US "Investigates" Genocide in Myanmar, Commits Genocide in Yemen

October 12, 2018 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Rarely is US hypocrisy so cynical and overt as a recent US State Department investigation into ongoing violence in Myanmar, all while the US continues its full spectrum support of Saudi Arabia's genocidal war on Yemen.


In addition to Washington's role in Yemen, the US also occupies Afghanistan and Syria while carrying out drone strikes and covert military interventions in territory stretching from North Africa to Central Asia.

In Myanmar specifically, the US has openly and for decades funded and supported groups and individuals involved directly on both sides of ongoing ethnic violence. Now, it is leveraging that violence to single out obstacles to US influence in Southeast Asia and in Myanmar specifically. 

Reuters in their article titled, "U.S. accuses Myanmar military of 'planned and coordinated' Rohingya atrocities," would claim:
A U.S. government investigation has found that Myanmar’s military waged a “well-planned and coordinated” campaign of mass killings, gang rapes and other atrocities against the Southeast Asian nation’s Rohingya Muslim minority. 
Reuters admits the US State Department's report, titled "Documentation of Atrocities in Northern Rakhine State," was in fact merely interviews conducted with alleged witnesses in neighbouring Bangladesh.

Was it Really an Investigation? 

Imagine a fight breaks out between two groups of people. The police are called in. But instead of arriving at the crime scene, the police instead interview only one group, and do so at their home before drawing their final conclusions. Would anyone honestly call this an "investigation?" The US State Department apparently would, because this is precisely what the State Department has done in regards to ongoing ethnic violence in Myanmar.

The full report, found here on the US State Department's website, would admit:
The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), with funding support from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), conducted a survey in spring 2018 of the firsthand experiences of 1,024 Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar District, Bangladesh. The goal of the survey was to document atrocities committed against residents in Burma’s northern Rakhine State during the course of violence in the previous two years.
No physical evidence was collected or presented in the report, because investigators never stepped foot in Myanmar itself where the violence allegedly took place. The report also failed to interview other parties allegedly involved in the violence.

While the witness accounts in the US State Department's investigation were shocking, had investigators gone to Rakhine state and interviewed locals there, they would have heard similar stories told of Rohingya attacks on Buddhists and Hindus.


American Meddling in the Maldives is Aimed at China

October 12, 2018 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - The United States was exuberant after its proxies took power in the Maldives during the September 24th elections.  Ibrahim Mohamed Solih of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) came out with 58% of the vote over incumbent, President Abdulla Yameen.


Former US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power would exclaim on social media:
The people of the Maldives (turnout: 89%!) showed extraordinary bravery in ousting their repressive president at the ballot box. They join Ethiopians, Armenians, Malaysians & others in making clear the enduring power - and necessity - of democratic values.

The American media also did little to hide its excitement, and linked the victory directly to a wider US-led effort to set Beijing's regional influence back.

The Wall Street Journal in its article, "More Belt and Road Backlash: The Maldives turns away from China and back toward democracy," would claim:
On Monday President Abdulla Yameen conceded defeat to Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, a longtime member of parliament. Some 90% of eligible voters turned out. Mr. Solih won with 58% of the vote after promising to restore democracy and improve relations with the West. He also vowed to take a harder line against Chinese investment. 
The Wall Street Journal would repeat a now familiar narrative promoted by the US regarding China's One Belt, One Road initiative, claiming:
Alarmists say climate change means the Maldives will be underwater soon, but predatory loans could drown the nation’s finances first. China began investing heavily in the country’s public works in recent years. A 2017 International Monetary Fund report found that its debt-to-GDP ratio “rose nearly 11.5 percentage points from 2014-16.” Its external debt could hit 51.2% of GDP by 2021 thanks to Chinese projects. The IMF says servicing this debt will cost about $92 million a year for four years, while the government takes in only about $1 billion a year.
It is interesting that the Wall Street Journal cites the IMF, a Western-dominated financial institution notorious for its own debt traps, debt traps nations were placed into minus the tangible public works China is building across Eurasia.

