US tries to influence Cambodia from getting too close to China

14.05.2024 Author: Brian Berletic Cambodia Doesn’t Owe Washington an Explanation Over China Ties Cambodia Doesn’t Owe Washington an Explanation Over China Ties Associated Press (AP) in a May 8, 2024 article titled, “Chinese warships have been docked in Cambodia for 5 months, but government says it’s not permanent,” attempts to depict the Southeast Asian country of Cambodia as covering up growing Chinese-Cambodian military cooperation. Satellite images of Chinese warships docked at Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base for several months have prompted “questions” and “worries” over the possibility of a “new outpost for the Chinese navy on the Gulf of Thailand.” No actual evidence has been presented by Western governments or its various think tanks, including the US government and arms industry-funded Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) whose report documented the presence of Chinese warships at Ream Naval Base, to suggest a permanent Chinese military presence has been established in Cambodia. The AP article notes: Defense Ministry spokesperson Gen. Chhum Socheat told the AP [the Chinese warships] were due to take part in a joint Cambodian-Chinese military exercise later this month, and that they were also involved in training Cambodian sailors. Even the most basic of military training can span a period of several months, and more advanced training can take up to a year or more. AP cited Cambodian officials who claimed: “We have been clear that Cambodia is not allowing any foreign forces to be deployed on its territory,” he said. “That won’t happen; that point is in our Constitution, and we are fully following it.” To explain the root of US “worries,” AP would explain: Controversy over Ream Naval Base initially arose in 2019 when The Wall Street Journal reported that an early draft of a reputed agreement seen by U.S. officials would allow China 30-year use of the base, where it would be able to post military personnel, store weapons and berth warships. The base sits adjacent to the South China Sea, where China has aggressively asserted its claim to virtually the entire strategic waterway, and also provides easy access to the Malacca Straits, a critical shipping route leading from it to the Indian Ocean. The U.S. has refused to recognize China’s sweeping claim and routinely conducts military maneuvers there to reinforce that they are international waters. Ironically, it was CSIS who also published data regarding maritime shipping moving through the South China Sea Washington accuses China of threatening. The shipping is overwhelmingly moving to and from China itself. It is clear that China has no interest in disrupting its own maritime trade, Washington obviously does. No explanation was provided by AP as to why the US believed it had any authority, jurisdiction, or say regarding what takes place within the sovereign borders of Cambodia regardless of whether the Chinese military presence is permanent or not, or across the rest of theAsia-Pacific region. It should be repeated that the Asia-Pacific region is located on the opposite side of the planet from Washington, D.C. AP does make one important admission as it concluded its article, pointing out that: China only operates one acknowledged foreign military base, in the impoverished but strategically important Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti, but many believe that its military is busy establishing an overseas network. The U.S. has more foreign military bases than any other country, including multiple facilities in the Asia-Pacific region. This admission is key to both understanding the true nature of US “worries,” and the actual source of security threats in the Asia-Pacific region. Among the many “foreign military bases” the United States maintains around the globe, a large number of them, home to tens of thousands of US forces, are located in the Asia-Pacific region and more specifically in South Korea, Japan, and increasingly the Philippines. These forces are admittedly part of a long-standing US foreign policy objective of encircling and containing China itself. The US State Department through its Office of the Historian has archived a 1965 memorandum titled, “Courses of Action in Vietnam,” in which it admits: The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China. The same memorandum admits: There are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front. The US has maintained efforts to encircle and contain China along these three fronts up to and including today. The very Chinese activities cited as a justification for US military expansion thousands of miles from American shores in the Asia-Pacific region are in fact a response to this long-standing and continuous US policy of containment. If the prospect of Chinese warships permanently stationed at a naval base in Cambodia is a “worry” for Washington, certainly tens of thousands of US forces scattered across a network of military bases along China’s periphery, closer to Chinese territory than America’s own shores, is a legitimate concern for Beijing. The belligerent hypocrisy of US foreign policy runs deeper still. AP, along with the Western experts it cited in its report, present a narrative in which Cambodia appears to somehow owe the collective West an explanation for supposed military cooperation taking place within its internationally recognized borders. Yet, the West itself has repeatedly asserted “the right to choose its own path” for any nation seeking to join NATO and not only cooperate militarily with the West, but be integrated into an active military alliance conducting wars of aggression around the globe. Upon NATO’s official website under a post titled, “Setting the record straight: de-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO,” it claims: The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone. If this were so, why wouldn’t this also apply to nations and any desired military cooperation with Russia and China? It appears that Washington, London, and Brussels insist on a nation’s “right to choose,” as long as it chooses NATO. The “right to choose” NATO membership is itself a myth. Many nations have openly chosen neutrality instead, including pre-2014 Ukraine. Through what were admittedly US organized protests, governments supporting neutrality were removed from power, and client regimes eager to “choose” NATO installed in their place. The Guardian in a 2004 article titled, “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” would admit just how extensive this type of political intervention was across a number of potential NATO members, and how the US repeatedly interfered in the internal political affairs of targeted nations to remove governments who were choosing “wrong.” The article explains in regard to the Ukrainian protests in 2004 which would be repeated again in 2014: …the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes. Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box. Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze. Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko. What is revealed is instead of nations having a “right to choose,” the United States and its NATO allies choose for targeted nations. Governments opting for neutrality are admittedly overthrown and replaced by those who will pursue NATO membership. The resulting decision is not a reflection of a nation’s sovereign foreign policy, but the undermining and usurpation of that sovereignty – the very sovereignty NATO claims it exists to uphold. The resulting security crisis this process of coerced NATO expansion poses to the Russian Federation has prompted the resulting tensions and conflict that now consumes Ukraine, wider Europe, and is continuing to spread along Russia’s periphery into Central Asia. In this context, regarding Cambodian-Chinese relations and the nature of military cooperation between the two nations, according to NATO and the nations that constitute it, Cambodia not only has the right to choose its alliances, any attempt to reverse these choices represents a threat to regional and even global security. In reality, the United States is not opposed to Chinese-Cambodian military cooperation – whatever its true nature – because it believes it is a threat to stability or represents Chinese expansionism and growing “primacy,” but instead opposes such developments because they serve as an obstacle for Washington’s own military expansionism in the Asia-Pacific region, its own primacy over the region, and its desire to influence and undermine peace and stability with impunity. Whatever the true nature is of Chinese-Cambodian military cooperation, US “worries” only further highlight the belligerent hypocrisy