CONTENT

● East Asia
○ Japan
■ Colonialism & WW2
■ Pacifism, Re-militarisation, and the Far-Right
■ Economic Recession & Abenomics
○ North & South Korea
■ The Korean War
■ North Korean dictatorship: How it works
■ South Korean political turmoil
○ Four Asian Tigers (Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea)
■ “National champions”
■ Trade liberalisation and Industrialisation
○ China
■ China-West relations
■ Ethnic minorities
■ Silk Road & Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
■ Xi Jin Ping and the CCP
■ Chinese currency pegging
■ South China Sea conflict (and other territorial disputes)
■ One China Policy (Taiwan and Hong Kong)
● South Asia
○ India & Pakistan
■ Independence
■ Legacy of Partition
■ Formation of Bangladesh
■ Kashmir border conflict
■ India’s economic performance
● South East Asia
○ Thailand
■ Monarchy
■ Military coup
○ Myanmar
■ Political history (Aung San Suu Kyi)
■ Rohingya migrant crisis
○ Malaysia
■ Bumiputra policy
○ Philippines
■ Duterte & the War on Drugs
■ Christianity in Philippines
○ Cambodia
■ Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge
■ Cambodian-Vietnamese relations
○ Tibet
■ Dalai Lama
■ “Free Tibet”
○ Indonesia
■ Corruption and political climate
 ■ Konfrontasi

Overview
Asia is the world’s largest continent, and possesses some of the fastest and largest growing
economies. It’s a host of diverse cultures, histories, and political systems that give rise to
conflicts that are equally as complex. Asia plays a pivotal role in global politics, dominated by
the rise of China and smaller states struggling to shed their colonial pasts and pursue
economic prosperity.

East Asia

Japan
Japan, how it’s known to us today, is admired worldwide for its dedication to efficiency,
professionalism, and high living standards. Its pop culture has endeared it to states all
around the globe and has reformed its political image to an economic powerhouse sworn to
military pacifism. The political scene in Japan has always been relatively conservative, fast
on economic innovation but slow on social progress. Political and social outlooks on subjects
such as same-sex marriage, immigration, and gender equality still remain incredibly
regressive.

However, during WW2, Japan had a large expansionist vision, and aimed to conquer
territories of China, Korea and Taiwan. It was driven by ideals of cultural and racial purity,
similar to those upheld by Nazi Germany. Pre-21st century, Japan was by far the largest
military, political and economic power in Asia. It had large naval fleets, and had open its
borders up to equal and fair trade with the West far before many Asian countries, exposing it
to advances in science and industry. Its unparalleled development in the region allowed it to
colonise South Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan, as well as occupy regions in South East Asia
and islands in the Pacific during the war.

Colonialism & WW2

It is a mistake to understand Japan as the mere Asian counterpart to Western colonial
powers. Its colonial methods as well as reasons for pursuing empire were vastly different
and unique.
While European expansionism was long driven by scientific intellectual curiousity, the
frustrations and daring of merchant adventurers, and the naked greed of established
classes, Japan’s journey to conquest followed centuries of national isolationism that
reflected in barriers to international communication and intercourse. Japan’s transition into
being a colonial power was only initiated by the severe shock of Commander Perry’s
gunboat policy which forced Japan to open its borders to trade. It was with this that the ruling
Shogunate saw the necessity of a radically new foreign policy for the sake of national
security. Another compelling reason for Japan’s decision to embark upon a career in
colonialism is its desire to achieve success according to the prevailing standards of
imperialism. Japan feared that if it failed to respond to the challenges empire posed, it would
never be recognised as a power on par with those in the West.

Before WW2, Japan managed to occupy Taiwan and Korea. While its treatment of Korea
was much more severe, Japan brutalized both countries. Unlike the West, Japan was never
under the social delusion of a “white man’s burden”, never being significantly affected by a
moral impetus but instead held a polite scorn for their colonial subjects. Their motivations for
conquest were initially strategic, building buffers and international esteem, and then
increasingly economic as they modernised their conquests to become profitable colonies.
This is not to say that the Japanese never gained satisfaction from bringing infrastructure,
development, and education to Taiwan and Korea though. Taiwan was acquired first and
was a testing ground for different administrative systems which were optimised and exported
to Korea. However, the local opposition in Korea was much more violent and persistent than
anything the Japanese had experienced in Taiwan perhaps because Taiwan had been
subdued by Portuguese rule that had come before. This led to the complete destruction of
the Korean monarchy and the implementation of a system of political and social control
much more violent and oppressive that that in Taiwan.
Perhaps what can be seen as positive aspects of this Japanese legacy included the
agricultural transformation that occurred in Taiwan and Korea, especially the successful
transfer of higher-yielding rice varieties, as well as the development of industry and transport
infrastructure. The Japanese emphasis on expanding access to education also largely
developed human capital.

During WW2, Japan was responsible for war crimes comparable to those of the Holocaust.
When it invaded China’s capital, Nanking, the city went through uninterrupted days of mass
rape, massacre and looting. In Manchuria, there were dark occurrences of systematic
human experimentation where Chinese civilians would be exposed to the extreme cold or
have surgeries performed on them while fully conscious. Meanwhile, Taiwan and Korea
were victims of human trafficking; great numbers of women were abducted to become
comfort women for the Japanese military. Japanese soldiers perpetrated similar crimes all
throughout the South China Sea and South East Asia.

Pacifism, Re-militarisation, and the Far Right

After WW2, Japan was forced to adopt Clause 9 in its constitution that disallow Japan from
declaring war except in self-defence. It technically forbids Japan from maintaining land, sea,
or air forces, and so instead, Japan has ‘Self-Defence Forces’ which are formally an
extension of its police forces. In the past few years, Japan has raised its defense budget,
upgraded its armistice, extended its security perimeter, and improved that operational ambit
of its Self-Defence Forces. This can be seen in part due to the rising threat of Chinese
imperialism, but also due to a political shift in Japan’s climate.

In post-war reconstruction, the US was careful to not allow Japan to fall into a spiral of
poverty and extremism which had led to the rise of fascism in Germany. Instead, the US
gave significant financial support to Japan and set up democratic structures similar to the
ones back home. Japan prospered, becoming one of the leading manufacturers of
electronics in the world with the US as its strongest economic partner. With the trauma of the
two nuclear attacks still fresh in people's mind, pacifism seemed to be the most beneficial
route forward.

However, there has been a growing prominence of the right in Japanese politics which sees
Article 9 as a remnant of disgrace and defeat at Western hands. The ritual suicide of Yukio
Mishima which protested the constitution and advocated for the restoration of the emperor
became a rallying point for Japanese nostalgists. Historical erasure and heavy
remilitarisation have been contentious topics in local politics, manifesting in events such as
Abe visiting memorials for war criminals, putting motions to expand the interpretation of
Clause 9, and his dedication to maintaining racial purity of Japan’s citizens. Though
relatively subdued, countries such as South Korea and China remain incredibly wary of
Japan’s true intentions.

Economic Recession & Abenomics

Japan faces one of history’s most persistent economic recessions, battling deflation for
almost 20 years. Its economy began to stagnate in the 1990s after its property and stock
bubbles burst. Companies began focusing on cutting debt and outsourcing manufacturing
overseas, which caused a stagnation in wages as consumers began cutting spending. Once
deflation set in, consumers started to expect prices to fall and delayed their purchases only
perpetuating the problem and continuing the cycle.
The country is hit unusually hard in any global economic recession– their exports rely heavily
on higher-end, luxury exports such as televisions and cars, the first things people stop
buying when times get tough. Japan’s aging population only makes the problem worse. By
2020, the country is expected to be losing 600,000 people a year; and squeezing growth out
of a shrinking, aging population is difficult.

Shinzo Abe, Japan’s current prime minister, promises to solve Japan’s chronically low
interest rates and inflation, and eye-wateringly high levels of sovereign debt. Abenomics is a
term used to describe his economic policies built on unprecedented monetary easing,
government spending, and business deregulation (known as his “three-arrow strategy”).

The Bank of Japan has been printing money (to buy bonds) with the basic aim of getting
money flowing again and increase consumer spending [*see “Quantitative Easing”]. Another
core aim of Abenomics is to boost exports by lowering the value of the yen. However, the
yen has been getting stronger which prompted the central bank to push interest rates below
for the first time. This was to discourage individuals from buying the yen as a ‘safe haven’
and incentivise companies to spend rather than save.

Overall, Abenomics can claim small victories. It has defeated core deflation (excluding
energy prices); lifted companies’ profits and dividends; expanded employment, especially
among women and the old; and sprinkled Japan with a light dusting of gentle reforms that
may hold the promise of more radical future ones. In early 2013, for instance, few believed
that Japan would sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an ambitious free-trade agreement
among 12 countries: it did (though the TPP’s fate now rests on American politics). However,
Japan vastly overestimated the ability of monetary policy to drum up eagerness in consumer
or companies to buy real assets or consumer goods. Competition was too muted and
corporate governance was too lax. Wages increases have lagged behind prices increases,
and it is likely that Japan will have to rely on an imported foreign workforce to continue its
legacy even with the population’s xenophobic sentiments.

North & South Korea

South Korea has developed into one of Asia's most affluent countries since partition in 1948.
The Communist North has slipped into totalitarianism and poverty.

