All routes lead to China

 

After a US$1 trillion investment, the e has evolved into a global infrastructure and economic strategy involving more than 150 countries.

Two months ago, China inaugurated a new train service that adopts a sea-road-rail intermodal approach, reducing the transit time to about 18 days for about 4,300km – more than a 50% increase in efficiency – and notably avoids passing through the Strait of Malacca.

Its full name, the “Zheng He” Sea-road-rail International Multimodal Transport Service, departs from Kunming, carrying 26 containers of Yunnan specialities, including vegetables, fertilisers and animal feed. It then traverses the China-laos Railway to Vientiane, Laos, and then divides into three routes to complete the transportation.

Route one transfers to the Thai railway network to reach Changwat Saraburi in Thailand, route two connects to road transport to Laem Chabang Port in Thailand, followed by sea freight to Singapore.

And route three connects to road transport to Ranong Port in Thailand, then by sea to Yangon Port in Myanmar, and thence by sea to Chittagong Port in Bangladesh.

Named after the renowned navigator Zheng He, a favourite son of Kunming, this amazing feat of engineering has opened up goods from the mainland and Yunnan specifically to new markets, saving costs and resources.

One of these new markets could potentially be Malaysia.

With China being Asean’s largest trading partner, Malaysia’s geographical position makes it a crucial node for the Maritime Silk Road, with its ports and infrastructure playing a pivotal role in regional connectivity and trade.

A key BRI initiative is the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL), a massive infrastructure project connecting the east and west coasts of the peninsula with 20 stations along its route.

Construction work for the 665km railway project has reached 86% completion as of July, despite several hiccups and challenges throughout its development and implementation phases. It is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.

Aimed at improving connectivity and stimulating economic development, the project traversing Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang and Selangor is set to be an economic game changer, especially in boosting Malaysia’s transportation network.

Travel time between Kota Baru and the Klang Valley is anticipated to be around four hours, compared to seven hours or more by road during festive seasons.

In March, Investment, Trade and Industry Minister Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz said the ECRL will serve as a catalyst for socioeconomic growth and is expected to increase the country’s GDP by 3.78% by 2047. - 

In April, the Malaysian Investment Development Authority said the ECRL is anticipated to generate RM1.4 trillion for Malaysia’s economy by 2047 with a focus on industrial parks, logistics hubs and transit-oriented developments.

The numbers quoted are impressive, but for the ECRL to truly be effective, there must be a further rail connection with the Thai rail network.

There has been talk of extending the ECRL from Kota Baru to the Sungai Golok border in Thailand to create a seamless connection. This in turn can ensure a transfer of goods from Yunnan and vice versa.

While talks are ongoing between the Thai and Malaysian governments, there are obstacles in the way. Flood risks in the low lying Rantau Panjang stretch is a worry, as is track compatibility because the ECRL uses a standard gauge (1.435m wide), while the State Railway of Thailand uses a 1m gauge.

Technical issues aside, there is political consensus to see the connection happen and it would stimulate trade between the two countries.

As the BRI evolves, it is prompting discussion and debate as to its optimal scale, design, benefits and impact. What cannot be denied is that this initiative continues to be a significant geopolitical force, with its influence on regional and global development being recognised worldwide.

This is no longer a speculative blueprint; it is the largest modern infrastructure initiative in human history. - by ),Brian Martin,

The evolution of Malaysian foreign policy

Kuala Lumpur once prized non-alignment above all else – now it sees Beijing as more reliable than lectures from the West.- Murni Abdul Hamid

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim during a parade for Malaysian Independence Day celebrations last month in Putrajaya, Malaysia (Syaiful Redzuan/Anadolu via Getty Images

Malaysia’s approach in navigating great power rivalry since the Cold War has largely been based on the principles of non-alignment, neutralism, and equidistance. However, two contrasting snapshots of the country’s Independence (Merdeka) Day celebration – half a century apart – offer an interesting perspective on whether Malaysia’s contemporary position has shifted away from these principles.

On 31 August 1973, Malaysia’s second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, hastily left the joyous Merdeka celebration midway to depart for Algiers and lead the Malaysian delegation to the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) Summit. It was his first time attending the summit. It had taken several attempts for Malaysia to become a NAM member, largely due to Indonesia’s opposition and influence within the Afro-Asian group during the Konfrontasi period. Malaysia’s experience of Konfrontasi and the retreat of the British from the region pushed the country to seek friends among other newly independent states.