of Washington’s own foreign policy. Washington and the rest of NATO insist that Ukraine’s ability to “choose” NATO membership must be respected, but Cambodia’s desire to choose China as a military partner is presented as unacceptable. The only commonality between these otherwise contradictory positions is that they both serve Washington’s interests rather than any of the other parties involved. By 2024, China has become Cambodia’s largest trade partner, according to Khmer Times. Better relations with China also serve as Cambodia’s greatest chance of developing modern infrastructure in a nation destroyed by and struggling to rebuild after decades of US proxy wars and interference. It is clear that Cambodia’s decision to work closely with China serves its own best interests, but because this doesn’t serve Washington’s best interests, Cambodia has “chosen” wrong. For Cambodia, it is clear that if it does not build both the internal capabilities and foreign alliances required to neutralize the same sort of US interference resulting in Ukraine’s political capture in 2014, Cambodia will likewise find important “choices” about its future decided for it. Just as in Europe following Ukraine’s political capture in 2014, Cambodia will find both its own national security and economic prosperity and that of the region within which it resides, upended. Washington suggests Chinese-Cambodian military cooperation represents a threat to the wider region. In reality, Washington opposes it because it serves as an obstacle for Washington’s own desire to interfere in and threaten the Asia-Pacific with impunity. Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. Tags: Cambodia, China, Geopolitics, International politics, Military exercise, USA Related articles: The US and Europe are attempting to weaken Russia’s influence in the former Soviet Union Former and current presidents of Taiwan made noteworthy trips The terrorist attack in Moscow: customers, inspirers and perpetrators Is the World Heading Towards World War 3? US War on China is a War on the Entire World Search 🔎 NEO in social networks GAB Twitter Vkontakte OK Telegram Russia-Africa: The power of attraction Due to high demand, we are glad to offer a digital version of our latest book “Africa-Russia: the power of attraction” The book provides a wide-range of perspectives of the prominent Russian and African diplomats, politicians, journalists and experts on the flourishing relationship between Africa and Russia. It also explains why Western neocolonial approach to the Global South will definitely fail. 18+ E-mail: info@journal-neo.su Network edition New Eastern Outlook 2010-2024 Republishing of the articles is welcomed with reference to NEO. The views of the authors do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the editorial board. Институт востоковедения РАН

G7 Communique shows US forcing its members to go against China

OPINION / EDITORIAL G7 communiqué makes a show but Chinese don’t buy it: Global Times editorial By Global Times Published: Jun 14, 2021 05:03 AM (From L to R, Front) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, (From L to R, Rear) European Council President Charles Michel, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, stand for a family photo during the Group of Seven (G7) Summit in Carbis Bay, Cornwall, Britain, on June 11, 2021. Photo:Xinhua (From L to R, Front) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, (From L to R, Rear) European Council President Charles Michel, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, stand for a family photo during the Group of Seven (G7) Summit in Carbis Bay, Cornwall, Britain, on June 11, 2021. Photo:Xinhua The Group of Seven (G7) summit ended on Sunday. After the meeting, the countries issued a communiqué, which openly criticized China and mentioned issues related to China's Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The communiqué also mentioned opposition to "forced labor" and "unilateral attempts to change the status quo" in the East and South China Seas. Attitudes were expressed in different degrees of tone. Some directly named China. Others made implications without calling China's name directly, but made the country the unmistakable target. This has been the most systematic condemnation against China and interference in the country's affairs by major Western powers. The US apparently dominated the attitude of its allies. The G7 leaders called "for a timely, transparent, expert-led, and science-based WHO-convened Phase 2 COVID-19 Origins study, including, as recommended by the experts' report, in China," the communiqué said. Almost every issue on which Washington has recently attacked China has been mentioned in the communiqué. On the other hand, the language of the communiqué was somewhat softer than previous Washington slanders against China. For example, much of the fiercest US rhetoric against China has been directed at issues over Xinjiang and Hong Kong, including accusations of "genocide" in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. However, in the communiqué, it says that "we will promote our values, including by calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang and those rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law." All this demonstrates that the US may have the ability to drive major Western countries to form a collective tone against China, but it is unable to impose its most extreme views as G7's uniform outlook or the West's in general. CNN reported that the seven leaders aired serious differences over how best to approach China during a session of the G7 summit. German, Italian and European Union leaders in particular, opposed dealing with China in a confrontational manner. The final communiqué was clearly a product dominated by Washington, yet was a compromise by all. This should be seen as a fruitful start for the US to rally its allies against China. It foreshadows the future of greater pressure on China's diplomacy from the US through Western platforms. It is anticipated that Washington will make more efforts to make its crackdown on China look like a Western coordinated move, and the possibility of other Western countries directly or tactfully supporting its future anti-China policies will increase. But China doesn't need to be intimidated by such a scenario at all. In fact, the West has mostly been "united" when it had conflicts with China in the past over ideological issues such as human rights. The US and its allies have strengthened their coordination, but it is all focused on public opinion and diplomacy, and transforming that into a unified hostile action against China remains difficult. The G7 leaders' communiqué gave no hint of a breakthrough on this front. This shows that the interests of the US and its allies on the issue of China are very different. The US has a strategic plan to maintain its hegemony and wants the West to bring China down together. European countries have ideological differences with China but their economic relations with China are not only competitive but also have strategic needs for cooperation. The strategic differences between the US and Europe on China are insurmountable. China should not have any illusions toward the US, but it must differentiate other countries from the US. Regardless of what kind of "anti-China united front" the US may present on the surface, we should all be clear that such a "united front" is weaker than it looks. The pattern is certain that the US is serious but the European countries are perfunctory to it. China has the big room to fundamentally thwart this "united front" between the US and Europe, and eventually win the tug-of-war to dissolve it. Stepping outside of the West, it is harder for the US to establish a "united front." It has been more of a political performance of the US to advocate international morality. For example, the US pushed the G7 countries to launch an infrastructure construction plan to counter the Belt and Road Initiative, but it is questionable whether it can really be carried out or achieve practical results. The US is competing with China using a Cold War mentality. But in fact, it is falling into disarray, using its weak points to compete with China's advantages. As long as China manages its own things well and develops normal relations with other countries, it will be able to defeat the US plot. Washington will need to work very hard to achieve this — apart from pressuring allies and dragging them to work against China, it also needs to do things that it would not be interested in doing if it were not trying to get China into trouble. Time will wear down the scheme of the US. If China is steadfast on its own, there is no need to push or trip it up, as the US will stumble on its own.

