Myanmar Spring Chronicle – Scenes from October 2
(MoeMaKa), October 3 , 2026
The Growing Scale of Flood and Landslide Damage in the Dawei Region
In today’s world, Western powers are proclaiming the arrival of a new technological age centered on what has long been called AI. At the same time, warnings are growing louder that if AI is not properly controlled, it could bring catastrophic consequences for the world—even threaten humanity’s survival.
U.S. President Donald Trump has gone so far as to order that Artificial Intelligence no longer be called AI in official executive-branch usage, but Super Intelligence, or SI. (The White House) Artificial intelligence is no longer “artificial,” it seems. Perhaps he would rather call it some kind of all-seeing divine intelligence.
No matter how confidently the United States and its allies declare that they will continue to dominate, lead and shape the world of the future, the reality appears rather different. In my view, America’s international standing has shifted from that of a power widely respected and admired toward something more like a powerful bully whom others increasingly fear and resent.
One example can be found in last month’s United Nations General Assembly, where President Trump used confrontational language toward countries that refused to follow his lead. The United States and Israel had already used military force against Iran, and the conflict had yet to be brought fully to an end. Against that background, Trump’s threat of rapidly “annihilating” the Islamic Republic if there were no deal with Iran represented an extraordinarily severe form of military rhetoric.
Then came other international bullies—Israel, Iran, Russia and others—using the UN podium to trade accusations, threats and belligerent rhetoric.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the podium, dozens of delegates walked out in protest. Netanyahu responded by calling those who left “moral cowards,” even telling any others who felt the same way to leave as well. (The Irish Times)
This raises a larger question: What has become of America’s role in the world?
When the United States speaks as though the future of the world remains in its hands, should we expect that power to produce good outcomes or bad ones?
Looking at current circumstances, one could argue that Washington retains enormous capacity to shape events for the worse as well as for the better. The war with Iran, U.S. military actions involving Venezuela, trade wars driven by sharply increased tariffs, strained relations with traditional allies, retreat from parts of the UN-centered international system, and economic and social tensions at home can all be found in the daily headlines.
There is little need to invent examples.
Even AI—the technology the United States has helped develop and spread—is accompanied by warnings from experts about potentially catastrophic risks if increasingly powerful systems are allowed to develop without adequate safeguards. Rather than leading humanity toward some technological paradise, critics warn that uncontrolled advanced AI could pose grave risks.
Under such circumstances, it may not be unreasonable to question whether American technological leadership by itself guarantees a better future.
If American values and the American Dream are losing some of their shine, what values and dreams from other regions might compete for their place?
Historically, the most obvious counterpart to Western values and aspirations has been the values and aspirations associated with the East—with Asia. Perhaps this is a moment when scholars and observers will increasingly turn their attention toward Asian values and Asian aspirations.
Some critics of contemporary America point to what they see as a society rich in knowledge and material wealth but increasingly weak in moral responsibility, generosity and social solidarity. When wealth, power and nationalism are celebrated too loudly, even friends and neighbors may begin to keep their distance.
Meanwhile, emerging countries across Asia are reconsidering, revising and modernizing their own values and their own visions of the future.
Historically, among the leaders most closely associated with the idea of “Asian Values” were Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad.
The concept associated with them tended to place greater emphasis not solely on individual rights, but also on the family and wider community, social harmony, responsibility and duty, respect for leadership, consensus and social stability.
Over roughly the past two years, since the Trump administration returned to power in the United States, Asian governments and major political parties have had to make adjustments.
Government-to-government relations, party-to-party relations and relationships among political leaders may not always have changed dramatically. But for ordinary Asians, dependence on Western countries in education, social development and economic life has required reassessment.
Educational institutions, research programs, trade relationships and social-development initiatives that once depended heavily on American funding, influence or approval have had to adapt. Many countries and institutions have been forced to think more seriously about reducing their dependence on any single external power.
Before the 1997–98 Asian Financial Crisis, Asian leaders spoke proudly about Asian values and the Asian dream.
Those voices became quieter after 2000. Yet during the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the 2008 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in 2020, Asian countries demonstrated various ways of responding to global crises that did not always follow Western approaches.
Asia has also benefited in parts of the region from younger populations and expanding consumer markets. Other characteristics often associated with Asian political and social traditions include acceptance of hierarchical authority, patience and social discipline, strong attachment to family and national identity, protection of national sovereignty and borders, and—in Southeast Asia in particular—the principle of non-interference in other countries’ domestic affairs.
One can argue that some of the ideas once described as Asian values and the Asian dream are becoming more visible again.
Asian countries have traveled a long way from the era when many functioned largely within political and economic systems dominated by Western powers. Some became the celebrated “Asian Tigers.”
Since 2020, amid instability in the Western world and the Middle East, parts of Asia have appeared comparatively more stable and increasingly determined to reduce strategic dependence on outside powers.
In the Russia-Ukraine war, Asian countries—particularly ASEAN members—have generally avoided forms of direct intervention beyond established international and UN frameworks.
When Myanmar’s military seized power and the country descended into a widening civil war, ASEAN continued to rely primarily on its Five-Point Consensus, repeatedly calling for an end to violence, humanitarian assistance and inclusive dialogue among relevant stakeholders. At the same time, ASEAN has largely avoided direct intervention in the internal affairs of a member state.
During tensions along the Thailand-Cambodia border, other countries in the region have similarly sought to avoid taking sides.
And when the U.S.-Iran conflict contributed to pressure on fuel supplies and prices, Asian governments generally focused on protecting domestic stability and preventing wider regional disruption.
Political parties and leaders everywhere may try to mobilize the public in order to win elections or retain power. But many Asian governments appear particularly concerned with preventing mass unrest from escalating into institutional collapse.
It may be tempting to say that relatively few Asian countries in the 21st century have reached the point of outright state breakdown. Myanmar, however, is clearly facing an exceptionally grave national emergency.
Looking more broadly at the East, there are major powers such as China, India and Japan, each capable of asserting itself strongly.
Asia also faces major transnational problems. Human trafficking, online scam operations, narcotics and illicit trade have become serious challenges shared by many countries.
At the same time, major interstate security disputes remain unresolved, including tensions in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait and contested border regions.
Asian governments have also sought, with varying degrees of success, to prevent religious extremism and transnational terrorist organizations from establishing durable bases within their territories.
The post-colonial international order was shaped to a great extent by the ideas, institutions and power of the United States and other Western countries.
Perhaps the time has now come to pay closer attention to the values, political thinking and aspirations emerging from Asian countries—particularly the countries of ASEAN.