When Malaysia finally became a NAM member in 1970, its foreign policy gradually shifted away from heavy reliance on the United Kingdom toward a more neutral and non-aligned stance. Against this background, Tun Razak strongly felt the need for Malaysia to be represented at the highest level in Algiers to signify the country’s commitment to non-alignment – even if it meant leaving the Merdeka celebration halfway.

Malaysia’s second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak (Bettmann/Getty Images)

Jump forward just over 50 years to 31 August 2025, Malaysia’s tenth Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, left at the conclusion of the nation’s Merdeka celebration to immediately depart for China to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit. It was the first time Malaysia had participated in the SCO, in which Malaysia is neither a member nor an observer. It was also the first time a Malaysian leader attended China’s “Victory Parade” in Beijing, which this year took place a few days later, to commemorate the end of the Second World War, alongside other leaders including from Russia, North Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Iran.

Since becoming Prime Minister in late 2022, Anwar has visited China four times, with China’s President and Premier reciprocating accordingly (also a total of four times if including the upcoming ASEAN Summit and other meetings next month).

While China has been Malaysia’s largest trading partner since 2009, relations with China have further intensified in recent years both bilaterally and multilaterally. These include Malaysia’s active involvement in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and participation in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP). Stronger ties also extend to decisions to allow Chinese companies to develop the country’s second 5G network and to revitalise Malaysia’s national car industry, the recent acceptance of China’s vision of building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind, and the landmark creation of a bilateral mechanism with China to discuss maritime issues. Malaysia’s decision to join BRICS, and the initiative to bring in China into the ASEAN-GCC platform by hosting the first-ever ASEAN-GCC-China Summit in Kuala Lumpur, also illustrate the depth of relations.

The actions of the great powers leave little room for Malaysia to manoeuvre, and siding with the more predictable and reliable power seems to be the less risky option.

While Malaysia’s intensification of cooperation with China should not be viewed as a zero-sum game, it is hard to ignore that this occurred against the backdrop of deteriorating relations with the United States. From the perspective of Malaysian leaders, the more benign power and trusted partner today is not the United States, but China. This, in spite of several challenges, particularly in the South China Sea.

In Anwar’s speech during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Malaysia earlier this year, he praised China as a rational, steady, and reliable partner amid the turbulence of “economic tribalism” and threats to multilateralism and the rules-based order. Last year, when Anwar spoke off-the-cuff at a business luncheon in honour of Premier Li Qiang in Kuala Lumpur, he commended the attitude of the Chinese leadership as “friendly, courteous, full of respect, [and] understanding of cultures and differences”, in contrast to the “narrative from the others” and the “barrage of questions” from others – especially “the western” – on whether Malaysia’s close relations with China would be in Malaysia’s best interest.

Understandably, as an independent nation, no country appreciates being told who it should be friends with, especially when those doing the lecturing neither act as they preach nor have been reliable friends in the first place.

While closer relations with the United States would still serve Malaysia’s interests – particularly in the realms of the economy and defence – they are proving even more elusive under President Donald Trump. His arbitrary tariff impositions, aggressive rhetoric (even against allies), withdrawals from multilateral organisations, disregard for the rule of law, undermining of the global order, and coddling of Israel have been obstacles for Malaysian leaders in promoting closer ties with the United States. Domestically, various opinion polls in recent years have shown a steady decline in Malaysians’ favourable perceptions towards the United States, while favourable views of China and even Russia have increased significantly.

If the above trend persists, Malaysia might find itself moving even further away from its non-aligned, neutral, and equidistant stances that served it well in the past. At present, however, the actions of the great powers leave little room for Malaysia to manoeuvre, and siding with the more predictable and reliable power seems to be the less risky option.

Source link

Susannah Patton20h ago

Is the US really losing to
China in Southeast Asia?

