US Threatens to Arm Al Qaeda, ISIS with Anti-Air Missiles

September 30, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US officials have threatened Syria and its allies - including Russia specifically - that the collapse of a US-proposed ceasefire will lead "Gulf states" to arm militants with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. 

A Reuters article titled, "Gulf may arm rebels now Syria truce is dead: U.S. officials," would elaborate, claiming:

One U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss American policy, said Washington has kept large numbers of such man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS, out of Syria by uniting Western and Arab allies behind channeling training and infantry weapons to moderate opposition groups while it pursued talks with Moscow.

But frustration with Washington has intensified, raising the possibility that Gulf allies or Turkey will no longer continue to follow the U.S. lead or will turn a blind eye to wealthy individuals looking to supply MANPADS to opposition groups.

"The Saudis have always thought that the way to get the Russians to back off is what worked in Afghanistan 30 years ago � negating their air power by giving MANPADS to the mujahideen," said a second U.S. official.

However, in reality, ambitions to down Russian and Syrian aircraft over Syria are not Saudi in origin, but rather come from the highest levels of policy and politics within Washington.  Washington-based corporate-financier policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, in a paper titled, "What to do when containing the Syrian crisis has failed," would admit (emphasis added):

We must also be clever about employing various options for no-fly zones: We cannot shoot down an airplane without knowing if it�s Russian or Syrian, but we can identify those aircraft after the fact and destroy Syrian planes on the ground if they were found to have barrel-bombed a neighborhood, for example. These kinds of operations are complicated, no doubt, and especially with Russian aircraft in the area�but I think we have made a mistake in tying ourselves in knots over the issue, since there are options we can pursue.

In a 2015 Fox News interview, US Senator John McCain would admit:

I might do what we did in Afghanistan many years ago, to give those guys the ability to shoot down those planes. That equipment is available.

When asked to clarify his statement as to who would be shooting down the planes, McCain would answer:

The Free Syrian Army, just like the Afghans shot down the Russian...

In essence then, the US is merely laundering anti-air weapons and the ambition to use them through Saudi Arabia, as it has done so with all the weapons, terrorists, vehicles, money, and support used to trigger and perpetuate the ongoing war in Syria - with the Saudis at best, merely partners.

The US is Knowingly Going to Arm Al Qaeda, ISIS with Anti-Air Missiles

US politicians and policymakers are already acutely aware that any weapons they send into Syria - including anti-air missiles - will immediately end up in the hands of designated foreign terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and ISIS. They are aware of this because thousands of anti-tank missiles the US has sent into the country, as well as fleets of Toyota trucks, ammunition, food, and other supplies have already ended up in Al Qaeda and ISIS' hands.

This is not only through the seizure of weapons by terrorist organizations from "moderate rebels," but because America's "moderate rebels" have either voluntarily joined the ranks of designated terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and ISIS - or were affiliated with terrorists from the very beginning and even before the conflict even began.

In a particularly embarrassing episode, it was reported by the pro-war, corporate-financier funded and chaired Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) blog, The Long War Journal in an article titled, "Islamic State used US-made anti-tank missiles near Palmyra," that:

In a new video released by the Islamic State, the jihadist group shows the capture of the ancient city of Palmyra, also known as Tadmur in Arabic. During the video, at least one US-made BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile is seen being used against Syrian regime troops near the city.

The report continued by stating:

This is not the first time the Islamic State has shown with TOWs. Last December, the jihadist group also published photos showing its forces using TOW missiles against Free Syrian Army (FSA) forces in the Damascus countryside. The United States has supplied several FSA groups with TOW missiles, which have sometimes fallen into the hands of jihadist groups or have been used to assist jihadist groups. The TOW used in Palmyra was likely captured from battles with the FSA in other parts of Syria.

It is not only possible that any anti-air weapons sent into Syria will end up in the hands of Al Qaeda or ISIS, it is inevitable.

Any nation supplying militants with such weapons is all but intentionally ensuring they eventually end up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

America Sowing the Seeds for New Levels of Global Terrorism for Decades to Come
And what US policymakers seem unaware or unconcerned with is the possibility that such weapons may be turned against their own forces not only in Syria - including US and European warplanes - but across the region, including on the battlefield in Yemen, targeting US-made Saudi warplanes.

Also possible is that these weapon systems are spirited out of the region and used to target civilian aircraft in terrorist attacks around the world.

As the US continues leveraging the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine against Russia, it simultaneously attempts to all but ensure the most dangerous terrorist organizations on Earth gain access to anti-air weaponry. It is a clear indicator that the US, not Russia nor the Syrian government, pose a threat to global peace and stability.

The same US who knowingly created and wielded Al Qaeda against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s before claiming to be victimized by this mercenary force on September 11, 2001 -precipitating a decade and a half of "War on Terror" - is hereby standing up a terrorist mercenary force larger and better armed than ever before. The US is sowing the seeds of global terrorism for decades to come by doing so.

America's fueling of the Syrian conflict directly and through its Persian Gulf proxies has turned the entire Middle East and North African region into a hotbed of failed states, terrorism, and humanitarian crises. Russia's failure to prevent US intervention in Libya has left the nation divided and destroyed, hemorrhaging refugees across the Mediterranean Sea into Europe and inviting terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS to expand across not only the ruins of Libya, but also across the rest of the region and beyond.

Russia's failure to stop the division and destruction of Syria will result in a catastrophe greater still - and despite the level of destruction and violence unfolding today in Syria - should Damascus collapse and militant groups be left intact - Syria will face exponentially greater violence and destruction that will make Libya's ongoing sociopolitical and humanitarian catastrophe pale in comparison.

The US, by erasing the lines of even rhetorical sensibility, does however open a window of opportunity for Syria and its allies to respond with asymmetrical warfare, targeting US and European warplanes illegally operating over Syria in such a way as to make it difficult if not impossible to determine whether or not America's own anti-air weapons are being used against its and its allies' warplanes.