少年的我｜The Adolescent Me | 梁萍原唱 | 學唱歌｜歌唱教學｜梅楣2019“鳳凰于飛”經典上海老歌美國個唱音樂會

Summit on Africa by East and West : Which is best for Africa?

09.09.2024 Author: Simon Chege Ndiritu Summits in the East and the West, Which Are the Best for Africa? Summits in the East and the West, Which Are the Best for Africa? Summits in the east (Beijing, and Vladivostok) occurring in early September 2024 featured participants planning how to meet their developmental needs as opposed to recent ones in the west, (Washington, and Rome), which featured participants ignoring their needs to try to rule the world despite being a minority. Both the Forum for China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and Eastern Economic Forum of September 2024 featured participants discussing ways of developing infrastructural and trade in their countries, while the recent US-Africa Summit 2022, and G7-2024 featured attendants expressing their perceived right to rule the rest of the world, while using Africans as cheerleaders. This article investigates which between western and eastern summits give adequate attention to Africa’s developmental needs, while proposing practical steps to meet such needs. It also compares the summits’ conveners to find out which between them offers practical partnership for Africa’s development journey. Summits in the West; US-Africa Summit 2022, and G7-Italia 2024 The US–Africa 2022 summit featured President Joe Biden stating how his country needed to partner with Africans to fight pandemics, lower food prices, and tackle climate change. Therefore, Washington invited Africans to ignore their long-term challenges of underdevelopment in infrastructure, manufacturing, healthcare, and education, and instead concentrate on its vague vision. The pandemic that Biden referred to had already ended, revealing deliberate efforts to distract Africans with trivia. Still, Biden did not outline practical steps for lowering food prices. Furthermore, his inviting Africa’s partnership to fight climate change displays a desire to sidetrack Africa’s development, since the continent has contributed minimally in creating the challenge, and has equally limited ability to address it. Generally, Biden displayed Washington’s predisposition for enabling its huge multinational corporations to sign potentially unequal trade deals with African states. He gleefully mentioned the presence of ‘Prosper Africa’ Deal Room where Multinationals were signing agreements with African leaders, just like the past European imperial companies for instance the British East India, or the French Mississipi Company signed deals with native tribal chiefs who only realized later that they had given their peoples for colonization. Biden invited Africa to be a cheerleader to Washington’s diversionary initiatives, while ignoring its pressing developmental needs. American’s desire to use Africa is also reflected during William Ruto’s state visit to the United States in May 2024, as Kenya’s president outlined how the bilateral meeting was meant to build global leadership and partnership to address global challenges such as conflicts, climate change, and debt distress. How the US and Kenya, out of about 200 countries globally, should develop leadership for the world sounds like pure imperialism. It will be interesting to see how Kenya can “address global challenges” without developing its economy, while the US has failed to address such challenges both at home and abroad in its decades of being the world’s largest economy, making the stated aim of the bilateral meeting above diversionary at best. Kenya’s president held this view when he was invited to Italy in June 2024 to attend the G7 summit to lead the world. However, his tone in FOCAC-2024 reveals a completely new set of needs for Africans, suggesting that he was playing along with Washington’s and Italy’s choreography in the West’s summits. Africans in the G7-2024 were treated as pawns without any interests for their populations. They were nudged to act like low-level members of the western imperialist gang. The Kenyan president in attendance did not mention his country’s needs, but repeated the west’s stand on conflicts in Eastern Europe, Gaza, and Sudan. Similarly, the G7 conveners did not recognize Africa’s developmental requirements or propose steps to address them. Instead, they would only condemn Russia, while skirting the Israeli genocide in Gaza despite their being primarily NATO members and hence parties to both conflicts. The entire spectacle illustrated the west’s enthusiasm to lead developing countries in a futile cacophony of blaming its competitors as opposed to genuinely spurring development in Africa. Western leaders’ proposition in such summits is not surprising, as they have a history of colonialism, slavery, and are ideologically inclined to appropriate other peoples’ economic and political resources for their own selfish ends. Summits in the East; FOCAC 2024 and others FOCAC 2024 unfolded as a forum for the Chinese host and African guests to discuss practical solutions to their developmental needs. The host, Chinese President Xi Jingping set the tone by declaring that development is an inalienable right for all peoples, in a stark contrast to westerners who always hint to Africans to stop developing and join in addressing the west’s poorly defined «global challenges». This statement was loaded with meaning, especially for Africans and Asians, whose production and trade patterns were disrupted during western exploration and plunder and subsequent colonization and neocolonization. Readers should note that the east African coast, for instance, had thriving spice production and trade before the Portuguese ruined it through wars of plunder, which was followed by British and German colonialism that worsened everything. The Chinese president would proceed to outline solid developmental programs, including opening new trade opportunities for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in Africa. He also pledged to loan $51 billion to Africans without political strings attached, and $10 billion in grants. After Xi, other speakers, including the presidents of Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania, restricted themselves to discussing matters of infrastructural development in the countries represented. China’s huge investment expands programs that had been discussed in previous FOCAC editions, and which have been implemented, including Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), the Nairobi Express Way, and Lamu Port among others. Additionally, the 2024 FOCAC edition saw China committing to funding other projects including expansion of rural road network, provision of equipment for vocational training centers, and funding new bypasses to decongest road sections in Kenya’s capital and nearby towns. Also, discussions in the summit suggested that Africa may have a rail link joining the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic, by expanding Kenya’s SGR project to Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Republic of Congo. The proposed line will invigorate African economies and expand trade between West Africa and Asia. In addition, a road project previously awarded to a French company that has faced endless delays may be awarded to the Chinese. Heads of states in the FOCAC displayed remarkable consistency in only discussing issues of interest to them. Similarly, other summits that occurred alongside FOCAC- Russia’s Eastern Economic Forum, and Russia-Mongolia summit-featured participants discussing how to meet their economic and infrastructural needs. Africa’s Needs Eastern summits give adequate attention to Africa’s developmental needs and outline practical steps to address some of them. On the contrary, those in the west invite Africans to ignore development and to become pawns in the west’s hopeless effort to rule the world. FOCAC-2024 displayed members giving central attention to Africa’s developmental needs, and depicted China implementing tangible steps including issuing huge loans, proposing investments, and removing barriers to trade for Africa’s LDCs and hence expanding trade with China. As a result, Summits in the east have demonstrated their suitability for Africa’s current and future developmental needs. Conveners in the east have also emerged as reliable partners, offering a platform where developmental needs are put into perspective for formulation of suitable solutions. Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa, exclusively for the online magazine «New Eastern Outlook». Tags: Africa, African Woes, China, Economic development, Europe, Geopolitics, International politics, Russia, USA Related articles: What does the future hold for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Turkish economy has to adjust to new challenges Tensions in relations between Moscow and Seoul Complementarity in a multipolar world Media’s Role in Amplifying Islamophobia Amidst Israel-Gaza Tensions Search 🔎 NEO in social networks GAB Twitter Vkontakte OK Telegram Russia-Africa: The power of attraction Due to high demand, we are glad to offer a digital version of our latest book “Africa-Russia: the power of attraction” The book provides a wide-range of perspectives of the prominent Russian and African diplomats, politicians, journalists and experts on the flourishing relationship between Africa and Russia. It also explains why Western neocolonial approach to the Global South will definitely fail. 18+ E-mail: info@journal-neo.su Network edition New Eastern Outlook 2010-2024 Republishing of the articles is welcomed with reference to NEO. The views of the authors do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the editorial board. Институт востоковедения РАН

USA wakes up to counter China's influence in Latin America

14.11.2023 Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh Biden Wakes Up to Counter China in Latin America Biden Wakes Up to Counter China in Latin America With annual trade between China and Latin America reaching almost US$ 486 billion in 2022 – which is almost an eight percent increase from the previous year – Beijing has already become one of the top trading partners of this region. During the Belt and Road Initiative Forum held last month in China, 26 new agreements worth US$6.32 billion were signed. China, in short, has secured a deep footprint in the US backyard, turning the Monroe doctrine – which said that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americans would be considered a hostile act against the US – upside down. The Biden administration, while never unaware of China’s growing presence in the region, is now changing its gear to push China back and offer ‘an alternative’ source of trade and development. Latin America has been an important region for the US. With Brazil, all set to assume the presidency of the G-20 next year, it is going to become even more important geopolitically. Therefore, Washington’s renewed interest is to protect the backyard from being dominated completely by China. Earlier this month, Biden hosted several Latin American and Caribbean leaders to re-affirm a joint approach towards several areas of interest. Kicking off the inaugural Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, Biden said that the goal was to “harness the incredible economic potential of the Americas and make the Western Hemisphere the most economically competitive region in the world.” This ‘competitiveness’, according to Biden, can be achieved only if the two regions reject China and embrace the US. Reminding – and seeking to convince – the leaders and officials from Barbados, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay, Mexico and Panama, Biden told them “they have a real choice between debt-trap diplomacy and high-quality transparent approaches to infrastructure and inter-development”. Why does Biden want to counter China? The reason is the ways that China has comprehensively rendered the US influence developed over at least two centuries irrelevant. As a recent report in the US-government-run United States Institute of Peace said, the US-Latin America ties have “more than 200 years of shared history, culture and economic interdependence.” What comes as a shock to Washington is how China, despite the region’s deep integration with the US, has been able to infiltrate the region and is already all set to displace the US as the region’s largest trade partner. There is, therefore, no denying that the US is facing strategic competition in Latin America that did not exist on such similar scales ever. For instance, even though the Soviet Union had some presence in the region, the nature of the Soviet-Latin American engagement was predominantly military. China, on the other hand, does not present a direct military challenge. It presents an economic challenge on a scale that demands a bigger US response. China is building airports and railways and providing cheap technology. More importantly, China, unlike the Soviet Union, is not looking to export its ideology. On the contrary, the Chinese position has been – and not just regarding Latin America – to leave politics aside and focus on the economy. Still, the US counter-offensive on China includes two obvious political elements. The US calls, as Biden did in his meeting, China a ‘debt-trapper’, which can compromise any given country’s sovereignty. Secondly – and more recently – Washington has also begun to characterise China in communist terms too (this is despite the fact that China has now completely opened itself to foreign investment). In September 2023, Mileydi Guilarte, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, told the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere that “Communism was on our doorsteps” that was exerting a “malign influence in Latin America”. For the US, projecting China as a ‘villain’ and increasing its own so-called ‘transparent’ investment is also tied to its overall policy of containing China’s global influence. So, whereas China does not involve itself in regime-change politics (as opposed to the US), China’s predominantly economic engagement with Latin America still yields crucial political outcomes that have global implications. For instance, in 2018, Panama joined China’s BRI. A year before, Panama also joined a club of countries that have severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan. By doing that, Panama not only became the first country in the Western Hemisphere to embrace Beijing’s stance on Taiwan, but also started a trend that is growing. In March 2023, another Latin American nation, Honduras, severed ties with Taiwan. While reports in the US mainstream media explained this development with reference to China’s growing investment in the region/country, the foreign minister of the country confirmed that Taiwan had repeatedly ignored their requests to increase its aid and investment, leading to the country’s decision to sever ties and embrace China as the source that can fulfil Honduras’ needs. From the US perspective, growing acceptance of China’s investment and its stance on geopolitical issues, such as Taiwan, is counter-productive to the politics of de-coupling, containing, and isolating China. If anything, Latin America’s embrace of China reveals patterns of coupling, expansion, and integration – something that has been at the heart of China’s BRI project ever since it was launched in 2013. China’s continued expansion also shows that the US projection of Beijing as a ‘debt-trapper’ and as the flag-bearer of communism has not been able to wean Latin America away. As Guilarte herself mentioned in her above-quoted statement, “Since launching the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, Beijing has become the region’s largest provider of official finance. Between 2013 and 2020 the PRC offered more than US$215 billion in financing, largely for infrastructure projects.” Although she also said that this financial investment comes “with strings attached”, there is no denying that the US has grown apprehensive about China’s growing success – not just in Latin America but also the rest of the world. Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. Tags: China, China in Latin America, Economic cooperation, Economic development, Geopolitics, International politics, us-china relations, USA Related articles: Turkish Plans in Libya Hang in the Balance… Yemen’s Houthis Show Solidarity with Palestinians US Supertankers Pose an Environmental Threat to Europe Peace In Our Time: Complete And General Disarmament USA’s Latest Veto-Hypocrisy or Balancing Act? Search 🔎 NEO in social networks GAB Twitter Vkontakte OK Telegram Russia-Africa: The power of attraction Due to high demand, we are glad to offer a digital version of our latest book “Africa-Russia: the power of attraction” The book provides a wide-range of perspectives of the prominent Russian and African diplomats, politicians, journalists and experts on the flourishing relationship between Africa and Russia. It also explains why Western neocolonial approach to the Global South will definitely fail. 18+ E-mail: info@journal-neo.su Network edition New Eastern Outlook 2010-2024 Republishing of the articles is welcomed with reference to NEO. The views of the authors do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the editorial board. Институт востоковедения РАН

US Treasury Secretary, Yellen threatens China

26.04.2023 Author: Christopher Black Yellen Threatens China Yellen Threatens China Janet Yellen, the American Treasury Secretary, or Finance Minister, took the US hostility and threat against China to a new level in a speech on April 20 at Johns Hopkins University. In a speech laced with colonialist attitudes and arrogance she talked as if the USA was emperor of the world and China was a rebellious vassal, a speech, despite her rhetoric of seeking ‘constructive” economic ties, that can only destroy any chance of that succeeding. To read her speech is to understand the mafia mind set of the American leadership for she spoke as if she were the lieutenant of a mafia don threatening to break someone’s legs for not obeying his criminal demands. She began her long-winded speech by welcoming China’s adoption of some “market reforms” in prior years and claimed the US was responsible for China’s rise as an economic power claiming that “The US Congress and successive presidential administrations supported China’s integration into global markets.” The Chinese have a different view of the matter since China was never disconnected from world markets and relied on its own efforts and the success of the policies of the Communist Party to develop and expand its economy and its trade with the world. After that introduction, she quickly switched gears by decrying China’s “decision to pivot away from market reforms toward a more state-driven approach that has undercut its neighbours and countries across the world,” and that, “this has come as China is striking a more confrontational posture toward the USA and our allies…” In effect she admits the communist government of China has succeeded in developing China’s economy and the living standards of its people while the successive US governments have adopted policies destroying the US economy and standards of living. The glaring contrast makes the Americans both angry and embarrassed. As for China being, “more confrontational,” Yellen cannot point to any evidence of China “confronting the USA at all since the end of the Korean War when China was attacked by the United States. Since the “opening up” to China by Trudeau of Canada, and Nixon of the US in the early 1970’s, China has always sought to cooperate with and improve its relations with all the nations of the world. It is the United States that has always been confrontational, and things have accelerated beginning with President Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” which was the beginning of their renewed strategic objective of forcing China to become their vassal. President Trump continued with this objective with the imposition of trade tariffs in violation of World Trade Organisation agreements, with increased military sabre rattling over Taiwan, the arrest of Meng Wenzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei, the Chinese communications company. President Biden continues this hostile policy today with increased military posturing and interference in the internal affairs of China over Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinxiang and other issues, all accompanied by an intense level of propaganda about China threatening American security and American “democracy.” The United States is hardly a “democracy.” It is instead an extreme example of a plutocracy, a society ruled by the very wealthy but no matter; just a day before her speech, this “democracy” arrested two US citizens of Chinese ethnicity in New York City on absurd charges that they were running a “Chinese secret police station” in New York and members of a black, socialist party that expressed opposition to US war against Russia were charged with crimes amounting to treason for simply expressing their opinion. She then claimed the US was the largest and most dynamic economy in the world, when data shows that Chins has now surpassed the USA in goods and services produced, and when latest figures project a growth rate in China of 6% this year while the USA may not even grow by 1%. A number of economic analysts and politicians warn of a deepening financial crisis in the US brought on by its failed economic policies and system and by the severe consequences on the USA and Europe of the illegal ‘sanctions” or economic warfare against Russia. And she was quick to bring Russia into her speech. She made the claim that the “world is confronting the largest land war in Europe since World War II.” when we remember that in 1999 the United States, in an unprovoked attack, bombed Yugoslavia relentlessly for four months and during that war crime attacked the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing several diplomats, and when we remember that the United States continued to invade and occupy Syria as she was speaking. She never mentioned Syria of course in her remarks, nor all the death and destruction the USA has wrought on the countries it has attacked and destroyed just since 1945. And is it the “world” facing the war in Europe-meaning Ukraine? No, it is the US and its NATO allies facing the war which they started in 2014, with the NATO coup, in Ukraine, overthrowing the legitimate government and installing Nazi puppets in its place; which immediately began attacking Russian speakers in Ukraine using shells, bombs and machine guns. Their aggression in Ukraine, their planned offensive, using the Ukrainian army against Russia, the movement of NATO up to Russia’s borders and the nuclear threat, required Russia to take action in self defence of itself and the Russian speakers in Ukraine. The causes of the war are to be found in one place, Washington and it is Washington’s war the world faces. The military conflict in Ukraine could end tomorrow if the US wanted it to, but it does not, and, as a recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine proves, the goal of the USA is to break Russia into over 40 separate statelets that it will control. The fact is the world faces an American war to destroy Russia and control and exploit its remnants, then bring China to heel, then the rest of us. Her speech is laced with the usual platitudes about “cooperation”, “negotiation” and “goodwill” but she stated, “Some see the relationship between the U.S. and China through the frame of great power conflict: a zero-sum, bilateral contest where one must fall for the other to rise.” Well, who does? Only people like herself and the government she works for. China, with all the good will it can muster, has been pushing the opposite idea for a long time, the concept of