Will Shake Up at IAEA Impact Iran?

July 31, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano's passing has stirred up suspicion and further tensions amid US-Iranian tensions.

Amano was 72 years old and as of mid July 2019 had already begun preparing to step down due to poor health.

A July 18 AFP-JIJI article titled, "Japanese IAEA head Yukiya Amano to step down next year for health reasons: diplomatic sources," reported:

The head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, Yukiya Amano, will step down in March for health reasons, diplomatic sources said Wednesday, as the agency navigates verification of the increasingly fragile Iran nuclear deal.

However, in the wake of his death and because of his perceived opposition to US efforts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or "Iran Deal" - suspicions began circulating that the US or Israel - or both - may have played a role in his death.

Iran-based Tasnim News Agency in an article titled, "Sources Raise Possibility of Israeli Assassination of Amano," would claim:

Informed sources have speculated that late chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano was assassinated by Israel in collaboration with the US for refusing to give in to pressures to raise new fabricated allegations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Considering the foreign policy track records of either the US or Israel - an assassination targeting members of international institutions impeding Western interests certainly sounds plausible. However no evidence has been provided to suggest Amano was assassinated.

Furthermore - his death whatever the cause will likely have little impact on the IAEA's policies or the general state of US-Iranian tensions - for several reasons.

International Institutions are the Sum of their Member States

International institutions reflect the vector sum of sponsoring nations' interests. As the global balance of power shifts, so too does the proportion of influence of each member state represented by these institutions. In turn the agenda of these institutions changes accordingly.

The IAEA's criticism of Washington's undermining of the Iran Deal reflects not the IAEA's independent assessment - but the collective interests of member nations the IAEA supposedly represents in all matters of nuclear technology. It is no coincidence that in the halls of foreign ministries around the globe similar criticism has been leveled against Washington regarding the Iran Deal.

Nations in Europe attempting to salvage the deal have taken measures to sidestep US sanctions imposed after the US unilaterally and without justification, withdrew. Whatever influence these same nations have within the UN and IAEA has certainly filtered through and was reflected by Amano's position over the Iran Deal prior to his death.

With this in mind, one can expect the IAEA's position to remain relatively unchanged regardless of who becomes the institution's next chief.

Washington's Abuse of International Institutions: A Tired Trick 

The United States and its partners have so regularly abused or even entirely sidestepped international institutions that the legitimacy and impact of these institutions have been greatly diminished.

While the IAEA may reflect a position supporting the Iran Deal's continuation - nations of the world pragmatically sidestepping US sanctions and pursuing multilateral diplomacy is by far more important than anything the IAEA can contribute.

Should the US or Israel succeed in maneuvering to the head of the IAEA a new chief reflecting their interests it will only accelerate the IAEA's irrelevancy further regarding the Iran Deal.

"Human Right Activists" Celebrate Facebook-Twitter Censorship

July 27, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - All Facebook and Twitter accounts associated with Bangkok-based geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci have been deleted. The extent to which both American-based tech companies went to target Cartalucci could be seen in a recent Reuters article reporting on it. 

Written by Thai Reuters correspondent Patpicha Tanakasempipat, the article titled, "Facebook removes fake accounts from Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, Honduras," referred to the author claiming: 

The accounts removed in Thailand used “fictitious personas” to promote narratives about Thai politics, U.S.-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand, Gleicher said. 

“We were able to determine conclusively that some of the activities of this network was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow,” Gleicher said.

The article cited “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and hailed the move as countering "deceptive political propaganda."

No mention was made of how writing anonymously is "inauthentic behavior" nor were any examples provided of what was deemed "deceptive political propaganda" and why.

Matthew Tostevin, a Reuters correspondent also based in Southeast Asia and whose Twitter profile unironically invokes the hashtag, "Journalism is Not a Crime" celebrated the systematic, coordinated censorship, claiming in a tweet:

“Tony Cartalucci” Facebook and Twitter accounts inaccessible after Facebook said it had erased accounts of a network linked to “an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal”.

The term "associated with" is often used to imply impropriety without providing any actual evidence of it. Tostevin's defence of Facebook-Twitter censorship fails to explain how getting paid to write articles is wrong, especially considering Tostevin himself makes his living doing precisely that for London-based Reuters.

Human Rights Watch's Thai representative, Sunai Phasuk, himself a verified recipient of foreign government funds, also celebrated rather than opposed Facebook and Twitter's coordinated censorship.

