US Cultural Colonisation in Asia Pacific

August 31, 2016 (NEO - Joseph Thomas) - Ancient Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 56 � after 117) would adeptly describe the systematic manner in which Rome pacified foreign peoples and the manner in which it would extend its sociocultural and institutional influence over conquered lands.

(Modern day "chief's sons (and now daughters) being recruited by the empire, indoctrinated in their ways, and sent back home to culturally colonise their homelands, just as Tacitus described nearly 2,000 years ago.)

Far from simple military conquest, the Romans engaged in sophisticated cultural colonisation.

In chapter 21 of his book Agricola, named so after his father-in-law whose methods of conquest were the subject of the text, Tacitus would explain:

His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilization', when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.

Compare what Tacitus wrote nearly 2,000 years ago with the United States' Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI). Upon the YSEALI website, a description of the programme reads:

Launched in 2013, the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) is U.S. government�s signature program to strengthen leadership development and networking in Southeast Asia. Through a variety of programs and engagements, including U.S. educational and cultural exchanges, regional exchanges, and seed funding, YSEALI seeks to build the leadership capabilities of youth in the region, strengthen ties between the United States and Southeast Asia, and nurture an ASEAN community. YSEALI focuses on critical topics identified by youth in the region: civic engagement, environment and natural resources management, and entrepreneurship and economic development.

At face value, the notion of the United States "training" the "leaders" of Asia makes little sense, considering such training would be endowing such leaders with American values serving American interests, not Asia's. Thus, their role as "leaders" is questionable. Their role as "facilitators" or "collaborators" seems like a much more accurate description.

The programme includes academic and professional fellowships to the United States.

The Academic Fellows Program is described as:

The YSEALI Academic Fellows Program brings undergraduates or recently graduated students between the ages of 18 and 25 to the United States for a five-week institute held on the campus of a U.S. college or university.

These five week institutes, held on the campus of a U.S. university or college, will include an academic residency, leadership development, an educational study tour, local community service activities, and opportunities to engage with American peers. The program will conclude in Washington, D.C., to allow for engagement with policymakers, governmental representatives, businesses, and think tanks.

This, quite literally, is the modern day version of what Tacitus described in his writings nearly 2,000 years ago, where the US is educating the youth of Southeast Asian states in the liberal arts, indoctrinating them into networks built to establish, maintain and expand American hegemony, encouraging an expressed preference for American culture, values and institutions while placing those of their homelands as subordinate.

(US "think tanks" are chaired, directed and sponsored by the largest corporate and financial interests on the planet. They represent the interests and objectives of a handful of elite interests, not the American people, and certainly not the Asian people. That the YSEALI exposes fellows to such mechanisms of US political power illustrates further just how similar this modern day programme is to what the Roman Empire did to indoctrinate and culturally colonise targeted peoples.)

It is interesting to note that "think tanks" are mentioned as part of the YSEALI experience. Those familiar with the board of directors and corporate sponsors of these think tanks will understand that it is within their halls, unelected policymakers representing immense corporate and financial interests, create foreign and domestic policy that is implemented regardless of who the American people vote into office and regardless of whether the American people agree with such policies or not, saying nothing of whether such policies even benefit the American people.

Those partaking in the YSEALI will likely believe they are at the cutting edge of "democracy," while in fact, they are instead becoming extra weight behind the bludgeoner of dictatorial corporate special interests.


The Professional Fellows Program is described as:

The YSEALI Professional Fellows Program gives participants ages 25-35 the opportunity to spend five weeks in the United States, including four weeks working directly with American counterparts in individually tailored work placements with non-profit organizations, state and local government, and private-sector offices across the country. During these placements, Fellows build their practical expertise, leadership skills, and professional networks. 

The Professional Fellows Program places young Asians at work places in areas including economic empowerment, environmental sustainability, legislative process and governance/civic engagement and civil society and NGO (nongovernmental organisation) development.

Just as the Roman Empire did two millennia ago, the United States is today recruiting cadres of young people from across Southeast Asia, indoctrinating them into America's hegemonic networks and sending these cadres back to their home countries to culturally colonise them.

Instead of building up media platforms, institutions and NGOs based on local values, culture and the best interests of the people living in Southeast Asia, these cadres, with "seed funding" provided through both the US State Department and the YSEALI itself, will be building networks that serve US special interests, locked directly into the very institutions and networks YSEALI alumni met and worked with during their various fellowships.

Empire has not died. It has simply evolved, with much of that evolution being superficial and the underlying networks and methods remaining nearly indistinguishable to those employed by the Romans, British and even by 19th century American "Manifest Destiny."

Empire has not died because the fundamental aspects of human nature; greed, the need to dominate, avarice and all other negative qualities associated with absolute power corrupting absolutely have not changed.  No matter how progressive the US attempts to dress up its "fellowships," the YSEALI and other programmes like it will continue to be spoken of  by those who are drawn into them as "civilisation" when in fact they are only a "feature of their enslavement."

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

What Syria's Kurds "Think" They are Fighting For Versus Reality

August 29, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Reports are emerging of widespread armed conflict between Kurdish militants and  Syrian forces. Concentrated in and around eastern Syria and the city of Hasaka, reports indicate that Syrian forces may be on the verge of completely withdrawing.

The Kurdish offensive is being backed by US forces, including airpower overhead and special operations personnel on the ground. Syrian attempts to use its own air force to counter the spreading conflict appeared to be checked by what was essentially a defacto no-fly zone established by the US over eastern Syria.

