What the Philippines Says Vs. What it Does

October 30, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has been identified as a menace to US foreign policy in Asia Pacific by both his supporters and his opponents. For his supporters, he is propped up as a hero of "anti-imperialism," while his detractors claim his leadership incites instability, is nonconstructive and is leading his Southeast Asian state to ruin.

The truth, however, exists somewhere in between.

A look at the Philippines within Southeast Asia reveals a nation that has long existed within America's geopolitical and economic sphere, but also a nation more recently emerging from that sphere, pulled into the political and economic orbit of Beijing and in a wider sense, an increasingly influential and growing Asia.

The Philippines eventually replacing its various, compromsing dependencies on Washington is inevitable. Whether or not President Duterte's recent rhetoric is proportional to the Philippines' actual ability to replace these dependencies in the immediate and sweeping manner he has suggested is another matter entirely.

The necessity to compromise the Philippines' sovereignty and independence in exchange for economic ties with the United States clearly is no longer in Manila's best interests. Its trade with China and other Asian states far outweighs its trade with the United States.


Exports from the Philippines, for example, primarily remain in Asia, nearly two-thirds in fact. Exports to the US account for only about one-sixth of the Philippines' exports. This is not insignificant, but it is clearly disproportionate to the political and economic influence the US seeks to wield both in Asia and in the Philippines specifically.

Nor is the need to continue depending on the United States to "underwrite" the Philippines' security in the region necessary, especially since such "underwriting" generally involves protecting Manila from confrontations Washington itself intentionally provokes with the Philippines' neighbours, including China. No clearer example of this can be seen than the recent Philippines-China row in the South China Sea, where the United States itself assembled a team of American and British lawyers to represent Manila in what it called an "international tribunal" which predictably ruled against Beijing in Manila's favour.

The tribunal sought to inflame the confrontation, and bring it from a simple bilateral issue, to an increasingly serious international confrontation meant to isolate Beijing.

What the Philippines is Actually Doing... 

President Duterte's rhetoric has been extreme, however the steps the Philippines is actually taking have been much more measured and proportional.

In regards to trade, the Philippines is on a natural trajectory to continue closing in with Beijing and the rest of Asia. Militarily, it also benefits the Philippines to incrementally remove US troops from its territory, scale back joint exercises, particularly those intentionally carried out to provoke Manila's neighbours as well as seek new sources for cheaper and more reliable military hardware.

In terms of America's showpiece conflict in the South China Sea, the Philippines has already distanced itself from Washington's strategy of confrontation, encirclement and isolation in regards to Beijing and has instead attempted to resolve the issue bilaterally with Beijing itself. The expensive and time-consuming "tribunal" the United States organised for the Philippines has all but been thrown to the wayside as a result of this.

The Philippines' shifting ties in Asia Pacific are more a matter of practicality than ideology. If practical matters dictate that the Philippines maintains some ties to the United States, it will do so. This is because despite shifting closer to Asia in general, the Philippines still has many economic and political ties to Washington that will be difficult to simply "cut" in the short-term. In the long-term, practical alternatives need to be created and incrementally implemented.

There is also a large number of Philippine political and business leaders who have no interest in severing ties with the United States, ties they directly benefit from and ties that they do not see alternatives to with a Philippine pivot toward Beijing and the rest of Asia.

This political and economic bloc, however small, will receive increased support from the US to place pressure on Manila to slow down or even reverse its shifting ties. This can already be seen across various media platforms in and beyond the Philippines, as well as within the government itself.

Patience and Pragmatism 

President Duterte's rhetoric is meant to stir up public support more than actually signal his nation's real intentions. Other nations throughout Asia are also pursuing a "pivot" away from the United States and its attempts to reassert itself in Asia Pacific. However, they are doing it quietly, incrementally and are attempting to make whatever concessions they must with Washington to stave off large-scale, concerted attempts to destabilise or even overturn political order in each respective nation.

The Philippines has a long journey ahead of itself in establishing a more independent and self-sustaining nation state. It faces not only countervailing forces it must navigate amid Beijing and Washington's ongoing jockeying for regional power and influence, but also internal challenges to overcome.

Should President Duterte place increased substance behind his extreme, often shifting rhetoric, and change tack toward more pragmatic and consistent policies, he may be able to enjoy the best of both worlds, popular support, and improved leverage for his nation amid a tumultuous time.

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

Irony Redefined: "Human Rights Champion" Suu Kyi Jails Dissidents

October 28, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Myanmar's defacto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi of the  National League for Democracy (NDL) political party, has paved her time since coming to power earlier this year with both irony and hypocrisy. She has not only illegally declared herself "leader" of the Southeast Asian state in contravention of its constitution, she has also embarked on an iron-fisted purge of her political opponents identical to the one she fought against as she struggled to seize power to begin with.

During elections earlier this year, Myanmar's constitution prevented Suu Kyi from holding the nation's highest office due to her inordinate amount of time overseas, her status of having been married to a foreign, and her children's dual citizenship. Instead of adhering to the law, her party once in power, simply contrived an entirely new post for her, State Counsellor of Myanmar, which makes her the "defacto leader" of Myanmar.

Canada's The Globe and Mail in an article titled, "St�phane Dion says Aung San Suu Kyi is the �de facto� leader of Myanmar," would note that Canada's government recognized this legal side-stepping, stating:

Dion called Suu Kyi, now Myanmar�s foreign minister, �the de facto national leader� of her country �because they have a strange rule that if you have married somebody who�s not of the country, you cannot be the leader of the government and of the state.� 

Suu Kyi, the internationally recognized democracy advocate, is barred from becoming president because her late husband was British, as are her two sons. The rule was crafted during Myanmar�s decades of military rule, which Suu Kyi fought against during years of house arrest before finally prevailing last fall.

In essence, she is unelected, and illegally holding power. For a woman who's Western backers - particularly in the United States and United Kingdom - have held her up as a champion for democracy and the rule of law, she and her party's first act upon taking power was trampling both.

The Inhumane Humanitarian  

Another myth built up around Nobel Peace Prize laureate Suu Kyi by the West has been her advocacy for "human rights." Her advocacy for human rights, however, appears only to extend out to protect only as far as her immediate political allies are concerned. For groups beyond this self-serving political protection, and particularly regarding her political opponents, she and her NDL are just as eager to jail, crush, or kill political opponents as they claimed the ruling military government had been.

