How is Russia like China and Belarus like Myanmar? The fact that the West likes to have a relatively small country at the side of every large and strong global competitor (Russia or China), which will create all sorts of troubles for the competitor – material or at least propaganda. Trouble for a small country will mean the threat of its own collapse and disaster, but so what?
But let us note that even in this case, the cowardly superpower is trying to focus on propaganda and other ideological incitement, and to do its own thing with someone else's hands. That is, with the help of performers (allies), also relatively small and located close to the country, which is elected as a victim. In the case of Belarus, these are all sorts of small Europeans, and with Myanmar – small Asians. And then it turns out once again that Asia is not Europe. In Asia, there are noticeably fewer people who want to have trouble servicing the adventures of a superpower.
There are two recent episodes from international diplomacy around Myanmar (formerly Burma), a strategically important partner for China, through whose territory the Chinese routes to the Indian Ocean run. While the western group of states is constantly raising a foam of indignation (“the enraged military regime is killing peaceful demonstrators, there are already more than 500 of them”), the neighbors of China and Myanmar – the countries of Southeast Asia – had a serious conversation with Beijing about how to help Myanmar.
It looked like this: four foreign ministers (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines – in that order) one after another met with their colleague from Beijing Wang Yi in the Chinese province of Fujian. Informally, this team was headed by a Singaporean, because his country – no matter how pro-Western it may be considered – has long been explaining, above all to America, that it is not necessary to substitute Southeast Asia for artificially created conflicts between the United States and China. There is no need to force these countries to choose with whom they are, because they are friends with both superpowers at once for economic and many other reasons. Actual
An Indonesian initiative was discussed in Fujian – to send a certain delegation to Myanmar to resolve the crisis there. No one argues that there is a crisis, that the military, apparently, overdid it in terms of the harshness of the reaction to subversive street actions, but this means that it is necessary to put them at the table with the opposition and resolve the situation. And it is clear that, since the main partner of Myanmar is China, one cannot do without it. The idea is in development, and the only thing that is clear so far is that the Asians themselves will solve the Asian problems, without outsiders.
Moreover, it is not that this is some kind of unique event – this is the norm. In the countries of Asia, they had demanded for years not to involve them in any international confrontation. Let's remember how they reacted there six years ago to the American idea of subjecting Russia to universal sanctions …
The reason is simple: someone else benefits from confrontation, and the problems lie with the countries of the region. In particular, from the neighbors of Myanmar. And it's not even about the possible crowds of refugees from there. Now in Asia, other reminders are very popular of what will happen to them all if the internal conflict in Myanmar is allowed to continue to burn. In particular, in the east of the country there are tribes that were part of the “Golden Triangle” – they grew poppy and made opium, then heroin. And now they have learned to make synthetic drugs such as methamphetamines, which go primarily to neighbors. Thai authorities recently confiscated a record 80 million tablets at their border in just one case. It is clear that all of Asia (and not only it) needs a strong power in Myanmar. And, by the way, the role of drug syndicates in the current actions of “the people against the military” is still unknown, but facts on this topic cannot but surface. Because anarchy is very pleasant for the syndicates.
And, speaking of emerging facts, here is the second episode in the history of current internal problems in Myanmar. It concerns an absolutely unexpected player in the internal “revolutionary” events in this country – Taiwan.
Beijing, obviously, is very closely following what is happening in Myanmar and sometimes shares information with the outside world. And it turns out that Taiwanese business in Myanmar is active in supporting demonstrations against the military, strange stories emerge with counterfeit Chinese banknotes, for some reason packed in a Taiwanese bank. But most importantly, calls began to come from the beautiful island for Myanmar revolutionaries to join the “Milk Tea Alliance” – a virtual (existing almost only on the Internet) anti-Chinese organization that incites the young middle class across Asia to dislike China and, at the same time, their authorities, to arrange demonstrations in the most unexpected places.
This is news. Who remembers any activity of Taiwan in general in international politics? But under the Donald Trump administration, this island – with its dubious legal status on the world map – began to actively tune into action against China. Actions, as we see, followed.
And it is clear that they only strengthen the countries of Southeast Asia in their “reflex of neutrality”: if the Taiwanese also began to harm China, then the region is getting even hotter. And this is not to mention the fact that the exit from the pandemic will be accompanied by the calculation of economic losses and associated very possible political shocks throughout the region, so everyone is cautious.
Let's go back to the question of why Asia is not Europe. Why, in the case of Belarus, the instigators of similar revolts are, first of all, neighboring countries – Poland, Lithuania and not only them, but in Asia, in a similar situation with Myanmar, the reflex of the neighbors is exactly the opposite: to extinguish the flame of revolutions.
Perhaps the point is in the official status of the Europeans: all – in a row – are members of NATO and the European Union, while this is not the case in Asia. Maybe it’s a matter of historical memory: what the United States staged in Asia in the 60-70s (the war in Indochina, from which it was bad primarily for the locals). Or maybe the fact is that Asian civilizations are a thousand or two years older than European ones, that is, people in Asia are simply smarter.