Transcription
[Music] [Music] Hello, Professor Somchai. >> Hello, hello. >> Professor Kontrol, Dr. Somchai Warunphol, is an expert in geopolitics. Today, we've discussed many things because the situation isn't particularly outstanding, but it has its own interesting aspects. The interesting part is that we wanted to start with Iran, as is our usual topic, but it's a part we want to discuss today because the situation in Iran is being negotiated daily and changes daily. What are your thoughts, Professor Somchai, on the progress of the Doha meeting in Qatar? Professor, please. >> If we look at the intentions of both sides, I believe they both want the deal to continue and likely want it to succeed. To be honest, even if they say, "Well, if it succeeds, that's good; if it doesn't, it's okay," they're saying that in advance because there's a lot of negotiation involved, as the written text is quite loose. So, the first point that causes suspicion and excitement for the world, and is quite sensitive, is the clash in the Strait of Hormuz due to different interpretations. The US wants free passage, Iran doesn't want to control it but wants to control it while allowing free passage. This is where the argument arises. Then, there was a fight. When the IRGC didn't want them to pass, the US encouraged ships to pass. Yesterday, 70 ships passed with a US naval escort. Then, when the IRG attacked a ship, the IRGC attacked Iran, and Iran retaliated, leading to attacks back and forth. However, it's noticeable that they chose their attack points carefully, not attacking deep into Iranian territory. At the same time, Iran hasn't attacked US naval vessels but has attacked bases in various countries. This seems to be a considerable de-escalation. As for Lebanon, it seems to have fallen off the radar a bit. There's nothing too severe yet, but if Israel doesn't withdraw its troops, the attacks aren't intense. There are sporadic clashes, and there was an explosion in Haifa, a car bomb. We don't know who did it yet. That's one issue, but returning to the negotiations, the main team isn't protesting because the US accused them of violating the agreement by attacking Iran. Therefore, they won't negotiate. However, the American side, Wickoff and Knauer, went and didn't meet the main team. So, they let the technical teams talk, with Qatar mediating and facilitating. Both Wickoff and Knauer spoke with the Prime Minister of Qatar, who announced progress. I think both sides intend to continue negotiations, even though there are clashes, which also causes global turmoil and anxiety. Trump himself said it's okay if the 60-day deadline is missed; it can be extended. >> Extended. >> And it was extended. So, if we look at the intentions, they want to continue with the deal to make progress. Iran probably wants it to succeed, but on terms that they don't lose out. This means they have to negotiate to the fullest. So, the important thing now is that the US says they haven't released the frozen funds yet, according to the White House. But unofficial news says 6,000 have been released. We don't know who to believe. We'll see. On one hand, on the other hand, what I'm quite concerned about as a potential trigger is the funeral ceremony for the former Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, which will be a grand ceremony on the 4th, and on the 5th, there will be a procession. On the 5th, there will be a prayer ceremony at what they call the "Musalla," a place for the deceased, and a prayer for them. The issue is that millions of people will be there. My question is about security: how will it be managed? There might be sabotage or disruption, likely from Israel, if it happens. If there's a bombing or a drone attack, or a missile strike, there could be considerable casualties. This is what worries me, and it could be a major trigger if someone disrupts it. We can't predict this, as some people don't consider things like respect for the deceased or mourning. This is a cause for concern. But in other matters, I believe it's as it is: there are some clashes. The issue is the strait: who will open it, who will control it, whether it will be opened from the south, the middle, or the Iranian-controlled channel. It's still unclear. However, the US is using a method called "encouraging" ships to come out and providing escort, which was successful for 70 ships. Iran hasn't attacked US warships yet, but there might be attacks or threats to oil tankers. It's not yet a crisis. Today, if you follow the news, there are no attacks. It's still calm, and ships can pass. This is progress, and as I said, I believe both sides are trying to maintain the negotiations until the end. >> Professor, you mentioned the funeral. This brings me to a question. Islam in Iran is Shia. I'm curious why the body needs to be moved to Iraq. >> They have a prayer ceremony, a funeral prayer. This is seen as a positive point for Iran because the Iraqi authorities are fully open and supportive of a grand ceremony. This shows the strength of the Iran-Iraq relationship, even though they fought in the past during the Saddam Hussein era. >> Yes. I'm curious about the Iran-Iraq relationship. It seems like they