Multiple probes into Chinese firms behind collapsed high-rise

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

Main focus is on construction contractor and steel supplier, says minister

PUBLISHED : 3 Apr 2025 at 14:36

UPDATED : 3 Apr 2025 at 16:09

Officials search a house believed to be linked to China Railway Engineering​ No.10 (Thailand) Co, in Din Daeng district of Bangkok, on Wednesday. (Police photo)
Officials search a house believed to be linked to China Railway Engineering​ No.10 (Thailand) Co, in Din Daeng district of Bangkok, on Wednesday. (Police photo)

Numerous Thai government agencies are investigating two Chinese companies responsible for the construction of the collapsed State Audit Office in Bangkok, with probes expanding to many other related companies, according to the Ministry of Commerce.

The investigations focus on China Railway Engineering No.10 (Thailand) Co (CREC) and Xin Ke Yuan Steel Co, in which Chinese people held 49% and 80% stakes respectively, Commerce Minister Pichai Naripthaphan said on Thursday.

Initial investigations found possible violations of many Thai laws including the law governing foreign ownership of certain businesses. The Department of Business Development has sent information about the companies to the Department of Special Investigation, which has agreed to investigate them, the minister said.

CREC was a partner with SET-listed Italian-Thai Development Plc in the ITD-CREC consortium that was building the new State Audit Office, which collapsed during the Myanmar earthquake on March 28, and some of the construction materials used came from Xin Ke Yuan Steel.

CREC was related to 13 other companies while Xin Ke Yuan Steel had connections with 24 companies. The DSI is also reviewing information on those connections, Mr Pichai said.

According to Deputy Commerce Minister Napintorn Srisunpang, the Department of Business Development is now investigating CREC and 13 companies in its network. The Anti-Money Laundering Office is looking into the financial transactions of the companies, shareholders and stakeholders. The Revenue Department is checking the tax payments of the companies and shareholders.

The Thai Industrial Standards Institute has been testing the quality of steel and other construction materials used in the building. Tests done earlier by the Iron and Steel Institute of Thailand indicated that steel supplied to the project by Xin Ke Yuan Steel Co was substandard.

It was also learned that the Rayong factory of the steelmaker had been closed since January for an unrelated violation, and 2,400 tonnes of steel seized.

The Department of Employment, meanwhile, is examining the work permits of migrant workers who were on the site of the 30-storey State Audit Office project. The Department of Industrial Works is inspecting all the steel plants that supplied the contractor. The Department of Land is investigating land ownership by Thais and foreigners involved in the businesses, and the Comptroller-General’s Department is looking into procurement and contracts.

Mr Napintorn said the probes covered at least 26 projects being carried out by 14 companies linked to CREC and Xin Ke Yuan Steel, in order to prevent possible damage to life and property.

Rapid expansion, soaring debt

China Railway Group, the parent company of China Railway No.10, got its start building most of China’s 45,000 kilometres of high-speed rail lines. But in recent years, as demand for new projects at home faded, the company and its many subsidiaries have expanded their scope in a rush to bring in work.

Many of the projects abroad have been related to Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative and other activities prioritised by the government.

As the expansion gathered pace, the company’s debt soared. Its 2024 annual report showed total liabilities worth $211 billion, almost double the $112 billion reported five years ago, according to the New York Times.

Victor Shih, a specialist in Chinese politics and finance at the University of California, San Diego, told the newspaper that when a company has such a heavy debt burden, “the pressure to generate cash flow to service debt can be quite intense”.

The Chinese embassy in Bangkok has urged CREC to cooperate with Thai authorities.

Chinese authorities have always instructed the country’s companies to abide by local laws and adhere to social responsibility when doing business abroad, the embassy said in a statement on Facebook.

“China will still support and assist according to Thailand’s needs, and calls on the Chinese company involved to fully cooperate with the Thai government’s investigation,” the embassy said. “We believe the Thai government’s investigation will lead to scientific and fair conclusions.”

China Railway No.10 had won 11 Thai government contracts, including a school building that is already completed. The Ministry of Transport has begun scrutinising some of those projects, including a part of the Thailand-China high-speed railway project that was awarded to the ITD-CREC joint venture, Transport Minister Suriya Juangroongruangkit said on Wednesday.

Continue Reading

How China plans to bounce back from more Trump tariffs – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

China’s president Xi Jinping just held a meeting with 40 leaders of foreign firms, including BMW and AstraZeneca.

In contrast to Donald Trump’s language, Xi told the top-level managers that globalisation was never going away. Xi is attempting to boost international investment in China, which has dropped in the last few decades, and establish new connections that will compensate Trump’s levies on some Chinese products.

In the March 28 meet, Xi “vowed to boost business entry” and assured business leaders that “lines of conversation” between them and the Chinese government are available.

Xi is hoping to build on an anti-Trump jump and encourage firms to again Beijing as some evidence emerged that China’s economy was doing a much better than expected in first 2025.

Industrial production went up by 5.9 % in January and February. Credit growth, which measures the amount of loans banks give out, also appears to be picking up, suggesting that businesses might be growing in China.

Retail sales, which are a major economic marker indicating consumer spending, has risen by up to 4 % in January and February this year, compared to last year.

Beijing is also willing to create further stimulus packages to sustain China’s economic growth, which might lift consumer confidence further.

But this is hampered by a real estate crisis that began in 2021. What followed was an already high local government debt that was exacerbated by the property crisis, and high youth unemployment that has existed since 2023.

The big question then is what are the factors that could lead to a more buoyant outlook in China’s economic fortunes?

Policy resolve

According to a Bloomberg report, China has traditionally relied on cheap loans and subsidies to boost economic sectors in infrastructure, manufacturing, and the property market. However, those times are over.

The problem is China has produced more goods to sell than people are willing to buy. In the past, Beijing relied on the West to purchase its products, but with rising protectionism and looming tariffs stemming from a Donald Trump-led US, US consumption of Chinese goods is likely to fall.

And if another key market in the form of the EU were to take a cue from Trump’s economic playbook and impose more tariffs on China, then Chinese hope for sales in the west for economic growth may not materialise.

Beijing’s surest way of boosting sales is through domestic consumption. This isn’t easy as China’s domestic spending remains relatively low at 40 % of the country’s GDP, which is about 20 % lower than the global average. And if Beijing wants cautious consumers to spend amid a relatively weak economic outlook, it needs to do more to raise consumer confidence.

