US Embassy Lies about Funding Thai Protests

US meddling is not limited to supplying the protests with leaders and legal aid.

It is also funding fronts organizing a nationwide petition to rewrite Thailand’s constitution.

One front – iLaw – is listed on the US NED’s official website as, “Internet Law Reform Dialogue,” and has been aggressively promoting both the protests and its petition with iLaw booths set up at virtually every rally – big or small – across the country.

The above mentioned Khaosod in its article titled, “U.S. Embassy Denies Funding Anti-Govt Protests,” would admit that counter-protesters have noted NED’s funding as well as other vectors for US meddling in Thailand.The article claimed in regards to documented evidence of US meddling that (emphasis added):

The accusation was put forth in an “infographic” published by a hardline royalist group called Thailand Vision.

The chart accused multiple international agencies and figures of engineering the protests against PM Prayut Chan-o-cha, including American billionaire and activist George Soros, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, the Washington-based Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and even Netflix. 

Domestic organizations are also implicated, from the Prachatai news website and the Foreign Correspondent’s Club of Thailand to student leaders, Thammasat University academics, and the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.

The article would also admit (emphasis added):

Director of a conservative thinktank, called Thai Move Institute, also lashed out at the U.S. at a pro-monarchy gathering on Sunday.

“America lost their battle front in Hong Kong,” institute director Vethin Chartkul said at the rally inside Thai-Japan Din Daeng Stadium. “People like Joshua Wong are now branded as a servant dog by locals … They use democracy as a pretext to interfere in politics of various nations.”

“Foreigners must also be behind those protesters here,” he said.

Harutai Muangboonsri, a celebrity and key member of the newly founded royalist group Thai Phakdee, also said Western powers want to destabilize Thailand like they did in Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

“Syria, Libya and Iraq are like this due to [Western powers]. Today, it’s in ruins,” Harutai told the crowd.

How can anyone argue with this honestly?

Khaosod of course – argues dishonestly.

The US clearly seeks a pro-Western client regime in power in Thailand – one that puts US interests ahead of Thailand’s, its people, its economy, and ties with China – its largest trading partner, investor, source of tourism, and facilitator of major infrastructure projects.

The US also clearly seeks to keep its role in bringing this about a “secret” by denying its extensive backing of current, ongoing protests.

The Diplomat – an explicitly pro-Western policy journal – noted in its article, “As US-China Competition Grows, Will Covert Regime Change Make a Return?,” that growing US-Chinese tensions provide ample motivations for Washington to pursue Cold War-style covert regime change operations against “regimes that tilt too close to China,” as well as the need for secrecy while doing so.

The article would admit (emphasis added):

As the rivalry between the United States and China intensifies against the backdrop of a pandemic and (dis)information wars about culpability, some have wondered whether covert regime change might make a comeback. During the Cold War, the the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), almost always at the direction of the president, quietly engineered the overthrow of numerous regimes who drifted — or were perceived to be drifting — too close to the Soviet Union. It is not hard to imagine how competition with China for the allegiances of other countries might create similar incentives.

The article notes that while the Cold War saw the height of such operations carried out by the US government, such operations have most certainly continued until present day – citing US-led regime change efforts in Syria as a specific example.

Under an entire section of the article titled, “The Appeal of Secrecy,” the authors would note (emphasis added):

The ongoing battle over the rules of international order also means that U.S. policymakers may be especially keen on hiding violations of existing laws governing intervention — laws that they helped create. Given China’s own embrace of the principles of non-intervention and non-interference, brazen violations could cede the moral high ground and result in greater support for the Chinese model. It is conceivable that these dynamics could play out in regions like Africa where the United States and China continue to compete for economic and military influence.

Finally, any consideration of using the quiet option to topple regimes that tilt too close to China must include a full accounting of the inherent risks. These include the prospect that a covert operation will become public knowledge prematurely and the possibility that it could destabilize the target state and create longstanding ill-will in the process.

Thus – by the West’s own admission – pretending obviously US-funded subversion in Thailand aimed at a Thai government that “tilts too close to China” is “organic” and “leaderless” is all part of the “covert regime change” playbook.

Exposing and confronting this meddling – as well as the US Embassy’s lies about it – will be key to defending against this subversion.