are like brothers. Even when the Supreme Leader passed away, there were ceremonies in both places. This means Iraq is given a lot of importance. >> That's right. People misunderstand. The majority of the population in Iraq, especially in the south, around Najaf and Basra, are all Shia. When they hold ceremonies in Najaf, there are many Shia. In reality, Sunnis are a minority. >> Oh. >> The base of Saddam Hussein was in Tikrit, in the north. But because the Ba'ath Party was established then, they had control of power and the army, so they ruled Iran. They fought with Iran because America supported them. When Saddam fell and died, the Sunni faction in Iraq rose, and the Shia factions gained significant political power. There are many Shia groups, both Iranian Shia and Arab Shia like Muqtada al-Sadr, who is Arab and might not fully accept Iran. They even have their own supreme leader or "Ayatollah," and Iraq has its own. It's not directly related, but now the Iranian faction has gained political power, so the relationship is even closer. As I mentioned, people misunderstand that Iraq is Sunni, so how can it get along with Shia? They fought before. In reality, the majority of the population is Shia. >> It's like Bahrain. I need to add a bit about Bahrain. Over 90% of Bahrain's population is Shia. Only the ruling family, less than 10%, is Sunni. >> Does the term "Shia" and "Sunni" divide Muslims so definitively, like they are opposing sides? >> I must say that in the past, when the Prophet passed away, there were conflicts that were quite intense, to the point where the Prophet's grandson, whom the Shia greatly revere, Hussein, was killed by the Sunni faction. So, that conflict was strong. But as time passed, the conflict lessened. Then, the Iranian Revolution occurred. The Iranian Revolution impacted the politics of Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia. So, the Sunnis revived the Wahhabi sect and incited conflict between Sunnis and Shia, and also with Saddam Hussein. But currently, I think Arab countries are toning down the conflict and building relationships with Iran. They are not talking much about sects but more about international politics and mutual interests. I used to criticize this before, and some disagreed. I said the real conflict is about political interests, not sects, but sects are used to create issues. Now, it's becoming clear that sects are secondary; it's about international interests, international relations, and international security. >> I see. This makes me wonder even more, what sect do Muslims in Thailand belong to? >> Mostly Sunni. >> A minority. >> Oh. >> Shia are fewer. So, can we divide Indonesia and Malaysia as Sunni, Professor? >> Mostly Sunni, with few Shia. >> Okay. >> In this region. >> Yes. >> In the world, Sunnis are more numerous than Shia. >> Uh-huh. >> Globally, but movements, so-called movements, Shia have a stronger process. >> So, when they operate or work, they are quite strong, even in issuing statements or engaging in international politics. They are quite strong, while Sunnis are scattered. They might adhere more to religious rituals and not get involved much in international or domestic politics. >> Uh-huh. Now, this is symbolic. This time, the leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was a leader of the Shia sect, meaning he was the leader of the entire sect, right, Professor? >> Yes. It's not just Shia; there are many schools of thought. There are many schools of thought. In Yemen, they are of a specific sect, a school of thought. But in Iran, it's the Twelver Shia. In Iraq, it might also be Twelver Shia. So, the relationship is close, but he's not the leader of all Shia sects. However, most Shia consider Ayatollah Khamenei a leader. >> I still understand little, but that's okay. It's general knowledge that there's a lot of complexity. We're going to... >> A lot. Among Sunnis themselves, there are schools of thought. >> Yes, yes, not a solid bloc. >> Many things. For example, in Thailand, they are called the Shafi'i school of thought. In Arab countries, Sunnis might be Hanafi or Hanbali. So, there might be different schools of thought. >> Yes. >> It also blends with customs and traditions. >> Uh-huh. Which makes their practices slightly different, but the core beliefs and faith are the same for both Shia and Sunni. >> Yes, I understand. It's culture and tradition that combine and manifest as they are. >> Professor, I'd like to move on to the next topic, Russia and Ukraine. I recently heard that Putin might have his Foreign Minister negotiate with Sweden. The latest news is that he might be satisfied or dissatisfied, I don't know. >> They must try to achieve a ceasefire quickly because they've been attacked a lot. What is the reason, Professor, that Putin is showing a softer stance and agreeing to negotiate? It's the repeated attacks from Ukraine, which at first seemed like a fair match, Professor. It was back and forth, with air attacks and damage. But on the ground, Russia still has the advantage and has gained more territory, even if... >> Even if it's slow. Currently, Donetsk is almost entirely taken, and Luhansk is gone. Only Kherson and Zaporizhzhia