US policy which essentially places anti-air missiles into the hands of terrorists - is so ill-conceived and desperate, the fact that it has been tabled in the first place illustrates Washington's increasingly weak and desperate hand. If this policy is properly exposed for what it truly implies both for Syria and the state of global security for decades to come, and should it be countered intelligently by Syria and its allies, it can be turned back against Washington and add further impetus to finally end this war in the Syrian people's favor - not Washington's.

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

US in Syria: How to Build a Terror-State

September 29, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A nation is its institutions, and should those institutions weaken, the nation itself will be weakened. And should those institutions be destroyed, the nation, for all intents and purposes, will also be destroyed.

A dramatic example of how to destroy a nation unfolded in 2003 in Iraq as a US led axis invaded and occupied it, intentionally targeting and destroying Iraqi institutions and essential infrastructure, including the police, military, and the government as well as bridges, electricity, and communications. 

In the ruins left in the wake of the US-led invasion, through the "Coalition Provisional Authority," US and European corporations were invited in to not only rebuild these institutions and infrastructure, but to do so in a manner making them dependent on and profitable to US-European corporate-financier interests well into the foreseeable future. 

The West's vast influence in Iraq today is owed to this process. While it is likely the West envisioned a client state far more obedient and subservient to Western interests than Iraq is today, the complicity it does receive across Iraq and even across the wider region, is vastly greater than before the 2003 invasion.

The US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) continue to undermine local, independent institutions and infrastructure in favor of US-funded and directed institutions as well as US-controlled infrastructure. It is the mechanics of modern day empire. 

While Iraq is an extreme example of just how far and overt this process can be, the United States is repeating this same process the world over through direct and indirect military operations or more subtly through the use of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). 

America's Burgeoning Terror-State in the Levant 

In Syria, the United States has engineered and perpetuated a proxy war against the government in Damascus and its Russian and Iranian allies beginning in 2011. Before even the armed conflict began in 2011, the United States admittedly poured resources into opposition groups including the Muslim Brotherhood to prepare the ground for violent subversion.

In 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh would write in his 9-page report, "The Redirection: Is the Administration�s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" that: 

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has co�perated with Saudi Arabia�s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh's now prophetic report would also reveal US support for the Muslim Brotherhood:

There is evidence that the Administration�s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, �The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.�

The US, through backing a large, alternative political front, was already well on its way in 2007 toward creating a parallel state within Syria to eventually undermine and overthrow before eventually absorbing the Syrian nation.

As hostilities began, the US augmented its proxy political party with both opposition media fronts and armed militant groups - essentially the creation of mass media and an army for its growing parallel terror state.

The New York Times in 2013 would admit in an article titled, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.," that:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria�s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

As the war has continued on, the United States and its Arab and European allies have steadily built other institutions to augment the political, military, and media capabilities of this burgeoning terror-state, including hospitals operated in Al Qaeda-held territory by Western NGOs, and of course the so-called "White Helmets," described on their own website as:

The volunteers save people on all sides of the conflict - pledging commitment to the principles of �Humanity, Solidarity, Impartiality� as outlined by the International Civil Defence Organisation. This pledge guides every response, every action, every life saved - so that in a time of destruction, all Syrians have the hope of a lifeline.

In reality, the "White Helmets" operate solely in terrorist-held territory, as the nation of Syria already has an effective, professional, and well organized civil defense organization. The "White Helmets" appear to be "targeted intentionally" because they are operating side-by-side designated terrorist organizations including Al Nusra, quite literally Al Qaeda in Syria.

In one graphic instance (GRAPHIC VIDEO), these "White Helmet" Al Qaeda auxiliaries can be seen literally standing by as Al Nusra terrorists execute a prisoner, before rushing in to remove the body. Had Syrian or Russian warplanes struck these terrorists in the midst of carrying out war crimes, these "White Helmets" would have rightfully been liquidated side-by-side the terrorists they were aiding and abetting.

Despite the "White Helmets" severing quite literally as Al Qaeda auxiliaries, the US through USAID and more recently, the German government, have provided the faux-NGO millions in funding.

US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner in April 2016, according to a US State Department official transcript, would admit:

Well, I can tell you that we provide, through USAID, about $23 million in assistance to them [the "White Helmets"].

Toner was responding to queries by journalists regarding why a US-funded organization was receiving millions of dollars in assistance, but whose leader is banned from traveling to the United States. Toner attempted to claim the situation was "complicated," but in reality, it is a simple matter of the US once again arming and funding terrorists abroad while simultaneously attempting to pose as fighting them back home.

More recently, AP would report in an article titled, "Germany ups financial support for Syria's White Helmets," that:

Germany's Foreign Ministry says it is increasing financial support for the Syria Civil Defense group, also known as the White Helmets. 

The ministry said in a statement Friday that it has raised its funding for the group this year from 5 million euros ($5.61 million) to 7 million euros ($7.85 million).

With a sectarian extremist political party like the Muslim Brotherhood, an armed force comprised of Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and an array of complicit alleged NGOs including the "White Helmets," the US and its allies have attempted to create a parallel state within Syria - a parallel state it hopes will eventually inherit the entirety of Syria's territory, just as violent sectarian terrorist factions have assumed control over Libya - deconstructing it as a functioning nation state and plunging its people into open-ended, perpetual catastrophe that is reverberating across the planet in the form of terrorism and migrant crises.

The US and its partners are posing as fighting against terrorism, while carving out entire nations for Al Qaeda and its affiliates everywhere from the North African nation of Libya, to the  ?Levantine nation of Syria. It is a foreign policy in reality that cannot be sustained with the unraveling rhetoric used to promote and perpetuate it on the global stage, particularly in front of the UN.

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

As the Syrian Ceasefire Collapses

September 25, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - When Liz Sly of the Washington Post published her latest deceptive and particularly biased piece titled, "A ferocious assault on Aleppo suggests the U.S. may be wrong on Syria," she intended to give the impression that the United States sought peace in Syria. Never mentioned were open admissions by the US that it intended for years before the conflict even began to overthrow the government in Damascus and to specifically use sectarian extremists underwritten by US ally Saudi Arabia to do so.

Nor was it mentioned that so-called "moderates" fighting in Syria have long been tied directly to designated terrorist organizations, including Al Nusra with many groups openly aligning themselves under the Al Qaeda affiliate's banner just before a large-scale offensive was launched against Syria's northern city of Aleppo - a battle that continues even now.