Reuters in their report, "Syria Kurds win battle with government, Turkey mobilizes against them," would state:

Syrian Kurdish forces took near complete control of Hasaka city on Tuesday as a ceasefire ended a week of fighting with the government, consolidating the Kurds' grip on Syria's northeast as Turkey increased its efforts to check their influence. 

The Kurdish YPG militia, a critical part of the U.S.-backed campaign against Islamic State, already controls swathes of northern Syria where Kurdish groups have established de facto autonomy since the start of the Syria war in 2011.

Analysts and those sympathetic to the Kurdish cause, including their perceived role in fighting terrorist organizations in Syria including the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), see this as a positive development toward a greater and independent "Kurdistan."

However, the facts on the ground appear to suggest a much more likely and unfortunate future.

A Kurdish Version of Israel 

The Washington Post in its article, "Inside the Kurdish fighting forces: the U.S.�s proxy ground troops in the war against ISIS," claims: 

Although U.S. forces in areas controlled by the Kurds declined to be interviewed, there is evidence everywhere of their presence and the focus on Mosul. The United States, in both Iraq and Syria, has sought out proxy ground forces, backed by air power, to fight the Islamic State. It is a policy that recorded a recent success with the recapture of Ramadi by Iraqi forces, but Mosul, one of the first major prizes to fall into the hands of the Islamic State, will provide a significant test for both the Iraqis and Kurds. And U.S. officials say it could be many more months before local forces have the training and equipment needed to move on a city where the militants have hardened defenses.

But clearly, in light of recent fighting between US-backed Kurdish militants and Syrian forces, including a near direct confrontation between US and Syrian airpower, ISIS is not the intended target.

The US has indeed sought out "proxy ground forces" in Syria, but long before ISIS was turned into a geopolitical brand, and to topple the Syrian government, not clear Syria of terrorists the US itself helped move onto the battlefield in the first place. 

It is within this context that it can be seen that the Kurds are being used to first destroy Syria and then they themselves will be pitted against one another and whomever their neighbors end up being as a perpetually dependent, needy "semi-state" used as a wedge and employed by Washington, London, and Brussels well into the foreseeable future. 

Kurdish forces that allowed themselves to be used by Western interests were used as one of several components - the others involving sectarian extremists including Al Qaeda - to divide and destroy Iraq, and now they are being used against Syria, and soon against Iran. 

Stratfor's report titled, "Iranian Kurds Return to Arms," provides some initial insight into what will undoubtedly evolve into a much wider Iranian conflict in the near future should US objectives be achieved and expanded upon in eastern Syria.

The use of Kurds by Western interests is a modern-day example of classical imperial divide and rule in motion. What the Kurds "think" they are fighting for is absolutely irrelevant versus what in reality they are being armed, organized, and used for by Western interests.

The most likely scenario - should the majority of Kurdish armed groups maintain this current course - sees them being used to divide and destroy Syria, creating enduring chaos they themselves will be exposed to. 

This, by necessity will lead to heavy reliance upon outside support to survive in that chaos leading to the creation for all intents and purposes of a Kurdish-version of Israel - a stunted faux-state perpetually dependent on Western support and ruled through corrupt proxy regimes unrepresentative of the people they presume governance over. It is a future of perpetual war with Turkey, whatever remains of Syria and Iraq, and a growing conflict with Iran driven not by genuine Kurdish aspirations or interests, but exploited ideological aspirations serving Western designs to undermine and topple Iranian power and institutions and reassert Western hegemony across the region.

Kurdish Story Not Quite Over Yet 

Despite the grim prospects that face Kurdish groups that have allowed themselves to be used by Western interests to create chaos they themselves will suffer perpetually within - this is still not an inevitability.

Russia and Iran still have significant sway among Kurdish factions throughout the region and could help mitigate the damage a US-led attempt to dismember Syria through Kurdish proxies will exact. While this might involve concessions on Syria's part regarding degrees of Kurdish autonomy, it will ultimately cut off what has been now several years of continuous conflict consuming the Middle Easte and North Africa.

Additionally, should moves by Syria and its allies abruptly change the dynamics on the ground in Syria, including moves made by Turkey should it have truly drifted beyond NATO influence, this could effectively end or at least minimize US operations in eastern Syria and leave Kurdish militants dependent on US support isolated and more willing to negotiate. 

While these possibilities exist, they will require immense diplomatic, political, economic, and military effort to bring into reality.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine�New Eastern Outlook�.

US "International Court" Ruling on China Falls Short

The Philippines needs a stable Asia to prosper, not regional militarization, and certainly not a confrontation with China.

August 27, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A recent "international tribunal" ruling regarding China's claims in the South China Sea was more than just anticlimactic - it was indicative of the United States' waning influence as well as the waning legitimacy of the many international institutions it has used, abused, and thus undermined for decades.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Tribunal Rejects Beijing�s Claims in South China Sea," would claim:

An international tribunal in The Hague delivered a sweeping rebuke on Tuesday of China�s behavior in the South China Sea, including its construction of artificial islands, and found that its expansive claim to sovereignty over the waters had no legal basis. 

The landmark case, brought by the Philippines, was seen as an important crossroads in China�s rise as a global power and in its rivalry with the United States, and it could force Beijing to reconsider its assertive tactics in the region or risk being labeled an international outlaw. It was the first time the Chinese government had been summoned before the international justice system.

Despite the NYT's claims that the case was "brought by the Philippines," it was in fact headed by an American lawyer, Paul S. Reichler, of US-based law firm, Foley Hoag. Just like the court case itself, the apparent conflict in the South China Sea may be portrayed as being between China and its neighbors, but it is in reality a conflict cultivated by the US explicitly as a means of maintaining "primacy in Asia."