The republic was proclaimed in 1948 and received UN-backed support from the US after it
was invaded by the North two years later. The Korean War ended in 1953 without a peace
agreement, leaving South Korea technically at war for more than fifty years. The north and
south are both have large military complexes with different backers; the US has tens of
thousands of soldiers in South Korea.

The following four decades were marked by authoritarian rule, during which government-
sponsored schemes encouraged the growth of family-owned industrial conglomerates,
including the Hyundai and Samsung groups. They helped transform South Korea into one of
the world's major economies and a leading exporter of cars and electronic goods.

The Korean War

The conflict between North and South Korea is based on the claims of both to be the
government of the whole Korea. The creation of North and South Korea came from the Allied
victory in WW2. The US occupied Southern Korea while the Soviet Union occupied North
Korea, demarcated by a line called the 28th parallel. With the onset of the Cold War,
negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union failed to lead to an independent and
unified Korea and later in the Cold War, the communist forces of North Korea invaded South
Korea. Only with US intervention was South Korea able to ward off communist forces.

Though the war is technically still ongoing, direct confrontation ended with the signing of the
Korean Armistice Agreement in 1953 that called for a cessation of hostilities and all acts of
armed force in Korea until a peaceful agreement is reached. North Korea has made
announcements to withdraw from the armistice six times, the last being in 2013, often citing
US-South Korea military partnerships as a proactive armed threat.

North and South relations are plagued with antagonism and displays of military power. For
example, in 2016, North Korea carried out its fifth nuclear test as part of the state’s
anniversary and South Korea responded with a plan to assassinate Kim Jong-Un, North
Korea’s authoritarian leader. However, there are still sincere hopes across both countries for
reunification, many having had their families split apart by the war and still feeling a kindred
nationhood.

North Korean Dictatorship: How it works

Not much needs to be said about North Korea’s brand of dictatorship. It is one based on
crippling fear and poverty, based on public displays of power and idolatry around the
country’s hereditary line of leaders. North Korea maintains its control by lying to its citizens
about its ceaseless war with the imperialist West who want to topple the God-like father
figure Kim Jong Un. It justifies the poverty and famine not by pointing to its third world
infrastructure or isolation but by blaming South Korean bombers destroying shipments of
food. By insulating the state, controlling all media, speech and literature, North Korea’s
dictatorship is able to paint Kim Jong Un into an omniscient and omnipotent deity who is able
to protect them from worse evils outside their borders. Any critic of the regime is imprisoned
in labour camps along with three generations of their family.

Despite harsh sanctions that cap North Korea’s coal exports, freeze their assets and ban
travel, its economy is still growing. China, the buyer of 99% of North Korea’s coal, even went
further by saying it would suspend all imports yet North Korean vessels still dock at Chinese
coal ports. The problem lies in the weak enforcement framework meant to crackdown on
illegal trade, and the lack of secondary sanctions that punish actors complicit in propping up
Mr Kim’s government. The North can earn foreign currency in many ways: using foreign
agents as a front, the regime sells drugs, weapons and counterfeit goods. Mr Kim’s
government also earns more than $1bn a year by forcibly sending labourers abroad. North
Korean entities continue to enjoy access to the international banking system through the
help of Chinese networks and front companies.

China is North Korea’s most important ally and an integral part of maintaining the regime. It
is its biggest trading partner, and main source of food, aid and energy. It has helped
sustained Kim Jong Un’s regime and historically opposed harsh sanctions against it in the
hope of avoiding a regime collapse and a refugee influx across the border. Though China
has recently toughened its stance against North Korea (temporarily banning coal imports
and oil exports), some say that these shifts are merely tactical in light of an unpredictable US
administration. This interpretation is supported by recent high speed rail routes established
in Dandong and Shenyang, cities that border North Korea and rely heavily on trade with it.

South Korean Political Turmoil

In 2017, Park Geun-hye, South Korea’s then-president was removed from office by the
court, which upheld the assembly’s impeachment motion. She was found to be guilty of
collusion with Choi Soon-sil, a longtime friend. Ms Park was accused of pressuring some of
South Korea’s biggest companies like Samsung into paying money into charitable
foundations that Ms Choi ran, in exchange for securing favourable treatment from the
government. She was also found guilty of giving Ms Choi access to confidential state
information, such as allowing her to edit some of her speeches.

Park Geun-hye gained most of a previous popularity from older generations who were
reminiscent of her father, the leader of South Korea during 1961. Park Chung-hee staged a
military coup and seized power, temporarily ending South Korea’s brief period of democracy.
His strongman presidency ushered in a period of breakneck growth and development, but
also harsh working conditions in South Korean sweatshops and increasing repression by the
state. Older generations felt nostalgic of an older and more certain Korean hierarchy,
emblematic of her father’s rule, in which everyone had their place in an organic whole—a
hierarchy without shame.
After Ms Park was impeached, a snap election was held to decide her successor. As of May
2017, Moon Jae-in has become the first liberal president South Korea has had in over a
decade. He won both the preliminary polls and election by a substantial margin, but he faces
many challenges during his term.
With the escalation of nuclear armament and testing in North Korea, South Korea was
relying on US support on a new missile defense system (Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense THAAD). However, with Trump stating that the US would be pulling back its aid in
installing the system along with vehement objections from China, President Moon has
delayed plans to establish THAAD. China believes that the systems radars, backed by the
US, are able to peer into China’s own armament and target it. So far, China has banned all
Korean imports of goods and culture. President Moon remains hopeful and goes further to
say that he wishes to revive old liberal policies of supplying aid and diplomatic talks with
North Korea in hopes of reunification.
President Moon will also face difficulties with Japan which resents the re-kindling of anti-
Japan protests tied to its conduct during WW2.
*Fun fact: President Moon Jae-in was arrested as a student when he was protesting
the dictatorship of Park Geun-hye’s father back in the 1970s.

Four Asian Tigers

The Four Asian Tigers are the developed economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea,
and Singapore. These regions are known for becoming economic powerhouses with highly
educated and productive workforces within a short period of time, achieving high growth
rates and industrialisation between the 1960s to 1990s. Hong Kong and Singapore are
among the biggest financial centers worldwide, while South Korea and Taiwan are important
hubs of global manufacturing in automobile and electronic components as well as
information technology, respectively.

“National Champions”
Key aspects of the East Asian model of capitalism include state control of finance, direct
support for state-owned enterprises in strategic sectors of the economy or the creation of
privately owned “national champions”. National champions are large organisations which are
expected to not only seek profit like a generic privately-owned corporation, but to also
advance the interests of the nation (e.g investing in promising infant industries, performing
research on new technologies, low prices on energies etc.). Examples include Temasek
Holdings in Singapore and Samsung in South Korea.

Such national champions were key in the growth of the economies of the Four Asian Tigers.
Many of the industries established would have collapsed under international competition if
not for direct government intervention and protectionist measures. In the case of Temasek
Holdings, the profit of the organisation was used to invest in developing properties, major
telecommunication networks, and even Singapore Airlines.

Trade liberalisation and Industrialisation

Another quality the Asian tigers share is their openness to free market trade. This ran
contrary to many other countries within the region such as Indonesia and China that ran
strict interventionist measures to protect domestic firms and industries. In Hong Kong and
Singapore, this was seen as necessary since both countries have tiny internal markets and
rely heavily on exports to survive. However both also enjoy chief geographical locations that
allow them to be natural ports thao serve as a way station for storage and final processing of
goods destined to and originating from the neighbouring countries in South East Asia. The
large volumes of trade in both cities along with their dedication to creating streamline
information and technological infrastructure create ideal environments for strong financial
centers.
In South Korea and Taiwan, the liberalisation of trade followed a period of increased levels
of investment. Investors were taking advantage of the government's’ sustained emphasis on
education, which had resulted in high returns to capital. This enabled both countries to rely
on the export of goods that were high-skilled in production.

China
China is the world's most populous country and one of the biggest economic powerhouses
to emerge in the advent of modern globalisation. The People's Republic of China was
founded in 1949 after the Communist Party defeated the nationalist Kuomintang, who
retreated to Taiwan, creating two rival Chinese states - the People's Republic on the
mainland and the Republic of China based on Taiwan.

After stagnating for decades under the rigid totalitarian socialism of founder Mao Zedong,
China reformed its economy along partly capitalist lines to make it one of the world's fastest-
growing, as well its leading exporter. China is now a major overseas investor, and is
pursuing an increasingly assertive foreign and defence policy. But economic change has not
been matched by political reform, and the Communist Party retains a tight grip on political
life and much of wider society.

China-West relations
It’s difficult to overstate how much the Opium War shaped modern China. It started what
Chinese textbooks refer to as the ‘Century of Humiliation’, which only ended with Mao’s
reunification of China. The Opium War was able to set the historical precedent of foreign
encroachment (especially that from the West) being sinister in nature, intending to poison
the lives of Chinese people for their own selfish economic benefit. This anti-Western
nationalism defined modern Chinese nationhood and was used to bolster populist support
for the CCP. It’s heavily used by the CCP to justify their often heavy handed practices (like
heavily censoring textbooks, monitoring foreign humanitarian organisations etc.)
However it’s important to note that this anti-Western sentiment doesn’t resonate particularly
effectively anymore. Younger generations fight for rights that their parents were denied like
transparent electoral processes and free speech, and life in metropolitan areas like Beijing
isn’t too different from a life in New York.