Sly and other commentators among the Western media establishment cite Syrian and Russian planes carrying out airstrikes across Aleppo as a failure of the so-called Syrian ceasefire - a ceasefire in which the US carried out a sustained attack on Syrian forces in the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, "accidentally" giving forces of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) an edge, allowing them to seize valuable strategic territory. It was also a "ceasefire" armed militants refused to honor, including groups openly armed and backed by the United States and its allies.

Current bombing in Aleppo then, is not a "failure" for the US' attempts to mediate a ceasefire, rather a failure for the US' attempts to perpetuate a destructive war aimed toward achieving "regime change" merely under the guise of mediating a ceasefire.

The US State Department itself admits that Al Nusra, a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization, is indeed operating in and around Aleppo. Even as early as April of this year, the Business Insider in its article, "The Defense Department has a new line that helps Putin and Assad in Syria," would admit that:

US Army Col. Steve Warren, the spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, was asked whether Russian airstrikes on Aleppo, the current epicenter of the war, meant that Moscow was preparing to end the cessation of hostilities (CoH) agreement between government forces and the opposition signed on February 29. 

Warren responded that it was "complicated" because al-Nusra "holds Aleppo" and is not party to the agreement.

Ceasefire or not, the US, Syria, and Russia agreed that Al Nusra - along with other designated terrorist organizations - would not be spared. This fact was cited by the US itself as a pretext for why it too was carrying out airstrikes - including at  Deir ez-Zor - during the supposed ceasefire.

The collapse of the ceasefire in reality was both predictable and indicative of a much larger unraveling of US credibility both in Syria, and worldwide. It is a nation whose motives and objectives are easily exposed before an increasingly large and aware segment of the global public, standing in stark contrast to its simplistic, often oafish and self-contradictory rhetoric.

Syria's conflict cannot be resolved through disingenuous political deals brokered by a party who seeks only to finish its stated objective of "regime change" and the "partitioning" of a sovereign nation. Thus, Syria's fate will be determined on the battlefield amid a struggle between America's faltering political capital and the reality of Syrian, Russian, and Iranian military and logistical limitations when faced with the US and its multinational military, economic, and political coalition arrayed to dismember and destroy Syria.

Analysts and the curious alike, in gauging the future possibilities of this conflict, should pay close attention to the size and disposition of forces on the ground, the political, economic, and logistical strength of external players influencing the battlefield, and the political capital of each respective party - and leave line-by-line analysis of meaningless US-sponsored ceasefire agreements to Western political pundits intent on peddling non sequitur talking points from a troubled, fabricated, and very much unraveling Western narrative.

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

YSEALI: America's Quiet Colonisation of Southeast Asia

September 22, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - The US State Department's Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) claims on its official US government website to build "the leadership capabilities of youth in the region and promotes cross-border cooperation to solve regional and global challenges."

It not only consists of US-based educational and professional "fellowships" for Southeast Asian participants, but also a funding component to help alumni establish foreign-funded organisations posing as "nongovernmental organisations" (NGOs), enhancing the already large presence of US-funded organisations operating across Asia in the service of American interests.

Under an initiative called, "Generation: Go NGO!," YSEALI claims:

This is an opportunity for young NGO leaders to advance their professional skills and competencies with the aim to grow, scale, and take the organizations they work for, or those they founded, to new heights. 

From developing baseline metrics to creatively pursuing financial and in-kind resources to assertively applying social media to advance mission, this workshop will bring together individuals from across ASEAN to learn and collaborate on ways to build capacity, message, and impact.

Beyond this, YSEALI also conducts other workshops across Southeast Asia to help prepare what is essentially a parallel political establishment that serves not Southeast Asian institutions or the population, but the US State Department and the corporate and financial interests it represents, quite literally an ocean and continent away.


One such activity was conducted by the US Embassy in Cambodia, called the "First Model Prime Minister Debate" organised by the US Ambassador's Youth Council, Phnom Penh.

In essence, the US State Department is preparing an entire generation of impressionable young people, raised on American-style consumerism and hooked into US-based social media platforms like Facebook, and moulding them into a client political bloc they will eventually assist into power, just as they have attempted to do in Hong Kong recently with US State Department-funded "Umbrella Revolution" leaders winning several seats in local legislative elections and as they have already done in Myanmar through Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NDL) with her minister of information quite literally trained by US-funded organisations in neighbouring Thailand before assuming his post.

Using children and young adults through what appear to be benign overseas scholarships and work opportunities, as well as through events across Southeast Asia organised by US embassies appears at first disarming and scaled back from the sort of subversion the US has typically engaged in over the past several decades (i.e. 1953 Operation Ajax: Iran, 1973 Chilean coup d'�tat, or the violent 2011 Arab Spring).

Yet despite its apparent benign nature, it represents precisely the same end result; a US backed government, representing parallel institutions that answer not to the people they are put in power over, but instead represents those foreign interests that cultivated, funded and directed them into power from abroad.

YSEALI's activities are fundamentally inappropriate, undiplomatic and constitute an intentional and direct threat to the sovereignty and self-determination of the entire region of Southeast Asia. Were China or Russia conducting such activities in the United States, it is likely a coordinated government and media campaign would be mobilised to counteract it, and possibly even legislation passed to stop it all together.

Likewise, ASEAN should consider revising rules, regulations and legislation governing foreign-funded organisations masquerading as "NGOs" and limiting foreign missions to the region and each respective nation to diplomatic activities only.

Funding from foreign governments for allegedly "nongovernmental" organisations is in itself a contradiction in both terms and in principle. And the idea of a parallel political system created in the US embassy and composed of Southeast Asian youths "built" by US efforts somehow representing or resulting in "democracy" or "self-determination" is an obvious and intentional misrepresentation by the US State Department.

Not only should local governments across Southeast Asia counter these efforts through restricting or ending them altogether, they should create their own programmes to develop their nation's next generation of political and business leaders, infused with local principles, values, cultural ideals and reflecting the best interests of the people and nation they will eventually assume positions of power over. Self-determination is not a right the US or the "international community" it poses as leader of will grant freely to the nations of the world it presumes dominion over, it is a right that nations must fight for, earn and protect proactively.

