Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, September 26, 2026
[Salon] In a US-China world, Asean must do more than avoid choosing sides - Guest Post
Simon Tay
In a US-China world, Asean must do more than avoid choosing sides
Following the uneasy truce at the Xi-Trump summit, Asean must go beyond passive hedging and forge middle-power partnerships to secure its autonomy
SCMP
Simon Tay is a public intellectual as well as an adviser to major corporations and policymakers.
Published: 8:30pm, 25 Sep 2026
The good news is, when US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Washington this week, neither chose confrontation. Amid the high pomp and ceremony, what China has called “constructive strategic stability” continues.
Even an uneasy truce in great power relations can be useful. Both recognise the considerable incentive to prevent their economic rivalry from spiralling out of control. Even limited understandings can reduce risks in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies, and many will look for mechanisms that can stabilise the relationship.
But that does not mean an end to competition. Washington and Beijing continue to differ over technology, industrial policy, security and the shape of the international order, while Iran and Taiwan remain fraught topics. They have moved away from the broad tariff war waged last year, but targeted restrictions and industrial measures continue.
The contest will play out in efforts to win influence and support across our region. As the Xi-Trump summit ends, and Asean leaders prepare for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in the Philippines, the familiar question arises again: must the region choose between the two?
For many years, the answer has been no. Seeking good relations with both and not being drawn too closely into either camp has been the common response. Yet by itself, hedging is no longer sufficient. The challenge for Asean and the wider region is to preserve the ability to make our own choices.
There are obvious pressures to align. Security concerns push some countries towards the United States. Economic geography, trade and investment bring others closer to China. Technology restrictions, tariffs, supply-chain policies and defence arrangements can increasingly turn seemingly separate decisions into strategic choices.
China’s Defence Minister Dong Jun, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Prak Sokhonn and Cambodia’s Defence Minister General Tea Seiha meeting on April 22 in Phnom Penh. Photo: Handout / Agence Kampuchea Press / AFP)
China’s Defence Minister Dong Jun, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Prak Sokhonn and Cambodia’s Defence Minister General Tea Seiha meeting on April 22 in Phnom Penh. Photo: Handout / Agence Kampuchea Press / AFP)
Picking a side also carries costs. Consider Cambodia, which has an exceptionally close relationship with China. Yet during Cambodia’s border conflict with Thailand last year, Beijing treated both countries as friends, stressing its impartiality. That was understandable for China, as Thailand matters greatly too. But there is a lesson to draw. A close relationship does not necessarily mean a major power will support you when interests diverge.
Similarly, consider the Korean peninsula. South Korea is a formal US treaty. Yet Trump’s renewed interest in diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un led to substantial cuts in the US-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises. Seoul has not been abandoned, but it is a reminder that great powers will do what great powers do. Alignment is no guarantee that interests will coincide when it matters.
Yet not choosing is not enough. Nor does this concern only security.
US restrictions on advanced semiconductors and other technologies are directed primarily at competition with China, but increasingly affect third countries. Rules of origin and tariffs put Chinese investment and manufacturing throughout Southeast Asia under scrutiny even as China’s presence in electric vehicles, batteries, renewable energy and digital systems deepens. Decisions about technology, investment and manufacturing therefore acquire geopolitical significance.
Simply hedging and refusing to choose does not preserve autonomy. Countries need to create more choices with other powers to exercise autonomy in what I call a “Minus 2” world.
From time to time, subtract both the US and China from our mental map and ask what everyone else can do together. The possibilities are considerable
A Minus 2 world does not mean excluding the US and China. Nor should middle and smaller powers organise a third bloc. The proposition is more modest: from time to time, subtract both the US and China from our mental map and ask what everyone else can do together.
The possibilities are considerable. Japan has deep technological and industrial capabilities. South Korea is important in semiconductors, batteries and advanced manufacturing. India has scale and a growing technological base. Europe offers investment, markets and green technologies. Australia has resources, education and security capabilities.
Their interests are not identical. Some are US allies. Asean members are diversely oriented. But almost all share one important interest: they do not want every consequential decision to be defined by US-China rivalry.
Diversification is often valued in economic terms. Countries and companies diversify markets and suppliers to become more resilient. But there is today a strategic dimension to diversification. A Minus 2 mindset can give smaller countries more choices and agency, and foster more centres of influence. The more either great power pressures others to choose sides, the stronger the incentive for these others to work with one another in a genuinely multipolar world.
