US Provocations Over Taiwan and Beijing’s Steady Remedy

September 3, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - The early August visit by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took place amid heavy protests from Beijing. The visit was a blatant violation of Washington’s bilateral agreement with Beijing regarding the “One China” policy as well as a violation of international law regarding political independence and territorial integrity.

As was pointed out by many analysts, US provocations over Taiwan mirror a similar pattern by Washington used to cross Moscow’s “red lines” regarding Ukraine, done deliberately to threaten Moscow’s national security concerns. These provocations eventually resulted in now ongoing Russian military operations in neighboring Ukraine. A similar conflict could potentially stem from ongoing US provocations over Taiwan.

China’s Other Military Means

In addition to very public protests by Beijing, Chinese military forces followed Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan with large-scale exercises, crossing the Taiwan Strait median line and into Taiwan’s self-declared “air defense identification zone” (ADIZ). Initially the US and its allies along with the Western media dismissed these exercises as a “tantrum” thrown by a highly displeased Beijing. However, shortly after, US representatives and the Western media began discussing a “new normal” being incrementally established by Beijing.

Articles like CNN’s, “’New normal’ across the Taiwan Strait as China threat looms ever closer,” would note:

China is attempting to establish a “new normal” across the Taiwan Strait, eroding self-ruled Taiwan’s territorial control and increasing the threat of a strike with each military sortie, officials and analysts say.

Chinese military exercises also included firing missiles over Taiwan. The BBC in its article, “US ‘must contest’ Chinese missiles over Taiwan, says admiral,” would note:

“It’s very important that we contest this type of thing. I know that the gorilla in the room is launching missiles over Taiwan,” Vice Admiral Thomas told reporters in Singapore. “It’s irresponsible to launch missiles over Taiwan into international waters.

“If you don’t challenge it… all of a sudden it can become just like the islands in the South China Sea [that] have now become military outposts. They now are full functioning military outposts that have missiles on them, large runways, hangers, radars, listening posts.”

US Vice Admiral Thomas did not suggest any measures the US could use to “contest” Chinese military activity around and now over Taiwan, and in actuality, there is little the US could do in order to do so.

US Provocations Help Beijing Justify “New Normal”

Lacking any sort of ability to “contest” Chinese military activity around Taiwan, the US appears instead committed to further provocations. Following Speaker Pelosi’s early August visit to the island, a group of US Congressmembers likewise touched down in Taiwan in mid-August, the BBC would report.

Just as Speaker Pelosi’s visit allowed Beijing to justify military exercises around and over Taiwan, this more recent visit by US Congressmembers gave Beijing an opportunity to stretch out and expand its military activity. The Associate Press in its article, “China announces new drills around Taiwan as a US delegation visits the island,” would note:

The exercises are intended as a “resolute response and solemn deterrent against collusion and provocation between the US and Taiwan,” the ministry said.

The United States, having provoked Russia into launching military operations in Ukraine mistakenly believing Moscow would not (and for some reason couldn't) escalate, is now putting Beijing up to a similar test. Beijing’s strategy of increasing military control of territory around and now in the skies above Taiwan appears to be a strategy that could eventually give Beijing an advantage in this growing crisis without requiring hostilities.

In hindsight it seems reasonable to believe Washington’s best decision to preserve an advantage over Russia regarding Ukraine would have been to encourage Kiev to uphold the Minsk Agreements. Russian forces would have remained within Russian territory, the Donbass region would have remained under Kiev’s control, and the US would be able to move forward with a pro-Western administration in power in Kiev into the foreseeable future.

Instead, Washington is now watching Russia absorb Ukraine, demilitarize not only the Ukrainian armed forces but also the inventories of Ukraine’s Western sponsors. Myths of Western military superiority are blowing away with the smoke on Ukrainian battlefields, revealing destroyed Western military hardware falling far short of their previously vaunted capabilities.

A very similar process is about to take place over Taiwan and the US appears incapable of stopping it let alone reversing yet another self-destructive strategy aimed at provoking near-peer or peer military powers – a strategy that was most likely conceived long ago when the US enjoyed much greater military superiority over its adversaries.

Indeed, far from stopping or reversing, the US transited the Taiwan Strait with two of its warships. Articles like CNN’s, “Why China’s response to US warships in Taiwan Strait surprised analysts,” claims Western analysts believed Beijing would have reacted visibly and directly to the transit and were surprised when they didn’t.

The only actual surprise is that Western analysts have not identified a clearly materializing pattern where Beijing refuses to react directly to provocations like unauthorized travel to Taiwan by US representatives or the violation of Chinese territory by US warships and instead is investing further into military activity around Taiwan to de facto establish control over the island.

As Beijing pursues this strategy, establishing a new normal on its own terms around and over Taiwan, the West is openly preparing more provocations to give Beijing precisely what it needs, continued justification to do so. Canada has now announced it will join the US in provoking China over Taiwan, the Guardian reported in its article, “China warns Canada over planned Taiwan visit by parliamentarians.” It doesn’t require much imagination to foresee Beijing will use this upcoming provocation as yet another justification to expand ongoing military operations.

The US-backed administration in Taipei is also fuelling this crisis. The Guardian in another article titled, “Taiwan fires warning shots at Chinese drone,” would report:

Taiwan fired warning shots at a Chinese drone that buzzed an offshore islet shortly after President Tsai Ing-wen said she had ordered Taiwan’s military to take “strong countermeasures” against what she termed Chinese provocations.

Rather than “counter” Beijing’s military activities, such actions will only justify Beijing’s military activities further as well as possibly give Beijing the ability to take more drastic and also much more permanent measures to cement full control over territory the administration in Taipei attempts to claim as its own.

Taiwan’s Economic Weak Points Offer Beijing Other Means

For an administration that attempts to pose as “independent” of Beijing, Taiwan’s economy is heavily dependent on the rest of China, providing Beijing with the ability to easily enhance its military superiority over and operations against separatist elements in Taipei through economic measures.

According to Harvard University’s Atlas of Economic Complexity, the Chinese mainland represented 22.92% of all the island’s imports followed by Japan at 16.97%. Over 49% of Taiwan’s total exports are shipped to the rest of China with the US following as the second largest export market at 12.65%.

Gradual reunification between Taiwan and the rest of China has already been taking place for many years, primarily through economic integration. Trade, tourism, and investment from the rest of China keeps Taiwan’s economy afloat. When the flow of any of these factors is cut it creates major disruptions.

