Vietnam as BRICS partner strengthens Southeast Asian, Global South voices

some paragraphs removed for brevity

Vietnam recently joined the BRICS as the group's 10th partner country. Among member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Indonesia holds full membership in BRICS, while Malaysia and Thailand are official partner countries.

This evolving trend underscores a gradual but notable shift among key Southeast Asian economies toward deeper engagement with alternative global governance platforms beyond the traditional Western-dominated order.

Vietnam's acceptance into BRICS as a partner country marks a significant development, which increases the likelihood of other ASEAN nations seeking BRICS membership and closer ties with the group.

ASEAN member states' growing interest in joining BRICS stems, in part, from geopolitical positioning. As ASEAN countries increasingly navigate a complex geopolitical landscape, seeking to balance relationships with major powers, BRICS offers an alternative platform for cooperation outside traditional Western-dominated structures.

Another reason is the economic benefits the membership offers. It provides access to new markets, investment opportunities and technological advancements, which is particularly attractive for developing ASEAN economies.

However, one of the main factors that may hinder the inclusion of other ASEAN countries in BRICS is the "US factor". Some ASEAN countries maintain strong ties with the United States and may hesitate to deepen relations with BRICS to avoid a potential US backlash.

While BRICS offers an alternative to Western-dominated global financial and governance structures, the calculus for some ASEAN countries is not merely economic, but deeply strategic. These countries often walk a tightrope between maximizing economic opportunities and preserving their established security and diplomatic alignments.

In such contexts, the political-diplomatic cost of aligning more closely with BRICS can be high, especially when BRICS is increasingly perceived as a counterweight to Western hegemony and a challenger to the US-led global order. This is especially true for a country like the Philippines, whose foreign policy now under the present government very much lean toward the US.

Moreover, Vietnam's inclusion in BRICS as a partner country is highly significant in the evolving architecture of Global South cooperation. Vietnam's presence expands BRICS' geographic and developmental diversity.

It represents a mid-sized, rapidly developing Southeast Asian economy that has successfully balanced socialist governance with market reforms. Its inclusion will, to some extent, elevate ASEAN's visibility within BRICS, signaling a shift toward more inclusive multipolar leadership in the Global South.

Its BRICS partnership enhances connectivity among the Belt and Road Initiative, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and potentially BRICS+financial cooperation, primarily through infrastructure finance via the New Development Bank, and cross-border settlement initiatives that reduce reliance on the US dollar.

Likewise, Vietnam's inclusion in BRICS symbolizes post-colonial economic autonomy. Vietnam's history of anti-colonial struggle and post-war development success resonates strongly with other Global South nations.

It stands as a symbol of resilience, economic self-determination, and the possibility of development without strict Western alignment or International Monetary Fund-style conditionalities. This enhances the normative narrative of BRICS as a platform for alternative development models beyond neoliberal prescriptions.

Additionally, Vietnam's inclusion reflects Hanoi's balanced, nonaligned foreign policy that bridges ties with both East and West, aligning ASEAN's outlook with BRICS-led Global South initiatives rooted in sovereignty and development-driven multilateralism.

Vietnam's BRICS partner status is more than symbolic — it is a strategic elevation of a Southeast Asian voice in reshaping global economic governance. It reinforces South-South cooperation and development, multipolarity, and a more equitable world order. It is also a subtle but strong message to the West: The Global South is organizing itself on its own terms.

The “Israel”-Singapore connection

I would have written a much longer post, but I was brought to attention by this nifty post (archived link) by the “Israeli” trade mission to Singapore which sums it all up quite well:

Singapore has a remarkable story to tell, and paradoxically this south east Asian city-state has quite a lot in common with [the Zionist Entity], a small nation with a history of struggle and resilience. The two small nations have populations comprised of immigrants [the Zionists admitted it themselves which is somewhat hilarious] with different cultures and customs, surrounded by large countries with their own political and ethnic tensions. Both of these small nations have managed against all odds to turn themselves in a single generation from poor, underdeveloped markets to global economic powerhouses with advanced infrastructures, skilled and highly educated workforces and ambitious entrepreneurs. Singapore has grown to become a global financial hub and an Economic giant in a single generation.