Image: Paul Reichler, an American, not a Filipino, and his American-British legal team represented the Philippines in an international court case that solely benefited the US. 

Facing Threats to "US Primacy in Asia"

The corporate-financier funded and directed policy think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a paper titled, "Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China," penned by Robert Blackwill - a Bush-era administrator and lobbyist who has directly participated in Washington's attempts to maintain hegemony over Asia.

Blackwill's paper states clearly what interests the US has in Asia (emphasis added):

Because the American effort to 'integrate' China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia�and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally�Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.

The CFR paper constitutes a US policymaker openly admitting that the US perceives itself as possessing and seeking to maintain "primacy in Asia," primacy being defined by Merriam-Webster as, "the state of being most important or strongest."
The notion that the United States, from an entire ocean away from Asia, should proclaim itself "the most important or strongest" nation in Asia is in itself every bit in reality a threat to intentional peace and stability as the US claims Chinese primacy in Asia would be. 

The South China Sea "Conflict" as a Pretext

More specifically, Blackwill would mention the South China Sea conflict as the primary pretext with which to further tighten American control over an Asia the paper admits is slipping away.

The paper then enumerates a list of self-serving measures the US should take predicated on the alleged conflict, which include:

• Defense reform within the Armed Forces of the Philippines to develop a full range of defense capabilities that would enable the government to deter and prevent intrusions on or possible invasion of Philippine territory;
• Boost Indonesia�s role in joint exercises and expand its scope, symbolically indicative of Jakarta�s growing centrality to security in the Asia Pacific, and gear military aid, training, and joint exercises with Indonesia toward air-sea capabilities; 
• Help Singapore upgrade its current air force capabilities from F-16s to F-35s;
• encourage Malaysia to fully participate in the Proliferation Security Initiative, which it agreed to join in April 2014, and promote more active Malaysian involvement in combined exercises, domain awareness architectures, and the like; 
• Seek to expand the scope of activities during the annual U.S.-Vietnam naval exercises to include joint humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and/or search and rescue exercises, and make more frequent stops at the port at Cam Ranh Bay in the short term; 
• Establish strategic International Military Exchange Training (IMET) programs with Myanmar, with a focus on professionalizing the military, and continue to integrate the Myanmar military into, and 
• Expand its participation in, joint international military exercises;  
• Advocate substantial IMET expansion throughout Southeast Asia; 
• Help build domestic democratic political capacity throughout the region. 

It is clear that this sweeping military expansion the US proposes not only lends to the United States unwarranted influence over the military forces, governments, and very sovereignty of each respective Southeast Asian state, but includes the transparently self-serving requirement of purchasing immense amount of US weapons to threaten China with. In fact, Blackwill openly suggests Singapore's F-16s be upgraded to the scandal-ridden, grossly overpriced F-35.



The paper, 70 pages in total, expounds in immense detail this, the latest chapter in Washington's decades-long effort to encircle and contain China. 

It is clear then why the US took the Philippines by the hand to the Hague for its court case against China.

An International Tribunal Not Internationally Recognized 

While the US media attempted to stampede public opinion with the supposed gravity of the tribunal's decision, it was met by silence worldwide. 

China outright rejected the entire proceeding before the ruling was even read, while other nations in Southeast Asia have continued drawing closer still in economic, political, and military cooperation with China.

Thailand, the second largest economy in Southeast Asia's ASEAN bloc, has recently announced its intentions to buy up to 100 VT-4 main battle tanks from China and has continued exploring the possibility of purchasing several Chinese-made diesel electric submarines. Many of the trains now running in Thailand are Chinese-made as will be new rail lines built across the country. Thailand has also begun conducting joint-military exercises with China to rebalance its fading relationship with the United States. 

Thailand, along with other Southeast Asian nations have insisted that they have no stake in the South China Sea dispute, and have refused categorically to take sides in it despite pressure from each nation's respective US ambassador. Beyond Asia, Europe too has refused to intervene, and failed to decisively recognize the tribunal's recent ruling. 

Reuters in its article, "Discord over South China Sea clouds Asia-Europe summit," would report that:

A key summit between Asian and European leaders in Mongolia ended on Saturday without direct mention of the South China Sea dispute in its closing statement, with diplomats describing intense discord over the issue between Europe and Asia.

It would also add that:

On Friday, the European Union issued a statement noting China's legal defeat but avoided direct reference to Beijing, reflecting discord among EU governments over how strongly to respond to the court ruling.

One must wonder then, just how "international" a tribunal is, whose ruling is not recognized internationally. 

International Tribunal Serves US, Not Philippine Interests 

Even in the Philippines, whose name the case was brought to the tribunal in, reactions were muted, with the newly elected president, Rodrigo Duterte, calling for calm in the aftermath of the ruling. The Financial Times in its article, "Duterte calls for calm as SE Asia grapples with sea ruling," would state:

[President Duterte's] call for peaceful talks instead, echoed across Southeast Asia, highlights the region�s difficult position following this week�s international tribunal ruling at The Hague. Several countries in the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations have territorial quarrels with Beijing, but none want to spark an unwinnable war or alienate a superpower to which they are tied by aid, trade or cultural affinities.

In other words, the ruling and the expected confrontation the US had hoped to spark, benefits Southeast Asia in no shape, form, or way and despite the considerable influence the United States still holds over the Philippines, it is apparent that the will for peace, prosperity, and progress is more considerable still. 