remain, about 70%. However, at the same time, what Putin is concerned about is the deteriorating Russian economy because it's bogged down in war. >> And Europe's stance on support is wavering. Even though the economy is bad, the trend suggests they might provide support. >> Because the new Prime Minister of Britain, who will replace Truss, is strongly anti-Russia. Mr. Ben Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester, is a contender to replace Truss. So, the trend in Europe is likely to remain strong and ready to support Ukraine. Trump has also stepped in, seemingly encouraging Zelensky to be braver and pressure Russia more. This has been effective, as Russian air attacks have caused significant damage, even destroying oil refineries, leading to oil shortages in 15 regions of Russia, requiring rationing. So, Putin is now thinking, "If possible, it's better to negotiate." But it won't be easy. They won't just retreat. The issue of the four regions will be a long negotiation, with much bargaining, and it will be difficult to accept. It's not easy, but there's a positive sign because Russia has started saying they are willing to negotiate, which they never said before. Before, they said it would be decided on the battlefield. [Laughter] >> Indeed, it's decided on the battlefield. If you attack me hard, I'll negotiate. If you're weak, I won't. >> [Laughter] >> That's true. And it's considered that Zelensky has done well and succeeded, largely with the help of Germany, which is building missile factories. There are already missile factories, and there will be missile factories in Ukraine as well. Russia is complaining that this is equivalent to supporting and directly attacking them. Is that not so? >> Is it impossible for Sweden or Ukraine to have the capacity to build factories for various products? It's difficult. They need... >> Germany's involvement. >> Supervision and resources. >> Yes, even military personnel. Mercenaries are involved because Ukraine's forces are depleted. Those who remain are conscripted, and they flee abroad. >> They're not even willing to conscript women, are they? >> Yes. >> I see it as bad, but Russia has also lost so many soldiers that they have to rely on Koreans for help, because the republics within the Russian Federation are not sending many forces. Before, there were Chechens, right? >> And the Wagner mercenary group. >> Later, Putin didn't trust Wagner and sent them all to Africa. So, >> Now it's quite difficult to recruit soldiers, and there are problems. They've lost quite a few, and the economy is bad, with high inflation. >> And this year, in the last three years, Russia's economy has started to decline, which is a cause for concern. So, negotiations are possible, but it will be difficult, like the Iran-US deal. They will have to negotiate to the end. >> It seems like the world is experiencing many conflicts on the Western side. On our Eastern side, it seems relatively quiet, with better opportunities for economic development. If we look at it this way, Professor, regarding the prosperity of Asia, especially East Asia, could it be that these countries have the opportunity to rise and become world leaders, especially China? And regarding the conflict between China and Japan, it's crucial to preventing ASEAN from being burdened if a war breaks out in East Asia, especially Taiwan. If we look at it this way, how should ASEAN position itself appropriately to enter a situation of war between China and Japan? >> This is an interesting topic. Everyone now accepts that the world is becoming multipolar. Secondly, the sun is setting in the West and will rise in the East, with China as the main player. However, the conflict between China and the US is still evident. ASEAN itself has internal conflicts among many groups, with what they call "land ASEAN" and "maritime ASEAN," which are different. If each country could unite, they would have better bargaining power. But as it stands, each country is using its own potential to negotiate with the superpowers. For example, as you asked, Mr. Thani, regarding Indonesia. Indonesia is a giant. We must understand that they are not to be underestimated. With over 200 million people, they are like a giant wall between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Anyone passing through, whether they use the Strait of Malacca or not, must pass through Indonesia. So, let's look at Indonesia's role. They play a game called "heavy hitter," meaning they negotiate aggressively. They dare to challenge superpowers like China. At the same time, they concede on some issues, leaving China unsure what to do. Currently, they are pressuring China on nickel. Nickel is a major global resource, and they are preparing to partner with the Philippines to create something like OPEC to set nickel prices. Currently, China controls 75% of nickel mining and smelting in Indonesia. They are now pressuring China, forcing them to reduce production, increase royalties, raise prices, and control export quotas, causing China to reduce its volume. This opens the door for America to play a role. They are reducing tariffs for America, negotiating tariffs with America, and competing with