US Walks Away From Southeast Asia Summit Empty-Handed

August 13, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) -  A recent meeting of the 10 member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) convened in Bangkok, Thailand and attended by representatives from China, Russia and even the United States, provides us with a clear indicator of how power and influence are being shaped across wider Asia and even globally.

Headlines like the Associated Press', "Pompeo ends frustrating Bangkok visit," gives a good feel for how, at least for Washington, the meeting went and how the region responded to Washington's "plans" for it.

The article would note: 

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo left Thailand on Saturday with his hopes for resuming nuclear talks with North Korea dashed, while facing an escalating trade war with China and a potentially devastating breakdown in relations between key American allies Japan and South Korea.

Another article published just ahead of the meetings would better frame US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's (and Washington's) agenda. The LA Times', "Pompeo seeks to restore U.S. influence in Southeast Asia amid China’s rise," would report:

Against a backdrop of China’s rising economic and military power, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo arrived in the Thai capital of Bangkok this week with a difficult mission: Try to win back lost ground in Southeast Asia, a region once dominated by the U.S.

The article would continue:

Pompeo is also attempting to solidify another initiative of his tenure: creation of the so-called Indo-Pacific region, which portends to redraw boundaries to stretch from the U.S. West Coast to Japan, down through Southeast Asia to Australia and west across another ocean to India. It is replacing the familiar Asia-Pacific region and incorporates India (while sidelining Pakistan) to expand U.S. heft against China. 

China has not been shy about pouring tens of billions of dollars into infrastructure projects as part of its mammoth Belt and Road initiative, promising to boost transport systems and connectivity to help drive a sustained period of growth and stepping in where the U.S. often isn’t. 

Thanks in part to China’s investment, the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, has posted a combined economic-output growth of 50% in the last decade. 

The LA Times would then attempt to cite "backlash" across the region, but upon closer examination, things like Malaysia "cancelling" One Belt, One Road (OBOR) projects with China were more about negotiating better agreements rather than cancelling them.

The Diplomat in an article from April this year titled, "Malaysia: Revised China Deal Shows Costs Were Inflated," helps explain how the Chinese-Malaysian "row" was blown out of proportion by many in the Western media and how the project is once again moving forward.

Despite this renegotiating having long-since taken place, the LA Times and other media outlets are still trying to portray various countries in Southeast Asia as "opposed" to China or having cancelled deals that are still very much moving forward.

The LA Times also tries to cite disputes in the South China Sea, another area of conflict cultivated by Washington with even the nations it is supposedly "defending" dragging their feet on initiatives Washington had hoped would divide the region and isolate Beijing.

The LA Times does finally admit:

Many Southeast Asian governments have also recoiled at what they see as U.S. efforts to force them to take sides in the trade dispute with China. 

Apart from Vietnam, no country in the region has agreed to join the U.S. boycott of Huawei, despite the Trump administration’s warnings that the U.S. could cease sharing sensitive information with countries that use the company’s technology. 

Not only has ASEAN rejected US demands regarding Huawei and other coercive polices designed to divide the region and set back joint development, the LA Times quotes Western policymakers who have no choice but to admit the US has no alternatives to offer the region.

From Coercion to Pan-Handling 

Thailand in particular has suffered years of coercion from Washington in a bid to roll back Thai-Chinese relations.

Opposition or Terrorists: Who is Syria and Russia Bombing in Idlib?

August 12, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Scott Lucas - a professor at the University of Birmingham UK - would decry with the rest of the Western media - resumed joint military operations carried out by Syria and Russia in and around the northwestern governorate of Idlib.

Reuters in their article, "Syrian army resumes military operations against rebels in northwest Syria," would claim:

The Syrian army said on Monday it was resuming military operations in a Russian-led campaign in northwest Syria that has uprooted tens of thousands and killed hundreds, blaming Turkey for not abiding by its commitments under a truce deal.

Both Lucas and Reuters - like many other Western media fronts and personalities - are careful never to fully characterize who the "opposition" actually consists of - instead attempting to imply Syria and Russia are waging war on civilians and "moderate rebels." 

When asked by journalist Peter Hitchens to give a run down on who the Syrian opposition actually was, Lucas in a post on social media would respond:

Hi, Peter! #Syria situation, across not only northwest but northeast, is web of local councils, local military groups, and local activist organizations to provide services. You'll need to specify a particular area, such as a town or city in #Idlib or #Hama Province.