win-win situation achieved through meaningful negotiations, in an atmosphere of trust. But again, she states a good outcome can be had only if China “cooperates” and “makes the right choices.” Underlying these platitudes is the threat of force. She winds up her speech stating she hopes to travel to China to “engage in dialogue.” No doubt the Chinese will agree to meet her. Talking is always a good thing to do. But how can the Chinese deal with an interlocutor who distorts reality, who lies and slanders China, whose smooth words are followed by threats and diktats, and whose US Navy is cruising off China’s coasts threatening China with war over Taiwan and supporting Taiwan with the hope of overthrowing the communist government in China? The Chinese have been complaining for a while now that the US says one thing but then does the exact opposite. But here in Yellen’s speech we see this contradiction stated as a matter of policy. We say this, but we mean that. There is no good faith expressed whatsoever, no amity between nations, no respect for the other party. Yellen is forced to acknowledge that the US and its allies face debt challenges and economic and financial “pressures” but fails to mention that they are their own entire making. The fact is the USA is essentially bankrupt. Its debt far outstrips its assets. It cannot pay its 31 trillion dollar debt to the world and has to keep increasing its legal debt ceiling to put off the day of reckoning, which causes bickering within the US elites. A large part of this debt is due to their huge military spending and their inflation is largely due to the massive printing of US dollars since the US finally went off the gold standard in the 1971 so it could print money to pay for its defeat in Vietnam and all its other wars since then. It has not stopped the printing presses in all those years and with covid it accelerated. The result is making life miserable for citizens in the USA. Canada and Europe and elsewhere and effectively lowers the cost of labour, the value of wages. This results in the many strikes taking place across the West as workers fight back. The gutting of the US industrial base in prior decades as US companies left the US to go to China to take advantage of cheaper labour for higher profits is no one’s fault but their own. The American government allowed US companies to leave, even helped them leave, abandoning American workers to destitution, creating the Rust Belt across the USA, the decayed cities and towns, the increased violence, the general misery. Yellen felt she had to say something relevant about the other elephant in the room, abrupt global warming. She stated that the “Earth is likely to cross a critical global warming threshold within the next decade-if no drastic action is taken.” But what has the USA done about that? The answer is nothing. It is all empty rhetoric and useless programs that have had no effect whatsoever. The “critical threshold “was crossed years ago and the effects of crossing it accelerate with each passing day. We all see it around us. This is the reality. But the Americans always seem to be out of touch with reality. And while she bragged, that “we remain the largest and most dynamic economy in the world”, she linked that statement to defending “our values and national security,” and that, “within that context, we seek a constructive and fair economic relationship with China.” But what does fair trade and economic competition have to do with “national security and our values”? It means that the US will continue to use the pretext of “national security and values” to gain unfair economic advantages over China as the recent claims made about security against Huawei and Tik Tok, among other companies have established. By “fair” she means what is good for the USA,” not both parties, and that means nothing but more confrontation with China. She wound up her speech by stating three “principle objectives” of the US in its economic approach to China, though they are just three ways of saying the same thing, that the principle objective is the domination of China. But she dresses that real objective up in fancy clothes. The first objective is “securing our national security-and protecting human rights.” So, right after she claimed the US is look for more cooperation with China she boldly stated that the US will continue to violate Chinese sovereignty and to interfere in Chinese internal affairs in every way possible. She stated, “We will clearly communicate to the PRC our concerns about its behaviour.” Of course, the “behaviour she is referring to is all in the imagination of their propagandists, so that, in effect the Americans intend to increase their slanders against China at every opportunity. Then she added the following astounding statement, which admits the American confrontational posture, “Even as our targeted actions may have economic impacts… we are motivated solely by our concerns about security and values.” One just has to admire their use of words. The second declared principle, seemingly contradicting the first, but in fact supporting the first objective, is “too seek a healthy economic relationship with China. A growing China that plays by international rules is good for the USA”. She means American rules. She then spoke about “Chinese unfair economic practices,” a puzzling phrase since she does not state what they are, but we can assume she meant that it is unfair the communists in China are running an economy better than the capitalists do in the USA. She again referred to a “rules-based global economic order” meaning to an American controlled economic order. Since China insists, as it should, that there is no such thing as a rules-based order, only international law by which all nations are bound, this statement is another declaration of intent to pursue war with China unless China kowtows to the United States. For there to be “rules” there has to be a ruler issuing them but the Americans have forgotten it seems that there are no world rulers on this planet of ours, only individual sovereign nations, governed by the principles set out in the UN Charter. The insistence, by the Americans, and their allies, on the existence of such an order is itself a violation of the founding principles of the United Nations. Article 2 of the UN Charter states, “The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. 1.The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. “ Their so-called “rules-based order” is a complete negation of the UN Charter. They have, by adopting this phrase, torn up the UN Charter and international law and the entire West has acquiesced in this crime. The Third principle she stated to be “seeking cooperation on urgent global challenges” by which she means challenges facing the USA, such as the war with Russia. And of course, the Americans are always claiming they are seeking “cooperation” when they mean they are seeking obedience. Finally, she entered into a long statement meant to reassure American and foreign investors, and the American public, that the mess they see around them in the USA is not real, that everything is just fine, in fact it’s just great. The economy is just fine. The economy is growing. It’s dynamic. Inflation will be beaten. And she assured the world the US financial system is secure, despite the collapse of several large banks in the US in the past few weeks, requiring the government to step in, with warnings of further problems in the near future. She has to admit China’s growth, its success in the elimination of poverty but tries to minimise and obscure that success by drawing a dark picture with a long list of claimed economic problems, China faces, all sorts of head winds, and again complains about state control of the economy-forgetting of course that in the USA many large corporations are funded by state contracts and large corporations control the government. A number of US companies have been assisted by government sanctions on Chinese