In addition to escalating violence targeting the nation's Rohingya's population, several activists online have been sent to jail for "insulting" the ruling government and Western-backed media fronts and organizations.

Myanmar's Eleven Media Group (EMG) in its article, "Facebook offender brought to court for insulting Suu Kyi," attempted to distance what Suu Kyi and her political supporters had once called draconian censorship as now, a simple matter of enforcing the law. It would state:

A Facebook user named Zaw Zaw (aka Nga Pha) was brought to the North Dagon Township court on October 24 to face prosecution for his defamatory posts about State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi. 

He has been charged under Section 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law. 

�He�s being sued for defamatory writing and photos about the State Counsellor [posted on Facebook],� said plaintiff Nay Myo Kyaw, a 34-year-old resident of North Okkalapa Township. 

Around 50 people showed up at the hearing wearing shirts affiliated with a group called the Network of Supporters of the Rule of Law. They shouted: �You deserved it for insulting a good person.�

The article also admits:

The Myawady Township Court sentenced Aung Win Hlaing (aka A Nyar Thar), the first man to be prosecuted under the current government, for defamatory posts on Facebook about President Htin Kyaw, to nine months in jail after he was convicted under Section 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law. 

Aung Myint Tun (aka Ko Pho Htaung), a member of the National League for Democracy, is still facing legal action under the same law for the wording of a resignation letter. 

Another man named Yar Pyay was arrested and is being prosecuted for creating a fake Facebook account under the name of Nay Myo Wai, the chairman of Peace and Diversity Party. 

Hla Phone was also arrested and is being prosecuted for defamatory posts on Facebook about the Commander-in-Chief.

EMG - ironically awarded for its work in opposing the previous military-led government by Reporters without Borders - would also admit that it itself had taken advantage of Myanmar's laws to silence its own critics, claiming:

Eleven Media Group (EMG) also filed complaints about repeated defamatory posts on Facebook against the group. Though EMG lodged complaints against film director Mike Tee, who is the owner of a Facebook account named Than Tun Zaw, and another Facebook user named Myat Maw for offensive posts about the group and its staff, the legal process has yet to begin. EMG lodged the complaints on January 27 and March 31 this year.

One would expect such a tidal wave of abuse - as defined by the West in regards to media, governance, and censorship around the world - to be met with sweeping condemnation from the West's various human rights advocacy organizations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a no doubt embarrassed Reporters Without Borders - yet the silence is as deafening as it is telling.

Taking Over Where Accused Dictators Left Off 


The West's champions of democracy, rule of law, and human rights in Myanmar appears to have simply taken over right where Suu Kyi and her NDL party had claimed the military-led government left off. And despite the overt nature of Suu Kyi's breaches of Western standards of "democracy" and "human rights," the US is on track to lift all sanctions from Myanmar as Suu Kyi and her government open the nation, its people, and its resources to exploitation by Western corporations.

The overt nature of both the West's and Suu Kyi's hypocrisy illustrates that "democracy," "rule of law," and "human rights" are merely facades behind which the West and its proxies wield their power - hiding behind such principles rather than truly upholding them. And in reality, such behavior undermines these principles more than any overt abuse by an openly  tyrannical regime ever could - because genuine advocates thus become associated with hypocrites like the Western governments supporting the current regime in Myanmar, their faux-nongovernmental organizations aiding and abetting the regime, and proxies like Suu Kyi and her NDL themselves.

International audiences must keep this example of hypocrisy in mind as the West attempts to overturn other governments in Southeast Asia and beyond under similar pretexts and using similar rhetoric - supporting supposed "pro-democracy" and "pro-human rights" advocates who have every intention of trampling both upon seizing power.

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

Avoiding Conflict in Asia Pacific's Waters

October 27, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - A look at a map of Asia Pacific, and one sees that it is a region dominated by bodies of water. Namely there is the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Andaman Sea, the Philippines Sea, the South China Sea and numerous gulfs, bays, straits and smaller seas.

Several nations are in fact described as "island nations." Commerce by sea between and beyond Asian nations factors in as an important geopolitical and economic issue each nation must face. There is also fishing as well as gas and oil extraction performed throughout Asia's waters.

It is no surprise then that across Asia, many disputes surface between nations regarding the use of Asia's waters. Unlike on land, enforcing borders and perceived claims across seas and oceans is infinitely more difficult. Despite this, Asian states have resolved these issues through bilateral resolutions both for individual cases and in a more general sense. Very rarely do these disputes escalate toward serious or enduring confrontations, and more rarely still do they result in actual conflicts.

If an external force sought to destabilize Asia, it would likely seek several vectors including fostering confrontations over the use of Asia's waters.

The United States in particular, has cultivated a multinational, multifaceted confrontation in the South China Sea for this very purpose, attempting to pit nations like Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and even nations removed from the sea, all against China. Minor, isolated disputes that could otherwise be resolved through bilateral relations directly with Beijing, have now been consolidated into a larger and growing confrontation prodded forward by the involvement of the United States, its military forces and its attempts to involve international institutions.

By doing so, Asia is being destabilized. The vast majority of Asia's economic activity unfolds within Asia itself. While exports and imports from beyond Asia are no doubt important as well, instability in Asia would be a threat to nation security and undermine economic stability for each respective state, whether they were directly involved in the South China Sea row or not.


For this purpose, Asia must resolve itself to settling disputes regarding the use and exploitation of Asia's waters bilaterally between nations before such disputes evolve into confrontations or conflicts. External forces seeking to escalate tensions and exploit them geopolitically must be removed from the region through a series sanctions by both individual nations, and by the region collectively.

When the Philippines drastically changed tack from a growing confrontation between Manila and Beijing driven by US military and political actions, and toward bilateral negotiations between Manila and Beijing (excluding the United States), regional stability breathed a marked sign of relief.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Rodrigo Duterte and Xi Jinping Agree to Reopen South China Sea Talks," would note:

President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and China�s leader, Xi Jinping, agreed on Thursday to resume direct talks on disputes in the South China Sea after years of escalating tension, a sign of warming relations with Beijing. 

