Myanmar MiG-29 Crosses into Thai Airspace: The Rest of the Story

July 9, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - A recent incident involving a MiG-29 fighter aircraft from Myanmar which flew into Thai airspace triggered political fallout particularly instructive in understanding the current dynamics in both countries as well as across wider Asia.

It also gives a glimpse into the dynamics of the ongoing US-Chinese tensions that are the driving force behind much of the region’s political and military conflicts.

The Incident

The Washington Post in an article titled, “Thailand says Myanmar apologized for airspace violation,” would describe the incident claiming:

Video obtained by The Associated Press shows what appears to be a MiG-29 making several circles into Thai airspace over villages and schools before firing on the Myanmar side. Myanmar’s military has been fighting ethnic Karen guerillas on its side of the border with Thailand.

Thailand is no stranger to armed conflict approaching and even briefly crossing over into Thai territory. Myanmar has been mired in ethnic and political violence since gaining independence from the British in 1948. Clandestine arms trafficking from neighboring nations including Thailand, US-funded political organizations using neighboring nations as a base for operations, as well as refugee camps hosting militants using neighboring territory to evade Myanmar’s military means that fighting often unfolds along border regions.

The current fighting along the Thai border is part of a much wider conflict consuming Myanmar following the February 2021 takeover by the nation’s military, ousting a US-backed client regime headed by Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party.

Following the February take over, violent protests followed by armed conflict plunged Myanmar into nationwide violence ever since. The recent fighting along the border and occasional cross-border incidents will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

The Reaction

The reaction to the brief border crossing by various political factions in neighboring Thailand were likewise divided along lines between US-backed opposition groups and the current government they seek to undermine and replace.

The Washington Post article noted:

Thailand said Friday that neighboring Myanmar has apologized after one of its fighter jets crossed into Thai airspace on a bombing run along the border, forcing authorities to evacuate hundreds of schoolchildren and scramble air force jets to the area.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said Thailand did not want to escalate the incident, which took place on Thursday over Phop Phra district in Thailand’s Tak province.

And that:

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said Thailand did not want to escalate the incident, which took place on Thursday over Phop Phra district in Thailand’s Tak province.

“The military attaches have spoken to each other, and they have apologized, and our foreign ministries have talked. This may seem like a serious incident, but it depends on us if we want to escalate this. Currently the two sides enjoy a good relationship and are able to talk,” Prayuth told reporters at a public appearance.

Thailand deployed two F-16 fighter aircraft in what was a significantly delayed “intercept,” and lodged a complaint with Myanmar’s government. Both moves were more or less a formality.

Myanmar and Thailand are in relatively good standings with one another as are all ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) members. One of the purposes of ASEAN is to maintain regional peace and prosperity and to quickly resolve disagreements. Non-interference in the internal political affairs of neighboring nations is also a guiding principle.

Despite significant pressure placed by the United States on all ASEAN members to interfere in Myanmar’s ongoing conflict, besides token gestures, ASEAN has remained relatively uninvolved.

Political opposition groups in Thailand condemned the Thai government’s reaction, stating that the brief incursion was indeed a serious threat to Thailand implying that the Thai military should have responded with force. The condemnation is meant to stoke public outrage and pressure the Thai government into overreacting in the future.

This same opposition has on several occasions staged protests regarding Myanmar and the Thai government’s refusal to interfere. ABC News in a March 2021 article titled, “Thai marchers link their democracy cause to Myanmar protests,” as well as many other publications across the West would report on growing “cooperation” between various regional protest groups.

The Implications

In addition to political opportunism, the condemnation by Thailand’s opposition is linked to the fact that the US government is backing both the Thai opposition as well as their counterparts in Myanmar. Both groups are members of the wider so-called “Milk Tea Alliance,” a regional alliance consisting of anti-China organizations funded by the US. Just as US-sponsored opposition groups supported each other during the 2011 “Arab Spring,” the “Milk Tea Alliance” pools its resources, helping amplify the impact of their individual and collective political objectives.

The “Milk Tea Alliance” is a stand-in for a US-led Southeast Asian “NATO.” No current government in the region seeks to risk economic prosperity and tangible development through trade and partnership with China to join any sort of US-led effort to confront and contain China so Washington has built a parallel network of political parties, media organizations, and social movements in a bid to coerce current governments to adopt an anti-China stance or overthrow and replace them if they do not.

Both Myanmar and Thailand in particular have close and growing relationships with China. Thailand counts China as its largest trade partner and is building a high-speed rail line that will connect it to China via the now completed Laos-China high speed railway.

Myanmar hosts infrastructure for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) including bridges, roads, hydroelectric dams, and pipelines which move hydrocarbons from Rakhine state located on the Bay of Bengal to Yunnan province in China. The latter project is of particular importance because it allows China to circumvent various straits, waters, and ports repeatedly designated as potential targets by US military planners, that if blocked or disrupted, would destroy China’s economy.

The US-backed opposition in Myanmar has even attacked BRI infrastructure and other Chinese investments, highlighting the anti-Chinese agenda of US political meddling in Myanmar and across the wider region.

In February of this year, Myanmar opposition media, the Irrawaddy (funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy), would report in their article, “China-Backed Pipeline Facility Damaged in Myanmar Resistance Attack,” that:

An off-take station of the China-backed oil and gas pipelines was damaged when a local resistance group attacked regime forces guarding the facility in Mandalay Region’s Natogyi Township…

The article also claimed:

Anti-Chinese sentiment swelled in Myanmar following the military coup last February, with many people believing Beijing had a hand in the takeover. At that time, there were calls for a boycott of Chinese products, along with calls to blow up the pipelines if China refused to condemn the regime.

In reality, violent opposition movements in Myanmar, Thailand, and beyond are part of a wider proxy conflict the United States is waging against China. In addition to direct tensions with China through sanctions, interference, and threats of military violence, the US is also undermining Chinese-friendly governments along China’s periphery.