Indeed, according to Harvard University's Atlas of Economic Complexity, the Philippines' leading trade partner is China, with 26% of its exports and 19% of its imports accounted for amid the two nations' economic ties. The United States on the other hand, accounts for only 12% of the Philippines exports, and 9% of all imports. It is upon Asia, by far, that the Philippines economy depends - an Asia enjoying peace and stability. And it is this peace and stability that is directly threatened by America's openly declared plan to militarize the region and confront China.

It is clear that America's closest allies in the region are disinterested in confronting China, and while the US emphasizes the need to confront Chinese "coercion," it is clear that the United States has resorted to coercion itself to punish nations unwilling to help it uphold its "primacy in Asia."

While the US is sure to resort to an array of punitive measures against the Philippines, as well as the rest of Southeast Asia for failing to enable its "primacy in Asia," one thing is certain. An "international tribunal" the entire world fails to recognize is no longer "international." The irrelevance of the US-backed tribunal is a harbinger of what's to come for the "international order" itself that the US poses as head of.

One only hopes that China has paid careful attention to the brutal, bloody, and shameful spread of American hegemony, and its now ignominious retreat - and decides to take another path on its way toward global power - one that bypasses aspirations for global hegemony, and one that instead arrives at leading by example. For Southeast Asia's part, ensuring their economies, societies, and armed forces remain strong and vigilant, can help guide China toward that destination peacefully and without temptation.  

  

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.    

Turkey Invades Northern Syria � Truth of Turkish "Coup" Revealed?

August 25, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Syria's conflict has escalated into dangerous new territory as Turkish military forces cross the Turkish-Syrian border in an attempt to annex the Syrian city of Jarabulus. The operation includes not only Turkish military forces, but also throngs of Western-backed militants who will likely be handed control of the city before expanding operations deeper into Syria against Syrian government forces.

With the beginning of the operation, aimed allegedly at seizing the city from militants of the so-called Islamic State as well as preventing the city from falling into the hands of advancing US-backed Kurdish forces, Ankara's move has made several things clear about the current geopolitical dimensions of the ongoing regional conflict.

The "US-Backed" July Coup Was Likely Staged 

First, with US warplanes providing close air support  for Turkish operations, claims by Ankara that the US was behind an attempted coup in July appear to have been fabrications and the coup itself likely staged.

US Vice President Joseph Biden made an official visit to Turkey just this week in what was the highest level visit by a US representative since the attempted coup in July. Vice President Biden discussed bilateral relations and joint US-Turkish military cooperation.


Reuters in its report, "With Biden visit, U.S. seeks balance with truculent Turkey," would claim:

Biden, who visited Latvia on Tuesday, will look to show support with Turkey, while raising concern about the extent of the crackdown, according to officials. Turkey will press its case for Gulen's extradition.

"The vice president will also reaffirm that the United States is doing everything we can to support Turkey's ongoing efforts to hold accountable those responsible for the coup attempt while ensuring the rule of law is respected during the process," a senior Obama administration official told reporters, briefing ahead of Biden's visit on condition of anonymity.

It is difficult to believe that Fethullah G�len could have orchestrated a violent military coup while residing in the United States without the explicit approval and support of the United States government. Thus, for the US to "hold accountable those responsible for the coup attempt" would require the identification and detainment of those Americans who were involved.

Regarding US joint operations with Turkey specifically, the BBC in its article, "Syria Jarablus: Turkish tanks roll into northern Syria," would report:

An unnamed senior US official in Washington told BBC News before the start of the Turkish operation that it was "partly to create a buffer against the possibility of the Kurds moving forward".

"We are working with them on that potential operation: our advisers are communicating with them on the Jarablus plan.

"We'll give close air support if there's an operation."

It would be likewise difficult to believe that Turkey truly suspected the US of an attempted decapitation of the nation's senior leadership in a violent, abortive coup just last month, only to be conducting joint operations with the US inside Syria with US military forces still based within Turkish territory.

What is much more likely is that the coup was staged to feign a US-Turkish fallout, draw in Russia and allow Turkey to make sweeping purges of any elements within the Turkish armed forces that might oppose a cross-border foray into Syria, a foray that is now unfolding.

Anthony Cartalucci, a Bangkok-based geopolitical analyst would note in a July 18 piece titled, "Turkey's Failed Coup: "A Gift from God" or from Washington?," that:

...the coup was staged - not against Turkey - but in part by it, with the help of not only the United States, but also Gulen's political faction. It will represent a 21st century "Reichstag fire" leading to a 21st century "Hitlerian purge," removing the last remaining obstacles to President Erdogan and the corrosive institutions he has constructed in their collective bid to seize absolute power over Turkey. 

And quite to the contrary of those changes one would expect Turkey to make if truly the US engineered this coup to oust, not abet Erdogan, Turkey is very likely to double down on hostility toward neighboring Syria and its allies.

With Turkey now moving into northern Syria, backing militant forces that will go on to fight Syrian forces and prolong the conflict from a new forward base of operations inside Syria and with NATO protection, this is precisely what has now happened.

Building Long-Desired Militant Safe-Havens 

The crossing of Syria's border constitutes the fulfilment of longstanding plans predating both the Kurdish offensive and the rise of the Islamic State.

The plans laid by Washington and its regional allies seek to establish a buffer zone or "safe-haven" within Syrian territory unassailable by Syrian forces from which Western-backed militants can launch operations deeper into Syrian territory. Currently, these operations are launched from Turkish territory itself.