China. This gives them bargaining power because America and China are balancing each other. At the same time, they don't want China to be too hostile. They have announced negotiations to develop special economic zones in the South China Sea, which is an ASEAN country. They are accepting China's "nine-dash line" claim, which no one accepts, to develop special zones. China likes this, as there's a big player. At the same time, they have become a full member of BRI, while Thailand is only a partner. They are fully committed and have joined the Trump administration's initiative by sending 8,000 troops to Gaza. I think they are playing many roles in diplomacy. They are very close to China, intimate even. But militarily, they haven't bought weapons from China or Russia. They buy from the West and Turkey, which is a mini-power. This means they might partner with Turkey in the future, and Turkey is an important player among the four countries that will have a role in the Middle East. So, I believe their role is interesting because they play on multiple sides but have good bargaining power. Who would dare to pressure them when they have a population and bargaining resources? For Thailand, we are not classified as a "heavy hitter." We are "light," so our bargaining power might not be enough. For example, many beliefs we used to hold, like being in a strategically important area that China and the US both want because it's a link between the Pacific and India. But don't forget it's a small part. It has to reach Thailand and then exit to the Andaman Sea. If it exits to the Andaman Sea, it will encounter important Indian checkpoints at the Nicobar Islands and the Andaman Islands. So, it's not easy to pass through there. If it passes through Thailand, this issue might connect with the idea of the "land bridge." Now, we have to step back because it's not cost-effective. Secondly, if we establish it as a strategic point, it might pose a danger to us that we cannot defend against. So, this is an important issue. The next point is that we must understand that those who might want influence in Thailand may have different objectives. The US wants Thailand to be the last front line to prevent China from having influence southward, towards what they call "maritime ASEAN." As for China, they want something more concrete. Besides using it as a transit route to the Andaman Sea, they want influence to pressure southern ASEAN, or "maritime ASEAN." The US gives less importance to Thailand compared to Singapore and Vietnam. So, we must consider this: if they give us equal importance, we still have bargaining power. The US will likely balance us against China. But it appears the US gives us less importance. We can see this in tax issues and conflicts with Cambodia; the US hasn't sided with us. They use export tax policies to pressure us and give Malaysia a role as ASEAN mediator, which they have handled well. Thailand and Cambodia have to follow what is determined. Conversely, China uses arms sales to Cambodia to pressure Thailand. If Thailand doesn't want them to send arms, they have to comply with China. But if they don't comply enough, China still sends them, citing old agreements. On the other hand, China also wants to please Cambodia to balance US influence in China. So, if we look at these issues, Thailand's bargaining power on the world stage or with superpowers is quite limited. Our policies are to mediate between one side and the other, and whoever pressures us the most, we yield to them to some extent, and if someone is more lenient, we lean more towards them. We adjust back and forth, which prevents us from establishing a clear Thai strategy. This is not to blame the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for not being capable or the leaders for not being intelligent, but because Thailand's position or the cards it holds are insufficient. The cards we thought we had, like rare earth minerals, require serious surveys to determine how much we have. Even though we are currently the 4th largest exporter, it's a vast difference compared to the 1st. China exports over 200,000 tons, while we export 1,400 tons. So, we're not there yet. Surveys require capital, which is a future goal. But we are facing pressure, unlike Indonesia. Thailand has fully entered an aging society, with many elderly people. Indonesia still has young people who are a strong force. So, even if we attract investments that we think might be beneficial, like the EV industry investing in Thailand, it's a one-sided tilt. China invests more, while Japan has withdrawn. There's no longer a balance between Japan and China in Thailand. And being in an aging society weakens our ability to manage this. So, what we can do to survive, but not in terms of political bargaining power, is to find areas where we have a comparative advantage, such as in medicine, health, and care for the elderly and sick. We have an advantage there, and we also have important soft power: human touch, which means caring with kindness and compassion. We can cater to countries with elderly but wealthy populations, like Japan and many others, by inviting them to come. This is an economic survival strategy, not political