US "Downs" Legitimacy After Claims of Downing Iranian Drone

July 20, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The US boasted of downing an Iranian drone over the Strait of Hormuz, admittedly in international waters, just miles off Iran's coast, and thousands of miles from Washington.

It claims the drone was "threatening" a US amphibious assault ship, the USS Boxer.

The Washington Post in its article, "Trump says the U.S. Navy downed an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz," would claim:

A U.S. naval ship downed an Iranian drone that flew too close and ignored multiple calls to turn away, President Trump said Thursday, as tensions between the United States and Iran appeared to be rising once again in the Persian Gulf region. 

Speaking at the White House, Trump said the drone came within 1,000 yards of the USS Boxer in the Strait of Hormuz before the crew “took defensive action” and “immediately destroyed” it.

An AP article titled, "US warship downs Iranian drone in Hormuz Strait," noted that (emphasis added):

The Pentagon said the incident happened at 10 am local time on Thursday in international waters while the Boxer was transiting the waterway to enter the Persian Gulf. The Boxer is one of several US naval ships in the area, including the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier that has been operating in the nearby North Arabian Sea for weeks.

The claims come nearly a month after Iran shot down a US drone - an RQ-4A Global Hawk - operating near Iranian shores, also in the Strait of Hormuz.

At the time, the US condemned Iran's move claiming it had downed the drone over international waters. Now - the US openly claims it has shot down an Iranian drone over international waters. The overt hypocrisy is intentional. The US has been attempting to goad Tehran into an armed conflict for years with US policy papers openly admitting as much.

A 2009 Brookings Institution paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," would openly admit (emphasis added):

...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.  

Apparently, the US is no longer concerned about whether or not the world recognizes this game and is doing everything in its power to goad Iran into miscalculating and granting the US justification for a long-desired and much larger conflict with Tehran.

Did the Iranian Drone Really Threaten the USS Boxer? Was it Even an Iranian Drone? 

As with most deliberate provocations - the recent US claims of downing an Iranian drone came with minimum details and no evidence at all. Not even the type of drone was mentioned by the Washington Post or AP.

Claims that the drone came within 1,000 yards of the ship and was disabled through electronic jamming indicates it was most likely an off-the-shelf drone used for photography and in no way posed a threat to the USS Boxer.

Iranian media - for its part - claims the US most likely shot down their own drone, and denies Iran was operating any of its own drones in the area at the time. Iran's PressTV in an article titled, "US may have shot down own drone in Persian Gulf, Iran says of Trump’s claim," would claim:

Iran has rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim that a US warship had shot down an Iranian Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) in the Strait of Hormuz. 

“We have not lost any drone in the Strait of Hormuz nor anywhere else,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araqchi said in a tweet on Friday. 

“I am worried that USS Boxer has shot down their own UAS by mistake!”

What is certain is that even if it were an Iranian drone, it couldn't have posed more of a threat to the USS Boxer than America's military presence in the Middle East poses to its inhabitants - a region where the US has repeatedly bombed, invaded, currently occupies or is waging war by proxy against multiple nations including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and indeed - Iran itself.

British Hijack Iranian Ship: Another Day, Another Provocation

July 17, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Had Iran openly hijacked a vessel of any nation, for any reason, plying through waters anywhere on Earth, the US and its allies would immediately cite it as a provocation toward war.

In fact, even without evidence, suspiciously timed attacks carried out last month on tankers passing through the Persian Gulf were cited by Washington and London as a pretext for increased pressure on Tehran despite the attacks appearing staged by the West itself.

Now in a display once again illustrating just who the actual menace is to global peace and stability, the British have openly - even proudly - hijacked a ship carrying Iranian oil allegedly bound for Syria.

The Guardian's article, "Iran fury as Royal Marines seize tanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria," would report:

Royal Marines have helped seize an Iranian supertanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria off the coast of Gibraltar, escalating tensions between the UK and Tehran as the agreement aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear programme unravels. 

A detachment of nearly 30 British troops working with the Gibraltarian police intercepted the vessel, believed to be carrying 2m barrels of oil, in a dramatic manoeuvre Spain said had been conducted at the request of the US.

The article would quote the British ambassador to Iran who claimed:

[The UK] welcomes this firm action by the Gibraltarian authorities.

 As to why the UK believed it was justified to hijack the Iranian tanker - the article would cite "sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad" the UK and EU placed on Syria - which are in themselves illegal and an act of war.

Stealing Ships from Stolen Land to Enforce Illegal Sanctions 

The UK's presence in Gibraltar itself is a point of contention between London and Madrid.

Spain does not recognize British claims over the tiny piece of land located at the furthest tip of the Iberian Peninsula. The British presence is one of its many holdovers from its imperialist past. The British presence gives the UK a choke point over the Strait of Gibraltar and all shipping passing through it.

The fact that the British are using the disputed territory of Gibraltar to hijack ships or that the London Guardian is trying to depict it as an operation undertaken while "working with the Gibraltarian police" - when the "Gibraltarian police" are nothing more than functionaries representing London itself - provide a clear illustration of how foreign policy, media, and crimes against international law are being coordinated, justified, and sold to the public by Washington and London.

While Iran has regularly threatened to impede shipping through the Stait of Hormuz in retaliation to Western military aggression - it has never acted upon these threats - reserving them as a means of last resort.

The British and Americans - on the other hand - have literally implicated themselves in disrupting "freedom of navigation." 

The US and UK both pose as international arbiters and underwriters of what they call "the freedom of navigation" of the world's seas. They regularly accuse nations like China of impeding such "freedom" in the South China Sea - using these accusations as an excuse to build up a military presence off China's shores - thousands of miles from their own shores.

They have also regularly cited Iran's "threats" to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz as another reason Iran should be further pressured, sanctioned, and its government ultimately removed from power.

Yet by hijacking Iranian ships, or likewise intercepting North Korean vessels, or the ships of any nation based on sanctions unilaterally and illegally imposed by Washington, London, and Brussels implicates the West themselves as the primary threat to the very "freedom of navigation" of the world's seas they claim to uphold.

Provoking War 

From Western policy think tanks to policymakers and politicians themselves - the West has all but admitted it is trying to goad Iran into war.

Sanctions, Western-sponsored terrorism aimed at Iranian territory itself, and provocations - like the recent hijacking of an Iranian tanker - all aimed at Tehran - are moves seeking to trigger a response from Iran that will justify even wider Western economic sanctions and military aggression.

And if Iran fails to provide such a provocation, one might be staged and blamed on Iran anyway.

These are the actions of outlaw nations presiding over a fading international order - one fading specifically because it is so transparently unjust, lopsided, and disruptive toward global stability. It has persisted for so long solely through the maxim of "might makes right."

The British stealing ships from stolen land to enforce illegal sanctions is a vulgar display of "might makes right," but one that may possibility be reaching its expiration.