CNN in their article, “China flexes military muscles, then targets Taiwan’s citrus fruits,” attempts to connect August bans on agricultural goods from Taiwan by the mainland to the ongoing tensions created by visits by US representatives. Regardless of whether there is a connection, the article helps illustrate just how disruptive it is to Taiwan’s economy when Beijing adopts policies impacting Taiwan’s exports. Other articles from across the Western media like the New York Times’, “How China Could Choke Taiwan,” discuss the impact of a Chinese military blockage of Taiwan from all trade. However, similar results could be achieved simply by stopping all trade to and from Taiwan by the rest of China alone.

Such disruptions in trade between Taiwan and the rest of China serve as warnings of just how detached from reality Taiwan “independence” really is from reality and how divergent it is from Taiwan’s actual best interests. They also demonstrate the power the mainland has over Taiwan should the administration in Taipei continue working with foreign interests to divide and destabilize China.

Taiwan’s Vulnerability Reveals the Malice of its “Allies”

It is in the economic realm that Taiwan’s Western backers reveal their lack of true commitment and vision for Taiwanese “independence.” It is a shortsighted and highly self-destructive policy that would lay waste to Taiwan’s economy and population in ways much worse than Ukraine suffered from 2014 onward when the US-installed client regime in Kiev irrationally cut many essential economic ties with Russia at the cost of Ukraine’s economic viability.

Why then would Washington and others across the West encourage Taiwan to pursue separatism and eagerly provoke Beijing, including now through military provocations? Taiwan is being encouraged to fight a war it cannot possibly win against the rest of China it cannot economically survive without. The answer is simply that the US and its allies do not care about Taiwan or its future. It is being cynically used to advance US foreign policy objectives in terms of encircling, containing, dividing, and destroying China. While mainland China will likely prevail, Taiwan which is part of China will suffer tremendously in the event of even a short-term conflict.

Beijing, understanding this fully, is attempting to extend control over Taiwan militarily without waging war, incrementally expanding military activities around Taiwan with each provocation provided to it from the US and its allies. Beijing is also fully prepared for a military confrontation either with armed forces in Taiwan or against an attempted intervention by foreign powers like the United States.

The fact that Taiwan is so vulnerable militarily and economically yet is still encouraged to adopt provocative policies toward Beijing demonstrates just how little Washington cares about Taiwan and its future. The idea of Washington intervening to “defend” Taiwan is highly unrealistic. “Defending” Taiwan would only be used as a pretext for the US to wage war against China or, what is much more likely, attempt to disrupt Chinese commercial shipping worldwide.

Washington, according to the US State Department’s official website, acknowledges Beijing’s stance that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. Washington’s goal is to divide and destroy all of China – including Taiwan.

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

China’s Growing Military Might

 August 18, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - What many in the West at first dismissed as a tantrum thrown by Beijing over the unauthorized visit of US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan appears instead to be a carefully thought-out strategy designed to incrementally reassert Chinese sovereignty over the island territory. Beijing’s ability to do this is underwritten by the nation’s growing military might.

Through a unique and powerful missile arsenal to a capable and growing air force, navy, and ground force, China has created the means through which to reverse decades of injustice, encroachment, and encirclement by the West against the Chinese people and their territory. Even Western analysts and military experts admit that China’s military capabilities have grown to world-class levels. These capabilities will be key to achieving and defending Chinese sovereignty now and into the future, through deterrence if possible, or through force if necessary.

The Long Sword: China’s Missile Force

Throughout human history weapons have been used to give a fighting force a greater reach than their adversaries. Be it sword, spear, or arrow, those with the longest and most effective reach often dominate the battlefield. On today’s battlefield, this reach is achieved through missiles.

China’s modern missile forces are the largest and most capable on Earth according to even Western analysts. Through a combination of long, medium, intermediate, and short range missiles as well as a variety of cruise missiles, China has the ability to hit targets near and far.

The US government and arms industry-funded Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) through its “China Power” project wrote a paper titled, “How Are China’s Land-based Conventional Missile Forces Evolving?,” which admitted:

Conventionally armed (non-nuclear) missiles have become an increasingly important component of military power. They can be employed to deter threats or project power hundreds or thousands of kilometers away. As part of sweeping efforts to modernize the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China has developed one of the most powerful land-based conventional missile arsenals in the world.

The same paper would also admit:

According to the US Department of Defense (DoD), China’s missile forces in 2000 “were generally of short range and modest accuracy.” In the years since then, China has developed the world’s “largest and most diverse” arsenal of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles.

The PLA Rocket Force, which maintains and operates China’s land-based conventional and nuclear missiles, has fielded multiple new missile systems over the last several years. Many of these missiles are capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear payloads.

The paper describes cruise missiles able to hit land targets anywhere on potential battlefields like Taiwan, carrier-killer missiles reportedly able to target and destroy US carrier groups, and hypersonic missiles that can penetrate the most advanced Western missile defense systems. Even without the ability to penetrate Western missile defenses, the sheer number of Chinese missiles could saturate and overwhelm them.

China’s missile forces have been built up specifically to keep the United States and its allies from building up military forces along its periphery and thus threaten Chinese territorial integrity. Together with Chinese air defenses and anti-ship systems, China has assembled formidable anti-access, area denial (A2AD) capabilities that would prevent US military forces from even reaching Chinese targets let alone engaging them.

It is also worth noting that China has developed significantly capable multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) in the form of its Type PCL191. It fires more rockets than its US counterparts, fires them further, and with at least as much accuracy guided by China’s BeiDou Navigation Satellite System.

A Business Insider article titled, “China’s new rocket launcher system is its most powerful ever, and it’s looming over the Taiwan Strait,” would note:

The system is capable of firing eight 370 mm rockets a distance of 350 km or two 750 mm ballistic missiles 500 km.

This means that China’s MLRS capabilities can reach any location in or around Taiwan from the mainland. In fact the bulk of any potential Chinese military operation regarding Taiwan and potential US intervention can be carried out from the mainland with China’s extensive and capable missile and rocket forces.

The Shield: Chinese A2AD

Russian military operations in Ukraine have been defined by Russia’s own long range fires as well as A2AD. It’s premier S-400 air defense system exists at the top of an ecosystem of other shorter range air defenses that when networked and layered make the air space they protect virtually impenetrable. Together with long range strike weapons like artillery and short-range ballistic missiles like the Iskander, there is nowhere for Ukrainian forces to hide and certainly no way for them to advance into Russia positions. By moving these capabilities forward, Russia has been incrementally securing territory from the regime in Kiev.