As for claims that the Maldives have turned "back toward democracy," nothing could be further from the truth.

America's Proxies in the Maldives Not the Democrats They've Been Made out to Be  

The victorious opposition party, the Maldivian Democratic Party, is headed by former Maldives president, now fugitive Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed had been president from 2008-2012. He was forced to resign after being charged with terrorism.

In 2015, he was finally convicted and sentenced to 13 years in jail. After significant pressure from the West, the Maldives allowed Nasheed to travel to the UK on grounds of receiving medical treatment. Nasheed was subsequently granted asylum by the UK government and has worked to return himself to power ever since.


Many reports across the Western media categorically (and likely intentionally) fail to provide details regarding the charges and convictions.

This is because the details tell an astounding story of Western hypocrisy and reveal America's proxies in the Maldives as being as repressive as they've claimed their opponents to be.

The terrorist charges were linked to Nasheed's jailing of a judge in 2012. Western media accounts have since omitted the details of this arrest for obvious reasons, but a BBC article published in a January 2012 titled, "Maldivian army arrests senior judge Abdulla Mohamed," would admit at the time that:
A government statement said the judge, Abdulla Mohamed, had allowed "his judicial decisions to be determined by political and personal affiliations". The arrest comes after he released an opposition leader who had been detained for allegedly defaming the government.
The BBC would further elaborate:
Opposition [to Nasheed's government] activists said that the arrest was in retaliation for the judge ruling that the detention of opposition leader Mohamed Jameel Ahmed one day earlier was illegal, AP news agency reported. 

Mr Ahmed had been arrested for allegedly defaming the government in a television interview. 
In other words, America's "pro-democracy" ally in the Maldives, had jailed an opponent for merely criticising his government on television, then jailed the judge who ruled the imprisonment illegal.

Nasheed's repression is precisely what the US, UK and their virtual army of supposed human rights organisations had used as a basis to label Yameen's government as "repressive."

Nasheed's National Endowment for Democracy Connection

While the Western media has hardly made it a secret that Nasheed and his Maldivian Democratic Party are Washington and London's proxies in a power struggle with Beijing, some of the details of Nasheed's escape to the UK and his activities there since provide greater context to American meddling in the Maldives, contradicting any remaining notion that recent elections had anything to do with democracy.



A 2017 panel discussion organised by the University of Michigan titled, "The Island President's Struggle for Democracy and Environmental Justice in the Maldives," would describe Nasheed's escape as follows:
With his health deteriorating, he managed to find exile in London with the help from international lawyers Jared Genser, Amal Clooney, and Ben Emmerson. He continues his tireless efforts to promote democracy in his homeland and is now poised to pursue presidency again in his beloved homeland.
Nasheed's international lawyer, Jared Genser, also spoke at the panel. His biography was also illuminating (our emphasis):
Jared Genser is Managing Director of Perseus Strategies, a law and consulting firm that focuses on human rights, humanitarian, and corporate social responsibility projects. He is also Founder of Freedom Now, a non-governmental organization that works to free prisoners of conscience worldwide. Genser was an Associate of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University from 2014-2016, a Visiting Fellow with the National Endowment for Democracy from 2006-2007, and was previously named by the National Law Journal as one of “40 Under 40: Washington’s Rising Stars.” Before founding Perseus Strategies,
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is openly Washington's primary means of influencing, infecting, coercing and even overthrowing political orders in an industrialised process of global meddling. Genser's Freedom Now is one of many organisations working in parallel with the NED, and is funded by many of the same government and corporate foundation sponsors.


Washington vs Beijing: US Proxies Emerge Ahead of Thai Elections

October 8, 2018 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - At a time when the United States has intensified its confrontation with Russia based on claims that Moscow interfered in US and allied politics (i.e. the UK and prospective NATO members in Eastern Europe), the US openly meddles everywhere from Europe and Africa to the Middle East and Asia.