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

US Aid to Israel Aids Who and Toward What End?

September 22, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Recently, the United States just renewed military aid to Israel in a decade-long, $38 billion deal - the largest of its kind in American history. It represents a significant increase in aid, roughly $3.8 billion a year - expected to be supplemented by additional assistance through US Congress - up from $3 billion per year previously.

The Atlantic in an article titled, "Why Does the United States Give So Much Money to Israel?," attempted to explain the reasoning behind the otherwise unreasonable and unprecedented assistance by claiming:

Defenders of the deal would say it�s necessary. Dalton described the uptick in spending as a natural extension of the long-standing relationship between the United States and Israel, �as well as close ties between those countries and their peoples.� She described the �fraught neighborhood� surrounding Israel: war-torn Syria to the northeast, Hezbollah-influenced Lebanon to the north, and an Islamist insurgency in Egypt�s Sinai to the south, all of which help explain the historically high promise of $5 billion in missile funding over the next 10 years.

However, experienced geopolitical analysts will point out that the United States does not have "friends," "allies," or "relationships" - only interests and those who serve them. And while the Atlantic attempts to explain the deal as a means of maintaining a "relationship," it and other publications admit that there are "strings attached." If examined carefully, these strings reveals just what interests this supposed "relationship" serves.

CNBC would say just that in its article, "Big US military aid package to Israel has strings attached," claiming:

...it's structured so that more Israeli defense spending goes to U.S. companies. Israel's long-standing special arrangement for funds from the United States previously allowed Israel to spend 26 percent of the money in Israel � on Israeli-made defense products. But that provision is being phased out over the first five years of the deal.

In other words, the ten year, $38 billion aid package is first and foremost welfare for US defense contractors, not Israel whose own defense spending adds up to $16 billion per year - dwarfing annual US "aid." The deal is to encourage further Israeli dependency on America - dependency that lends Washington further leverage over both Israel and the region.

The purpose of aid and those who have arranged it on both the Israeli and American sides of the negotiating table is to continue directing Israel's domestic and foreign policy to suit America's interests, not the Israeli people's. An Israel at peace with its neighbors in a stable Middle East and North Africa is an Israel that negates the supposed need of a US presence in the region. It also negates the need for such extravagant defense spending in both Israel and the United States.

CNBC would also reveal that the new assistance package would include provisions making it difficult for Israel to lobby for additional spending unless war broke out. Considering the track record of various Israeli regimes, does one suppose this is an incentive for Israel to avoid conflict, or actively seek it out?

In every way the aid deal is meant to perpetuate unpopular regimes, unpopular and inhumane policies, as well as perpetuate conflict and human misery. The role the US plays in "stabilizing" the Middle East is revealed instead as a constant conspiracy to overturn it.

US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia - Trifecta of Conflict and Instability 

The only other nation in the Middle East sowing as much conflict and instability as Israel's current regime is Saudi Arabia. It has flooded Iraq and Syria with militant groups triggering years of devastating war as well as directly launched an extensive air and ground war against neighboring Yemen.

Saudi Arabia - like Israel - is the recipient of extensive US backing. While the US made history by granting Israel unprecedented foreign aid, it sealed with Saudi Arabia recently an equally historic and unprecedented weapons deal amounting to some $60 billion - a single deal significantly larger than the 10 year aid package the US is providing Israel.

Israel's Haaretz would report in its article, "U.S. Announces $60b Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia, Says 'Israel Doesn't Object'," that:

The United States plans to sell up to $60 billion worth of military aircraft to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. State Department announced on Wednesday in a move designed to shore up a region overshadowed by Iran. 

Andrew Shapiro, the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, told a news conference the U.S. administration did not anticipate any objections to the sale from Israel, traditionally wary of arms sales to nearby Arab countries. 

Indeed, Israel does not object to US weapon deals with Saudi Arabia. Despite feigned adversity between the two regimes, the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia work in tandem toward a singular regional vision with very few points of contention and with the common denominator being the way each nation's role enhances their joint sponsor - the United States - and its hegemony over the region.

It is then not surprising to see US-funded Israeli forces defending Saudi subsidized terrorists on the Golan Heights coordinating violence against Syrian forces throughout the destructive, ongoing Syrian conflict.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, which does not exist as a functioning legitimate nation-state beyond its petrodollars and its US-backed military power, Israel does possess the economic infrastructure and human capital to transition into a functioning, independent nation-state - if only its population can overcome the engineered strategy of tension that has ensnared it for decades and the regime behind it.

The United States' $38 billion is to ensure that regime remains in power for another 10 years, the strategy of tension continues to play out, and the Israeli people, as well as their neighbors are denied any opportunity to live in peace and move forward in progress for another decade to come.

Rather than underwriting Israel's security for the next decade, the US is ensuring Israel struggles under another 10 years of uncertainty, perpetually impending war, all while its regime continues to partner with neighboring regimes - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - to undermine regional stability and further threaten the future of the Israeli people and the survival of the Israeli nation.

The Israeli regime's signing of yet another compromising, dependency-inducing aid package with the United States is proof once again that Israel's own government constitutes the Israeli nation's worst enemy.

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

America in Asia: Arrogant, Unapologetic, and Ready for More Conflict

September 19, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The United States exists an entire ocean away from Asia, yet its policymakers, politicians, and even Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter have declared America's "primacy" over the region, vowing to assert itself and its interests above all nations actually located in Asia. 

In a June 2016 Reuters article titled, "U.S. flexes muscles as Asia worries about South China Sea row," Secretary Carter is quoted as saying:

The United States will remain the most powerful military and main underwriter of security in the [Asian] region for decades to come � and there should be no doubt about that.

The US, by presuming to dictate all that takes place across Asia, has all but declared itself a hegemon.

Reiterating the notion of American primacy and exceptionalism is a full-time occupation for the US State Department's employees. This includes US Ambassador to ASEAN Nina Hachigian who pointed out to followers on Twitter that she had "spoke to some Lao shop owners" following US President Barack Obama's recent visit to the Southeast Asian nation, and "they said [President Obama's] visit was the most exciting and significant event in decades."