companies, by export and import controls, unfair tariffs, and false claims of the use of child or forced labour, all designed to keep Chinese goods and services out of the world market in favour of US goods. She claims the USA is better in everything, while China is in decline. It was quite a sales pitch, and like most sales pitches, a litany of lies and half-truths. Her big lie was to claim that eliminating Chinese companies from US and allied markets is for “security reasons” not for economic reasons, when we know “security reasons” are just a pretext Then, right after that lie she again called for “cooperation” between the US by threatening China over Russia. She said, “It is essential that China and other countries do not provide Russia with material support or assistance with sanctions evasion. We will continue to make the position of the United States extremely clear to Beijing and companies in its jurisdiction. The consequences of any violations would be severe.” So much for seeking cooperation. What cooperation? This is just the same old bullying and coercion the Americans have been known for all over the world for a long time. And, again, for one nation to make such threats to another sovereign nation is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter dealing with peace and security and threats to international peace which this threat of “severe consequences” surely is. She makes things even worse by repeating slanders about China repressing this or that group in this or that place and declares the US intention to take more hostile action against China based on these pretexts. She said, “The United States will continue to use our tools to disrupt and deter human rights abuses wherever they occur around the globe.” Yellen then put on a fake smile to be more conciliatory and talked about the strong economic links between the US and China, only again to reveal the true intention; “A growing China that plays by the rules can be beneficial for the United States. For instance, it can mean rising demand for U.S. products and services and more dynamic U.S. industries.” She closed by stating she hopes to travel to China to talk about the situation. But can the Chinese accept her in the face of this posturing and these threats? They are always polite, and ever seeking some peaceful way forward, so we can suppose they would be willing to talk with her if she asked to meet with them. But what is there to talk about when the United States has made it clear what their objectives are, the domination of China, Russia and the world? Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. Tags: US agreesion, us-china relations, USA, USA and China Related articles: US Shuts Down China’s Confucius Institutes Palestine and the downfall of neoliberal democracy Why the Biden admin is propagating war in Europe Gaza: divergences between the West and the Global South are deepening The West increasingly isolates itself Search 🔎 NEO in social networks GAB Twitter Vkontakte OK Telegram Russia-Africa: The power of attraction Due to high demand, we are glad to offer a digital version of our latest book “Africa-Russia: the power of attraction” The book provides a wide-range of perspectives of the prominent Russian and African diplomats, politicians, journalists and experts on the flourishing relationship between Africa and Russia. It also explains why Western neocolonial approach to the Global South will definitely fail. 18+ E-mail: info@journal-neo.su Network edition New Eastern Outlook 2010-2024 Republishing of the articles is welcomed with reference to NEO. The views of the authors do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the editorial board. Институт востоковедения РАН

The USA is trying to turn South East Asia against China

17.07.2023 Author: Brian Berletic Blinken Meets ASEAN: Turning Southeast Asia Against China Blinken Meets ASEAN: Turning Southeast Asia Against China US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s meeting with ASEAN in mid-July, focused on convincing the bloc to confront Beijing, follows a long-running US strategy to transform Southeast Asia into a united front against China. By doing so, nations in the region are encouraged or coerced to antagonize China, despite the growing superpower being their largest trade partner, investor, and source of tourism as well as their most important infrastructure and development partner. Reuters in its article preceding the meeting titled, “Blinken to press ASEAN to take tougher line on Myanmar, China,” would claim: Washington hopes to rally Southeast Asian nations to take tougher action against Myanmar’s military junta and to push back on China’s actions in the South China Sea as top U.S. diplomat Antony Blinken heads to the region for meetings next week, a State Department official said on Friday. By turning Southeast Asia into a battering ram against its largest, closest, and most important regional partner, it will be undermining its own peace, stability, and prosperity simply to serve Washington’s foreign policy objectives which not only include the encirclement and containment of China, but preventing the rise of all of Asia. Secretary Blinken’s agenda is not unique to the current administration of US President Joe Biden. Transforming Southeast Asia into a US-controlled front against China has been a US foreign policy objective since the end of World War 2. In a 1965 memorandum from then US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to then US President Lyndon Johnson titled, “Courses of Action in Vietnam,” Secretary McNamara would describe a “long-run United States policy to contain Communist China” which he said, “looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.” In the same memorandum, Secretary McNamara defined the three primary fronts along which the US sought to contain China, “(a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.” The US policy of containing China has continued, unabated, ever since, with Secretary Blinken’s attempts to coerce Southeast Asia to turn on its largest, closest, and most important neighbor, simply the latest attempt to fulfill it. Eliminating Chinese Allies – Starting with Myanmar The US seeks to use all of Southeast Asia as a united front against China, much in the way it has transformed Eastern Europe into a united front against Russia. To do this, the US has engaged in interference in each of Southeast Asia’s nations’ internal political affairs, creating and building up political opposition parties, supporting “civil society” networks to help them take and maintain power, creating powerful media networks to dominate Southeast Asia’s information space, and even organizing and supporting violent street movements and militant groups. The worst hit by US interference is Myanmar, a nation with a particularly close relationship with not only China which it shares a border with, but also Russia, another chief US adversary. Myanmar has been plunged into violence since the nation’s military ousted the US-backed government of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) in 2021. Since then, the US has both attempted to isolate Myanmar’s military and central government, as well as assist armed militants fighting the government and terrorizing Myanmar’s civilian population. Part of this support includes the “Burma Act,” passed by the US Congress and included in the 2023 US National Defense Authorization Act. It provides “non-lethal assistance” to militant groups engaged in violence. It is similar to other assistance programs accompanying US regime change operations elsewhere in the world, including in Libya and Syria in 2011, both of which evolved from “non-lethal assistance” and into US military interventions. In order to effectively provide this “non-lethal assistance,” and eventually arms, ammunition, and other military equipment, the US requires nations along Myanmar’s borders to willingly serve as partners. As a result of the 2023 general elections in