The announcement came during Mr. Duterte�s state visit to China, as he repeatedly sought to distance the Philippines from the United States, a treaty ally. Mr. Duterte, speaking to business leaders shortly after meeting with Mr. Xi, openly declared a �separation from the United States.�

Economically and politically, Asia was to gain nothing, and perhaps lose everything had the US-backed confrontation continued to spiral out of control. While it is unlikely that the Philippines will immediately "separate" from the US, Manila's actions to discard a policy of confrontation for one of bilateral communications with Beijing certainly diminished US influence in the region.

A Balance of Power 

Within Asia, to ensure one nation does not find itself exercising unwarranted power and influence over another, a balance of power must be established through a commitment by all nations to develop strong economies, formidable armed forces and skillful diplomatic corps so that it is easier for feuding parties to make equitable concessions than to escalate toward confrontations and conflict.

For China, emerging as both a regional and global power, it is incumbent upon Beijing to avoid overreaching and thus encouraging its neighbors to seek out external powers for support and the instability they bring with them. America's military presence across the Asia Pacific region is today predicated on "underwriting security" in the region and advertised as a means of keeping Beijing in check. A Beijing openly willing to pursue equitable bilateral resolutions with other nations in the region regarding use of its waters creates an Asia the US has no justification for keeping its military in.

In the short-term, individual Asian states may see an opportunity to gain from US-backing amid disputes throughout Asia's waters, however the instability that will result when such disputes inevitably escalate, will cost all of Asia its collective stability and as a result, its collective prosperity.

 Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

US Attempts to Shame Asia for "Caving to China"

October 24, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It is becoming clear that US influence - despite its "pivot toward Asia" - is waning across the Asia Pacific region. Washington has suffered geopolitical setbacks in virtually every nation in Asia Pacific, including those now led by regimes it has meticulously organized, funded, and backed for decades. It is also waning, however, among those nations considered long-time and crucial US allies.

This includes Southeast Asia's Thailand, whom the US repeatedly reminds the world has been Washington's ally since the Cold War and America's war in Vietnam, and allegedly, even before that.

Washington's Waning Influence is Based on Floundering Fundamentals  

However, in reality, Thailand has incrementally dismantled American influence over it, and has diversified its trade and cooperation with a large variety of nations - including China - as a means of depending on ties with no single nation in particular.

Thailand's economic trade is focused primarily within Asia, with the majority of its imports and exports divided equally between China, Japan, and ASEAN, with the West collectively representing a smaller - though not insignificant - market.



It is no coincidence that Thailand's geopolitical ties thus reflect its economic ties around the world - revealing that economic and sociopolitical realities are driving intentional relations regardless of the vast array of "soft power" means at Washington's disposal.

A look at Thailand's military inventories reveals a similar strategy of diversifying weapon acquisitions and partnerships as well as developing systems through indigenous industry. What used to be a military dominated by American hardware and military exercises, is transforming with the acquisition of Chinese tanks, European warplanes, Middle Eastern assault rifles, Russian helicopters, and Thai-made armored vehicles - as well as joint drills held with a variety of nations, including for the first time, China.

A similar shift is occurring throughout the rest of Asia, with China naturally assuming a large share of regional cooperation due to its geographic, economic, and demographic size.

Asia's transformation was entirely predictable, and despite the fact that the United States attempted to "contain" China and preserve its influence throughout the rest of Asia, it did so ignoring the fundamentals of economics and sociopolitical factors, and instead focused on coercion through "trade deals," compromising military "alliances," and the creation and perpetuation of artificial strategies of tension both within targeted nations and between Asian states.

More Gimmicks Instead of Fixing Fundamentals 

The United States, indifferent apparently to the factors that have led to its decline in Asia Pacific, has decided to double down on "soft power" gimmicks rather than examining and improving its economic fundamentals.

This includes the use of programs aimed at co-opting cadres of "young leaders" in the region to promote US interests and attempt to reverse politically the gains Asia has made economically and geopolitically.

It also includes a relentless propaganda campaign aimed at portraying nations throughout the region as capitulating to Beijing on a variety of issues that are transparently in the entire region's best interests.

A op-ed in the Bangkok Post - a newspaper literally created by the US government - titled, "Wong saga backfires on regime," attempts to argue that the recent deportation of a US-funded agitator from Hong Kong back to China symbolizes Bangkok's "caving in" to China's "every whim."

The article claims:

The 12-hour detention of well-known Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong at Suvarnabhumi airport has backfired on the military regime as criticism has poured in from local and international human rights activists over Thailand's excessive accommodation of Beijing's demands. 

The op-ed then enumerates several other recent deals made between Bangkok and Beijing, claiming they too were made strictly to accommodate Beijing. They include the deportation of suspected terrorists to China who were bound for Turkey and likely on their way to join international terrorist organizations operating in neighboring Syria.

What's Good for China is Good for Asia 

In reality, Joshua Wong was admittedly attempting to enter Thailand to help sow the same US-backed instability in Bangkok he led in Hong Kong. He was specifically meeting US-backed agitators in Bangkok who form one of several fronts attempting to seize back political power for parties backed by and tied to Washington.

Thus, the move to deport Wong back to China was in both Beijing and Bangkok's best interests.

Likewise, the deportation of terror suspects to China benefited both nations as well. Had Thailand continued serving as a conduit for terrorists bound for Syria - and should Syria eventually collapse under pressure from US-armed terrorists - it will lead to global instability that will reverberate across all of Asia, affecting both China and Thailand.

US attempts to destabilize China - the primary trading partner for nations across the entirety of Asia - is a direct threat to the entire region, not just Beijing.

It is not "caving in" to Beijing to ensure stability prevails and that the US is unable to repeat the "success" of its efforts to stir up political instability in North Africa and the Middle which has led to region-wide war, the death or displacement of tens of millions, the socioeconomic collapse of entire nations, and the potential for wider and more direct war across several regions of the planet.

A final irony the Bangkok Post omits amid its transparent propaganda is the fact that absent of China's interests, Asia has for decades been made to "cave" to Washington's every whim. It should be no surprise that a newspaper founded by a former US intelligence officer and funded by the US State Department would exhibit in its editorial pages the same sort of shameless exceptionalism that the US itself exhibits upon the international stage.

However, it is a corrosive, counterproductive "exceptionalism" Asia has collectively decided to move on into the future without.