Not only has China emulated many tactics and strategies from Russia, it has also outright purchased the best the Russian Federation has to offer. Between 2018-2020 China purchased two regiments of Russia’s S-400 systems. China also produces a wide variety of its own air defense systems based on the Russian S-300, Russia’s Tor system, as well as systems incorporating certain aspects of the US Patriot missile system.

While Chinese air defenses have not been put to the test like their Russian counterparts, it stands to reason they would perform with similar efficiency and prevent US forces and other potential interlopers from entering Chinese airspace let alone cause damage within it.

The Dagger: Chinese Airpower

The People’s Liberation Army Airforce employs hundreds of modern warplanes including the Chengdu J-10, the Shenyang J-11 and J-16, as well as scores of its newest warplane, the Chengdu J-20.

As with Chinese air defenses, Chinese airpower has been heavily influenced by Russian military aviation. Over the years in addition to its own warplanes, China has purchased a number of advanced Russian warplanes including the SU-27, SU-30, and most recently, the SU-35 according to the Diplomat in its 2019 article, “Russia Offers China Another Batch of Su-35 Fighter Jets.”

While China’s airforce has not seen combat, the fact that it possesses a large number of Russian warplanes hints they will perform in a similar manner to Russian airpower as demonstrated in Syria from 2015 onward and now in military operations in Ukraine.

The warplanes themselves are merely platforms for advanced avionics and weapons, the latter of which is a central factor defining the success of any nation’s airforce. The US government and arms industry-funded International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in a paper titled, “Chinese and Russian air-launched weapons: a test for Western air dominance,” would note the advancements of Chinese air-to-air missiles (AAMs) stating:

The extent of Chinese progress in the air-to-air guided-weapons arena was apparent with the introduction of the PL-10 AAM. This weapon provided a marked improvement in performance over the previous generation of short-range missiles operated by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), and its development has placed China among the handful of nations with a defence-industrial base capable of producing such a weapon.

The paper would also note:

China is also developing a very-long-range AAM intended to be used to attack high-value targets such as tanker, airborne early-warning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft. Furthermore, Beijing appears to be pursuing two or more configurations of rocket-ramjet AAMs.

By the early to mid-2020s, China will clearly have a broader – and far more capable – range of air-to-air weapons to complement the combat aircraft that are now in development. These will likely force the US and its regional allies to re-examine not only their tactics, techniques and procedures, but also the direction of their own combat-aerospace development programmes.

Chinese airpower when coupled together with its formidable A2AD capabilities creates a modern day sword and shield able to take on virtually any threat.

Other Critical Factors

One area in which the US still dominates is through its submarine fleet. While China possesses a large number of submarines with improving capabilities, the US is still thought to have an advantage in this field. US submarines could disrupt cross-strait shipping as well as threaten Chinese ground targets with submarine-launched cruise missiles.

US submarines would be one of the few platforms able to potentially breach Chinese A2AD capabilities. Because modern submarine warfare is rare, it is difficult to draw from recent examples to predict possible outcomes regarding submarine warfare between the US and China and is a critical factor that only time will fully reveal.

Chinese media, cyber and space-based military capabilities would also be critical in any potential conflict and are areas the US clearly understands parity is nearly reached with its own capabilities or has already been reached.

Other critical factors that would come into play during the most likely conflicts China faces would be the capabilities of its ground forces. Chinese tanks and armored vehicles have been developed through lessons learned from Russian platforms and are admittedly on par with their Western counterparts in terms of fire control, armor, and countermeasures against anti-tank missiles. Chinese artillery also follows the Russian model, a model proving itself deadly and effective in Ukraine.

Underwriting all of these capabilities is China’s massive industrial base. Western experts including those at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in a paper titled, “The Return of Industrial Warfare,” would note that the West has fallen behind Russia in this regard.

The paper claims:

This situation is especially critical because behind the Russian invasion stands the world’s manufacturing capital – China. As the US begins to expend more and more of its stockpiles to keep Ukraine in the war, China has yet to provide any meaningful military assistance to Russia. The West must assume that China will not allow Russia to be defeated, especially due to a lack of ammunition. If competition between autocracies and democracies has really entered a military phase, then the arsenal of democracy must first radically improve its approach to the production of materiel in wartime.

If it is true that the West lags behind Russia in terms of its military industrial production, it is many times more true in regards to China. While the RUSI paper admits this is a problem the West must rectify, it is unlikely able to. Whatever steps the West takes to improve its military industrial capacity, both Russia and China will not only match such steps but ensure they remain far ahead of them.

Even should US capabilities match those of China, the fact that it is provoking a conflict halfway around the world particularly in regards to Taiwan puts it at a disadvantage logistically. It is a fight the US holds multiple disadvantages in and a fight the US should not be picking in the first place.

China has carefully for decades cultivated its military capabilities to defend China from foreign aggression, subjugation, and the humiliation associated with it, all of which the Chinese people have suffered at the hands of Western powers in the past.

With the US military itself admitting Chinese military capabilities are in some ways reaching parity with US military capabilities and in other areas surpassing them, the notion of the US using military force with impunity in or around Chinese territory has significantly diminished. In fact, the desperate, reckless urgency that has taken hold of Washington in recent years in regards to China and Washington’s growing inability to “contain” it is at the center of US provocations like Pelosi’s recent visit to Taiwan.

It will now be a matter of Beijing managing additional and increasingly desperate provocations by the US against China to defend Chinese national security while avoiding a potentially destructive conflict with the United States. The most logical decision Washington could make is to adopt a multipolar mindset allowing it to peacefully coexist alongside China and other nations rather than its current continued attempts to assert itself above all other nations.

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

China Gives America a Taste of its own Geopolitics

August 12, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - Under the US’ own one China policy, Washington recognizes there is only one China, that Taiwan is a part of China, and that there is only one government of China, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing. Despite this, the US undermines Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan by treating the island as a de facto nation and the Republic of China in Taipei as its de facto legitimate government.

This culminated most recently in the visit by US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan against Beijing’s warnings and has predictably triggered what many analysts in the West are considering the “Fourth Strait Crisis” in which tensions between the US-backed regime in Taipei and the legitimate government of China have escalated to near-conflict levels.