Although China did introduce a stimulus package in September 2024, it has resolved to do more. In an early March 2025 speech in the Chinese parliament, Chinese Premier Li Qiang promised a” special action plan” to vigorously raise domestic consumption for 2025.

Several weeks later Li reiterated in the China Development Forum that Beijing would roll out more stimulus packages when the need arose.

These assurances are likely to have helped improve market sentiment, and the fact that China’s GDP growth target was also set at an ambitious level of around 5 %, might signal Beijing’s confidence and resolve that the economy will improve.

China’s AI revolution

In the past, China was considered a copycat nation known for manufacturing shanzai, or fake and pirated products. This difficulty in innovating and reliance on the designs of others largely lay with an education system steeped in rote learning, and a top-down culture with a conformist approach.

This is why experts thought China would struggle when the US decided to introduce restrictions on Chinese access to semiconductor and AI technologies. However, despite these restrictions, China has managed to develop a highly capable AI model of its own in the form of DeepSeek, which was unveiled early this year, and immediately boosted China’s image as an innovator.

Unlike other AI models, DeepSeek was apparently made at a&nbsp, fraction&nbsp, of the cost of other traditional AI models such as ChatGPT and may have a&nbsp, more efficient&nbsp, coding scheme that allows for quicker problem-solving. This has prompted Donald Trump to coin DeepSeek’s development as a wake-up call for the US tech industry.

Many AI startups in China are now revamping their business models to compete with DeepSeek, following the widespread adoption of the latter’s technology. The AI revolution in China could potentially reduce costs and thereby boost efficiency in the financial sector.

Following Trump’s return to the Oval Office, investors across the globe have been trying to reduce their reliance on the US by looking for investment opportunities elsewhere. This isn’t entirely surprising given Trump’s knack for the unpredictable, and how new US tariffs have been applied to a host of US allies such as Mexico, Canada and the European Union.

While Trump is striking an increasingly protectionist tone, China is taking the opposite approach. Trump’s penchant for tariffs and disregard for the economic interest of US allies may mean Beijing might not need to do too much to attract more nations and businesses to consider turning towards Chinese markets.

Chee Meng Tan is assistant professor of business economics, University of Nottingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ puts Asia in its line of fire – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

As Donald Trump shocks stock markets from New York to Singapore with widening risks of new levies, officials in Washington might want to examine what really happened in Seoul.

Over the weekend, South Korea, China and Japan met for their first high-level financial speech in five times. The style: beefing up local business as Trump’s White House supersizes its tariffs program.

The countries ‘ industry officials pledged to” carefully cooperate for a complete and high-level” process to create a three-way free trade agreement centered on “regional and international trade”.

In other words, Trump’s dumping of fresh grenades at the international trading program– and the resulting chaos in markets– has officials in Seoul and Tokyo but spooked that they’re talking. Truly talking, despite historic enmities.

People in Tokyo, however, are turning to Beijing as they realize the US, when Japan’s most trusted partner, is no longer the alliance it thought. Seoul, also, which has had a very up-and-down partnership with China during the Xi Jinping time.

This trilateral work probably wouldn’t be happening if Trump stuck with Plan A: a “grand deal” trade deal with China that creates a ginormous Group of Two market and gives Trump the financial legacy he so eagerly craves.

The plunge in global shares ahead of Trump’s” Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs announcement on April 2 is garnering attention of the kind that the Trump 1.0 presidency would not have liked. Something Trump really does care about is the stock market.

So far, Trump 2.0 has displayed a greater pain threshold with regard to falling equities. Hence his recent comments about there being a “period of transition” for his tariff regime to make America’s economy great again.

As Trump said last month:” There’ll be a little disturbance, but we’re OK with that”. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argues the world’s biggest economy needs a “detox” to wean it off dependence on public spending.

Last month, Bessent said Washington’s reciprocal levies will target the “dirty 15” that maintain substantial and chronic trade barriers with the US. Though Bessent didn’t specify which 15, suffice to say China is among them.

Commerce Department data show that as of the end of 2024, the US has the highest goods deficits with China, the European Union, Mexico, Vietnam, Ireland, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Canada, India, Thailand, Italy, Switzerland, Malaysia, Indonesia, France, Austria and Sweden.

But the fallout for Asian markets more broadly will come into sharper relief on Trump’s” Liberation Day”. Given the mixed signals from Trump, and how often he’s changed his mind about who’s in the collateral damage zone and why, Asia can’t be sure if Trump will wake up on April 3 and say “never mind” or instead add even more tariffs.

It’s the not knowing that has Asia on a cliff’s edge. This extends to what strategy the Trump team might be employing this week, as opposed to next or the one after.

Trump’s mixed-signal tariffs on China are a case in point. Team Trump seemed to think the mere threat of taxes on Chinese goods, touted as high as 60 % on the 2024 campaign trail, would shock Xi’s Communist Party into submission.

And that Beijing would draw up an extensive list of preemptive concessions to make” Tariff Man” Trump happy. Instead, Xi’s team made it clear they were looking forward to seeing Trump’s concession list. Having called Trump’s bluff, the White House quickly pivoted to tariffs — now at 20 %.

Yet Team Xi has stood firm. No clear concessions, no efforts to compliment Trump or signal China might cave. This lack of fealty is putting China in harm’s way as Trump’s revenge machine turns its way.

The bigger question is whether China bears the brunt of Trump’s bruised ego. Rather than bowing to Trump’s provocations, leaders from Canada to Mexico to Denmark have pushed back. Greenland is clapping back at Trump World’s designs on the island. Officials in Panama are rolling their eyes.

Enter Vladimir Putin for the coup de grâce. A few weeks ago, Trump was certain he’d scored the Russia-Ukraine ceasefire that eluded Joe Biden. Now, Putin is proving right the geopolitical wags who warned that he’s playing Trump. Not to mention depriving Trump of the Nobel Peace Prize he craves.

Trump is now “pissed off” that Putin is dashing ceasefire hopes and is threatening 50 % tariffs on nations that buy Russian oil. But mostly, Trump is miffed Putin exposed his art-of-the-deal schtick to be more myth than reality.

As so many world leaders brush Trump off, might the bullseye on China become even bigger in the weeks ahead? The impulse could be to go even harder at showing China who’s the boss.

That would put Asia writ large in harm’s way. Since the 1980s, Trump, then a New York real estate mogul, has blamed the region for stealing US jobs and prosperity in the most sinister terms. Back then, Japan was at the center of Trumpian ire.

