Is the Infrastructure in Vietnam the Worst in Southeast Asia?

Considering China’s stance on the region, Is the infrastructure in Da Nang, Vietnam the worst? In this article, I’ll examine the state of transport systems in the country, as well as other factors that affect them. For example, Hanoi relies heavily on foreign coal to power its power system. Myanmar and the Indochinese Peninsula are also poorly developed. China has also changed the way other countries view the country, as reflected in their own infrastructure.

Da Nang’s infrastructure is the worst in Southeast Asia

While tourism is booming in Vietnam, Da Nang’s infrastructure is the most problematic in the region. The city is located on a low-lying coast and is prone to flooding and storms. In 2015, a typhoon hit the area, destroying thousands of homes. In response, a resilience project was launched to make the city resilient to disaster. While this project may not be enough to avoid further damage, it poses lessons for cities in Southeast Asia.

While booming cities are vital for economic growth, cities in Southeast Asia are often plagued by poor infrastructure. Poorly planned growth results in social ills and environmental degradation. In this region, there is a chance to set smaller cities on the path to sustainable development while addressing the growing pains of the largest cities. To avoid such a fate, the infrastructure of these cities needs to be improved.

Because of its climate-change-related problems, Southeast Asia must adjust its development strategies to deal with the rising temperatures. Southeast Asia has historically been a low-emissions economy, especially in the past two decades. But now, the region’s economy is becoming increasingly dependent on fossil fuels and coal, and climate change has become a pressing issue. By 2050, Southeast Asia is predicted to experience climate change more severely than any other region of the world.

Hanoi’s power system relies heavily on foreign coal

The country faces increasing risk of electricity shortages as the price of coal surges. Meanwhile, efforts to find alternative energy sources are slow. Hanoi is pinning big hopes on independent power projects financed by the private sector and BOT investments from foreign corporations. But most of these plants will not be equipped with state-of-the-art emissions-scrubbing technologies. And if these investments are to be viable, investors must be confident that they can reap reasonable profits from cleaner power.

While Vietnam is trying to reform its power sector and create a competitive market, the government’s role in power production is often hampered by officials at state-owned power companies, who benefit from state regulation and have a vested interest in preventing structural reforms. Additionally, Vietnam is wary of its international financial exposure, especially after the failure of its giant state-owned shipbuilder Vinashin in 2010.

But the country must address the issue of climate change if it wants to become carbon-neutral. Hanoi’s current power plan calls for more than half of the country’s electricity to be produced from coal by 2030. That’s a big jump from the current third of coal power generation in 2015. Meanwhile, the country has pledged to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% by 2030. But despite its pledges to diversify its power system, Vietnam will stay with its coal-centered strategy till 2030. By then, coal will account for more than half of the nation’s electric power.

A recent report from the World Health Organization found that Hanoi was violating international guidelines on air quality for 257 days in 2017. In 2016, it had average PM10 and PM2.5 levels higher than the WHO’s standards for acceptable air. The World Health Organization estimates that over 60,000 Vietnamese deaths in 2016 were related to air pollution. Further degrading air quality would not only be detrimental to the nation’s economy, but also to its people’s health.

Vietnam’s energy needs are increasing and a low-cost renewable energy supply can help meet its needs. But the country needs more renewable energy sources to meet its power needs. Its renewable energy penetration has reached more than 65%, but it has to be accompanied by strong policy and investment in the natural gas sector. This is an opportunity that Vietnam must seize. In the meantime, it is important to improve the country’s capability to deliver large-scale renewable projects.

Transport systems in Myanmar and the Indochinese Peninsula are also poorly developed

The country of Myanmar occupies the western portion of the Indochinese Peninsula and has a population of more than 55 million. The country’s central mass lies in the north and shares borders with China, Laos, and Thailand to the east and south. The Andaman Sea and Bay of Bengal lie to the south. It is home to more than 130 ethnic groups, the largest of which is the Bamar (70 percent of the population). Minorities live in mountainous regions.

Although Nay Pyi Taw’s population has surpassed a million, it is expected to stop growing in the future due to its administrative nature. In addition to that, the economic corridor is gaining attention as traction power for the national economy. The Ministry of Construction has proposed eight growth areas, namely Yangon, Mandalay, Taunggyi, and Hsipaw, with the possibility of adding more in the future. However, the exact boundaries of these designated areas remain uncertain.

Burma’s authoritarian regime is similar to those of North Korea, with a stagnant economy and weak human rights. The country’s largest income-generating industries are controlled by the military, including the lucrative drug trade. Burma shares borders with Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia, so it is no surprise that the opium trade is thriving there.