bargaining power, as we lack the leverage, especially compared to Indonesia. We don't have the important cards that Indonesia has. >> Professor, I'd like to comment on Indonesia. They are called a country that lacks bargaining power, even though they have a good GDP and a large population. Perhaps, as we've discussed, Indonesia's political system has a lot of corruption. Professor, could you comment on corruption in Indonesia and how it hinders the country's progress? Over the long period of seven presidencies, I see a significant difference in management between the current president, Prabowo, and the previous one, Joko Widodo. >> Especially since Prabowo is a military man, while Joko Widodo is a civilian, a former businessman. >> I see a difference. After Prabowo took office, the country is full of corruption and extravagant spending, populist policies. Comparing these two presidents, where is Indonesia heading? >> The point you raised, Mr. Thani, is very interesting. Actually, Joko Widodo was a prime minister who wasn't from Jakarta before. He was from the south, and then he became prime minister there, and finally president. He implemented quite decisive policies. Regarding corruption, yes, there was some, but it wasn't widespread. >> As for Prabowo, he is the son-in-law of... the former... >> Who? >> Someone else. >> Suharto. >> Suharto, sorry, I couldn't recall. Suharto. He is Suharto's son-in-law, so he might have contracted corruption. It's widespread. But comparatively, people see that he has significantly expanded the role of state-owned enterprises, taking control of natural resources and energy, which Indonesia has plenty of. He is directing them towards his policies, but people see this as a potential channel for corruption. During Suharto's time, this happened. For example, Tutut, who was close to Suharto, the director, when she got married, her dowry was gold equal to her weight. So, they had to fatten the bride to get more gold. [Laughter] This is a joke, but it's a true story that's used as a joke. However, comparatively, according to surveys by international organizations, Indonesia's corruption ranking is lower than ours. We are ranked 107th. >> Indonesia is ranked 99th. >> So, if we see Indonesia as declining or collapsing due to widespread corruption, which might be partly true, and partly attacked by vested interests, like China, who are pressured on nickel as I mentioned, China is unhappy. America might also be unhappy about this. So, they might collaborate to spread news about corruption and the instability of governance. However, Joko Widodo has already planned for his son to become vice president. So, in the future, if there's a new election, they might push his son to regain power. This is one aspect. >> But as I mentioned, >> When we see Indonesia as declining, we forget to look at ourselves. Indonesia's corruption ranking is 99th, and ours is 107th. So, we should think about that. Actually, the size of a country, large or small, is not as important as leadership and the power to present oneself. For example, Singapore, a small country, but when it speaks anywhere, it carries weight. >> For the same reason, >> We need to see if what they say or what we say makes everyone better off. For example, if Singapore... >> They once spoke in Taiwan, saying... >> Uh-huh. >> ...that China and Taiwan should not quarrel. They are like brothers. So, they said, "You two have differences and similarities. Don't focus on your differences; find what you have in common and discuss it." >> Uh-huh. >> That was big news, making people feel that way. >> Professor, isn't that seeking common ground and reserving differences? >> Yes. >> But we like to seek differences and reserve common ground. [Laughter] We have common ground but don't discuss it. But we highlight our differences and criticize each other fiercely. If someone disagrees, they are severely criticized. This is... >> This is the main point. Singapore is small, but it dares to teach China and Taiwan. [Laughter] I think they must have... >> Yes, they must have power, they must have something. China also has to please them. This is another example. They are playing both sides, both America and China. They haven't abandoned China, but at the same time, they have a good relationship with America. They can survive and are accepted by both sides. This allows them to stand firm, even through economic storms. >> I think this time, Xi Jinping has a plan to do something. I've observed that Lukashenko, the President of Belarus, visited China. Then Zelensky visited China, and... >> Uh-huh. >> ...and... what's his name? And... visited China with Xi Jinping. They meet every day. >> Yes. >> And most recently, I heard that Prime Minister Putin will travel to China to meet with Xi Jinping. This is news that... >> There must be something. He will meet with Zelensky, meet with the Taliban, meet with Manet, and then meet with Prime Minister Putin, saying, "Hey, don't fight. If you fight, I will step in to mediate and make you stop fighting." I think he's thinking about this. >> Professor, consider Thailand and Cambodia. The situation is dire. I've noticed that the news and information