The sooner Washington can recognize and accept this, the sooner it  can rationally realign its relations with Asia toward something tangibly more constructive. While Washington will have to accept Asia as an independent and self-driven region as well as a significant competitor, it can decide whether that competition is healthy and constructive, or unfolds in an atmosphere of confrontation and perpetually impending war.

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

America's Ironic "Two-Faced" War on Terror

October 23, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Rarely ever does hypocrisy align so succinctly as it does within the pages of American policy and media coverage. US policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, recently provided an extreme example of this in a paper titled, "A convenient terrorism threat," penned by Daniel Byman.

The paper starts by claiming:

Not all countries that suffer from terrorism are innocent victims doing their best to fight back. Many governments, including several important U.S. allies, simultaneously fight and encourage the terrorist groups on their soil. President George W. Bush famously asked governments world-wide after 9/11 whether they were with us or with the terrorists; these rulers answer, �Yes.�

Some governments�including at times Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan among others�hope to have it both ways. They use the presence of terrorists to win sympathy abroad and discredit peaceful foes at home, even while fighting back vigorously enough to look plausible but not forcefully enough to solve the problem. This two-faced approach holds considerable appeal for some governments, but it hugely complicates U.S. counterterrorism efforts�and the U.S. shouldn�t just live with it.

Byman then begins labelling various nations; Somalia as a "basket-case," Iran as a "straightforward state sponsors of terrorism" and attempts to frame Russia's struggle against terrorism in Chechnya as somehow disingenuous or politically motivated.

Byman also attempts to claim Syrian President Bashar Al Assad intentionally released terrorists from prison to help escalate violence around the country and justify a violent crackdown, this despite reports from Western journalists as early as 2007 revealing US intentions to use these very terrorists to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran specifically, the New Yorker would reveal.

The US is as Much a Sponsor of Terrorism in Reality as Byman Claims Others are in Fiction

But worse than Byman's intentional mischaracterisations and lies of omission regarding US allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel's overt, global-spanning sponsorship of terrorism, is the fact that not only is the US itself engaged in sponsoring terrorism as it poses as fighting against it globally, the Brookings Institution and Byman have specifically and publicly called for the funding, training and arming of designated foreign terrorist groups in pursuit of self-serving geopolitical objectives.

(Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution.)

Indeed, Daniel Byman is one of several signatories of the 2009 Brookings Institution report, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran."

The report not only reveals the blueprints of using supposedly "peaceful" and "democratic" protests as cover for violent, US sponsored subversion (as was precisely done in Syria beginning in 2011), it specifically lists a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organisation as a potential US proxy in violently rising up against, and eventually overthrowing the government in Tehran.

The report would explicitly state (our emphasis):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American. 

In contrast, the group�s champions contend that the movement�s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group�s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK�s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

The report then admits MEK's status as a designated foreign terrorist organisation and that it has targeted and killed both American officers and civilians in the past (our emphasis):

Despite its defenders� claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

The Brookings Institution also admits in its report that undoubtedly MEK continues to carry out undeniable terrorist activity against political and civilian targets within Iran, and notes that if MEK is to be successfully used as a US proxy against Iran, it would need to be delisted as a foreign terrorist organisation (our emphasis):

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks�often excused by the MEK�s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership�s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

And eventually, that is precisely what was done. MEK would be delisted by the US State Department in 2012, announced in a US State Department statement titled, "Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq," which noted:

With today�s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK�s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. 

The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members. The Secretary�s decision today took into account the MEK�s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

MEK's inability to conduct violence in the decade preceding the US State Department's decision was not because of an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but a matter of strategic limitations placed on the terrorist organisation by Iraqi and Iranian security forces who were determined to liquidate it and who forcibly disarmed the group.

(Members of the MEK terrorist organisation in Camp Ashraf, Iraq) 

And even if the 2012 US State Department decision was based on an alleged decade of nonviolence, the policymakers at the Brookings Institution who signed their names to "Which Path to Persia?" including Daniel Byman, certainly did not apply the same criteria in suggesting its use as an armed proxy.

In all likelihood, had Iraq and Iran not successfully cornered and disarmed the group, it would be fighting America's proxy war against Tehran on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border. MEK fighters would be carrying out US-backed armed violence against Iran and Iraq side-by-side other US-backed terrorist groups operating across the region as part of America's current proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.

Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution's latest paper even at face value is disingenuous, full of intentional mischaracterisations meant to direct attention away from the US and its closest allies' own sponsorship of terrorism amid a very much feigned "War on Terror." Understanding that Byman quite literally signed his name to a policy paper promoting the arming and backing of a US State Department designated foreign terrorist organisation makes his recent paper all that more outrageous.

What is also as troubling as it is ironic, is that Byman not only signed his name to calls for arming a listed terrorist organisation, he was also a staff member of the 9/11 Commission, according to his Georgetown University biography. A man involved in sorting out a terrorist attack who is also advocating closer cooperation with listed terrorist organisations is truly disturbing.

The political and ethical bankruptcy of American foreign policy can be traced back to its policy establishment, populated by unprincipled hypocrites like Byman and co-signatories of Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?" The US certainly cannot convince other nations to abandon an alleged "two-faced" policy of promoting and fighting terrorism simultaneously when it stands as a global leader in this very practise.

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

US Seeks to Exploit Thailand's Transition to Destabilize Asia

October 21, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The passing of Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej marks a historical, cultural, and geopolitical event of yet unknown proportions. His time as Thailand's head of state spanned decades, and the stabilizing progressive nature of his reign has transformed Thailand into an economically and culturally significant center of power within Southeast Asia and in Asia itself.

With his passing, the Western media, long attempting to undermine him in life, took the opportunity to defame him in death, claiming he resided over a "divided" nation bound to unravel with his passing.

They also took the opportunity to defame and distort the character of King Bhumibol Adulyadej's heir, Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn.  Despite the baseless gossip and speculation about the Prince's private life, his public life has been marked with distinction in service to the nation, serving as a special forces operator in combat along Thailand's borders, a trained pilot, and a regular figure presiding over public functions.