In addition to improving the economy and infrastructure, China also plans to build the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, connecting major cities in the region. The project will create new economic drivers and strengthen the China-ASEAN relationship. While China and Myanmar have a history of uneasy relationships with each other, the Chinese and Indochinese Peninsula will be crucial to the future of global trade.

China’s attitudes toward China have shifted other countries’ views of China

In recent years, the attitude toward China has changed in several countries, most notably in Thailand. Recent reports on a crackdown in Hong Kong and the Chinese government’s response to it have influenced the younger generation. In addition, the pan-Asian pro-democracy movement, the Milk Tea Alliance, has risen to prominence in Thailand, influencing protests in Bangkok and in Myanmar. While older generations of Thais have mixed views about China, many regard it as a superpower.

To counteract this trend, Vietnam has sought to improve its relations with other countries by pursuing bilateral trade agreements. While it has been successful in achieving free trade deals with many nations, it is still far from being a «gold standard» of international infrastructure investment. China has a history of undermining Vietnamese efforts in the South China Sea. The Philippines and Vietnam have made diplomatic and economic relations with China more difficult as a result.

Hanoi has remained cautious of free-trade agreements with China, which may lower its competitiveness and impede growth in Vietnam’s economy. Furthermore, Hanoi has been deterred from entering into a formal alliance with the United States because of concerns over its relationship with Beijing. Despite China’s growing power and influence, Vietnam must keep its alliance with the US and explore means to limit Chinese maritime ambitions.

Changing China’s attitude towards the United States has a negative impact on Vietnam’s infrastructure. The asymmetric north-south divide in Vietnam has also made China more confrontational with the PRC. Moreover, Vietnam would be paying the price of missed opportunities. It would be better to look at its ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, which entered into effect on January 1, 2010.

Many people have wondered how and when did Mexico lose its southern land during the Mexican Cession. We’ll discuss how Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836, Trist’s disobedience, and the Wilmot Proviso that banned slavery in the new territory acquired from Mexico. In addition, we’ll look at the war and how the Rio Grande boundary was redrawn. In the end, the United States gained this land.

Mexico lost its southern land in the Mexican Cession

In 1848, President James K. Polk pushed for the sale of half of Mexico’s southern landmass to the United States, but the U.S. refused. President Polk was determined to fulfill the idea of Manifest Destiny, and he didn’t want more Native American tribes. He viewed the native peoples as nuisances and savages and wanted them out of the country. The treaty that set up much of the Southern border established a U.S.-Mexican relationship. However, the contested Rio Grande River border remains a thorny piece of the U.S. political landscape.

During the Mexican Cession, Texas had an unique status. Three years prior to the Treaty, the Texans had received statehood from Washington. This allowed Texans to claim a «republic» with a recognized government. By the time the Treaty was signed, the United States had made Texas the 28th US state. By the end of the Mexican Cession, Mexico lost most of its southern land.

The northern part of Coahuila-Tejas declared itself in revolt against the new centralist government led by the Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. In 1836, Texans declared their country independent, claiming its border to be the Rio Grande, rather than the Rio Nueces. They proclaimed themselves citizens of the Independent Republic of Texas on April 21, 1836. In spite of this, the Mexican government continued to regard Tejas as a rebel province.

The Mexican Cession is one of the most famous moments in American history. The United States won the war and gained more territory than any other nation. Approximately 55% of the southern land of Mexico was lost to the United States between 1836 and 1848. The loss of this territory gave the United States a much greater influence in the world, and the European imperial powers were wary of antagonizing the U.S. because of the massive land grab in Mexico.

Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836

In 1836, Texas declared independence from Mexico. In a war that would last five years, Texans fought three separate battles to gain their freedom. The first battle resulted in a lopsided victory for the Texans, who defeated Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s three armies of 5,500 men. The resulting Battle of the Alamo, which left nearly all Texans dead, led to the declaration of independence.

The delegates to the 1835 Consultation voted against declaring independence, but they drafted a constitution that promised continued loyalty to Mexico as long as it returned to a constitutional form of government. The constitution also made it clear that slavery would not be legal in Texas. Several wealthy Tejanos supported the push for independence, hoping for liberal governmental reforms and economic prosperity. They later supported independence because of these reasons.

The Mexican government had been unhappy with the new settlers and their desire for full statehood. The Mexican government had banned slavery in 1829, but many of them came with slaves. The Mexican government maintained the fiction that slaves were indentured servants and not fully citizens. American settlers disapproved of the Mexican government’s policy of not allowing freedom of religion and a trial by jury for citizens. The Mexican government also imposed new taxes on goods coming from the United States.

