Authored by Pepe Escobar,

The first ever ASEAN-China-GCC trilateral summit earlier this week in Malaysia is even more than a cross-regional, South-South breakthrough.

The 17 nations united on the same table in Kuala Lumpur graphically demonstrated, as evoked by Malaysian Prime Minister and current ASEAN chair Anwar Ibrahim, how “from the ancient Silk Road to the vibrant maritime networks of Southeast Asia to modern trade corridors, our peoples have long connected through commerce, culture, and the sharing of ideas.”

Call it the 21st century New Silk Road spirit. And it’s no wonder China is right at its heart, via interlocked Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects – from infrastructure to trade development. China, Southeast Asia and a large part of West Asia do conform a Golden Triangle of natural resources, manufacturing and a large consumer base.

The final declaration of the Malaysia summit of course had to celebrate these “enduring and deep historical and civilizational ties”, as well as geoeconomics, in a drive to “promote economic development in the wider Asia-Pacific [note the correct terminology] and Middle East [old terminology: the correct one is ‘West Asia’].”

So it’s natural that China proposed the possibility of including the West Asian Arab nations of the GCC in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the vast 15-member trade pact that includes China and ASEAN (but not self-excluded India).

Free trade was the key theme in Kuala Lumpur – from the recently completed China-ASEAN Free Trade Area 3.0 upgrade to the upcoming China-GCC Free Trade Agreement negotiations. In contrast to Trump 2.0, the trilateral committed to “strengthen the resilience of industrial chains and supply chains”, everything geared towards long-term, tariff and sanction-free sustainable trade.

Last year, ASEAN’s total trade with China and GCC surpassed $900 billion, almost twice the $453 billion in trade with the US. And yes, trade de-dollarization is the way to go all across Asia. Right before the summit, China and Indonesia jointly announced that from now on, trade between both powerhouses is only in yuan and rupiah.

The final declaration was explicit on exploring “local currency and cross-border payment cooperation” – in tandem with promoting “high-quality BRI cooperation and seamless connectivity, including the development of logistics corridors and digital platforms”, and advancing “sustainable infrastructure construction.” The trilateral is engaged in building a web of pan-Asia connectivity corridors – the prime geoeconomic theme of the 21st century.

The trilateral had to refer to Gaza – although not as forcefully as it should. At best, the final declaration “endorses the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice on 19 July 2024, including its finding that the United Nations, in particular the General Assembly and the Security Council, which requested the advisory opinion, should consider specific modalities and further actions to bring an end to the illegal presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as soon as possible”; and to “achieve the two-State solution based on the 1967 borders in accordance with international law.”

East Asia, historically, is most of all a mosaic of transnational regions linked by maritime corridors. The first globalization happened – where else – in Asia, from the opening of the trans-Pacific route linking the “New World” to the Philippines in 1511 to the takeover of Malacca – the great Southeast Asian emporium – by the Portuguese in 1571.

But even before the Vasco da Gama era, East and Southeast Asia formed a relatively integrated economic zone, with ports from Malacca to Nagasaki shining as trade centers crammed with Arab, Chinese, Indian and Japanese merchants. Malacca boomed thanks to excellent infrastructure, moderate port tariffs and a sound fiscal regime: a much better deal compared to the subsequent predatory Portuguese and Dutch colonial set up, all the way to admiral Alfred Mahan conceptualizing the principles of sea power to the benefit of the thalassocratic US.

Former Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo has clearly explained how China and South East Asia have been relieving – with spectacular success – their historic, culture and trade connections. This summit taking place in Malaysia, home of the historically crucial crossroads Malacca, is a touch of poetic justice.

Add to it Indonesia President Prabowo – a former Suharto general, and his son-in-law – effusively praising China’s firm anti-imperialist stance since 1949 and during the Cold War, right in front of Chinese Prime Minister Li Qiang. A 21stcentury parallel can be made with the legendary Spirit of Bandung in 1955, when Indonesia’s Sukarno – a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) – was side by side with Zhou EnLai.

The ASEAN-China-GCC summit may be able to advance moves that the inestimable Prof. Michael Hudson deem absolutely necessary for BRICS members – and quite a few in Kuala Lumpur will be at the table at the BRICS summit in Rio in early July.

Prof. Hudson has conclusively demonstrated how landlord classes, monopolies and residues of European colonialism will have to go for BRICS nations to “achieve the same kind of take off that made England, Germany, US industrial leaders of the world.” That means to drastically “cut back payments to foreign investors concentrated on raw material rent” and to subdue “the rentier class.”

Prof. Hudson argues that when it comes to “how to free their economies – rent, creditor payments – this is what China did. China had a revolution. After the revolution it did not have a financial class. China made money creation a public utility – an arm of the Treasury; it created money to finance tangible investments in capital formation, factories, housing – a little too much – huge public infrastructure, urban transportation, high-speed rail.”

What I previously defined as “The BRICS Lab” – all those models being constantly tested, starting last year in Russia before the Kazan summit – is indeed trying to answer questions posed by Prof. Hudson in several ways: “We need to create our money. Elites should not keep benefitting from regressive taxation. How to industrialize? No more economic rent.”

The Chinese, predictably, are already at the next level of the integration business. This is their “magic weapon” to “defeat the enemy”: “The construction of the ‘dual circulation’ of the domestic and foreign markets, uniting as many living forces as possible to form a united front to deal with unilateralism. Most of the southern countries are natural allies. The feasibility of close linkage between ‘South-South cooperation’ and ‘dual circulation’ is increasing day by day.”

Jeffrey Sachs, in Kuala Lumpur, ahead of the ASEAN-China-GCC summit, succinctly nailed the New Silk Road spirit: “If you put together Japanese skill, Korean skill, Chinese skill, ASEAN skill, oh my God: no one could possibly compete (…) Diplomacy requires a table and two chairs. The military requires $1 trillion a year. Which do you think is the better deal?”