Western "Rights Advocates" Rush to Chechen "Activist's" Aid

April 7, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Human Rights Watch (HRW) executive director Kenneth Roth recently decried legal proceedings against the alleged "leading human rights defender in Chechnya," Oyub Titiyev.

But as with much of what HRW decries, Titiyev has less to do with actually defending human rights, and more to do with ongoing US-subversion in Russia's southern Chechen Republic.

Roth, in a social media post, would claim:

The Russian government's "case" against the leading human rights defender in Chechnya, Oyub Titiyev, is farcical--as many holes as Swiss cheese--but authorities have still locked him up for 14 months and are threatening a four-year sentence.

The article Roth's post would include, leads to an opinion piece in The Moscow Times (written by fellow HRW regional director, Rachel Denber) who insists Titiyev is innocent of drug charges based entirely on Titiyev and his lawyer's own claims.

Whether Titiyev is guilty or not is for Russia's courts to decide. However, the entire process of mobilizing supposed human rights advocacy organizations like HRW to rush to Titiyev's aid illustrates how "rights advocacy" is transparently used to advance politically-motivated agendas, not to actually advance human rights.

No matter what the evidence against Titiyev, HRW and others would claim the charges against him were politically motivated. It is an example of foreign-funded organizations attempting to assert themselves over a nation's sovereign right to manage its own internal affairs, including by overriding local law enforcement and judicial processes.

But there is much more to consider regarding Titiyev's case than this.

Terrorism as Washington's Sword, "Rights Advocacy" as its Shield

Russia's Chechen Republic had previously seen two wars as armed separatists attempted to carve out an independent region from Russian territory. From 1994-1996 and again from 1999-2009 militants waged both open war and an armed insurgency against Russian forces until eventually Moscow prevailed.

Today, attempts to rekindle divisions, upheaval and even violence have been the primary goal of both US-funded and directed "rights advocates" like HRW and US-backed militants, though admittedly Russia now has the upper hand.

As the United States has been revealed to have done elsewhere, the Russian government has accused it of lending direct aid to Chechen militants.

A 2015 BBC article titled, "Russia's Putin: US agents gave direct help to Chechens," would note:

Vladimir Putin has accused US agents of directly aiding rebel fighters in the second Chechen war.   

In order for fighters to have contested Russian control over Chechnya, they would require equal or greater financial and military support than that committed by Moscow. State sponsorship would be the only way of achieving this and the list of potential states both capable and motivated to back Chechen militants is exceedingly short.

The ICC and NGOs: Modern Day Manifestations of "The White Man's Burden"

March 23, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The International Criminal Court (ICC) is not international nor a legitimate court, but is most certainly criminal.

It is an institutionalized tool - one of many - used by Western corporate-financier interests to coerce and control nations across the developing world.

In a recent charade aimed to boost its otherwise nonexistent credibility, the ICC has claimed it seeks to investigate the United States for war crimes regarding Afghanistan. It also claims it is investigating the United Kingdom regarding Iraq.

However, the ICC has - since its first case in 2003 - been used primarily against targets of Western interests - with a particular emphasis on Africa and Eastern Europe. Not a single Western government or individual has been prosecuted by the ICC despite having committed the worst war crimes of the 21st century.

Looked Good on Paper...  

On paper, the International Criminal Court seems like a good idea. This is probably why many nations signed and ratified the statute giving it its supposed mandate. However, as with many good ideas in theory, in practice the ICC falls tragically short.

Unsurprisingly, the ICC's shortcomings stem from its little-discussed but very lopsided funding and the obvious resulting conflicts of interest.

An African Business article titled, "Who Pays For the ICC?" would explain it best, noting (emphasis added):

The maximum amount a single country can pay in any year is limited to 22% of the Court’s budget. The ICC spent €80.5m in 2007. The Assembly of States Parties approved a budget of €90.38m for 2008 and €101.23m for 2009. By April 2009, the ICC employed 743 people. 

 There are two points of immediate concern regarding the ICC budget. The first that while the Court theoretically sets a cap on funding at 22% of its budget from any one country, considerably more than 50% of its 2009 budget funding came from EU member countries. Thus, the contributions to the ICC’s 2009 budget clearly illustrated the continuing European hold on the Court’s funding.

The article would also explain (emphasis added):

The EU, through its member states, paid 60% of the 2009 budget of €94.17m. If one includes – as the EU does in its statements regarding the ICC – those other European states which it says are candidate or potential candidate members of the EU and those other European nations that associate themselves with the EU position, the European contribution comes to a cool 63%. The EU, therefore, clearly, and probably unconstitutionally, financially dominates the ICC.

A look at the ICC's finances in the form of a chart further highlights the disparity in funding and reveals the ICC not as an "international" court, but a political tool of Western Europe and in particular - the European Union. When three of the "Five Eyes" nations are included and considering Japan's geopolitical subordination to Washington - the disparity is even more obvious.

If these nations collectively wage war and commit war crimes together, why would they not also abuse the ICC's mandate to redirect the court's efforts away from them, and toward yet other targets of their own self-serving interests?

The disparity, conflicts of interest, and demonstrable impropriety resulting from this lopsided funding has prompted nations to leave the ICC - with many more remaining, but demanding reform.

How the West Weaponizes Refugees it Creates

January 28, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The only thing more sinister than intentionally creating refugees, is weaponizing them as leverage to further coerce nations and advance hegemonic ambitions.

The United States and its allies have done both extensively - from exploiting the flow of refugees fleeing US-led wars in Libya and Syria - to the cynical exploitation of high-profile cases like Rahaf al-Qunun of Saudi Arabia and Hakeem al-Araibi of Bahrain - both of whom are fleeing autocratic regimes armed and propped up exclusively by the West.

In addition to creating the conditions ensuring a steady stream of refugees - the West has assembled an army of faux-rights advocates - most notably Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International to shift blame from those responsible for the creation of refugees to those saddled with growing numbers of people seeking refuge within their borders.

Weaponizing Refugees in Libya and Syria 

After the US-led NATO destruction of Libya, a predictable tidal wave of refugees flooded out of North Africa into Europe. At the same time, the US-led proxy war in Syria was ramping up likewise causing a steady stream of refugees fleeing the conflict.

As refugees began arriving in Europe - the result of US wars eagerly aided and abetted by many of Europe's NATO members as well as Canada and Australia - the socioeconomic pressure they created - real or imagined - was immediately leveraged to call for bolder and more direct military intervention against Syria by the West.