The brief incursion by Myanmar’s MiG-29 aircraft and the quick resolution of the incident with the Thai government reflects a growing regional awareness this proxy conflict.

The US-backed opposition in Thailand calling for rash, confrontational measures reflects the same irrational, self-destructive agenda the US-backed government in Kiev adopted from 2014 onward and whose fate provides a glimpse into the divisive, even deadly policies that would be quickly implemented by a US-backed anti-Chinese government in Southeast Asia.

Thailand, should the US-backed opposition come to power in upcoming elections, would be much more inclined to escalate toward open conflict with Myanmar as well as eagerly adopt measures demanded by the US in terms of economically and diplomatically isolating Myanmar, all while uprooting and overturning Thai-Chinese relations back home. It’s an alarming prospect the US-backed Thai opposition’s reaction to this recent cross-border incident serves as a warning for.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

US Outlines Continued Primacy Over Asia at 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue

June 24, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - The British International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has hosted the “Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore since 2002. It is billed as “Asia’s premier security summit,” all while being almost entirely Western-centric in agenda and design. To help illustrate this, since the format was created, the first plenary meeting has always been centered around the US Secretary of Defense – the United States being a nation not even located in Asia.

This year was no exception, the West and its interests took center stage. Opening remarks by IISS Director-General and Chief Executive John Chipman centered around the conflict in Ukraine and the notion that “it is essential for the West to prevail.” Chipman also ensured that it was clear that the West prevailing in Ukraine is just one small part of the West’s “rules-based order” prevailing globally, including over the Indo-Pacific region.

While the opening and keynote address was given by Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, it might as well have been given by US President Joe Biden or another senior representative from Washington. Prime Minister Kishida’s “vision” was indistinguishable from that of the US State Department or the US Department of Defense’s, it consisted of various objectives for the region identical to American interests right down to the fact that nothing PM Kishida proposed would actually benefit the people of Japan and instead would be pursued on Washington’s behalf at the Japanese public’s expense.

This includes Japan adopting NATO-standard defense spending, something clearly aimed at China, a fellow East Asian state with which Japan does a considerable and growing amount of trade. This increased military spending will create opportunities for Washington to box Beijing in, but at the cost of Japanese-Chinese relations reaching their full potential as well as at the cost of regional stability.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s speech at the first plenary meeting contained nothing novel. It was a reiteration of decades of US policy in Asia, a policy of maintaining primacy over the region, its people, and its resources, all under the guise of upholding what is continuously refers to as the “rules-based international order.” .

Like Chipman, Secretary Austin placed Washington’s proxy war with Russia at the heart of the discussion – accusing Russia of violating Ukraine’s sovereignty. Secretary Austin made these comments without any apparent sense of irony considering the United States currently illegally occupies large swaths of eastern Syria, continues its military occupation of Iraq against the desires of Iraqi representatives, and has only just recently withdrawn from Afghanistan, a Central Asian country left in ruins after 2 decades of US occupation.

Worse still, was the emphasis Secretary Austin placed on Taiwan, officially recognized by the US as part of China under the “One China Policy,” and with Secretary Austin himself clearly stating, “we do not support Taiwan independence,” but still placing it on Washington’s agenda for the region up to and including, “assisting Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability,” through the shipment of arms to Taiwan against the wishes of Beijing.

The United States condemning Russia for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty while blatantly violating China’s in regards to Taiwan is a continuation of American exceptionalism – the creation and adherence to rules when convenient, and the wholesale trampling of those rules when inconvenient.

Secretary Austin made several other paradoxical claims, the most troubling being the US supposedly not desiring “an Asian NATO” all while repeatedly declaring America’s intent to expand military exercises across the region to build up military cooperation and expand military interoperability – in other words – the pursuit of “an Asian NATO” in everything but official title and treaty.

At one point Secretary Austin would claim:

Next year, our Coast Guard will also deploy a cutter to Southeast Asia and Oceania. That will open up new opportunities for multinational crewing, training, and cooperation across the region. And it will be the first major US Coast Guard cutter permanently stationed in the region. 

The US deploying its military thousands of miles from its own shores, and in this case, deploying the US Coast Guard on the opposite side of the planet from where America’s actual coasts exist, is done as a means of attempting to integrate regional military forces into a US-led military presence. It is being done precisely to threaten, constrain, encroach upon, and contain China in Asia.

This is what China is responding to, and yet China’s reasonable reactions to US military encroachment in Asia is depicted by the US as “the People’s Republic of China adopting a more coercive and aggressive approach.”

And while Secretary Austin condemns Russia for its alleged violations of Ukrainian sovereignty while clearly threatening China’s sovereignty regarding the Taiwan question, the US is also infringing on the sovereignty of its supposed “partners” across Asia and especially so in Southeast Asia.

It does this because while Secretary Austin claims America’s Asian partners share Washington’s vision regarding the region, this is not entirely true. They do so only to a point – and that is the point at which US coercion and interference is minimal.

The notion of “ASEAN centrality” as defined by the US is Southeast Asia’s leading role in defining regional architecture. This is so simply because the US refuses to recognize China’s natural leadership role in Asia as the region’s largest nation by geography, population, and economy. It is also so because the United States feels that its influence over ASEAN is greater than any influence it could exercise over China. In many ways its is similar to the way the US influences or in many ways outright controls the European Union versus Russia.

As part of this process the United States funds and directs political opposition groups throughout ASEAN – groups that are anti-China, pro-West and more specifically, pro-American and seek to seize power in their respective nations, sabotage ties with China and fall into a US-led regional front against China. And just as it is similar to what the United States has constructed in Europe versus Russia it will likewise have a similarly destabilizing and destructive impact on Asia as a whole.