The countervailing multipolar order emerging across Eurasia has an opportunity to oppose this flagrant provocation - not merely on Iran's behalf - but to erode the impunity that will allow the US and UK to target the ships of other nations in a similar fashion if afforded impunity to do so to Iran now.

For Tehran, it will need to continue exhibiting "maximum patience" while enduring Washington and London's "maximum pressure" campaign - avoiding the traps both have laid out for Tehran as they attempt to bait the nation into war and change their failing fortunes in the Middle East and around the globe.

The British - still a thorn in the side of global peace and stability despite losing most of its empire - presents us with a preview of what to expect from America even long after it fades as sole global hegemon. Learning to put the UK's recent provocations in check now will help develop the tools necessary to put in check its future provocations - and those the US will find itself also depending on more and more often in the future.

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

BBC Says China Building Schools is "Bad"

July 14, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - China's recent building-spree of schools in its underdeveloped and remote region of Xinjiang - in a saner world - would be good news. But for editors at the BBC it is being depicted as sinister and dystopian.

The BBC's article, "China Muslims: Xinjiang schools used to separate children from families," attempts to depict boarding schools - a concept popular in the UK itself - as a "form of interment" and "cultural re-engineering."

The BBC's article claims:

China is deliberately separating Muslim children from their families, faith and language in its far western region of Xinjiang, according to new research. At the same time as hundreds of thousands of adults are being detained in giant camps, a rapid, large-scale campaign to build boarding schools is under way.

The "new research" conducted by the BBC is admittedly not even being done in China itself. The BBC admits:

China's tight surveillance and control in Xinjiang, where foreign journalists are followed 24 hours a day, make it impossible to gather testimony there. But it can be found in Turkey.

"Testimony" gathered in Turkey - one of the nations abetting US efforts to fuel radicalism and separatism in Xinjiang in the first place - is accompanied by satellite photos taken from outer space of vacant lots in Xinjiang being transformed into newly built schools complete with football pitches and jogging tracks.

The images are only proof that China is building schools in Xinjiang. Not of any of the claims being made by the BBC of "internment" or "cultural re-engineering." The inclusion of the images is meant to serve as convincing stand-ins where actual evidence of the BBC's otherwise baseless accusations should be.

The BBC Omits the Real "Cultural Re-Engineering" in China's Xinjiang 

The BBC has been one of the leading voices promoting claims of Xinjiang "concentration camps," "one million Muslims" being detained, and now the "internment" of children in schools.

The BBC - however - has been relatively quiet for years over genuine cultural re-engineering taking place in Xinjiang - funded by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and abetted by nations like Turkey and even the UK itself through its propaganda and political support of such efforts.

The LA Times in a 2016 article titled, "In China, rise of Salafism fosters suspicion and division among Muslims," would reveal:

Salafism is an ultra-conservative school of thought within Sunni Islam, espousing a way of life and prayer that harks back to the 6th century, when Muhammad was alive. Islamic State militants are Salafi, many Saudi Arabian clerics are Salafi, and so are many Chinese Muslims living in Linxia. They pray at their own mosques and wear Saudi-style kaffiyehs.

The article also noted (emphasis added):

Experts say that in recent years, Chinese authorities have put Salafis under constant surveillance, closed several Salafi religious schools and detained a prominent Salafi cleric. A once close-knit relationship between Chinese Salafis and Saudi patrons has grown thorny and complex.

 And that:

...Saudi preachers and organizations began traveling to China. Some of them bore gifts: training programs for clerics, Korans for distribution, funding for new "Islamic institutes" and mosques.

This pervasive radicalism has translated directly into real violence - another fact omitted completely from the BBC and other Western media coverage of events in Xinjiang.

China's efforts to reverse the growing influence of Salafism - such as collecting deliberately mistranslated copies of the Koran published and distributed by Saudi Arabia to promote radicalism - have been depicted by the Western media as religious oppression with all context intentionally omitted.

That the BBC claims China building schools teaching Mandarin and Chinese culture in China is "cultural re-engineering" while overlooking Saudi Arabia building Salafist networks thousands of miles away from its borders fuelling very real extremism in western China to begin with - helps fully reveal recent BBC reports on Xinjiang and China's Muslim community as pure propaganda.

Salafism as a Geopolitical Tool 

Not only does the BBC intentionally omit mention of extremism and violence in regions like Xinjiang or how it came to be, the BBC is also omitting the fact that Salafism itself was admittedly spread worldwide by Saudi Arabia as a geopolitical tool.

In the pages of the Washington Post, the Saudi Crown Prince would recently admit:

Asked about the Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism, the austere faith that is dominant in the kingdom and that some have accused of being a source of global terrorism, Mohammed said that investments in mosques and madrassas overseas were rooted in the Cold War, when allies asked Saudi Arabia to use its resources to prevent inroads in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union.

Wahhabism is closely related to Salafism and the terms are often used interchangeably. The Crown Prince's admission refers specifically to the Cold War and the Soviet Union, but it is abundantly clear that these networks didn't simply vanish with the collapse of the Soviet Union, they evolved.

They are now used to help feed extremists into Washington's many proxy wars around the globe including in Libya and Syria. They are also being used to pressure nations across Asia and to create a pretext for a continued US military presence in Asia-Pacific.

Cambodia Warns of Foreign Regime Change "At Any Cost"

July 10, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - US and European-driven regime change efforts persist even in Asia where socioeconomic progress and stability have been on the rise. So persistent are these efforts that regional leaders have openly warned about them recently.

Reuters in its July 4th article, "Cambodian PM says those seeking 'regime change' risk return to war," would claim:

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, whose government is accused of suppressing human rights, said on Thursday that foreigners were risking returning his country to war through what he called stirring up turmoil and seeking regime change.

The article also stated (my emphasis):

Cambodia had risen from poverty to becoming a lower middle income country, and it aimed to graduate to the upper middle income by 2030 and high income by 2050, he said. But some groups and institutions maintained “a single political agenda of regime change at any cost”, Hun Sen added. 

Reuters would continue by reiterating claims that the current Cambodian government is guilty of a variety of abuses including "trying to silence dissent" according to "U.N. experts" and the European Union.

What Reuters omits from its article is that virtually every aspect of this "dissent" is funded and directed by Washington.

Cambodian Dissent is Made in America 

Just as Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen alluded to, many of the "dissidents silenced" are media platforms literally run by foreigners. This includes the US State Department-funded and directed Voice of America and Radio Free Asia as well as the previously American-owned and operated Cambodia Daily newspaper.

There are also political entities like the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) whose members regularly operate out of Washington D.C. itself.

CNRP leader Kem Sokha has openly admitted to Washington's role in propping up his party and its bid to seize power in Cambodia not through elections, but through the same sort of destructive colour revolutions that have swept through Eastern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

The Phnom Penh Post in its article, "Kem Sokha video producer closes Phnom Penh office in fear," would go over the many admissions made by Kem Sokha: 

“...the USA that has assisted me, they asked me to take the model from Yugoslavia, Serbia, where they can changed the dictator Slobodan Milosevic,” he continues, referring to the former Serbian and Yugoslavian leader who resigned amid popular protests following disputed elections, and died while on trial for war crimes.

