Blogs

Asia Unbound

CFR fellows and other experts assess the latest issues emerging in Asia today.

Latest Post

U.S. President Donald Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim hold up trade deal documents during a bilateral meeting at the 47th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on October 26, 2025.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim hold up trade deal documents during a bilateral meeting at the 47th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on October 26, 2025. Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters

The White House Transformed Asia in 2025: Expect Much More in 2026

In 2025, the second administration of U.S. President Donald Trump dramatically changed the trajectory of U.S. engagement with Asia through its tariff-heavy approach, a trend that seems set to continue in the year ahead. 

Read More
North Korea
North Korea and Kim Jong-il: The Myanmar Element
North Korea's Foreign Minister Pak Ui-chun (4th R) visits the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon, Myanmar July 29, 2010 (Soe Zeya Tun/Courtesy Reuters). Over the past five years, as North Korea’s few friends and allies in the world dwindled, and the international community cracked down on its proliferation activities, Myanmar has apparently become much more important to Pyongyang strategically. From virtually no relationship at all ten years ago, now the two pariah nations have regular high-level military-military dialogues, including some of the senior-most members of the former Myanmar military regime. As The Irrawaddy reported several years ago: In November 2008, a Burmese military delegation led by Gen Shwe Mann flew secretly to North Korea and met the army-in-chief, Gen Kim Kyok-sik. They agreed terms of cooperation on several military initiatives, including radar and jamming units, air defense systems, and a computer-controlled command center. The delegation also visited North Korean SCUD missile factories which are located in the tunnels. The two countries signed an agreement that North Korea will help in the construction of military facilities for missiles, aircraft and war ships. That’s far from all. There is considerable suspicion in Western and Asian intelligence communities that North Korea has been helping Myanmar develop some elements of a nuclear and/or ballistic missile program, and that Myanmar has also served as a staging point for all manner of illegal North Korean money-making activities, including American currency fraud, smuggling of other goods, and possibly proliferation to other, third nations. Shortly before Hillary Clinton’s trip to Myanmar three weeks ago, Senator Richard Lugar revealed that his office has had information about Myanmar’s nuclear ambitions, with the help of North Korea, for five years now. North Korean technicians have been reportedly helping Myanmar build tunnels and other underground facilities whose purpose is unknown, and ships carrying weapons from North Korea have been stopped in international waters on their way to Myanmar. Some Burmese defectors say that North Korean military technicians have been closely involved in nascent efforts to develop a Burmese nuclear weapons program. But with the emerging U.S.-Myanmar rapprochement, there is a real opportunity here for the United States to gain insight into North Korea’s proliferation activities, criminal networks, and other foreign endeavors, through discussions with Myanmar military and civilian officials. Other than Chinese officials, or a high-level North Korean defector (which has not happened in years), these Myanmar military men may be the most knowledgeable sources about the North available. There is evidence that Myanmar might be willing to give up information about its North Korean ally and North Korean aid inside Myanmar: As The Irrawaddy reported, Myanmar President Thein Sein “told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Burma follows the resolution of the UN Security Council regarding nuclear non-proliferation when the pair met in Naypyidaw on Dec. 1.” Other Myanmar officials say that some military and civilian leaders recognize that, if Myanmar is going to have real rapprochement with the international community, it will need to give up its ties to North Korea, or at least make them far more transparent. And some older Burmese officials remember that Pyongyang is not exactly a stable ally: In an attempt to kill South Korea’s then-president, Chun do-Hwan, North Korean terrorists in 1983 exploded a large bomb in downtown Rangoon,  murdering much of the South Korean cabinet, and 21 people in total (though not Chun).
China
Occupy Wukan: China’s 99 Percent
Residents observe a moment of silence for a local leader who died in police custody, during a demonstration in Wukan village on December 13, 2011. The banner reads: "Everyone has a responsibility in fighting corruption and graft." (Stringer / Courtesy of Reuters) It all began with a protest over illegal land sales and rigged elections. According to the investigative Chinese journal Caixin, the local government in Wukan village in southern Guangdong province had earned over 700 million yuan (roughly US$110 million) from selling collectively-owned farmland but it disbursed only 550 yuan (roughly US$86) to each villager. Moreover, the highly unpopular village party secretary and director had rigged the local elections, managing to hold on to power for 40 years as a result.  The villagers had been unhappy about the situation for a number of years and have complained by petition since 2009. However, there was no resolution until they finally took to the streets in September. The good news is that by late November after a few months of protest—some of it violent—the villagers succeeded in ousting the two village leaders. The Chinese media argued at the time that Guangdong, under Party Secretary Wang Yang (a candidate for the Standing Committee of the Politburo in the 2012-2013 leadership transition), was pursuing a new approach to social unrest, one that tried to “balance maintaining stability and basic rights while helping people to express their needs.” The bad news is that the balance still isn’t quite right. In recent days, the Wukan villagers have seized control of the village, demonstrating against the alleged cover-up of police brutality that led to the death on December 11 of Xue Jinbo, a demonstration leader. The Chinese media have