At&nbsp, the&nbsp, time, Trump the businessman was a regular on daytime talk shows complaining about how Japan had” systematically&nbsp, sucked&nbsp, the&nbsp, blood&nbsp, out of America –&nbsp, sucked&nbsp, the&nbsp, blood&nbsp, out! They have gotten away with murder. They have ended up winning&nbsp, the&nbsp, war”.

Today, China inhabits the bogeyman role. It’s more complicated, though, given Trump’s oft-articulated affection for Xi. On January 23, for example, Trump said,” I like President Xi very much. I’ve always liked him”. Trump added that he’s “always had a great relationship” with China’s strongest leader since Mao Zedong.

Yet Trump and Xi seem on a collision course as the former realizes the latter isn’t the junior partner he envisioned. This raises the odds Trump might supersize the revenge tour that Asia has been dreading all year, including levies of 60 % or more on Made in China goods.

Wall Street, too. Along with increased tariffs, investors are trying to factor in the global fallout from Trump’s spending cuts and the risk of a US recession. At the same time, there are concerns about a bubble in artificial intelligence stocks, seen in recent big declines in the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 benchmark.

One concern is that hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into data center infrastructure are outpacing the need for such facilities. That’s pulling the rug out from under shares in chipmaker&nbsp, Nvidia Corp&nbsp, and companies from Broadcom Inc to Microsoft Corp to Amazon.com&nbsp, to Alphabet Inc&nbsp, to Meta Platforms.

But the real fallout could be on the outlook for Asia’s$ 41 trillion economy, and how it reverberates back on America. Trump’s tariffs threaten to deal a generational blow to the region’s development.

” Asia-Pacific economies are bracing for details of wide-ranging US tariffs”, says Helen Besier, an economist at Moody’s Analytics. ” The Trump administration has investigated the country’s trade relationships and appears bent on hiking tariffs to neutralize any duties, policies or practices that it believes create an uneven playing field. Beyond the direct impact on targeted countries, the toll will multiply. Much of this region’s trade is about components that come together as finished products destined for the US”.

Though China is standing its ground versus Trump, 2025 is proving to be an increasingly challenging year.

This week brought news of a slight improvement in manufacturing activity, as evidenced by China’s official purchasing managers ‘ index. The Manufacturing PMI quickened to&nbsp, 50.5 in March, its best performance in 12 months.

Even so, notes Carlos&nbsp, Casanova, senior Asia economist at Union Bancaire Privee,” support measures remain essential to sustain recovery in the first half of 2025″.

This may include the People’s Bank of China easing monetary policy again. That’s particularly possible as deflation pressures continue to bedevil officials in Beijing.

Julian Evans-Pritchard, head of China economics at Capital Economics, says the PMI data suggest “infrastructure spending is ramping up again and that exports have so far remained resilient in the face of US tariffs”. Yet, he adds, China’s economy likely grew noticeably slower in the first three months of 2025 than the last three of 2024.

Xi and Premier Li Qiang have pledged to step up fiscal policy moves to achieve this year’s growth target of&nbsp, “around 5 %”. Thus far, the priorities have been on giant trade-in programs for consumer goods to boost household spending and increased debt issuance to support the beleaguered housing sector.

For 2025, Beijing upped its budget deficit to around 4 % of gross domestic product ( GDP ), up from 3 % last year. It’s a rare increase as Team Xi works to counter Trump’s tariffs.

” The budget does allow for fiscal support to be stepped up further over the coming months”, Evans-Pritchard says, though US tariffs” will start to weigh on exports before long”.

Higher US tariffs on Chinese exports are also expected to hit domestic manufacturers in the coming months.

” The manufacturing sector faces downside risk in the second quarter as the external demand weakens, driven by the tariffs and the economic slowdown in the US”, says economist Zhiwei Zhang, president of Pinpoint Asset Management. ” The big question is how much export growth will decline, and how quickly the fiscal spending will pick up to offset weaker exports”.

Fighting these downside risks is pivotal to Xi making good on his pledge to create more than 12 million new urban jobs in 2025. Trump’s trade war, though, is generating unprecedented headwinds everywhere, including the globe’s biggest stock bourses.

The fallout could see Asia’s consumers and investors pulling back in ways that crimp US growth, too. And three of Asia’s four biggest economies striking a grand bargain trade deal with Trump Nation nowhere in sight.

Follow William Pesek on X at&nbsp, @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Kim Soo-hyun: Actor denies allegations by Kim Sae-ron’s family

By:
On:
In: Asia
2 hours ago
Fan Wang

BBC News

Getty Images South Korean actor Kim Soo-Hyun, dressed in black suit, breaks down and cries during his press conferenceGetty Images

South Korean star Kim Soo-hyun has made a tearful public statement denying allegations made by the family of actress Kim Sae-ron, who died in an apparent suicide in February.

“I can’t admit to something I didn’t do,” the 37-year-old said on Monday at a press conference in Seoul.

At the centre of the controversy are two allegations: that Kim Soo-hyun dated Kim Sae-ron when she was 15 – a minor – and that his agency pressured her to repay a loan she owed him.

The scandal has shocked South Korea and its entertainment industry – and has generated a backlash against Kim Soo-Hyun, whose roles in multiple hit drama series and films has made him one of its best-known stars.

Kim wept as he said that although he dated the actress for a year when she was an adult, they never dated while she was underage.

Monday’s media conference came after weeks of accusations and counter-accusations between Kim Sae-ron’s family and Kim Soo-hyun’s camp in the wake of her death.

The scandal broke on 10 March, less than a month after Kim Sae-ron’s death. A YouTube channel, known for its controversial political content, claimed that the two had dated for six years, when she was 15. The channel has since released videos and photos it claims were taken during their relationship.

Last week, the attorney representing Kim Sae-ron’s family held a press conference, revealing more chat history allegedly between the two actors from 2016, when she was 16.

Kim Soo-hyun’s agency initially denied the allegations but later clarified that they dated, though only between 2019 and 2020, when she was an adult.

The actor himself had remained silent until Monday. At the press conference, he became emotional, reiterating to reporters that they only dated as two adults.

“Many people are suffering because of me,” he said, apologising to his fans and staff. “I also feel sorry that the late actress [Kim Sae-ron] isn’t able to rest in peace.

“I never dated her when she was a minor,” he continued. “Except for the fact that both of us were actors, our relationship was just like that of any other ordinary couple.”

He also explained why he denied the relationship when she uploaded a later-deleted photo of the two of them to her Instagram account in 2024 during the airing of Netflix hit show Queen of Tears, in which he played the lead role.