Like his father, the Prince's role in Thai society is not determined by the Western media and the perception they dishonestly try to foster before their intentionally ill-informed audiences, but by the Thai people themselves. And during the days of mourning following the late King's death, it has become abundantly clear that the vast majority of Thais are committed to preserving their ancient institutions, understanding them by far more deeply than the Western media has presented.

Undeterred, the West, and the United States specifically, seeks an opportunity to disrupt and destabilize Southeast Asia as a means of disrupting China's growing influence in the region as well as Beijing's growing ties to its regional neighbors.

Already cultivating opposition fronts and faux-nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) region wide, funded by the US State Department itself, the US believes that Thailand is experiencing a vulnerable moment of weakness it can use to create a domino effect of destabilization across the entire region.

The CFR "Sees" Instability Coming, or Advocates it?   

US corporate-financier funded Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Joshua Kurlantzick fashions himself a geopolitical analyst.  However he has been categorically wrong about virtually every paper he has written while "analyzing" and "predicting" the course of events in his area of specialty, Southeast Asia.

And while he may fashion himself as an analyst for whatever reason, it is clear that he is instead a policy advocate as well as a reliable bellwether for US attempts to destabilize various states in Southeast Asia.

In his most recent paper, "Thailand�s New Uncertainty," he "predicts" that Thailand's current transition will lead to wider instability across Asia. In his paper, he claims:

Bhumibol�s death further destabilizes an already unstable region. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is mired in a corruption scandal, while former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad recently founded a new political party, which may ally itself with longtime opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim�s party, despite Mahathir having once purged Ibrahim from the government. Until national elections, Malaysian politics will likely get messier, and potentially more repressive. 

In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte, in power since June, has sent shockwaves across Southeast Asia by denouncing the US, inching closer to China, and calling for the end to American-Philippine joint military exercises. Moreover, Duterte has launched a drug war that has brought on a wave of extrajudicial killings.

Kurlantzick predicates his entire analysis regarding Thailand on the demonstrably false narrative of a "divided" Thailand featuring the" rural poor" constituting an aspiring majority on one side, and an "elitist" minority clinging to power on the other.

Both in 2011 and again in 2013-2014, Kurlantzick's narrative was put to the test and failed both times. In 2011, elections may have propelled the sister of US-backed, ousted ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra into power, but election results revealed that Shinawatra's party failed to receive even a popular majority, and out of all eligible voters, fewer than 35% of the voting population cast votes in favor of him.

Image: While the Western media repeatedly portrays Thailand's opposition as a "majority," in reality, they are a violent, unpopular, but load minority. Without the US financial, political, and media backing, they would not exist. 

In 2013-2014 when massive street protests sought the ousting of Shianwatra's sister who openly ruled as a proxy for her brother, Shinawatra failed to produce an equal or greater number of protesters to secure his sister's political power.

In reality, Kurlantzick's "opposition" constitutes a violent, unpopular, but load minority, feared for their proclivity toward terrorism, and reviled for their disruptive behavior. Like other US-backed opposition fronts in the region and around the world, they are only made to appear a "majority" through the influence of the Western media and the financial support of the US government.

It should be noted that Kurlantzick is not a lone voice repeating this narrative. It has been repeated ad naseum for years across the entirety of the Western media, and with the King's passing, amplified even greater.

Asian Instability, A Parting Gift From a Waning Empire 

If Asia is to be destabilized "serendipitously" in service of American desires to disrupt and roll back China's growing influence as well as a trend toward greater regional independence from Asia's Transpacific neighbor, it will be a product of not genuine internal strife across the region, but a manifestation of US-backed political parties, US-funded NGOs and media organizations, and the Western media itself sowing ignorance, fear, and division among all who read and believe their message.

Image: US seeks instability across Southeast Asia as means of serving its larger agenda of undermining and rolling back China's influence in the Asian Pacific region and in the world. 

For Asia to ensure stability to not only preserve economic growth, but as a matter of regional and respective national security, greater effort must be placed in reining in foreign-funded NGOs, regulating a foreign media increasingly engaged in open lobbying rather than journalism, and efforts to displace them with superior, effective media networks serving national and regional interests rather than aspiring toward Western approval and integration.

The United States is engaged in increasingly dangerous behavior worldwide as the boundaries of its global-spanning hegemony chaff against multiple emerging regional and world powers. For Asia, and having witnessed the cost of inviting regional instability in North Africa and the Middle East, there is no choice but to take what steps are necessary to head off this agenda before it is even set in motion.

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

What Washington Really Wants in Syria

October 19, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - When the United States announced that it would be abandoning "peace talks" with Russia regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria, many had already dismissed them as disingenuous.

The Washington Post in an article titled, "U.S. abandons efforts to work with Russia on Syria," would claim:

U.S.-Russia relations fell to a new post-Cold War low Monday as the Obama administration abandoned efforts to cooperate with Russia on ending the Syrian civil war and forming a common front against terrorists there, and Moscow suspended a landmark nuclear agreement.

The Washington Post would also admit however, in regards to Russian allegations that the US categorically failed to separate militants it has been backing in the 5 year long conflict and universally-designated foreign terrorist organisations, that:

Russia�s version of the sequence of events mandated by the deal is �explicitly not true,� a senior administration official said. �Separation was not step one,� but was supposed to occur after seven days without major violence. The Russians, the official said, have �constantly tried to move the goal posts.�

This admission made by US policymakers, politicians and the Western media all but admits that the US has never prioritised confronting terrorism in Syria and has been using the presence of terrorist organisations merely as a pretext for more direct Western military intervention. In fact, by acknowledging that Western-backed militant groups are indistinguishable and inseparable from designated terrorist organisations including Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, Jabhat Al-Nusra, the US is all but admitting it is intentionally arming and equipping the terrorists themselves.


This explains the apparently inexhaustible resources terrorist organisations like Al-Nusra possess and why they have risen to prominence above so-called "moderate rebels" the US and its allies have repeatedly claimed they were funding hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the conflict.

It appears that the answer to the question as to how Al-Nusra could rise to prominence in Syria despite "moderates" receiving hundreds of billions in aid from the US and its allies is that there were never any moderates to begin with, and that the US and its allies were arming and funding terrorist organisations, including Al-Nusra, since the conflict began.