“You know Milosevic had a huge numbers of tanks. But they changed things by using this strategy, and they take this experience for me to implement in Cambodia. But no one knew about this.”

“However, since we are now reaching at this stage, today I must tell you about this strategy. We will have more to continue and we will succeed.”

Kem Sokha would elaborate further, claiming:

“I do not do anything at my own will. Their experts, professors at universities in Washington, DC, Montreal, Canada, hired by the Americans in order to advise me on the strategy to change the dictator leader in Cambodia.”

Beyond US-funded media and a political party virtually run out of Washington D.C., there are so-called nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) entirely dependent on US and European financial assistance and who use (some might say, abuse) "human rights advocacy" in a one-sided effort to advance the opposition's political agenda.

These include Licadho funded by USAID and the Cambodian Center for Independent Media (CCIM) funded by US National Endowment for Democracy-subsidiary the International Republican Institute, Open Society, the British and Australian embassies as well as Canada Fund.

Mentioning any of this would have given Cambodian PM Hun Sen's comments not only crucial context, but also obvious justification to both his government's concerns and the measures they've taken to combat this extensive foreign interference. Instead, Reuters elected to omit this information from their article.

US vs China: Smartphone Wars

July 7, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - If Washington's goal was to pressure and isolate China by targeting smartphone giant Huawei, it seems to have accomplished the exact opposite. In the process, the US has only accomplished in exposing its own growing weakness and unreliability as a trade partner amid a much wider, misguided and mismanaged "trade war."

While we're only talking about smartphones and economic competition, however fierce, the outcome of this smartphone battle amid a much wider trade war will have an impact on global power and who wields it in the years to come.

Losing Ungracefully  

By May 2019, Huawei had firmly climbed to the number two spot in global smartphone sales at the expense of US-based Apple. By the first quarter of 2019 it had shipped 59.1 million phones compared to Apple, now third place, at between 36-43 million phones, IDC (International Data Corporation) reported.

IDC and many other articles based on its data would note that while Huawei and Apple have traded places in the past over who held second place among global smartphone sales, Huawei's ascension this time seemed much more permanent.

Those watching the trajectory and inner workings of both tech giants will have noticed Apple's decline as endemic internal management problems coupled with growing global competition tattered its reputation and consumer appeal.

Was it just a coincidence that just as first quarter sales data emerged, the US announced one of its more dramatic turns amid its wider trade war with China? The Trump administration would announce a ban on all American-made goods to Huawei including microchips made by Intel and Qualcomm as well as the Android operating system (OS) made by US tech giant Google.

Coupled with this move was a public relations blitz across the US media and their partners working within nations moving closer to China. In Thailand, for example, local media trained and influenced by US interests attempted to undermine consumer confidence in Huawei in the wake of US sanctions against the company.

This one-two punch was a partial success. Sales did slump and Huawei was faced with significant obstacles. But significant obstacles are not the same as insurmountable obstacles, and overcoming obstacles is often how true competitors strengthen themselves.

What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger 

For Huawei, a tech giant integral to China's wider economic and political success upon the global stage, it has all the resources and support it needs to weather the toughest of storms.

In the wake of US sanctions, and even in the lead up to them, Huawei has begun to source critical parts from non-US companies. It is also investing significantly in its own in-house alternatives to US manufactured microchips and even in an alternative OS to replace Android.

Digital Trends in its article "Huawei’s Android-alternative operating system: Everything you need to know," helps illustrate just how determined Huawei is to overcome these obstacles.

The fact that work on the OS supposedly began as early as 2018 indicates that Huawei executives are under no illusions regarding American goodwill. If America is to play nicely with Huawei and other Chinese companies, it will be because Huawei and other Chinese companies took steps leaving the US no other choice but to do so.

Why is The Financial Times Smearing Thailand?

July 2, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Southeast Asia has become a defacto battleground for the wider war waged between the United States and an emerging China.

The nation of Thailand, possessing the second largest economy in ASEAN and a pivotal partner for China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has just emerged from turbulent elections in which US-backed "pro-democracy" parties were defeated both at the polls and in parliament leaving Thailand's military-linked political party in control.

As previously warned, the United States has no intention of simply accepting the defeat of its political proxies in Thailand. Instead, it has shifted toward undermining political and economic stability.

The bulk of this effort comes in the form of the Western media and associated "nongovernmental organisations" (NGOs) funded by the US and Europe but operating inside of Thailand.

An example encapsulating these efforts comes to us from the Financial Times. Its article, "Thailand remains the sick man of south-east Asia," published by "FT Confidential Research" attempts to portray Thailand as especially ailing economically.

Yet the narrative and graphs constituting the article are clearly manipulated to merely give the impression of a lagging economy, intentionally taking many facts out of context and dishonestly conflating different trends with Thailand's ongoing political developments.

While we all most likely understand the ability of influential media platforms to manipulate statistics to portray virtually any reality they wish to sell the public, it is still worth looking at just how FT does this in regards to Thailand and to understand why.

Regional GDP: Comparing Apples and Mangos 

FT claims:

Since 2014, GDP growth has limped along at an average 3.6 per cent, far slower than the other Asean 5 economies, which have expanded at rates of between 5 and 6.2 per cent in that time.

GDP growth depends on a many factors. It depends on domestic and global economics, the type of economy a nation possesses and the stage at which it is developing. More established economies have slower GDP growth. While their growth rates may be smaller than other nations, their GDP itself is larger.

For Thailand, despite having the fourth largest population in ASEAN, it possesses the second largest GDP.

It's economy and infrastructure is well developed and comparing its GDP growth to nations still in the process of achieving similar development is poor analysis.

Since the writers at FT are undoubtedly aware of this, their "poor analysis" is intentional, hoping to exploit the perceived ignorance of their readers while portraying Thailand's economy of "ailing" while conflating "limping GDP growth" with the current government.

Conflating Global Economic Trends with Thai Leadership 

Unless Thailand's Prime Minster Prayuth Chan-o-Cha is behind a global economic downturn, conflating his administration's policies with a decrease in exports and consumer spending is another example of FT's intentionally "poor analysis."

Worst of all, FT even admits that a weakening global economy was behind the slump, but still insists on blaming the current government for it anyway.

MH17: Turning Truth & Victims into Pawns

June 29, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - As the wreckage of Malaysian flight MH-17 laid scattered in eastern Ukraine, and many days before the first investigators even arrived on scene, the US had already blamed Russia and separatists it accused of aiding for the tragic downing of the passenger plane and the loss of all 298 people on board.

It would be a July 31, 2014 article by the BBC titled, "Ukraine MH17: Forensic scientists reach jet crash site," nearly 2 weeks after the aircraft's downing that would announce the arrival of forensic scientists at the crash site.