“I had so much to protect as its lead actor. What would have happened if I had admitted to a year-long relationship? What would happen to the actors, the staff who were working overnight and the production team who had everything staked on that project?” he said. “The more I thought of it, the more I thought that shouldn’t be what I do.”

Any admission of a romantic relationship or a partner is still seen as scandalous to fans in South Korea’s entertainment industry, where celebrities’ personal lives come under intense scrutiny.

Getty Images Kim Sae-ron, dressed in a champaign-coloured long dress, waves her right hand at reporters Getty Images

Kim Sae-ron herself was a victim of online hate by fans after she was fined 20 million won (£11,000; $14,000) for a 2022 drink-driving incident.

Prior to that, she had been seen as one of the most promising young actresses in South Korea.

At the time, she was managed by the same agency as Kim Soo-hyun, which was co-founded by his relative. Kim Sae-ron joined GoldMedalist in January 2020 and left in December 2022.

Kim Sae-ron’s family claimed that GoldMedalist covered the compensation for her drunk-driving incident. They allege that the agency later pursued legal action for repayment and that, while the actress asked Kim Soo-hyun for more time to settle the debt, her request went unanswered.

On Monday, Kim Soo-hyun denied claims that “she made the tragic choice because of me or my agency pressuring her over a debt”.

He released a voice recording of a phone call from a year ago, allegedly between his agency and Kim Sae-ron’s representative.

In the recording, the CEO of GoldMedalist appears to explain that the document they sent her regarding the debt was merely for “procedural reasons” and that her team could take time to respond.

He also accused Kim Sae-ron’s family of manipulating chat records as evidence and stated that he had submitted his own evidence to the relevant authorities for verification. He urged her family to do the same.

Kim Soo-hyun, 37, is an A-list actor in South Korea, known for his roles in multiple hit drama series and top-grossing movies, including My Love from the Star, Netflix’s Queen of Tears, and the film Secretly, Greatly.

He has also been a favourite among advertisers in the country, though many brands have now distanced themselves from him amid the controversy. On 17 March, fashion brand Prada announced that it had mutually decided to end its collaboration with him, according to Reuters. This followed similar moves from Dinto, a Korean cosmetic brand.

A Disney+ show that stars Kim Soo-hyun has also been put on pause due to the scandal, according to local news outlet Yonhap.

His lawyer stated on Monday that they had filed a criminal complaint against Kim Sae-ron’s family and the YouTube channel operator, along with a civil lawsuit for damages worth 12 billion won.

Her family has not commented on the lawsuits or his latest remarks.

If you have been affected by any of the issues in this story you can find information and support on the BBC Actionline website here.

Continue Reading

Great Game On: Shining light on the contest for Central Asia – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

The Founding Fathers advised Americans to steer clear of ensnaring relationships if they wished to keep their recently acquired Republic. This may be news to some of our legislators but not to President Donald Trump. No US senator has been leerier of the authoritarian foreign policy bequeathed to us by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt than Trump. &nbsp,

Immune to the crony passion for “democracy tower” and “forever wars”, Trump lives in the realm of reality– no intellectual pseudo-reality. &nbsp, Trump has had enough of the “values-based” international plan that, in the matter of Ukraine, perhaps have brought us closer to thermonuclear war than at any moment since the Cuban missile crisis. &nbsp,

Unlike so many of his political opponents, Trump is not oblivious to the negative effects a misrepresented foreign policy could have on ordinary citizens, people, the nation at large and, for that matter, the earth. &nbsp, &nbsp,

With that in mind, and in view of the rising necessity of Asia, Geoff Raby’s fresh book –” Great Game On: The Battle for Central Asia and Global Supremacy” – is worth reading to get a better control on the history and current state of great power dynamics in Eurasia and Central Asia. Raby served as American Ambassador to China from 2007 to 2011.

He has done a company by focusing on Central Asia in view of its significant and growing value. The region encompasses Afghanistan, Inner Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Xinjiang ( China ), and is more than 300, 000 square miles larger than the continental United States. That’s a major part of real property which the US ignores at its risk. &nbsp, &nbsp,

Raby – a largely non-ideological international policy specialist – deftly describes not only the 19th centuries Anglo-Russian” Great Game” but the evolving 21st century” New Great Game”, i. e., the great power competition for influence over Central Asia between China, Russia and, to a lesser extent, the United States. As such, he delves into the respective geopolitical ambitions of China and Russia in Eurasia over the past 100 years with a spotlight on Central Asia. &nbsp,

” The Principal Theater of Contest”

Raby argues that” Core Eurasia” – in other words, Central Asia – is” the principal theater of contest” between the great powers and that” the key pivots on the chess board are Afghanistan and Xinjiang” .&nbsp,

He has a point, but it’s also the case that Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, with their massive reserves of natural resources, extensive trade routes – east-west and north-south – and welcoming attitude toward the outside world represent a stable setting in which the US can expand its economic ties. ( See: Time for a US pivot to Central Asia )

To his credit, Raby eschews the moralism of so many foreign policy gurus ( who rarely get around to considering morality ). Raby, from all indications, is a proponent of the realist school of politics.

He is concerned about national self-interest, security and power relationships rather than presumed ideological imperatives as the principal drivers of inter-state relations.

Raby’s treatment of the United States ‘ presence in Central Asia is skimpy – but that is telling in itself: Washington pays Central Asia scant attention, so there’s not much to write about. That should change under Trump.

Raby provides much-needed historical context without which it is impossible to understand the competition for influence in the region. He makes insightful, thought-provoking comments on the geostrategic thinking of the great powers in light of history– for example, Mackinder’s” Heartland” theory, i. e., “whoever controlled Central Asia would be the dominant world power”.

Helpfully, the author provides the reader with maps to navigate a vast region that could easily thwart even adepts at world geography. Thus, the reader can easily find Türkmenbaşy, Kashgar and the Wakhan Corridor as well as inner Mongolia, various mountain ranges and rivers and myriad other places unknown to most people. &nbsp,

And having traveled extensively in Central Asia, Raby provides a store of anecdotes that helps demystify the inscrutability and romance of these far-off lands and peoples. &nbsp, The book is extensively researched and footnoted – a sign of the author’s sober-mindedness.