This includes Southeast Asia where Washington is busy at work creating an arc of US client states and political chaos aimed at encircling and foiling China and the rest of Asia's regional and global rise.

US meddling has been documented in Cambodia where it is attempting to disrupt growing ties between Phnom Penh and Beijing, in Malaysia where nearly the entire opposition coalition that recently came to power was funded and backed by Washington and in Myanmar where the US is cynically leveraging ethnic violence to pressure the government to sever ties with neighbouring China.

Target Thailand 

Also on the list is Thailand. The current military-led government came to power in 2014 after the second coup in less than 10 years aimed at uprooting the political network of Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire and now fugitive who has long served US interests and Washington's attempt to transform Thailand into a US client state.

Shinawatra's political network includes his political party, Pheu Thai (PTP) along with his violent street front, the "United Front For Democracy Against Dictatorship" (UDD), also known as the "red shirts."

More recently, he has expanded this network to include proxy parties working with and for PTP. This includes Future Forward Party (FFP) headed by Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Shinawatra's efforts are augmented by significant US backing. This includes through the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society which together, fund an array of fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) supporting Shinawatra and his proxies' bid to rush elections and restore Shinawatra or one of his proxies to power.

Future Forward is a Proxy of Shinawatra and his US Sponsors 

Thanathorn's FFP is also a direct beneficiary of NED/Open Society money, with several of his party's co-founders and their associates being actual NED/Open Society grantees.


This includes Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, a long-time Shinawatra lobbyist who previously held indoor rallies for Shinawatra's UDD at Thammasat University, Nalutporn Krairiksh of NED/Open Society-funded media front Prachatai, pro-Shinawatra "Liberal League of Thammasat for Democracy" (LLTD) activist Thararat Panya turned women's rights activist after being raped by fellow LLTD activist Phattanachoke Thanasirakul (Khaosod provides a whitewash of the crime here, and it should be noted the newspaper is owned by Thanathorn's family), Chamnan Chanruang of Open Society-funded Amnesty International (Thailand) and Wipaphan Wongsawang of Western-funded "Rethink Thailand."

Organisations like the "New Democracy Movement" and the above mentioned LLTD have received direct support from the US, UK and Canadian embassies which have repeatedly provided staff to accompany NDM and LLTD members to police stations and courtrooms to face charges regarding their serial sedition.

Future Forward is a virtual party of US-funded proxies and agitators.

China’s Uyghur Problem — The Unmentioned Part

October 8, 2018 (F. William Engdahl) - In recent months Western media and the Washington Administration have begun to raise a hue and cry over alleged mass internment camps in China’s northwestern Xinjiang where supposedly up to one million ethnic Uyghur Chinese are being detained and submitted to various forms of “re-education.” Several things about the charges are notable, not the least that all originate from Western media or “democracy” NGOs such as Human Rights Watch whose record for veracity leaves something to be desired.



In August Reuters published an article under the headline, “UN says it has credible reports that China holds million Uighurs in secret camps.” A closer look at the article reveals no official UN policy statement, but rather a quote from one American member of an independent committee that does not speak for the UN, a member with no background in China. The source of the claim it turns out is a UN independent advisory NGO called Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The sole person making the charge, American committee member Gay McDougall, stated she was “deeply concerned” about “credible reports.” McDougall cited no source for the dramatic charge.

Reuters in their article boosts its claim by citing a murky Washington DC based NGO, the Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD). In an excellent background investigation, researchers at the Grayzone Project found that the CHRD gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from unnamed governments. The notorious US government NGO, National Endowment for Democracy, is high on the list of usual suspects. Notably, the CHRD official address is that of the Human Rights Watch which gets funds also from the Soros foundation.

The ‘Uyghur Problem’

The true state of affairs in China’s Xinjiang Province regarding Uyghurs is not possible to independently verify, whether such camps exist and if so who is there and under what conditions. What is known, however, is the fact that NATO intelligence agencies, including that of Turkey and of the US, along with Saudi Arabia, have been involved in recruiting and deploying thousands of Chinese Uyghur Muslims to join Al Qaeda and other terror groups in Syria in recent years. This side of the equation warrants a closer look, the side omitted by Reuters or UN Ambassador Haley.