The Opium War also set the tone of many contemporary political interactions the West has
with China, especially those in the 80s to early 2000s when China was a rising powerhouse.
To the West, China was a country shrouded in antiquity, tradition and oriental mystique. This
casual otherisation prevails today when media outlets, politicians, or economists refer to the
“industrious” nature of the Chinese people (see the Times cover on “Those Asian Whiz
Kids”).

Ethnic minorities
Ethnicity is central to China’s national identity and it is the Han, China’s main ethnic group,
that dominates that identity numbering over 1.2 million people. Under Western imperialism,
race was used to divide people and after the Qing fell in 1911. The new elite sought to
create an overarching rationale for a Chinese state since its subjects spoke mutually
incomprehensible languages and held diverse beliefs and traditions. Patrilineage still ran
strong in many of China’s clans so Chinese nationalists developed the idea that all Han
people descended from a single Huangdi, a Chinese emperor, 5000 years ago. Now, to be
Han is interchangable with having a Chinese nationality; even ethnic Han whose families left
for other countries generations ago are often regarded as part of a coherent national group,
both by China’s government and people.

At best, non-Han minorities are treated as charming and colourful curiosities. Yunan has
built a flourishing domestic tourist industry around its minority cultures. However, China’s
cultural insensitivities often lead to ethnic clashes and ordinary manifestations of local
culture are criminalised. In Xinjiang, Uighur men may not grow long beards and Muslims are
sometimes prevented from fasting during Ramadan. Inner Mongolian and Tibetan nomads
have been forcibly settled. In Tibet and Xinjiang, many schools teach mostly in Mandarin,
even if they lack enough Mandarin-speakers. Unlike many social causes, the call for equality
between ethnicities isn’t one that has been gaining much traction in China. With rising
Islamophobia, the Uighur and other Muslim minorities are further marginalised.

Wealthy Han people slowly move into the home regions of minorities. Through state-
sponsored resettlement the Han population of Xinjiang rose from 4% in 1949 to 42% today;
Mongols now make up only 17% of Inner Mongolia. And though they are promised
representation in China’s ‘autonomous regions’ (which include Xinjiang, Tibet, Ningxia,
Guangxi, and Inner Mongolia), they are denied any real political participation. And minorities
which are visually distinct from Han are blatantly discriminated in the labour market; the best
jobs go to the Han, even if they hold a foreign passport. Even today, China’s population is
becoming increasingly homogenous. It is near impossible to gain citizenship unless
applicants are of Han descent.

This dynamic makes foreign relations particularly unique. The Han diaspora displaced
generations ago are still treated as part of China both socially and politically, even if they
hold a different passport. The Chinese government even risks clashing with foreign
governments by claiming some form of jurisdiction over their ethnic-Han citizens. Last year
the government of Malaysia (where the Han population is 25%) censured the Chinese
ambassador when he declared that China “would not sit idly by” if its “national interests” and
the “interests of Chinese citizens” were violated. And those who are seen as “disloyal” to the
motherland are heavily criticised.

The use of race as a source of national pride sets a breeding ground for racist and
xenophobic sentiments. In 1988, resentment against foreign African scholars exploded with
anti-African riots spreading across major universities in China. Many terrified African
students were forced to seek refuge from violence and intimidation at their respective
embassies. Though things are relatively better as China is exposed to forces of globalism,
reflexive political insensitivity towards race is still depressingly common.

Silk Road & Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

While superpowers like Russia or the US enjoy flexing their political muscle with displays of
military power, China flexes its clout with its economic influence. Two of its largest projects
are China’s ‘belt-and-road’ initiative, an infrastructure project that follows the old Silk Road,
and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

The AIIB is China’s answer to the World Bank (always led by Americans) and the Asian
Development Bank (dominated by Japan). 70% of the institution's $100 billion of capital
comes from its 56 participants, excluding China, and it's also able to generate funds through
selling bonds. Unlike the World Bank which has a broader set of goals such as poverty
reduction and economic growth, the AIIB has a tighter focus on infrastructure; its decision
making process is fast and centralised with no permanent branch offices in borrowing
countries. It has also proven to play well with other financial institutions, cooperating on
initiatives like road-improvement plans in Tajikistan overseen by the European Bank for
Reconstruction.
The main draw of the AIIB is its lending conditions, less stringent that those of the World
Bank’s and the Asian Development Bank’s. However, it is this draw that leads to the
movement of American-led skepticism about China’s intentions. They feared that projects
would be skewed to favour Chinese contractors, or that in the bank’s eagerness to see
results, the AIIB would skimp on social and environmental safeguards. However, so far, the
fears have been unfounded.

The belt and road initiative involves China underwriting billions of dollars of infrastructure
investment along the old Silk Road linking it with Europe. China is spending roughly $150bn
a year in the 68 countries that have signed up to the scheme. The summit meeting (called a
forum) has attracted the largest number of foreign dignitaries to Beijing since the Olympic
Games in 2008. It is an elaborate piece in China’s claim to global leadership and arguably
the most important (and definitely the most ambitious) part of Mr Xi Jinping’s foreign policy. It
aims to create new markets for Chinese firms, such as high-speed rail firms, and to export
some of his country’s vast excess capacity in cement, steel and other metals. Along with
these economic benefits, China will also enjoy new spheres of influence within Asia, possibly
bolstering its territorial claims.

However, the belt and road initiative has seen a lot of resistance. It is not certain, for
example, how successful the London-Yiwu rail line will be, given that (though faster) it is
more than twice as costly as shipping. Belt-and-road projects are also already failing. In
Kyrgyzstan, Zhongda China Petrol built a big oil refinery—then found it could not buy enough
crude oil to run it at more than 6% of capacity. The country’s deputy prime minister called the
plant’s construction “ridiculous”; locals are protesting against its environmental impact.
Many of these projects are also conditional on the hiring of Chinese labour and the
consumption of Chinese steel, which cause many to suspect that China’s mega-project is a
ploy to increase its wealth through artificial demand. Other criticisms also include the risk of
countries piling up dangerous amounts of debt that some fear is designed to give China a
strategic hold over them. Pakistan, one of the most important countries involved, has just
held an election in which candidates vied to take credit for Chinese investment; yet the debts
are so large that, before long, Pakistan is likely to need an IMF bail-out.

Locals in some countries are also angry about what they view as China’s heavy-
handedness. In parts of Asia, democratic politics have been challenging China’s commonly
used approach to deal-making—cosying up to unsavoury regimes and cracking down on
dissenters.
Xi Jinping and the CCP
With more than 85 million members, the CCP is one of the largest political parties in the
world. It is a monolithic, monopolistic party that dominates the political life of China. It is the
major policy-making body in China, and it sees that the central, provincial, and local organs
of government carry out those policies.

The CCP convenes its National Party Congress every five years to set major policies and
choose the Central Committee, which comprises around 370 members including ministers,
senior regulatory officials, provincial leaders, and military officers. The Central Committee
acts as a sort of board of directors for the CCP, and its mandate is to select the Politburo,
which has twenty-five members. In turn, the Politburo elects through backroom negotiations
the seven-person Standing Committee, which functions as the epicenter of the CCP’s power
and leadership. Local elections are held to elect “village committee members” though voters
are only able to choose from a panel of CCP-approved and vetted candidates.
Leadership succession is a fairly concentrated process with decisions decided by a very
small number of top leaders through secretive negotiations. Some experts split the CCP’s
power between two distinct camps: the children of high-level leaders, and those who worked
their way through the ranks through the Communist Youth League. Others see a much more
complex power dynamic built from personal alliances and factional loyalties juggled among
three large groups: retired leaders, incumbents, and incoming class, all of which have
conflicting interests that sometimes overlap. These dynamics make for very fluid negotiation
processes.
Such dynamics can be seen in scandals that have rattled the transition process and Xi’s
anti-corruption campaign. The campaign is unprecedented in scope, targeting high-ranking
officials such as a retired Politburo Standing Committee member, and vice chairman of
China’s top military body. The expulsions have highlighted the party infighting and power
struggles within the CCP with some believing the campaign is simply a means of quashing
some of Xi’s opponents. One particular example is Bo XiLai who was a Mao revivalist and
the governor of Liaoning.

Together, the politicians of the CCP have billions of dollars in overseas assets which they
hold in case of a large scale uprising where their assets are seized, resulting in about 1% of
the nation's GDP being exported overseas. Much of the population is aware of the extent of
corruption in their country, and it shouldn’t be assumed that the Chinese are apathetic to
politics. With the onset of social media and microblogging, netizens often criticise their
leaders using wordplay to avoid being detected by screening algorithms. These have
culminated in impressive shows of popular rebellion. When a high speed train careened off
its rails in 2011, killing and injuring many of its passengers, mainstream media outlets were
requested by politicians to downplay the incident. Though TV outlets obliged, Chinese
bloggers didn’t. They revealed that the derailed carriages were quickly buried onsite instead
of being investigated for clues. This sparked outrage, eventually forcing local officials to
launch a formal investigation into the origins of the accident, which identified multiple
problems with the management of the railway. At that point, even TV outlets did not hold
back in lambasting the government. Not all resistance is online either. Though protests and
uprisings are discreetly swept under the carpet, universities in China estimate that there are
hundreds of demonstrations a day across the country, most of which demand that Beijing
authorities punish corrupt federal strongmen.
The idea that “Western-style democracy” is not cohesive with Asian values and the China
model of success is rhetoric that the CCP uses, exploiting naive external perceptions about
their country. Officials often cite a 5000-year old culture that has resulted in an unshakeable
sense of unity and collectivism amongst the Chinese, culminating in their economic success.
However, all this rhetoric is incredibly new and even hypocritical of the party’s past
ideologies which called for the destruction of antiquity and classism. Mao even promised
self-autonomy to ethnic minorities in China and claimed that democracy would prevent the
CCP from collapsing. However, the evolution of the CCP is democratically regressive. Xi
Jinping was named the ‘core’ of the party, which grants him the legitimacy within his own
party to cut off corruption, strengthen top-down control over officials and extend the reach of
the party.