Articles like a 2016 Guardian piece titled, "Refugees are becoming Russia's weapon of choice in Syria," would even attempt to claim Russia's air campaign against Western-sponsored terrorists in Syria was aimed at intentionally creating a flow of refugees into Turkey and Europe to "divide the transatlantic alliance and undermine the European project."

The article would admit that this flow of refugees served as a pretext for a proposed "no-fly zone" in northern Syria - a stated goal of US policymakers since as early as 2012 published in a Brookings Institution memo titled, "Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change" (PDF) which called for:

...the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power.3 This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts. 

It is clear now - as the Syrian government regains control of the nation's territory and refugees begin returning home almost exclusively to territory controlled by Damascus - just how cynical the West's refugee pretext actually was.

Propping Up Dictatorships, Leveraging Their Victims 

In early January, 18 year old Saudi national Rahaf al-Qunun was detained at Bangkok's international airport. She had claimed she was fleeing Saudi Arabia to escape both her abusive family and a despotic government.

Faux-rights groups including HRW and Amnesty International immediately seized upon the opportunity to accuse the Thai government of wrongfully detaining Qunun and preparing to send her back to Saudi Arabia.

The West's human rights racket has systematically targeted the current Thai government in an attempt to undermine it ahead of elections the US hopes returns their favored proxies to power.

In reality, it became clear that Qunun was travelling on an Australian visa which was revoked mid-flight - stranding her in Bangkok, the Guardian would eventually admit.

Thai officials worked the entire day to ascertain the details of her case and find a favorable outcome for the stranded teen. Despite having the opportunity to place her on an early morning flight to Kuwait where she'd then be sent back to Saudi Arabia - Thai officials instead continued working on her case long before Western interests began exploiting the incident.

And despite Bangkok arranging a meeting between Qunun and representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) by evening, the Western media, several Western embassies, faux rights groups - particularly HRW - and local fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the West - had already spent the entire day smearing the Thai government.

At one point, Canadian ambassador to Thailand, Donica Pottie, attempted to post a "Save Rahaf" hashtag on social media. When it was pointed out that Canada sells billions of dollars in arms to the very Saudi regime Rahaf al-Qunun was fleeing from - she promptly deleted the post.

Canada would move to offer Qunun asylum - posing as the ultimate hero of the incident. Qunun herself would indeed thank Canada - but also the Thai government - smeared by the West including Canada - for Thailand's role in helping her after being stranded by Australia's visa cancellation.

Creating the Monster Rahaf al-Qunun Was Fleeing 

The autocratic regime ruling Saudi Arabia receives weapons, political support, and military protection from not only Canada, but also the US. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom also help arm the regime in Riyadh.

How Modern Empire Uses "Awards" to Keep Servants Loyal

November 21, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Nineteenth century French military and political leader Napoléon Bonaparte once said, "a soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of coloured ribbon," recognising a fundamental aspect of human nature he readily exploited to bolster his now famous campaigns of European conquest.

Human beings value recognition. Today, it drives the addictive nature of social media platforms. Facebook co-founder Sean Parker recently admitted that the ubiquitous social network platform was designed intentionally to exploit this and become "addictive."

In the Guardian's report titled, "Ex-Facebook president Sean Parker: site made to exploit human 'vulnerability'," Sean Parker would describe what he called a "social-validation feedback loop," explaining that:

“How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?” It was this mindset that led to the creation of features such as the “like” button that would give users “a little dopamine hit” to encourage them to upload more content. 

“It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.”

This social-validation feedback loop utilising the "like" button is merely the most recent innovation in social engineering, and the latest iteration of Bonaparte's "bit of coloured ribbon." 

Keeping Servants Eager and Loyal 

Combining traditional methods and modern innovations in social engineering, modern day empires extend their influence through media, activist, political and business circles around the globe. In addition to boosting modern social media accounts of their handpicked proxies, facilitators and agents, they also maintain an impressive network of organisations that both manage and direct "soft power" efforts as well as reward eager and loyal functionaries.

Amnesty's Abuse of Rights Advocacy

March 11, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Alleged human rights advocacy organisation, Amnesty International, has had several of its recent reports called into question regarding the very real possibility that its "advocacy" work is nothing more than politically-motivated attacks on nations targeted by its Western sponsors.

One report published under the titled, "Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria," has been revealed to consist of nothing more than opposition accusations and fabricated evidence created on computers in the United Kingdom.

Despite Amnesty International's report concluding that the Syrian government committed "crimes against humanity," the report admits it lacked any sort of physical evidence, including access to the facility in which Amnesty claims between "5,000-13,000" people were systematically tortured and executed.

 Amnesty International, a long-established and internationally recognised rights advocacy organisation, must certainly know better than to draw such conclusions and levelling such serious accusations against another nation without any actual evidence.

Assuming Amnesty knew better, it then appears that the organisation deliberately used its reputation and credibility, along with techniques designed to prey on the emotions of the public, to create a politically hostile climate toward the Damascus government on behalf of the US-European and Persian Gulf state coalition aimed at its removal from power.

While Amnesty's report on Syria is perhaps the most transparent and egregious abuse of human rights advocacy, Amnesty has produced other reports recently exhibiting a similar pattern of deception and lies of omission, preying on public ignorance and emotions, often at the cost of human rights advocacy rather than in defence of it.

Thailand's Turn 

Despite claims that America is posed to pursue a different tack regarding policy in Asia Pacific, the organisations and agencies arrayed by Wall Street and Washington against the region remain in place and very active.

Assisting these networks are organisations precisely like Amnesty International.

In their report titled, "Thailand: "They Cannot Keep Us Quiet": The Criminalization of Activists, Human Rights Defenders, And Others in Thailand," attempts to paint a picture of a draconian dictatorship silencing defenders of democracy and human rights.

Regime Change and Continuity of Agenda: Trump Adviser Now Chairs NED

March 1, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - While supporters of recently elected US President Donald Trump believe steadfastly that among other things, his administration will role back what has been essentially a century of American expansionism worldwide through overt wars and more "covert" methods toward achieving "regime change," by all metrics it appears such methods will only expand.

Image: Dr. Judy Shelton, now Chairperson of the NED and Trump adviser, presides over an award ceremony in 2010 for US CIA asset, the Dali Lama, a decades-long integral component of American policy to encircle, contain and divide China.

Not only do observers note continued subversive activities coordinated through local US embassies around the world since Trump's presidency began, including across Southeast Asia as part of America's continued attempts to isolate and contain China, but also movement within US agencies charged with organising and financing this subversion, such as the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Recently, NED announced its new chairperson, Dr. Judy Shelton. The announcement, published on NED's website includes the following background information on Dr. Shelton:

 Dr. Judy Shelton was elected the new Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) by NED’s Board of Directors at its January 10, 2017 meeting. An economist who has written widely on issues of international finance and monetary policy, she has also been consulted on international economic and financial issues by the Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon. Shelton previously served on the NED Board from 2005-2014, and was Vice Chairman from 2010-2014.

