UN Report Cynically Spins Rohingya Genocide

September 12, 2018 New Eastern Outlook

Media headlines claim an independent UN report is calling for genocide charges against Myanmar officials.

Qatari state media outfit Al Jazeera in its article, "UN report calls for genocide charges against Myanmar officials," claims:

Myanmar's senior military officials must be prosecuted for genocide and war crimes against the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities, a UN fact-finding mission has urged. 

The mission, which was established by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2017, found that Myanmar's armed forces had taken actions that "undoubtedly amount to the gravest crimes under international law".

Al Jazeera admits Myanmar's military has been singled out by the report. Suspiciously absent from both the accusations made in the report and the charges called for, is State Counsellor of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi, referred to throughout the Western media and the report itself as the "de facto" leader of Myanmar.

The leader of a nation is undoubtedly responsible for the actions of that nation's military and while some claim Suu Kyi has no power over Myanmar's military, Al Jazeera itself notes her silence in even condemning the ongoing violence.

Despite the obvious role Suu Kyi plays in enabling the violence even at face value through her silent complicity, the 20 page UN report (.pdf) mentions her name only one time and fails entirely to call for any form of accountability for this role. Suu Kyi's notoriously violent supporters are only briefly and ambiguously mentioned in the report:

Local authorities, militias, militant “civilian” groups, politicians and monks participated or assisted in violations, to varying degrees.

The report never qualifies or further discusses these "varying degrees."

The report admittedly is dependent primarily on interviews. While videos and photography are also supposedly among the evidence the report is based on, neither are specifically referenced in the actual report.

Many of the interviews were supposedly corroborated with likewise secondhand information obtained from what are referred to as "intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, researchers, and diplomats." These individuals and organisations are conveniently left unnamed and are most likely individuals and organisations directly funded by the US, British and European governments.

In essence, it is US, British and European funded propaganda laundered through a UN report.

Upon closer examination, Suu Kyi and more importantly her political supporters, have played a much more direct role in violence aimed at Myanmar's Rohingya population. It is an intentional and systematic cover up by Western media organisations and foreign-sponsored human rights advocacy groups ongoing for years, one the UN report is a continuation of.

British Divide and Rule Re-imagined 

British public service broadcaster Channel 4 would explain in an article titled, "A Brief History of Burma," about the very source of Myanmar's current ethnic divisions:

Throughout their Empire the British used a policy called 'divide and rule' where they played upon ethnic differences to establish their authority. This policy was applied rigorously in Burma. More than a million Indian and Chinese migrants were brought in to run the country's affairs and thousands of Indian troops were used to crush Burmese resistance. In addition, hill tribes which had no strong Burmese affiliation, such as the Karen in the south-east, were recruited into ethnic regiments of the colonial army.

The article also admitted:

The British 'divide and rule' policy left a legacy of problems for Burma when it regained independence.

We can see the "legacy" of British and now US foreign policy in Southeast Asia still unfolding today, including in Myanmar's north where Kachin militants still battle against Myanmar's military and in the west, particularly in the state of Rakhine, where violence is ongoing between religious and nationalist fanatics and the Rohingya minority.

US Meddling: Washington Backs Fugitive, Terrorist in Thailand

August 20, 2018 New Eastern Outlook
America's bid to install a compromised Thai politician into power is part of a larger bid to encircle China with hostile and dysfunctional client states.

The US is currently pressuring the Southeast Asian Kingdom of Thailand to hold immediate elections in a bid to return billionaire former prime minister and now fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra to power.

The purpose of returning Shinawatra to power is to transform Thailand into a US client state and further obstruct the rise of China, and Asia as a whole, upon the global stage.

Shinawatra, who held office from 2001 to 2006 before being removed in a military coup, has since run various proxy governments from abroad, populated by his family members and close associates. This included his own brother-in-law and from 2011 to 2014 his own sister, Yingluck Shinawatra who was ousted from power in another coup in 2014.

More recently, he has created several proxy parties, including "Future Forward" run by the son of billionaires closely allied with the Shinawatra family and furbished with party members including his own lobbyists and members of US government-funded organisations.

US Meddling 

The US has directly funded myriad groups involved in Thailand's internal political affairs including Thai Lawyers for Human Rights which not only provides free legal aid to anti-government agitators, but also openly organises and leads anti-government activities itself, media front Prachatai, iLaw, Thai Netizens Network,  BenarNews, The Isaan Record, the Cross Cultural Foundation and Fortify Rights.

Thai Political Crisis: What the Western Media Omits

August 13, 2018 New Eastern Outlook  

Political pressure is mounting in the Southeast Asian Kingdom of Thailand ahead of anticipated elections early next year. However, political analysts across the West have consistently portrayed Thailand's political crisis as if existing in a vacuum divorced from geopolitics.