With militants being incrementally pushed out of Aleppo and Syrian forces making advances everywhere west of the Euphrates River, it appears that the US is attempting to use Kurdish forces to annex eastern Syria while Turkey's latest move is aimed at finally creating a long-desired northern safe-haven in order to prevent a full collapse of fighting within the country.

British special forces, meanwhile, are reportedly in southern Syrian attempting to carve out a similar haven for militants along Jordan and Iraq's borders with Syria.

The participation of US airpower in the ongoing operation also makes clear the lack of strategic and political depth of US loyalty to its supposed Kurdish allies, a betrayal in motion even as Kurdish forces are being marshalled and directed against Syrian forces by the US in eastern Syria.

Plans for such safe-havens were disclosed as early as 2012, with US policymakers in a Brookings Institution paper titled, "Assessing Options for Regime Change," stating (our emphasis):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under [Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's] leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

This is now precisely what is being created, starting in Jarabulus, and likely to extend westward toward Azaz, directly north of the contested Syrian city of Aleppo. Since 2012, various pretexts have been invented, abandoned and then revisited in order to justify a cross-border operation like the one now unfolding.

Creating a Pretext � Staged Terror Attack Was an Option 

This included Ankara itself plotting attacks on its own territory to look like cross-border terrorism that could be used as impetus for the creation of a Turkish-controlled Jarabulus-Azaz corridor.

The International Business Times in a 2014 article titled, "Turkey YouTube Ban: Full Transcript of Leaked Syria 'War' Conversation Between Erdogan Officials," would reveal the details of a transcript in which Turkish leadership contemplated staging just such an attack:

Ahmet Davutoglu: "Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us."

Hakan Fidan: "I'll send 4 men from Syria, if that's what it takes. I'll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary."

Feridun Sinirlioglu: "Our national security has become a common, cheap domestic policy outfit."

Yasar G�ler: "It's a direct cause of war. I mean, what're going to do is a direct cause of war."

It may just be a coincidence that a similar provocation unfolded just ahead of the current Turkish cross-border operation. The New York Times in its article, "Wedding Bombing is the Latest in a Series of Deadly Terror Attacks in Turkey," would detail the provocation now being cited for Turkey's current operation:

A bombing on Saturday night at a Kurdish wedding in Gaziantep, a Turkish town near the Syrian border, was one of the deadliest in a string of terrorist attacks that have struck Turkey. Since June 2015, Kurdish and Islamic State militants have staged at least 15 major attacks across Turkey, killing more than 330 people.

Thus, Turkey's government and a complicit Western media have helped place the blame equally on both the Islamic State and Kurdish militants ahead of the now ongoing cross-border operation.

The above mentioned BBC article would also note:

Turkey has vowed to "completely cleanse" IS from its border region, blaming the group for a bomb attack on a wedding that killed at least 54 people in Gaziantep on Saturday.

In the aftermath of the July coup, many were hopeful Turkey would realign itself geopolitically and play a more constructive and stabilising role in the region.

Instead, while citing the threat of the Islamic State and Kurdish forces along its border, a threat that its own collusion with US and Persian Gulf States since 2011 helped create, Turkey has decisively helped move forward a crucial part of US plans to dismember Syria and move its campaign of North African and Middle Eastern destabilisation onward and outward.

The response by Syria and its allies in the wake of Turkey's cross-border foray has so far been muted. What, if any actions could be taken to prevent the US and its allies from achieving their plans remain to be seen.

While the toppling of the government in Damascus looks unlikely at the moment, the Balkanisation of Syria was a secondary objective always only ever considered by US policymakers as a mere stop gap until eventually toppling Damascus as well. Conceding eastern and parts of northern Syria to US-led aggression will only buy time.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. 

South China Sea: The Cambodia Connection

August 25, 2016 (New Eastern Outlook) - Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen, recently condemned US policy for destabilising the Middle East. The Phnom Penh Post in an article titled, "US policy destabilised Middle East, says Hun Sen," would report that:

Prime Minister Hun Sen yesterday lauded his own government�s efforts of bringing �peace� to Cambodia without �foreign interference� while calling out the US for destabilising the Middle East, where he said American policy had given rise to destructive �colour revolutions�. 

The Post also reported that:

�Please look at the Middle East after there was inteference by foreigners to create colour revolutions such as in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Iraq, where Sadam Hussein was toppled by the US,� the premier said. 

�Have those countries received any achievement under the terms of democracy and human rights? From day to day, thousands of people have been killed. This is the result of doing wrong politics, and America is wrong.�

Cambodia has been under the rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen since 1998. To describe the nation as a "dictatorship" would be fairly accurate. However, unlike the simplistic narratives spun across Western and Eastern media alike, Hun Sen's rule has been marked by several turn-arounds, at least in regards to foreign policy.

From American Friend to American Foe

It was in 2006 that neighbouring Thailand underwent a military coup, ousting then US-backed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. From 2006 onward, Shinawatra, with significant Western support, attempted to manoeuvre himself back into power, both directly and through a series of proxy political leaders including his brother-in-law and his own sister, Yingluck Shinawatra. The latter would finally be removed from power by a second military coup in 2014. 

Throughout Shinawatra's attempt to return to power, Cambodia served as a base of operations for US-sponsored lobbyists, media operations, Shinawatra's own political party-in-exile as well as armed terrorists used on multiple occasions to attack Shinawatra's political opponents inside Thailand.

Relations deteriorated between Thailand and Cambodia so acutely that at one point along the border, with the Preah Vihear Temple conflict serving as a pretext, limited armed exchanges took place leaving soldiers and paramilitary members dead and injured on both sides.