It also appears to be no coincidence that this scenario now openly unfolding in Syria fulfils warnings published by Western journalists as early as 2007 (Seymour Hersh, The Redirection) in which it was revealed that the US was already at that time providing material support to extremist organisations "sympathetic to Al Qaeda" toward the end goal of overthrowing the governments of both Iran and Syria.

While the US now claims Russia has sabotaged US efforts to bring an end to hostilities in Syria, Washington is also illogically attempting to argue that the failure of its feigned "peace talks" has also somehow prevented the US from targeting terrorists organisations in Syria, the alleged pretext of America's presence in Syria to begin with.

Despite strained relations with Russia, the US is still cooperating with Moscow regarding the use of Syrian airspace to avoid unintentional confrontations. While the cessation of hostilities may have collapsed, is there really any excuse as to why separating designated terrorist organisations from militant groups the US and its allies are providing billions in weapons and equipment to is still not an absolute and urgent priority?

The answer is, no � there is no excuse. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say, it is simply an excuse for the US to continue funnelling men and materiel into Syria Washington knows with absolute certainty will end up in the ranks of Al Qaeda, whom the US admittedly intended to use as early as 2007 to overthrow the Syrian government with.

What Washington Really Wants in Syria 

Beginning in 2001, the United States has systematically destroyed the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, while either directly or indirectly laying waste to the nations of Sudan and Somalia. The nation of Iran was also subjected to multiple attempted provocations and US-driven subversion since 2001.

While the United States has created narratives for the public to serve as apparently "unique" and independent justifications for each and every one of these conflicts, often predicated on averting a "humanitarian disaster" or pursuing "terrorists" and even preventing "weapons of mass destruction" from being used against the West and its allies, America's serial blitzkrieg across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia are part of a singular, admitted agenda.

US Army General Wesley Clark, in a 2007 Flora TV talk titled, "A Time to Lead," would reveal this singular agenda by relating a conversation he had as far back as 1991 with then US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, by stating (our emphasis):

I said Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. And he said, well yeah, he said but but not really, he said because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't. And this was just after the Shia uprising in March of 91' which we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the side lines and didn't intervene. And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us. 

And indeed, even from 1991 onward, the goal of US intervention across the planet has been to establish deeply-entrenched global hegemony before another rising world power could balance American geopolitical domination.

Fast forward to today, with the US on the brink of war with Russia in Syria, and with China in the South China Sea, the United States has run out of time and finds the leading edge of its hegemonic ambitions chaffing against a reemerging Russia and a rising China.

So while Washington has concocted an array of excuses as to why it is involved in Syria's conflict, running the full gambit from  fearing "weapons of mass destruction" to fighting terrorists to addressing humanitarian concerns, the reality of America's involvement in Syria boils down to the pursuit of the latest and most desperate leg of its rush to dominance before emerging world powers reintroduced balance and limits to Western hegemony.

It is therefore incumbent upon the world to reject Washington's various excuses for intervening in Syria, expose the truth driving its involvement in (and responsibility for) the conflict, confront Washington regarding its state sponsorship of terrorist organisations it itself has designated as such and bring the Syrian conflict as well as America's latest "growth spurt" to an abrupt end.

Global peace and stability depends on bringing this decades-long global power-grab to an end, in an atmosphere of conflict and confrontation many fear may even lead to a direct confrontation between nuclear-armed states.

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

Why is the Passing of Thailand's King a Big Deal?

Image: Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

October 16, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The passing of Thailand's head of state, the 88 year old King Bhumibol Adulyadej, marks a historically significant event in Thailand's history. For most Thais, they have known only one king their entire life - King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

The significance of Thailand's monarchy to Thai people is difficult for Westerners to understand. Unlike Western monarchies who rule from above, Thailand's monarchy has historically ruled through service to the people. It is in recognition of this service that drives hundreds of thousands of Thais into the streets of Bangkok to participate in the beginning of funeral rites this week.

The depth and scope of this service includes not only the political boundaries and stability the monarchy provided when politicians and political parties clashed within the nation, but also service in driving long-term infrastructure projects regarding irrigation, energy, and agriculture shortsighted politicians refused to pursue.

Many aspects of Thai agriculture, from the introduction of new crops to the concept of cooperatives and localizing rice mills, were introduced through initiatives promoted and funded by the Royal Family itself. King Bhumibol Adulyadej's royal palace in Bangkok was many years ago converted into a demonstration and training center where today, foreigners and Thais alike can augment their skills and diversify their economic activity.

Politically, the monarchy's ability to reside above contests of political power and the deep respect Thais hold for the institution, creates a set of boundaries that have prevented dangerous - even violent political struggles - from expanding into the sort of destructive conflicts seen previously in neighboring Cambodia or currently expanding across the Middle East.

For Thailand's enemies who seek to undermine political stability or overthrow Thailand's political order, their primary obstacle and thus target has always been the nation's revered, powerful monarchy. The passing of Thailand's Bhumibol Adulyadej presents a perceived vulnerability Thailand's enemies will undoubtedly seek to exploit to weaken Thailand and thus by doing so, disrupt regional stability.

Thailand's Importance to Southeast Asia 

Thailand is a prominent Southeast Asian nation, home to 70 million people, a dynamic and diverse economy ranging from agriculture to manufacturing, and remains the only nation in the region to have eluded Western colonization.

It has played a pivotal role throughout history, leveraging colonial powers against one another before the World Wars, a battlefield during World War 2, a contributing  factor to France's loss of Indochina and host to US military forces during the Vietnam War.

Since the conflict in Vietnam, Thailand has slowly and incrementally pivoted away from its role in US regional hegemony toward a more balanced place in the region.

Today, as the US performs its own "pivot toward Asia," Thailand's geopolitical shift has become even more pronounced as it seeks to evade US pressure, influence, and domination.

Thailand's arsenal - once dominated by aging American hardware - now hosts Chinese, Russian, European, and even Middle Eastern defense systems. The nation strives to cultivate multiple relationships so as to not be dominated or overly dependent on any single one of them - which has been the key to Thailand's longstanding sovereignty throughout history.

Currently, Thailand along with the rest of Southeast Asia, serves as a source of trade and cooperation with Beijing. Contrary to popular belief, both China and Southeast Asia conduct the majority of their trade within Asia itself. The stability of the region is therefore essential to each and every nation within the region.