Yet as early as July 21, more than a week before investigators arrived, Newsweek in its article, "U.S. Report Outlines Evidence That Rebels Downed Flight MH17," was already claiming:

The U.S. State Department has outlined the evidence behind its assertion that Russia-backed separatists are responsible for the missile strike that downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17. In a statement posted on the website of the U.S. embassy to Ukraine, it said the flight was "likely downed by a SA-11 surface-to-air missile from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine."

The assertations made within the report were a summary of accusations the US leveled against Russia even earlier still.

An Australia's ABC would report a day before the investigators' arrival in eastern Ukraine that the US and EU had already leveled additional sanctions against Russia, spurred on by US accusations regarding MH-17.

The article, "MH17: US and EU to impose broad sanctions on Russia over support for Ukraine rebels; fighting keeps investigators from Malaysia Airlines crash site," would note:

The measures mark the start of a new phase in the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the Cold War, which worsened dramatically after the downing of MH17 over rebel-held territory on July 17. 

German chancellor Angela Merkel, who had been reluctant to step up sanctions before the crash because of her country's trade links with Russia, said the EU measures were "unavoidable".

Washington's accusations and its rush to leverage their impact on public and political circles at the time to pass further sanctions against Russia fits a pattern not of an impartial investigation or search for truth, but a cynical propaganda campaign carried out at the expense of both.

A Familiar Lack of Evidence...

The subsequent Joint Investigation Team (JIT) assembled to supposedly ascertain the truth behind the airliner's downing included among its member states, Ukraine. As others have pointed out, Ukraine was and still is a prime suspect.

Ukraine's decision not to close airspace over contested areas where military aircraft were already being shot down alone makes Kiev at least partially culpable for the loss of MH-17.

Expectations of honesty and cooperation from Kiev (berated by even its Western sponsors as being corrupt, abusive and inept) are unrealistic and their inclusion within the JIT undermines its credibility and any conclusion they reach, especially if that conclusion lacks substantial evidence to support it.

US "Color Revolution" Struggles in Hong Kong

June 27, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Western media has been boasting over recent protests in Hong Kong. Western headlines have claimed the protests have "rattled" Beijing's leadership.

The protests have been organized to obstruct Hong Kong's elected government from moving forward with an extradition bill. The bill would further integrate Hong Kong's legal system with that of mainland China's, allowing suspects to be sent to the mainland, Taiwan, or Macau to face justice for crimes committed anywhere in Chinese territory.

The protests oppose the extradition bill as a wider means of opposing Hong Kong's continued reintegration with China - arguing that the "One Country, Two Systems" terms imposed by the British upon Hong Kong's return under Chinese sovereignty in 1997 must be upheld.

Uprooting the Last Vestiges of British Imperialism 

The story of Hong Kong is one of territory violently seized by the British Empire from China in 1841, being controlled as a colony for nearly 150 years, and begrudgingly handed over to China in 1997.

The "One Country, Two Systems" conditions imposed by the British were a means of returning Hong Kong to China in theory, but in practice maintaining Hong Kong as an enduring outpost of Western influence within Chinese territory.  The West's economic and military power in 1997 left Beijing little choice but to agree to the terms. 

Today, the Anglo-American international order is fading with China now the second largest economy on Earth and poised to overtake the US at any time. With economic and military power now on China's side, it has incrementally uprooted the vestiges of British colonial influence in Hong Kong - the extradition bill being the latest example of this unfolding process. 

Beijing has reclaimed Hong Kong through economic and political means. Projects like the recently completed Hong Kong high-speed rail link and the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge have helped increase the number of mainlanders - laborers, visitors, and entrepreneurs - travelling to, living in, and doing business with Hong Kong. With them come mainland values, culture, and politics.

Hong Kong's elected government is now composed of a majority of openly pro-Beijing parties and politicians. They regularly and easily defeat Hong Kong's so-called "pan-democratic" and "independence" parties during elections. It is the elected, pro-Beijing government of Hong Kong that has proposed the recent extradition bill to begin with - a fact regularly omitted in Western coverage of the protests against the bill. 

US Color Revolution Masquerades as "Popular Opposition" 

Unable to defeat the bill legislatively, Hong Kong's pro-Western opposition has taken to the streets. With the help of Western media spin - the illusion of popular opposition to the extradition bill and Beijing's growing influence over Hong Kong is created.

What is not only omitted - but actively denied - is the fact that the opposition's core leaders, parties, organizations, and media operations are all tied directly to Washington DC via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and corporate foundations like Open Society Foundation. 

Hong Kong’s opposition has already long been exposed as US-sponsored. 

This includes the entire core leadership of the 2014 so-called “Occupy Central” protests, also known as the “Umbrella Revolution.” Western media has portrayed recent anti-extradition bill protests as a continuation of the "Umbrella" protests with many of the same organizations, parties, and individuals leading and supporting them. 

The West's Losing Battle for Hong Kong

June 24, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Another pivotal battle is being fought over Hong Kong between Beijing and political forces backed by the special administrative region's former British colonial masters.

At the heart of the battle is a proposed law that will allow suspects to be extradited to mainland China, Taiwan or Macau.

The BBC in its article, "Hong Kong lawmakers fight over extradition law," would claim:

Critics believe the proposed switch to the extradition law would erode Hong Kong's freedoms.

By "critics," the BBC is referring to US and British-backed opposition, with the article specifically linking recent protests against the proposed law to the US-funded "Umbrella Movement" demonstrations in 2014.

The BBC would also remind readers of the conditions the British imposed on China as a condition of returning Hong Kong:

Under a policy known as "One Country, Two Systems", Hong Kong has a separate legal system to mainland China.

Beijing regained control over the former British colony in 1997 on the condition it would allow the territory "a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs" for 50 years.

The BBC would also quote the last British governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, as if to dispel any doubts over how the fault lines of this most recent political controversy formed, and the interests really driving opposition to the recently proposed law.

Patten would claim the proposed law was, "an assault on Hong Kong's values, stability and security."

Hong Kong's "values, stability and security" in this context reflects Western desires to maintain the region as a foothold not only for its interests in Asia-Pacific, but within China itself. The slow, incremental erosion of Western influence in Hong Kong and elsewhere across Asia-Pacific appears to be ending what has been centuries of European and then American primacy over the region.

The West's Losing Battle for Hong Kong 

Colonised by the British Empire in the 1800s, Hong Kong served for over a century as an Anglo, then Anglo-American outpost in Asia-Pacific. Since its handover in 1997, Beijing has incrementally reasserted control over the territory.

More recently, as China rises economically and militarily, Hong Kong has served as an indicator of waning Anglo-American domination over China and its peripheries.

