe railway with shipments already regularly arriving in Liege, Belgium from Hanoi.

Rhetoric Vs. Reality

The Western media has attempted to perpetuate the myth that China’s BRI is a cynical vehicle for achieving Chinese global domination. Despite years of rhetoric, China’s infrastructure projects are doing exactly what Beijing said they would – give developing nations unprecedented opportunities to connect with each other and the rest of the world and rise together with China – itself a nation enjoying prosperity after years of extensive investments in domestic infrastructure.

The US and its allies have defined the 20th century and much of the 21st century through an aggressive and exploitative foreign policy involving horrific wars, crippling economic sanctions, political interference, and actual “debt trap diplomacy” via the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Their collective resistance to China’s BRI is not rooted in genuine concern for developing nations, but in fears of their waning influence and their growing inability to corner, coerce, and exploit nations being empowered by genuine alternatives China offers toward real development.

The Laos-China railway is already delivering, both literally and metaphorically, proving the worth of China’s BRI. It is prompting nations like Thailand to consider speeding up ongoing projects built in cooperation with China and hopefully will spur both Thailand and other nations in the region to consider additional projects in the near future. For the West, only time will tell if its inability to constructively compete with China tempts it into reverting to the one thing it has excelled out without contest, destruction.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Southeast Asian country of Myanmar continues to suffer from ongoing political violence which began in February 2021 after the nation’s military ousted the government of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party.

Remnants of the ousted government are now reorganized as the exiled “National Unity Government” (NUG). The NUG claims to control a network of armed groups calling themselves “People’s Defense Forces” (PDFs) utilizing war weapons and carrying out attacks on military, government, and civilian targets. Together with armed ethnic groups who have pursued Western-sponsored separatism on and off for decades since Myanmar gained its independence from the British Empire in 1948, the country remains divided and destabilized.

Despite the Western media’s claims that this is an internal battle between “pro-democratic” forces and a “dictatorship,” it is in actuality a conflict driven from abroad and whose impact is meant to be regional rather than local.

Washington’s Helping Hands 

Washington’s role in Myanmar’s ongoing conflict is central. It stems from Washington’s extensive support of Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD party for decades including at one point hosting the party on US soil in the state of Maryland just outside of Washington DC, as reported by The World in 2012.

The US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funds programs and organizations involved in virtually every aspect of Myanmar’s internal political affairs. A vast network of media organizations propagating pro-opposition narratives are funded by the US through the NED including The Irrawaddy, Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), Myanmar Now, and Mizzima. NED support coupled with USAID funding bolster armed ethnic separatists along Myanmar’s borders with Bangladesh, India, China, Laos, and Thailand – giving them just enough resources to perpetuate their armed struggle against the central government, but not enough to establish peaceful, sustainable autonomy.

The goal of this US interference is not only to aid in reasserting Western hegemony over the former British colony, but to also target China and its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Ports, pipelines, and roadways have already been built by Chinese companies to connect not only remote areas of Myanmar to the central economy, but also connect Myanmar to its neighbors including China itself. China’s benefit is its ability to move goods and energy from the Bay of Bengal, across Myanmar, and into China without having to pass through straits and seas currently menaced and made vulnerable by the United States Navy.

Severing China’s BRI, eliminating one of Beijing’s regional partners, and setting a precedent to repeat the process across the rest of Southeast Asia are all key contributing factors behind Washington’s enthusiastic and continuous involvement in Myanmar’s internal political affairs.

India’s Role in Myanmar’s US-Sponsored Conflict 

Myanmar’s neighboring states also play a role – sometimes willingly, sometimes not, and sometimes with a complicated mix of both.

Thailand, for example, hosts a large number of NED-funded fronts engaged in supporting sedition inside Myanmar. This includes the often-cited Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AARP) whose founder Ko Bo Kyi is an NED fellow and fabricates death and detainee statistics despite not being located in Myanmar but instead across the border in Tak Province, Thailand. Often, NED-funded organizations targeting Myanmar from inside Thailand link up with NED-funded fronts undermining Thailand itself.