Chinese currency pegging

A country typically maintains a fixed exchange rate by either buying or selling its own
currency on the open market. This is the reason that many countries of reserves of foreign
currency. If the exchange rate for their currency drifts too low, they can buy more of it using
their foreign reserves, driving up demand and therefore the price. If the exchange rate is too
high, they can simply sell their currency, flooding the market and driving down the price.
China has intentionally pegged the renminbi (RMB) to be lower than most other currencies
on the market, making their exports cheaper and more competitive.

This currency manipulation has helped China thrive as the nation has experienced robust
growth of over 10% in the last decade. Many competitors, such as the US, find its currency
pegging to be unlawful. US lawmakers have called for a revaluing of China’s currency. The
low yuan can also cause problems in China. It has encouraged over-investment in China’s
export manufacturing sector at the expense of the domestic market, and the undervalued
currency makes imports into China more expensive and out of reach for the ordinary citizen.

However, an artificially low yuan is not without its benefits. The currency peg means cheap
Chinese goods for U.S. consumers, a development that can help keep overall inflation at a
modest level. The benefits of these less expensive goods also extend to businesses. US
companies that use less expensive imported items from China to make goods can enjoy
reduced costs of production. By lowering these expenses, such firms can either lower the
prices for consumers or increase their profitabilities, or both.

South China Sea dispute

At its most basic level, the South China Sea dispute is the contest between China and
several South East Asian nations over territorial control in the South China Sea, which
includes some of the most strategically important maritime territory in the world. China’s
claims on faraway waters has been increasing and its naval forces have also grown more
aggressive in patrolling these claims, chasing off non-Chinese ships. The US has gotten
involved, sending its navy to patrol waters it insists are international and backing
international mediation efforts.

The South China Sea is an area of rich mineral resources: 11 billion barrels of oil and 190
trillion cubic feet of natural gas in deposits. It also contains lucrative fisheries that represent
10% of the global total, and is a critical trade route (more than $5.3 trillion worth of goods
moves through the sea every year).
China’s claim on the South China Sea originates from the ‘9-dash line’, a line that was drawn
on many maps from the 1940s that China argue represents long-lost historical claims that it
is only finally strong enough to recover. So in many ways, China’s rise as a political and
economic giant has empowered it to further its security interests in the region as it believes
the US has been doing for decades.

The US has responded to China’s aggressive territorial claims with Obama’s “pivot” to the
East. The Obama administration’s significant achievement in Asia has been to establish an
enduring framework for engagement with South East Asia. Obama not only attended the
East Asia Summit hosted by ASEAN but also established his own US-ASEAN summit.
Obama has also put large efforts to pass the TPP, a revolutionary free trade agreement
between US, many South East Asian states, the EU, Australia etc.

In summary, the South China Sea dispute is a move on China’s part to project its newfound
power on its neighbours: a show of intimidation to encourage smaller states to appease
China rather than take on their military might.

One China Policy (Taiwan and Hong Kong)

The One China policy is the view that is only one state called “China” despite the existence
of two states that claim to be “China”. As a policy, this means that countries seeking
diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (mainland China) must break official
relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Hong Kong.

Historically, the ruling party in China (the Kuomintang) fled the mainland to the island of
Taiwan during the Communist revolution, leaving Mao’s party to fill in the power vacuum left
behind. The Kuomintang then set up the Chinese government in Taiwan and it believed that
it was only legitimate “China”. During Nixon’s administration, the US recognized the new
communist government in order to gain influence over communist China.
Hong Kong on the other hand was formerly a British colony that was only relatively recently
passed onto China during the Thatcher administration. However, the British wanted the right
of free speech and democratic representation to be protected rights in Hong Kong. When
China assumed sovereignty over Hong Kong, it did so under the principle of ‘one country,
two systems’ where Hong Kong is able to enjoy ‘a high degree of autonomy in foreign and
defence affairs’. China’s attempts to make both Taiwan and Hong Kong more pro-Beijing
have been met with vast popular opposition, both territories arguing they have the right to
self-determination due to their distinct national identities.

In 2014, both Hong Kong and Taiwan saw independent calls for a less interventionist China.
The Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong was a civil disobedience protest that occupied
significant business districts for weeks. It protested China’s legislative committee ruling that
voters in HK would be forced to vote between two candidates pre-selected by Beijing,
undermining Hong Kong’s constitutional goal of electing a chief executive through universal
suffrage. The demonstration heralded vast global media coverage, especially with the
heavy-handedness of the police response. Police forces used tear gas and batons to
disperse unarmed (and often underaged) crowds of people, unabashedly pepper spraying
them at close range. In the aftermath, many of the student activists and their families were
subject to intimidation by pro-Chinese authorities and some were even charged with juvenile
delinquency. The response of the Hong Kong government was the impotently claim that their
hands were tied, and activists who tried bringing the matter to Beijing where the real
decision-making power lied were prevented from even boarding planes.
The Sunflower Student Movement in Taiwan on the other hand was protesting the Cross-
Strait Trade Agreement their government had ratified with China, arguing that it made
Taiwan more economically dependent to the mainland. The movement called for a
cancellation of the agreement and increased transparency in their own political system,
which is filled with politicians with political ties to the CCP. It resembled the Umbrella
Movement in many ways: it was student-led and non-violent, and premised in civil
disobedience. However, the Sunflower Movement also represented a problem for Taiwan…It
seemed to create the illusion that Taiwan does not need China in its economic life. The
reality is that Taiwan is too small to be economically independent and too militarily weak to
stave off Chinese advancements, culminating in the failure of the protests.

Most states observe the One China policy. However, the US has had an odd position on this
issue. While it observes the One China policy, it has installed vast military bases in Taiwan
and shares a strong security partnership with it, thus protecting Taiwan from Chinese
invasion. Obama has also given speeches supporting Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement.

India & Pakistan

India and Pakistan have, to some degree, similar cultures as they share a common Indo-
Aryan heritage. This is particularly true for Eastern Pakistan and Northern India. However,
relations between the two have been complex due to the violent partition of British India in
1947, the Kashmir conflict, and numerous border skirmishes fought between the two nations.
These have led to strained religious tensions in both states, and have undermined two of the
most promising economic powerhouses of the 21st century.

India is the world's largest democracy and according to UN estimates, its population is
expected to overtake China's in 2028 to become the world's most populous nation. As a
rising economic powerhouse and nuclear-armed state, India has emerged as an important
regional power despite it still tackling huge social, economic, and environmental issues.
Home to some of the world's most ancient surviving civilizations, the Indian subcontinent -
from the mountainous Afghan frontier to the jungles of Burma - is both vast and diverse in
terms of its people, language and cultural traditions.

The Muslim-majority state of Pakistan was born out of the partition of the Indian sub-
continent in 1947, and has faced both domestic political upheavals and regional
confrontations. Created to meet the demands of Indian Muslims for their own homeland,
Pakistan was originally made up of two parts. The east wing - present-day Bangladesh - is
on the Bay of Bengal bordering India and Burma. The west wing - present-day Pakistan -
stretches from the Himalayas down to the Arabian Sea. The break-up of the two wings came
in 1971 when the Bengali-speaking east wing seceded with help from India.

Independence
After India’s First War of Independence in 1857, the parliament of the UK withdrew the right
of the British India Company to rule India and started ruling India directly through its
representative called the Viceroy of India. They promised "the Princes, Chiefs, and People of
India," equal treatment under the British law and Queen Victoria took the title of Empress of
India. During this period, Britain was careful to employ higher castes of Indians and rulers
into the government in a form of co-option. They also stopped intervening in religious
matters as well as taking the lands of the remaining royalty. The number of British soldiers
stationed in India was increased and only British soldiers were allowed to handle artillery.

The period following India's First War of Independence was an important period in the Indian
independence movement. Many leaders emerged at the national and provincial levels, and
Indians became more aware of their socio-political rights. Social movements also helped in
shaping people's outlook, and helped in tackling things like illiteracy and the caste system.
These leaders were influential in spreading the message of ‘swaraj” (i.e. self-determination),
and making India free from domination of foreign power. These leaders formed the Indian
National Congress which emerged as an all-India organisation, and was able to pass
numerous resolutions on less controversial issues such as civil rights or opportunities in
government (especially in the civil service). These resolutions were submitted to the
Viceroy's government and occasionally to the British Parliament, but the Congress's early
gains were slight.