are not good. So, I think China should step in to mediate and prevent fighting, so that the US doesn't get involved. >> Is it possible, Professor? I think it is possible. As you said, Mr. Thani, the road leads to Beijing. >> Yes. >> There's only one country that has gone there: North Korea. [Laughter] Everyone else goes to meet him. But in the case of Thailand and Cambodia, I think if we don't resolve the problem completely, meaning it's peaceful and there are no issues, we will remain entangled. We lose many statuses. Thailand's strength is neutrality, being friendly to everyone, and being a center for negotiation and mediation. >> Uh-huh. >> But we lost that status after fighting with Cambodia. I think we became a party to the conflict. Malaysia became the mediator, for example, even though in the past, we were the mediator, connecting countries and establishing positions. And Thai people are polite and friendly. But after the problem, we lost our status, and I don't know what will happen in the future. Currently, we are hosting a meeting of Myanmar's ministers and various ethnic groups in Thailand. But they see our credit as insufficient, especially if we seem to be siding too much with the military government, even though in the past, we supported ethnic minorities as buffer groups. >> Uh-huh. >> But currently, due to our close military relationship with the Myanmar army, they might see it that way. However, we can still host it, but our credit is not enough, especially compared to Switzerland, Qatar, or even Pakistan, which has conflicts with India. We have insufficient credit, even though our location, flight routes, meeting rooms, and the Thai people's hospitality are suitable. But due to the conflict, if China can bring peace between Thailand and Cambodia and they live as friends, I believe it will be good. China also looks ahead: if they continue to fight, the US will have more opportunities to interfere, which might cause problems. But it depends on both sides how much they listen to China. China also has leverage. For example, if Thailand doesn't listen, China might send a lot of weapons to Cambodia. >> Yes, right? So, we have to listen. It's better not to fight. >> And if Cambodia doesn't listen to China, China might use force. They have power. So, I think it's good if China plays that role, and we can resolve the problem, which is also undermining Thailand's progress in one aspect. Besides the economic problems that plague us, we also lack direction in economic development. We are still arguing, focusing on short-term problems, or personal interests, and not thinking about the important issue of income distribution, as the poor and needy are increasing. >> The timing is opportune, Professor. I see the overall picture as China thinking the situation is ripe to do something, otherwise, they wouldn't have so many plans, especially with leaders from many countries visiting Xi Jinping. Most recently, I heard they imposed very strong sanctions on the US regarding rare earths, and also on Japan regarding rare earths, simultaneously. It's a clear signal that they are ready to challenge Japan and the US to some extent. Professor, what are your thoughts on this? >> The timing is right. I think Iran clearly shows the political and military weakness of the US. No matter how superior the US is in strength and how much damage it inflicts on Iran, the clear political and diplomatic weakness of Iran is evident. Iran has been strong and successful in negotiations. China has learned all these lessons. Even in war, China has recorded almost every event and studied US strategies and tactics thoroughly. So, now is the point where China is confident to emerge without fearing US retaliation. Before, China tried to hide, tried to be humble. Now, it's starting to play a role, similar to a global mediator, an influential center for peace. The image is different from America, which acts as the world's police. But you know, the police are hated everywhere. So, China is coming as a kind elder who mediates, negotiates, and offers things. It's a give-and-take, but with the resources China has. So, there are rewards, trade rights, or quotas. For example, when Thailand visited, the Prime Minister bought rice. That's encouragement. If you go to the US, they just tell you to buy US products. >> Yes, yes. >> Buy, buy. >> Yes, right? It's different, isn't it? This is the role China is playing. >> So, I believe China is confident now. After studying the case of Iran, China wants to emerge and show that it has power, not less than anyone else. But China will act like a kind elder, not a street bully. So, this role is well-accepted in the global community. There is a lot of respect for China. However, we must be cautious because they also seek their own interests, especially regarding BRI, returns on loans, and trade deficits. We need to observe and proceed gradually. But for Thailand, we must admit that we are leaning heavily towards China. >> Even in military matters, we are buying significantly more weapons from China. >> Yes. >> Several percent increase. At the same time, we don't have many other bargaining chips left. But the critical risk is never to