From Tunisia to Thailand, it’s a global gambit.
by Tony Cartalucci
to what end? The globalists make their predictable suggestions.
Bangkok, Thailand April 22, 2011 – The Thai armed forces have this week been carrying out a series of military exercises across the country in a show of strength. With one particular exercise taking place in Thailand’s capital of Bangkok, one must wonder what sort of security threat requires a mechanized army in the heart of the nation, far from any of its borders?
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) offers up one possible answer in an article written by Pavin Chachavalpongpun of the globalist funded Institute of Southeast Asian Studies* titled “Thailand’s Military on the Offensive.” Pavin suggests the Thai military is attempting to discredit and intimidate political opponents ahead of an upcoming election, using the threat of a coup and Thailand’s lese-majeste law. Lese-majeste, under Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code includes defaming, insulting or threatening the Thai Royal Family. The WSJ piece suggests that the military “may be exploiting its role as protector of the monarchy to legitimize its own involvement in politics, but in the process it is also further politicizing the institution.”
Another possible answer becomes apparent when delving into the military’s “political opponents” which the WSJ article only eludes to. What if any threats have they really made against Thailand’s long standing, highly revered monarchy and what are their implications in a broader geopolitical context? The WSJ specifically mentions as the military’s political opponents the “proxies of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra,” the billionaire globalist now residing in Dubai as he directs a by-the-book color revolution in the streets of Bangkok.
propaganda, Thaksin has managed to create a cult of personality
around himself, unassailable by even his own misdeeds.
Thaksin, a former adviser to the Carlyle Group, was literally standing in front of the CFR in NYC on the eve of his ousting from power in 2006 via a bloodless military coup. Since 2006, he has been represented by fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, International Crisis Group’s Kenneth Adelman and his Edelman Public Relations firm (also a corporate sponsor of the “color revolution college” Movements.org), Belfer Center adviser Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and now Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff, a major corporate member of the globalist Chatham House.
With Robert Amsterdam concurrently representing Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who likewise was ousted from financial and political power for selling-out his own country, a disturbing pattern is evident. Amsterdam appears to specialize in using embattled Western proxies, portraying them as political victims and leveraging this supposed moral high ground to undermine target regimes. For Amsterdam’s client Khodorkovsky, in addition to criminally consolidating Russia’s economic resources and preparing to put them under Western receivership, he had also been building a Soros style “Open Russian Foundation” with Henry Kissinger and “Lord” Jacob Rothschild. This foundation aimed at permanently replacing Russia’s establishment with the globalists’ civil society underlay.
as leverage to undermine the Thai government and bolster the color revolution.
Amsterdam also represents Russian criminal billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Thaksin too, after a promising first term in office, began criminally consolidating power and wealth, eventually trying to ramrod through a US-Thai FTA without parliamentary approval. He also meticulously built up a Tammany Hall-style political machine up north which served as the groundwork for what would later become the current red shirt color revolution. Through village funds, socialist handouts, and outright vote buying, Thaksin built a voting bloc that would consistently return him, or any proxy running in his name, to power regardless of their flagrant crimes against both Thailand and humanity, including his drug war which saw over 2,000 people extra-judicially murdered in the streets of Thailand over a 3 month period. Thaksin’s supporters, much like the globalist Newsweek magazine, are more than happy to exonerate him, citing the “democratic” strides he made while in office.
As with Khodorkovsky’s “Open Russian Foundation,” there was a social component to Thaksin’s activities aimed at not only undermining Thailand’s establishment and culture, but entirely replacing it. This became more than evident after his ousting in 2006 when his red movement’s official publications began frequently featuring stories of various historical monarchies being deposed and replaced by alternative systems of governance. Monarchies frequently featured within these publications include the French & Burmese monarchies and the Russian monarchy. It should be noted that each was replaced by a despotic system in many ways more tyrannical than the systems they sought to replace – in France the Emperor Napoleon, in Burma the British Empire, and in Russia the Soviet Union.
Anti-Monarchist, pro-Communist propaganda. (click image to enlarge)
Throughout the red shirts’ publications other themes include insinuated threats aimed at the monarchy and more recently, calls to emulate uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and perhaps most alarmingly, comparisons made between ousting Qaddafi in Libya and Thailand’s current prime minster. Considering that each one of these nations amongst the “Arab Spring” are textbook examples of foreign funded subversion, it is telling and troubling indeed that Thailand’s red shirts are standing in open solidarity with them. Red shirt propaganda can be found online as well, including on the National Endowment for Democracy funded Prachatai website.
“Arab Spring.” The middle scan compares Qaddafi with Thailand’s current
prime minster, stating they will both die in their seats of power. (click image
to enlarge.) For more red shirt propaganda, please visit 2bangkok.com’s
Red shirt intelligentsia Giles “Jai” Ungpakorn gives us further insight into the “alternative system” the red shirt movement under Thaksin plans to usher in. Ungpakorn is a self-confessed Marxist and believes in turning Thailand into a socialist welfare state, expanding on Thaksin’s populist policies with the complete redistribution of wealth, and the entire removal of the monarchy from Thai society. He published the “Red Siam Manifesto” within which he enumerates nearly every policy in the globalists’ playbook including abortion, environmentalism, and outright communism.