In other words, not only is Dr. Shelton now the new chairperson of NED, she has been directly involved with NED since at least 2005, long before, and all during NED's role in training, funding and backing the armies of regime change that swept the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) beginning in 2011. She also served on NED's board during the US-backed coup in Ukraine between 2013-2014.

Before that, between 2009-2010, NED-backed mobs took to the streets in Bangkok, Thailand in attempts to overthrow both the sitting government at the time, and also the Thai military and Thailand's head of state.

While these events have been assigned to the Obama administration for political convenience and compartmentalisation, it is actually organisations like NED that serve as the working mechanics that make such events possible.

In other words, Dr. Judy Shelton has been directly involved in NED through the entirety of America's most recent chapters of expansionism and regime change worldwide. She has also served on the board of directors for Hilton Hotels and Atlantic Coast Airlines, providing another example within NED of corporate and financial special interests driving the organisation's agenda rather than actual "democracy promotion."

An example of Dr. Shelton's activities within NED can be gleamed from a 2012 NED news letter under a headline titled, "Democracy Service Medal Presented in Cuba," in which it claims:

NED Vice-Chair Judy Shelton (second from right) presented it in person to Berta Soler, the leader of the Damas de Blanco movement founded by Laura Pollán; Héctor Maseda Guitiérrez, Pollán's widower and a journalist who spent eight years imprisoned by the Cuban government; and Laura Labrada Pollán, Pollán's daughter and a member of the Damas de Blanco.

Here, Dr. Shelton is directly involved in lending legitimacy to US-backed subversion in Cuba as part of a decades-long attempt to overthrow the government in Havana and expand US hegemony over the Caribbean.

Human Rights Watch Cites Al Qaeda and Collaborators in Latest Syria Report

February 26, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - On the heels of Amnesty International's admittedly and entirely fabricated report regarding Syria's Saydnaya prison, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has published its own baseless report on Syria - this one regarding alleged chlorine bomb attacks in Aleppo during the city's liberation late last year.

In a post on HRW's website titled, "Syria: Coordinated Chemical Attacks on Aleppo," it claims:

Syrian government forces conducted coordinated chemical attacks in opposition-controlled parts of Aleppo during the final month of the battle for the city, Human Rights Watch said today.

However, when qualifying HRW's accusations, it admits:

Through phone and in-person interviews with witnesses and analysis of video footage, photographs, and posts on social media, Human Rights Watch documented government helicopters dropping chlorine in residential areas on at least eight occasions between November 17 and December 13, 2016. The attacks, some of which included multiple munitions, killed at least nine civilians, including four children, and injured around 200.

Watching the videos and viewing the photographs reveals that none of them actually link any of the alleged "chlorine attacks" to Syrian forces, or even to chlorine itself.

The body of evidence presented by HRW also reveals that the interviews they conducted with alleged "witnesses" included almost exclusively opposition forces. Among them were the US-UK funded White Helmets - referred to disingenuously as "Syria Civil Defense" in HRW's report - who served as designated terrorist organization Jabhat Al Nusra auxiliaries, often found on the battlefield shoulder-to-shoulder with armed militants.

Image: "Syria Civil Defense," interviewed by Human Rights Watch, hoisting Al Qaeda's flag amid a gang of  heavily armed terrorists.

United Arab Emirate-based Al Nusra propaganda platform "Orient News" was also cited, as were other notorious anti-government propaganda networks including the Aleppo Media Center.

Not only are these clearly compromised sources of information based on their admitted political alignments, but also because of their respective, systematic fabrications throughout the Syrian conflict. It is telling of HRW's systematic bias that it would base an entire report on compromised sources drawn from the opposition, but not even a single report based on government claims.

In reality, a truly reputable rights advocacy organization would only report what physical evidence was verified. Human Rights Watch has deliberately avoided doing so not only in Syria, but amid virtually ever conflict it involves itself in.

Citing Terrorists and Verified Liars

From conflating the number of civilians "trapped" in eastern Aleppo, to attempts to downplay or dismiss the role designated terrorist organizations played in the occupation of Aleppo, the groups and individuals cited by Human Rights have practiced deliberate deceit throughout the battle for Aleppo, and the Syrian conflict at large.

The Problem with Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index

February 13, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Transparency International puts out what it calls the "Corruption Perceptions Index." It is an annual index it claims "has been widely credited with putting the issue of corruption on the international policy agenda."

These carefully selected words, taken at face value appear benign, even progressive. But upon digging deeper into this organisation's background it becomes clear that these "perceptions" are politically motivated, and the "international policy agenda" clearly favours a very specific region of the globe, particularly that region occupied by Washington, London and Brussels.

Transparency International claims upon its "Who We Are" page of its website that (our emphasis):

From villages in rural India to the corridors of power in Brussels, Transparency International gives voice to the victims and witnesses of corruption. We work together with governments, businesses and citizens to stop the abuse of power, bribery and secret deals. As a global movement with one vision, we want a world free of corruption. Through chapters in more than 100 countries and an international secretariat in Berlin, we are leading the fight against corruption to turn this vision into reality.

 Before moving onto the organisation's funding and financials, one would assume that above and beyond any other organisation in the world, Transparency International would carefully and diligently avoid any perceptions of conflicts of interest on its own part. Yet, not surprisingly, that isn't the case.

An Anti-Corruption Org Swimming in Conflicts of Interest 

Upon their page, "Who Supports Us," Transparency International admits that it receives funding from government agencies including:

• The United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID);
• Federal Foreign Office, Germany and;
• The US State Department.  

Transparency International not only receives funding from the very governments it is tasked to investigate, hold accountable and "index" annually, constituting a major conflict of interest, it also receives money from the following:

• The National Endowment for Democracy;
• Open Society Institute Foundation and;
• Shell Oil.

Other troubling sponsors dot Transparency International's funding disclosure, but the inclusion of immense corporate interests like energy giant Shell, is particularly troubling. 

So is the inclusion of the National Endowment for Democracy whose board of directors is chaired by representatives from other large corporations and financial institutions as well as partisan political figures involved heavily in not only influencing politics in their own respective nations, but who use the National Endowment for Democracy itself as a means to influence other nations.