Its achievements were undermined by its singular failure to attract Muslims who felt their
representation in government service to be inadequate. In 1905, the Viceroy ordered the
partition of the region Bengal, justifying it with administrative efficiency and the growing
conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. However, it was viewed as a thinly veiled attempt to
divide and rule, disrupting the growing nationalist movements in Bengal. A growing
movement emerged, focussing on indigenous Indian industries, finance and education, and
the birth of Indian financial institutions and banks, as well as an interest in Indian culture and
achievements in science and literature. In the aftermath of the Bengal partition, the All-
Muslim League was formed which had a decisive role in the formation of Pakistan.

After the two World Wars, which had led to the unacknowledged deaths of thousands of
Indian-Pakistani soldiers, increased taxes for necessary goods like salt, and the increasingly
heavy-handed rule of the British led to the growing restlessness for independence. Mahatma
Gandhi, a British-trained barrister, became an important leader in the struggle for freedom.
After having learnt a great deal about protest and pacifism from his experiences in South
Africa, Gandhi advocated for a nonviolent approach to resistance (i.e. non-cooperation) like
boycotting British goods and services and marches. At the same time, the All-Muslim
League fought for the autonomy of the Muslim subcontinent that would later become
Pakistan, believing it to have a distinct identity. They came to the conclusion that Muslims
would not be safe in a Hindu-dominated India.

Growing pressure from both domestic and international fronts forces the UK to announce the
partitioning of India and Pakistan as sovereign and democratic nations. Controversy erupted
over the nature of this co-existence. Millions of Muslims migrated from West to East Pakistan
(the latter now known as Bangladesh) and millions of Hindus and Sikhs migrated in the
opposite direction. Across the Indian subcontinent, communities that had coexisted
peacefully for millennia broke out in sectarian violence. In Punjab and Bengal—provinces
abutting India’s borders with West and East Pakistan, respectively—the carnage was
especially intense, with massacres, arson, forced conversions, mass abductions, and
savage sexual violence.
The Legacy of Partition & Independence
By 1948, the great migration drew to a close with more than 15 million uprooted and two
million dead. Partition is central to the identity of the Indian subcontinent, the same way the
Holocaust is to the identity amongst Jews, branded painfully into the regional subconscious
by memories of unimaginable violence. The question of how India’s intermixed and
profoundly synthetic culture could be torn apart within the span of decades has inspired a
vast amount of literature. Some blame the colonialists which had, early on, began to define
communities along religious lines, rupturing community evolution. Some resent the course of
early independence movements such as the Congress Party, All-Muslim League, and
Mahatma Gandhi for introducing spiritual sensibilities into the realm of politics.

Today, both India and Pakistan remain crippled by the narratives built around memories of
the crimes of Partition, as politicians (particularly in India) and the military (particularly in
Pakistan) continue to stoke the hatreds of 1947 for their own ends. The history of the
subcontinent is continuously distorted, recalling traumas of Islam invasion before English
colonialism without remembering the melding of Islamic customs with local Indian ones.
Places of worship have become popular places for political campaigning, and today, little
more than feelings of animosity are held by the two states.

One lasting ideology in India after independence is the idea of swaraj, or self-rule. Its
meaning has changed from Gandhi's initial appropriation meaning freedom from an foreign
ruler, to self-governance through individuals and community building. The focus here is on
political decentralisation, which is the precursor to an unusual amount of power given to
federal authorities. This is one of the reasons why India, as a country, is hard to govern.
India’s cultural norms, economic development and social customs vary wildly with the South
of India being generally more progressive. This makes it difficult for Parliament and
lawmakers to make blanket policies, especially when they are entitled to a large degree of
independent autonomy.

Formation of Bangladesh
What is known as modern Bangladesh and Pakistan were lumped together during the post-
colonial partition of India because both regions were majority Muslim even though they’re
quite culturally distinct. In 1948, the national government which was dominated by the West
Pakistani elites, made Urdu the official language of Pakistan, sparking mass outrage across
East Pakistan. This led to a protracted protest movement and serious civil unrest, shaping
contemporary Bangladeshi civil society. (This period of time is when the Awami League, one
of Bangladesh's two major political parties gained much of its early support.) There was
continuous tension as the central government spent a disproportionately small amount of its
expenditure on East Pakistan.

In 1965, the Indo-Pakistani War ended and the nation began moving towards the more
hardline Islam we associate with it today as East Pakistan began to push for greater
autonomy. Before the war, both Eastern and Western practiced a relatively modern, Sufi-
influenced branch of Islam. However, as West Pakistan became increasingly orthoprax, the
“Hindu-like” nature of East Pakistani Islam became a source of tension between the East
and West. The West Pakistani authorities saw it as their burden to civilise the Bengalis.
Pakistani authorities in the East strong armed local communities, and Bengalis suffered
great economic, social, and political discrimination.
In the early 1970s, a culmination of all of these cultural, economic, and political factors
pushed relations to a breaking point. The Awami League, now a powerful political party, won
a large majority in the parliamentary elections even though the leaders in the West refused
to cede power, suggesting that parts of the nations be ruled by separate bodies. This, along
with the mishandling of a hurricane that struck Bangladesh at the same time, sparked a
popular protest movement. West Pakistan attempted to quash opposition, sending in troops
in 1971, committing large scale atrocities. With this, Bangladesh declared its independence
and with the aid of India, managed to push out the Pakistani army. This only increased
tensions between India and Pakistan, the latter suffering another humiliating defeat within
the span of ten years.

Kashmir Conflict
The Kashmir conflict formally started when the ruler Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir delayed
his decision to accede to Pakistan or India in an effort to remain independent. However, he
was forced to choose when internal revolt in the Poonch region turned into an organised
rebellion of the majority Muslim population. Mass killings of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims
throughout the year led to hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing their homes where
they were in the religious minority. Even when the vast majority of Kashmiris are Muslim,
Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, putting Kashmir under Indian control. This
allowed India to send in military forces to expel Pakistanis residing in Kashmir, resulting in
the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. The war came to a ceasefire after India sought the
involvement of the UN Security Council, which affirmed India’s right to Kashmir and called
for the immediate removal of Pakistani forces.

Kashmir became the battleground of three more wars between China and India in 1962, and
India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971. These territorial disputes resulted in the Line of
Control, giving all three countries different regions in Kashmir to administer.

However, sectarian divisions and political ideology only provides half the answer to the
conflict in Kashmir. The other half has to do with the glaciers and freshwater that Kashmir
provides to the region and to India. The glacial waters that flow through Kashmir provide
water and electricity to a billion people in India. Pakistan also relies heavily on glacial waters
flowing from the region to prop up its agricultural sector. With a growing population and
increased need for electricity, India has looked to the region to develop more hydro facilities.
Pakistan fears that India may divert water necessary for irrigation, and use water as a
weapon against Pakistan. Kashmir is thus a major national security issue for both nations,
the control of which could pose an existential threat to the other.

India’s economic performance

In the 2000s, India was projected to be one of the world’s leading economies. However, its
initially strong economic growth stumbled within a decade. India suffered from rapid inflation
and crippling budget deficits. To some extent, India was a victim to the ebb and flow of
global finance which it relied too heavily upon. With stricter monetary policy at the Federal
Reserve and a resurgent American economy, capital was sucked out of many emerging
markets.
Structural problems in India’s unusual model of development meant that India relied heavily
on a small pool of skilled labour rather than a large pool of cheap, unskilled labour. This can
be seen in its specialisation in call centers, writing software for European companies and
providing back-office services for American health insurers and law firms and the like, rather
than in the manufacturing model seen in Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. India’s
education system is not generating enough talent to meet higher demands for skilled labour
and wage increases meant a loss of India’s competitive advantage.
Manufacturing also calls for transparent regulation and reliable infrastructure, both of which
India lacks. High-profile scandals over the allocation of mobile broadband spectrum, coal
and land have undermined confidence in the government and have caused the private
sector will shy away from investing in the power grid. Irregular electricity holds back
investments in factories.
India also suffers from inflexible labour laws that discourage companies from expanding. As
they grow, corporations in India tend to substitute labour with machinery instead.

India provided guarantees of rural employment and kept up subsidies to the poor for food,
power, fuel and fertilizer. The subsidies consume as much as 2.7 percent of gross domestic
product, but corruption and inefficient administration have meant that the most needy often
don’t reap the benefits. Meanwhile, rural subsidies have pushed up wages, contributing to
double-digit inflation.

India’s crippling political inefficiency has also meant that it has taken 70 years for India to
establish a single market for goods and services. Before, the country was divided into over-
complicated systems of pricing and taxes which restricted the free movement of goods.
Regions located near the origins of a valuable mineral were forced to price up their natural
deposits, to give an example of the sometimes antithetical policies adopted by the
government. Political infighting and power struggles over which party reaps the credit of a
successful bill cause delays that cost the country years of growth.

Many of the reforms introduced by India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, have been
welcome but have proved to be insufficient to deal with the threat of recession. He pushed
through policies that had stalled for years such as a standard GST tax to replace a confusing
array of local and state levies, and a bankruptcy law. The GST is, however, unnecessarily
complex and bureaucratic, reducing its efficiency, and the bankruptcy law is not enough to
deal with a financial system weighed down by state-owned banks burdened with dud loans.
The central government’s response to some of the country’s most pressing problems, such
as restrictive labour laws and the difficulty in purchasing land, was to pass them down to
states to solve.
Perhaps Modi’s most radical reform was the overnight cancellation of the most used
banknotes in the country in an attempt to curb the black economy and eradicate tax evasion.
However, the policy only saw honest people suddenly have their assets disappear and
legitimate businesses hurt.

