More Fiction from Vltchek.
Aprial 27, 2014 (Michael Pirsch - ATN) - Twelve years ago, New York Times journalist Judith Miller was the person who wrote, over and over again, the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Her lies opened the door for the criminal invasion of Iraq which has totally destroyed that country. Now, Thomas Fuller of the New York Times continues the practice of mass deception in his articles about the reasons for the protests in Bangkok. He has been joined by Andre Vltchek, a regular contributor to Counterpunch and Znet, in practicing to deceive readers about the same protests.
An examination of the GINI index also shows inequality rising, not decreasing as Vltchek claims. The higher the GINI score the more unequal a country is, the lower the score shows more economic equality. From 2002-2009 Thailand’s score increased from 42 to 53.6. This shows more inequality not less. It is interesting to note that Thailand had more equality one year into Thaksin’s first official term and less equality 8 years later. Venezuela’s GINI score dropped from 49.5 (pre-Chavez) to 39 (2011). [15]
Aprial 27, 2014 (Michael Pirsch - ATN) - Twelve years ago, New York Times journalist Judith Miller was the person who wrote, over and over again, the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Her lies opened the door for the criminal invasion of Iraq which has totally destroyed that country. Now, Thomas Fuller of the New York Times continues the practice of mass deception in his articles about the reasons for the protests in Bangkok. He has been joined by Andre Vltchek, a regular contributor to Counterpunch and Znet, in practicing to deceive readers about the same protests.
Vltchek’s Counterpunch article titled, “The Bangkok
Protests”, repeats the misrepresentations found in his two previous propaganda
pieces also published by Counterpunch. [1] The two were titled “Down and Out In
Thailand: Elites F*** Up Bangkok” and “How the West Manufactures Opposition
Movements”. [2]
His main thesis seems to be that Western corporate
economic powers, through the U.S. government, are behind the now 6-month long
demonstrations against the fugitive,former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Thaksin still controls the government acting through his youngest sister the
current proxy prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Vltchek lionizes Thaksin as
the savior of the poor and downtrodden, mostly living in the North and
Northeastern parts of Thailand. He completely ignores the Thai people in the
southernmost 3 provinces who have been devastated in every way possible by a
more than 10 year fight with the central government. Vltchek alleges in his
latest missive the demonstrations in Bangkok are the result of “billions of
euros and dollars, pushed down the throats of pro-Western NGO’s…” [3] There is
truth that this is the strategy employed by the U.S. in funding civil
organizations in countries with the intent of destabilizing or overthrowing a
targeted government . We are witnessing this in both the Ukraine and Venezuela.
One problem: It is not happening in
Thailand.
If anything, Thaksin and his proxy government are backed
by the Western interests. Thaksin is and has been associated with U.S.
financial elites and power brokers since his days serving on the Carlyle Group
Board of Advisors. There he joined such luminaries as George H.W. Bush, Frank
Carlucci, John Major (former p.m. of England), Fidel Ramos (former president of
Philippines), the former head of the Deutsche Bank in Germany, the former
president of South Korea and others in opening doors for Carlyle Group around
the globe. The bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia were amongst the funds largest
investors. In fact, the bin Laden family were attending a Carlyle Group meeting
in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001.The family was quickly spirited out of
the U.S.A. with the help of our government while all other planes had been grounded
in response to the attacks in New York and D.C. Thaksin resigned from the board
when he became prime minister of Thailand in 2001. Prior to his election he
publicly hosted George H.W. Bush at his Bangkok home, followed by another visit
from James Baker, Bush’s consigliere.
Thaksin was removed as a result of a military coup in
2006. The night before the coup he delivered a speech to the all-powerful
Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York City in his capacity as an
important cog in the neoliberal global system. Since the coup he has hired
powerful U.S. based lobbyists such as James Baker (CFR and Baker Botts),
Kenneth Adelman (Freedom House, International Crisis Group), Robert Blackwill
(CFR), and his current hired flack Robert Amsterdam. This collection of
neoconservatives and neoliberals has served Thaksin well, ensuring favorable
coverage from mainstream media in the West.