Beijing's strategy has been to avoid direct political confrontations with Hong Kong's dwindling US-funded opposition parties and to instead patiently develop surrounding territory, inundating Hong Kong with mainlanders who bring with them culture and politics aligned with Beijing and economic influence that is slowly displacing Western-leaning leftovers from British colonisation.

Beijing's completion of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the opening of a Hong Kong-mainland high-speed rail link, along with the subsequent political and media backlash from the US and UK are recent examples of major setbacks for Washington and London in this ongoing battle for influence and the West's ungraceful retreat amid it.

The extradition law, if passed, will set a precedence further eroding British demands imposed during the 1997 handover and will lead to an accelerated political and economic integration of Hong Kong.

Beijing is set to maintain many of Hong Kong's unique economic and political characteristics, as it has done with other regions across the mainland. But it is clear that it will do so on its own terms, as China's own interests require. It is also clear that digging out Anglo-American influence from Hong Kong, root and stem, drives China's side of this ongoing political struggle.

Despite the see-sawing nature of this struggle, unless global economic factors change drastically, China's continued rise along with the continued erosion of Washington's and London's unipolar international order all but ensures the inevitable and complete marginalisation of Western-backed political and economic forces based in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong's gradual integration into Beijing's wider plans for China as a whole is a microcosm of what to expect in regards to other holdouts of Anglo-American influence, including those forces in Taiwan determined to continue using the island as a point of leverage for Washington against Beijing.

The degree of patience and fairness exhibited by or absent from Beijing's approach to Hong Kong will serve as an example either fostering cooperation across the rest of Asia, or aiding Western efforts to fuel paranoia and division across the region and around the world in a bid to contain China's further rise.

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

US NED-Funded Meddling Exposed in The Philippines

June 22, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - With little else to offer the nations of Southeast Asia, the US has opted instead to wield the familiar and well-honed weapon of political subversion to peel potential partners away from Beijing in Washington's continued bid to rescue its waning primacy in Asia-Pacific.

The most recent manifestation of this can be seen in the Philippines where Manila has accused media front Rappler, founded by long-time CNN bureau chief Maria Ressa, and others of representing foreign interests and conspiring with foreign intelligence agencies in direct violation of the nation's constitution.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) in its defense of Rappler would claim:

First were the politically motivated state charges that funding provided to the news website Rappler by a U.S. philanthropic foundation represented a violation of constitutional provisions barring foreign control or ownership of Philippine media. 

Then came government allegations in April that journalists from independent media groups, including Rappler, the independent media organization VERA Files, and the non-profit Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, were involved in a conspiracy to discredit and oust President Rodrigo Duterte's elected government. All four outlets issued statements denying the allegation. 

Now, a pro-government media campaign claims that the same independent news outlets and the Philippine press freedom group Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility are in the pay of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a potential criminal offense under local law.

The CPJ notes that all of the accused groups are openly and admittedly funded by the US government via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The CPJ admits (my emphasis):

All four outlets receive substantial grants from the NED. 

Funded largely by Congress, NED was founded in the early 1980s as a way for the U.S. to openly promote democracy worldwide by providing annual grants to non-governmental groups, according to its website.

The CPJ categorically fails to challenge what are the NED's own assertions that it is merely "promoting democracy worldwide."

NED: The Public Face of (Often Violent) US Regime Change 

The NED's board of directors includes individuals openly involved in US-backed regime change including in Iraq, Ukraine and ongoing US regime change efforts in Venezuela.

Board members including Francis Fukuyama and Elliott Abrams openly advocated the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in which the government in Baghdad was toppled and its senior leadership murdered based entirely on now verified lies regarding supposed "weapons of mass destruction."

Elliott Abrams is listed on the NED's website as "On Leave," having been appointed as a US special envoy for Venezuela amid ongoing efforts to overthrow the government there.

The Guardian in an article titled, "US diplomat convicted over Iran-Contra appointed special envoy for Venezuela: Elliott Abrams, who was linked to failed coup against Chávez, to join Pompeo to urge security council to recognize Guaidó as head," would report:

Elliott Abrams was appointed US special envoy for Venezuela on Friday, as Donald Trump’s administration and European leaders on Saturday further increase the pressure on the socialist president, Nicolás Maduro, to step aside from leading the country he has taken into a deepening crisis. 

Abrams will accompany the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to a meeting of the UN security council in New York on Saturday, during which Pompeo will urge members to join the US in declaring Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate head of state.

The  Guardian also notes:

Abrams is widely remembered in Central America, but particularly from his time in the Reagan administration, when he tried to whitewash a massacre of a thousand men, women and children by US-funded death squads in El Salvador, when he was assistant secretary of state for human rights.

Other NED directors include Victoria Nuland who played a key role in leading US regime change efforts in Ukraine in 2014.

Reuters in its article, "Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU," would admit:

A conversation between a State Department official and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine that was posted on YouTube revealed an embarrassing exchange on U.S. strategy for a political transition in that country, including a crude American swipe at the European Union. 

The article also admitted:

The audio clip, which was posted on Tuesday but gained wide circulation on Thursday, appears to show the official, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, weighing in on the make-up of the next Ukrainian government.

The convergence of senior US representatives openly and repeatedly involved in (often violent) regime change most certainly involving the CIA among myriad other US organisations within the halls of the NED is no coincidence.

The NED exists to promote regime change worldwide, merely under the guise of "promoting democracy worldwide."

The CPJ Defends US-funded Subversion Under Guise of "Press Freedom" 

The CPJ failed categorically to inform readers of facts surrounding the true nature of NED and its activities in its defence of Rappler.

This however should come as no surprise. The CPJ itself is yet another shell organisation likewise funded by US corporate foundations for the purpose of promoting US interests. The CPJ does this by protecting fronts like Rappler under the guise of "press freedom" from the repercussions of engaging in US government-funded subversion.

New Thai Government and America's Asia "Pivot"

June 18, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - After much uncertainty and a turbulent election, Thailand now has a new government led by its newly elected prime minister, Prayuth Chan-o-cha. This bodes well for Thailand's stability and development as well as its growing ties with its ASEAN neighbours as well as with China.

For the US and its attempts to reassert "primacy" over Asia while encircling and containing the rise of China, the defeat of its "pro-democracy" proxies it is a nightmare.

The Western media, their media partners in Thailand and a small army of US-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have decried the new government as a "dictatorship disguised as democracy."

Articles like, "Thailand Junta Leader Named Prime Minister After Contentious Vote," published by the New York Times, set the tone of the West's backlash against the newly formed government, citing unqualified claims like, "an election marred by charges of manipulation" or depicting the opposition as being "pro-democracy."

Absent from NYT articles and others across the Western media is any mention of who PM Prayuth Chan-o-Cha was really running against or why there was a coup in 2014 to begin with. This omission is deliberate, because its inclusion by the media would provide crucial context both justifying the coup and exposing the "pro-democracy" opposition as anything but.