While these interests are transparently self-serving, the use of the National Endowment for Democracy allows them to predicate their involvement in the political affairs and elections of foreign nations upon "democracy promotion." This seems to be the very essence of corruption, "abuse of power" and "secret deals," yet they are funding Transparency International's very existence. 

US Cooks Up New Syrian Atrocities Amid Syrian Talks

February 10, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Amnesty International is inextricably compromised in its stated duty to hold nations accountable for human rights violations through its direct connections with Western political interests and their use of the organization as a tool of geopolitical influence and coercion.

Image: The closest Amnesty International got to the prison they wrote a 48 page report on is illustrated by this photo taken from outer space.

As such, reports like its most recent titled, "Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria," begs belief. The report begs belief not just because of the systematic campaign of disinformation and war propaganda Amnesty International has been engaged in against Syria specifically, or the many fallacious reports it has published targeting Washington, London, and Brussels' political enemies elsewhere, but particularly because of the report's own admitted methodology.

The report itself states clearly (emphasis added):

The research for this report took place between December 2015 and December 2016. Amnesty International interviewed 31 men who were detained at Saydnaya (also spelt Sednaya) between 2011 and 2015.

The report also admits (emphasis added):

 Amnesty International also interviewed four prison officials or guards who previously worked at Saydnaya; three former judges, one of whom served in the Military Court in the al-Mezzeh neighbourhood of Damascus; three doctors who worked at Tishreen Military Hospital; four Syrian lawyers; 17 international and national experts on detention in Syria, such as investigators, analysts and monitors; and 22 family members of people who were or still are believed to be detained at Saydnaya. The majority of these interviews took place in person in southern Turkey. The remaining interviews were conducted by telephone or through other remote means with interviewees still in Syria, or with individuals based in Lebanon, Jordan, European countries and the USA.

In essence, Amnesty International admits to having no actual, physical evidence. It also is admitting it never stepped foot on Syrian soil, let alone anywhere around or in the prison their 48 page report covers. The report itself admits:

Despite repeated requests by Amnesty International for access to Syria, and specifically for access to detention facilities operated by the Syrian authorities, Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from carrying out research in the country and consequently has not had access to areas controlled by the Syrian government since the crisis began in 2011. Other independent human rights monitoring groups have faced similar obstacles.

So distant was Amnesty International from actually obtaining physical evidence, their only images of the prison itself included in their report are satellite photographs taken from outer space. The only other photographs included are of three alleged prisoners, before and after their alleged detention, attempting to illustrate not torture, but weight loss.

Admittedly, Amnesty International interviewed members and organizations of the Syrian opposition, including those operating out of southern Turkey where much of the war was organized and launched against Syria from.

US Concerns Over "Election Interference" May Backfire

January 5, 2017 (Joseph Thomas -NEO) - The United States has recently claimed the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from US territory as well as additional sanctions against the Russian state are in retaliation for what the Washington Post claims is "2016 election interference."

In the Post's article, "Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference," it's stated that:

The response, unveiled just weeks before President Obama leaves office, culminates months of internal debate over how to react to Russia’s election-year provocations. In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election, leaking damaging information in an attempt to undermine the electoral process and help Donald Trump take the White House.

The "damaging information" that was leaked, however, was disseminated by Wikileaks, and likely the result of an internal whistle-blower, not Russian operatives. Questions surrounding the veracity of America's claims are owed to a substantial lack of evidence provided by US departments and agencies involved in both the investigation and the punitive measures applied in its wake.

However, the US' reaction to what it claims is "2016 election interference" could significantly backfire, since the US itself is engaged in very real, overt election interference globally, and for decades. In fact, even as the US berated Russia for allegedly interfering in America's internal politics, its own organisations, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), funded by the US government, openly admitted they were leaking information regarding China's internal politics in efforts to undermine Beijing.

In fact, NED and its subsidiaries (including the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House) as well as myriad fronts around the world these organisations fund, support and direct, are openly dedicated to manipulating foreign elections, creating US-friendly opposition movements and even overthrowing governments that impede US interests worldwide.

The New York Times, in fact, would admit in 2011 in an article titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," that:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

US interference across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in 2011 would eventually lead to regional war, the complete destruction of Libya and near destruction of Syria as well as regime change in a number of nations including Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.

Irony Redefined: "Human Rights Champion" Suu Kyi Jails Dissidents

October 28, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Myanmar's defacto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi of the  National League for Democracy (NDL) political party, has paved her time since coming to power earlier this year with both irony and hypocrisy. She has not only illegally declared herself "leader" of the Southeast Asian state in contravention of its constitution, she has also embarked on an iron-fisted purge of her political opponents identical to the one she fought against as she struggled to seize power to begin with.

During elections earlier this year, Myanmar's constitution prevented Suu Kyi from holding the nation's highest office due to her inordinate amount of time overseas, her status of having been married to a foreign, and her children's dual citizenship. Instead of adhering to the law, her party once in power, simply contrived an entirely new post for her, State Counsellor of Myanmar, which makes her the "defacto leader" of Myanmar.

Canada's The Globe and Mail in an article titled, "Stéphane Dion says Aung San Suu Kyi is the ‘de facto’ leader of Myanmar," would note that Canada's government recognized this legal side-stepping, stating:

Dion called Suu Kyi, now Myanmar’s foreign minister, “the de facto national leader” of her country “because they have a strange rule that if you have married somebody who’s not of the country, you cannot be the leader of the government and of the state.” 

Suu Kyi, the internationally recognized democracy advocate, is barred from becoming president because her late husband was British, as are her two sons. The rule was crafted during Myanmar’s decades of military rule, which Suu Kyi fought against during years of house arrest before finally prevailing last fall.

In essence, she is unelected, and illegally holding power. For a woman who's Western backers - particularly in the United States and United Kingdom - have held her up as a champion for democracy and the rule of law, she and her party's first act upon taking power was trampling both.

The Inhumane Humanitarian  

Another myth built up around Nobel Peace Prize laureate Suu Kyi by the West has been her advocacy for "human rights." Her advocacy for human rights, however, appears only to extend out to protect only as far as her immediate political allies are concerned. For groups beyond this self-serving political protection, and particularly regarding her political opponents, she and her NDL are just as eager to jail, crush, or kill political opponents as they claimed the ruling military government had been.

US Cultural Colonisation in Asia Pacific

August 31, 2016 (NEO - Joseph Thomas) - Ancient Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 56 – after 117) would adeptly describe the systematic manner in which Rome pacified foreign peoples and the manner in which it would extend its sociocultural and institutional influence over conquered lands.

(Modern day "chief's sons (and now daughters) being recruited by the empire, indoctrinated in their ways, and sent back home to culturally colonise their homelands, just as Tacitus described nearly 2,000 years ago.)