For the US who seeks to encircle and contain China, the destabilization of the region is key to hindering China's rise and preventing the all but inevitable waning of US "primacy" in Asia Pacific.

Attacking along China's peripheries, either by coercing, destabilizing, or overthrowing and replacing the governments of China's neighbors in Southeast Asia is essential to eventually coercing, destabilizing, or overthrowing and replacing the government of China itself.

Target Thailand 

Thailand is just one of several nations currently being destabilized by the US. For each nation in the region, the US pursues similar strategies with only minor differences depending on socioeconomic and culturally factors. The presence of US-funded opposition groups and a virtual army of faux-non governmental organizations (NGOs) exist in each and every nation in Southeast Asia.

In Thailand in particular, the primary target is Thailand's monarchy and its military - two institutions the US sees as obstacles to ever placing an obedient client regime into power. The US believes this precisely because over the past 15 years, through their proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, they have tried and failed to seize power by proxy because of two military coups and massive street protests organized by Thais rallying around their historical institutions.

Image: In 2013-2014, protesters rallied against US-backed proxy Thaksin Shinawatra and his political party. The protests ended in a military coup that ousted Shinawatra's sister from office. Since Shinawatra's removal from power, the US has stepped up efforts to undermine and destabilize Thailand politically.

The average Thai is acutely aware of - if not the current geopolitical and domestic political dynamics of Thailand's present - the fact that the military and monarchy now and throughout Thailand's ancient history have been the primary reason the nation remains unconquered.

Attacks, or perceived attacks on either of Thailand's revered and respected institutions is perceived by the vast majority of Thais as an attack on Thailand itself.

Thus, throughout the media, those networks including CNN and the BBC who regularly and intentionally target the military and monarchy are reviled by Thais. In 2010, when CNN corespondent Dan Rivers mischaracterized street violence carried out by Thaksin Shinawatra's political party, Thais campaigned against CNN until Rivers was eventually sent home.

Today, the Western media seeks to exploit the sensitive transition period as Thais mourn the passing of King Bhumibol Adulyadej - and have already launched a campaign to undermine the heir, Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn.

Making or Breaking Relations with Thailand

Those networks perceived as exploiting or disrupting Thailand's sensitive transition will immediately be identified by Thais as "enemies" of not only the monarchy, but the nation it has historically served.

For Westerners who live in nations where institutions from as large as government to as small as family are mired in dysfunction, the concept of an entire nation existing as a large "extended family" is alien to them. However alien such a concept may be, the consequences of misunderstanding this concept can cost some nations their influence and standing, not only in Thailand but in Southeast Asia in which Thailand resides a central and influential nation.

Image: The West's inability or unwillingness to support Thailand during this sensitive time is their loss, and China's gain.

A recent article published by Russia's RT, for example, will undoubtedly be perceived by Thais as a collective attack on them. While the article was likely written, edited, and published by a handful of unprofessional journalists - citing the US State Department and paid lobbyists - it will inadvertently reflect poorly on Russia collectively. Just like CNN and the BBC are reviled and the national influence of the US and UK negatively affected by their actions in Thailand and Asia, careless networks in Russia like RT will become a vector of similar backlash directed at Russia itself if such unprofessionalism is not rectified.

Those nations whose media avoids sensationalism and gossip, as well as verified US-engineered propaganda, will come out the other side of Thailand's transition a stronger ally than ever. It appears out of all nations and regions, it will be China and Thailand's other Asian neighbors who enjoy this status, while the West and even Russia appear disinterested or incapable of fostering closer ties.

Should the West as well as Russia seek better ties with Thailand, they must take the time to carefully understand the nation and shape policy to meet it, rather than insist on imposing cultural, political, and economic prejudices entire empires throughout history have tried and failed to impose upon the Thai people.

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

Thailand: The Truth Before the Storm

Before Western lies begin, what you need to know about this critical moment for Thailand.


October 13, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Thailand is a pivotal nation centered amid Southeast Asia and commanding a prominent economy with a large population. It played a pivotal role during the US war in Vietnam, but has since then incrementally diverged from serving US hegemony in Asia.

As of now, Thailand has clearly and decisively performed its own "pivot" away from Washington and toward a diverse portfolio of alternative ties, including with Beijing and Moscow. Its military inventory has been incrementally transformed from housing aging American hardware to Russian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, and even Swedish weapon systems. It also is increasingly cooperating closer with China regarding economics and regional security, a role the US has presumed a monopoly over for decades.

In fact, Thailand has diverged so much so that its political stability has now become the regular target of US efforts to undermine it. This includes through economic and sociopolitical attacks, as well as through covert means up to and including terrorism.

The key to Thailand's political stability, despite fierce infighting between rival special interests and political camps throughout the nation's ancient history, has been the nations much revered and unique monarchy. Knowing this and seeking to undermine stability in Thailand, and thus undermine yet another ally of Beijing and Moscow, the United States through its media has pursued a campaign of disinformation to attack and destroy the monarchy, hoping Thailand emerges exponentially weaker after the current head of state, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, passes on from advanced age.

The True Nature of Thailand's Monarchy

Unlike Western monarchies, Thailand's historically possesses an entirely different social contract between its head of state and the people. Despite superficialities cited by dishonest Western commentators to portray the Thai people as subservient - like prostration and a prayer-like gesture known as a "wai" - much of the symbolic respect Thais exhibit toward their king is identical to that which they exhibit toward their own parents, including both prostration and the "wai."

Image: Thai prostration is a sign of respect, not submission.

Both the monarchy itself and its "subjects" see themselves as a large family and a living sociocultural expression of Thai culture and history. The role Thailand's king has served historically to rally and unite the Thai people has contributed to the fact that Thailand is the only nation in Southeast Asia to escape European colonization - and is perhaps another reason why the West is so determined to eliminate this institution.

The Western media intentionally exploits both culturally differences between East and West as well as their audiences' general ignorance to paint Thailand's institutions in the most negative light possible.

An Institution That Serves, Not Merely a Throne to Sit 

The kings of Thailand have historically served the role as living founding fathers - for 800 years - pushing the nation forward through difficult transitional periods politicians were unable or unwilling to navigate the country through themselves.

This includes the abolition of slavery, a period of technological modernization similar to Japan's Meiji Restoration, and the current king's lifetime of work toward promoting socioeconomic self-sufficiency to combat encroaching globalization and the immense debt and disparity it sows.