Yet the accompanying picture Lucas used to illustrate his point was of a meeting organized by the IHH (Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief). IHH is based in Turkey and is by no means "local."

IHH is also linked directly to Al Qaeda, serving as a logistical support network for the terrorist organization, merely couching itself behind its humanitarian mission statement.

US Leaves INF Because "Russia," But Points Missiles at China

August 9, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - We're told that the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty singed in 1987 between the US and Soviet Union was based on claims that Russia had violated it.



While we continue waiting for Washington to provide evidence to prove these claims, the US itself admitted it had already long begun developing missiles that violated the treaty. 

A February 2018 Defense One article titled, "Pentagon Confirms It’s Developing Nuclear Cruise Missile to Counter a Similar Russian One," admitted that:

The U.S. military is developing a ground-launched, intermediate-range cruise missile to counter a similar Russian weapon whose deployment violates an arms-control treaty between Moscow and Washington, U.S. officials said Friday. 

The officials acknowledged that the still-under-development American missile would, if deployed, also violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Just as the US did when it unilaterally walked away from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, the goal is to blame Russia for otherwise indefensible and incremental provocations aimed at Moscow. For example, after the US walked away from the ABM Treaty in 2002, the US began deploying anti-missile systems across Europe.

But if Russia is the problem, why did the US also begin deploying similar missiles in Asia?

It is Washington's goal of hemming in its competitors anywhere and everywhere that is at the heart of these serial treaty terminations, not any particular "violation" on Moscow's part.

China Too   

That the US already had missiles under development that would undoubtedly violate the INF Treaty before it accused Russia of such violations, is one indicator of Washington's true intentions. Another is the fact Washington is rushing to encircle China with both defensive and offensive missile systems as well.

China is not a signatory of either the ABM Treaty or the INF Treaty. Its missiles are deployed strictly within its mainland territory with no plans by Beijing to deploy them anywhere else in the future.

The only threat they pose is to any nation that decides to wage war on China, in or around Chinese territory.

Washington's behavior post-INF Treaty indicates that it was its intent to violate the treaty all along, creating the same precarious security crisis in Asia the treaty sought to prevent in Europe.

Western Propaganda: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

August 7, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Nations running afoul of US and European hegemony often find themselves the target of concerted, long-term propaganda campaigns. Without creating a media front capable of confronting this propaganda, virtually nothing a targeted nation does can improve its image among the global public, because no matter what it does, it will be 'spun' by the US and European media to smear it.

A pertinent example can be found in Southeast Asia's Kingdom of Thailand which possesses the second largest economy in ASEAN and has become one of Beijing's most important partners in the region. Because of this, it has become a target for US and European political subversion in the hopes of installing a government that can reverse this trend.

To that end, Thailand's institutions have come under attack, including its military and constitutional monarchy.

Forward-Thinking Reform Spun as Elitist "Exemption" 

The current Thai dynasty has existed for nearly as long as the US has been a nation, and the institution itself has existed for over eight centuries. Its modern manifestation fosters national unity and is the caretaker of Thai tradition, culture and history. The constitutional monarchy also invests heavily in development projects across the country.

Thailand's monarchy is also an institution in constant change to keep up with the times. A recent revision to the monarchy's property holdings placed Thailand's King Maha Vajiralongkorn under the same property tax laws as the rest of the nation.

However, because Thai tax laws are poorly understood by foreigners, an opportunity to spin a reform into a smear presented itself and UK-based media organisation Reuters took full advantage of it.

In their article, "Thai king exempted from tax on some land properties," Reuters claimed:

Thailand’s King Maha Vajiralongkorn will be exempt from tax on some of his land property, according to a government announcement.

The Crown Property Bureau, which manages the multi-billion dollar holdings of the monarchy and controls huge swathes of land in Bangkok, was placed under the king’s direct control in 2017. Its previous tax exempt status was then removed. 

But some of the king’s lands and establishments will now be exempt from tax, according to the new legislation published in the Royal Gazette on Friday.

Reuters then finally admits there is one "exception;" land not used for "non-profit" purposes, or in other words, land used for commercial purposes will be taxed.

Never mentioned throughout the entirety of Reuters' article is the fact that this is not a special exemption at all.

There is no property tax leveled against anyone using their property for private purposes. Property taxes are only collected in Thailand if property is used for commercial purposes.