However, gradually, and particularly after the 2014 Thai coup that ousted Shinawatra's sister from power, Cambodia's foreign policy vis-a-vis Thailand changed dramatically. Prisoners taken during the temple conflict by Cambodia were released back to Thailand, and a general rapprochement took place.

Simultaneously, relations between Cambodia and China continued to grow, with Phnom Penh showing an increasingly more decisive preference for Beijing over Washington, particularly in regards to the South China Sea conflict. In exchange, Cambodia has received incrementally increasing military support from China, including weapon deals and joint-training exercises.

And at the same time of both of these developments, increasing activity among US-backed nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in Cambodia and US-backed opposition parties began to rally against Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Prime Minister Hun Sen's comments then, regarding US interference, division and destruction across North Africa and the Middle East, is in direct reference to what he sees as now unfolding in his own country.

Having played a role in aiding and abetting destabilisation efforts in neighbouring Thailand, Prime Minister Hun Sen likely "knows" a colour revolution when he sees one. Like in neighbouring Thailand, Cambodia too has a wide variety of US State Department funded opposition parties and NGOs in place, ready at a moment's notice to utilise "soft power" against Phnom Penh if ever it drifts too far apart from US interests.

It is clear that the "honeymoon" so to speak, is over between Washington and Phnom Penh, with the latter clearly perceiving the regional lay shifting in favour of Beijing, but fully realising the consequences of shifting with it in regards to Washington's penchant for toppling governments that no longer serve US interests.

South China Sea: Hun Sen's Deadly Sin

Prime Minister Hun Sen's reluctance to venture any deeper into US-backed attempts to destabilise neighbouring Thailand may be one part of why Cambodia is now under pressure. The other is clearly Cambodia's outspoken support of China in the Washington-Beijing row in the South China Sea.

While other nations within the ASEAN bloc (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) have attempted to remain neutral, with only The Philippines and Vietnam siding more overtly with the US, Cambodia has served as a more overt supporter of the Chinese position.

TIME Magazine lamented in its article, "After Days of Deadlock, ASEAN Releases Statement on South China Sea Dispute," that:

China has decried the ruling as a farce, and vowed to ignore the court�s decree that Beijing�s so-called nine-dash line, which claims around 90% of the South China Sea, has no legal basis. The Philippines originally wanted the ASEAN communiqu� to cite the Hague ruling, but Cambodia objected, leading to days of deadlocked negotiations. In the end, Manila dropped its demands and a joint statement was published Monday.

Not only does this bode ill for America's attempt to transform The Philippines into a vector of US foreign policy vis-a-vis Beijing, Cambodia's role in blunting the ASEAN statement and in turn, blunting the impact of the US-orchestrated "ruling" sets an example of disobedience to Washington other nations in the regions are likely taking note of. It is also likely an example Washington would like to prevent from being set again.

It is a good time for policymakers and the public alike throughout ASEAN to examine the various financial and political ties the US State Department maintains with various groups inside Cambodia in order to properly frame the likely uptick in political conflict Prime Minister Hun Sen seems to be anticipating. 

While it might be tempting for Cambodia's neighbours to cynically take advantage of an old adversary's plight, what Cambodia has now apparently found out, is what's good for destabilising Thailand, is also good for destabilising Cambodia.

The real path forward for Southeast Asia and Asia as a region, is one of concerted balance against any coercive power, whether it resides in Beijing or Washington, A multipolar regional order that respects national sovereignty but also recognises the necessity of regional harmony may be difficult to achieve, but is essential for moving beyond costly regional rivalries and surviving much larger geopolitical contests of power.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

West Backs Dangerous Myanmar-style Attempt to Divide Thailand Along Religious Lines

(George Soros chairs & funds the Crisis Group)

August 23, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Matthew Wheeler of the International Crisis Group (sometimes referred to as ICG or simply, the Crisis Group), recently wrote an editorial in the New York Times titled, "Can Thailand Really Hide a Rebellion?" The editorial took a coercive tone, with its final paragraph appearing almost as a threat, stating:

It would be shortsighted and self-defeating of the generals running Thailand to insist on dismissing these latest attacks as a partisan vendetta unconnected to the conflict in the south. They should recognize the insurgency as a political problem requiring a political solution. That means restoring the rights of freedom of expression and assembly to Thai citizens, engaging in genuine dialogue with militants, and finding ways to devolve power to the region.

Wheeler's editorial intentionally misleads readers with various distortions and critical omissions, mischaracterising Thailand's ongoing political crisis almost as if to fan the flames of conflict, not douse them as is the alleged mission of the Crisis Group.

Wheeler's recommendations to allow violent opposition groups back into the streets for another cycle of deadly clashes (which have nothing to do with the southern insurgency) while "devolving power" to armed insurgents in the deep south appear to be a recipe for encouraging a much larger crisis, not resolving Thailand's existing problems.

Wheeler never provides evidence linking the bombings to the insurgency or provides any explanation as to why the insurgency, after decades of confining its activities to Thailand's southern most provinces, would escalate its violence so dramatically. Wheeler also intentionally sidesteps any mention of evidence or facts that indeed indicate a "partisan vendetta."

Instead, his narrative matches almost verbatim that promoted by the primary suspects behind the bombings, ousted former-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his political supporters.

Wheeler's distortions include an intentional omission of the scale of violence Shinawatra and his followers have carried out in the past, as well as the political significance of the provinces targeted in the recent bombings in connection to Shinawatra's conflict with the current ruling government, not the insurgency's,

The provinces targeted represented political strongholds of anti-Shinawatra political leaders and activists, all of whom have no connection at all to the ongoing conflict in Thailand's deep south.