Despite his economic performance, Modi is the center of a personality cult. He has been
careful to court militant Hindus and has been responsible for exploiting communal tensions
to gain power. Mr Modi himself was chief minister of Gujarat in 2002 when rioting there killed
at least 1,000 people, most of them Muslims. To this day, he has never categorically
condemned the massacre or apologised for failing to prevent it.
Thailand
Thailand is the only country in south-east Asia to have escaped colonial rule. Buddhist
religion, the monarchy and the military have helped to shape its society and politics.

Thailand had a beloved king and one of the more prosperous economies in Asia. It's a
magnet for Western tourists and its history is largely peaceful. By most measures, Thailand
has been very successful. However, it is also characterised by political turmoil and economic
stagnation. The military has ruled for most of the period since 1947, with a few interludes in
which the country had a democratically elected government.

After the passing of King Bhumibol and the 2014 military coup, the country has had a
dramatic shift in its political climate with very little hope of democratic reform and economic
rejuvenation.

Monarchy
The royalty in Thailand hold a more exalted status than in most of the world’s constitutional
monarchies. Visitors to Thailand will notice the king’s pictures everywhere, and the royal
anthem (not the national anthem) is played before a movie and all moviegoers are expected
to observe it. Those who have disrespected Thailand’s monarchs are in danger of being
trialed for lese-majeste and imprisoned for up to 15 years.

Many Thais see the late King Bhumibol as a latter-day Buddha who postponed his own
enlightenment to guide his subjects through their everyday lives; it’s not infrequent to see
shrines built in the king’s honour erected in people’s homes. People see their king as a
stabilising force, a universal constant that has seen them through decades of political
turmoil. However, before King Bhumibol took the throne at the age of 18 in 1946, royal
ceremonies had fallen into abeyance and the thrones political influence had atrophied.
Bhumibol and his royalist allies battled never-ending streams of strongmen that took power
through military coups, and levelled with democrats for influence and prestige. Now, the
monarchy has elevated itself to a nationwide cult status; King Bhumibol needed only to
ponder out loud the need for a new overpass in Bangkok to ease traffic congestion or a new
system for tagging stray dogs to set off a race between politicians and bureaucrats to
implement his ideas.

King Bhumibol was also credited with great moral authority, promoting democracy and
chastising Thailand’s more violent and venal leaders. However, he had done so with
surprisingly occasionally, opting instead to give a wide berth to activists and politicians.
Some argue that it is precisely because his interventions are used sparingly that they held so
much power, but some believe that the king himself did not hold much faith for democracy
and saw the monarchy, abetted by authoritarian rulers, as better guardians for the people’s
welfare. The latter argument is rather persuasive, the monarchy does surround itself with
soldiers and bureaucrats.

After King Bhumibol’s passing, the entire nation went into mourning– businesses that served
as entertainment centers closed for business, and personnel working in public services wore
somber clothing. Succeeding him is Bhumibol’s unpopular, womanising son who has been
accused of abusing his sovereign powers to target his ex-wife, her family, and even his own
children. He is unlikely to be as selfless as Bhumibol– he has engaged in a power struggle
with the military in the aftermath of the 2014 coup for all the wrong reasons. The heavy-
handed ruling junta attempted to pass a new constitution that limited sovereign power, and
the new king intervened despite filling his privy council with officials straight out of the
military’s ranks.

Military coup
Since the accession of King Bhumibol, Thailand has seen twelve military coups. The country
is so coup-prone that the most recent coup in 2014, which ousted Prime Minister Yingluck
Shinawatra, was the second coup to have overthrown a Prime Minister from the same family
(the first being Yingluck’s brother who was ousted in 2006). One of the reasons for
Thailand’s propensity for coups is the military’s strong presence in politics. Democracy was
never truly allowed to take root. The military argues that, as in the past when it has led the
country from 1947 to 1973, it is acting within Thai law and tradition. The military claims the
goal is to restore stability and not to take the country in a radically different direction.

The notion of a coup typically brings to mind the image of a weak, dysfunctional state
involving deep ideological struggles. However, these general features do not tend to hold in
Thailand. Coups are relatively bloodless with the military being by far the most powerful
force in the country and able to seize power without any serious challenge. With King
Bhumibol in power, encouraging rival factions to work out their differences, the military also
often handed back the power when they deemed the country ready for civilian politicians
again. In the meantime, it bans public gatherings, censors media outlets, and restricts
access to foreign journalists to Thailand. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case in the
most recent coup attempt with a different king on the throne. In this case, the military and the
monarchy seem to be almost contradictingly in collusion with one another and also at odds.
The military junta has cracked down on those violating the rule of King Vajiralongkorn and
the king has filled his private council with junta officials. However, the two factions also
struggled over new limitations on sovereign power.

The 2014 coup was aimed at ousting Ms Yingluck, and was part of a bold bid to expunge the
Shinawatras from politics once and for all. Yingluck and her brother, Thaksin, were the
leaders of a large rural political awakening that pushed for populist policies. Thaksin’s party
won three consecutive elections despite the attempts by the military to ban it; the party
would only go to the polls under a different name. The military junta ordered raids on the
siblings homes and formed a special unit to monitor social media. The new constitution they
attempted to pass allowed for elections but vastly limited the powers of the victors; the draft
seemed designed to create a weak coalition government able to be bossed around by larger
powers, also removing the requirement that the prime minister be elected. However, the
junta were defeated in a public referendum to pass the draft constitution.

Though it is unlikely that the democratic majority of Thailand will have their votes mean
something anytime soon, the ruling junta are equally unlikely to be able to successfully deal
with the forces that brought Mr Thaksin and his family into power. Thais are fed up with
useless politicians pushed around by their arch-royalist superiors, by the economic malaise
that has plagued their country since the Asian financial crisis, corruption, and abuse of
power.
Myanmar
Myanmar, also known as Burma, was long considered a pariah state while under the rule of
an oppressive military junta from 1962 to 2011. The generals who ran the country
suppressed almost all dissent and stood accused of gross human rights abuses, prompting
international condemnation and sanctions.

A gradual liberalisation began in 2010, leading to free elections in 2015 and the installation
of a government led by veteran opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi the following year.
However, an army operation against alleged terrorists in Rakhine State since August 2017
has driven more than half a million Muslim Rohingyas to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh, in
what the United Nations called a "textbook example of ethnic cleansing".

This has damaged the new government's international reputation, and highlighted the
continuing grip of the military in Myanmar. After years of economic and military turmoil and
British colonialism, the accession of Aung San Suu Kyi was meant to be a new beacon of
democracy and development within the region. However, continued armed conflicts and
ethnic cleansing cast a dark shadow over a country that was projected to be one of South
East Asia’s most powerful leaders.

Political history (Aung San Suu Kyi)

In 1947 General Aung San, the father of independent Burma, signed the Pangolong
agreement which promised full autonomy in internal administration to the Shan, Chin, and
Kachin people (the three largest non-Burman ethnic groups that make up two fifths of
Myanmar’s population). Aung San is assassinated five months after the agreement and 60
years of military rule follows. In 1989, a year after thousands are killed in order to suppress a
popular uprising, the newly independent colony renames itself to Myanmar for largely
nationalistic reasons.

In 2010, Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the murdered General is released from years of
house arrest. She leads her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), to a
resounding victory and optimism flourishes in the nation’s commercialised capital Yangon.
The US lifts its crippling sanctions and Myanmar’s foreign direct investment outclassed many
other countries in the region, partially due to its strategic position between two economic
powerhouses: India and China. However, growth and investment has been slowing due to
the deep skepticism of foreign business that remains in politics. Businessmen complain of
the atrocious communication, needless restrictions and the penchant for centralisation that
slow down commerce.

To many Aung San Suu Kyi’s main draw was the promise of stability after some of the
longest civil wars in history. However, the party has lost some of its previous momentum in
establishing ceasefires with the many ethnic rebel groups, many of which have broken down.
The army has incentives to let the fighting continue, raking in millions from jade and timber in
border regions. Suu Kyi is in a difficult position: the army fears that she will concede to much
to the rebels (which might lead to a coup attempt), and ethnic minorities fear that she is yet
another condescending leader from the Burmese majority. Shockingly, she has also failed to
condemn the army as it has rampaged through Rohingya villages and killed on terrifying
scale. Ms Suu Kyi has been increasingly resistant to international oversight by NGOs or the
UN, rejecting inquiries into the Rohingya crisis as it unfolds.
Rohingya Migrant Crisis
The Rohingya are a Sunni Muslim minority in the Rakhine state of Myanmar They differ from
Myanmar’s dominant Buddhist groups ethnically, linguistically and religiously but many
Rohingya have resided in Myanmar for centuries. The government of Myanmar refute the
group’s historical claims and largely identify the Rohingya as illegal Bengali immigrants,
vastly limiting their civil and political liberties (e.g. voting rights, marriage, family planning,
employment, education, freedom of movement). Rakhine is also Myanmar’s least developed
state, with more than 78% of households living below the poverty threshold– widespread
poverty, weak infrastructure and a lack of employment opportunities exacerbate the disparity
between Buddhists and the Rohingya.