Shawn Crispin provides an example of this with his Asia Times piece titled, "Thai junta dreams of a ‘Thaksin-free’ election." Crispin's analysis does indeed offer many important and accurate insights into Thailand's ongoing political crisis and the pressure that is building ahead of upcoming polls in 2019.

Crispin has, in the past, correctly noted that Thailand's political crisis is the result of two powerful factions facing off against one another. One consists of nouveau riche led by billionaire ex-prime minister and now fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra. It features strong ties to foreign interests, particularly in Washington, London and Brussels. The other faction consists of Thailand's independent institutions including the military and the monarchy.

It is not a "class struggle" as some pundits have attempted to portray it, particularly those bias toward Shinawatra in an attempt to give moral and ideological mooring to what is otherwise simply a billionaire and his political allies seeking to seize and consolidate absolute power in Thailand.

Mention of US and European Meddling  

Yet nowhere in Crispin's analysis is mention of significant foreign influence underpinning Shinawatra's staying power. He mentions protests last month by Shinawatra's supporters demanding Thailand's current government step down and hold polls this year. The protests ended when police detained protest leaders, which Crispin claims was "widely condemned." 

However, this "wide condemnation" was primarily voiced through US and European media and Western-funded organisations posing as rights advocacy groups, along with still very well-funded Shinawatra-controlled media within Thailand.

The protests themselves have received support from a number of US State Department-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations including Prachatai, iLaw, Fortify Rights and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR).

Soros-funded HRW Defends Terrorists, Accomplices in Thailand

August 5, 2018 New Eastern Outlook   

In 2010, Thailand was the scene of a smaller-scale foreign-backed destabilisation similar to those carried out by the United States and Europe against nations like Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine from 2011 onward.

Between April and May of that year, nearly 100 would die and many more injured when US-backed former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra attempted to seize back power through violent street protests, armed insurrection, terrorism and nationwide arson.

Just as has been done in nations like Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine, Human Rights Watch (HRW), funded by convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society Foundation, would leverage human rights in an attempt to depict the Thai government as "cracking down" on what it attempted to depict as peaceful, unarmed protesters.

Yet in HRW's own 2011 report titled, "Descent into Chaos Thailand’s 2010 Red Shirt Protests and the Government Crackdown," it would have to admit that protesters were only "mostly unarmed," a euphemism used to cover up the fact that heavily armed militants were present and were the primary trigger for the weeks of violence that unfolded.

The report would slip in admissions to this in between lopsided condemnation of the Thai military's response to these "mostly unarmed protesters," including a description of the first episode of violence to break out on April 10, 2010.

The report would admit (my emphasis):

As the army attempted to move on the camp, they were confronted by well-armed men who fired M16 and AK-47 assault rifles at them, particularly at the Khok Wua intersection on Rajdamnoen Road. They also fired grenades from M79s and threw M67 hand grenades at the soldiers. News footage and videos taken by protesters and tourists show several soldiers lying unconscious and bleeding on the ground, as well as armed men operating with a high degree of coordination and military skills. According to some accounts, they specifically aimed at the commanding officers of the army units involved in the crowd dispersal operations, sowing panic among the soldiers. Human Rights Watch investigations concluded this group consisted of Black Shirts deployed among the UDD protesters.

HRW would further describe the "Black Shirts" as:

Members of these armed groups were captured on photographs and film armed with various military weapons, including AK-47 and M16 assault rifles, as well as M79 grenade launchers, during their clashes with government security forces.

The HRW report includes several reports made by Western journalists at that time, many of whom would later downplay or cover up the role of the "Black Shirts" during the 2010 violence.

Rewriting HRW's Own Account of History 

Despite the many admissions by HRW that the 2010 violence was a result of the Thai military responding to heavily armed terrorists operating in the streets of the nation's capital, it has since depicted the 2010 violence as a brutal and unwarranted military "crackdown" often omitting any mention of Shinawatra's armed terrorists.

West Fumes as US Meddling in Cambodian Elections is Foiled

August 1, 2018 New Eastern Outlook  

It would be unthinkable for an American opposition party run openly out of Moscow to compete in American elections. It would be even more unthinkable for the Russian government to declare US elections illegitimate for disallowing a Moscow-backed party from running in American elections. 

Yet this is precisely what the US and the European Union have attempted to do in the wake of Cambodia's recent elections regarding an opposition party created by Washington and whose leadership calls Washington a second home.

US-EU Seek to Undermine Cambodian Election Results

The BBC in their article, "Cambodia election: Ruling party claims landslide in vote with no main opposition," would claim: 

Critics have called the vote a sham as the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), which narrowly lost the last election, has been dissolved.

The US said the poll was "flawed". 

"We are profoundly disappointed in the government's choice to disenfranchise millions of voters, who are rightly proud of their country's development over the past 25 years," a statement from the White House said. 

The US will consider placing visa restrictions on more government officials, it added. The EU has said it is considering economic sanctions.

However, the BBC never explains why the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) was dissolved.