US President Donald Trump with Asean leaders at the 13th Asean-US summit during the 47th Asean summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 26, 2025. Photo: AFP
US President Donald Trump with Asean leaders at the 13th Asean-US summit during the 47th Asean summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 26, 2025. Photo: AFP
The coming Asean summit brings that into focus. Of course, this is a platform to engage the US and China. But it should also strengthen relationships that give Asean members greater room for manoeuvre. Many other partners will already be around the table, offering a practical application of how Asean thinks about “centrality”.
The group must go beyond merely convening meetings at which the two great powers compete for attention. Asean centrality can connect a wider range of countries with one another and advance practical cooperation. There is already an agenda to build on: concluding the Asean Digital Economy Framework Agreement, advancing the Asean power grid and cross-border electricity trading, and strengthening regional supply chains and investment.
These are some projects already making progress. They can also provide platforms for deeper partnerships with Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, Europe and others, including in AI and digital technologies, green finance and advanced manufacturing.
The Xi-Trump truce may give breathing room. But the initiative must be taken by others in Asia, using that space to deepen connections among themselves.
Strategic autonomy is not secured simply by refusing to choose. It grows from having more choices and a Minus 2 perspective. The Asean summit is an opportunity to show the region has agency.
Simon Tay
Simon Tay is a public intellectual as well as an adviser to major corporations and policymakers. He is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, an
--
Friday, September 25, 2026
Thursday, September 24, 2026
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail
Many people find today's parable unsettling. It doesn't seem fair. Imagine paying someone who worked only one hour the same wage as someone who labored for 12. By our standards, it simply doesn't make sense.
But then again, many of Jesus' parables don't make sense at first glance.
Think of the unforgiving servant, whose enormous debt is completely forgiven. No king in the first century would have cancelled such a debt, any more than Visa or Master Card would erase a person's credit card debt today.
Or, consider the shepherd who leaves 99 sheep to search for one that wandered away. What shepherd would risk the entire flock for a single sheep?
Or the woman who turns her house upside down to find one small coin. Or the father who joyfully welcomes home the wayward son instead of putting him on probation to prove his repentance.
Each of these stories surprises us, because each reveals something extraordinary about God. His ways are not our ways. His mercy is greater than our expectations and His generosity goes far beyond what we think is fair.
The same is true in today's Gospel. The workers who labored all day in the scorching heat felt cheated when those hired only an hour before quitting time received the very same wage.
But Jesus isn't teaching a lesson about fair wages or labor relations. He's teaching us about grace.
The landowner represents God, whose generosity cannot be measured by human standards. Whether someone has served Him for a lifetime or comes to Him at the very end, His mercy is freely given. None of us earn God's love. Every one of us receives it as a gift.
This parable is meant to leave us asking, "What kind of God is this?"
The answer is simple: He is a God who never stops seeking the lost, never tires of forgiving and never measures His love according to what we deserve.
As the Prophet Isaiah reminds us, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways."
God is not bound by our calculations of fairness, or our notions of who deserves what. His defining characteristic is love. And for that, we should all be grateful.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, September 22, 2026
aftale_eng.pdf - Denmark, Greenland, and US Agreement
aftale_eng.pdf
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK
TOGETHER WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF GREENLAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT OF
27 APRIL 1951 PURSUANT TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THE DEFENSE OF GREENLAND (1951 DEFENSE
AGREEMENT), INCLUDING ALL RELEVANT SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS RELATED
THERETO
Monday, September 21, 2026
Sunday, September 20, 2026
Saturday, September 19, 2026
Friday, September 18, 2026
The Decline & Fall Of Brussels | Armstrong Economics
The Decline & Fall Of Brussels | Armstrong Economics
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/the-decline-fall-of-brussels/?awt_a=1JPVU&awt_l=1yd7E&awt_m=8.cUTzVDeS4vxrVU
Thursday, September 17, 2026
Wednesday, September 16, 2026
[Salon] Trump was ‘shocked’ that Iran fought back. He shouldn’t have been - Guest Post by Stephen Kinzer, Boston Globe
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/09/16/opinion/trump-iran-history-pressure-resistance/
Trump was ‘shocked’ that Iran fought back. He shouldn’t have been.
A deep history of Persian resistance presaged the pushback.