Of course, for the nation of Laos, the most significant event regarding the US is undoubtedly the 2 million tons of munitions the US dumped on it between 1964 and 1973. These 2 million tons include cluster bombs consisting of some 266 million submunitions, an estimated 30% of which were left unexploded and remain to this day an enduring, deadly hazard to Laos and its 6.8 million people.

There are an estimated 80 million submunitions still littering the country, or about 11 for each man, woman, and child that lives in Laos. 20,000 people have been killed by unexploded US munitions and many more maimed which includes losing limbs.


According to the Lao National Unexploded Ordnance Programme (UXO LAO), 444,711 submunitions (about 0.55%) have been destroyed between 1996 and 2010.  Despite the dangerous and exhausting work, eliminating 0.55% of the 80 million submunitions still littering the country amounts to virtually nothing.

When faced with these facts, Ambassador Hachigian assured Twitter followers that:

We've been spending hundreds of millions of dollars to clean them up and President Obama just doubled annual contributions.

Of course, an elementary student could have told the ambassador that doubling nothing still equates to nothing.

Establishment journal, The Diplomat, in an article titled, "Obama in Laos: Cleaning up After the Secret War," would claim:

In recent years, U.S. support for UXO clearance and victim assistance in Laos has dramatically increased. In response to steady pressure from NGOs like Legacies of War and their allies in Congress, U.S. funding for this work increased from $5 million in 2010 to a record $19.5 million this year. These resources, disbursed by the State Department�s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, are used to support clearance efforts that destroy up to 100,000 pieces of lethal ordnance in Laos annually, employing 3,000 workers in the commercial and humanitarian sectors.

At 100,000 submunitions per year, Laos should be safe from US cluster bombs in just under 1,000 years. This is hardly "cleaning up."

The Real Legacy of America in Asia

The Diplomat, US President Obama and US Ambassador Hachigian, however, are helping Asia understand the real legacy of America in the region - one of both catastrophic war, and of what are essentially deadly, enduring consequences that will haunt generations for 1,000 years to come - quite literally.

And not only has America done this to Asia, it does so unapologetically . The BBC in its article, "Laos: Barack Obama regrets 'biggest bombing in history,'" would note:

Mr Obama did not offer an apology for the bombing.

However, President Obama's "regrets," and Ambassador Hachigian's attempts to portray America as taking responsibility for the ongoing consequences of America's actions could be interpreted as apologetic by some. However, one must remember that an apology must also be accompanied by a genuine desire never to repeat the offense in question again - something the US clearly has no intention of doing.

Even as President Obama and Ambassador Hachigian announce America's desire to go from doing virtually nothing about the 80 million cluster bomb submunitions scattered across Laos, to doing next to nothing about them, the US is currently assisting their allies in Saudi Arabia to blanket the nation of Yemen with them.

According to an ABC News article titled, "House OKs Ongoing Cluster Bomb Sales to Saudi Arabia, Saying a Ban Would 'Stigmatize' the Weapons," it was reported that:

Congress has opted to continue selling cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, citing a need not to "stigmatize" the weapon. But human rights advocates pointed to the close vote, 216 to 204, as progress towards ending the U.S.-Saudi trade of cluster munitions, which advocates say causes indiscriminate carnage.

The US has also spent years scattering radioactive depleted uranium across various battlefields including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bosnia.

According to the Guardian report titled, "Scientists urge shell clear-up to protect civilians," it was stated that:

Up to 2,000 tonnes of DU has been used in the Gulf, a large part of it in cities like Baghdad, far more than in the Balkans. Unep has offered to go to Iraq and check on the quantities of DU still present and the danger it poses to civilians.

And while Laos faces 1,000 years of US cluster bomb munitions if current levels of disposal are maintained, nations like Iraq and Afghanistan facing US depleted uranium have several million years to wait until the danger subsides based on uranium's radioactive half-life.

It is obvious that should the US apply military force anywhere in Asia ever again, it will do so with equal or even greater consequences than it has already visited upon Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, or that its allies have visited upon nations like Yemen. 

Fact checking the US President and various US ambassadors' rhetoric regarding America's true record in Asia points out a nation of infinite arrogance, unapologetic for the enormous and enduring suffering it has brought quite literally from an ocean away, and proves with its current actions elsewhere throughout the world that it is ready and willing to sow yet even more chaos. 

Considering this, one must be forgiven for wondering just what "security" Secretary Carter is referring to that the US is underwriting in Asia - it is certainly not security those in Asia are enjoying - certainly not in Laos - at least not for 1,000 years to come. 

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

Facebook, Internet.org, and the End of Net Neutrality

September 16, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - American-based aerospace company SpaceX is one of the few Western enterprises pursuing a greater purpose in a nation otherwise obsessed with power and profit. When its rocket was recently lost on the launch pad amidst an anomaly it took with it a satellite to be used by Facebook, an example of the latter. 

The Guardian in an article titled, "SpaceX rocket explosion: Mark Zuckerberg laments loss of Internet.org satellite," would report: 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg struck a bitter tone in his response to the explosion of the SpaceX rocket carrying a satellite intended for use on his Internet.org project in Africa. 

Writing on his Facebook page, Zuckerberg said: �As I�m here in Africa, I�m deeply disappointed to hear that SpaceX�s launch failure destroyed our satellite that would have provided connectivity to so many entrepreneurs and everyone else across the continent.�

However, while technically Facebook's Internet.org would provide "connectivity" to people across the continent, it would not be providing them with access to the actual Internet.

Instead, it is Facebook's version of the Internet, where the concept of net neutrality - the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites - does not exist.

On Facebook's version of the Internet, only those willing to pay large sums of money can have access to audiences while others who do not pay, no matter how popular or meaningful their message may be, are essentially silenced. This is already a reality across Facebook's social network itself, and this network is one of several "Free Basics" offered on Facebook's Internet.org.

Internet.org by Facebook Aims to Control the World, Not "Connect" It 

A visit to Facebook's Internet.org reveals meaningless slogans and images of smiling brown people.