The current Thai government has attempted to avoid directly addressing all US-funded activity within its borders – perhaps in fear of what the US would do openly if its more indirect measures were denied to it. Thai opposition parties – benefiting themselves from NED-funded activities – have openly called for measures to restore US-backed opposition groups to power in neighboring Myanmar.

Thus, US-sponsored interference inside Thailand is complicating Thailand’s ability to deal with organizations using its territory to target and destabilize its neighbors.

A similar situation is taking place in India, particularly in its northeastern state of Mizoram.

Here, armed separatists from Myanmar’s Chin ethnic group base themselves just out of reach of Myanmar and its military. They train, maintain weapons, and coordinate with fronts posing as “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) before crossing over the border to carry out armed attacks inside Myanmar.

Far from accusations made solely by Myanmar’s own government or Russian and Chinese media, India’s role hosting armed militants active in Myanmar’s current crisis has been exposed by the Western media, Reuters in particular.

Their article, “In Myanmar’s Chin state, a grassroots rebellion grows,” would contradict its own title by claiming under the very first image featured, “A Chinland Defence Force fighter poses for a photograph at an undisclosed location near the India-Myanmar border, in the northeastern state of Mizoram, India.”

If Chin fighters are based in India, it is not a rebellion based in Chin state, Myanmar,  but rather armed violence directed at Chin state. If the fighters are in India, they are there with at least tacit support from at least some elements within India’s government, security services, or foreign intermediaries with likewise tacit approval of India’s government.

This is not the first time India has played host for US-sponsored militants. During US-backed militancy in China’s Tibet Autonomous Region, fighters being trained, armed, funded, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would be harbored in neighboring countries including India. Washington’s exiled Tibetan client regime was and still is based in India.

Both the CIA’s failed militancy in Tibet and now ongoing violence in Myanmar serve the overall goal of encircling and containing China while maintaining Western primacy over all of Asia. For many of India’s more hawkish political circles, this agenda is more than agreeable.

Will Myanmar Become Another Libya, or Another Syria?

India’s enthusiasm or lack thereof regarding its role in Myanmar is difficult to gauge. India is a politically complex nation with the second largest population on Earth and a nation facing many challenges both within its borders and beyond them. While many paint the nation with broad strokes and attempt to depict it as overwhelmingly “anti-China” and that its role in fomenting chaos in Myanmar at China’s expense should come as no surprise, India has nonetheless made strides in building better ties with its neighbor to the north all while this conflict unfolds.

India is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). It counts China as a major trading partner and shares with China as a major strategic ally, Russia. In reality, there is nothing India nor any other nation in Asia can gain by stirring up conflict in the region, and all nations, especially India, will benefit from a peaceful, prosperous Asia and closer, friendlier ties with China.

In terms of US-sponsored hybrid warfare it is difficult to determine how directly involved an entire nation may be in aiding this process. It is also difficult to determine how much impact this aspect of India’s involvement in Myanmar will have and whether or not other areas of effort including New Delhi’s attempts to improve ties with China can outweigh the former.

Washington’s other proxy conflicts have made one thing abundantly clear, should the US-sponsored opposition “win,” all of Myanmar will lose and along with it much of Southeast Asia. Failing to break the momentum of US intervention – direct or indirect – means that once one nation has collapsed, this momentum will be used to target the next. Myanmar itself will be rendered a permanently failed state and remain a threat to its immediate neighbors and the rest of the region for many years to come.

In recent weeks the world watched as Russia and its allies collectively responded to US-sponsored sedition and violence in Central Asia’s Kazakhstan. Myanmar does not enjoy a relationship with another nation in the same way Kazakhstan does with Russia. However, lesser action collectively committed to by Myanmar’s neighbors and partners could complicate support for opposition militants and ease the impact of Western sanctions and other efforts being made to cripple Myanmar’s economy and society.

The US leads a global, industrial-scale regime change apparatus few nations alone can resist without significant and protracted costs. It is perhaps time for nations to both collectively acknowledge this threat, and organize a collective defense against it.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.