Far from simple military conquest, the Romans engaged in sophisticated cultural colonisation.

In chapter 21 of his book Agricola, named so after his father-in-law whose methods of conquest were the subject of the text, Tacitus would explain:

His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilization', when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.

Compare what Tacitus wrote nearly 2,000 years ago with the United States' Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI). Upon the YSEALI website, a description of the programme reads:

Launched in 2013, the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) is U.S. government’s signature program to strengthen leadership development and networking in Southeast Asia. Through a variety of programs and engagements, including U.S. educational and cultural exchanges, regional exchanges, and seed funding, YSEALI seeks to build the leadership capabilities of youth in the region, strengthen ties between the United States and Southeast Asia, and nurture an ASEAN community. YSEALI focuses on critical topics identified by youth in the region: civic engagement, environment and natural resources management, and entrepreneurship and economic development.

At face value, the notion of the United States "training" the "leaders" of Asia makes little sense, considering such training would be endowing such leaders with American values serving American interests, not Asia's. Thus, their role as "leaders" is questionable. Their role as "facilitators" or "collaborators" seems like a much more accurate description.

The programme includes academic and professional fellowships to the United States.

The Academic Fellows Program is described as:

The YSEALI Academic Fellows Program brings undergraduates or recently graduated students between the ages of 18 and 25 to the United States for a five-week institute held on the campus of a U.S. college or university.

These five week institutes, held on the campus of a U.S. university or college, will include an academic residency, leadership development, an educational study tour, local community service activities, and opportunities to engage with American peers. The program will conclude in Washington, D.C., to allow for engagement with policymakers, governmental representatives, businesses, and think tanks.

This, quite literally, is the modern day version of what Tacitus described in his writings nearly 2,000 years ago, where the US is educating the youth of Southeast Asian states in the liberal arts, indoctrinating them into networks built to establish, maintain and expand American hegemony, encouraging an expressed preference for American culture, values and institutions while placing those of their homelands as subordinate.

(US "think tanks" are chaired, directed and sponsored by the largest corporate and financial interests on the planet. They represent the interests and objectives of a handful of elite interests, not the American people, and certainly not the Asian people. That the YSEALI exposes fellows to such mechanisms of US political power illustrates further just how similar this modern day programme is to what the Roman Empire did to indoctrinate and culturally colonise targeted peoples.)

It is interesting to note that "think tanks" are mentioned as part of the YSEALI experience. Those familiar with the board of directors and corporate sponsors of these think tanks will understand that it is within their halls, unelected policymakers representing immense corporate and financial interests, create foreign and domestic policy that is implemented regardless of who the American people vote into office and regardless of whether the American people agree with such policies or not, saying nothing of whether such policies even benefit the American people.

Those partaking in the YSEALI will likely believe they are at the cutting edge of "democracy," while in fact, they are instead becoming extra weight behind the bludgeoner of dictatorial corporate special interests.

Exposing US-Funded NGOs

From Moscow to Myanmar, US-European funded organisations undermine the essential work of genuine NGOs.

August 9, 2016 (The New Atlas) - A nongovernmental organisation (NGO) is described as a not-for-profit organisation independent from states and international governments. They are funded by donations and facilitated by volunteers drawn from the communities they serve.

Genuine NGOs fitting this description fulfil a vital role within the nations they work regarding issues including education, healthcare, the media, the environment, technology, and economic development.

They often perform their work in parallel with government organisations and may even cooperate with their national government. At other times, the provide a necessary but constructive check and balance to deficiencies present within a state. 

However, NGOs can be abused. Foreign governments and financially motivated special interests can use the structure and appeal of NGOs as vectors to project unwarranted, coercive power and influence.

Funded not by the communities they claim to serve, but by these foreign interests, they often operate under the pretext of upholding the legitimate  roles and responsibilities of genuine NGOs while in reality undermining a targeted nation's government, its people, its institutions, and national peace and stability. Ironically, such organisations also undermine the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of real NGOs.

Foreign interests seek to do this for a number of reasons including pressuring a targeted government to make concessions regarding bilateral relations, competing with and eventually overrunning state institutions, and even replacing a nation's entire government.

How the US State Department Took Over Myanmar's Ministry of Information 

An extreme example of this can be seen in Southeast Asia's Myanmar, where the Ministry of Information is now firmly under the control of Pe Myint, trained in "journalism" by a US government-funded organisation posing as an NGO, called the Indochina Media Memorial Foundation.

Case Study: How Amnesty International Turns Predators into Victims

August 6, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Amnesty International strongly condemned tomorrow's referendum regarding Thailand's new charter aimed at moving the nation forward after over a decade of political chaos and now two military coups, the most recent having been in 2014.

Thailand's The Nation would report in an article titled, "Amnesty International questions reliability of referendum," would claim:

The Amnesty International has questioned the reliability of the Sunday referendum, pointing out it will be held under “chilling climate” when the people cannot speak their minds freely. 

In its press statement issued Friday, the Amnesty International said the referendum is taking place "against a backdrop of pervasive human rights violations that have created a chilling climate". It said the Thai authorities have arbitrarily arrested scores of people, have cancelled or disrupted peaceful assemblies and took off the air a television station in recent weeks. 

It said these incidents were just the most recent undue restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

However, what Amnesty International does not say is that the arrests were not "arbitrary," and instead targeted supporters of ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, now a convicted criminal living in self-exile to evade a 2 year jail sentence and a raft of other pending criminal charges, according to the London Guardian. 

Amnesty also fails to mention that the "peaceful assemblies" and the "television station" they referred to are also both organised and run directly by Thaksin Shinawatra and his political forces.

Amnesty International, based in the United Kingdom, would likely find it difficult to defend a political party in England run openly by a convicted criminal living abroad who regularly organised attempts to subvert state power including through the use of armed terrorism.

So one wonders why Amnesty International obfuscates the fact that this is precisely what Shinawatra has done in regards to Thailand, and why Amnesty believes arresting and disrupting the activities of those involved in such subversion amounts to "pervasive human rights violations"rather than the impartial application of the rule of  law.

Amnesty International's Convenient Omissions 

According to Wikileaks, the US Embassy itself noted a string of terrorism carried out by the supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra leading up to and in the wake of the first military coup aimed at ousting him and his political forces from power in 2006.

In one cable titled, "Thai Government Ascribes Bombings to Political Opponents," the US Embassy in Bangkok would admit:

Many observers will find it plausible that Thaksin or his supporters may have orchestrated bombings in order to discredit those who overthrew him. During the last two years of Thaksin's administration, there were numerous incidents in which bombs were placed at Bangkok sites associated with Thaksin's opponents...