In his tweet (translated from Thai), he claimed:

The end of IO [information operation]! Facebook and Twitter suspend the accounts of Tony/Anthony Cartalucci (source of "slim" information) as well as related accounts for using a fake identity, disseminating false information, creating hatred for democratic parties and human rights activists/linked to Russian IO.  

The term "slim" is a derogatory term used by supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, an ousted billionaire politician now living abroad as a fugitive and guilty of the worst human rights violations in contemporary Thai history.

Sunai not only reveals a complete lack of impartiality as a supposed human rights advocate, but also is clearly promoting censorship of information he and his foreign sponsors deem "false."

Regarding claims of using a "fake identity," Cartalucci himself has repeatedly stated over several years that the name "Tony Cartalucci" is a pen name and that he writes anonymously, as many authors throughout history have, particularly those writing about sensitive political topics.

Thai "Civil Society Organizations" Aided Facebook Censorship

July 27, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Facebook's official statement regarding a coordinated smear and censorship campaign targeting and closing my Facebook and Twitter accounts claims I was engaged in "coordinated inauthentic behavior." 

I am a single individual thus there obviously was no "coordinated behavior," although Facebook's page feature specifically allows page owners to invite multiple administrators to help post content.

I have operated for over a decade on Facebook and Twitter openly under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci." This is not in any conceivable way "inauthentic behavior," though Facebook never does explain what they defined as "inauthentic behavior."

Facebook also revealed that "civil society organizations" aided them in their efforts to censor my work. Facebook in their statement claims:

We identified these accounts through an internal investigation into suspected Thailand-linked coordinated inauthentic behavior. Our investigation benefited from information shared by local civil society organizations.

I can only assume - since no specific organization was mentioned - that they are the same US-funded fronts I regularly expose through my work. This is particularly ironic since most of these organizations pose as "rights advocates,"  yet voluntarily aided a corrupt foreign corporation in carrying out censorship.

Facebook claims that my account was not taken down because of the content I published, but produced several examples of my content to make their case. They also attempt to associate me with Russian-based New Eastern Outlook to bolster their case and obviously once again referring to the nature of my content. 

While I do contribute to New Eastern Outlook, Facebook never makes it clear how this is grounds for deleting my account.

Facebook's statement claims:

We removed 12 Facebook accounts and 10 Facebook Pages for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior that originated in Thailand and focused primarily on Thailand and the US. The people behind this small network used fake accounts to create fictitious personas and run Pages, increase engagement, disseminate content, and also to drive people to off-platform blogs posing as news outlets. They also frequently shared divisive narratives and comments on topics including Thai politics, geopolitical issues like US-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand. Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our review found that some of this activity was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow.

Facebook never explains how the off-platform blogs were "posing as news outlets" rather than actually being news outlets. How any of my blogs are "not news" but organizations like the BBC caught repeatedly deceiving the public are, is another mystery Facebook's statement leaves unsolved.

Escaping Censorship

July 26, 2019 (The New Atlas at LiveJournal) Facebook, Twitter and Google (which includes YouTube) have mobilised to purge their networks of political activists, analysts and anyone in general impeding the special interests these three tech giants represent.

Ironically, despite Washington, London and Brussels accusing Russia of being an authoritarian state, safe havens like VK, Yandex and LiveJournal are giving dissident voices in the West space to say things they are prohibited from saying on Facebook, Twitter and Google.

The New Atlas is a blog now on LiveJournal shared by several authors and activists recently targeted by Facebook and Twitter specifically with our accounts purged from their platforms for using "fictitious personas." A Reuters article titled, "Facebook removes fake accounts from Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, Honduras," targeting us claimed: 

Facebook took action based on deceptive behavior and not the nature of the content posted, Gleicher said. 

The accounts removed in Thailand used “fictitious personas” to promote narratives about Thai politics, U.S.-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand, Gleicher said. 

“We were able to determine conclusively that some of the activities of this network was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow,” Gleicher said.

To be clear, we are anonymous authors who choose anonyminity primarily for our own protection. Spun as using "fictitious personas" we wonder whether or not Facebook and Twitter will target The Economist next, which publishes content anonymously as explained in this article by The Economist itself titled, "Why are The Economist’s writers anonymous?" which admits:

Historically, many publications printed articles without bylines or under pseudonyms—a subject worthy of a forthcoming explainer of its own—to give individual writers the freedom to assume different voices and to enable early newspapers to give the impression that their editorial teams were larger than they really were. The first few issues of The Economist were, in fact, written almost entirely by James Wilson, the founding editor, though he wrote in the first-person plural.