In 2001, prior to the event of 9-11, Thaksin inked a deal
with the U.S. government to establish the “Counterterrorism Intelligence
Center” (CTIC), a secretive unit which joined the CIA and Thai intelligence
officials to gather information about regional terror groups. [4] Two years
later, he committed Thai troops to join the criminal invasion of Iraq. This was
opposed by most segments of Thai society, including and especially the Malay
Muslims in the southernmost 3 provinces. In 2004, he would change policy in the
South by launching a militarized crackdown on Malay Muslims, which by 2014 has
resulted in the deaths of over 6,000 people, including hundreds of police and
military. He opened Thailand as one of the special rendition and torture
centers for the U.S.A. Later he tried to unilaterally commit Thailand to a Free
Trade Agreement with U.S.A. but was forced to back off after mass protests
enveloped Thailand.
In recent weeks ambassadors/diplomats from U.S.A., Japan,
France, and Australia have traveled to consult with Thaksin’s Red Shirt
leaders, two of whom are facing terrorist charges from the Red Shirt-Army
battles in 2010.[5] A few months ago the anti-Thaksin demonstration leaders
invited the foreign diplomatic corps to meet with them at the main protest
site. Only the Russian ambassador and one other ambassador attended.
In 2012 Obama and Hilary Clinton granted Thaksin a visa
to visit the U.S.A. in spite of his fugitive status. Thaksin ran to escape a
prison sentence for abuse of power stemming from corruption in the sale of
prime government owned real estate to Thaksin’s wife at a price much lower than
comparable properties in that location. He is also facing more than 25 other
charges of corruption in Thailand, yet he still received a visa from the
Clinton led state department.
The U.S. Department of State hosts the National Endowment
for Democracy which “does what the CIA did 25 years ago”. [6] The NED funds
civil society groups with the intent to destabilize or overthrow governments
the U.S does not like. Current targets are Ukraine and Venezuela. Previous
targets were Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. It was a NED operation
which targeted Cuba with a “twitter” operation. NED openly funds
prachathai.com, an internet news site which is pro-Thaksin Red Shirt. [7]
Does all this point to a situation where the U.S.
suddenly backing anti-Thaksin demonstrators? The U.S. is more than comfortable
with Thaksin who is neoliberal to his core.
In his most recent Counterpunch article Vltchek recounts
seeing a poster which read, “Thaksin-ism is Communism Tyranny”. He
responds: “Thaksin Shinawatra-a
communist? That very business tycoon, a turbo capitalist, whose only ‘fault’
was that he introduced free medical care (much better than that in the United
States), improved education, housed the poor, and aimed at a much more
egalitarian society than anything ever seen to date in Southeast Asia.” [8]
One method of imposing the neoliberal model is to mire a
country’s people in debt. This he has done through his so-called populist
programs which allegedly won the unending loyalty of Thailand’s poorest in the
North and Northeast, but not in the poor South.
A feature of Thaksin’s brand of populism is easy access
to loans at low interest rates. In the 2011 “Thaksin Thinks-Pheua Thai Acts”
campaign he promised tax rebates on purchases of new cars by first time car
buyers. Presently the proxy government is unable to issue the rebates due to
lack of funds available. Also featured was a promise to issue low interest
loans for first time home buyers.
In his first term he provided a “million baht per village
fund” from which villagers could borrow, subject to the approval of village
chiefs who profited greatly from this program. Since most of his vote buying
populist programs involved debt there has been a sharp rise in household debt
which has endangered the economy. At the beginning of Thaksin’s first term as
prime minister, The Thailand National Statistical Office showed average debt of
69,500 baht per household for the period 1998-2001. By 2002 the average debt
was 80,485 baht per household or 27.2% household debt outstanding to GDP. [9]
While debt was piling up for households, Thaksin’s family’s stock investments
soared by 147 % from January 2000 to January 2002. Since Thaksin was then prime
minister, he had to hide his stock holdings amongst family members, thus, his
eldest daughter became the country’s richest stockholder with shares worth 18
billion baht up from 10 billion baht over the same period. [10]
The Nation newspaper reported on Monday April 21, 2014
the Asian Development Bank’s concern over rising household debt primarily due
to Thaksin’s populist policies. [11] In 2013 the household debt stood at 9.79
trillion baht or 82% of GDP; in 2008 the household debt stood at 55.8% of GDP.