In the cable, at least 5 separate incidents were listed.

Since then, Shinawatra has deployed violent mobs into the streets on a number of occasions, the most notable of which occurred in 2009, 2010, and between 2013-2014.

(For now over a decade, Thailand opposition groups (called "red shirts") have repeatedly depended on Western human rights advocates to pressure the government into allowing widespread protests which then are inevitably used as cover for armed violence. Today, Amnesty International is attempting to reignite the violent cycle once again.)

A Primer: USAID & US Hegemony

July 8, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A nation is its institutions. If those institutions are overrun and no longer exist, so too does the nation itself cease to exist. Institutions range from the offices of government, to education, to agricultural and economic development, to the management of natural resources, national infrastructure including energy and transportation, and security. These are the things we think about when we think about the concept of a modern nation-state.

Contrary to popular belief, the invasion and occupation of any particular nation is not a mere exercise of military might. It also, by necessity, involves the destruction or overrunning and eventual replacement of all the above mentioned institutions.

The most extreme modern-day example of this was the US invasion of Iraq, where Iraqi institutions from top to bottom were either entirely destroyed and replaced, or taken over by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA was literally headed by an American, Paul Bremer, who, far from being a military man, was instead drawn from the US State Department and a background of chairing corporate-financier boards of directors.

The CPA assumed responsibility for all aspects of life in Iraq, from the privatization of Iraq's economy, to "reconstruction," to reorganizing the nation socially, politically, and economically.

The average onlooker will remember US President George Bush's "shock and awe," and may remember several of the more notorious battles of the invasion and subsequent occupation. What they rarely recall is the all encompassing dominion the US assumed over the nation through the CPA which was merely underpinned by US military forces. Yet despite the relatively dull nature of the CPA's work versus security operations carried out by American forces, the CPA is what essentially "occupied" and ultimately conquered Iraq.

USAID & Co. - Low Intensity Invasion and Occupation 

Iraq and Afghanistan are extreme examples of the US exercising global hegemony, which included spectacular, full-scale military invasions, lengthy occupations, and nationwide "nation-building" carried out by various organizations utilized by the US to project power abroad.

One of these organizations is USAID. It should be, but rarely is, troubling to the world's nations that USAID played an integral part in the invasion, occupation, and conquest of  Iraq and Afghanistan, while it also maintains an extensive presence everywhere else US interests have directed their attention.

USAID and a virtual army of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and front-companies it supports worldwide, are engaged in activities in other nations ranging from education, energy, natural resources, economic development, transportation, and security - or in other words everything foreign nations should already be attending to themselves.

The National Endowment for Democracy: Not National and Not for Democracy

June 24, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Using a front to hide illegal or immoral activities has been a feature of human criminality since the beginning of human civilization itself. Facades, both ideological and economical, have helped criminal enterprises conceal the true nature of their activities for centuries.

In ages past, organized religion would often take systems of legitimate philosophy and spirituality, and transform them into a means of organizing the masses for the benefit of an elite few, often those heading empires, kingdoms, or nation-states. More recently, patriotism and now the notion of "democracy" have been used successfully by similar cadres of special interests to conceal their self-serving agendas behind notions likely to recruit support from large segments of a population that would otherwise be disinterested.

There is no example of this more transparent than that of the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED). According to its own website, it claims:

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world. Each year, NED makes more than 1,200 grants to support the projects of non-governmental groups abroad who are working for democratic goals in more than 90 countries.

"The growth and strengthening  of democratic institutions around the world" sounds noble enough. One would expect, then, that the NED would be led by a collection of some of the most notable activists involved in the empowerment of "the people." Instead, upon NED's board of directors, we find people representing corporate-financier interests notorious for instead, exploiting and subjugating "the people."

Unfortunately, for those receiving the millions upon millions of dollars the NED hands out annually to "nongovernmental organizations" (NGOs) around the world, few bother to actually check who it is underwriting their daily activities, and fewer still have the integrity to both turn down the money let alone inform the people they claim to represent just who is attempting to reach into their respective nations and subvert their political systems, and to what end.

Quite literally, each and every member of the NED's board of directors represents Fortune 500 corporations, insidious corporate-financier funded policy think-tanks, and a wide variety of other obvious conflicts of interest unbecoming of an organization truly interested in, "the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world." 

National Endowment for Democracy is Now Officially “Undesirable” in Russia

August 10, 2015 (F. William Engdahl - NEO) - Vladimir Putin! Now you’ve really done it. You have had the temerity to declare our National Endowment for Democracy (NED), America’s most important Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) to be “undesirable.” Where will this end? Don’t you respect our right, as a US Government-financed NGO, to meddle in internal Russian affairs? After all, we are the most important NGO of the world’s Sole Superpower. We can go wherever we want and do whatever we like. We are truly upset!

This is the clear reaction of Washington to the decision by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office on July 28 to declare the activities of the US National Endowment for Democracy as “undesirable in the territory of Russia.” The official statement stated that, “the National Endowment for Democracy used Russian commercial and non-commercial organizations under its control to take part in campaigns aimed at denying the legitimacy of results of Russian elections; organize political actions designed to influence the authorities’ decisions and discredit the service in the Russian Armed Forces.” It further elaborated, “In pursuit of these goals, the fund allocated about 2.5 million US dollars to Russian commercial and non-commercial organizations in 2013-2015.”

Under Russia’s law on Undesirable NGOs, adopted by the Duma or parliament and signed into law by President Putin this May, any foreign or international non-governmental organization could become “undesirable” if it threatened the foundations of Russia’s constitutional order, the country’s defense capability and the security of the Russian state.

Russia Ousts Meddling US NGOs, Fake Protests Peter Out

Alexei Navalny - US funded "activist."

December 16, 2012 (LD) - Saturday, December 15 saw a disappointing show for Western-backed protesters in Moscow - with estimates of only a few hundred showing up. Led by faux-Communist Sergey Udaltsov and confirmed Western-funded opposition leaders Alexei Navalny, Ilya Yashin, and Boris Nemtsov, even the Western media had to admit the momentum they had hoped to incite is failing to materialize.

AFP's "Year on, Russian opposition subdued but not defeated," and Washington Post's "Thousands protest against Putin, but opposition momentum has slowed," despite unqualified attempts to embellish the size and strength of both the protest and the opposition in general, reflect the winding down of Western attempts to foment chaos across Russia. While the Washington Post cites Russian President Vladamir Putin's "co-opting" of opposition issues, by actually addressing legitimate concerns regarding his government, there is also another dimension that is more muted. 