Looking past the superficiality at what Internet.org truly represents, it is clear that it is an attempt to takeover and monopolize the telecom industry and in particular, the entire Internet across the developing world. Not only does Facebook's "Free Basics" limit users to information highly controlled by Western corporate-financier special interests and Facebook's own net neutrality-usurping algorithms, but because the infrastructure employs methods including space-based satellites, the governments and communities exposed to this upturned version of the Internet have no say or control over it.




So obvious is this, that even before Facebook has completed its plans, nations are already fighting back.

In India, net neutrality activists succeeded in getting the invasive, manipulative, and monopolizing service banned from the country. The Guardian's article, "India deals blow to Facebook in people-powered 'net neutrality' row," would report:

Facebook has lost the right to offer its free mobile internet service in India after the country�s telecoms regulator ruled in favour of net neutrality, marking the end of an intense and very public 11-month national debate. 

The new regulations published by India�s Telecom Regulatory Authority (TRAI) ban differential pricing for data services, and make it easier for smaller firms to compete with established companies including Facebook.

Facebook's response was as unsurprising as it was dishonest, claiming:

Our goal with Free Basics is to bring more people online with an open, non-exclusive and free platform. While disappointed with the outcome, we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the internet and the opportunities it brings.

In reality, in order to eliminate barriers and connect people, the people themselves must acquire the skills and resources necessary to create their own infrastructure, companies to maintain it, and the ability to create their own content to transmit over it - the very embodiment of both the Internet itself and the underlying hope proponents of net neutrality hold for the Internet. The people using the Internet in their nation should be the primary benefactors of it - not just in terms of having access to useful information, but the ability to earn a living by maintaining its infrastructure.

In addition to Facebook's ability to penetrate and monopolize any given developing nation's telecom industry, considering Facebook's ties to the US State Department and its  role in facilitating regime change and even destructive, violent campaigns of armed subversion, it is very likely Facebook's monopoly would make it that much easier to control and manipulate information space in any given developing nation during a Western-engineered crisis.

This may explain why legitimate nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in India stood up to Facebook's attempt to undermine net neutrality, but nations where NGOs are dominated by US State Department and Open Society funding like Thailand and the Philippines, Facebook's Internet.org has gone unopposed.

Image: "Activists" complain about Thailand's alleged "single gateway" plan to control domestic Internet infrastructure, while Facebook attempts to construct a global "single gateway" it controls, completely unopposed by these same groups - groups generally funded by the US State Department and Open Society, two partners Facebook has worked with in the past and groups that have themselves taken part in training assisted or sponsored by Facebook. . 

Telecom and information technology, like food, water, energy, and a standing army, are essential building blocks for national security and prosperity. Handing the responsibility of any of these over to either a foreign nation or a foreign corporation - or both - is the relinquishing of one's sovereignty and the compromising of one's national security.

Nations and their people must develop their own Internet infrastructure. For Mark Zuckerberg and his government-connected corporation Facebook to presume they are the sole solution to "connecting the world" is but a modern-day version of "The White Man's Burden" - those nations subjected to it subordinated to this domineering arrogance and the self-serving schemes that underpin it.

Facebook's Internet.org is a wake-up call for developing nations to stand up and invest in modern day essential infrastructure - including domestic versions of social networks like Facebook - to ensure they are as safe in the field of information as their conventional armies keep them on the field of battle.

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

Obama's Ungraceful Exit from Air Force One, America's Ungraceful Exit from Asia

September 13, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - When US President Barack Obama attempted to leave Air Force One upon arriving at Hangzhou, China, just southwest of Shanghai, he found that no staircase or red carpet awaited him. Instead, he and his staff were forced to use an alternative exit from the aircraft, only to find additional restrictions placed upon them on the tarmac.

The New York Times in its article, "Bumpy Beginning for Obama in China, Starting on the Tarmac," would note:

There was no staircase for Obama to exit the plane and descend on the red carpet. Obama used an alternative exit.

On the tarmac, a quarrel broke out between a presidential aide and a Chinese official who demanded the journalists traveling with Obama be prohibited from getting anywhere near him. It was a breach of the tradition observed whenever the American president arrives in a foreign place. 

When the White House official insisted the U.S. would set the rules for its own leader, her Chinese counterpart shot back. 

"This is our country! This is our airport!" the Chinese official yelled.

Rather than accept and adapt to the conditions set forth by their Chinese hosts, the President's staff quarrelled with them, marking yet another ungraceful bout of American exceptionalism where even in another's country, America's will is expected to be fulfilled.

Reflecting on the event, President Obama made cryptic comments seemingly both attempting to downplay the event as a mere oversight, but alluding to the fact that it was more than a mere oversight by their Chinese hosts.

And in fact, it was no oversight. It was a clear message to America that the age of American exceptionalism, particularly in Asia, is over.


America's Ungraceful Exit from Asia  


In and of itself, President Obama's ungraceful exit from Air Force One may seem like an insignificant event. When added together with a general decline of American influence and regarding the respect it had once commanded across Asia, it is highly symbolic of a global hegemon being pushed from an entire corner of the globe.

It was just recently that the US concluded a lengthy and costly public relations campaign, dressed up as an "international tribunal" conducted at The Hague in the Netherlands that predictably concluded that China held no legitimate claims in the South China Sea.

The "ruling" was allegedly made in favour of the Philippines, despite the legal team being headed by an American, Paul S. Reichler of Foley Hoag. Despite what Washington believed would be a crushing rhetorical blow to Beijing, not only did Beijing dismiss the entire proceeding out of hand, the Philippines itself refused to capitalise on the transparently politically-motivated and provocative ruling.

US pressure on the Philippines, until recently considered a stalwart ally, even a subordinate functionary of Washington, eventually resulted in Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte directly mocking America's ambassador to the nation, denouncing him as an effeminate meddler.

The previous year, the US had been pressuring Thailand to allow Chinese terror suspects to travel onward to Turkey despite an extradition request from China. Thailand ignored US demands and returned the suspects to face justice in China.

In both cases terrorism struck shortly after, with a bomb striking in the centre of Bangkok killing 20 and maiming many more, and just recently a bomb exploding in the Philippine city of Davao, where President Duterte had previously served as mayor.