By Stephen Kinzer – Boston Globe - September 16, 2026
Future historians may tell the story of the Iran war through a quote from President Trump that perfectly encapsulates it. “We were shocked,” Trump said after the first US-Israeli attack failed to destroy Iran’s government. “They fought back.”
The president, fresh from an easy triumph in Venezuela, thought Iran would fall just as easily. But instead of success, he hit a brick wall.
Only by ignoring every serious scholar and intelligence analyst was it possible for Trump to delude himself into thinking that Iran was a soft target. In fact, the opposite is true. History, religious tradition, and political culture combine to give Iranians extraordinary resilience.
Iran has one of the richest histories of any country on earth. It is 10 times as old as the United States, tracing its roots back to Persian emperors like Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes. Iranians consider themselves part of something that is grand and magnificent. Their attachment to their country is profoundly emotional.
One reason Iranians resist foreign intervention so fiercely is that they have had so much practice. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane ravaged their land. Arabs invaded and imposed Islam. In the 19th century, Russia seized large swaths of Iran’s territory.
The name of one of the treaties by which Iran lost that territory — Turkmenchay — has become a curse word in Iran. Any Iranian who supports a deal with the United States risks being accused of accepting “another Turkmenchay.” That is the equivalent of banishment from Iranian politics. This intense historical sensitivity makes any US-Iran accord difficult.
Another obstacle is the sorry record of relations between the two countries. Iran was an incipient democracy after World War II, but its government challenged the economic order imposed by the United States and Britain by nationalizing its oil industry. In 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower used the CIA to depose Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had led the drive for oil nationalization. That led to a quarter-century of royal dictatorship, followed by the 1978-9 hostage crisis and nearly a half-century of religious rule. The one seeming breakthrough, President Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, evaporated after Trump withdrew from it. Americans may see Iran as malign and untrustworthy, but the feeling is mutual.
The binding effect of Shia Islam, which most Iranians profess, also gives them inspiration to resist. Its two most revered figures, Ali and Hussein, were 7th-century martyrs who the Shia believe died defending justice against tyranny. This legacy, enriched over centuries, has given Iranians a sense that suffering oppression at the hands of evildoers is pleasing to God. Even many unbelievers have absorbed the Shia principle that it is morally wrong to capitulate to iniquitous power.
Shia believers do not have a “martyr complex,” as is sometimes asserted, but neither do they succumb easily. Trump’s recently announced economic sanctions — a “crushing economic operation,” he called it — will undoubtedly hurt many Iranians. It is unlikely, however, to drive them to demand that their leaders make a deal with Americans or Israelis.
Domestic Iranian politics combines with history and tradition to stiffen the country’s resistance. The country’s new leaders are decidedly more militant than those who were killed in the first wave of US-Israeli attacks. They see this war as a gift because it gives them a historic chance to kick the United States out of the Middle East. That gives them an incentive to fight on and to reject compromise or cease-fire.
Iranians do not cheer for their government. Many and perhaps most of them wish for a different kind of society. At this moment, though, the Revolutionary Guard and its allies are the ones defending Iran against an enemy that seems to want to end its existence as a sovereign nation. People naturally support their leaders when their country is attacked. President George W. Bush’s popularity rating soared to 90 percent after the 9/11 bombings. Iran’s government is benefiting from that same rally-round-the-flag impulse.
For years the United States has pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. Its defenders have a simple explanation for why it has failed: It hasn’t been maximum enough. Just keep turning up the pressure, they insist, and at some point Iran will collapse into America’s lap. Trump’s new sanctions, which he called “an economic D-Day” for Iran, are the latest iteration of “maximum pressure.”
Iran’s great weapon in this war is its resilience and ability to absorb pain. Americans are unhappy to read that more than a dozen US service members have been killed since this war began. Iran, by contrast, absorbed hundreds of thousands of casualties in its war with Iraq in the 1980s. While Americans grumble about rising gas prices, Iranians have endured economic devastation wrought by decades of US-sponsored sanctions. It’s clear which country is better girded for a long conflict.
Trump launched this war with the same combination of arrogance and ignorance that shaped his predecessors’ interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. All of his tactical gambits have foundered on the shoals of Iranian resistance. This war has shown the world more than tragedy. It is also a reminder that 25 centuries of Iranian history have forged a remarkably tenacious nation.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)