Raby claims that China has emerged” as the primary Eurasian power” in the new age of multipolarity that is upon us, an increasingly recognized reality. &nbsp,

The US, though, should take this state of affairs in stride and deal with it not through any form or degree of belligerence or aggressiveness and ditch its usual moral preachments that historically have been the stock and trade of USAID, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other mouthpieces and instruments of liberal internationalist and globalist orthodoxy.

What Vice President JD Vance told the Munich Security Conference ( see his speech ) is also good advice for US policymakers: a little introspection is advisable. &nbsp,

Raby believes that” Great Powers can find a strategic accommodation without going to war … Options for finding strategic stability … are still worth pursuing” .&nbsp,

Nicely put – a vision that Trump’s State Department and the various Central Asian states share ( see this author’s &nbsp, Central Asian School of Diplomacy ) i. e., diplomacy is the smartest, most cost-effective way to resolve conflicts, defend national interests and avoid armed conflict. &nbsp,

Raby has recently suggested that China, for the first time in its history, feels secure along its Eurasian land frontiers and is now free to project power globally, a matter of some concern for those in the neighborhood.

Having said that, one way to address China’s resurgence, Raby suggests, might be for the West to engineer a so-called “reverse Kissinger”, i. e., entice Russia to “look West” and distance itself from China. &nbsp,

Only time will tell whether that is a real possibility, meanwhile, the West would be well-advised to understand Beijing’s geopolitical mindset and history as it confronts its growing ambitions.

Platitudes vs reality

Raby reminds the reader that the West should stop framing the Great Game as a contest between “democracy” and “autocracy” or” good guys vs bad guys” .&nbsp, Stated differently, the use of preachy, moralistic, diplomatic lingo is a non-starter. Certainly, it is a money-loser when dealing with China, Central Asia or most anyone else. Trump understands that.

Raby correctly states that” Russia’s trade with Central Asia is dwarfed by China’s” and” China has replaced Russia as Central Asia’s major source of foreign direct investment”. He sheds light on contested matters such as the “debt trap”, “debt sustainability” and the Belt &amp, Road Initiative.

But he might have pointed out that Central Asian governments are selective in their partnerships. They will not accept one-way investment deals that are perceived to have few long-term benefits for the country or, worse, inadvertently lead to geoeconomic subjugation.

To be sure, Central Asia wants win-win deals as well as free and fair trade – a mindset more in tune with Trump’s than with that of much of the American foreign policy establishment.

In case anyone missed it, Central Asian governments – whether you like them or not – want investors – whether Chinese, Indian or American – to make sensible, non-ideological cross-border long-term economic commitments to develop smart infrastructure connectivity and integration and create jobs and decent wages for families and the region’s growing populations. &nbsp, This vision is in line with Trumpian economic policy at home.

Sinostan

Without explicitly saying so, Raby does not appear to be optimistic about the US’s long-term prospects in Central Asia since China’s aim to absorb Central Asia – transform it into a veritable” Sinostan” – &nbsp, “is an advanced work in progress. But Russia and China will continue to look to each other for support in their contests with the United States and this will remain a strong point of convergence in their relationship” .&nbsp,

If true, all the more reason for the US government and business community to get in on the action in Central Asia, namely, expand trade relations and, more importantly, set up joint ventures that give US companies skin in the game. Toward this end, Trump’s State Department should grease the wheels.

If Washington doesn’t deliver soon on substance, Central Asians will continue to get the best infrastructure, logistics and mining deals ( critical metals and oil &amp, gas ) that China, Russia and others have to offer. This would be only logical if the US were to remove itself de facto from the equation.

For those eager to understand the historical and present-day ins and outs of great power competition in Central Asia, they would be well advised to read” Great Game On: The Contest for Central Asia and Global Supremacy”. This would include policymakers. &nbsp,

If American ingenuity and creativity were to be introduced into the arena shorn of hidden political and/or woke agendas and offered Central Asia attractive win-win economic arrangements, the US would stand a good chance of not only staying in the ( great ) game but prevailing.

Javier M Piedra has 40 years of international banking and finance experience and was former acting assistant administrator, Bureau for Asia, USAID ( 2018 – 21 )

Alexander B Gray is former deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff, White House National Security Council ( 2019-21 )

Continue Reading

Banks roll out relief measures for victims

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

Cheaper debts and payments falls

PUBLISHED: 31 Mar 2025 at 03: 36

Rescue workers and police at the collapse site of the State Audit Office in Bangkok on Friday. Pattarapong Chatpattarasill
Rescue personnel and officers at the decline page of the State Audit Office in Bangkok on Friday. Pattarapong Chatpattarasill

Eight state-owned bankers have introduced reduction steps for victims of the earthquake including debt settlement disqualification and low-interest loans, says assistant state official Anukul Prueksanusak.

He said monetary steps are for both individuals and businesses affected by the earthquake to provide them with instant relief and aid them keep their lives and company procedures.

The financial institutes are the Government Housing Bank ( GHB), SME Development Bank ( SME D Bank ), Thai Credit Guarantee Corporation (TCG), Export-Import Bank of Thailand ( Exim Bank ), Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives ( BAAC ), Government Savings Bank ( GSB), Islamic Bank of Thailand ( IBank ) and Krungthai Bank.

GHB has many programs offering loan repayment punishments, low-interest funding for home inspection as well as a fast-track for reimbursement claims for both current and new customers.

SME D Bank’s support measures include suspending principal and interest payments for up to 12 months and incident loans up to 100, 000 ringgit for individuals and 200, 000 ringgit for businesses with no credit required to ensure proper guidance.

TCG has introduced a six-month expulsion of expenses for SME clients and a three-month payment wait for businesses in debt restructuring programs.

Exim Bank’s relief measures are for both short-term and long-term loan customers and include extending repayments, increasing credit limits and cutting interest rates.

BAAC has allocated a fund of 20 billion baht to provide emergency loans up to 50, 000 baht per individual and rehabilitation loans up to 500, 000 baht per client with special interest rates.

GSB has a debt repayment suspension programme for up to three months and a soft loan for home repair and business rehabilitation for new and current customers.

IBank has introduced a principal and interest repayment suspension for up to six months and a loan programme for home repairs and business rehabilitation up to five million baht with a special interest rate.

Krungthai Bank’s relief measures include a 75 % reduction in loan repayment for one year and loans with special rates for business recovery and home repairs.

” The government is committed to providing assistance to victims particularly those whose homes and business were affected. The state banks are expediting programmes to cover all groups”, said Mr Anukul.