In Cambodia, the nation's Prime Minister Hun Sen has openly accused the US of attempting to subvert political stability around the globe. This was in reference to opposition groups the US State Department is now using to pressure the Cambodian government after its decisive shift away from US interests toward Beijing.

In essence, while the US announced its "pivot" toward Asia, Asia itself appears to be pivoting away from the US. Thus, the incident on the tarmac in Hangzhou is a microcosm of what is taking place across Asia, an unwillingness of locals to further capitulate to American exceptionalism, and an ungraceful America unable to recognise or adapt to this shifting geopolitical reality.

In the end, America with its hegemonic hubris will ensure that it is fully pushed out of Asia, missing what is perhaps a final opportunity to readjust its relationship with the region away from adversarial domination toward something more equitable, proportional and constructive.

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

Syria "Transition Plan" Lacks Legitimacy, Turkish Invasion Faces Quagmire

September 10, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Western media has now repeatedly reported on a so-called "transition plan" unveiled in London by what it calls the "High Negotiations Committee" (HNC) - a group Western media outlets refuse to identify, enumerate, or discuss behind their superficial headlines.

The BBC in its article, "Syria conflict: Opposition unveils transition plan," would claim:

The umbrella group representing Syria's political and armed opposition factions has set out a plan for a political transition to end five years of war. 

The High Negotiations Committee (HNC) proposed holding six months of negotiations with President Bashar al-Assad, accompanied by a full ceasefire. 

Mr Assad would then hand over power to a unity government that would run Syria for 18 months and organise elections.

This lack of information regarding who the HNC actually is comprised of is not due to the fact that Western media outlets do not know, but precisely because they do know - and including this information in articles about their "transition plan" would undermine its legitimacy.

The majority of the committee do not even reside in Syria and have little to no ties with actual militant groups fighting on the ground there. Those armed groups that do continue to fight, are now openly operating under the umbrella of US State Department designated foreign terrorist organization Jabhat Al-Nusra - Al Qaeda in Syria - and have done so since a failed offensive attempting to break the Syrian government's encirclement of Aleppo last month.

In essence, this is a "transition plan" proposed by a fictional opposition committee that has no power in Syria, and should Syria and its allies be irresponsible enough to accept such a plan, they would be negotiating with irrelevant players hiding abroad while failing to address the very realities on the ground in Syria itself.

It is a recipe for compounding the conflict, not ending it.

Irresponsible to Negotiate With HNC

The HNC is a creation and perpetuation of US and European interests, not that of the Syrian people, or even that of armed groups fighting in Syria.

Syria and its allies are already engaged in negotiations with various groups inside of Syria on the ground, negotiating partial ceasefires, disarmament and withdrawals, and even, by the BBC's own admission, the releases of prisoners captured by the government during the war.

Image: Syrian forces have once again completely encircled Aleppo after a brief and partial breakthrough made by thousands of armed militants in a concentrated but ultimately defeated attack. 

It is the fact that these negotiations will eventually end the war in favor of Syria and its allies and not Western interests that the West has attempted to expand and intensify the conflict as well as propose "transitions plans" through its fictional opposition committee in London.

However, the Syrian government's negotiations already ongoing reflect the reality on the battlefield of a Syrian government and people backed by its allies incapable of being toppled as was done in Libya and neighboring Iraq. The vast majority of the Syrian people currently live in government held territory with - even in 2013 - only 15-20% of the population remaining in areas held by militants.

The Carnegie Middle East Center, in a 2015 interview titled, "The Political Geography of Syria�s War: An Interview With Fabrice Balanche," would reveal:

In the October 2013 issue of the French online journal OrientXXI, you published an essay on how the divided political space of Syria is being represented on maps: �L�insurrection syrienne et la guerre des cartes.� There, you provided rough estimates for the share of Syria�s territory and population held by each of the major politico-military camps. At the time, you had calculated that 50�60 percent of the population inside Syria�but somewhat less of the physical territory�remained under the control of Assad and his allies, while the various Sunni Arab insurgent groups controlled 15�20 of the population and the Kurds had perhaps 5�10 percent. The remainder consisted of people residing in contested areas.

Since 2013, more cities and territory have been retaken by the Syrian government, including some of the largest, most populated cities in the country meaning that even fewer people today exist in areas held by militants supposedly represented by the HNC.

The West's insistence that Syria negotiate with and hand the nation over to fractured, violent armed groups clinging to corners of the country and who now operate openly under the banner of Al Qaeda, is a strategy formulated by those seeking Syria's destruction, not its salvation. It is also a strategy that would render the nation as hopelessly divided and destroyed as Libya now lies today.

Turkey's Invasion of Syria and the Quagmire that May Await

The only pressure Syria and its allies now face to accept such an unfavorable deal lies not in the actions of "Syrian" groups on the ground, but in an ongoing invasion being conducted by NATO-member Turkey in northern Syria.

However, with Turkish troops now in Syrian territory, the ability for Syria and its allies to wage a more open proxy war against Turkish troops as they drive deeper into Syrian territory may avail itself, bleeding Turkey's forces in protracted combat and opening the door to Kurdish uprising within Turkish territory itself.

Should Syria and its allies remain patient in the face of Turkey's execution of a US-designed "safe haven," the worst possible outcome is a forward staging zone from which militants can refit and rearm before launching further attacks into Syrian territory, particularly against Aleppo. There are logistical and military limits to how far and how long Turkey can operate inside Syria and limits to the fighting capacity of militants it will be providing cover for.

While Turkey claims it is attempting to confront terrorists of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), it is in fact rushing in to preserve their final logistical corridor. With Turkey claiming it has now sealed the border, should ISIS maintain its fighting capacity within Syria, this will suggest that ISIS supply lines have been preserved, even expanded by Turkish forces.

It should be noted that Russian airpower had been striking logistical routes throughout Turkey's so-called "safe haven" specifically to disrupt ISIS supply lines flowing out of Turkish territory. In reality, should Turkey have truly desired to collapse ISIS' fighting capacity, it should have done so by disrupting its camps, command centers, and logistical hubs inside Turkish territory.