Had it, Washington and Brussels' statements would have been immediately rendered hypocritical and Cambodia's decision to dissolve CNRP more than warranted. This is because CNRP is openly run out of Washington, with US support, for the expressed aim of undermining and eventually overthrowing the current Cambodian government.

Cambodia's Opposition is Run From Washington 

How US Influence is Co-Opting Malaysia's Governance

July 21, 2018 New Eastern Outlook 

The Diplomat, which claims to be "the premier international current-affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific region," has recently published a piece granting credit for Malaysia's recent general election results to what it calls, "everyday activists."

The article is in fact titled, "The Everyday Activists Behind Malaysia’s Democracy Struggle." The article begins by claiming:

Audiences worldwide have been transfixed by the Shakespearian twists and turns that saw Malaysia’s opposition defeat the world’s longest-ruling coalition. But the unprecedented May 9 win was also the culmination of a decades-long civil rights movement by activists who took great personal risks to bring about change.

The article cites Maria Chin Abdullah who headed Malaysian street front Bersih, online media platform Malaysiakini, political cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque (also known as Zunar), Malaysia Muda and legal group Lawyers for Liberty as examples of those that have finally helped make Malaysian democracy "work."

Yet there is something else all of these examples cited in The Diplomat's article have in common. They are all either directly funded by the United States government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), or their activities are facilitated by other organisations in Malaysia that are. 

From Abdullah to Zunar, Funded by the US Government 

In essence, The Diplomat's piece is arguing that the organisations they covered represent the custodians of Malaysian democracy, and thus play a role in determining Malaysia's future. Yet the disturbing common denominator among them indicates a paradoxical dilemma. If these custodians themselves are a function of foreign influence, how could they possibly play a role in the Malaysian people determining for themselves a path that serves their own best interests and not those of these organisations' foreign sponsors?

We begin with Maria Chin Abdullah, now a newly elected member of the Malaysian parliament. She had previously been chief of the Bersih street front whose rallies were regularly led by opposition politicians including Anwar Ibrahim who is now the defacto leader of the victorious Pakatan Harapan party.

US Propaganda: Time Magazine Takes Swipe at Thailand

July 15, 2018 New Eastern Oulook

Time Magazine's article titled, "Thailand’s Leader Promised to Restore Democracy. Instead He's Tightening His Grip," reflects Wall Street and Washington's growing displeasure with the current Thai government and its seemingly successful efforts to pivot the nation away from US-backed proxies including the ousted regime of Thaksin Shinawatra and his Pheu Thai political party (PTP), and toward a more multipolar footing in Asia and internationally.

This includes stronger ties with not only Thailand's other Southeast Asia neighbours, but also with China and even Russia.

China is now Thailand's largest trading partner, unseating the US.

Thailand is also systematically replacing its ageing US military hardware with Chinese, Russian and European systems including Chinese tanks and submarines, Russian helicopters and European fighter jets.

There are also large infrastructure deals signed between Bangkok and Beijing extending China's One Belt, One Road initiative through Thailand.


Attempts by the US and its media to disrupt this pivot have been ongoing, with Time's article being only a more recent example.

The Thai government, in good faith, provided Time Magazine writer Charlie Campbell an interview with Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha.

Instead of objectively portraying the prime minister's words, Campbell predictably twisted them, intentionally took them out of context, all while interjecting misinformation and lies of omission throughout the article.

The Thai Foreign Ministry denounced Time's article in a statement here, refuting many of Time's many mischaracterisations and outright lies.

Time's Mountain of Lies   

Time's article covers the military coup in 2014 and its aftermath, but suspiciously omits any of the events that actually led up to the coup.

Time dishonestly frames Thailand's political crisis as follows:

For more than a decade, Thailand has been wracked with color-coded street protests between the typically rural supporters of Yingluck and her brother Thaksin–who served as Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006–and their mainly urban opponents, backed by the powerful royal palace, military and judiciary. The pro-Yingluck faction wear red. Their opponents wear yellow.

However, this is patently untrue. In Thailand's 2011 elections, Thaksin Shinawatra's PTP won support from a mere 35% of all eligible voters. Of those that voted, PTP failed to win a popular majority. PTP's opponents include not only Bangkok, but also Thailand's central and southern provinces which are unmistakably agricultural and rural.

Thus Thailand's political crisis is owed not to some sort of class struggle, but to Shinawatra and his foreign sponsors attempting to reassert Western hegemony over both Thailand, and to a much greater extent, Asia, versus Thailand's attempts to maintain its long-standing sovereignty.

Nothing leading up to the actual 2014 coup is mentioned in Time's article. Had it been mentioned, the coup would not only have seemed reasonable, but as unavoidably necessary. Should Time have also mentioned that current protests are merely Shinawatra and his foreign sponsors pressuring the current Thai government to rush elections while they both still believe they can win, the government's intolerance of these protests would also appear to be reasonable rather than "repressive."