also gone dark. There is no more talk about the new way of handling protests. On December 14, the acting mayor of Shanwei City Wu Zili said that in regards to organizations planning to “incite trouble,” the government is determined to crack down on the destruction of public property and the obstruction of official business. The local government is now trying to starve the villagers out by setting up five roadblocks with guards all around the village to prevent food and other resources from coming in and workers from leaving. Eventually the siege will end but the fundamental challenge to Beijing will not. Every year, despite the country’s impressive economic growth, the number of protests grows. By one estimate, Beijing now contends with 180,000 so-called “mass incidents”. The why of these protests is no mystery: the lack of the rule of law, transparency, and official accountability. These are the structural elements that define the country’s political system and allow corruption to flourish. In the Wukan case, the villagers are protesting corruption in both land sales and the electoral process. Whether the protests are over these issues or the environment or defective products, the root cause is the same. Beijing’s take away from the Wukan protest probably won’t be much more than “It’s time to launch another [ineffective] anti-corruption campaign.” The real take away, however, is that it is time to listen to what Premier Wen Jiabao had to say a few months ago in Dalian: “We must govern the country by law… We need to uphold judicial justice…People’s democratic rights and interests prescribed in the Constitution must be protected. The most important ones are the right to vote and to stay informed about, participate in, and oversee government affairs.” Put more bluntly, if the 5th generation* of Party leaders doesn’t listen to Wen and seize the initiative on political reform, it is looking more and more likely that the Chinese people will. *Thank you Yoshihiro Mukaiyama for realizing that I meant the 5th, not 6th generation of Party leaders.  
Thailand
U.S. Citizen Sent to Jail in Thailand for Insulting the King
Joe Gordon arrives at the Bangkok Criminal Court December 8, 2011. The U.S. citizen was given 2-1/2 years in prison on Thursday for insulting the Thai monarchy, the latest in a series of draconian sentences handed down for lese-majeste and one that could cause friction with the United States (Chaiwat Subprasom/Courtesy Reuters). As detailed in a comprehensive New York Times article by Thomas Fulller, an American citizen was sentenced this week to two and a half years in jail in Thailand for translating portions of a book that is critical of the Thai monarch. The accused, Joe Gordon, is a Thai-American but a U.S. passport holder. This sentencing comes on top of a wave of other tough, and frankly absurd, crackdowns by the Thai government on alleged anti-monarchical sentiment online. Just a few weeks ago, a Thai court sentenced an elderly man, suffering from cancer, to twenty years in prison for allegedly sending several text messages critical of the crown. The court was unable to prove that the man, who hardly seemed like a technological savant, had actually sent the messages in question, but neither could he prove that he had not sent them – so, by default in the mixed-up lèse-majesté trial system, he got a long jail sentence. Now, one of the most strident opposition politicians, MP Mallika Boonmetrakul, has gone much farther. She has called for other countries to assist Thailand in cracking down on anti-monarchical sentiment online – in essence, to help Thailand crush free speech. If other nations, and tech companies, will not help Thailand, she has suggested that the Thai government should simply shut down sites like Facebook in Thailand (for more on this see New Mandala). The government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, which came into office in July seeming somewhat more willing to rethink the lèse-majesté laws and especially their application online, now has been so battered by the opposition and by its poor management of Thailand’s flooding that it, too, is trying to appear as pro-monarchy as possible and so seems to be actually stepping up the online crackdowns as compared to the previous, royalist, Democrat government. Even some of the most tame media outlets in Thailand, like the Bangkok Post, have quietly begun to question whether this war on lèse-majesté online has not gotten so over-the-top that it is costing Thailand’s reputation internationally and stifling free speech. What will be the response of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other companies? In the past, some of the companies, like YouTube, have been willing to bend, expressing support for Thailand’s unique cultural sensitivities and removing some videos perceived as insulting to the Thai monarchy. But at some point social media, file-sharing, and online video companies are simply going to have to push back – hard – to show the Thai government how far it is straying out of accepted norms for the Internet in free nations.  
  • China
    The Growing Brouhaha Over Beijing’s Air Quality
    Buildings in Beijing are pictured on a recent day with heavy haze and smog. (Jason Lee / Courtesy of Reuters) Smog recently forced the cancellation of almost 700 flights at Beijing airport, igniting a mini-media firestorm. Since flights at Beijing’s airport have been canceled on any number of occasions over the past two decades because of pollution, why all the attention now? Several reasons: First, the flight cancellations have generally occurred in the spring as a result of the yellow dust storms that sweep across China’s northern plain. The city of Beijing has little ability to control these choking clouds of dust. This time, however, the pollution was all Beijing’s doing. Second, the Beijing government is already under enormous popular pressure for its inability and/or unwillingness to tackle its air quality problems head on. Everyone in Beijing knows that on a daily basis the air quality ranges from fair to fairly awful. How else did it earn the distinction of being one of the world’s dirtiest capitals? The local government simply refuses to acknowledge the reality of the problem. Thus, while it regularly reports blue sky days, the people in Beijing live in an almost perpetual state of gray. But the real catalyst for the current contretemps is the American