grant military transit rights, regardless of which side, or to establish military bases in Thailand. That would immediately deplete our cards. It means we have completely sided with that country. Examples include allowing the US to establish bases, and then the US went to war with Vietnam. We didn't want to fight Vietnam, but we were dragged into it, and finally had to fight the Vietnam War. Now, suppose we allow the US to establish bases in Thailand, and then the US goes to war with China. The problem is that we would be dragged into fighting China as well. We must be cautious about these things. Conversely, if we allow China to establish bases in Thailand, the US will also target us, as we would be a key factor enabling China to pass through the Malacca Strait, possibly using bases in Malaysia as well. So, we need to be cautious about these matters. But China's role now, as you said, Mr. Thani, is to emerge as a world leader, no longer fearing US influence. >> Actually, there are many American sympathizers in Thailand, Professor. I've seen survey data. The number of people leaning towards China in Thailand is 57%, and towards America is 43%. It's not a huge difference. But if you look at the Philippines, America has over 70%. Sometimes, survey results clearly show why certain countries are popular. For example, the Chinese Ambassador to Thailand has spoken about this, saying that "Grey China" is a derogatory term and should not be used. What are your thoughts, Professor? Because of "Grey China." >> Don't say "Grey China," say "Black China." [Laughter] >> Maybe it's better. Black. >> Maybe it's better, meaning not ambiguous. There was also a survey worldwide asking people who they consider the biggest global threat. The majority said the United States. Even people in the US said the US is the threat. But if you survey Japan, they say China. >> Yes. >> If you survey Israel, they say Iran. It depends on the region. But overall, they see the US as the global threat. So, regardless of how many sympathizers there are, their popularity, I want to say, for example, in Japan, I don't understand their sentiment. The US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, destroying them. Yet, the Japanese people are very fond of America, from the past to the present, even after the war. Surveys of Japanese people show they still favor America, fear China greatly, and dislike China. Even Chinese tourists are sometimes attacked. This is a specific perspective, but overall, the global trend sees the US as the global threat. >> Yes, actually, who is bullying whom? Between China and Japan, I'd like to share that China has never invaded Japan, Professor. Never. >> Once again, during the Mongol invasion... >> Mongols are not relevant now, Professor. They only reached the coast and fought for three days. >> No, they were hit by a typhoon, a typhoon. >> Yes, right? Hit by a typhoon and destroyed. >> Uh-huh. >> But Japan invaded a large part of China. >> Yes. >> Invaded to the point of almost taking the capital. >> It was a long time ago, a long time ago. >> And who should be afraid of whom? In terms of invasion, shouldn't the Chinese be more afraid of Japan? >> In the past, yes. But currently, if China were to attack Japan, Japan would have no chance of resisting without American help. Japan couldn't handle it, with a much smaller population. And China's weaponry is now abundant. >> Uh-huh. >> They can't fight. If you ask who to fear, it's China, not Japan. >> Uh-huh. >> But we want to look at their perspective. Why do Japanese people fear China? Because the news and information say that China is very resentful of Japan for invading and occupying their land. Are they afraid of revenge? >> It's not that. I think they are looking at the current situation. The past is past. Japan might not think about that anymore. Even if there's deep pride, in terms of strength, they can't compete with China. >> Yes. >> But it's the opposite. If you look at Europeans, they fear a Russian invasion greatly. But compare their military strength, population, everything. Europe is superior in everything, yet they fear a Russian invasion. And Russia has never invaded Europe. Western Europe has only invaded Eastern Europe, invaded Russia. >> Since Hitler, since Napoleon, they invaded Russia. >> I don't understand this mindset. But for China and Japan, it's clear. Japan was a great power then, and very capable, while China was divided. >> At that time, China was divided, with warlords, traitors, and bribery. >> So, China was invaded by Japan, which had superior weapons. Since the Qing Dynasty, its military capabilities have been declining. So, at that time, it made sense for Japan to occupy China and seek resources, even though China was larger and had a bigger population. >> But currently, it's not like that. It's the opposite. China is superior in everything. Even with its population, if they just throw a rock, Japan would be in trouble. So, it's something for the Japanese to think about. Maybe they should be friends. Why are they still posturing, arguing, and threatening to fight? >> This is the key point. We are so close genetically. Between China and Japan, they are so