On October 2, 1835, a group of Texans in Gonzales fired at Mexican soldiers. The Mexican troops did not reply to the fire. The resulting violence resulted in the declaration of independence. The Texas Declaration of Independence was officially signed on March 3, 1836. The new state was initially independent and aimed to become a free state before joining the Union. Antislavery states, however, were against Texas’s admission into the Union.

Trist disobeyed the president

Nicholas P. Trist was a clerk for the State Department, sent to Mexico in 1847 to help negotiate a peace treaty. He believed that peace talks with the Mexicans were nearing a breakthrough, and wrote a 65-page letter in defense of his efforts. However, President James K. Polk found the letter «distasteful» and attempted to remove Trist from the U.S. Army’s headquarters. However, Trist remained in Mexico, where he negotiated the treaty, and he had to wait for the conflict to resolve before he could return to the United States.

President Polk sent a representative to Mexico in August 1847, Nicholas Trist. The treaty was signed in Mexico on February 2, 1848. However, Trist and President Polk did not agree with the treaty and the President fired Trist upon his return to the United States. As a result, Mexico lost more than half of its southern land. The treaty also forced Mexico to accept $15 million for 525,000 square miles of territory, a territory larger than Peru.

As a result of this mishandling of the peace treaty, Mexico lost much of its southern land. In response, Mexico agreed to make concessions. Trist continued to negotiate with Mexico, even though he was under pressure from the U.S. government. He didn’t want to lose a good opportunity to reach an agreement with Mexico. So he ignored Polk’s orders and went ahead with negotiations with Mexico.

In 1846, Mexico had a secret chapter in the treaty that Trist disobeyed the president to keep his job in Washington. This chapter was a major difference between Trist’s draft and the final version. Despite this difference, the treaty was signed on February 11, 1869. That made Trist’s career a disaster. And it is no wonder he resigned his office.

Wilmot Proviso banning slavery in new territory acquired from Mexico

There is a great deal of history surrounding the question of how and when Mexico lost its southern land. The United States began to seek a way to make money in the region. In 1821, Moses Austin offered to take American immigrants to Mexico. However, in 1848, the U.S. government began a policy of aggressive intervention in Mexico’s affairs. After all, the U.S. wanted to make its people prosperous and the United States deserved some of them.

The Mexican Cession failed to include a viable route for the transcontinental railroad. In addition, the New Mexico Territory was full of mountains that would have directed the railroad north. The Gadsden Purchase of 1853 acquired land that was more railroad-friendly. Ultimately, the railroad made its way to the U.S. without crossing Mexican territory. The ensuing conflict resulted in Mexico losing a huge portion of its southern land.

Slavery was an issue that stymied the movement to annex all of Mexico. Slavery continued to dog the U.S., but some free soil advocates sought annexation because they feared that the land would be turned into slave territory. Meanwhile, northern and western capitalists sought to acquire all of Mexico. The annexationists sided with the latter. They also supported abolition.

In 1854, tensions over slavery rose when the country’s western neighbors tried to organize Kansas and Nebraska. While these territories were not part of the Mexican Cession, their organization was closely linked to the Mexican-American War. This war reopened discussions over how the territory should be organized. One solution was popular sovereignty. The Compromise of 1850, but not the Kansas-Nebraska Act, prevented popular sovereignty in these territories.

Trist remained in Mexico

Nicholas Trist was an agent of the U.S. Department of State who negotiated the peace treaty with Mexico. Despite the president’s reprimands, Trist refused to leave the country and continued the negotiations anyway, which resulted in the surrender of Mexico’s southern land. As a result, he became a controversial figure in the United States. Trist’s treaty ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico, which are now Arizona and New Mexico. Parts of Nevada and Colorado were also included in the Mexican Cession.

During the war, a faction in Polk’s cabinet called for the complete subjugation of the Mexican people. In order to avoid a potential war, Polk sent Nicholas Trist to negotiate with the new Mexican government. However, after waiting for five months for a positive sign of negotiations, Scott captured Mexico’s capital and became the de facto dictator. While Trist remained in Mexico after Mexico lost its southern land, he hoped to resolve the war and regain peace in the region.

A copy of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is held by the Library of Congress. While the Library’s copy is not the exact copy of the final version kept at the U.S. National Archives, it is an excellent starting point to study the treaty. The printed version of the Treaty can be found in the Senate’s Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875, and other reproductions can be found on the Web.

Although Polk had ordered Nicholas Trist to leave Mexico after the war, he continued to stay in Mexico and concluded negotiations with the newly formed government. On February 2, 1848, Trist presented President Polk with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The treaty was later ratified by the national congresses of both nations. This treaty ended the Mexican-American War.