Embassy. If Beijing citizens were once resigned to living in this alternative state of reality, that is no longer the case. The American Embassy has changed the way the game is played. On a daily basis, the embassy tweets data reflecting the real air quality for the area in which the embassy resides. Last Sunday for example, as NPR reported, the pollution recorded by the embassy hit a level described as “beyond index.” The Beijing Municipal Bureau of Environmental Protection, in contrast, reported the air pollution as “light.” There are important differences in the pollutants on which Beijing reports (PM 10) and those on which the U.S. Embassy reports (PM 2.5 and Ozone) and how each rates air quality (the United States has much stricter standards for clean air). Environmental expert Steven Q. Andrews provides an excellent analysis comparing the two sets of measurements and standards. (Steven is a personal hero of mine having been the person who, a few years ago, uncovered the Chinese government’s habit of moving air pollution monitoring equipment to less heavily trafficked areas in order to improve the air quality ratings.) Beijing has pledged to report on additional pollutants by 2016. Why 2016? My guess is that they are waiting for the 12th Five Year Plan to kick into gear in the vain hope that the government’s investment in alternative energies and alternative fuel vehicles will come to fruition and help them out. I don’t think the people will wait that long. They know that the government has the capacity to measure and report on the additional statistics now. Real estate billionaire Pan Shiyi conducted an online poll and discovered that 91 percent of the more than 40,000 respondents believed that the government should monitor particle levels at the 2.5 micrometer level this year. People in Beijing care about their health and the health of their children. According to a deputy director of the Beijing Health Bureau, the lung cancer rate in Beijing has increased by 60 percent even though rate of smoking has not increased. It doesn’t help the Beijing public to know that their own leaders have air purifiers in their offices and other government buildings. Even as Beijing struggles to address the popular discontent with the city’s air pollution, it appears to be trying to get ahead of the curve on water issues. The Global Times announced that people in Beijing will be able to access daily an online system to check their water quality. Of course, they will be receiving information not about the water they drink but rather about the quality of the water at the pumping station. As the article also notes, what happens as the water travels through “broken pipes” and “aging storage tanks” is anybody’s best guess.
  • North Korea
    When Will Secretary Clinton Visit Pyongyang?
    U.S. secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and former U.S. secretary of defense Robert M. Gates brief reporters at the Truce Village in Panmunjom, South Korea, on July 21, 2010 (Courtesy State Department). Secretary Hillary Clinton’s historic visit to Myanmar, the first by a U.S. secretary of state in over fifty years, has stimulated speculation among journalists (including at the end of her interview with the BBC in Rangoon) regarding the circumstances under which she might visit North Korea. The conditions in Myanmar also suggest some likely benchmarks for what it would take for the secretary of state to visit Pyongyang: an embrace of nascent economic and political reforms (including the possible release of some political prisoners); a return to the denuclearization commitments embodied in the September 2005 Six Party Joint Statement; and a South Korean political leader with the credibility to champion U.S. engagement so as to protect the administration from conservative congressional criticism. These conditions would represent a higher political threshold than what was required by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in her October 2000 meetings with Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang; however, that meeting occurred in the wake of Kim Dae-jung’s historic June 2000 summit meeting with Kim Jong-il, through which Kim Jong-il made his first public appearance on the international stage. Although speculation had arisen that North Korea might be pursuing a covert uranium enrichment program, there was not yet hard public evidence that North Korea had walked away from its denuclearization commitments. Thus, Kim Dae-jung’s support for U.S.-DPRK rapprochement, in the context of an existing agreement in which North Korea had promised to abandon its nuclear program, played a critical enabling role in the Clinton administration’s outreach to Pyongyang in October 2000. But the promise of Kim Dae-jung’s opening to the North proved hollow on two counts: Kim Dae-jung’s policy promised to change the North, but instead it deepened political divisions in South Korea between progressives and conservatives; and it was subsequently revealed that the summit was bought and paid for by at least $500 million in cash (in fact, the summit was delayed by a day so that the North Koreans could have time to confirm the cash transfer). Even if North Korea were to move toward reform and make tangible moves toward denuclearization, the final element from the U.S. opening to Myanmar that is missing in the North Korea case is that there is no Nobel Prize-winning democracy activist available to provide political affirmation (especially to Congress) for U.S. outreach to North Korean political leaders along the lines of that which has been provided for the Obama administration by Aung San Suu Kyi. There is only one South Korean political leader with the conservative credentials and a sufficiently compelling personal narrative to be able to provide political protection for a U.S. opening to North Korea, regardless of the outcome of South Korea’s December 2012 presidential election, and that is Park Geun-hye. Despite having lost her mother (then South Korea’s first lady) to assassination by a North Korean agent in 1974, she is the only Grand National Party politician to have met personally with Kim Jong-il during a visit to Pyongyang in May 2002. Will Secretary Clinton visit Pyongyang? Don’t hold your breath. But if North Korea were to follow in Myanmar’s political footsteps sufficiently to earn the affirmation and endorsement of Park Geun-hye, it wouldn’t be a bad bet.