Continue Reading

Tariffs have a Laffer curve, too – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Legend has it that the supply-side revolution – Ronald Reagan’s 1981 cut in the US top income tax rate to 40 % from 70 % – began in a Washington restaurant, when economist Arthur Laffer drew his eponymous curve on a cocktail napkin for then White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dick Cheney.

At a tax rate of zero, the state has no duty income, but it also has no income at a tax rate of 100 %, because the business would shut down. Somewhere in between, there’s a revenue price that generates the utmost income.

The US didn’t continue to run trillion-dollar trade imbalances without dire consequences. The US gross foreign investment status has sunk to bad$ 25 trillion, roughly equal to the sum of US imbalances over the past 30 years. During the past decade, foreigners poured into US tech stocks. If the tech boom fades, for example, the US will have to persuade foreigners to buy bonds, and that implies higher interest rates to attract funds.

Tariffs are a tax, and Laffer’s simple illustration applies to the impact of tariffs as well, although more variables are in play. A reasonable guess is that tariffs in the 10 % to 15 % range would yield a meaningful amount of revenue without undue disruption of economic activity.

Tariffs have multiple effects: Domestic production will replace some imports, but some consumers and businesses will have to absorb higher import prices. Some exporters will build plants in the US to avoid tariffs, as US President Trump proposes.

It’s probably impossible to calculate the crosswinds at play. Supply constraints are a big factor, the United States has a skilled labor shortage, as TSMC discovered while building its Arizona chip fabrication plant. The US now imports most of its capital goods, moreover, which means that US manufacturers can’t replace imported goods with made-in-USA alternatives without first importing more machines and production imports.

The Laffer curve represents a common-sense idea, but a powerful one: Too much taxation stifles growth. The location of the maximum point on the curve isn’t self-evident by any means, but it frames the problem handily. I’m one of the original supply-siders, I have written a dozen papers over the years for Laffer’s consulting firm, and between 1988 and 1993 I was chief economist for the consulting firm of the late Jude Wanniski, the publicist who made Laffer famous.

The supply-siders argued that the economic growth generated by tax cuts would more than cover the cost of issuing new government debt to cover a transient shortfall in revenues, back when US government debt was just 30 % of GDP, compared to 125 % today, and the top marginal tax rate was 70 %, vs. 37 % today.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called the current national debt” a disaster”, with good reason. The US needs new sources of revenue and tariffs are an important part of the policy mix.

A” Laffer curve” for tariffs might look something like the chart above. Unlike the original Laffer curve for personal income tax rates, revenues don’t fall to zero, tariffs are a levy on price, not income. The right side of the curve remains above zero, although a very high tariff is likely to lose revenue as imports disappear and economic activity shrinks.

A 10 % tariff would yield$ 300 billion on America’s$ 3 trillion of goods imports. Some part of that would be paid by foreign exporters rather than American purchasers, either through currency devaluation or lower profit margins. If foreigners pay half ( rough guess ), the price of imports would rise by just 5 %, barely a speed bump.

That$ 300 billion in revenues is real money. If spending cuts generate$ 200 billion in savings and slightly lower interest rates save$ 200 billion in interest costs, the deficit will fall by$ 700 billion, or more than half. That would leave room to extend the 2019 personal income tax cut and avoid higher marginal tax rates that would impair economic growth.

Imports would fall ( as in the red line on the chart ), so a 15 % tariff would produce a smaller increment in revenue, to$ 350 billion. As noted, foreign exporters can bear a great deal of the burden at a 10 % tariff rate. As tariff rates rise, foreigners will pay a lower share. They can only cut profit margins so far or devalue their currencies so much. Devaluation on the part of trading partners, moreover, isn’t what America wants: It makes US goods less competitive and tends to raise the trade deficit.

One study estimates that a 10 % increase in import prices would raise the Producer Price Index by 1 %. A Boston Federal Reserve report published in Feb. 2025 states,” A 25 % tariff on Canada and Mexico combined with a 10 % tariff on China could add 0.5 % to 0.8 % to core PCE inflation”.

A tariff of 15 % or higher would raise costs for US business significantly. US imports of capital goods ( not including autos ) exploded after Covid, rising by nearly 50 % during the Biden administration. The US can restore capital goods manufacturing, but it would have to import capital goods to do so, which means that imports would first have to rise in order to fall in the future.

There are arguable exceptions. The Trump Administration is proposing a 25 % tariff on autos, not because it expects American consumers to pay nearly 25 % more for new cars, but because it wants foreign auto producers to build plants in the United States. The impact of tariffs above the 10%-15 % level is terra incognita for economists. But it is a reasonable assertion that tariffs in the 10%-15 % range will generate significant amounts of new revenue without much damage to economic activity.

Continue Reading

New giveaway, old problems

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia
Paetongtarn: Image tarnished
Paetongtarn: Image tarnished

The criticism has had a field day criticising the president’s third-phase money raffle, although this is to be paid via a digital app for the first, in the name of financial invigoration.

The 10, 000-baht freebie targets 2.7 million young people aged 16 to 20, who are more tech-savvy, as opposed to the recipients of the two preceding handouts– the poor and elderly– who received money transferred by the authorities into their bank accounts.

The latest flyer via the specifically created digital budget program is meant to pride the government’s election pledge to digitalise finances and create people knowledgeable with digital technology.

The Pheu Thai Party-led management may be well-placed to say credit for having fulfilled its surveys claim. Reviewers, however, were not seeing the handbook legislation through rose-tinted cups.

Opposition MP Sirikanya Tansakul said the latest handbook is bound to work into professional glitches and fail to deliver the intended result of spurring the business.

Ms Sirikanya has been touted by the People’s Party as a candidate for the financing profile if the group lead a potential government.

In a Facebook post titled” the horror of the modern wallet scheme” next month, she ridiculed the two preceding cash handouts– which cost taxpayers 180 billion baht– for no stimulating spending, which was the scheme’s objective.

Calling those handouts “dud bullets”, Ms Sirikanya insisted that despite the massive cash injection, the country’s GDP has underperformed, while public consumption has fallen flat for four consecutive months.

” The graph has more or less flatlined, like a person who has lost the vital signs of life”, she said, adding that the government, with its back against the wall, remains defiant in exploiting its populist agenda at any cost.

The latest digital handout, which is set to drain a further 150 billion baht from the nation’s coffers, may be marred by technical shortcomings on the back of concern that the two agencies in charge of operating the digital wallet system are working out of sync with each other, according to Ms Sirikanya.