Thailand, US-backed opposition parties are poised to take power and have already vowed to adopt the US “Burma Act” as part of Thai foreign policy despite ASEAN’s fundamental principles of non-interference. This provides a clear example of how the US is interfering across the entire region to either coerce governments into siding against their neighbors and their largest trade partner, China, or face being removed from power and replaced by a US-backed client regime that will. The South China Sea: Subverting, Not Securing Maritime Security Myanmar is only one engineered crisis of many the US is using to organize Southeast Asia against China. Another is centered on the South China Sea. In the same aforementioned Reuters article, the State Department’s Daniel Kritenbrink would claim that, “countries in the region should make progress in resolving maritime disputes with each other in order to strengthen their collective voice in disputes with China in the South China Sea.” The US government and the Western media have attempted to depict China as an aggressor in an otherwise peaceful South China Sea, threatening to disrupt the free flow of commerce. In reality, the vast majority of commerce flowing through the South China Sea is between China and its regional trade partners. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in a presentation titled, “How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea?,” includes a graphic clearly depicting China and its largest trade partners in the region as dominating trade through the South China Sea. Chinese trade alone consists of over a quarter of all trade flowing through the sea. This is larger than the US-led anti-China “Quad” and “AUKUS” associations combined. It should also be noted that China is, in fact, the largest trade partner of both Australia and Japan despite their participation in US-led anti-China associations. However, there are indeed disputes in the South China Sea, but despite US claims, China is not only at odds with other claimants, including Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, all of these nations are also at odds with one another. Maritime disputes are common around the globe, as are the sometimes heated incidents that erupt because of them. While US government-funded media outlets like Benar News will publish articles like, “US Condemns Sinking of Vietnamese Fishing Boat by China’s Coast Guard,” reinforcing the perception that Beijing is at the center of South China Sea tensions, local media regularly reports on Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam sinking each others boats as well. Vietnam Express International, in an article titled, “Indonesia sinks 86 Vietnamese fishing boats,” would also admit, “Among the sunk vessels were 86 Vietnamese-flagship boats, 14 from the Philippines and 20 Malaysian.” The Star in an article titled, “Kelantan MMEA disposes of seven seized Vietnamese boats,” admits: The Kelantan Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) disposed of seven Vietnamese fishing vessels forfeited by courts by sinking the boats and turning them into artificial reef 5.3 nautical miles from Kuala Besar in Kota Bharu on Tuesday (Feb 14). The article also discusses the scale on which this takes place: “Since 2007, Kelantan Maritime has disposed of a total of 264 Vietnamese fishing boats through a variety of disposal methods like sinking, destroying, auctioning and selling and gifting with an estimated value of more than RM380 million.” Quite clearly then, China isn’t “bullying” the rest of the region, the South China Sea is an area of multiple overlapping and highly contested claims which result in all nations harassing, seizing, and even destroying each other’s boats. As heated as these disputes may be, they are always bilaterally resolved before they spiral out of control, all while bilateral and even regional relations continue to expand and improve positively. The United States, including through Secretary Blinken’s mid-July meeting with ASEAN, is attempting to insert itself into these heated but relatively ordinary maritime disputes, escalate them into a regional or perhaps even global conflict to then serve as a pretext for a continued US military build up in the region and Washington’s growing belligerence toward China in the South China Sea itself. Secretary Blinken attempting to convince Southeast Asia to resolve their own overlapping claims and disputes among themselves, but only so they can unite and escalate their disputes with China, is an overt admission that the US doesn’t seek to underwrite stability in the Indo-Pacific, only to more effectively undermine it. The US is Dividing Asia Against Itself While the US describes its “Indo-Pacific Strategy” as supporting “open societies and to ensure Indo-Pacific governments can make independent political choices free from coercion,” it is clear that nations in the region are not given the opportunity to make independent political choices specifically because of US interference and coercion. Southeast Asia in particular is one of the chief beneficiaries of China’s rise. If Southeast Asia were allowed to make independent political choices free from coercion, it would clearly continue building its ties to China to further benefit from its rise. That at least some in Southeast Asia are not only on a path opposite of doing so, but on a path that leads off the cliff of US-sponsored proxy conflict, demonstrates just how overwhelming US interference and coercion is in the region. It also demonstrates how this US interference and coercion, not Beijing and its policies, constitutes the biggest and most enduring threat to peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has discussed at length a number of security issues to enhance the self-defense of both the organization itself and the individual states that constitute it. Among these issues is the defense against US-sponsored “color revolutions,” which in one form or another is the primary tool the US is using now in Southeast Asia to coerce nations into belligerence toward China and in forfeiting their own best interests in the process. Will the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) adopt similar measures as the SCO? Could ASEAN work closely together with the SCO to once and for all throw off Western influence, interference, and coercion, persistent since the age of European colonization, and move forward into the future able to truly, genuinely determine Southeast Asia’s destiny? Will the nations in the region finally be able to work with partners around the globe, including both China and the United States, but purely on their own terms? Clearly in order to do so, the process Secretary Blinken was sent to ASEAN to advance must first be exposed, then stopped, and eventually reversed. Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. Tags: ASEAN, China and Central Asia, Geopolitics, International politics, USA Related articles: Deception in the arsenal of the West’s information warfare tools Gaza ceasefire negotiations are a fiction for Netanyahu Kiev’s counter-offensive and middle east responses Philippine President’s visit to Vietnam Melbourne hosted the “ASEAN¬-Australia Summit” Search 🔎 NEO in social networks GAB Twitter Vkontakte OK Telegram Russia-Africa: The power of attraction Due to high demand, we are glad to offer a digital version of our latest book “Africa-Russia: the power of attraction” The book provides a wide-range of perspectives of the prominent Russian and African diplomats, politicians, journalists and experts on the flourishing relationship between Africa and Russia. It also explains why Western neocolonial approach to the Global South will definitely fail. 18+ E-mail: info@journal-neo.su Network edition New Eastern Outlook 2010-2024 Republishing of the articles is welcomed with reference to NEO. The views of the authors do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the editorial board. Институт востоковедения РАН