Don’t forget in 2001 the debt stood at 27.2% of GDP.
Yes it is possible to go past homes with flat screen televisions,
pick-up trucks, cars, motorcycles etc and imagine how wealthy they are. What is
hidden is the enormous debt load the populist schemes have generated. Debt does
not create wealth, it subtracts wealth.
The most outrageous vote buying scheme was to promise to
pay rice farmers 150% of world price for rice grown by Thai farmers. This
scheme collapsed due to massive corruption and has left many rice farmers
unpaid for rice already delivered to the government. Even the backbone of
Thaksin’s electoral success aren’t immune to the corruption so identified with
Thaksin politics. The rice farmers have been forced to ask loan sharks for
enough money to take care of normal expenses because the government does not
have the funds to pay them for rice already delivered.
In short, Thaksin, his family, and political cronies are
the elite who have benefited greatly from his populist schemes-the country has
not.
Vltchek claim that Thaksin implemented free medical
cannot be supported by basic facts. There is no free medical care for Thai
people. By the time he was elected Thaksin’s family had already invested in
stock from the hospital industry. He enacted a 30 baht health care scheme. This
covered cost of visits to hospital clinics. This is still very popular because
the 30 baht will cover the doctor visit and any tests required. It does not
include the cost of drugs or any required hospitalization; the patient must pay out of pocket if the
patient has no insurance. Needless to say, the share value went up for Thai
hospitals due to the influx of patients when it started. Vltchek is correct to
point out this is far better than what is available in the U.S.A., even with
“Obamacare”.
An informed public, educated in critical thinking, is
essential for democracy to exist. Elections cannot be said to be democratic if
education is substandard and information clouded. Thus, Vltchek repeated claims
of improved education are without basis. The Economist reported in 2012 about a
“Thaksin Thinks-Pheua Thai Acts” campaign pledge to provide computer tablets to
all schoolchildren. This program has nearly collapsed as most of the tablets
promised have yet to be either manufactured or delivered. The quick fix
approach to adding quality to education was criticized by the Economist. [12]
“Some argue that the focus on the tablets has distracted
attention from a deeper malaise affecting Thai education. Although the number
of children attending school has grown over the past decade, the quality of
their education has deteriorated…Thailand’s scores on the respected PISA test
have remained static since 2008 whereas Indonesia has been moving up from a
lower base. In another recent competiveness report Thailand ranked 54th
out of 56 countries for English-language profiency, the second lowest in Asia.
An even more damning assessment of Thai education was
addressed by the Nation newspaper editorial writer Pornpimol Kanchanalak. [13]
She argues that Thailand is a kleptocracy, not a democracy. She defines
kleptocracy as a form of government in which officials use their office to
increase personal wealth and political power by corruption and embezzlement of
state funds. Of course kleptocrats are made legitimate through elections,
especially in the rigged elections of our country. She writes about the Thai
education system: “In terms of the
ultimate robbers of taxpayers, look no further than the Education Ministry,
which receives the second largest budget allocation (20.6% of total
budget)…Thailand’s education system is in tatters, at the level of both
students and teachers. Thai students rank worse in many categories than their
peers in other ASEAN countries. The teachers also flunk the standardised tests
even in subjects they teach. Overseeing them is a ministry where procurement
wizardy turns a 100,000 baht processor into a 500,000 baht computer. The same
type of sorcery has turned the dime-a-dozen computer tablets that no longer
work after one year into devices prized as much as the most commercially
successful brands on the market…For years, our tax money that has flowed in the
budget of this ministry has not been used efficiently and productively, but
embezzled in huge quantities.”