Also as predicted, with the continual rise of Chinese economic and military power, the US’ own maxim of “might makes right” has boomeranged around and now threatens the very status quo Washington was abusing to incrementally infringe on Chinese sovereignty.

Chinese Military Might Seeks to Make Taiwan Question Right

In the wake of Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, massive Chinese military drills were launched including a de facto air and sea blockade of the island as well as simulated assaults on Taiwan’s military infrastructure around Taipei and its southern Tainan and Kaohsiung regions.  What was first dismissed as a “tantrum” by an “embarrassed Beijing” is quickly shaping into a much more deliberate and complex reaction meant to reshape both the status of the Taiwan Strait as well as the status of Taiwan itself.

US representatives appear to believe that the recent exercises are only the beginning of what is an incremental process of implementing greater and permanent control over Taiwan by Being. A Guardian article titled, “China resumes military drills off Taiwan after shelving US talks,” would note:

The US defence department policy chief, Colin Kahl, said the Pentagon had not changed the assessment given last year by the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mark Milley, that China was unlikely to invade Taiwan in the next two years. However, Kahl said Beijing was trying to “salami-slice their way into a new status quo”.

“A lot has been made of the missile strikes but really it’s the activities in the strait itself, the sheer number of maritime and air assets that are crossing over this de facto centre line, creeping closer to Taiwan shores, where it’s clear that Beijing is trying to create a kind of new normal,” he said.

The article would also note that the recent exercises demonstrate China’s growing abilities. The article claimed:

Timothy Heath, a defence researcher at the Rand Corporation, said China’s drills over the past few days showed the PLA was strengthening its ability to carry out a blockade.

“A blockade could be executed alone or in conjunction with other military options such as missile barrages or an invasion of Taiwan,” he said.

Indeed, China has one of the largest and most capable missile arsenals in the world even according to Western experts.

The US-based government and arms industry-funded Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in a China Power paper titled, “How Are China’s Land-based Conventional Missile Forces Evolving?,” would explain:

As part of sweeping efforts to modernize the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China has developed one of the most powerful land-based conventional missile arsenals in the world.

Chinese missiles combined with formidable air and sea defenses make up its anti-access, area denial capabilities, capabilities advanced enough to prevent the United States from intervening should Beijing choose to fully resolve this crisis of Washington’s making.

China is Pushing Back, But How Far?

It is now a matter of waiting to see just how far Beijing is willing to go down each respective path; economically, politically, and militarily. If China’s recent Global Times article, “PLA extends ‘Taiwan encirclement’ exercises with anti-submarine warfare, showcases unrivaled area denial capability; ‘drills will not stop until reunification’,” is any indication, Beijing is prepared to go all the way.

International law favors Beijing’s stance on Taiwan versus decades of US-sponsored separatism done in full violation of both Washington’s own bilateral agreements with Beijing and in violation of international law. Decades of US military aggression, meddling, and subversion around the globe have now, ironically, played into the hands of Beijing who can easily cite US actions to justify virtually any level of force it feels is necessary in pursuit of defending its own sovereignty in regards to Taiwan.

Many contributors to and supporters of Washington’s strategy of belligerence toward China are attempting to dissuade Beijing from its current apparent course of action, understanding just how permanently Beijing could settle the “Taiwan question” if it commits fully at this time. They are doing so through “warnings” that any attempt to change the current “status quo” regarding Taiwan and the waters around it could be “disastrous” for Beijing.

A recent article by David Uren, an Australian economic writer and a senior fellow at the anti-China “Australian Strategic Policy Initiative” (ASPI) in a recent op-ed titled, “A blockade of Taiwan would cripple China’s economy,” would claim:

If a real Chinese blockade were challenged by the United States and the Taiwan Strait were designated a war zone, trade finance and insurance would evaporate for all shipping in the area.

Any real-life disruption of the sea lanes to the east and west of Taiwan would have a crippling effect on China’s own economy, since its major ports of Shanghai, Dalian, Tianjin and others are dependent on passage through waters near Taiwan.

Yet, as the op-ed also grudgingly admits, it would not be only China’s economy that suffered, but also Australia’s, Europe’s, and it stands to reason America’s as well.

There is one option that appears to escape the “top” Western “thinkers” and “analysts” when it comes to Taiwan, finally and fully upholding the West’s own agreed upon one China policies. Indeed, if the US and its allies simply made good on their own bilateral agreements with China, respecting its sovereignty over Taiwan, and stopped the artificial propping up of the regime in Taipei, this whole crisis and the potential war it may lead to would resolve itself.

Yet as US-led meddling in Ukraine has proven, the West is not capable of respecting international law or its own bilateral agreements with the rest of the world, making conflict all but inevitable. Russia for its part was fully prepared for the conflict that finally resulted after decades of abuse by the West, leaving a relatively unprepared West to suffer the consequences of its own belligerent actions. Only time will tell if China is likewise prepared and whether or not the West is as eager or able to weather yet another crisis of its own creation.

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

Myanmar MiG-29 Crosses into Thai Airspace: The Rest of the Story

July 9, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - A recent incident involving a MiG-29 fighter aircraft from Myanmar which flew into Thai airspace triggered political fallout particularly instructive in understanding the current dynamics in both countries as well as across wider Asia.

It also gives a glimpse into the dynamics of the ongoing US-Chinese tensions that are the driving force behind much of the region’s political and military conflicts.

The Incident

The Washington Post in an article titled, “Thailand says Myanmar apologized for airspace violation,” would describe the incident claiming:

Video obtained by The Associated Press shows what appears to be a MiG-29 making several circles into Thai airspace over villages and schools before firing on the Myanmar side. Myanmar’s military has been fighting ethnic Karen guerillas on its side of the border with Thailand.

Thailand is no stranger to armed conflict approaching and even briefly crossing over into Thai territory. Myanmar has been mired in ethnic and political violence since gaining independence from the British in 1948. Clandestine arms trafficking from neighboring nations including Thailand, US-funded political organizations using neighboring nations as a base for operations, as well as refugee camps hosting militants using neighboring territory to evade Myanmar’s military means that fighting often unfolds along border regions.

The current fighting along the Thai border is part of a much wider conflict consuming Myanmar following the February 2021 takeover by the nation’s military, ousting a US-backed client regime headed by Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party.