Putting Things in Context 

PM Prayuth led a 2014 coup, ousting the regime of Yingluck Shinawatra, which in turn served merely as a front for convicted criminal, fugitive and US-proxy Thaksin Shinawatra.

From 2001-2006, Shinawatra had loyally served US interests as Thai prime minister. He privatised Thailand's energy concerns which were promptly bought up by US and European oil corporations, committed Thai troops to the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, invited the US Central Intelligence Agency to use Thai territory for its extraordinary rendition programme and even attempted to pass a US-Thai free trade agreement without parliamentary approval.

Additionally, Shinawatra carried out a brutal "war on drugs" which left over 2,800 innocent people dead in just 90 days and crippled free speech by suing, intimidating or outright killing critics, making him the worst human rights offender in Thailand's history. He also carried out sweeping abuses of power, including changing the nation's laws in order to sell his satellite concern, Shin Corp, to Singapore investors tax free.

For this and Shinawatra's attempts to illegally consolidate power by eliminating his rivals which include Thailand's military, courts and constitutional monarchy, it is clear why he himself was ousted in a coup in 2006 and his sister ousted in a similar coup in 2014.

Between 2006-2011 Shinawatra twice attempted to seize power by force, once in 2009 and again in 2010. The latter attempt included 300-500 heavily armed militants resulting in nearly 100 deaths and the destruction of several sections of Bangkok's downtown districts.

He has been convicted of corruption and sentenced to now 4 years in prison with multiple arrest warrants issued against him.

Despite being a fugitive, from 2011-2014 he openly ran his sister's government remotely from Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.

In recent elections, Shinawatra openly headed his Pheu Thai Party (PTP) along with several other "hedge parties" fielded in case any one of them was disbanded. In fact one, Thai Raksa Chart, was disbanded. Another, Future Forward, had its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit nominated as PM by Shinawatra's Pheu Thai itself.

The fact a fugitive is to this day running these parties remotely or its obvious implications, is entirely omitted across the Western media.

US-backed Agitators Go "Missing" in Asia - Why?

June 16, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - The Western media along with multiple US and European funded "rights" groups have sounded the alarm over what they claim is a wave of assassinations and physical attacks on "activists."

The particular target of these claims is Thailand.

Articles like the Sydney Morning Herald's "'They sent an assassination squad': Thai exiles speak of life in fear," allege:

The attacks on Thai dissidents and pro-democracy activists are becoming increasingly violent and are being felt across ASEAN countries. And for political exiles who are critical of the monarchy –many of whom are wanted for lese-majeste or royal defamation – the attacks can be deadly.

 The article makes mention of those "deadly attacks," claiming:

On New Year's Eve, two bodies washed up on the banks of the Mekong River on the Thai-Laos border. They were gutted and stuffed with concrete to weigh them down, and were later identified as belonging to colleagues of Surachai Danwattananusorn, who has spent decades opposing the monarchy and military regimes. Surachai himself has been missing since December 12.

One problem with the Sydney Morning Herald's article is its omission of the fact that Surachai himself is a convicted murderer and belongs to a movement that readily uses violence. Another problem is that there is no evidence of who is behind these attacks or why.

What remains is the West's now all-too-familiar accusations of "human rights abuse" aimed at coercing yet another targeted nation. 

"Missing Activists" Support Violence, Sedition 

The Union for Civil Liberty, funded by the US government via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), in a 1986 report would admit Surachai's role in various acts of politically-motivated violence including murder and arson.

The report admits:

Surachai led [an] angry mob of 30,000 to protect against the authorities; negligence of the flood victims in the province. The protest ended in the burning of the governor's residence. Surachai and 12 other people were detained but later released following the public pressure. 

Threatened with arrest and death, he took refuge in the junge areas under the control of the CPT [Communist Party of Thailand]. 

Surachai was reportedly involved in the stopping of the train by CPT forces. This resulted in the disappearance of 1.2 million baht (US$ 46,154) and the death of a policeman. He later fled the scene. 

Surachai, for his role in the murder was arrested, found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to death.

He was later pardoned by Thailand's king. The violence Surachai was involved in is now omitted completely from Western media coverage of him and others in his movement today, including the above cited Sydney Morning Herald article.

Now 77 years old, he turned from "communism" to supporting US proxy, billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra. His advanced age and exodus from Thailand rendered him useless. Surachai by remaining "alive" leaves him a spent force with a checkered past and serving only as dead weight for the movement. Being "killed" transforms this dead weight into a "martyr."

Other supposed "activists" who have fled abroad are either directly involved in or support Thailand's opposition headed by billionaire ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his political allies. This includes his street front, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) also known as "red shirts," who have carried out armed violence and terrorism since Shinawatra's removal from office in 2006.

In one episode in 2010, Shinawatra's red shirts would field between 300-500 heavily armed militants on the streets of Bangkok leading to violence that claimed nearly 100 lives and left entire sections of Bangkok destroyed by arson attacks.

Their penchant for violence isn't directed solely at Thailand's police, soldiers and civilians or their political enemies. It is often turned against themselves either through infighting, or through attempts to escalate political tensions by blaming the violence on Thailand's military or government.

Thus, these "missing activists" could just of likely have fallen victim to their own circle of violent agitators, specifically to provoke the political pressure now being placed on Thailand's government by Western media outlets and "rights" organisations.

Where is the Evidence? 

The other problem with the Sydney Morning Herald's article is that there is no evidence. In fact, the article literally says, "there is no evidence..."

Convenient "Tanker Attacks" as US Seeks War with Iran

June 13, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO)

...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.  

- Brookings Institution, "Which Path to Persia?" 2009  

For the second time since the United States unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal, Western reports of "suspected attacks" on oil tankers near the Stait of Hormuz have attempted to implicate Iran.



The London Guardian in an article titled, "Two oil tankers struck in suspected attacks in Gulf of Oman," would claim:

Two oil tankers have been hit in suspected attacks in the Gulf of Oman and the crews evacuated, a month after a similar incident in which four tankers in the region were struck.

The article also claimed:

Gulf tensions have been close to boiling point for weeks as the US puts “maximum economic pressure” on Tehran in an attempt to force it to reopen talks about the 2015 nuclear deal, which the US pulled out of last year. 

Iran has repeatedly said it has no knowledge of the incidents and did not instruct any surrogate forces to attack Gulf shipping, or Saudi oil installations.

The Guardian would admit that "investigations" into the previous alleged attacks in May carried out by the UAE found "sophisticated mines" were used, but fell short of implicating Iran as a culprit.

The article would note US National Security Advisor John Bolton would - without evidence - claim that Iran "was almost certainly involved."

All Too Convenient 

This news of "attacked" oil tankers near the Stait of Hormuz blamed by the US on Iran - comes all too conveniently on the heels of additional steps taken by Washington to pressure Iran's economy and further undermine the Iranian government.

The US just recently ended waivers for nations buying Iranian oil. Nations including Japan, South Korea, Turkey, China, and India will now face US sanctions if they continue importing Iranian oil.