Crisis Group is Covering up an Engineered Buddhist-Muslim Conflict

More alarming are Wheeler's attempts to cite growing tensions in Thailand's northern city of Chiang Mai between Buddhists and Muslims as evidence, he claims, of the real dimensions of Thailand's conflict. Wheeler is attempting to claim Thailand is experiencing a potential nationwide religious divide, separate from Shinawatra's struggle to seize back power.


However, he cites a 2015 protest with a decidedly bigoted tone targeting a Halal industrial estate that was slated to be built in the northern city. The protest was led by monks affiliated with Thaksin Shinawatra's political movement, including monks whose temples Shinawatra's family visits regularly, including Sri Boonruang Temple whose walls are adorned with images of Thaksin Shinawatra himself.

These temples and those who frequent them represent a divergent and politicised version of Buddhism, Buddhist in name only.

They are actively involved in directly supporting Thaksin Shinawatra and working along political peripheries to divide and destabilise Thai institutions and sociopolitical balance impeding Shinawatra's return to power.

The anti-Muslim protests appear almost identical to anti-gay protests staged by overt supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, a group called Rak Chiang Mai 51. Out in Perth, a gay news service based in Australia, would report in its 2009 article, "Chiang Mai Pride Shut Down by Protests as Police Watch On," that:

Organisers were forced to call off Chiang Mai�s planned second annual Gay Pride Parade on February 21 after harassment from the Rak Chiang Mai 51 political group. 

Dressed in their trademark red shirts, members of Rak Chiang Mai 51 locked parade participants into the compound where they were gathering, throwing fruit and rocks and yelling abuse through megaphones.

In an interview with Rak Chiang Mai 51 leader Kanyapak Maneejak (also known as DJ Aom), when asked about the incident during a "City Life Chiang Mai" interview, she claimed:

Our third aim is to protect Lanna culture and we simply did not like the Gay Pride Parade. In the past there were no gays or ladyboys, but today they live together openly, they wear revealing clothes in the streets. We had to go out in force to protect our culture against this. The people who were spitting were not red shirts; they were infiltrators who wanted us to look bad. It was not just us who wanted to stop this parade, villagers and the entire province of Chiang Mai called up our station to ask us to intervene. We were afraid that this would become an annual event, and we all know that Chiang Mai is a place for human trafficking.

The bizarre defence of the groups violence and intolerance predicated on defending "Lanna culture" echo verbatim the rhetoric now being directed at Muslims by groups also centred in Chiang Mai.

Both Chiang Mai's Muslim and gay communities have noted this sudden and unprecedented intolerance and violence has taken them by surprise, as it has many Thais across the country and those familiar with Thailand's renowned culture of tolerance and inclusion.

The most extreme among politically motivated Buddhist sects have even taken to the streets in protests similar to those carried out by politicised sects in neighbouring Myanmar. In Myanmar, such protests are staged both in support of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy and as part of a violent campaign against Myanmar's Rohingya minority.

So similar are these two political movements that the Western media has found itself once again playing a role intentionally deepening sociopolitical, ethnic and religious divides. 

Reuters in a 2015 article titled, "Spurred by Myanmar radicals, Thai Buddhists push for state religion status," would claim:

A campaign to enshrine Buddhism as Thailand's state religion has been galvanized by a radical Buddhist movement in neighboring Myanmar that is accused of stoking religious tension, the leader of the Thai bid said.

Experts say the campaign could appeal to Thailand's military junta, which is struggling for popularity 18 months after staging a coup, and tap into growing anti-Muslim sentiment in a country that prides itself on religious tolerance.

Reuters' report is a distortion, however. It claims that the military-led interim government might find the idea of dividing Thailand along religious lines appealing, but it is the government itself that is attempting to promote an inclusive society and prevent sociopolitical, ethnic and religious divisions.

It is particularly interesting to note how not only Reuters, but also foreign-funded organisations posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in Thailand are attempting to blame the government and Thailand's institutions for growing bigotry and calls for violence toward Muslims despite the fact that the worst offenders are centred around Shinawatra's political strongholds in northern and northeastern Thailand, precisely where overt supporters of Shinawatra have already put their bigotry and violence on full display.  

(Current Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-Cha in centre. Note the motto of Thailand's armed forces on the wall behind him, which reads "For Country, Religions, Monarchy, and People." Religions is plural indicating a conscience effort to create an inclusive society for all.)

The government for its part, has both condemned such bigotry, and has taken tangible action to combat it. The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) would publish in its news feed a report titled, "Thailand�s Muslim-Friendly Destination Strategy Goes Well Beyond Just Tourism" (PDF), which aptly quantifies the current government's position on the subject, stating (our emphasis):

When one of Southeast Asia�s largest Buddhist-majority countries launches a tourism outreach to attract Muslim visitors, it clearly has a much wider significance than just a travel industry development. Although the primary goal of the tourism authorities is to boost visitor arrivals, expenditure and average length of stay, the Thai government is also mindful of the broader goal to build inclusive societies, prevent religious and ethnic conflict, and contribute to the third and, arguably, the most important pillar of ASEAN integration, the Socio-Cultural Blueprint.

And similar comments, sentiments and initiatives can be found throughout the interim government's activities since taking power in 2014. The Reuters report, like the Crisis Group's NYT editorial penned by Matthew Wheeler, is merely an attempt to create and compound conflict, not inform people of its true characteristics, nor defuse it.