She doubted the scheme would be rolled out in the second quarter as planned, citing a lack of coordination between the Digital Government Development Agency ( DGA ) and the Digital Economy and Society Ministry.

The MP said the DGA is responsible for developing the digital wallet system, whereas the DES Ministry is tasked with implementing it despite lacking the necessary experience and funds.

The system functions using a payment platform engineered by the DGA, which should be the operator, given its technical capability. Instead, the agency handed over the role to the DES which, according to Ms Sirikanya, has a knowledge deficit in the system’s operation.

The ministry found out only a few weeks ago it has to get the system up and running. But the system, designed to house the digital wallet, data archive and financial transactions, is nothing but an empty vessel without a proper operator to work it, she added.

Ms Sirikanya said fool-proof rules and conditions must be furnished to serve the digital wallet and plug loopholes. Many questions have gone unanswered, such as how long shops will have to wait for the system to reimburse them for sales made, she added.

Although the DGA has set up the system, the critical hurdle has to do with the DES stepping in and getting it off the ground when it has limited manpower, experience and resources to take on the task.

Ms Sirikanya insisted the government must recognise the bold fact that the budget it earmarked for the latest handout does not quite stretch as far as earlier envisaged.

She said there will only be enough to cover 15 million recipients, which is far fewer than the almost 20 million who signed up and who are expected to pass the eligibility criteria for the latest handout.

The government may need to discard certain age groups to suit the budget, according to Ms Sirikanya.

Unfazed by criticism, Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira said the third phase is expected to be rolled out in the second quarter of this year.

He said the digital wallet technology allows for the tracking of participants ‘ spending and the use of the information to formulate future policies.

The first two phases covered welfare cardholders, people with disabilities and people aged 60 and above, with payments made via PromptPay accounts.

Mr Pichai said the programme was designed to lower household debt amounting to 89 % of GDP.

Economic growth would be ramped up beyond 3 % by means of expediting public investment, speeding up projects under the Board of Investment ( BoI ), pushing up export growth to 4 %, and extending the length of stay for foreign visitors.

Deputy Finance Minister Paopoom Rojanasakul also defended the digital wallet programme, saying the reason it was being implemented in phases was not because of budget constraints. Rather, economic conditions make it necessary to intensify economic activities.

He said the 150 billion baht fund would be enough to finance the third-phase handout to be offered when the economy is predicted to dip and thus need a stimulus to push it along.

He noted that the amount of money injected into the system is planned accordingly, and the 16-20 age group is more technologically adept to tap into the digital financial system.

The deputy finance minister stopped short of saying if more handouts are in the pipeline.

Deputy Finance Minister Julapun Amornvivat said the 150 billion baht allocated for the digital wallet scheme must be spent in the 2025 fiscal year, otherwise, the fund will be withdrawn. But if part of the budget is used, what’s left of it can be carried over to the next fiscal year.

Some damage has been done

Sirikanya: Slams latest handout

Sirikanya: Slams latest handout

Even though Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra breezed through the no-confidence vote after a two-day debate, it does not mean she can turn things around for the ruling Pheu Thai Party in the time she has left before the next polls.

The House of Representatives voted in her favour by 319 to 162 with seven abstentions on Wednesday morning, showing strong unity among coalition partners.

According to observers, the two-day session saw the main opposition People’s Party ( PP ) launch a scathing attack on the premier. And with the allegations laid, her party’s chances of securing a decisive victory in the next election appear increasingly distant.

The damaging claims were raised by PP deputy leader Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn and PP list-MP Rangsiman Rome, who zeroed in on Ms Paetongtarn’s family businesses and her father, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

Mr Wiroj accused the prime minister and her family of avoiding paying more than two billion baht in taxes through questionable share transfers.

He alleged that the use of promissory notes, without any mention of due dates or interest rates to be charged, was intended to disguise the transactions as purchases when, in reality, they were intended as gifts and thus subject to gift tax.

Allegations of tax avoidance and dubious share transfers have haunted the Shinawatra family for years, making Mr Wiroj’s latest claims all the more damaging, according to observers.

After becoming prime minister a few decades ago, Thaksin was accused of deliberately filing a false asset declaration, with the case eventually sent to the Constitutional Court for review. The court found in Thaksin’s favour in a highly controversial ruling.

However, in another similar case, the Supreme Court found against him and ordered a seizure of assets worth 46 billion baht.

Mr Rangsiman, meanwhile, underscored public scepticism over Thaksin’s extended stay at the Police General Hospital ( PGH).

During the censure debate, the MP pointed to Thaksin appearing to be in good health both shortly before and soon after his hospital detention, despite claims by the government that he was seriously ill during his entire hospital stay.

According to the MP, just two days before Thaksin’s return to Thailand from self-exile on Aug 22, 2023, Ms Paetongtarn informed reporters her father was healthy and had a medical checkup twice a year.

Thaksin was seen smiling and waving to supporters after arriving at Don Mueang airport, with no signs he was suffering from a serious illness.

On the day of his return, the Supreme Court sentenced him to eight years in prison for multiple offences during his time as premier. The sentence was then reduced to one year by royal clemency.

However, on his first night, the Department of Corrections ( DoC ) sent Thaksin to the PGH, citing serious health issues that drew widespread scepticism. His prolonged detention at the hospital is widely believed to have been a political manoeuvre to avoid prison time.

Stithorn Thananithichot, director of the Office of Innovation for Democracy at King Prajadhipok’s Institute, said that while the opposition may not have delivered a fatal blow, it has opened political wounds that could work against Pheu Thai in the next election two years from now.

He said the prime minister’s response to the tax allegations– that she has paid more tax than opposition MPs– will be used to portray her as not the kind of leader the country needs.

” This will be repeatedly used to prevent the prime minister from shoring up the party’s popularity ratings. The damage has been done to her image”, he said.

As a result, Ms Paetongtarn will be unlikely to expand the party’s support base to include younger voters and will only retain the loyalty of Pheu Thai’s current supporters, he said.

Moreover, the controversial share transfer raised during the no-confidence debate is expected to present grounds for seeking a formal, criminal probe, a move that could ultimately lead to her removal from office.

Mr Stithorn said the debate had no impact on the casino-entertainment complex project despite the policy being highly controversial and not being part of Pheu Thai’s election pledges.

However, this may be because the project has yet to move forward, as the necessary legislation has not been passed. As long as it remains on paper, the opposition has little ammunition with which to launch a full-scale attack on the government, he noted.

As for the coalition parties, Pheu Thai is expected to continue working with them despite reservations from the conservative camp, primarily because there are no better alternatives, said Mr Stithorn.