The current king of Thailand has focused specifically in developing models, techniques, and importing and promoting crops to help Thai farmers avoid debt, diversify their economic activity, and avoid exploitation at the hands of "middlemen" who obstruct farmers from direct access to markets.

He has also ceaselessly promoted the construction of national infrastructure, particularly in regards to dams and waterways to generate renewable energy, control flooding, and provide more reliable irrigation for farmers - projects often neglected by politicians who either direct money elsewhere toward more short-term and popular projects, or misappropriate the funds altogether.

There are also demonstration stations constructed at the expense of the royal family across the country imparting skills upon farmers regarding alternative energy, value-added processing for their crops, and new skills they can diversify their economic activities with.

Images: Thailand's monarchy has constructed demonstration stations across the country providing free training to help farmers with value-added processing for their basic crops. Training not only includes how to process and pack goods, but access to markets as well. 

Farmers who have utilized these ideas and resources have managed to weather the worst of what the global economy and the corruption of "elected" politicians in Thailand have subjected the nation to - including the disastrous 2011-2013 rice subsidy scheme enacted by the US-backed political party of Thaksin Shinawatra that left over a million farmers unpaid and in crippling debt.

Ultimately, analyzing Thailand must be done by observing ideas, institutions, principles, and their actual results rather than obsessing over the superficiality of titles and historical, culturally prejudices. Just as Thailand's monarchy has and for the time being has broken the mold of Western expectations regarding "kings," Thai opposition parties backed by the US and masquerading as "Marxists" while serving a corrupt, exiled billionaire lodging in Dubai grossly misrepresents actual Marxism.

Being armed with the truth, particularly at a very difficult and sensitive period in Thailand's modern history, will help understand the importance of Thai politics and their impact on regional and global geopolitics and prevent special interests from exploiting interests to advance their goals at the expense of entire nations, peoples, and even regions.

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

US Hypocrisy: Preaching Human Rights, Inviting Mass Murderers as Guests

October 12, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - On October 6, Los Angeles' Loyola Marymount University invited ex-Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra to give a talk on the subject of �The Secret of Reducing Poverty and the Rich-Poor Gap: The Power of Political Will." The Los Angeles Loyolan newspaper in an article titled, "Los Angeles LoyolanVisit from former Thai PM causes controversy," reported that:

There is, however, some controversy regarding his visit. Shinawatra governed Thailand from 2001 to 2006 until a military coup pushed him out on accounts of corruption, abuse of office for personal gain and several other convictions. 

According to LMU�s Asia Media website, Shinawatra was exiled from Thailand in 2006 and is considered a fugitive by many. He is widely criticized by Thai students, families and citizens across the country. Because of this, Shinawatra�s presence on campus this Thursday sparked controversy among Thai students at LMU. 

The students interviewed asked to be kept anonymous due to fears about personal safety when stating their opinions on the former prime minister.

Thai students in California were right to fear for their safety. While in power, Shinawatra mass murdered upward to 3,000 people, including thousands during a 90-day "drug war" in 2003, over 80 protesters in a single day in 2004 and a wide range of political opponents and activists.

After being ousted from power in 2006, Shinawatra would deploy heavily armed militants in Bangkok in 2010 and again in 2013 and 2014 in a violent bid to seize back and hold political power. Over 100 would die during the violence.

In addition to Shinawatra's appetite for violence, he was also immensely corrupt. He was charged and convicted for abuse of power and sentenced to 2 years in prison. He fled the country and has not returned since, thus living abroad as a fugitive. In 2011, his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, would run in controversial elections openly as his proxy, then attempted to rewrite Thailand's laws to exonerate her brother and return him to power.

It was also between 2011 and the military coup that ousted her  from power that a disastrous rice subsidy scheme used to secure Shinawatra the election began unravelling. At one point, just before being ousted from power, upward to a million impoverished farmers had already transferred their rice to government mills, but were left without subsidy payments for over 6 months. In fact, farmers were not paid until the military seized control and mobilised emergency funds.

Considering Shinawatra's violence, corruption and his sister's trampling of impoverished farmers the Shianwatra family used to win the 2011 elections, it was a strange choice by the US State Department to admit Shianwatra into the United States, let alone have an American university host him for a talk about "reducing poverty."

US Hypocrisy in Focus 

The United States, as it hosts a mass murdering convicted criminal, has predicated alleged concerns regarding Syria's ongoing conflict on concerns regarding "human rights." In light of America's apparent indifference to Shinawatra's human rights abuses, it is clear that the United States is merely using humanitarian concerns in Syria as a pretext to pursue a more self-serving objective.

Likewise, the US is using concerns regarding an ongoing "war on drugs" in the Philippines to place pressure on Manila for an assortment of geopolitical concessions. However, Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte must be forgiven for not taking America's concerns seriously, considering the hospitality another Southeast Asian leader is enjoying despite putting upward to 3,000 people to death in the streets extrajudicially in just 90 days without trials or even warrants.

Shinawatra's most recent acts of violence took place between 2013-2014 when armed militants he deployed carried out deadly attacks on protesters who sought his sister's ouster from public office.

There is also the matter of rule of law. The United States claims that nations like China in the South China Sea are beholden to the "rule of law," yet it has transparently discarded it by ignoring Shinawatra's convictions, the fact that his passport has been revoked by his home nation and the fact that he faces multiple warrants for his arrest by a nation the US claims is America's ally, but refuses to honour.

China might be forgiven for sensing a certain degree of flexibility within the "rule of law" considering the ample room the United States finds for itself to manoeuvre.

Despite US grandstanding as leading a self-proclaimed "international order," it is abundantly clear that whatever this "order" represents, it floats freely of any definite principle and is defined by whatever is convenient for Washington and its interests at any given moment. Such an "order" seems to work contra to the best interests of the vast majority of the planet's population, and such shifting principles seem more like hypocrisy than a reliable framework within which global business can be conducted.

The US, through acts of hypocrisy like Shinawatra's recent visit to Los Angeles, reaffirms the necessity of ushering in a multipolar international order, the diminishes any one nation's power upon the global stage, and makes flagrant abuses of common principles like that which the US regularly demonstrates less frequent and less severe.

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