Considering Thaksin’s affiliations and his agenda, stated ad nasuem in manifestos and a library’s worth of official publications stretching back to 2009, it is quite clear that the Thai military’s recent show of strength is not merely attempting to use lese-majeste law to pressure their political opposition. They are responding to a foreign funded, globalist influenced, concerted attempt to remove entirely Thailand’s laws, institutions, economic foundation, and even its history and culture. While the WSJ warns the military of possibly politicizing the monarchy by being overprotective, the truth is that Thaksin and his color revolution have already done so long ago in their bid to forcibly transform Thai society.
country, different color. The “Arab Spring” is a global gambit.
The threat is very real, as in April 2009, Thaksin’s red shirts turned up in the streets of Bangkok, rioting, burning, and destroying property as they heeded their Dubai-based leader’s call to rise in revolution. The military was able to disperse the mobs and restore order. Similar street demonstrations and even bloodier violence would play out in Bangkok in April and May of 2010. This time, red shirt leaders made good on their promises to bring in armed militants to wage their “people’s war.”
300 militants armed with M-79 grenade launchers were admittedly fielded by red shirt leaders. Ensuing battles would kill 7 soldiers in an April 10, 2010 ambush, and ultimately 84 other people through a combination of gun battles, arson, and grenade attacks over the following weeks. However, despite the chaos and widespread damage caused by this second attempted “people’s revolution,” Thai troops were again able to restore order. While Thailand’s 70 million people cringe in anticipation for a third round, recent military exercises may have been a show of readiness and willingness to do their job again.
With uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen all featuring militant components and rogue military officers leading coups, insurrections, and regime change, now admittedly all US-funded and orchestrated, Thailand’s recent military show of force may well be aimed at potential dissenters within the their own ranks. Thaksin’s political party included retired General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh until he recently and unexpectedly announced his supposed resignation. Thaksin’s cousin Chaisit Shinawatra is also a high ranking retired general. Both are still highly influential politically and militarily, with Chaisit just recently giving his blessings to Thaksin’s nomination of his own sister to run in his place in upcoming elections.
Whether or not Chavalit or Chaisit would, or could stage an “Arab Spring” style regime change is entirely speculative. There are many other possible candidates, as Thailand is neither militarily nor politically homogeneous, centralized, or for that matter, evenly divided. What is certain is that the political chess pieces are moving rapidly now within Thailand, as globalist eyes watch and hands meddle, including those of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s International Crisis Group (ICG).
The ICG has recently called for international observers to monitor upcoming elections. Such monitoring, as was the case in Belarus, is ill-advised, as unsatisfactory results for western-backed candidates, coupled with the alleged legitimacy of international monitors, only gives opposition leaders more leverage to escalate their campaigns with calls of “rigged elections.” That the ICG has turned its attention toward Thailand as of late is especially troubling, considering its recent role in facilitating regime change in Egypt.
Thailand of course, constitutes part of China’s “String of Pearls.” Through destabilizing or instituting regime changes in Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, or even as far as Pakistan, essential links in China’s logistical and tactical chains would be compromised or entirely broken. With recent attempts to foster an overtly foreign-backed color revolution against Beijing itself, it is not difficult to believe that similar attempts have or will be made in China’s peripheries, just as Western-funded color revolutions have racked Russia’s borders since the fall of the Soviet Union, and still threaten to rack republics like Belarus.
Regarding Thailand’s strategic importance to China, it possesses the narrow Kra Isthmus that China would like to develop into a Suez/Panama Canal-like project to shorten trips for its oil laden, China-bound tankers. Thailand also serves as an overland conduit, running north and south with a developed rail system connecting Singapore’s shipping yards to Laos’ capital of Vientiane. China has begun the development of a rail system through Laos and the joint upgrading of Thailand’s rail system. Thailand also is one of the world’s largest rice exporters, which makes the nation vital to China’s future growth and food security.
As with Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and now Yemen, before US funding, backing, and manipulation was publicly admitted and the geopolitical gambit revealed, armies of faithful devotees and propagandists peddling the empty dream of international democracy will argue that Thailand’s red shirt movement is somehow different. They will go through great lengths to deny foreign influence, just as the “Arab Spring” tried, and great lengths to maximize the world’s scorn toward the regime they seek to replace.
It is essential that we research entirely all aspects of each upcoming conflict, separating our research from attempts made to play against our emotional and cultural prejudices. While many in the West abhor monarchies, Thais have a similar skepticism and distaste towards the circus that is modern “democracy.” We must weigh the globalist dystopia attempting to establish itself worldwide against the regional, nationalistic regimes it seeks to replace. It is also essential that we look to ourselves and our community for pragmatic solutions instead of demagogues like Thaksin Shinwatra and his proxy party which offers socialist handouts and political solutions in exchange for your servile dependency on them and ultimately, their globalist paymasters.
*Donations and support for the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies can be found on .pfd page 88 of their annual report.