That it has chosen instead to use ISIS as a pretext to launch a long-desired incursion into Syria aimed at toppling the Syrian government - not fighting "terrorism" - complicates and compounds the Syrian conflict and in no way is contributing toward its peaceful resolution.

Image: Two Turkish tanks are destroyed in a single attack in northern Syria, illustrating the violent and costly quagmire Turkey now faces as it attempts to enforce and maintain a "safe haven" in seized Syrian territory, a quagmire Syria and its allies can complicate and expand at any time of their choosing. 

The balance now hangs in Syria and its allies' ability to confound Turkish forces and disrupt logistical operations emanating from its so-called "safe haven." As this "safe haven" expands, Turkish forces will be forced to spread out. The inability to concentrate forces while attempting to maintain such an expansive "safe haven" provide the prefect conditions within to wage unconventional warfare against Turkish forces and the militants they are harboring.

While US policymakers and their Turkish executioners pose as having made a "power move" in Syria, they have prepared the grounds instead for a protracted quagmire - should Syria and its allies choose to transform it into one, and a quagmire that may in and of itself become a bargaining chip in the near future.

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

US-Philippines Row Widens: Philippines Reminds US it is a Sovereign Nation

September 6, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was prompted to remind the United States that the Philippines is a sovereign nation after the US announced its intentions to lecture him regarding his handling of crime in an upcoming meeting that has since been cancelled by the US. 

CNN's article, "After cursing Obama, Duterte expresses regret," would report that:

White House officials previously said Obama would confront Duterte about his country's handling of drug dealers, including extrajudicial killings, which are government executions without the benefit of judicial proceedings. 

"Who does he think he is? I am no American puppet. I am the president of a sovereign country and I am not answerable to anyone except the Filipino people," Duterte scoffed in a speech Monday. "Son of a bitch, I will swear at you."

It is the latest in a series of recent incidents that have marked a widening row between Washington and its former colonial territory of the Philippines, afforded "independence" only as recently as 1946 and having seen an ebb and flow of coercive US influence and military presence on the island nation in the decades since.

Since President Duterte came to power, US plans to use the Philippines as a proxy in a growing conflict with China have been derailed.


A US-led "international tribunal" regarding China's claims in the South China Sea, allegedly heard on behalf of the Philippines, was rejected not only by Beijing, but received little enthusiasm even in the Philippines itself. The Philippines and the majority of ASEAN refused to use strong language in a joint regional statement regarding the South China Sea dispute, rendering American efforts to escalate the conflict impotent.


In mid August 2016, President Duterte condemned US Ambassador Philip Goldberg as meddling and lacking resolve for having involved himself in discussions regarding campaign debates ahead of elections that saw Duterte brought into power.

US Concerns Over Human Rights Beg Belief 
CNN's article and the White House itself attempts to convince the public that US concerns regarding the Philippines and any pressure perceived to be placed on Manila revolve around "human rights" and more specifically, around the subject of "extrajudicial killings." CNN reminds readers such killings are "executions without the benefit of judicial proceedings."



Yet the public, particularly in Asia and in the nation of the Philippines itself, may sense a lack of sincerity regarding these concerns. This is mainly because the United States itself has been conducting a global campaign of extrajudicial killings, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as in North Africa and the southern Arabian Peninsula in regards to years of drone strikes on "suspected terrorists," or in other words, "executions without the benefit of judicial proceedings."

Also in regards to human rights, the US' intentional deception to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 has cost tens of thousands of people their lives, displaced or otherwise disrupted the lives of millions more and has left not only Iraq in ruins, but the entire region in perpetual conflict since.

There is also the matter of systemic torture employed by the US military and intelligence agencies both in Iraq and other theatres of operation, as well as in facilities scattered around the globe maintained specifically for the detainment and torture of suspects denied "judicial proceedings."

Also worth considering is the United States' geopolitical and military relationship with Saudi Arabia, a renowned state-sponsor of terrorism, a regional aggressor currently devastating neighbouring Yemen with an inexhaustible supply of US and European weaponry and a world leader in human rights abuses which include a judicial system and public beheadings that appear to have been the very inspiration for the notorious terrorist organisation, the Islamic State.

In this context, President Duterte's comments, however undiplomatic, are not entirely unjustified. While the matter of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines is certainly a serious concern, it is clearly not a genuine concern for the US who has committed itself to its own systematic and global violation of human rights on a scale dwarfing that of the Philippines' recent crackdown.

US "Concerns" a Pretext for Coercing Region into Confrontation with China

The United States is clearly, cynically using the crackdown as a pretext to apply pressure on the Philippines in order to exact concessions regarding other matters, especially in regards to Washington's desire to expand the conflict in the South China Sea using the Philippines as a proxy to do so.

Conflict with China in no way benefits the Philippines or the rest of Asia. Asian states find within the region the majority of their economic trade and development, with China, not the United States, serving as the fulcrum upon which economic prosperity pivots upward. Disrupting stability in the region will collectively weaken Asian states, allowing the United States to reassert its gradually waning "primacy" in the region.

Quite clearly, no Asian state will voluntarily capitulate to American designs aimed at provoking conflict, destabilising the region and costing Asia collective economic and geopolitical progress simply to allow a foreign power to reassert itself regionally.

Thus, the US seeks various means, generally feigned concern regarding "democracy" and "human rights," to pressure respective nations back into line. Failing that, increasingly confrontational tactics are employed, including US support of subversive, even violent political opposition groups, economic sanctions and even terrorism. The latter of these tactics will likely be visited upon the Philippines for its latest and most dramatic act of defiance yet, both more frequently and on a greater scale through the use of terrorists sponsored by the above-mentioned US ally, Saudi Arabia.

Asia's progress depends on collective stability, and to maintain that stability requires a collective response to coercion by foreign powers, particularly the United States and Europe. In decades and centuries past the West has succeeded in dividing nations within and against one another to divide and rule over entire regions of the planet. Today, there stands an opportunity for Asia, particularly ASEAN, to balance the region internally to discourage regional players from coercing or interfering in another's affairs, and protect the region collectively from coercive threats from abroad.

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