According to Syrian media cited in Voltaire.net, there are presently an estimated 18,000 ethnic Uyghurs in Syria most concentrated in a village on the Turkish border to Syria. Since 2013 such Uyghur soldiers have gone from combat alongside Al Qaeda in Syria and returned to China’s Xinjiang where they have carried out various terrorist acts. This is the tip of a nasty NATO-linked project to plant the seeds of terror and unrest in China. Xinjiang is a lynchpin of China’s Belt Road Initiative, the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipelines from Kazakhstan, Russia and a prime target of CIA intrigue since decades.

US-Delisted MEK Terrorists Still Openly Committed to Violence

October 1, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In 2012, the US State Department would delist anti-Iranian terrorist group - Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) - from its Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list. Yet years later, MEK has demonstrated an eager desire to carry out political violence on a scale that eclipses the previous atrocities that had it designated a terrorist organization in the first place.  


In the US State Department's official statement published in September 2012, the rationale for delisting MEK would be as follows (emphasis added): 
With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members. 

The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.
Yet US policy before the State Department's delisting, and events ever since, have proven this rationale for removing MEK as an FTO to be an intentional fabrication - that MEK was and still is committed to political violence against the Iranian people, and envisions a Libya-Syrian-style conflict to likewise divide and destroy the Iranian nation. 

However, facts regarding the true nature of MEK is not derived from Iranian state media, or accusations made by MEK's opponents in Tehran, but by MEK's own US sponsors and even MEK's senior leadership itself.

"Undeniably" MEK "Conducted Terrorist Attacks"


By the admissions of the United States and the United Kingdom, MEK is undeniably a terrorist organization guilty of self-admitted acts of terrorism. The UK House of Commons in a briefing paper titled, "The People's Mujahiddeen of Iran (PMOI)," it  cites the UK Foreign Office which states explicitly that: 
The Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK) is proscribed in the UK under the Terrorism Act 2000. It has a long history of involvement in terrorism in Iran and elsewhere and is, by its own admission, responsible for violent attacks that have resulted in many deaths. 
The briefing paper makes mention of "assiduous" lobbying efforts by MEK to have itself removed from terrorist lists around the globe. 

A 2012 Guardian article titled, "MEK decision: multimillion-dollar campaign led to removal from terror list," would extensively detail the large number of prominent US politicians approached and paid by MEK as part of this lobbying effort. 

Yet there is more behind MEK's delisting than mere lobbying. As early as 2009, US policymakers saw MEK as one of many minority opposition and ethnic groups that could be used by the US as part of a wider agenda toward regime change in Iran. 


The Brookings Institution in a 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), under a chapter titled, "Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority And Opposition Groups," would openly admit (emphasis added): 
Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S.  proxy  is  the  NCRI  (National  Council of Resistance of  Iran),  the  political  movement  established  by  the  MeK  (Mujahedin-e  Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.  
 Brookings would concede to MEK's terrorist background, admitting (emphasis added):  
Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MeK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main  political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed  credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on  Iranian civilian and  military targets between 1998 and 2001.
Brookings makes mention of MEK's attacks on US servicemen and American civilian contractors which earned it its place on the US FTO, noting: 
In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran.
And despite MEK's current depiction as a popular resistance movement in Iran, Brookings would also admit (emphasis added): 
The group itself also appears to be undemocratic and enjoys little popularity in Iran itself. It has no  political base in the country, although it appears to have an operational presence. In particular, its  active participation on Saddam Husayn’s side during the bitter Iran-Iraq War made the group widely  loathed. In addition, many aspects of the group are cultish, and its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, are revered to the point of obsession.  
Brookings would note that despite the obvious reality of MEK, the US could indeed use the terrorist organization as a proxy against Iran, but notes that:
...at the very least, to work more closely with the  group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign  terrorist organizations. 
And from 2009 onward, that is precisely what was done. It is unlikely that the MEK alone facilitated the rehabilitation of its image or exclusively sought its removal from US-European terrorist organization lists - considering the central role MEK terrorists played in US regime change plans versus Iran. 