The thing to realize is, what the anglophone Chinese bourgeoisie in Singapore hate more than sinophone Chinese people, are the Muslims, but especially Malay-Muslims, who rejected their liberal secular capitalism. Their nation-building myths are quite similar, which justifies Singapore’s hefty military budget - larger than every other Southeast Asian country, both in per capita and absolute terms.

A true liberation of the peoples of Southeast Asia necessitates the fall of the financial capitalists, chiefly represented by the largest banks in Southeast Asia, all based in Singapore. That’s why a lot of hysteria historically propagated here are based on “Indonesian” and “Malaysian” terrorists and supporters who’d like to see the downfall of “Singapore”. Nowadays, the rhetoric is a bit more muted, but echoes of this Islamophobia show-up from time to time.

Christmas Eve, 1965, is the unofficial date of the start of the ‘love story’ between Israel and Singapore, an affair that was kept a deep, dark secret. The international press, like the Israeli media, tried to bring the tale to light. Occasionally, scraps of information leaked out; some were published, some were denied, many were disregarded. The fear that the ties would be terminated if they became public knowledge had its effect. Israel imposed a total blackout on the story and the secret was preserved.

But ultimately the mysterious history between Israel and Singapore came to light. In his book, “From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965-2000,” published in 2000, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and its first prime minister, disclosed the secret that had been kept for almost 40 years: It was the Israel Defense Forces that established the Singaporean army. Lee wrote, “To disguise their presence, we called them `Mexicans.’ They looked swarthy enough.”

To link it to a current news article: S’pore increased its security posture amid rising tensions from Iran-Israel conflict: Shanmugam

People in this region, other regions, or extremist organisations might want to make a point against Israeli, American or other Western assets, he said, adding that there could be attacks from the far right on Muslim assets..

If Singapore is ever attacked, it will make international headlines, he said. There is a possibility of attacks on both sides, he said, either by the far right attacking Muslims, or representatives of Muslim countries including Iran, and attacks on Western assets – American, European or Israeli.

“So we have increased our security posture, working off different scenarios, but you know, you can never be absolutely sure,” he added.

Israel-Hamas conflict a 'reminder' for Singapore that it has national interests at stake: Vivian Balakrishnan

This quick ejaculation of “terrorism” when it comes to West Asian or Islamic related foreign policy remains a defining motto of the Singaporean government’s continual targeting of (Malay-)Muslim people, in a “we care about terrorism, but especially from the muslims” sense and also that of it would be “bad for business” since it would harm the hard-fought “social harmony”.

"This episode is also a reminder to all Singaporeans that we do have our national interests at stake ... We must reject terrorism in all its forms. No excuses, no ifs, no buts, no short-term political advantage. Reject terrorism. If attacked, all of us here must give the government of the day the ability to exercise the right of self-defence," said Dr Balakrishnan, supporting the motion.

"But even when it does so, we will expect the government of the day to uphold international law. And as Singaporeans, we will continue to extend humanitarian assistance and protection to all civilians. We should support the peaceful resolution of disputes. And we must nurture and protect our own precious cohesion and harmony."

The misused word “harmony” crops up again. Wonder if they’ll stop using this tired phrase. Clearly the harmony didn’t apply to those that didn’t fit into their vision of Western Modernity.

And a quick note about the current Foreign Minister:

I would say it is expected, and it is, but still embarrassing.

Economic Watch: ASEAN integration drives development of independent regional financial system, analyst says

"The push for the use of local currencies has been ongoing for some time, as it helps strengthen the economic integration of ASEAN member states -- an important goal that ASEAN seeks to pursue. In fact, other regions are also moving away from relying too heavily on a single foreign currency, such as the U.S. dollar, as external interest rates and shifting government policies may cause significant volatility in currency exchange," she explained, adding that volatility is undesirable in any business.