The Russian Battle Against Foreign Subversion.

Reuters alludes to other possible explanations in their article, "No Russian revolution after a year of protests," stating:

Putin was elected to a six-year third term in March and the parliament, dominated by his party, has pushed through laws which critics say can be used to stifle dissent - tightening controls of the Internet, imposing new checks on foreign-funded lobby groups and broadening the definition of treason.

Indeed, Russia has placed immense restrictions on foreign-funded lobby groups and NGOs, demanding that they exhibit the same level of transparency and honesty that they themselves demand of the government. Foreign subversion, however, requires a degree of deceit and exploitation toward targeted segments of the population. Subversion will not work if its agents are required to state on all their pamphlets, websites, and signs that they are foreign-funded - and predictably both the US and the opposition it has contrived inside Russia, derided the pro-transparency legislation.

Wall Street, Pro-Israel Groups Support Malaysian Opposition

Editor's Note: Nile Bowie had written this piece exposing the Malaysian opposition's foreign funding and the duplicitous implications involved, in the midst of what is an increasing public awareness of the role foreign-funded NGOs play in destabilizing and destroying the sovereignty of a nation targeted by Wall Street and London corporate-financier interests. 

In response to this increasing awareness, these very Wall Street-funded NGOs have published a ridiculous rebuttal featured in the image below.

Image: An absurd demand for an "apology" aimed at Malaysian journalists simply exercising the "freedom of speech" foreign funded NGOs like Bersih and the Centre for Independent Journalism have claimed to be fighting for. In reality the facade that these NGOs are "humanitarians" is collapsing, exposing the fact that they instead work subversively for the corporate financier interests of Walll Street and London toward the recolonization of Malaysia and the installation of a Western client regime headed by Anwar Ibrahim or one of his associates.

....

It should be noted that Bersih at the top of the signatory list, is funded by the US State Department and convicted criminal George Soros' Open Society. Each subsequent signatory is also funded either directly or by NGOs that are directly funded by Wall Street, the US State Department, and George Soros' Open Society. 

Regardless of the rhetoric put out by these NGOs on a daily basis, the common thread that unites them is a concerted effort to both undermine the current Malaysian government, while promoting opposition groups led by IMF, Wall Street, and US State Department proxy, Anwar Ibrahim. These affiliations have been explored at great length in "Wall Street Fills Malaysian Streets With Unrest." 

....

Nile Bowie
NileBowie.blogspot.com
September 26, 2012 


As Malaysia approaches its highly anticipated 13th General Elections set to take place at some point before late June 2013, a tense political climate and a sense of unpredictability looms over the nation. The significance of these upcoming elections cannot be understated. During Malaysia’s 2008 General Elections, the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, which held power continuously since the nation’s independence, experienced its worst result in decades, while the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition won 82 parliamentary seats. For the first time, the ruling party was deprived of its two-thirds parliamentary majority, which is required to pass amendments to Malaysia’s Federal Constitution. As the United States continues to militarily increase its presence in the Pacific region inline with its strategic policy shift to East Asia, Washington’s leaders would like to see compliant heads of state who will act to further American interests in the ASEAN region.

The outcome of the approaching elections could have significant ramifications for Malaysia’s foreign policy, economy, and trade relations. While allegations of corruption and economic mismanagement hinder the credibility of ruling Prime Minister Najib Razak, foreign organizations affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and funded by the United States government, have contributed support toward bolstering the influence and status of the Malaysia’s opposition groups, in addition to the controversial Bersih coalition for electoral reform, led by Ambiga Sreenevasan. Opponents of this information may dismiss these claims as the “propaganda” of Barisan Nasional, however the validity of these accusations have been highly documented, and constitute an attempt by foreign governments to undermine Malaysia’s independent political process. On June 27th, 2011, Bersih coalition leader Ambiga Sreenevasan conceded that her organization received financial assistance from two private American organizations:
 

Ambiga admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march. [1]
 

However innocuous such contributions may seem, a more critical review of these organizations and their affiliations is necessary. Hungarian-American philanthropist and financier George Soros founded the Open Society Institute in 1993, whose principle aim sought to “strengthen open society principles and practices against authoritarian regimes and the negative consequences of globalization,” with an emphasis on countries in transition from communism after the fall of the Soviet Union. [2] Although OSI has emphasized its commitment to "human rights" and "transparency" by heavily sponsoring organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Soros was convicted of insider trading in 2002 regarding French bank Société Générale and was ironically denied an appeal by the "European Court of Human Rights." [3][4][5] Although Soros has appeared to be publicly critical of capitalism, he has disingenuously profited from predatory trading in many instances, most prominently in 1992 when he earned an estimated $1.1 billion by short selling sterling while the British government was reluctant to adjust its interest rates prior to devaluing the pound. 
 

Image: NDI's website in 2011 before taking down any mention to Malaysia's Bersih movement. (click image to enlarge)

....

Former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright chairs the National Democratic Institute, an organization that supplies electoral observers and promotes governance reform, widely seen as an attempt to foster foreign political systems compatible with American interests by assisting civil society groups in mounting pressure on national governments. NDI President Kenneth Wollack served as the legislative director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, widely considered to be Israel’s most prominent lobbyist organization, one that influences American legislation to exert aggressive Israeli policy and viewpoints. [6] The National Democratic Institute is one of four organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), in addition to the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Chamber of Commerce's Center for Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity. 
 

Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy was notably quoted in 1991 as saying, “A lot of what we (NED) do was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA.” [7] The National Endowment for Democracy receives its funding entirely through an annual allocation of funds from the United States Congress within the budget of the development assistance agency USAID, a branch of the US State Department. [8] Although the NED receives public funding from the US taxpayer, the activities of its four satellite institutes are not reported to Congress, making funding trails and their final recipients difficult to identify. Although the organization boasts of “promoting democracy” and “fortifying civil society” around the world, history had proven that these tired euphemisms have been used in numerous countries to mask funding to various political forces opposed to their national governments and aligned with American interests. American historian and former employee of the US State Department William Blum writes:
 

NED's Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted in 1984, asserts that "No Endowment funds may be used to finance the campaigns of candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money". As described in the "Elections" and "Interventions" chapters, NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in Washington. And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and to support a referendum to unseat him. [9]
 

NED President Carl Gershman was formerly a member of the Governing Council of the American Jewish Congress and Vice-Chairman of the Young People's Socialist League, and in 1968, he was employed in the research department of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, considered the most prominent Jewish service organization in the world, committed to the security and continuity the State of Israel. [10] The Anti-Defamation League is a US-based human rights group committed to the “security of Israel and Jews worldwide," and was implicated in 1993 by the District of Attorney of San Francisco for overseeing a vast surveillance operation monitoring American citizens who were opposed to Israel’s policies in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, prior to passing their personal information to the Israeli government in Tel Aviv. [11]

Image: NED is anything but a "promoter of democracy and freedom." Representing some of the largest corporate-financier interests spanning Wall Street and London, it merely couches global, neo-imperial hegemonic ambitions within the guise of "freedom" and "human rights." For Malaysian NGOs, it is indefensible to take money and support from NED.