Continue Reading

Don’t expect a US Marshall Plan to rebuild Ukraine – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Donald Trump, the chairman, wants Ukraine to pay the state for its assistance in defending Ukraine from Russia’s invasion.

Congress has given Ukraine and neighboring nations roughly US$ 174 billion since 2022 to support its conflict energy. Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron discussed this number in a White House meet in March 2025. Trump amplified this number. He has suggested that by granting the US access to its nutrients, Ukraine was charge itself.

The country is rich in metal, graphite, iron, and other rare earth metals, which are used to make batteries for electric vehicles and other technological equipment.

Significant investments in equipment and economic growth, including in parts of Ukraine that have been seriously damaged by fighting, may be required to mine and refine these crucial material resources. The Marshall Plan, or German Recovery Program, is being criticized by some experts as a necessary return.

From 1948 to late 1951, the Marshall Plan rebuilt Western Europe using US funds of$ 137 billion, or around$ 71 billion today. It is frequently used as a remedy for global crises to bring about restoration. However, I find that the Marshall Plan is not well understood as a defense writer and director.

The Marshall Plan’s economic benefits did not, according to the US, result from Western nations reimbursing funding or allowing the US to harvest their raw materials. Instead, the US has benefited excessively from a half-century of benevolence, political stability, and monetary success in Europe.

Nationwide, European countries turn inside.

Western Europe was faced with a sizable load of death and trauma after World War II ended in 1945.

Large housing shortages had resulted from the Allied bombardment of big industrial areas and European cities like Berlin, Hamburg, and Cologne. In addition, fighting through agricultural areas and a pressing labor shortage had hampered food production. Because so many of Europe’s bridges, roads, and ports had been destroyed, what harvest was still available couldn’t get to starving civilians.

After so many years of war, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, and other Western institutions were buried in debt. They were unable to afford to recover on their own. Instead of collaborating on their shared financial restoration, European countries turned their attention to themselves, focusing primarily on their own social issues.

The globe also had political and military divisions. The political, capitalist forces that controlled the US-led eastern Europe were a part of the influence of Europe’s eastern half.

Previous British Prime Minister Winston Churchill outlined Europe’s growing post break in a speech delivered in 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. He claimed that” an iron screen” had “descended across the continent” over the remnants of admired countries.

US travels overseas

The US emerged from World War II as the richest nation in the world, with its uninjured and unbroken country, as opposed to Europe. The country’s material and oil companies were flourishing. The US was unquestionably the country’s power by 1947, leaving Great Britain as the clear winner.

However, President Harry Truman was concerned about the interests of the Soviet Union, the other great winner of the war. By providing$ 400 million in military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, he announced a new doctrine in March 1947 to stop communist expansion southward across Europe.

US Secretary of State George Marshall met with Communist leaders to discuss the future of Germany around the same day. Germany was divided into four occupied territories administered by US, British, French, and Russian troops following the Nazis ‘ retreat in May 1945.

Each country’s specific objectives for their region of Germany were unique. A dead Germany, in the US’s opinion, would thwart the monetary reconstruction of all of Europe, which was a political and economic imperative.

Marshall hoped the Soviets may cooperate, but Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, favored getting money from a prostrate Germany over investing in its healing. The Soviets perceived that a lively European economic engine could just as easily rearrange its strategy for a third time in the 20th century.

The Truman management made the decision to rebuild Western Europe’s three European Allies, one by one.

Marshall gave his prepare a speech at Harvard University’s initiation address in June 1947. According to him, National efforts to restore the world’s economy would lay the groundwork for social stability and peace in Europe.

And a Western Europe with good economic health, in turn, may stop communism from spreading across it by clearly demonstrating the advantages of socialism.

Our approach is “against thirst, poverty, desperation, and chaos,” Marshall said.” Our plan is not directed against any nation.”

Marshall’s strategy

Marshall urged all European countries to take part in creating a strategy to address the need for immediate humanitarian support for the people of Europe and restore its infrastructure. The US had cover everything.

It provided a crutch for virtually bankrupt European countries. The fresh Committee for European Economic Co-operation, which is made up of 16 Western- but no Eastern-European countries, presented its plan to Washington in September 1947.

For the Political Truman leadership to urge the Republican-led Congress to pass this$ 13 billion costs, it may require a superb legislative plan. Democratic Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s devote helped the Marshall Plan’s success, convincing his separatist colleagues that it would spur economic growth and stop communism.

Truman ratified the Economic Cooperation Act in April 1948. By the year’s end, over$ 2 billion had been exported to Europe, and its industrial output had finally surpassed prewar levels seen in 1939.

NATO was created by birth.

Along with maintaining economic stability, the Truman management acknowledged that Europe required defense protection from Russian encroachment.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established in July 1949 by 12 Western nations, the US, and Canada. Each participant nation endorsed NATO’s commitment to supporting other NATO members in their joint protection.

NATO has rapidly expanded east since 1947, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and another former Soviet satellite nations that are instantly bordering Russia.

Ukraine, which formally seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991, is never a NATO part. However, it so sorely wants to become.

Following Russia’s war, Ukraine applied for NATO participation in 2022. Its application is pending. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, has stated that any agreement involving peace with Ukraine has obstruct NATO membership.

Do the Marshall Plan be successful for Ukraine?

In a significant way, modern Ukraine resembles the Marshall Plan-era’s Western European nations.

It suffers from the actual destruction of battle, with its big cities severely harmed. Military assault threats from unfriendly companions are still a problem. Additionally, it has a functioning, democratic state that would be able to receive and distribute support in order to promote the country’s economic growth and stability in peace.

But, the US’s global leadership has drastically changed since 1948.

It seems difficult to finance the restoration of Ukraine entirely from the American taxpayer. Any effort to rebuild the nation following a war will probably require considerable personal investment and public funding from a number of countries. That secret investment could possibly include enterprises into mineral extraction and refinery.

In the end, it is most likely that Ukraine and its neighbors will come to terms with a resolution to regain its economic and military safety.

Ukraine wants to join the European Union, but it also needs the governmental and financial resources to rebuild Ukraine, restore stability, and lower tensions on the continent.

Most likely European-style Marshall Plans may be issued for Ukraine in the future.

The National Museum of American History, the Smithsonian Institution, and Frank A. Blazich Jr. are the director of military past.

The Conversation has republished this post under a Creative Commons license. Study the article’s introduction.

Continue Reading