The United States, through political interference across ASEAN, is blatantly violating the individual sovereignty of ASEAN member states as well as creating a destabilizing effect on Asia as a region. The protests in Hong Kong, continued aspirations toward separatism in Taiwan, ongoing protests still taking place in Bangkok, Thailand, and persistent armed conflict in Myanmar are all the result of US political interference in Asia and Washington’s desire to disrupt the peaceful Chinese-led rise of Asia in order to maintain both its own, and Europe’s historical primacy over the region instead.

When Secretary Austin accused Beijing of “adopting a more coercive and aggressive approach,” he was actually projecting. While China will continue to assert itself against US encroachment, it will be the US, for a lack of a better alternative, who becomes increasingly aggressive in its political interference in the region, unable to compete with China in the material terms China increasingly excels at.

In the months and years to come, we will see a race between a Chinese-led rise of Asia economically, politically, and militarily, versus Washington’s attempts to disrupt and undermine it through engineered political strife just as it engineered in Eastern Europe from 2014 onward, or the Middle East from 2011 onward.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Western Foreign Policy Created Ukraine Crisis, is Creating Crisis with China

June 9, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - Two recent events, both overshadowed by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, help illustrate how the same problematic aspects of Western foreign policy driving the Ukrainian conflict are hard at work in provoking conflict with yet another global power, China.

Western complaints about an alleged naval base China is accused of building in Cambodia and an altercation between Chinese and Canadian patrol aircraft in the North Pacific reflect growing tensions between an inflexible and declining Western unipolar order and a rising China that increasingly refuses to subordinate or explain itself to the West upon the global stage.

While peaceful coexistence would not only be possible but preferable in regards to global peace, stability, and prosperity, the US-led “rules-based international order” has openly declared its intentions of inhibiting China’s rise and has demonstrated just how far in terms of disrupting global peace, stability, and prosperity the US and its allies are willing to go to achieve this.

China’s “Secret Navy Base” 

The Washington Post in an article titled, “China secretly building PLA naval facility in Cambodia, Western officials say,” would claim:

China is secretly building a naval facility in Cambodia for the exclusive use of its military, with both countries denying that is the case and taking extraordinary measures to conceal the operation, Western officials said. 

The Washington Post already reported that:

The establishment of a Chinese naval base in Cambodia — only its second such overseas outpost and its first in the strategically significant Indo-Pacific region — is part of Beijing’s strategy to build a network of military facilities around the world in support of its aspirations to become a true global power, the officials said.

The unnamed Western officials failed to point out just how far China actually has to go to become a “true global power” in terms of building military installations abroad. A 2021 Al Jazeera article titled, “Infographic: US military presence around the world,” noted that, “The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.”

The notion that China’s activities in Cambodia are “secret” is also questionable. Both China and Cambodia are surely aware of the full extent to which China is or isn’t involved at Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base. Neither nation is required to provide an explanation to the United States whose own shores are located thousands of miles away.

While the Washington Post accuses China of using  “a combination of coercion, punishment and inducements in the diplomatic, economic and military realms,” to “bend” nations to Beijing’s interests, it is actually the United States who threatens not only Cambodia, but nations throughout Southeast Asia, all of whom seek to cultivate constructive ties with China.

Late last year, according to AP in their article, “US orders arms embargo on Cambodia, cites Chinese influence,” Cambodia was openly penalized simply for its growing ties with China. The article would claim:

Beijing’s support allows Cambodia to disregard Western concerns about its poor record in human and political rights, and in turn Cambodia generally supports Beijing’s geopolitical positions on issues such as its territorial claims in the South China Sea.

The construction of new Chinese military facilities at Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base is a point of strong contention with Washington.

Clearly, US claims about Chinese foreign policy is pure projection. The US would be pressed to cite specific “punishments” China has dispensed to nations simply for cultivating ties with the US. The US, on the other hand, not only imposed various economic penalties on Cambodia’s government, Washington has also sponsored opposition forces who openly aim to overthrow the current Cambodian government.

In a 2017 Phnom Penh Post article titled, “Sokha video producer closes Phnom Penh office in fear,” a senior Cambodian opposition leader – Kem Sokha – would be quoted as saying:

“…the USA that has assisted me, they asked me to take the model from Yugoslavia, Serbia, where they can change 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. 

He would also claim:

“I do not do anything at my own will. There 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.” 

If Cambodia, whose constitution prohibits the presence of foreign military facilities on its territory, is willing to risk public backlash for allowing China to construct a “secret base” there, it might be as a means of preventing the country from becoming the next Ukraine.

Canada’s “Global Jurisdiction” vs Chinese Sovereignty 

Also in the headlines recently is a row growing between China and Canada over the latter’s air patrols “monitoring” North Korea.

A Reuters article, “China warns Canada over air patrols monitoring North Korea sanctions busting,” would claim:

China’s foreign ministry warned Canada on Monday of potential “severe consequences” of any “risky provocation,” after Canada’s military last week accused Chinese warplanes of harassing its patrol aircraft monitoring North Korea sanctions busting.

“The UN Security Council has never authorized any country to carry out military surveillance in the seas and airspace of other countries in the name of enforcing sanctions,” foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a media briefing. 

And indeed, the UN has not authorized Canada or any other nation to fly air patrols to enforce sanctions on North Korea. The Canadian patrol aircraft are so far from Canada’s own territory, they are actually based in Japan throughout the duration of these “monitoring” missions.

The United States’ self-appointed role as arbiter of who can and cannot construct military bases around the globe and Canadian patrol aircraft assuming global jurisdiction including off China’s own shores and around its neighbor’s shores, are illustrations of American exceptionalism (and by extension, the exceptionalism of their closest allies).

This exceptionalism led to the crisis in Ukraine which followed the US overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014.  The US began a process of militarizing the nation which shares a substantial border with the Russian Federation. Whereas the US was allowed to send its military to Ukraine to train forces for an eventual war with Russia, the US and its allies decried Russian military deployments within Russia’s own territory to put in check the growing threat Ukraine was being transformed into.