…

"The Regional Payment Connectivity (RPC) initiative was first established to strengthen payment connectivity among the five ASEAN members, notably Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. To date, the initiative has expanded to include central banks of Vietnam, Laos, Brunei and Cambodia," she said.

Lee also noted that the ASEAN push for local currencies and reduced dependency on external monetary systems has gained momentum amid growing awareness of the risks posed by relying on the U.S. dollar.

I find it funny how some Malaysian states banned the use of single-use plastics years ago and are planning to phase-out use nationally by 2030 but we continued to accept Western plastic waste.

Malaysia will stop accepting U.S. plastic waste, creating a dilemma for California

Malaysia will ban plastic waste imports from the U.S. starting Tuesday because of America’s failure to abide by the Basel Convention treaty on international waste transfers, in a move that could have significant consequences for California.

Malaysia emerged as a major destination for U.S. waste after China banned American waste imports in 2018. California shipped 864 shipping containers, or more than 10 million pounds of plastic waste, to Malaysia in 2024, according to the Basel Action Network, an advocacy group. That was second only to Georgia among U.S. states.

Malaysia to set stricter plastic import controls

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the country exported 35,316 tons of plastic scrap to Malaysia in 2024. United Nations Comtrade data shows that from 2021-2024, Malaysia received more plastic scrap imports from around the globe than any other non-OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) country.

…

“Our people and environment in Malaysia have suffered greatly from the pollution caused by imported plastic and electronic waste,” says Wong Pui Yi, BAN researcher from Kuala Lumpur. “Other countries in Southeast Asia are likewise being harmed by foreign plastic waste daily. We sincerely hope that exporting countries will help us put a stop to waste dumping and trafficking.

“But for these new regulations to be successful, the government must enforce them transparently, swiftly prosecute those who violate the law and close any loopholes that may arise, including clamping down on corruption. We must remain vigilant and continue to spot-check the system with intelligence-led searches and seizures.”

Mahathir is indeed unique in Malaysian politics, because he was the first Prime Minister to not be of royal origin and being born from peasants. As part of the up and coming Malay-Muslim bourgeoisie within UMNO, against the traditional British-aligned feudal bureaucrats back in the 60s and 70s, his firebrand speeches does seem quite anti-imperialist for those unaware. However, Malaysian foreign policy had already shifted east-ward and maintained this position since Tun Abdul Razak, where Mahathir was really just riding the coat tails of.

I also do think generally his anti-semitism is usually overstated especially in Western media. It plays only a small role in the grand scheme of things.

As for his Malay-Muslim supremacy, that’s a big one because for a lot of those on the left, the creation of the comprador Malaysian nation-state was already as right-wing as you can get, especially with the secession of Singapore. I have written before about the class forces that led to this secession, and so I won’t focus too much on it here but the reason I bring it up is that a lot of Malaysian liberals of any racial background, have this false idea that Mahathir was the main progenitor of racialism (racism), and that prior to his premiership there were little-to-no racial tension. This was definitely not the case.

I’d say the key contributor to rising racial tension was the failure of left-wing parties and organizations to consolidate and gain power, and of course there is a ton of reasons for this, but just to name one example, Barisan Sosialis in the 60s and 70s were the premier left-wing party that was composed of a unity between Malay-Muslim farmers and Chinese labourers. Their fall lead to a resurgence and continuation of racial-baiting in the political scene and myopic race-based party decision-making.

Furthermore, now to mention the liberals, they too had facilitated racialism within the country despite their pretentiousness and claims of being anti-racist. This is because of their misunderstanding of racialism and the causes of it within Malaysia - which has always been because of unequal land distribution, colonial-era relations of production and British-origin ideological divide and conquer.

Now the liberals have built up quite a large propaganda machine that over-exaggerates racial difference and racial tensions to practically scare voters into voting for them. It’s two sides of the same coin.

And so to call Mahathir right-wing because of his Malay-Muslim supremacism is really meaningless to those on the left here. A lot of the modern-day Malaysian political establishment and the many-many parties are right-wing by that definition, for none actually seek to reorganize the relations of production and actually end the root causes of racialism.