A major new research project published by the Lowy Institute says yes – but there’s more to the story

Fierce UNGA debates highlight the timeliness and relevance of Global Governance Initiative

 

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres speaks during the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York City on September 23, 2025. Photo: AFP

 The General Debate of the UN General Assembly (UNGA)'s 80th Session opened on Tuesday local time at UN headquarters in New York. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN, a moment that should have been celebratory. Yet, judging from the very first day, words such as "disagreements" and "disputes" dominated public opinion. The Washington Post noted that beyond the financial strain because of the refusal of the US to make any payments to its regular budget, the UN is facing "crises that have caused deepening divisions." In his address, UN Secretary-General António Guterres bluntly stated that "multipolarity without effective multilateral institutions courts chaos" and stressed that "international cooperation is not naiveté." Behind these divisions lies the deficit in global governance and the urgent need for reform and improvement.

Amid the heated discussions at this year's UNGA, the international community once again witnessed a direct clash between two approaches to governance. On one side lies the logic of hegemony and unilateral action, which treats multilateral mechanisms as mere tools of power; on the other stands the path of genuine multilateralism, grounded in sovereign equality, solidarity, and cooperation. What international media have described as a "fierce debate" at the UN reflects a sobering reality: Outdated governance models can no longer address global challenges. The current international system suffers from three major shortcomings - serious underrepresentation of the Global South, erosion of authoritativeness, and urgent need for greater effectiveness - making systemic reform both urgent and imperative.

If one were to distill the hopes, expectations, and questions voiced by representatives at the UNGA, they would converge on a defining question of our time: What kind of global governance system should be built, and how can it be reformed and improved? 80 years ago, nations drew lessons from the ruins of World War II, founded the UN, and embarked on a new experiment in global governance. Over the past 80 years, the UN has adopted more than 40,000 resolutions and decisions, building a system of rules for global governance and helping to maintain overall peace in the world, which is no small feat. The successful experience is evident: Effective global governance does not come from the "protection of a world police," but from broad consensus on peace, democracy, development, cooperation, and win-win outcomes, as well as principles such as peaceful coexistence, collective security, the democratization of international relations, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

The more these consensuses and principles are strengthened, the smoother coordination and cooperation among the international community, especially major powers, will become, and the greater the role the UN will be able to play. Conversely, when these principles are undermined, the UN's role is constrained. Therefore, the key to addressing today's many hotspot issues is not "whether the UN is still needed" as some claim. In fact, the more turbulent and intertwined the international situation becomes, the more important it is to uphold the UN's authority, to reaffirm its founding mission, and to renew the commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. This year's General Assembly saw the denial of the UN's role, the rejection of multilateralism, and the dismissal of the current international order expressed by a few countries, which sparked wide controversy and even "shock," underscoring that peace and development remain the mainstream aspirations of the international community.

The international community must work together to ensure the UN keeps pace with the times. Reform, however, is not about tearing everything down and starting anew, but about making the UN more adaptable to the needs of today's world. The China-proposed Global Governance Initiative (GGI) comes at a critical moment when acts of great-power bullying are causing serious harm and severely undermining multilateral mechanisms such as the UN. It offers China's solutions for enhancing and improving global governance. The core concepts of adhering to sovereign equality, abiding by international rule of law, practicing multilateralism, advocating the people-centered approach, and focusing on taking real actions are in line with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, resonating with the common expectations of the vast majority of countries. The initiative focuses on innovation and improvement, enhancing the effectiveness and implementation of the current international system and mechanisms, so that they better reflect changes in the international landscape and situation, respond more promptly and effectively to global challenges, and better safeguard the common interests of all countries. 

Currently, unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise, severely impacting international development cooperation and weakening the momentum of global economic growth. To address the many contradictions and problems we face today, we should maintain a focus on development, fully promote growth, and work together to expand the development pie. The four global initiatives proposed by China has gained increasing international resonance precisely because it accurately addresses the strong desire of the international community for peace, development, and cooperation. 

In a world filled with uncertainty, adhering to multilateralism and promoting the development of a global governance system toward a more equitable and reasonable direction is not only the shared responsibility of the international community but also an essential pathway to building a community with a shared future for humanity. This righteous path has gathered the collaborative efforts of more and more countries.

The "intense collisions" during the 80th session of the UNGA represent a profound inquiry from the times regarding global governance. The Eastern wisdom and practical pathways embodied in the GGI provide a clear direction for addressing the global governance deficit. While the transformation of the global governance system may be fraught with challenges, historical experience demonstrates that ideas aligned with the common interests of the majority of countries and in tune with the trend of peaceful development will ultimately gain widespread recognition and translate into real momentum.