Whereas the US was able to interfere deeply in Ukraine’s internal political affairs, Russia was accused of backing separatists in the Donbas region and thus of fuelling the 8 year war that precipitated ongoing military operations in Ukraine today.

Likewise, the US is able to maintain hundreds of military bases around the globe, including those constructed as part of illegal wars of aggression and subsequent occupations. China, however, is apparently “wrong” for the potential use of part of an existing Cambodian naval facility, with Cambodia’s consent.

US allies like Canada are able to fly “patrol aircraft” thousands of miles from their own shores to “monitor” territory near Chinese shores and those of their neighbors, but China is unable to scramble its own aircraft to intercept and monitor these “patrols.”

In the past, this exceptionalism went unchecked. Because of China’s rise, there is a growing sense of balance being reintroduced into what has been until now a unipolar world order. While the US government and the Western media will complain about China’s growing ties both economically and militarily throughout the Indo-Pacific region, there is little the US can do to stop it. Its increasingly coercive and aggressive policies to punish nations seeking to do business with China may disrupt whatever balancing act many nations have been performing between East and West, driving them deeper into partnership with China and thus only succeed in isolating the US itself.

Only time will tell if the US continues down this increasingly destructive path, Ukraine being only the most recent victim of American exceptionalism, or if the US begins finding a constructive role within the emerging multipolar world.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

West Decries Philippine’s New Government – US-backed Protests Begin

May 26, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - Recent general elections in The Philippines appear to signal the island nation’s continued but gradual move out from under US subordination and its rise with the rest of Asia as China emerges as both a regional and global superpower.

With Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. set to become the next president along with his running mate, Sara Duterte, daughter of the outgoing President Rodrigo Duterte, the Western media appears convinced that it signals the continued building of relations between The Philippines and China and the gradual diminishing of American influence over both The Philippines and the rest of the region.

The Southeast Asian nation of The Philippines has been of strategic importance to the US pursuit of primacy over Asia for decades. From 1898 to 1946 The Philippines was actually a colony of the United States and since the nation gained its independence at the end of World War 2, the US has sought to maintain a military presence on the island nation, as well as political control over it.

In recent years Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has seriously challenged attempts by the US to derail the nation’s ties with China. China represents not only The Philippines’ largest trade partner, but also an increasingly important infrastructure partner. When the US in 2016 organized an “arbitration” at the Hague rejecting China’s claims over the South China Sea under the nine-dash line, President Duterte refused to leverage it and instead worked with China bilaterally.

According to The Sydney Morning Herald in an article titled, “There is a new Marcos in Manila and he wants a maritime deal with China,” the incoming president, Marcos will likely continue pursuing bilateral solutions rather than seek a confrontation underwritten by Washington.

The article notes:

Philippines is one of several nations that have territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea. But Marcos has foreshadowed an intention to pursue a maritime deal with Xi Jinping’s regime and set aside an international tribunal ruling in The Hague that rejected China’s sweeping claims to most of the contested waterway under its so-called nine-dash line.

“That arbitration is no longer an arbitration if there’s only one party. So, it’s no longer available to us,” he said in January, adding that war is not an option and “bilateral agreement is what we are left with”. 

The article also noted that Marcos has insisted he would not turn to the US in regards to his nation’s relations with China.

Policy analysts cited in the article would claim that regardless of the incoming Philippine government’s stated policies, the US and its partners, most notably Australia, would “have to make sure the Marcos regime will not lean too much into the Chinese orbit of influence.”

Benar News, admittedly funded by the US government through an annual grant from the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), in its article, “Marcos seen as pro-China; Robredo will likely test Beijing ties,” would make it much clearer:

China would likely enjoy friendly ties with the Philippines if Ferdinand Marcos Jr. wins next week’s presidential election, while his main challenger, Vice President Leni Robredo, has vowed to seek help in protecting Philippine waters in the South China Sea, American analysts said.

This “insight” was garnered from Benar News’ interview with the likewise US government-funded Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) whose analyst Greg Poling claimed:

Marcos is the most pro-Beijing of all candidates. He is the most pro-Chinese in a system where most people are anti-Chinese. He avoids the press and debates, and what we have are these off-the-cuff remarks that are pro-Chinese. He is a friend of the Chinese embassy.

Marcos’ opponent during the election was Leni Robredo. She served as vice president with President Duterte (The Philippines vote for president and vice president separately allowing opposing politicians to serve side-by-side).

The Benar News article would claim regarding her position regarding China and the US:

Poling said Robredo may not be ideologically pro-American or a “cheerleader for the alliance,” but she appears to be a nationalist who could tap allies for help in the territorial row that has dragged on for years. 

“She is pragmatic about the South China Sea. [She believes] China is a threat and violates the rule of law in the South China Sea,” Poling said, adding that there was reason to believe that her victory could strengthen the Philippine-US alliance.

Manila is Washington’s biggest ally in Southeast Asia, where an increasingly assertive China is encroaching on other claimant nations’ exclusive economic zones in the disputed South China Sea.

Benar News’ article attempts to suggest Robredo is not excessively “pro-American.” But her track record tells a different story.

Robredo was Washington’s Candidate of Choice

Robredo has previously worked for a legal organization funded through foreign governments and foundations including the US government via USAID. Rouge in an article titled, “The Evolution of Leni Robredo: How the VP Underdog Became the Race’s Strongest Contender,” would note:

Robredo landed a gig with SALIGAN (Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Pangligal), an alternative legal support group, begun in Ateneo de Manila University and based in Bicol. “We were like community organizers,” she says of their work. The team would trek to far-flung communities with little to no access to legal aid, and provide paralegal help.

She would spend a decade at SALIGAN, an organization that has for years directly and as part of a wider legal network received funding from and has worked with the US government in shaping and interfering in Philippine sovereign institutions.

In a 2008 USAID document, it would explain:

One ALG, Saligan, reportedly trained almost 500 paralegals to guide farmers’ land reform applications through Department of Agrarian Reform administrative processes. The organization also played a key role in getting the Naga City Government to institutionalize a People’s Council—a permanent official advisory channel for NGO input into the functioning of municipal services. 