Coincidentally, one of ships "attacked" this week was carrying "Japan-related cargo," the Guardian would report.

Also convenient was the US' recent designation of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) just ahead of this series of provocations attributed to Iran.

AP in a May 2019 article titled, "President Trump Warns Iran Over 'Sabotaged' Oil Tankers in Gulf," would claim:

Four oil tankers anchored in the Mideast were damaged by what Gulf officials described as sabotage, though satellite images obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday showed no major visible damage to the vessels.

Two ships allegedly were Saudi, one Emirati, and one Norwegian. The article also claimed:

A U.S. official in Washington, without offering any evidence, told the AP that an American military team’s initial assessment indicated Iran or Iranian allies used explosives to blow holes in the ships.

And that:

The U.S. already had warned ships that “Iran or its proxies” could be targeting maritime traffic in the region. America is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf to counter alleged, still-unspecified threats from Tehran. 

This more recent incident will likely be further exploited by the US to continue building up its military forces in the region, applying pressure on Iran, and moving the entire globe closer toward war with Iran.

The US has already arrayed its forces across the Middle East to aid in ongoing proxy wars against Iran and its allies as well as prepare for conventional war with Tehran itself.

All of this amounts to a renewed push toward a more direct conflict between the United States and Iran after years of proxy war in Syria Washington-backed forces have decisively lost.

It is also a continuation of long-standing US foreign policy regarding Iran put into motion over a decade ago and carried out by each respective presidency since.

Washington's Long-Standing Plans 

Continued sanctions and the elimination of waivers are part of Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the "Iran Nuclear Deal." The deal was signed in 2015 with the US withdrawing in 2018.

US Propaganda Blitz Ahead of Idlib's Liberation

June 12, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A concerted effort is being made to once again flood Western headlines with now familiar and long-since discredited war propaganda as Syrian forces and their Russian and Iranian allies move in on Idlib in northern Syria to liberate it from US-backed terrorists. 

A recent New York Times article titled, "Inside Syria’s Secret Torture Prisons: How Bashar al-Assad Crushed Dissent," dusts off, combines, and repackages now nearly 8 years of Western war propaganda aimed at demonizing the Syrian government and paving way for regime change. 

While the article claims it now has "memos sent to Syria's head of military intelligence" to back up previous claims, it admits "some information was blacked out to protect the integrity of evidence for possible prosecutions." 

Yet in order to accuse a government publicly of maintaining "secret torture prisons," evidence must be provided. Instead, the NYT presented recycled accounts from "activists" and opposition figures as well as Western-funded fronts including the "Syrian Network for Human Rights" and the  "Commission for International Justice and Accountability" (CIJA).

The CIJA in particular is claimed by NYT to have collected the alleged memos. Nothing about the CIJA's background is provided by the NYT, nor can any website with background information be found.

However, the US government's Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) interviewed CIJA director of investigations and operations, Chris Engels in 2018. In the interview, CIJA's funding was discussed:

[CSCE:] Who funds CIJA? 

[Chris Engels:] We have had a number of donors over the years. Our current donors include the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union, Germany, Demark, the Netherlands, and Norway.

Engels also openly admits that the CIJA works directly with the US government. In the interview he admits:

By design, CIJA has a strong relationship with U.S. law enforcement.

When asked if members of the US Congress have supported the work of CIJA, Engels would enthusiastically confirm so - citing proposed laws pertaining specifically to Syria.


In other words - nations committed to the overthrow of the Syrian government fund and support the CIJA's work in Syria - casting doubt on both their integrity and their motivations. Just as the NYT would be remiss to write an entire article based on claims made by the Syrian government itself - it is remiss in uncritically reporting the claims made by its opponents.


The fact that the CIJA's "evidence" is so heavily redacted that the NYT merely mentions it before building the rest of its article around older hearsay-accounts from its regular circle of "activists" and opposition figures, including the now notoriously discredited informant - "Caesar" - casts even further doubt.

The NYT appears to instead be contributing merely to the latest chapter of US-driven war propaganda aimed at undermining the Syrian government, protracting the Syrian conflict, and further dividing and destroying the nation.

Idlib is Al Qaeda Central  

A renewed barrage of war propaganda has been launched by the West in tandem with Syrian government efforts to move in on Idlib - the last bastion of Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations west of the Euphrates River.

Washington's "Tiananmen" Lies Begin to Fray

June 9, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Washington and its allies across the Western World have been particularly eager in observing this year's anniversary of their version of the 1989 Tiananmen protests.



It has become an opportunity to add political pressure atop economic pressure already being exerted on Beijing by Washington in its bid to encircle and contain China's rise.

This pressure comes mainly through the Western media.

But the monopoly the US once enjoyed over the flow of global information is coming to an end. The more attention the US tries to draw to certain events, the more objective scrutiny others apply resulting in growing, irreversible damage to some of Washington's most valuable propaganda narratives.

Attempts to characterise the Tiananmen protests as a violent crackdown on peaceful protesters is meant to portray China, then and now, as an violent authoritarian regime and a threat to not only freedom in China, but freedom worldwide.

But as this lie is exposed, the US itself appears to be the real risk to global peace and freedom.

US State Department Cables Contradict US Secretary of State's Version of Events 

The US State Department itself would set the tone of Washington's annual propaganda drive. In a press statement titled, "On the 30th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square," US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would claim:

On June 4, we honor the heroic protest movement of the Chinese people that ended on June 4, 1989, when the Chinese Communist Party leadership sent tanks into Tiananmen Square to violently repress peaceful demonstrations calling for democracy, human rights, and an end to rampant corruption. The hundreds of thousands of protesters who gathered in Beijing and in other cities around China suffered grievously in pursuit of a better future for their country. The number of dead is still unknown.

Yet according to the US State Department's own cables, thanks to Wikileaks, what Secretary Pompeo stated is categorically untrue.

In a 2011 Telegraph article titled, "Wikileaks: no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square, cables claim," it is admitted that:

Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing have shown there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square when China put down student pro-democracy demonstrations 22 years ago.

While the Telegraph attempts to claim Chinese troops merely killed protesters they portray as peaceful and unarmed "outside" the square, evidence within the US State Department's own cables proves precisely the opposite.

One cable dated June 3, 1989 admits:

[Embassy officers] encountered a number of incidents in different locations in which crowds harassed military or police personnel, forced their vehicles to turn around, jeered at displays of captured military equipment, or vandalized captured military vehicles.

Further detailing the violence was an oblique admission in the New York Times in a recent article titled, "Witnessing China’s 1989 Protests, 1,000 Miles From Tiananmen Square," in which now US Representative Andy Levin of Michigan gives his account of what he saw as a student during the protests.

The article admits (my emphasis):

Word spread quickly about what had happened. Rumor had it that protesters were being held in a particular police station, and a huge crowd massed outside it. The students weren’t there after all, but the crowd set fire to the police station. 