Following the February take over, violent protests followed by armed conflict plunged Myanmar into nationwide violence ever since. The recent fighting along the border and occasional cross-border incidents will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

The Reaction

The reaction to the brief border crossing by various political factions in neighboring Thailand were likewise divided along lines between US-backed opposition groups and the current government they seek to undermine and replace.

The Washington Post article noted:

Thailand said Friday that neighboring Myanmar has apologized after one of its fighter jets crossed into Thai airspace on a bombing run along the border, forcing authorities to evacuate hundreds of schoolchildren and scramble air force jets to the area.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said Thailand did not want to escalate the incident, which took place on Thursday over Phop Phra district in Thailand’s Tak province.

And that:

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said Thailand did not want to escalate the incident, which took place on Thursday over Phop Phra district in Thailand’s Tak province.

“The military attaches have spoken to each other, and they have apologized, and our foreign ministries have talked. This may seem like a serious incident, but it depends on us if we want to escalate this. Currently the two sides enjoy a good relationship and are able to talk,” Prayuth told reporters at a public appearance.

Thailand deployed two F-16 fighter aircraft in what was a significantly delayed “intercept,” and lodged a complaint with Myanmar’s government. Both moves were more or less a formality.

Myanmar and Thailand are in relatively good standings with one another as are all ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) members. One of the purposes of ASEAN is to maintain regional peace and prosperity and to quickly resolve disagreements. Non-interference in the internal political affairs of neighboring nations is also a guiding principle.

Despite significant pressure placed by the United States on all ASEAN members to interfere in Myanmar’s ongoing conflict, besides token gestures, ASEAN has remained relatively uninvolved.

Political opposition groups in Thailand condemned the Thai government’s reaction, stating that the brief incursion was indeed a serious threat to Thailand implying that the Thai military should have responded with force. The condemnation is meant to stoke public outrage and pressure the Thai government into overreacting in the future.

This same opposition has on several occasions staged protests regarding Myanmar and the Thai government’s refusal to interfere. ABC News in a March 2021 article titled, “Thai marchers link their democracy cause to Myanmar protests,” as well as many other publications across the West would report on growing “cooperation” between various regional protest groups.

The Implications

In addition to political opportunism, the condemnation by Thailand’s opposition is linked to the fact that the US government is backing both the Thai opposition as well as their counterparts in Myanmar. Both groups are members of the wider so-called “Milk Tea Alliance,” a regional alliance consisting of anti-China organizations funded by the US. Just as US-sponsored opposition groups supported each other during the 2011 “Arab Spring,” the “Milk Tea Alliance” pools its resources, helping amplify the impact of their individual and collective political objectives.

The “Milk Tea Alliance” is a stand-in for a US-led Southeast Asian “NATO.” No current government in the region seeks to risk economic prosperity and tangible development through trade and partnership with China to join any sort of US-led effort to confront and contain China so Washington has built a parallel network of political parties, media organizations, and social movements in a bid to coerce current governments to adopt an anti-China stance or overthrow and replace them if they do not.

Both Myanmar and Thailand in particular have close and growing relationships with China. Thailand counts China as its largest trade partner and is building a high-speed rail line that will connect it to China via the now completed Laos-China high speed railway.

Myanmar hosts infrastructure for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) including bridges, roads, hydroelectric dams, and pipelines which move hydrocarbons from Rakhine state located on the Bay of Bengal to Yunnan province in China. The latter project is of particular importance because it allows China to circumvent various straits, waters, and ports repeatedly designated as potential targets by US military planners, that if blocked or disrupted, would destroy China’s economy.

The US-backed opposition in Myanmar has even attacked BRI infrastructure and other Chinese investments, highlighting the anti-Chinese agenda of US political meddling in Myanmar and across the wider region.

In February of this year, Myanmar opposition media, the Irrawaddy (funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy), would report in their article, “China-Backed Pipeline Facility Damaged in Myanmar Resistance Attack,” that:

An off-take station of the China-backed oil and gas pipelines was damaged when a local resistance group attacked regime forces guarding the facility in Mandalay Region’s Natogyi Township…

The article also claimed:

Anti-Chinese sentiment swelled in Myanmar following the military coup last February, with many people believing Beijing had a hand in the takeover. At that time, there were calls for a boycott of Chinese products, along with calls to blow up the pipelines if China refused to condemn the regime.

In reality, violent opposition movements in Myanmar, Thailand, and beyond are part of a wider proxy conflict the United States is waging against China. In addition to direct tensions with China through sanctions, interference, and threats of military violence, the US is also undermining Chinese-friendly governments along China’s periphery.

The brief incursion by Myanmar’s MiG-29 aircraft and the quick resolution of the incident with the Thai government reflects a growing regional awareness this proxy conflict.

The US-backed opposition in Thailand calling for rash, confrontational measures reflects the same irrational, self-destructive agenda the US-backed government in Kiev adopted from 2014 onward and whose fate provides a glimpse into the divisive, even deadly policies that would be quickly implemented by a US-backed anti-Chinese government in Southeast Asia.

Thailand, should the US-backed opposition come to power in upcoming elections, would be much more inclined to escalate toward open conflict with Myanmar as well as eagerly adopt measures demanded by the US in terms of economically and diplomatically isolating Myanmar, all while uprooting and overturning Thai-Chinese relations back home. It’s an alarming prospect the US-backed Thai opposition’s reaction to this recent cross-border incident serves as a warning for.

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

Washington’s Partnership (for Primacy) in Blue Pacific

July 7, 2022 (Brian Berletic -  New Eastern Outlook) - In Washington’s ongoing efforts to confront and contain China’s rise on the global stage, it has announced yet another bloc, the “Partnership in Blue Pacific.”

The Financial Times in a recent article titled, “US and allies launch initiative to help Pacific Island nations,” would claim, regarding the stated objective of the new bloc, that:

The scheme aims to help small island nations — such as Fiji, Palau, Samoa and the Marshall Islands — tackle issues from climate change to illegal fishing, but it also marks a stepped-up effort to counter Chinese initiatives.

The island nations face issues much more serious than “climate change” and “illegal fishing,” suffering from decades of poverty and political instability. These stated objectives of the new partnership which includes the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and possibly even France, are merely pretexts for the US and its allies to reassert themselves over these nations and prevent them from alleviating these much more serious setbacks – setbacks rooted in Western exploitation and colonization stretching back generations.