With “NGOs” serving as one of the US’ major vectors for interfering in the internal political affairs of targeted nations, SALIGAN’s role in creating councils as “advisory channels for NGO input” means giving US-sponsored organizations the ability to directly influence political decisions.

In 2018 as vice president, Robreto would participate in a US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) program – the Young Leaders for Good Governance (YLGG) Fellowship.

The US government-funded program is meant to not only influence who takes leadership roles in the Philippine government, but also what sort of policies they create – essentially building pro-American political cadres in the heart of the Philippine government.

In an International Republican Institute (IRI) article titled, “Why is it Important to Have Local Level Citizen-Centered Governance in the Philippines?,” it would note Robreto’s role in meeting with participants:

The fellows were particularly honored that Vice President of the Philippines, Leni Robredo spoke at the graduation ceremony. Vice President Robredo addressed the importance of fostering good governance and the crucial role these fellows play in the future of the Philippines, in which they should “innovate and search for better ways to solve problems, change mindsets, take risks and be successful politicians without sacrificing their values.”

While the US accuses China of attempting to influence nations around the globe in contradiction to US interests simply through trade and infrastructure investments, one only has to imagine the reaction from Washington if it was China organizing “leadership programs” to train and install into power its own political cadres.

The Urgency of US-Philippine Military “Cooperation”

A recently published RAND Corporation paper titled, “Ground-Based Intermediate-Range Missiles in the Indo-Pacific – Assessing the Positions of U.S. Allies,” focuses on the necessity for the US to place intermediate-range missiles within striking distance of China. These missiles along with other military assets are prerequisites for any conventional war waged by the US against China – conventional war the US sees as absolutely necessary between now and as early as 2025 to prevent China from irreversibly surpassing the US economically and militarily.

The paper mentions the Philippines specifically, claiming:

The US alliance with the Philippines is in a state of flux. While the Philippine public and elites generally support the United States and the alliance itself, current President Rodrigo Duterte has pursued policies that negatively affect ties. Specifically, since his election in May 2016, Duterte has advocated closer ties with Beijing while concurrently pursuing policies that weaken core pillars of the US-Philippine alliance. Although Duterte has backtracked somewhat on these approaches, leading to some improvement in US-Philippine ties, as long as future Philippine leaders continue similar policies, including opposition to a permanent US military presence, the Philippines is extremely unlikely to accept the deployment of US GBIRMs

Because US strategy in regards to encircling, containing, and potentially waging conventional war against China depends heavily on prepositioning these missiles and other military assets along China’s periphery – especially in regards to Taiwan – securing a sufficient US military presence in the Philippines is crucial. But because such a presence meant solely to threaten China would endanger Chinese-Philippine relations including significant economic ties, no rational government would allow it.

The formation of Marcos’ administration will go far in telling just how Philippine policy toward both China and the US will unfold, but it is safe to say that should the new government attempt build closer ties with China and refuse attempts by the US to recruit it into a regional front against Beijing, the US will employ all the familiar tools used to coerce or even overthrow the government in due time.

If the US is convinced already that the Marcos administration will not pivot toward anti-China policies, it may begin destabilizing efforts through extensive media, NGO, and political networks funded through the NED even before his late-June inauguration. Such efforts would start with youth-led protests citing baseless claims of “voter fraud.” Such protests are already underway.

The New York Times in its article, “Marcos Win Prompts Protests in the Philippines,” claims:

Young voters who had rallied around Leni Robredo during the presidential race gathered to voice their frustration with preliminary results showing her overwhelming defeat. 

The article also claims:

Multiple election observers said they had received thousands of reports of election-related anomalies since the vote on Monday. Malfunctioning voting machines were one of the biggest concerns, with VoteReportPH, an election watchdog, saying the breakdowns had “severely impaired this electoral process.”

VoteReportPH is a conglomeration of US, Western, and allied-funded organizations. “UP Internet Freedom Network,” for example, admits on its website to being funded by the Taiwan government-funded DoubleThink Lab as well as the Western government-funded “Civicus” network. It is only one of many US-funded networks eagerly supporting the current protests.

It is clear Washington sought a different electoral outcome and will use the now familiar tools of US-sponsored “color revolution” to coerce the incoming government to sabotage its ties with China and militarize itself as yet another US proxy. Failing that, the US would seek to overthrow and replace this government with one more to Washington’s liking.

Only time will tell how long these recent protests last and whether or not The Philippines can manage this balancing act with grace, securing socio-economic stability and exploiting the many opportunities offered by China’s regional and global rise, or if through US interference, the Marcos administration is tripped up, landing The Philippines into internal chaos and at the very least, denying the nation as a partner for China.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Washington’s Indo-Pacific “Allies” Refuse to Host US Missiles

May 7, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) -As part of Washington’s long-standing strategy of encircling and containing China, it seeks to add to its already immense military footprint along China’s periphery, missile installations and specifically, ground-based intermediate-range missiles (GBIRMs) across the Indo-Pacific Region.

A research paper funded by the US government and published by the RAND Corporation titled, “Ground-Based Intermediate-Range Missiles in the Indo-Pacific Assessing the Positions of US Allies,” claims this is necessary because China has developed “a wide array of capabilities that the United States was prohibited from fielding” because of America’s adherence to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of which it is no longer a signatory.

The purpose of the paper is to determine where best to locate these missiles because the US itself has no territory in the region close enough to China and its GBIRMs to put them in check. This, however, is also an admission that China’s GBIRM capabilities are not a danger to the US itself, but rather to US “interests” in the Indo-Pacific region including first and foremost its desired primacy over it.

The paper considers various US “allies” who might host the missiles including Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia, and Japan.

In each case there are serious complications including the fact that most of these “allies” have close and ever-growing ties with China economically and in some cases even militarily.