A quick search online for "property taxes in Thailand" reveals numerous Thai-based law firms clearly explaining Thai property taxes, like this one from Thailand Law Online. It explains (my emphasis):

There are no general property taxes (capital tax on property imposed by the government) in Thailand, but real properties put to commercial use (residential houses not 'owner occupied' and commercial buildings) must under the Building and Land Tax Act pay a 'rental' tax at a rate of 12,5 % of the annual rental value or the annual assessed rental value, whichever is higher.

Thus, the new law places the King of Thailand under the same rules as all other Thais, and is if anything a forward-thinking reform.

Reuters capitalised on its readership's ignorance and trust, intentionally spinning the reform depicting it as an elitist "exemption" to smear Thailand and its institutions as part of a wider agenda to undermine and overthrow Thailand's current political order and replace it with one more pliable for US and European special interests.

US-backed Opposition Prime Suspects in Thai Bombings

August 3, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Several small bombs detonated across Bangkok on Friday, August 2, amid a meeting between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) the US, China, and Russia.

There were several injuries reported, but no deaths.

Despite a Western media deliberately feigning confusion over motives and possible suspects while attempting to depict the capital as "in chaos" and the current Thai government "humiliated" - its image "tarnished" - US-backed opposition groups are the prime suspects, their motives including growing desperation.

Also absent from Western media coverage was any genuine context surrounding Thailand's ongoing political crisis as foreign-backed opposition groups attempt to  reverse the nation's growing ties with China, Russia, and developing nations across Eurasia.

US-Backed Opposition Growing Desperate 

The US-backed opposition consists of former prime minister, billionaire fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, his Pheu Thai Party (PTP), his violent street front - the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) better known as "red shirts," and a number of new parties Thaksin created to hedge his bets in elections earlier this year.

The most prominent among these parties is Future Forward headed by billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Thanathorn faces multiple criminal charges including election law violations. His political future is nonexistent - a miniature Thaksin Shinawatra minus the initial success and popularity Thaksin once enjoyed when first coming to power in 2001.

Thaksin's various proxies parties faired poorly in the last election, with Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) winning the popular vote and forming a larger coalition. PPRP is headed by military figures responsible for ousting Thaksin  in 2006 - and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra from power in 2014.

Having lost elections and lacking public support - with expensive and violent protests a now exhausted option - few options are left besides violence. Many hardcore Thaksin supporters are fond of repeating the quote, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

While they are by no means interested in any sort of principled revolution, they are most certainly fond of pursing violence.

US-Backed Opposition's Verified History of Violence and Terrorism 

Thaksin - since his ouster in 2006 - has resorted to large scale violence in a bid to seize back power. This is in addition to his poor human rights record during his time in power which saw over 2,000 people extrajudicially executed during a 90 day "drug war."

Should evidence tie Thaksin to the recent blasts - it wouldn't be the first time he and his political allies would have targeted an important ASEAN summit hosted by Thailand.

The Guardian in its article, "Protesters storm Asian leaders' summit in Thailand," would admit that in 2009 during another large ASEAN meeting, Thaksin's red shirts would storm the convention center forcing ASEAN representatives to flee by helicopter. During related protests, Thaksin's red shirts would kill two shopkeepers while trying to loot their businesses.

In 2010, Thaksin would deploy between 300-500 heavily armed militants who - even according to Human Rights Watch - murdered soldiers, police, and civilians. Despite HRW admitting this, it and the Western media still depicts the violence as a "government crackdown" to this day.  Leading up to the protests, Thaksin's militants threatened judges deciding on a court case over the seizure of $1.4 billion of his assets. This included grenade attacks on court buildings.

There were also other senseless grenade and bomb attacks carried out throughout Bangkok as a crude attempt to coerce the government to meet Thaksin's demands in 2010.

In 2014 when protesters took to the street to oppose Thaksin Shinawatra's sister - Yingluck Shinawtra - his militants would once again return, carrying out gun and grenade attacks leaving up to 20 dead including women and children. Violence continued until the military intervened, ousting Yingluck, and taking over as an interim government.

In fact, only Thaksin Shinawatra and his political supporters have a verified record of carrying out violence and terrorism in and around Bangkok - and for over a decade.

Southern Separatists? 

Three of Thailand's southern-most provinces have faced a low-intensity insurgency since Thaksin took power in 2001 and violated a 20-year peace deal.

Claims that separatists in Thailand's deep south might have been responsible for the recent blasts are dubious at best. Separatists have never attacked Bangkok.