The Financial Times would also note:

One US official told the Financial Times it would include a range of measures, including boosting diplomatic presences across the region, and helping countries tackle climate change and illegal fishing. He said the US would also supply more COVID-19 vaccines to countries, and added that the initiative would also include an arrangement to send young leaders from the region to executive education courses in America.

The latter most point, “executive education courses in America,” is a means of indoctrinating young leaders, networking them into circles of US interests and utilizing them to advance US foreign policy objectives. It is a method of control and colonization practiced by empire stretching back to Roman times, documented by Tacitus in his book Agricola concerning the Roman conquest of the Gauls.

It is also worth repeating the Financial Times pointing out that this initiative is a “stepped-up effort to counter Chinese initiatives.” No initiative is mentioned by the Financial Times or any other Western publication in relation to what the US and its “Partnership in Blue Pacific” are actually countering.

This is done deliberately. Chinese initiatives across the Pacific island nations are focused on boosting trade, building infrastructure, facilitating new industries and expanding nascent opportunities. China is also stepping in to underwrite peace and stability in the form of security pacts.

For the US to “counter” these initiatives, it would require blocking trade, stifling development, undermining infrastructure investment, as well as sabotaging peace and stability.

Far from mere speculation, this is precisely what is unfolding in the Solomon Islands whose growing relationship with Beijing triggered the creation of the “Partnership in the Blue Pacific” to begin with.

The Solomon Islands: Harbinger for What’s to Come

In 2019, the Solomon Islands made a decision to recognize the One China policy, shifting recognition from the Taiwan-based “Republic of China” to the People’s Republic of China in Beijing. The Solomon Islands and a small number of other nations had adopted this position, mainly through both pressure and bribes paid by the US (who itself ironically recognizes the One China policy) and the administration in Taiwan. Before China’s rise as an economic superpower, the benefits of this arrangement outweighed the costs.

This is no longer the case. The opportunities China’s rise have opened up for nations like the Solomon Islands have offered a path out of subordination to the West and the poverty and destabilization that characterize it. Thus, in 2019 the Solomon Islands joined Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Despite these opportunities, there are still costs for the Solomon Islands and others across the Pacific for choosing Beijing over the status quo imposed by the West

The very next year after the Solomon Islands shifted its diplomatic stance regarding China, an article in the Diplomat titled, “US Aid Pledge to Pro-Taiwan Solomon Islands Province Raises Eyebrows,” would admit:

The United States has pledged $25 million in aid to the Solomon Islands province of Malaita, which has in recent weeks made calls for secession from the national government over its relationship with China.

Malaita, the largest province in the Solomon Islands, announced its plan to hold a referendum on independence last month, citing the central government’s switch in diplomatic relations with Taiwan to China last year. The decision has put Malaita at odds with the rest of the country, as Malaita preferred to continue relations with Taiwan.

The article would go on to note:

The US aid package, more than 50 times what the province received in aid from all countries in 2018, has sparked concerns that Washington is using the aid for geopolitical gain, to counter China – despite the risks it poses in flaring old tensions.

The article would then explain just precisely what these “old tensions” were:

The Solomon Islands endured five years of civil war between 1998 and 2003 as the country was split along ethnic, cultural, and political lines between Malaita, the second largest and most populous province and Guadalcanal, the largest by area and second by population, and home to the central government, in the capital Honiara.

The US was not alone in manipulating, dividing, and disrupting political stability in the Solomon Islands. A 2021 Diplomat article titled, “Taiwan Must Avoid Pouring Fuel on Solomon Islands Fire,” would reveal:

…while the bribery became more sophisticated, it had previously been indiscriminate. In June 2001, a US$25-million loan to the Solomons from Taiwan’s Export Import Bank (EXIM) was announced by Taipei. The suitably vaguely stated purpose was to foster peace by compensating the victims of the ethnic conflict that had ravaged the islands since 1998.

But while some of the money went to legitimate causes – displaced families and unpaid civil servants – the lion’s share ended up lining the pockets of politicians and militia leaders. Armed gangs held up government ministers for “compensation” as Honiara descended into mob rule.

At the end of 2021, deadly violence would erupt when mobs from Malaita stormed the capital of Honiara, attacking Chinatown in particular, leading to widespread arson and even several deaths.

Turning to China Specifically Because of the “Partnership” with the West

The US and its allies, including the administration in Taipei, have and continue attempting to control the Solomon Islands through coercion, dividing its society, funding and backing violent mobs and even armed militias to create and maintain a constant threat looming over Honiara if and when the government seeks to pursue its own interests rather than facilitate those of Washington.

While the US and its “Partnership in Blue Pacific” claim China’s growing influence across the Pacific is a development that requires “countering,” it is actually decades of neglect, exploitation, and interference that convinced the Solomon Islands and many others working with Beijing that it is worth it despite the risks.

Pacific island nations, as the Solomon Islands help illustrate, do face tangible security threats, threats that are not only not being addressed by their “traditional partners” in the West, but threats created deliberately by them.

The West frames security deals proposed by Beijing with these nations to address these threats as merely Beijing attempting to expand military dominance outward across the region. It should be remembered, however, that Chinese trade across the region is both the engine of China’s rise and also what is helping lift the rest of the region with it. The trade surplus the Solomon Islands enjoys is owed to its trade with China.  Trade can and regularly is disrupted by instability both between nations and within them. The late 2021 violence in Honiara literally targeted and destroyed Chinese businesses as well as disrupted and threatened the lives of the people China does business with in the Solomon Islands.

There is no hidden agenda that comes with Chinese security deals, it is clearly offered in a bid to create stability Chinese trade requires to continue and prosper.

Conversely, the aforementioned Financial Times article would cite a US official who claimed:

There may be some security steps that we would take over time to help buttress our position in the region. I imagine we’re going to have more ship visits, more engagement. And there may be even something a little bit more permanent.

Since it is the US behind the unrest in the region in the first place, US efforts to militarize these island nations is surely not in pursuit of peace and stability, but to ensure no nation can bring stability, especially China.

It could not be more obvious unless explicitly stated that the “Partnership in Blue Pacific” is a means of maintaining a status quo, one that represents the perpetuation of Western hegemony in the region stretching back generations, and hegemony meant to fence in China to prevent the dynamics in the region from changing. Empire throughout history expands and maintains power by keeping those under its control down. China’s BRI clearly seeks to raise nations up. The “Partnership in Blue Pacific” is just the latest iteration of the West imposing the former to prevent the latter.