Thailand: US Needs Regime Change

Regarding Thailand, the RAND paper cites two obstacles, the first being:

…since the coup, Thailand has not held fair elections resulting in a democratically elected government. Instead, the forces behind the coup remain in power, with a pro-military government pushing the country further down the road of authoritarianism. Observers recognize the February 2019 elections as anything but fair, and the government continues to weaken Thailand’s democratic institutions. The continuing presence of the military-backed government in Bangkok prevents the United States from strengthening US-Thai military relations. As long as this remains true, requesting this regime to host US GBIRMs is highly unlikely.

In reality, RAND’s conclusion that elections in Thailand were “anything but fair” is based solely on the fact that the US client regime of choice – a coalition between US-backed billionaires Thaksin Shinawatra and Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit simply failed to win and take office.

Because political circles representing Thailand’s actual best interests took office, Thai foreign policy was shaped in such a way leading to the second obstacle for US missiles being based in Thailand.

RAND would claim:

Second, the Thai government has shown a propensity to pursue closer ties with China, particularly since the coup. Research reveals that Thai military officers and officials view Chinese influence on Thailand’s security policies as now equal to that of the United States. Some analysts have argued that this is because Thailand views China as benign rather than a revisionist power or a military threat. Others have found that Thailand sees itself as reliant on China for protection against military threats. How much influence these views have on defense decisions remains an ongoing debate, but Thailand has not only purchased arms from China, such as submarines and tanks, but also allowed the People’s Liberation Army Navy to access the Sattahip Naval Base (a port of call often used by the United States) and exercised with China on an annual basis. These closer ties represent a major reason why the United States “should not harbor any illusions that Thailand will be an active partner on China-related challenges.”

Not mentioned is the fact that China is Thailand’s largest trade partner, largest investor, largest source of tourism and thus a direct contributor to one of Thailand’s several major industries, as well as an increasingly important partner in reducing Thailand’s dependency on US weapons and defense partnership. Cultivating closer ties with China is simply in Thailand’s best interests but is a process done with a very conscious effort to maintain a certain level of ties with the United States nonetheless.

It can be assumed that the policymakers behind this RAND report would like to see Thai policy and the government making it changed. But this would mean Thai policy would change in a way that would jeopardize Thailand’s best interests simply to suit Washington’s. Because Thailand’s current ruling circles of political and military power refuse to place Washington’s interests above their own, Washington has embarked on a policy of changing Thailand’s ruling circles of political and military power.

Protests that could be characterized as anti-government, anti-monarchy, and anti-military have taken to the streets on and off since 2019 in the aftermath of Thai general elections that year. The core organizations promoting, supporting, and even leading the protests are funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This includes media organizations like Prachatai, Isaan Record, and Bernar News, legal organizations like iLaw (Internet Law Reform Dialogue) who in 2020 organized a petition to rewrite Thailand’s constitution, and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights who not only provide legal support for protest leaders but included staff members who themselves led protests.

In other words, the RAND Corporation is not simply pointing out the shortcomings in Thailand preventing the US from placing missiles in their territory among other attempts to militarily and economically encircle and contain China – the US is already actively attempting to rectify these shortcomings through political interference ranging from coercion up to and including attempted regime change.

It is precisely because of Washington’s approach not only with Thailand but all of the nations mentioned in the RAND Corporation’s report that many of these nations have begun diversifying away from economic and military dependence on the West and the US in particular. Increasing trade with China and Beijing’s foreign policy of non-interference makes turning to China an easy choice. Only through active coercion and interference can the US attempt to convince nations in the Indo-Pacific to rethink this pivot.

The Philippines: Once a Colony…

The Philippines – colonized by the US from 1898 to 1946 – has experienced a similar pivot from West to East and more specifically, from a close (some could say subservient) relationship with Washington to a more balanced relationship using growing ties with Beijing as leverage to ensure it remains that way.

The RAND Corporation says of the Philippines:

The US alliance with the Philippines is in a state of flux. While the Philippine public and elites generally support the United States and the alliance itself, current President Rodrigo Duterte has pursued policies that negatively affect ties. Specifically, since his election in May 2016, Duterte has advocated closer ties with Beijing while concurrently pursuing policies that weaken core pillars of the US-Philippine alliance. Although Duterte has backtracked somewhat on these approaches, leading to some improvement in US-Philippine ties, as long as future Philippine leaders continue similar policies, including opposition to a permanent US military presence, the Philippines is extremely unlikely to accept the deployment of US GBIRMs.

Just like with Thailand – the Philippines counts China as its largest and most important economic partner. Allowing the US to place missiles on its territory for the explicit and sole purpose of threatening China clearly runs contrary to Manila’s best interests.

Just as in Thailand, the US maintains an active policy of political interference in the Philippines to shape its political landscape to place pro-American individuals into positions of power to shift Filipino foreign policy away from reflecting the nation’s interests and instead serving American interests at the cost of the Philippines’ economic and political future.

South Korea: Close Economic Ties with China Trump US Troop Presence 

South Korea, despite hosting tens of thousands of US troops, is also considered by RAND an unlikely host of US GBIRMs. The report notes:

Although the alliance between the United States and the ROK was forged during the Korean War, the ROK also retains a close relationship with China to help manage and resolve continuing North Korean security challenges. The ROK also shares close economic ties with China. Because of experiences of Chinese opposition to the ROK hosting a US defensive missile system and the ROK government’s past susceptibility to Chinese pressure, combined with a general deterioration of US-ROK relations, it is highly unlikely that the ROK would consent to host US GBIRMs.

Again, economic ties with China and the fact that hosting US missiles for the explicit use of threatening China would run contrary to South Korea’s own best interests.

Australia: Self-Sabotage

As a matter of fact, the same goes for Australia – also mentioned in the report. And it has only been through immense political interference in Australia and pressure from Washington to sabotage Australia’s economic ties with China, that a general atmosphere of belligerence against China has begun to form. But even so, RAND Corporation sees the positioning of ground-based intermediate range missiles in Australia a provocation too far.