close. Why would they conflict? >> Actually, in terms of security, Japan being friends with China would be safer. >> Safer. >> Because if they are enemies with China, by the time America comes to help, China would have already devastated them. >> Nowadays, Professor, it takes three days to know the outcome. By the time they arrive, it's too late. This is the issue. Ultimately, Japan will have nuclear weapons. >> Oh, definitely. >> Just like Iran, under so much pressure, Iran will eventually have nuclear weapons. [Cough] >> Because otherwise, they will be oppressed and invaded, right? >> Yes, yes. Looking at the picture, Japan is similar to Iran. They are also pressured by China. They are so close, like Iran facing the US, and Japan facing China. It's the same. They are much bigger. >> Uh-huh. Ukraine and Russia, they are much bigger. So, they can't fight. >> Uh-huh. Yes. >> We'll keep watching, but I think this pair will fight one day. Professor, China and Japan, I think they can't escape it. According to the media, China and Japan will inevitably fight. If they don't get hurt once, they won't learn. China is like, "I want it," and Japan is too arrogant. These people... >> Uh-huh. There's a possibility. Ms. Sanae is also very bold. >> Bold. Actually, she's right because the Japanese people generally want that. >> Uh-huh. >> She received overwhelming votes. >> Oh, overwhelming, yes. Even though she's a woman. >> Yes. >> The reason is that the Japanese people want that. Sanae has to show that she is brave enough to fight China. That's why she got so many votes. Professor, as soon as she criticizes China, her votes skyrocket. >> Uh-huh. >> It's obvious. The general Japanese people have the Bushido spirit. They won't yield. They won't be pawns. >> That's why everything doesn't end. It's an issue. History tells us, "I was bullied, I will get revenge." Japanese people say, "No, I'm stronger than you." >> And their military is still strong. >> Still strong. >> They are taught, Professor, that they must be number one, must do this, and will not surrender. >> I believe this pair will fight, just like the other pair, Iran and Israel. I'm confident they will fight. This is the highlight match, Professor. This time, they will fight endlessly, until one side is eliminated. >> Uh, must... >> Right? No "let's compromise." Because without a referee, without the US involved, I think they will fight until death. >> But I don't think the US will allow it. >> Yes, unless the US... >> Gets involved. >> Unless the US is tied up in other wars. If they are involved in a war with China, how can they divide their forces? This is interesting. Professor, you've raised an interesting point. If... >> Uh. >> ...China and the US have a severe conflict and clashes, Iran might be able to act. During that time, Iran might be successful. >> There will be a melee, a few more pairs. There's no way [cough] they can help. This makes the situation interesting. >> Yes, it will escalate into a world war. That's what we don't want to see. >> Yes. >> That's what we don't want to see, Professor. Could you give a final summary for the end of this clip? Professor, after the ceremony from July 4th to 9th is completed, do you think the world will be more peaceful? Meaning, will it be clear that Iran will not act rashly, and America will negotiate peacefully with Iran? Are there any other concerns, Professor? Please. >> I see it as just a temporary pause. It won't be peaceful. It's just a temporary pause. The question is, how long will this pause last? >> After the midterm elections? Or for a year? It shouldn't be longer than that. Ultimately... >> Uh-huh. >> ...they will have to fight again. The factor that will push for a fight is Israel. >> Uh-huh. >> What worries me is that it might happen during this period, the period of the funeral ceremonies. >> Uh-huh. >> If there's sabotage, could it be a trigger? I'm still worried. I don't want it to happen. >> Because... >> Yes. >> It will cause a lot of loss. So, in any case... >> We should not be complacent, especially regarding energy problems. >> Yes. >> If there's a war, we will have energy problems because Thailand imports over 90%. And the oil reserves we talk about so much, the actual surveyed reserves, can last for no more than 2 years in the Gulf of Thailand. >> We might have some additional reserves from the negotiation with Cambodia. And in that area, [cough] we might be able to explore further. But it will take time. In any case, it won't make Thailand an oil exporting country. Ultimately, we will have to import. If there's a war in the Middle East, we import the most in ASEAN. So, we must be extremely careful about how we plan to defend the country, maintain stability, or maintain economic and political stability in the country. If we continue to play politics like this, I don't think we will survive. >> Yes, next week we will continue to follow what happens. Today, thank you very much, Professor Somchai. See you in the next clip. Professor, goodbye. >> Yes, goodbye. [Music] >> Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to the Suan Thao channel [Music] to not miss interesting clips and watch new clips first. >> [Music]