The Economist also explains why it publishes content anonymously, noting that:

The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. In the words of Geoffrey Crowther, our editor from 1938 to 1956, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself…it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle."

Facebook and Twitter would never consider purging The Economist from their platforms for writing anonymously or for having teams of writers publishing single articles. Why? Because despite claiming they didn't purge us from their platform because of "the nature of our content," the only difference between us and The Economist is the nature of our content.

JT/TC  

Destabilizing Pakistan: Bookending Washington's China Policy

July 26, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Much is being said of US activities aimed at China. Recent protests in Hong Kong together with a US-led propaganda campaign aimed at Beijing's attempts to quell a growing terrorist threat in Xinjiang are aimed at pressuring the nation to fall back into line within Washington's enduring unipolar international order.

The latter of these two campaigns in particular - claims of Chinese authoritarianism as Beijing attempts to neutralize US-backed separatists and terrorists in Xinjiang - has also been spun as China "targeting Muslims."

This ignores the fact that one of China's closest and oldest allies in Eurasia is Pakistan - a Muslim-majority nation. It also ignores the fact that in Pakistan, the US is playing the same game aimed at cultivating violent extremism, separatism, violence, division, and even the dissolution of Pakistan's current borders.

Balochistan - the other Xinjiang 

While all the focus has been directed by the Western media on Xinjiang and a supposed "anti-Muslim crackdown" in the region, Pakistan faces the same problem in its southwestern province of Balochistan. In Pakistan - attempts by the government to root out violent separatists surely is not "anti-Muslim." 

In Balochistan, the US agencies involved in fanning the flames of separatism and violence instead portray Islamabad and the Pakistani military's efforts to restore order as simply trampling "human rights." 

US interference in Balochistan is just as extensive as it is in China's Xinjiang.

Despite the recent move by Washington to list the armed Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as a terrorist organization - Islamabad has long accused Washington of funding and arming it along with segments of the Indian government aligned with US interests.

The fact that otherwise ignored activities by Balochistan separatists are covered by certain Indian newspapers even as recently as this year seems to give credence to these accusations. NDTV's article, "Pro-Balochistan Slogans Raised During Imran Khan's Address In US," and India Today's article, "16 EU Members of Parliament write letter to Trump to intervene in Balochistan," are just two such examples.

US support is much easier to track down.

US-based Stanford University's Mapping Militant Organizations project admits that the BLA receives much of its financial aid from the Balochi diaspora. The project's profile on the Balochistan Liberation Army notes:

Due to high community support for autonomy and independence from people of the Balochistan, many analysts suspect that a large amount of the BLA’s income and weapons supply come from donations from the Balochi people. Balochi leaders have also claimed that financial contributions from the Balochi diaspora make it possible to procure arms and ammunition through the black market.

Thus, even if the US is not directly arming and funding the BLA, it is openly supporting pro-separatists among the Balochi diaspora who even Stanford University experts admit are - in turn - funding the BLA's terrorism.

The US move to designate the BLA as a foreign terrorist organization holds little meaning. The BLA will find itself beside organizations like Jabhat Al Nusra in Syria which is all but openly funded and armed by the United States and a large cross-section of Washington's closest European and Arab allies.

Arming militants is only half of the overall strategy seeking to destabilize Pakistan. Subverting national institutions and replacing them with those interlocking with US special interests is the other half.

US NED Working Hard in - and Against - Pakistan  

The US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries are busy at work in Pakistan's Baluchistan province as well as China's Xinjiang.

NED has been directly funding and supporting the work of the "Balochistan Institute for Development" (BIFD) which claims to be:

"...the leading resource on democracy, development and human rights in Balochistan, Pakistan."

In addition to organizing the annual NED-BFID "Workshop on Media, Democracy & Human Rights" BFID reports that USAID had provided funding for a "media-center" for the Baluchistan Assembly to "provide better facilities to reporters who cover the proceedings of the Balochistan Assembly." It can be assumed that BFID meant reporters are "trained" at NED-BFID workshops and at its USAID-funded center.

There is also Voice of Balochistan whose every top-story is US-funded propaganda, including op-eds by US representatives promoting Balochi separatism, foundation-funded Reporters Without Borders, Soros-funded Human Rights Watch, and a direct message from the US State Department.