On your last point, 100%.

He still continues to this day, nearing 100 years old, I wish he’d just call it quit lol.

I don’t know whybut many Asian media news sites continues to quote his words like he has any relevance.

Agreed with practically everything you said. The AFC was definitely an engineered attack against SEA to disrupt EA-SEA integration, but interestingly enough I would say lead to the rise of labour organization and consciousness in Indonesia, with the presidentship of the progressive Abdurrahman Wahid, before his prompt ousting of course but that’s a different story.

Although there are small details I’d contest.

while instituting neoliberal mass privatizations to benefit his own cronies.

He had quite a flip-floppy industrial policy but in his first couple terms he did pursue import-substitution industrialization, especially for transportation. Only in the later years did he then ran on a neoliberal platform (which lead to the rise of the current opposition party of PAS).

socially conservative

I don’t agree with the use of this phrase to describe Malaysian or Asian social beliefs because it mischaracterises the class positions and historical-cultural reasons for why populations in the Global South would seem “backward” compared to bourgeois-liberals in the West. (A lot of it is just Western chauvinism aswell).

Malaysia’s current geopolitical trajectory

Sitting at one of the most important waterways in the world - the strait of Melaka, the country hosts the 2nd largest Chinese diaspora, 3rd largest Indian diaspora and largest Indonesian, Bangladeshi and Nepali diaspora. One thing to know is that Malaysian foreign policy never strays too far from home.

It has now been a few years since the 2022 General Election, where a lot of the foreign alternative media was highlighting US influence in the opposition coalition and a potential westward turn. But unfortunately to them, lacking in dialectical materialism and influenced by Eurocentrism, they never actually understood the material and historical contexts that shape Malaysian politics.

That specific comment on comprador diaspora refers to the infamous Indisch peoples , the mixed-race compradors of the Dutch East India now residing in the Netherlands. See for example “Racial apartheid continues, targeting Indonesian war victims”.

I definitely agree that Indonesia, the largest and yet one of the poorest in Southeast Asia, face numerous class divides of multiple levels, both nationally, and sub-nationally, especially with regards to East Timor and West Papua.

As for the rest of what you said, of course it is true, and the film takes the point-of-view of those involved in the massacres, in which they have already justified it all in their heads - they wouldn’t be alive to that day otherwise. The historical tragedy and trauma of the destruction of the Parti Komunis Indonesia can not be understated, and the further massacres as well.

I said what I said, because in postcolonial societies there is resistance to colonization and also submission to colonization.

For Indonesia, decolonization has been part of our daily life, we have been doing it every day, in all aspects of life, economics, education, technology and sociocultural. The Western domination is everywhere and we fight it every day. In its true sense the term decolonization puts the experience of the (ex) colonized and oppressed people in the center. For Indonesia, decolonization is not just an agenda to look for truth, it is much bigger than that. To be an independent country we have to turn away from the Western guidance and get back what the colonizers took from us. We must re-own the term decolonization again and start to enlighten the Dutch how to decolonize their mind.

Indonesia is indeed a sick society, a country with scars etched by colonization, but what I won’t accept is that Indonesia has no form of agency from Western Capital that we can plainly see through their interactions and relations with Russia and China as part of the Global South semi-periphery.

The country is suffering from the contradictions of the past and present but that does not negate the atrocious Eurocentrism when Indonesian history is talked about. It’s own unique cultural history that is intertwined with other Southeast Asian nation-states and continues to be an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist force within Indonesia, and although many were and continue to be silenced, aspects of their continual sacrifice can still be seen in the present day.

That is what I am trying to highlight when I say that Indonesian history is unique, because despite of what you mention, Indonesia still takes a neutral stance to the modern-day US-China rivalry. China has been Indonesia’s largest trading partner since 2005, 20 consecutive years. That in on itself suggests something more going underneath the surface. But a lot does not appreciate this history, and only look at traumatic events in the past without actually moving the discourse forward to present-day realities.