Violence broke out in 2012 when a group of Rohingya men were accused of raping a
Buddhist women. Buddhist nationalists burned Rohingya homes, killed more than 280
people and displaced thousands. Since then, attacks on security posts along the Myanmar-
Bangladesh border revived ethnic violence in the Rakhine state when local authorities
blamed Rohingya militants for the attacks. The government has carried out pogroms of
ethnic cleansing by sending military and police forces to crackdown on those suspected of
attacks.

The discriminatory and violent policies of the Myanmar government have caused hundreds
of thousands of Rohingya to flee to neighbouring Southeast Asian countries (Malaysia,
Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand) in an unprecedented exodus.

Malaysia
Malaysia boasts one of south-east Asia's most vibrant economies, the fruit of decades of
industrial growth and political stability. Consisting of two regions separated by some 640
miles of the South China Sea, Malaysia is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious federation of 13
states and three federal territories.

Malaysia is a country where race and identity politics are unusually prominent. The majority
Muslim ethnic Malay are dominant politically, and benefit from positive discrimination in
business, education and the civil service, but a large ethnic Chinese minority holds economic
power. The communities coexist in relative harmony, although racial and religious divides
persist.

The country is benefiting from a growth in manufacturing, and is a major tourist destination,
but there are fears that development could harm the environment, particularly the rainforests
of northern Borneo, which are under pressure from palm oil plantations and illegal logging.

Bumiputra Policy
The bumiputra policy is a set of race-based discriminatory policies that has shaped
Malaysian society for over 50 years. Schemes that favoured Malays were deemed essential
to improve the lot of Malaysia’s least wealthy ethnic group. These days, they are widely
thought to help the mostly well-off within that group while failing the poor and exacerbating
racial tensions.

Affirmative action in Malaysia began shortly after the departure in the 1950s of British
colonial administrators, who had opened the cities to immigrant merchants and labourers
from India and China but largely preferred to keep Malays toiling in the fields. The practice
accelerated after 1969, when a race riot in the capital killed scores. (Most of the victims were
Chinese.) The New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1971 had two goals: to reduce absolute
poverty across all races, and to boost in particular the prospects of Malays, whose average
income at the time was roughly half that of their Chinese compatriots. The NEP’s authors
believed the solution to be temporary, offering privileges to the countries bumiputeras (“sons
of the soil”). Some privileges are enshrined in legislation while others are unwritten including
quotas for places at public universities; preferment for government jobs; discounts on
property purchases and access to a reserved slice of public share offerings.

The lure of the public sector, which was expanded to create more posts for Malays, has
sapped the entrepreneurial vigour out of the country as has the wealth of preferential loans
and grants given to bumiputera firms. The discriminatory quotas in universities and
workplaces have caused talented Chinese and Indian Malaysians to seek private education
elsewhere. Some do not return. The failures are not lost on Malaysia’s ruling party, the
United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). However, too many Malays fear losing their
privileges to vote out the party that has dominated politics since Malaysian independence.

Philippines
More than 7,000 islands make up the Philippines, but the bulk of its fast-growing population
lives on just 11 of them.

The Philippines is one of the most westernized nations in Southeast Asia, a unique blend of
eastern and western culture. It was Spanish colony for more than three centuries (1565-
1898), then was taken over by the US in the early 20th century (1898-1946) after a
protracted rebellion against rule from Madrid.
Spanish and US influences remain strong, especially in terms of language, religion and
government. Self-rule in 1935 was followed by full independence in 1946 under a US-style
constitution. The US is a close ally and has provided military aid to help combat Muslim and
communist insurgencies.

However, the current government in Philippines has introduced drastic changes. Philippine
President Duterte announced a 'separation' from the US, he declared he has realigned with
China as the two countries agreed to resolve their South China Sea dispute through talks.
His term has also been characterised by a harsh crackdown on crime and drug trafficking
through a campaign of extra-judicial killings and capital punishment.

Duterte & the War on Drugs

Rodrigo Duterte won a landslide victory to become president of the Philippines in May 2016.
During his election campaign Mr Duterte vowed to stamp out crime within six months.
Extrajudicial killings—of environmental activists, journalists, labour leaders and others who
confront the country's vested interests—have long been a fact of life in the Philippines.

Under Mr Duterte, people suspected of involvement in the drug trade have now come under
fire. In less than three months some 3,000 people were killed by police and unknown
assailants, without any semblance of due process. His chief of police claimed the supply of
drugs on the streets has fallen by 90% thanks to the crackdown. The campaign, and Mr
Duterte, were popular despite his abrasive comments.

Many people saw Duterte’s brand of populism as an antidote to endemic corruption in

Manila. His offensive and brash style won him popularity amidst the rural poor and the urban
middle-class. However, his ratings have recently fell in 2018 due to sky-rocketing inflation
and regressive tax policies that have drastically increased the cost of living.

Christianity in Philippines
Catholicism in the Philippines can be used as a case study as to how many European
religions were spread in tandem with colonial missions. In the 1500s, many Filipino regions
acted as small, politically autonomous communities. With the exception of Muslim
sultanates, power was mainly given to village headmen, local warriors, and shamans. This
meant a small number of Portuguese and Spanish missionaries were able to convert a large
number of Filipinos to Roman Catholicism.

Many successful strategies of conversion were employed. The reduccion policies were not
only implemented in the Philippines, but also much of Latin America. Small, scattered
populations were forced to relocate into one larger town. The policy was designed for the
convenience of administration; a way for a small number of armed Spanish constabulary to
more easily control the movements and actions of a large number of Filipinos. It was also
designed to enable Spain to collect taxes from their Christianized converts. Throughout
Spanish rule, Christianized Filipinos were forced to pay larger taxes than indios, or native,
unChristianized peoples. The reduccion policy also made it easier for a single Spanish
Catholic friar to 'train' Filipinos in the basic principles of Christianity.

Hispanic rule also had a dual nature. Many European elements of Christianity synchronised
with local animistic beliefs. For example, many Filipinos associated baptism with pre-existing
healing rituals. However, the legacy was also destructive. Local holy places, scripts, and
icons of indigenous spirits were systematically destroyed.

Today, Catholicism is still by far the most dominant religion in the country. This has
numerous implications for the political and social climate of the Philippines. The Pope
remains an influential figure, and the religion entrenches conservative values around issues
such as LGBT rights and premarital sex.

Cambodia
Modern-day Cambodia remains one of the world’s poorest countries, but has recently seen
promising economic growth driven by garment exports and tourism. Despite its
achievements in alleviating poverty and improving health outcomes, Cambodia still faces
many developmental challenges. About 25% of the country’s population live in near-poverty,
vulnerable to economic shocks. 90% of the country’s poorest live in rural areas, still relying
on subsistence farming. Access to key public services, sanitation, and secondary education
still fall below average relative to other lower-middle income countries.

Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge

The Khmer Rouge was the name popularly given to the followers of the Communist Party of
Kampuchea (CPK), which imposed a violent totalitarian rule on Cambodia between 1975 to
1979. The Khmer Rouge army was slowly built up in the jungles of Eastern Cambodia during
the late 1960s, supported by the North Vietnamese army, the Viet Cong and the Pathet Lao.

The Khmer Rouge won the Cambodian Civil War when in 1975 they captured the
Cambodian capital and overthrew the preceding administration. Following their victory, the
Khmer Rouge renamed the country as Democratic Kampuchea and implemented a regime
that would be responsible for some of history’s most devastating atrocities.

Led by Pol Pot, people were forcibly evacuated from all urban areas out into the countryside
under the pretence of American bombings. People who refused were executed immediately,
and many died during the long marches to rural areas. Civilians were then grouped into
agricultural communes, forced to rely on subsistence farming and grueling labour. Acts such
as picking wild berries were seen as attempts at “private enterprise” and punishable by
death. This resulted is mass famine and hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by
starvation.

The Khmer Rouge were violent and paranoid. The smallest breaches against autocratic
rules were met with execution. Perceived enemies of the state, such as ethnic Vietnamese
and Chinese, people with connections to the former government, academics and
intellectuals, and even party members who were suspected of disloyalty, were also killed.
Education was limited to a basic primary level.

These mass atrocities led to the death of 3 million people, about 25% of Cambodia’s
population. Over 20,000 mass graves have been discovered, making the Khmer Rouge’s
regime one of the largest and most widespread attacks on a civilian population.

The Khmer Rouge was overthrown when Vietnamese armed forces invaded in 1978, the
start of a 10-year Vietnamese occupation. Vietnam’s victory was strongly backed by the
Soviet Union, and it had significant ramifications for the region. China, the US, and ASEAN
countries sponsored the creation and the military operations of Cambodian rebel groups
composed of republicans, royalists, but predominantly the Khmer Rouge. The struggle for
power continued until 1989 when Vietnam withdrew.

Cambodian-Vietnamese relations
Anti-Vietnamese sentiments have deep roots in Cambodia. Dating back to the Khmer
Empire (11th-13th century), Cambodia faced constant invasions by Vietnamese Nguyen
lords. Khmer-Vietnamese relations have consistently been underpinned by border disputes,
and questions of territorial integrity.
The communist movement in Cambodia and Vietnam began before WW2 with the founding
of the Indochinese Communist Party (ICP), almost exclusively dominated by the
Vietnamese, originally meant to fight French colonial rule in Indochina. During the 1940s,
Vietnamese forces made extensive use of Cambodian territory to transport weapons,
supplies, and troops. This relationship lasted throughout the Vietnam War, when Vietnamese
communists used Cambodia as a transport route and staging area for attacks on South
Vietnam.