Vltchek’s defense of Thaksin continues to collapse when
we examine his assertion that Thaksin’s vote buying populist policies, “…aimed
at a much more egalitarian society then anything ever seen to date in Southeast
Asia.” On Monday November 30, 2009 an op-ed was posted by the Bangkok Post on
“Thailand’s Shocking Inequality Statistics”. [14] It reported on a speech by
Professor Pasuk Phongpaichak at the King Prachadhipok Institute which revealed:
·
The top 20% own 69% of the country’s assets,
while the bottom 20% own only 1%
·
42% of bank savings comes from only 70,000 bank
accounts each holding more than 10 million baht. Less than 1% of the people own
nearly half of the country’s savings
·
Among the farming families, nearly 20% are
landless, or about 811,871 families while 1-1.5 million farming families are
tenants or struggling with insufficient land
·
The gap between the richest and poorest family
is 13 times, higher than all our neighboring countries
An examination of the GINI index also shows inequality rising, not decreasing as Vltchek claims. The higher the GINI score the more unequal a country is, the lower the score shows more economic equality. From 2002-2009 Thailand’s score increased from 42 to 53.6. This shows more inequality not less. It is interesting to note that Thailand had more equality one year into Thaksin’s first official term and less equality 8 years later. Venezuela’s GINI score dropped from 49.5 (pre-Chavez) to 39 (2011). [15]
The difference between Thaksin populism and Chavez
populism is the democratic process. Many of the populist policies in Venezuela
came from grass roots ideas. All of Thaksin’s populist policies were his invention:
no grass roots involvement allowed. If, as we have seen, members of his own
political party are not allowed to think, then how would it be possible for a
simple villager to have any effect on developing policy. Venezuela has communal
councils throughout the country which are crucial to development and
implementation of policies.
Thaksin is a fake populist, using populist policies as a means
of buying votes and enriching himself and his cronies. Chavez along with the
people in Venezuela developed populist policies with real input from the
formerly most dispossessed of society. Thaksin has been rewarded with status
from the nortorious CFR , an entry visa to U.S.A. in spite of his fugitive
status, and most favorable coverage in the mainstream media and from Andre
Vltchek. The truly remarkable changes for the better in health, education,
wages, housing in Venezuela is and has been under relentless attack by the
U.S.A. (NED, CIA, Congress, media, etc) because it is, as Chomsky puts it, “The
threat of a good example”.
Thaksinism is only under attack by the people in
Thailand. He, unlike Chavez is fully supported by the West. The people in
Thailand are quite fed up with kleptocracy and are demanding reforms before an
election is held. Holding elections with the same cast of characters competing
without reform first is a recipe for disaster.
There is an urgent need for those who are demonstrating
to come forward with specific proposals for reform. A major fault of the
current protest leaders is their inability to spell out specifically the
reforms needed to conduct an election as well as reforms needed to move this
system away from kleptocracy to a truly democratic one. So far, those doing
most of the talking come from the heart of the system-politicians, academics,
intellectuals, elder statesmen, and the military. Notably absent are grassroots
activists many of whom face the problems which need reform, some on an everyday
basis.
If Vltchek cannot write in an honest fashion about
Thailand, he should cease. In order for him to write honestly he must come to
grips with all of Thaksin’s warts and proceed from there. His style as well as
that of mainstream media is to hide or ignore the many warts of Thaksin. He
must also explain how he can continue to defend a person who was involved in
the theft of gold from the Congo under the disguise as gold exported by Uganda.
[16] In view of his documentary severely critical of Rwanda’s role in the theft
of Congo’s resources, he should acknowledge Thaksin’s role in blood gold or his
otherwise beneficial and useful expose of Rwanda goes to waste.
[3]. Vltchek. “The
Bangkok Protests”
[8] Vltchek. “The
Bangkok Protests”