Anti-Islamic Violence in the North, Anti-Buddhist Violence in the South, Meeting in the Middle

A Thai-based Buddhist scholar when interviewed, helped make sense of the networks of politicised Buddhism attempting to divide Thailand religiously; stating:

The anti-Halal and anti-Muslim movements involve a faction of people connected to the [pro-Shinawatra] Reds... there is an anti-Islamic sentiment within their Buddhist-faction. One person who I know is involved with the anti-Islam group is a professor, Banjob Bannaruji � he is the face for them. He is very popular with Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University.

Banjob Bannaruji would also be mentioned in the above cited Reuters article as leading the campaign to push Buddhism as Thailand's "state religion." It should be noted that both in 2007 and again in 2014 his attempts to push this agenda have been rejected by charter drafters, the military and now two interim governments.

(Violence carried out by extremist sects in Myanmar, a phenomenon political players focused on Thailand are attempting to replicate.)

While extremist sects in northern Thailand, considered strongholds of Shinawatra's political influence, are taking on a violent stance toward Islam, there is evidence that Shinawatra has also deployed agitators to Thailand's deep south to stir up instability there.

A classified 2009 US diplomatic cable titled, "Southern Violence: Midday Bomb Attack in Narathiwat August 25 Meant to Send a Signal," released by Wikileaks, reveals that the US Embassy maintained contacts with militants in the deep south, claiming (our emphasis):

Insurgents did confirm to a close embassy contact late August 25 that they had carried out the attack, intended as a signal for Buddhists to leave the deep south. With local elections scheduled for September 6 and a string of election-related acts of violence occurring in recent weeks, however, not all deep south violence is automatically insurgency related.

The cable would reveal that Sunai Phasuk, of foreign-funded Human Rights Watch, is their "contact" who regularly speaks with militants.

The US Embassy then admits that Shinawatra's political forces are also likely operating in the south, using the conflict as cover:

The posting of the anti-Queen banners on her birthday, a national holiday, was both unusual and significant, but the fact that the banners were professionally printed on vinyl, written in perfect central Thai rather than the local Malay dialect, and touched on issues which don't resonate in the south suggests those behind it were not local but national actors. Most in the know blame the red-shirts seeking to take advantage of inaction in the mosque attack case to undermine the Queen in particular and the monarchy in general.

The US Embassy cable would also admit (our emphasis):

Yala Vice-Governor Gritsada appeared surprised when we mentioned these banners to him on August 19, but he confirmed that the banners were written in perfect central Thai and mentioned issues that do not resonate down south, like the blue diamond. Gritsada said Pranai Suwannarat, the director of the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Center (SBPAC) had agreed these banners were the likely work of the UDD, not the insurgents. Sunai told us that the widespread presence of the banners indicates the strong organization and funding available to the UDD in Pattani province.

The UDD refers to Thaksin Shinawatra's street front, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, also known as "red shirts" and include groups such as Rak Chiang Mai 51 mentioned above.

In essence, Shinawatra, his political supporters and his foreign proponents have created their own artificial conflict with which to consume Thailand's institutions and sociopolitical balance, nationwide starting in the north and south, and meeting in the middle.

In the north, Shinawatra's networks have mobilised politicised extremist sects to promote hatred and violence toward Muslims. And in the south, Shinawatra has operatives stirring up political instability, and likely even violence to target Buddhists while simultaneously implicating Muslims.

This is the reality of Thailand's current conflict, a reality Matthew Wheeler of the International Crisis Group intentionally attempts to distort in an effort to protect this reality from the scrutiny and attention required to prevent it from spiralling further out of control. In essence, The Crisis Group is attempting to spur on and exploit, not prevent a crisis. But why?

What is the Crisis Group and Why is it Trying to Destabilise Thailand?

The Crisis Group claims on its website to be, "an independent organisation working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world." 

If that were the case, one would expect to see the organisation backed by names synonymous with preventing wars and building a more peaceful world. Instead, the Crisis Group's own website reveals financial support from organisations and corporations openly engaged in precisely the opposite.

Its various councils include such members as oil giants British Petroleum, Chevron and Shell and lobbying firm Edelman UK.

Edelman's involvement in the Crisis Group is particularly significant since Thaksin Shinawatra employed Edelman as a lobbyist for several years. During Edelman's lobbying for Shinawatra, Kenneth Adelman served concurrently as both Thaksin Shinawatra's representative and as a director at the International Crisis Group.

The Crisis Group's "government and foundation" supporters including USAID and controversial billionaire and convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society.  Again, a glaring conflict of interest exists here, with Open Society also funding a raft of organisations posing as NGOs and both foreign and local media working to undermine Thailand's stability and bring Shinawatra and his supporters back into power.

The implications and actions of the Crisis Group then and now expose the organisation as self-serving merely behind the pretence of "preventing wars and building a more peaceful world." Then and now, the Crisis Group's various publications, reports and editorials like Wheeler's appearing in the NYT have attempted to pressure the Thai government into taking actions that would compound and complicate its ongoing political crisis, not solve it.

In 2010 (PDF), the Crisis Group would urge the Thai government to capitulate to violent street demonstrations staged by Shinawatra which included the deployment of hundreds of heavily armed militants. Nearly 100 were killed in the violence and sections of both the capital Bangkok, and provincial halls across Shinawatra's north and northeast strongholds were burned to the ground. The Crisis Group's "recommendations" echoed precisely the demands of Shinawatra himself. Considering that both individual directors of the Crisis Group as well as corporate sponsors were quite literally lobbying for Shinawatra, this should come as no surprise.

What is surprising is that the Crisis Group is portrayed throughout the media as anything other than a lobbying front for special interests, helping to create and exploit crises, not end them.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.