....

In addition to providing funding to the Bersih coalition through the National Democratic Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy’s Malaysian operation provides $100,000 (RM 317,260) for political news website Malaysiakini, considered to be the nation’s most pro-opposition news outlet. [12] Premesh Chandran, Malaysiakini CEO, is a grantee of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and launched the news organization with a $100,000 grant from the Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), a recipient of funds from the Open Society Institute, the NED, and Freedom House, an organization reliant on US federal government grants for a significant percentage of its funding. [13][14] NED also provides $90,000 (RM 285,516) to SUARAM, an organization promoting human rights. [15]
 

The most significant recipient of NED’s Malaysia programs is the International Republican Institute (IRI), who annually receives $802,122 (RM 2,544,670) and is tasked to “work with state leaders in Penang and Selangor to provide them with public opinion research, training and other resources to enable them to be more effective representatives of their constituents.” [16] IRI’s mention of these specific regions is unsurprising, as Penang is held by the Malaysian Democratic Action Party, while Selangor is held by Parti Keadilan Rakyat, two of the three organizations comprising the opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat, led by Anwar Ibrahim. US Senator John McCain, an ardent supporter of American militarism who boasts of being “proudly pro-American and proudly pro-Israel”, chairs the International Republican Institute, whose mission statement in Malaysia reads:
 

Since Malaysia’s independence in 1957, the country has experienced a series of national elections, but never a change in national government.  The ruling coalition, known as Barisan Nasional (BN) since 1973, has held power continuously during Malaysia’s post-independence era. In the 2008 general elections, for the first time, the BN lost its two-thirds majority in parliament and control of five state assemblies to the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR). Subsequently, in April 2011 in Sarawak (the only state holding assembly elections before national elections occur) the BN retained control of the state assembly but suffered a reduction in its majority. It is in this context that IRI provides technical assistance, training, and consultation to political parties to build knowledge and impart skills that enable both ruling and opposition Malaysian political leaders to more effectively address citizen concerns. IRI’s current work in this area started in 2009 when the Institute began a groundbreaking series of training sessions designed to assist political parties in developing the in-house capacity to conduct and analyze focus group discussions. These sessions were followed by workshops which allowed focus group moderators to present their findings to their colleagues and craft messages that were used to recruit new political party members and retain existing ones. [17]
 

It comes as little surprise that opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim talks boldly of a “Malaysian Spring,” as the same organizations bolstering the opposition in Kuala Lumpur have successfully fomented events that led to the series of uprisings across the Arab World in 2011. Such organizations rely on the passive impressionability of their followers, while enflaming the legitimate grievances of the subject population to pressure a change in government. This is accomplished by the formation and propagation of dissident news media organizations, and by leveraging police misconduct and human rights abuses to discredit targeted governments in the eyes of the international community. Such agitation is not intended to promote a genuine democratic framework; its purpose is the gradual installation of national governments friendly to American interests by coaxing popular uprising and social unrest. In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated:
 

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington. The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. [18]
 

In the Egyptian context, these organizations have experienced “blowback” from their activities training and funding dissidents, and fomenting Egypt’s popular revolution. In a December 2011 article published by the Los Angeles Times, it was said:
 

Egyptian security forces on Thursday raided the offices of 17 nongovernmental organizations, including three U.S.-based agencies, as part of a crackdown on foreign assistance that has drawn criticism from the West and threatened human rights groups and pro-democracy movements. The move appeared to be part of a strategy to intimidate international organizations. The ruling military council has repeatedly blamed "foreign hands" for exploiting Egypt's political and economic turmoil. But activists said the army was using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses. Egyptian soldiers and black-clad police officers swept into offices, interrogated workers and seized computers across the country. Those targeted included U.S. groups the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House, which are funded by Congress to monitor elections and promote democracy overseas. [19]
 

While the Los Angeles Times frames its report to insinuate that Egypt’s security forces have intrusively aimed to “intimidate” international human rights groups, one must examine the case of Egypt’s newly drafted constitution. After the overthrow of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, democracy advocates called for the constitution to be rewritten from scratch. Reuters published reports citing a pro-opposition judiciary official, who said Egypt’s new constitution would be drafted by civil society groups, namely, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, a recipient of funds directly from George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, financed by the National Endowment for Democracy. [20][21][22] Undoubtedly, the conduct of foreign nations and their relationship with opposition organizations and civil society groups is incompatible within any authentic democratic framework. 
 

In the Malaysian context, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim maintains close ties with senior US officials and organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy. In July 2006, Ibrahim chaired the Washington-based Foundation for the Future, established and funded by the US Department of State at the behest of Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who was recently convicted in absentia for war crimes for his issuance of torture during the Iraq war by Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, chaired by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. [23] In 2007, Ibrahim was a panelist at the National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" event held in Washington. [24] These questionable affiliations raise strong concerns over the legitimacy of the candidate and the administration he would lead if winning the 13th General Election. 
 

Image: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy's 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a "panelist." It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia. (click image to enlarge)

....
 

It would be advisable for Malaysia to follow the example of Russia; President Vladimir Putin recently approved a new law that tightens controls on civil rights groups receiving funded from abroad, forcing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaging in "political activity" to register with the Russian Justice Ministry as "foreign agents," requiring such organizations to file a report to officials every quarter. [25] While such a law would inevitably be criticized as a suppression of dissent, it must be understood that such legislation would not hamper legitimate activism. Malaysia, like Russia, must take the initiative to address the legitimate grievances of activists by bolstering its own indigenous institutions and civil society organizations. Foreign organizations with questionable affiliations attempting to tip the balance of power in their favor is the very antithesis of an authentic democracy. A quote from a recent Op-Ed penned by Russian journalist Veronika Krasheninnikova sends a strong message to the people of Malaysia:
 

Building a patriotic civil society cannot be outsourced. Democratic processes and national security cannot be outsourced – all the more so to openly hostile governments. [26]

....

See the complete list of notes at Nile Bowie's website here.