The report states:

Although strong historical ties with the United States and developments in 2021 that indicate an expansion of US access and presence make it impossible to rule out the possibility of Australia being willing to host US GBIRMs, a historical reluctance to host permanent foreign bases, combined with the geographical distance of Australia from continental Asia, makes this possibility unlikely. This is unlikely to change in the coming decade, even as Australia agrees to an increase in US rotational presence.

And while RAND notes that it is unlikely to change in the coming decades there are clearly efforts by the US and its supporters in Australia to change this sooner rather than later.

This is done through policy think tanks like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) funded by the US government and US-based arms manufacturers – shaping Australian foreign policy to suit the interests of the US at the cost of Australia’s economy and its sovereignty.

Japan: The Most Likely Candidate 

Even Japan, still occupied by tens of thousands of US troops a generation after the end of World War 2, is seen as unlikely to host such missiles. The RAND report notes that:

Because of Japan’s willingness to strengthen the alliance and pursue efforts to bolster its own defense capabilities vis-à-vis China, however, Japan is the regional ally that appears most likely to host US GBIRMs. That possibility, however, remains low, heavily caveated by the challenge of accepting any increase in US  presence and deploying weapons that are explicitly offensive in nature. That is unlikely to change in the years ahead.

However, the report notes that Japan could serves as a partner for a potential alternative to hosting US missiles of the intermediate range category – jointly developing such missiles deployed by the Japanese military itself.

The US Undermines, not Underwrites Indo-Pacific Peace

The US Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) on its official website claims:

USINDOPACOM protects and defends, in concert with other US Government agencies, the territory of the United States, its people, and its interests. With allies and partners, USINDOPACOM is committed to enhancing stability in the Asia-Pacific region by promoting security cooperation, encouraging peaceful development, responding to contingencies, deterring aggression, and, when necessary, fighting to win.  This approach is based on partnership, presence, and military readiness.

Yet according to US government-funded analysis carried out by the RAND Corporation in this report, existing military cooperation with the US seems more or less testing the limits of what is acceptable in each nation. The RAND Corporation report acknowledges how unpopular the notion of hosting additional US missiles is throughout the Indo-Pacific region despite insinuating its necessity to counter China.

Taken together it is clear that America’s military presence in the Indo-Pacific region is aimed solely at encircling, containing, and confronting China. This is a policy that threatens to undermine not just China’s peace, stability, security, and prosperity, but that of the entire Indo-Pacific region which depends on close and ever-growing ties with China.

Were China an actual threat, nations would be asking the US for its missiles rather than the US military commissioning reports to figure out why each nation does not want them – a problem then passed off to other US agencies and funding arms to resolve through political interference and coercion.

Ultimately, this reveals the US, not China, as the greatest and most persistent threat to the Indo-Pacific region – a region that may not represent perfect diplomatic relations at all times across all issues – but a region that seems to agree that China’s rise is key to each nation’s future individually as well as key to the future of the region as a whole.

The real battlelines will not be between China and its neighbors, but rather between the region and Washington’s various ongoing efforts to undermine sovereignty and eventually change various nations’ willingness to host US missiles as well as cooperate with other measures the US seeks to pursue in its increasingly dangerous competition – some may already say conflict – with China.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Myanmar Violence: a Slow Burn US Proxy War

April 26, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - The ongoing violence in Myanmar may have faded into the background of global media coverage as much more intense conflict shapes up within and along Ukraine’s borders in Eastern Europe and as Washington raises the prospect of direct conflict with China in Asia. However, Myanmar’s conflict serves as a point of destabilization which may impact the wider stability of Southeast Asia and thus undermine China in a more indirect but still significant manner.

Myanmar’s Fight Against Foreign Interference

The conflict began when Myanmar’s military took power from the government of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party in February 2021. While the Western media portrays this as an undemocratic military dictatorship deposing an elected government – Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD through their collective US backing – had hijacked the nation’s electoral system.

The US National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) webpage for Myanmar (still called by its British colonial nomenclature “Burma” by the NED) has at least 57 programs and organizations listed involving every aspect of Myanmar’s society from education and the judicial system, to media, ethnic relations, political campaigning, and supposed “human rights” advocacy groups.

With millions of dollars a year pouring in from the US government through NED, a powerful political machine was created capable of effortlessly installing into power pro-Western candidates through elections tainted by this blatant and extensive foreign interference.

Compounding this foreign interference was the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi’s administration included as key high-level advisors two British citizens (Robert San Pe and Joseph Fisher) and an Australian citizen (Sean Turnell). They crafted policy for everything from overhauling Myanmar’s judicial system, to its economic policy, to rewriting Myanmar’s constitution.

The military’s seizure of power was meant to uproot this foreign interference and restore sovereignty throughout Myanmar’s institutions.

Violent protests against the ousting of Aung San Suu Kyi quickly escalated into armed conflict with the backing of the United States, its allies, and a vast network across Southeast Asia of so-called “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) funded by Western governments. The remnants of Aung San Suu Kyi’s government formed the “National Unity Government” (NUG) which in turn created an armed “People’s Defense Force” (PDF).

Hundreds have died in the violence. While the Western media claimed Myanmar was heading into “civil war,” in reality the prospect of war has mostly subsided and has been replaced instead by the persistent threat of a high-intensity terrorist campaign carried out by the NUG’s PDFs as well as opportunistic armed ethnic groups that have on-and-off fought Myanmar’s central government since the nation gained independence from Britain in 1948.

Slow Burn Terrorism Sold by the West as “Fighting for Freedom”

Just as the Western media attempted to pass off Al Qaeda and the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria as “freedom fighters,” or paper over Nazi military formations operating within the Ukrainian military, the fact that Myanmar’s opposition is waging a nationwide terrorist campaign has been continusously spun by the likes of the BBC.