While MEK propaganda insists that its inclusion on terrorist organization lists around the globe was the result of a global effort to "curry favor with Iran’s clerical regime," it is clear that the terrorist organization earned its way onto these lists, and then lobbied and cheated its way off of them. 

The MEK is Still Committed to Violence Today 

While Iranians mourned in the wake of the Ahvaz attack, MEK was holding a rally in New York City attended by prominent US politicians including US President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudolph Giuliani and former US National Security Adviser under the Obama administration, James Jones. 

During the "2018 Iran Uprising Summit" Giuliani would vow the overthrow of the Iranian government. 

MEK leader Maryam Rajavi would broadcast a message now posted on MEK websites. In her message she would discuss MEK's role in fomenting ongoing violence inside of Iran.

She would admit: 
Today, the ruling mullahs’ fear is amplified by the role of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and resistance units in leading and continuing the uprisings. Regime analysts say: "The definitive element in relation to the December 2017 riots is the organization of rioters. So-called Units of Rebellion have been created, which have both the ability to increase their forces and the potential to replace leaders on the spot." 

The roadmap for freedom reveals itself in these very uprisings, in ceaseless protests, and in the struggle of the Resistance Units.
Riots by definition entail violence. The riots taking place across Iran beginning in late 2017 and continuing sporadically since - of which Rajavi and her MEK take credit for organizing - have left dozens dead including police. 

One police officer was shot dead just before New Year's, and another three were killed in late February 2018 during such riots.  


In the region of Ahvaz specifically, MEK social media accounts have been taking credit for and promoting ongoing unrest there. Ahvaz was more recently the scene of a terrorist attack in which gunmen targeted a parade leaving dozens dead and scores more injured. 

Rajavi and MEK's ultimate goal is the overthrow of the Iranian government. As Brookings admits in its 2009 paper, the Iranian government will not cede power to US-orchestrated regime change without a fight - and MEK was recruited as a US proxy specifically because of its capacity for violence.

Brookings would note:
Despite its limited popularity (but perhaps because of its successful use of terrorism), the Iranian regime is exceptionally sensitive to the MEK and is vigilant in guarding against it. 
It was for this reason that Brookings singled them out as a potential proxy in 2009 and recommended their delisting by the US State Department so the US could provide more open support for the terrorist organization.

It is clear that Rajavi's recent admissions to being behind political violence inside Iran contravenes the US State Department's rationale for deslisting MEK on grounds that the group had made a "public renunciation of violence." 

MEK is not only refusing to renounce violence, MEK's most senior leader has just publicly and unambiguously declared MEK's policy is to openly wield violence inside Iran toward destabilizing and overthrowing the government.

From the United States' ignoring of its own anti-terrorism laws - aiding and abetting MEK while still on the US State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations list - to the US now portraying MEK as a "reformed" "resistance" organization even as its leader takes credit for ongoing political violence inside Iran, it is clear that once again the US finds itself a willing state sponsor of terrorism.

It was as early as 2007 that Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article, "The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" would warn: 
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
It is clear in retrospect that the rise of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and other extremist fronts in Syria were a result of this US policy. It is also clear that there are many other extremist groups the US has knowingly whitewashed politically and is covertly supporting in terrorism aimed directly at Iran itself.

It is just a matter of time before the same denials and cover-ups used to depict Syrian and Libyan terrorists as "freedom fighting rebels" are reused in regards to US-backed violence aimed at Iran. Hopefully, it will not take nearly as long for the rest of the world to see through this game and condemn groups like MEK as the terrorists they always have been, and continue to be today.

Also in retrospect, it is clear how US-engineered conflict and regime change has impacted the Middle Eastern region and the world as a whole - one can only imagine the further impact a successful repeat of this violence will have if visited upon Iran directly.  

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.