20.06.2016 Author: Tony Cartalucci
Asia:
US “Pivot” Turns to Panic
Column: Politics
Region: Southeast Asia
Country: Thailand
US foreign policy in Asia Pacific has centered
around the so-called “Pivot to Asia,” initially rolled out as an alleged means
for the US to strengthen ties with Asia, but was incrementally revealed as the
latest leg in a decades-long
attempt to encircle and contain China by overrunning the socioeconomic and political sovereignty of its
neighbors, thus maintaining what US policymakers themselves refer to as
American “primacy over Asia.”
It is
no surprise then that nations across Asia have responded negatively to the
“Pivot.” What gains the US has made, have been made through coercion, political
subversion, and even
terrorism – and this is done in
front of an increasingly geopolitically aware Asian population.
Yet
despite this, the US appears to still be struggling against both Asia’s overall
desire to cooperate among themselves, and their own “pivots” toward alternative
centers of power, in Beijing, Moscow, and beyond.
Panicking
Policymakers
Thailand’s
English language newspaper, the Bangkok Post, has recently transformed its
coverage almost entirely pro-Washington, London, and Brussels. It regularly
posts op-eds lobbying for various US and European interests. A recent op-ed,
published by regular Washington apologist Achara Ashayagachat, titled, “Despite gains,
China still second fiddle to West, analysts say ,” claims:
Thai
military rule may complicate and weaken Asean’s position in the international
security setting, but the gestures made to date by the junta should not be seen
as a shift from the western-allied camp to China, analysts caution.
Achara
never qualifies why Thailand’s current government “complicates or weakens
ASEAN’s position in the international security setting,” aside from implying
that anything running contra to Washington’s interests, thus runs afoul of
“international order.”
Achara
attempts to conclude – based on several US-based analysts’ opinions – that
several delayed deals between Thailand and China signifies a lack of any real
shift from West to East for Bangkok. She also attempts to conclude that
Thailand is increasingly becoming “isolated” as the US shifts its attention
toward the governments and sociopolitical systems of the Philippines, Vietnam,
and Myanmar.
However,
in reality, the shift from West to East is not recent for Thailand, or many
other nations in Southeast Asia. It has been gradual – in tandem with China’s
growing influence and Beijing’s ability to provide equitable alternatives to US
“free trade” and compromising military “partnerships.”
Indeed,
large rail projects have been in negotiations between Thailand and China with
several large deals remaining stalled. However, despite this, Thailand has made
several smaller deals with China – deals it could not make with the United
States even if it wanted to.
This
includes the
acquisition of 24 additional trains for Bangkok’s elevated mass transit system from China’s CRRC
Changchun Railway Vehicles. This would add to existing Chinese rolling stock
already in use in Thailand.
The
continued acquisition of Chinese weapon systems to replace aging US equipment
continues as well. Despite rumors that Thailand was seeking to purchase Russian
T-90s to replace its aging American tanks, it has decided instead to purchase
MBT-3000 main battle tanks produced by China North Industries Corporation
(NORINCO). These would be added to Thailand’s existing inventory of
Chinese-made Type-85 Armored Fighting Vehicles which were purchased to replace
aging US M113s.
Aside from China, Thailand is replacing American
helicopters with Russian alternatives, which includes Mi-17s already seen
flying over Bangkok where once US-made Blackhawks flew.
While
Bangkok Post’s op-ed attempts to suggest these moves by Thailand’s government
are meant to “bring back the US and EU,” in reality, they have been years in
the making and they have already begun to transform Thailand’s infrastructure,
economy, and military. It is the quantifiable, incremental uprooting of US and
European influence in the region.
Additionally,
and never mentioned in Achara’s op-ed, is the much contested tourism industry
of Thailand – where the West has attempted to use its influence over public
opinion to scare away Western tourism. In reality, however, this has been
futile. For years, demographics have been shifting away from European and
American tourists toward Chinese and Russian tourists. Signs in tourist areas
once almost exclusively written in English and Japanese, now are also written
in Chinese and Russian.
Despite
these tangible realities, Western policymakers and pro-Western op-eds have
attempted to portray this as recent and superficial. To understand this
apparent detachment from reality, one must consider the source.
Consider
the Source
The
analysts Achara of the Bangkok Post cites are not primarily Thai, or Asian, but
rather Americans. They include Tim Huxley of the International Institute of
Strategic Studies – a Fortune 500-funded foreign policy
think tank whose corporate
sponsors include big-oil and some of the largest Western arms manufacturers on
Earth. Also cited is Yun Sun of the Stimson Center – another
Washington-based Fortune 500-funded policy think tank (.pdf).
Clearly
Achara’s sources are not objectively interested in discerning what is best for
international peace and stability, and instead in serving the special interests
that transparently fund and shape the policy they promote. It is clear then,
why they would insist on a paradigm that still favors Western economic deals
and Western “military cooperation” (arms deals).
These
are the same such interests that seek to encircle and contain China to prevent
it from marshaling its human and natural resources together with its own
indigenous industry to pose as competitors vis-a-vis Western monopolies currently
dominating the planet.
The
rise of an independent China surrounded by a stable and cooperative Southeast
Asia represents an inevitable loss of market shares for the corporate-financier
interests that truly drive both Western foreign policy and shape the opinions
of low-level functionaries like Achara and the rest of Bangkok Post’s editorial
board.
Considering
this context, it is clear that op-eds like Achara, lobbying for Washington’s
corporate-funded think tanks, is aimed to make up lost ground among public
opinion where the US has failed to make up in economic and military relations.
However,
like America’s economic and military influence in the region, its influence
over public opinion is also facing growing competition and complications.
However, paying compromised “journalists” like Achara to constantly repeat
untruths is perhaps so effortless that US policymakers see no harm in trying,
even if it is not effective.
And it
is between the lines of untruth repeated by Washington’s functionaries, that
the rest of the world can begin to discern the truth and see the cracks in the
facade of American “primacy over Asia” begin to show.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer,
especially for the online magazine “New Eastern
Outlook”.
http://journal-neo.org/2016/06/20/asia-us-pivot-turns-to-panic/
http://journal-neo.org/2016/06/20/asia-us-pivot-turns-to-panic/
No comments:
Post a Comment