Only time will tell if China’s persistent, constructive approach to the region can help build it up faster than the US and its allies can tear it down, or if the US eventually decides to find a constructive role to play among other nations through multipolarism rather than insisting on imposing itself on all other nations through its current policy of unipolarism.

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

US Outlines Continued Primacy Over Asia at 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue

June 24, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - The British International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has hosted the “Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore since 2002. It is billed as “Asia’s premier security summit,” all while being almost entirely Western-centric in agenda and design. To help illustrate this, since the format was created, the first plenary meeting has always been centered around the US Secretary of Defense – the United States being a nation not even located in Asia.

This year was no exception, the West and its interests took center stage. Opening remarks by IISS Director-General and Chief Executive John Chipman centered around the conflict in Ukraine and the notion that “it is essential for the West to prevail.” Chipman also ensured that it was clear that the West prevailing in Ukraine is just one small part of the West’s “rules-based order” prevailing globally, including over the Indo-Pacific region.

While the opening and keynote address was given by Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, it might as well have been given by US President Joe Biden or another senior representative from Washington. Prime Minister Kishida’s “vision” was indistinguishable from that of the US State Department or the US Department of Defense’s, it consisted of various objectives for the region identical to American interests right down to the fact that nothing PM Kishida proposed would actually benefit the people of Japan and instead would be pursued on Washington’s behalf at the Japanese public’s expense.

This includes Japan adopting NATO-standard defense spending, something clearly aimed at China, a fellow East Asian state with which Japan does a considerable and growing amount of trade. This increased military spending will create opportunities for Washington to box Beijing in, but at the cost of Japanese-Chinese relations reaching their full potential as well as at the cost of regional stability.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s speech at the first plenary meeting contained nothing novel. It was a reiteration of decades of US policy in Asia, a policy of maintaining primacy over the region, its people, and its resources, all under the guise of upholding what is continuously refers to as the “rules-based international order.” .

Like Chipman, Secretary Austin placed Washington’s proxy war with Russia at the heart of the discussion – accusing Russia of violating Ukraine’s sovereignty. Secretary Austin made these comments without any apparent sense of irony considering the United States currently illegally occupies large swaths of eastern Syria, continues its military occupation of Iraq against the desires of Iraqi representatives, and has only just recently withdrawn from Afghanistan, a Central Asian country left in ruins after 2 decades of US occupation.

Worse still, was the emphasis Secretary Austin placed on Taiwan, officially recognized by the US as part of China under the “One China Policy,” and with Secretary Austin himself clearly stating, “we do not support Taiwan independence,” but still placing it on Washington’s agenda for the region up to and including, “assisting Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability,” through the shipment of arms to Taiwan against the wishes of Beijing.

The United States condemning Russia for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty while blatantly violating China’s in regards to Taiwan is a continuation of American exceptionalism – the creation and adherence to rules when convenient, and the wholesale trampling of those rules when inconvenient.

Secretary Austin made several other paradoxical claims, the most troubling being the US supposedly not desiring “an Asian NATO” all while repeatedly declaring America’s intent to expand military exercises across the region to build up military cooperation and expand military interoperability – in other words – the pursuit of “an Asian NATO” in everything but official title and treaty.

At one point Secretary Austin would claim:

Next year, our Coast Guard will also deploy a cutter to Southeast Asia and Oceania. That will open up new opportunities for multinational crewing, training, and cooperation across the region. And it will be the first major US Coast Guard cutter permanently stationed in the region. 

The US deploying its military thousands of miles from its own shores, and in this case, deploying the US Coast Guard on the opposite side of the planet from where America’s actual coasts exist, is done as a means of attempting to integrate regional military forces into a US-led military presence. It is being done precisely to threaten, constrain, encroach upon, and contain China in Asia.

This is what China is responding to, and yet China’s reasonable reactions to US military encroachment in Asia is depicted by the US as “the People’s Republic of China adopting a more coercive and aggressive approach.”

And while Secretary Austin condemns Russia for its alleged violations of Ukrainian sovereignty while clearly threatening China’s sovereignty regarding the Taiwan question, the US is also infringing on the sovereignty of its supposed “partners” across Asia and especially so in Southeast Asia.

It does this because while Secretary Austin claims America’s Asian partners share Washington’s vision regarding the region, this is not entirely true. They do so only to a point – and that is the point at which US coercion and interference is minimal.

The notion of “ASEAN centrality” as defined by the US is Southeast Asia’s leading role in defining regional architecture. This is so simply because the US refuses to recognize China’s natural leadership role in Asia as the region’s largest nation by geography, population, and economy. It is also so because the United States feels that its influence over ASEAN is greater than any influence it could exercise over China. In many ways its is similar to the way the US influences or in many ways outright controls the European Union versus Russia.

As part of this process the United States funds and directs political opposition groups throughout ASEAN – groups that are anti-China, pro-West and more specifically, pro-American and seek to seize power in their respective nations, sabotage ties with China and fall into a US-led regional front against China. And just as it is similar to what the United States has constructed in Europe versus Russia it will likewise have a similarly destabilizing and destructive impact on Asia as a whole.

The United States, through political interference across ASEAN, is blatantly violating the individual sovereignty of ASEAN member states as well as creating a destabilizing effect on Asia as a region. The protests in Hong Kong, continued aspirations toward separatism in Taiwan, ongoing protests still taking place in Bangkok, Thailand, and persistent armed conflict in Myanmar are all the result of US political interference in Asia and Washington’s desire to disrupt the peaceful Chinese-led rise of Asia in order to maintain both its own, and Europe’s historical primacy over the region instead.

When Secretary Austin accused Beijing of “adopting a more coercive and aggressive approach,” he was actually projecting. While China will continue to assert itself against US encroachment, it will be the US, for a lack of a better alternative, who becomes increasingly aggressive in its political interference in the region, unable to compete with China in the material terms China increasingly excels at.

In the months and years to come, we will see a race between a Chinese-led rise of Asia economically, politically, and militarily, versus Washington’s attempts to disrupt and undermine it through engineered political strife just as it engineered in Eastern Europe from 2014 onward, or the Middle East from 2011 onward.

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

Western Foreign Policy Created Ukraine Crisis, is Creating Crisis with China

June 9, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - Two recent events, both overshadowed by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, help illustrate how the same problematic aspects of Western foreign policy driving the Ukrainian conflict are hard at work in provoking conflict with yet another global power, China.