For an example of what I am saying, see this article for example, “International Discussion: Building International Solidarity Against Militarism in Indonesia”

and

“Indonesia’s Probable Foreign Policy Shift from the West under a Prabowo Administration”

This gives a part of the analysis, but many still need to be carried out and importantly practiced so Indonesia can finally move away from a dark period of it’s history.

Ah apologies, I didn’t mean to come off too strong. I was still pissed off at the article - let’s use that as the excuse.

The point of my reply was to emphasize that there are anti-imperialist and independent forces within each country, but it is very easy to paint Southeast Asian countries as sinophobic and fall into pessimism when this is not nearly the case, especially with the South China Sea issue.

I think a lot of anti-Chinese sentiment in the Philippines is merely manufactured through co-ordinated media warfare and does not reflect the realities of beliefs of people on the ground. My filipino comrades can clarify this further, but from what I know, yes there may be millions, but for a region with nearly 600million people, and a country of 100million, even tens of millions still does not amount to a majority. A sizeable minority at best.

Indonesia is a unique case in that they do not actually have any overlapping SCS claims because they don’t actually neighbour the South China Sea. I would also say out of the major Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia is the only postcolonial country without a sizeable comprador diaspora or colonial-era Western educated comprador elite with sizeable power. That isn’t to say there aren’t comprador and reactionary forces within Indonesia, but there has not been a complete Western ideological capture of educational institutions within the country. They definitely do not subscribe to Eurocentric perversions of International Relations and foreign policy, which is what my critique is specifically based on. Talks of the Bandung spirit still lives strong.

Malaysia, well that’s where I am from, and I have nearly finished editing an essay on Malaysian foreign policy. And again, contrary to this weird assumption that postcolonial countries are only filled with pro-colonizer compradors, being Anti-West in Malaysia is the norm. You talk to a random guy on the street and chances are they’d praise Russia before they’d have anything positive to say about the US. There is a decent comprador population in Malaysia of course, but most of their concerns are funnelled through domestic policy issues and NGOs, and rarely does the mainstream and comprador media here talk about the South China Sea, especially with the sort of veracity and explicit anti-China bias you find in the West.

It is a complete fabrication made to enthuse the War profiteers than something that will actually lead to all-out instability (unless through US provocations by proxy of the Philippines and Taiwan).

Edit: I was wrong about Indonesia not having claims in the SCS, for I thought they had already solved the disputed claims diplomatically but actually the “North Natuna Sea” as coined by the Indonesian side still remains disputed territory. Although under the new Indonesian administration, Indonesia seemed quite happy with China’s joint development proposal, in which I generally personally agree with aswell.

But regardless, the lack of news being raised about this signifies it’s non-importance, especially considering from what I know there has been no updates on the overlapping claims of Malaysia-Indonesia.

I was going to write a proper response to another Western article on the SCS but they all are so lame and predictable.

China militarizing sand blah blah blah.

And then the common made up theory is that’s why these SEA nations are “hedging” and “balancing” between great powers.

It’s all so tiring. Westerners managed to end one war in the ducking 1600s and they think they know anything about international relations or statecraft. And I am especially raging at Amerikans whose country barely existed for 300 years thinking their decades old “expertise” can navigate millenia old cultures and history. Yes I really care about what a Guy in Baltimore thinks about the South China Sea issue.

::: spoiler A Response

The issue with a lot of those in the field international relations is that they can’t ever escape their Eurocentric pretensions and understandings. In the article they try to take an ideological “neutral” “understanding” of the South China Sea by evoking very tired concepts like “hedging” and mistakenly (or purposefully) project their own impressions and dynamics of Southeast Asian relations with China, and so they use the terms like “aggressive” and “great power”, when truthfully no one actually gives a fuck (except maybe VietNam) and no one in Southeast Asia ever uses those term, unless they have been groomed into Western institutions and education.

Literal Amerikan Geopolitical propaganda.

No one ducking lives there you dumb fucks. Are the fish victims of Chinese Imperialism? Perhaps their migration signifies hedging to US Navy boats. And actually I can hear one fish cry out, “save us from being victims of really good hotpot”.

Every accusation is projection and etc.