A recent BBC video report titled, “Inside the people’s resistance in Myanmar” follows armed fanatics as they destroy civilian infrastructure, raid guard shacks, and at one point in the video – plan and then supposedly storm and destroy the private home of an individual accused of being an “informant” – an accusation that when directed at members of opposition as grounds for arrest by Myanmar’s government is dismissed by Western “rights” groups and governments as “politically motivated.”

The BBC never produces any evidence that the targeted home belonged to an actual informant nor explains how extrajudicial violence against “informants” is justified. The BBC filmed the “raid” which appears entirely staged, complete with BBC cameras set up inside the home to film the militants arriving and entering the house.

While the BBC’s footage was obvious propaganda, the targeting of innocent civilians by deadly vigilantism in support of the ousted US-sponsored client regime is all too real.

The US government through the NED funds virtually every English-language media platform operating in or around Myanmar including Myanmar Now, The Irrawaddy, Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), and Mizzima. And it is in the pages of these media platforms that admissions are piecemeal made to the level of terrorism and mass murder the “people’s resistance” actually consists of.

Myanmar Now in an August 2021 article would admit a terrorist named La Pyae Wun of the PDF who targeted rail security guards warned his organization would kill anyone at all perceived as working with the government. Myanmar Now claimed;

According to La Pyae Wun, that means that anyone in uniform who continues to work for the junta, including traffic police, firefighters, and even Red Cross workers, is fair game.

NED-funded Irrawaddy would also admit to abuses in a March 2022 article titled, “Resistance Leader and Former Monk Admits Committing War Crimes in Upper Myanmar,” claiming:

Fighters from the Yinmabin People’s Defense Force (YMB-PDF) in Sagaing Region have committed murder and other war crimes, the YMB-PDF leader told The Irrawaddy.

The article would detail the violence which included abducting, coercing, robbing, torturing and killing dozens of people.

Like other US-sponsored proxy wars – particularly in Libya and Syria from 2011 onward – the fanatics the US has helped arm and support in various regime change conflicts often end up as fractured terrorist organizations as likely to kill one another as they are likely to kill innocent civilians or government and military personnel.

Myanmar is Just a Part of a Wider Proxy War on China 

While the US claims its interests in Myanmar is the restoration of “democracy,” it is very clear that Myanmar is just one of several proxy crises Washington is cultivating along China’s periphery specifically to undermine, encircle, and contain China itself.

It is no surprise that these same US NED-funded media platforms are eager to report threats and attacks on Chinese investments across Myanmar.

A May 2021 Irrawaddy article titled, “Deadly Attack on Pipeline Station Spotlights China’s High Stakes in Myanmar,” would admit:

Since Myanmar’s military staged a coup on Feb. 1, no country seems more concerned than China over the unfolding chaos in the Southeast Asian nation. Given its investments in major infrastructure and other projects in the country, as well as its roughly US$16-million per day border trade with Myanmar, Beijing has good reason to be worried. Among its many investments in its southern neighbor, the 800-kilometer-long oil and natural gas twin pipelines that run from Myanmar’s western region to China are seen as having strategic importance. The crude oil pipeline transports 22 million tons annually, while the natural gas pipeline carries 12 billion cubic meters of gas.

Security personnel guarding the pipeline were attacked and killed as part of a wider anti-China component to the US sponsored conflict that also saw nationwide attacks on Chinese factories according to AP.

More recently, The Irrawaddy reported in an article titled, “Myanmar Resistance Threatens Chinese Mines,” reported:

China-backed projects in Myanmar are now under threat from resistance forces with 16 groups in Sagaing Region warning Chinese-run copper mines in Salingyi to halt operations.

Salingyi is home to the Chinese-run Letpadaung, Sapetaung and Kyesintaung copper mines and resistance groups in Salingyi and Yinmabin have called on miners to down tools and join the civil disobedience movement (CDM) by May 5.

The opposition’s threats not only target Myanmar, China and their collective economic prosperity, but also the lives and wellbeing of workers at the mines. The Irrawaddy is happy to report that the Chinese mining company being targeted is also being sanctioned by the US government, illustrating yet another example of how the US works in tandem with Myanmar’s opposition in the division and destruction of the country and the targeting of Chinese interests in the country.

The US has applied similar pressure elsewhere across Southeast Asia such as Cambodia – a nation targeted by increasing sanctions simply because of its close relationship with China and because of the United States’ desire to isolate it within the Indo-Pacific region.

While the slow-burn proxy war the US is waging in Myanmar is thousands of miles away from the front lines in Ukraine the similarities are inescapable. The US strategy of installing client regimes into power composed of violent fanatics to steer a nation onto an otherwise irrational collision course with its closest and most important trading partners (Ukraine and Russia, Myanmar and China) is consistent in the methods employed.

The solution in Ukraine appears to be Russia’s military eliminating the forces used as proxies by the West to endanger the lives of Ukrainians and Russians alike. For Myanmar, the problem is somewhat more complex. While the US-backed opposition and their militant formations are fond of targeting and killing civilians and the softest of military targets, they avoid direct combat with Myanmar’s military at all costs. Many of the largest armed ethnic groups as well as foreign sponsored groups supporting them reside outside of Myanmar’s territory.

To truly contribute to Myanmar’s stabilization, Southeast Asia and its neighbors including India and China would need to uproot both these armed groups and these Western-sponsored fronts aiding and abetting them from the entire region’s territory.

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was involved in January 2022 in helping stabilize Kazakhstan from US-sponsored violence. The Solomon Islands has reached a defense agreement with China to help prevent future violence like that seen in November 2021.

Although unlikely in the near future, Southeast Asia through ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) could conceivably create similar arrangements to confront and uproot Western interference undermining peace, stability, and prosperity in the region – starting in Myanmar and removing from the region’s shoulders the prospect of forign-sponsored political violence everywhere in ASEAN once and for all.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.