Three fire trucks arrived, sirens blaring. The first instinct of the crowd was to move aside. But then, I could see the crowd change its mind. As in, “Wait a minute, we set this fire on purpose, so we don’t want this fire truck putting it out.” The crowd converged on a truck, chased off the firemen, flipped the truck on its side and set the truck itself on fire.

A forgotten Washington Post article from 1989 deceitfully titled, "Images Vilify Protesters," attempts to dismiss evidence the article itself admits proves violence and atrocities were indeed carried out by protesters against soldiers who were displaying restraint.

The article admits (my emphasis):

The government's case is bolstered by the fact that, in some areas, demonstrators did attack troops who did not respond, and these incidents were captured on videotape. On nightly television now, images are broadcast of protesters stoning troops, beating them with poles and, in some particularly dramatic photos, firebombing trucks, buses and even armored personnel carriers. In some cases, soldiers were still inside at the time. On one avenue in western Beijing, demonstrators torched an entire military convoy of more than 100 trucks and armored vehicles. Aerial pictures of the conflagration and columns of smoke have powerfully bolstered the government's argument that the troops were victims, not executioners. Other scenes show soldiers' corpses and demonstrators stripping automatic rifles off of unresisting soldiers.  

If Chinese troops did kill "thousands" of protesters as many across the West claim, there is no evidence of it. This is why Secretary Pompeo himself admitted even this year, "the number of dead is still unknown."

If Chinese troops fired into crowds at all, the US State Department itself, witnesses now holding political offices in the US government and prominent US newspapers all admit it was at mobs carrying out deadly violence against troops, police and rescue workers.

We don't have to imagine what the US government itself would do if mobs attacked military personnel, burned down police stations then attacked responding rescue workers before destroying their equipment in a large US city. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, thousands of US Army soldiers and Marines were deployed and authorised to use deadly force.

We could, however, try to imagine how absurd it would be if Beijing and media concerns it controlled tried to portray the LA riots as peaceful protests which the US "cracked down" on with disproportionate force. Only the West's enduring monopoly over global news and information affords its the ability to portray Tiananmen Square in such absurd terms, despite evidence disclosed by the US government and media itself proving precisely the opposite.

Tiananmen Anniversary: A Time for US-Backed Political Stunts, Hypocrisy 

Across Asia, the US is determined to drive a wedge between Beijing and the many nations in the region eager to build ties and do business with it. By promoting Washington's Tiananmen narrative across the region, the US hopes to turn local opinions against Beijing. 

The US has invested tens of millions of dollars a year in building up fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) or "student activists" to oppose regional governments doing business with China and to sour ties between regional nations and Beijing itself.

Europe Has no Freedom But to Choose "Freedom Gas"

June 7, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The US Department of Energy (DOE) recently renamed US liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports "freedom gas." But freedom for who? For Europe who already has a cheap and reliable source of natural gas, but is being forced to switch over to more expensive US gas under the threat of sanctions? Certainly not.

Or freedom for Russia who supplies Europe with much of its natural gas to compete openly and fairly with the United States? Most definitely not.

Or is it freedom from competition for the US?  Yes, indeed.

It is often contradictory branding that heralds various chapters of US injustice at home (under the draconian "Patriot Act" for example) and abroad, such as during the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq carried out under the dubious name of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Not the Onion

So discredited have US campaigns christened in the name of "freedom" become, that few scarcely believed the US was actually, seriously calling its natural gas exports "freedom gas." However, it is not a headline torn from the pages of the satirical newspaper "The Onion," but rather from the US DOE itself.

In an article from the DOE's official website titled, "Department of Energy Authorizes Additional LNG Exports from Freeport LNG," the DOE states (emphasis added):

“Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy. Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes, who highlighted the approval at the Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver, Canada. “There’s no doubt today’s announcement furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting energy security and diversity worldwide.”

Aside from the almost comical reference to "freedom gas," there is something else revealing about the DOE's claims of  "giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy." 

This is in direct reference to Europe, and Europe's current imports of Russian gas. Russian gas, delivered by pipelines to Europe will always be cheaper than US liquefied natural gas transported by sea to Europe. That is, unless the US, through the threat of sanctions not only against Russia, but against Washington's own allies in Europe, can raise those costs to above the price of US exports.

Articles like Foreign Policy's "U.S. Senate Threatens Sanctions Over Russian Pipeline," make it clear just how far along the US is toward doing just that.

US War on Huawei is a War on Tech Sovereignty

June 5, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Unable to compete on equal terms with Chinese telecom giant Huawei, the United States and the corporations that influence its domestic and foreign policy have decided instead to simply cut Huawei off from its many monopolies including chip manufacturing and mobile phone operating systems.

But US measures come at a time when Huawei is already well on its way to unseating US tech monopolies. US measures may only spur Huawei (and many other companies and countries) to further work toward creating alternatives to current US tech monopolies and establishing enduring technological sovereignty from US control.

US Cites False Pretext to Cripple a Competitor 

The US Department of Commerce claims:

...Huawei is engaged in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interest. This information includes the activities alleged in the Department of Justice’s public superseding indictment of Huawei, including alleged violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), conspiracy to violate IEEPA by providing prohibited financial services to Iran, and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation of those alleged violations of U.S. sanctions.

Evidence (as is the case with most US allegations) is lacking, yet US measures prohibiting "the sale or transfer of American technology" to Huawei coincidentally gives a boost to US tech companies unable to compete against Huawei in free and fair global markets.

Fortune, in its article, "Huawei Wants to Play Nice With Google and Microsoft, But Has Its 'Last Resort' Ready," elaborates further on what this ban means to Huawei.

Microsoft removed Huawei laptops from its online store, while chip manufacturers including Qualcomm, Intel, Nvidia, Lattice and ARM are poised to stop supplying Huawei assembly lines.

Google is also reportedly preparing to cut Huawei off from its Android mobile phone operating system. Android and Apple's iOS, both US-based, currently dominate the markets and without access to either, Huawei would face significant challenges, giving US tech companies a chance to catch up. This, more than any sort of ambiguous "security threat" explains the motivations of the US Department of Commerce.

Self-Inflicted Wounds Amid a Senseless Fight

US bans targeting Huawei will not be painless for US corporations involved. Huawei currently occupies second place, just behind Samsung, in the smartphone market. Depriving Huawei of US-made components will deprive US corporations of associated profits at least in the short-term. How fast other corporations fill the void left behind by Huawei, if a void appears, is hard to say. If US corporations are counting on US corporations and US-friendly nations and the respective telecom industries filling a potential void, it is a long bet.

It is clear that Huawei, if accusations by the US of its close association with the Chinese government are true, will have the support, resources and impetus required to begin developing alternatives to Microsoft, US chip designs and Google's Android operating system. In the long-term, US corporations may find themselves faced by renewed competition, not only in terms of smartphones this time, but also in terms of everything in and on them.