Western complaints about an alleged naval base China is accused of building in Cambodia and an altercation between Chinese and Canadian patrol aircraft in the North Pacific reflect growing tensions between an inflexible and declining Western unipolar order and a rising China that increasingly refuses to subordinate or explain itself to the West upon the global stage.

While peaceful coexistence would not only be possible but preferable in regards to global peace, stability, and prosperity, the US-led “rules-based international order” has openly declared its intentions of inhibiting China’s rise and has demonstrated just how far in terms of disrupting global peace, stability, and prosperity the US and its allies are willing to go to achieve this.

China’s “Secret Navy Base” 

The Washington Post in an article titled, “China secretly building PLA naval facility in Cambodia, Western officials say,” would claim:

China is secretly building a naval facility in Cambodia for the exclusive use of its military, with both countries denying that is the case and taking extraordinary measures to conceal the operation, Western officials said. 

The Washington Post already reported that:

The establishment of a Chinese naval base in Cambodia — only its second such overseas outpost and its first in the strategically significant Indo-Pacific region — is part of Beijing’s strategy to build a network of military facilities around the world in support of its aspirations to become a true global power, the officials said.

The unnamed Western officials failed to point out just how far China actually has to go to become a “true global power” in terms of building military installations abroad. A 2021 Al Jazeera article titled, “Infographic: US military presence around the world,” noted that, “The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.”

The notion that China’s activities in Cambodia are “secret” is also questionable. Both China and Cambodia are surely aware of the full extent to which China is or isn’t involved at Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base. Neither nation is required to provide an explanation to the United States whose own shores are located thousands of miles away.

While the Washington Post accuses China of using  “a combination of coercion, punishment and inducements in the diplomatic, economic and military realms,” to “bend” nations to Beijing’s interests, it is actually the United States who threatens not only Cambodia, but nations throughout Southeast Asia, all of whom seek to cultivate constructive ties with China.

Late last year, according to AP in their article, “US orders arms embargo on Cambodia, cites Chinese influence,” Cambodia was openly penalized simply for its growing ties with China. The article would claim:

Beijing’s support allows Cambodia to disregard Western concerns about its poor record in human and political rights, and in turn Cambodia generally supports Beijing’s geopolitical positions on issues such as its territorial claims in the South China Sea.

The construction of new Chinese military facilities at Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base is a point of strong contention with Washington.

Clearly, US claims about Chinese foreign policy is pure projection. The US would be pressed to cite specific “punishments” China has dispensed to nations simply for cultivating ties with the US. The US, on the other hand, not only imposed various economic penalties on Cambodia’s government, Washington has also sponsored opposition forces who openly aim to overthrow the current Cambodian government.

In a 2017 Phnom Penh Post article titled, “Sokha video producer closes Phnom Penh office in fear,” a senior Cambodian opposition leader – Kem Sokha – would be quoted as saying:

“…the USA that has assisted me, they asked me to take the model from Yugoslavia, Serbia, where they can change the dictator [Slobodan] Milosevic,” he continues, referring to the former Serbian and Yugoslavian leader who resigned amid popular protests following disputed elections, and died while on trial for war crimes. 

He would also claim:

“I do not do anything at my own will. There experts, professors at universities in Washington, DC, Montreal, Canada, hired by the Americans in order to advise me on the strategy to change the dictator leader in Cambodia.” 

If Cambodia, whose constitution prohibits the presence of foreign military facilities on its territory, is willing to risk public backlash for allowing China to construct a “secret base” there, it might be as a means of preventing the country from becoming the next Ukraine.

Canada’s “Global Jurisdiction” vs Chinese Sovereignty 

Also in the headlines recently is a row growing between China and Canada over the latter’s air patrols “monitoring” North Korea.

A Reuters article, “China warns Canada over air patrols monitoring North Korea sanctions busting,” would claim:

China’s foreign ministry warned Canada on Monday of potential “severe consequences” of any “risky provocation,” after Canada’s military last week accused Chinese warplanes of harassing its patrol aircraft monitoring North Korea sanctions busting.

“The UN Security Council has never authorized any country to carry out military surveillance in the seas and airspace of other countries in the name of enforcing sanctions,” foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a media briefing. 

And indeed, the UN has not authorized Canada or any other nation to fly air patrols to enforce sanctions on North Korea. The Canadian patrol aircraft are so far from Canada’s own territory, they are actually based in Japan throughout the duration of these “monitoring” missions.

The United States’ self-appointed role as arbiter of who can and cannot construct military bases around the globe and Canadian patrol aircraft assuming global jurisdiction including off China’s own shores and around its neighbor’s shores, are illustrations of American exceptionalism (and by extension, the exceptionalism of their closest allies).

This exceptionalism led to the crisis in Ukraine which followed the US overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014.  The US began a process of militarizing the nation which shares a substantial border with the Russian Federation. Whereas the US was allowed to send its military to Ukraine to train forces for an eventual war with Russia, the US and its allies decried Russian military deployments within Russia’s own territory to put in check the growing threat Ukraine was being transformed into.

Whereas the US was able to interfere deeply in Ukraine’s internal political affairs, Russia was accused of backing separatists in the Donbas region and thus of fuelling the 8 year war that precipitated ongoing military operations in Ukraine today.

Likewise, the US is able to maintain hundreds of military bases around the globe, including those constructed as part of illegal wars of aggression and subsequent occupations. China, however, is apparently “wrong” for the potential use of part of an existing Cambodian naval facility, with Cambodia’s consent.

US allies like Canada are able to fly “patrol aircraft” thousands of miles from their own shores to “monitor” territory near Chinese shores and those of their neighbors, but China is unable to scramble its own aircraft to intercept and monitor these “patrols.”

In the past, this exceptionalism went unchecked. Because of China’s rise, there is a growing sense of balance being reintroduced into what has been until now a unipolar world order. While the US government and the Western media will complain about China’s growing ties both economically and militarily throughout the Indo-Pacific region, there is little the US can do to stop it. Its increasingly coercive and aggressive policies to punish nations seeking to do business with China may disrupt whatever balancing act many nations have been performing between East and West, driving them deeper into partnership with China and thus only succeed in isolating the US itself.

Only time will tell if the US continues down this increasingly destructive path, Ukraine being only the most recent victim of American exceptionalism, or if the US begins finding a constructive role within the emerging multipolar world.

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