In 1951, Vietnam guided the establishment of a separate Cambodian communist party, that
pursued Cambodian independence. In 1954, the Geneva Accords announced the end of
French domination in the region, and Vietnam withdrew many of its forces from
Cambodia.The power vacuum the Vietnamese communists left in its wake in Cambodia was
soon filled by the return of a young group of Cambodian communist revolutionaries, the
Khmer Rouge.
Despite their close relations and cooperation during the 1940s, ethnic strife and historical
tensions have always been prevalent. Many Cambodian politicians still weaponise hostility
towards the Vietnamese, accusing Vietnamese nationals of election fraud and neo-
colonialism in the South China Sea. Many still oppose Vietnamese immigration and
economic cooperation.
Tibet
Tibet is a mainly-Buddhist country that is governed as an autonomous region of China.
Beijing claims a centuries-old sovereignty over the Himalayan region. But the allegiances of
many Tibetans lie with the exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, seen by his followers as a
living god, but by China as a separatist threat.

Today, China governs western and central Tibet as the Tibet Autonomous Region while the
eastern areas are now mostly ethnic autonomous prefectures within Sichuan, Qinghai, and
other neighbouring provinces. There are tensions regarding Tibet's political status and
dissident groups that are active in exile.Tibetan activists in Tibet have reportedly been
arrested or tortured.
Dalai Lama
The Dalai Lama is the title given to the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. Though his
influence is mainly ecumenical, uniting different schools of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s
religious authority also has numerous political implications. He represents a unifying symbol
in Tibet, crossing sectarian and secular lines.

The 14th and current Dalai Lama is Tenzin Gyatso. He was not formally enthroned until
1950 during an armed conflict with China. In 1951, after the defeat of the Tibetan army by
invading Chinese forces, Tibet signed the Seventeen Point Agreement, which affirmed
China’s sovereignty over the region. Fearing for his life during a civil revolt in 1959, the 14th
Dalai Lama fled to India where he led a government-in-exile.
From abroad, the Dalai Lama advocates for greater autonomy and self-rule in Tibet. He has
established the Parliament of Central Tibetan Administration, a democratically elected
parliament of exiled political figures. It was established and is based in Dharamshala, India.
The 46 members are chosen from different schools of Buddhism in Tibet as well as different
regions. It has the power of passing legislation, enacting a constitution, as well as an acting
supreme court judiciary.
Recent disputes between China and the Dalai Lama concern his successor. It is believed
that both the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama (the second most important spiritual figure)
are reincarnated. Beijing and the Dalai Lama disagree over the 11th reincarnation of the
Panchen Lama. Beijing has elected Gyaincain Norbu has the new Panchen Lama. Norbu
has made several statements denouncing pro-independence activism in Tibet. Previously,
he was the vice-president of the Buddhist Association of China, and the youngest member of
the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).
The Dalai Lama's choice, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, has not been seen since his detention by
the Chinese authorities in 1995.

Free Tibet
The Tibetan independence movement is a movement for the independence of Tibet and the
political separation of Tibet from China. It is principally led by the Tibetan diaspora in
countries like India and the US. The movement is not supported by the 14th Dalai Lama,
who although having advocated it from 1961 to the late 1970s, proposed a sort of high-level
autonomy in a speech in Strasbourg in 1988,and has since then restricted his position to
either autonomy for the Tibetan people in the Tibet Autonomous Region within China,or
extending the area of the autonomy to include parts of neighboring Chinese provinces
inhabited by Tibetans.
Pro-independence activists assert that Tibet has had historical sovereignty. This is, to some
extent, true as the historical borders of China have fluctuated to encompass and exclude
Tibet during different dynasties.
Activists also claim that Chinese authorities have oppressed and persecuted local Tibetans.
Allegations include the imprisonment and torture of political dissidents, the denial of religious
freedom, the forced adoption of sterilisation and abortion etc. Beijing has refuted many of
these allegations.
During the early 1990s, Tibet was under spotlight as numerous Hollywood actors and
actresses rallied behind the ‘Free Tibet’ movement. The Free Tibet movement is a non-profit
organisation that advocates Tibetan independence, and aims to raise awareness. However,
it quickly died away as media coverage shifted to other world conflicts occuring at the same
time.

This doesn’t mean that defiance against Chinese authority has petered within Tibet.
Throughout the years, several Buddhist monks have gone through self-immolation as a sign
of protest.

Indonesia
Indonesia is a diverse archipelago with over 300 ethnic groups. Since overcoming the Asian
financial crisis in the late 1990s, Indonesia has charted impressive economic growth.
Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous nation, the world’s 10th largest economy in
terms of purchasing power parity, and a member of the G20. An emerging middle-income
country, Indonesia has made enormous gains in poverty reduction, cutting the poverty rate
to more than half since 1999, to 9.8% in 2018.

However, challenges still remain. Corruption and effective governance obstructs access to
basic goods and services. A lack of economic vision and legislation prevents a full realisation
of Indonesia’s developmental potential. Religious zealotry poses internal security threats,
seeding terrorism, and persecution of vulnerable minorities.
Corruption and political climate
Corruption is rife at all levels of Indonesian administration– from lower-level civil servants, to
high ranking lawmakers and politicians. Firms often have to bribe local officials to cut
through the country’s highly restrictive and confusing red-tape, when attempting to obtain
licenses and permits. Corruption poses many economic and social costs, including the
weakening of government institutions and the rule of law. Increases in crime due to
smuggling and extortion involve the ineffective policing. The urban and rural poor are forced
to finance payments through their already tight budgets.
Government administrations in Indonesia also prove to be highly unproductive. Laws are
incredibly vague and imprecise, open to misinterpretation and exploitation by local
politicians. Though many countries leave drafting legislature to legal professionals,
Indonesia leaves this job to elected officials who have little experience. In 2014 election, well
over half of the members of parliament were new to the job. Parliament itself is highly
divided between many different political parties that have very little internal discipline.
Debates surrounding bills are often counterproductive and time-consuming. The problem is
compounded with the issue of regional legislation, which often contradicts national laws.
The country’s diverse religious make-up also complicates matters. Indonesia is a Muslim-
majority country, but the religious fervour varies highly across different regions. For example,
West Java, the country’s most populous province, has more conservative Islamic groups and
parties. Many local politicians stir up tensions by accusing different candidates of plotting
“Christian domination”.
Islamic courts also have varying power in different parts of the country. Aceh applies Sharia
courts in full, while other regions have Islamic courts having jurisdiction over specific issues
concerning marriage, divorce, reconciliation etc. Jakarta (the nation’s capital) is mostly
secular. More recently, the country saw a drastic uptick in LGBT persecution. Many gay
spaces were raided and the people inside were arrested.
The current president of Indonesia is Jokowi. Running as an outsider to the political
establishment, many voters saw him as a reformist. His administration has managed to slash
obstacles to business, as well as overhaul the country’s leaky tax system. One of Jokowi’s
main aims is to increase infrastructure spending with investment from China and India. His
government has plans for over 200 “national strategic projects” including roads, railways,
airports, and power plants.

Despite this, Jokowi still faces difficulty with growing religiosity. In 2016, Islamacists
demonstrated in huge numbers against his former deputy in Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja
Purnama, a Christian ethnic-Chinese known as Ahok, who was unfairly accused and later
convicted of blasphemy. Since that crisis, he has attempted to assuage the devout by
turning a blind eye to the persecution of sexual and religious minorities, which has left some
of his secular fans unhappy.

Konfrontasi
Konfrontasi (or Confrontation, 1963–1966) was Indonesia’s response to the formation of the
Federation of Malaysia, arising from the British decolonisation process in Southeast Asia.
Konfrontasi involved armed incursions, bomb attacks, and other subversive acts aimed at
destabilising the states that were to be included in the Federation (i.e. Singapore, Malaya,
Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo).
Indonesia under President Sukarno was vehemently against the formation of Malaysia,
which Sukarno saw as a British strategy to contain Indonesia’s geopolitical ambitions in the
region. Supported by the Soviet Union, Indonesian military forces conducted terrorist attacks
and cross-border raids into Malaysia. The Federation were largely effective at countering
these attacks with the aid of Commonwealth forces from Australia, the UK, and New
Zealand. There was a large amount of international attention to the skirmishes as Western
powers and Southeast Asian countries feared falling to internal and external Communist
threats.
The Konfrontasi lasted until 1966, when Indonesia under its new leader Suharto (who had
replaced Sukarno at the end of 1965), suffered serious military setbacks and decided to
explore diplomatic options in ending the conflict. Both Indonesia and Malaysia held peace
talks leading to the final conclusion of the undeclared war with the signing of a peace treaty.
The conflict was one of the main driving forces behind the formation of ASEAN in 1967. It
was initially formed as a regional organization to reconcile relations among three of its five
pioneer members namely Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, and serve as an
important confidence-building measure. ASEAN has since expanded and included all of the
Southeast Asian states. It now attempts to quell regional competition and suspicions among
its members, even though most of its members are still entangled in border and territorial
disputes with each other. It also aims to integrate its regional economy and cooperate in
natural disaster response and management. Contemporary security risks from Chinese
assertive actions in the South China Sea and overlapping claims among some of the ASEAN
members, however, will continue to test ASEAN’s strategic coherence and response in the
future.