Archive | September, 2012

Myanmar’s Ethno-Sectarian Clashes: Containing China?

Global Research

The sectarian violence in Myanmar’s western state of Arakan began in June 2012, and the plight of the persecuted Rohingya ethnic group has since created an international uproar. Displays of solidarity with the predominantly Muslim Rohingya people have been most potent throughout the Islamic world, with a broad spectrum of support ranging from moderate political leaders to extremist groups.

While rights advocacy groups robustly condemn Myanmar’s government for its role in the conflict, evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of violence was attributed to rioting civilians from both the ethnic Rakhine Buddhist community and the ethnic Rohingya Muslim community. The initial violence broke out on May 28th after reports circulated that a Buddhist Rakhine woman was raped and killed by three Muslim men in the town of Ramri. Buddhist communities throughout the state responded by circulating an incendiary pamphlet containing details of the crime. This only served to enflame the already tense situation in Arakan, precipitating a series of events that would draw the attention and condemnation of much of the world.

On June 3rd, a large group of Rakhine villagers in Toungop stopped a bus and brutally killed 10 Muslims on board. In response to this contemptible act of brutality, several thousand Rohingya rioted in the town of Maungdaw on June 8th, destroying Rahkine property and killing an unknown number of predominately Buddhist villagers. These events prompted large-scale, sectarian violence that quickly swept through the Arakan State capital of Sittwe and surrounding localities. Mobs from both communities stormed unsuspecting villages, killing residents and destroying homes, businesses, and places of worship. Given the extreme poverty and sparse government security presence in the region, residents armed themselves with machetes, sticks, sharpened bamboo spears and other basic weapons in order to defend themselves. Vast stretches of homes, businesses, and property from both communities were completely destroyed, leaving thousands of residents displaced.

These events elicited an international outcry, with much of the world showing sympathy for the Rohingya communities who have long suffered systematic discrimination under Myanmar’s military junta that continues today under the newly elected civilian government. During the British colonial occupation, the lack of political borders between Arakan and Bengal (presently referred to as Bangladesh) caused the Muslim population to surge prior to Myanmar’s independence. It is precisely this migration that Burmans interpret to be evidence of the community’s illegal status. [1] Since 1982, a citizenship law passed by the former military government has excluded the Rohingya from citizenship, effectively rendering them stateless. Although records of Rohingya settlements in Arakan date back to the late 7th century, successive governments have asserted that the Rohingya are foreigners with no right to live in Myanmar, a view shared by much of the Arakan population and much of the dominant Burman ethnic group throughout the country.

The communal violence in Arakan has created a refugee crisis for neighboring Bangladesh – a nation of extreme poverty and high rates of population growth – which is not well prepared to cope with an influx of refugees. According to the United Nations Human Rights Agency (UNHCR), Bangladesh is currently host to some 29,000 recognized refugees who are housed in camps and receive international aid, as well as several thousand undocumented Rohingya living in makeshift communities. [2] Additionally, rights advocacy groupHuman Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report on the violence in Arakan state titled, “The Government Could Have Stopped This,” which alleges that Myanmar’s security forces initially stood by without intervening during the early stages of the unrest, before joining in with Rakhine mobs to target Rohingya communities. While it must be noted that the credibility of HRW’’s reports have come under scrutiny even from founder Robert Bernstein, who accuses the organization of using poor research methods and politicizing their testimony, the content published by HRW examining the violence in Arakan gives a general indication of what occurred. [3]

HRW’s report acknowledges the difficulty of verifying credible information and is based on 57 interviews with eyewitnesses and affected individuals, all of whom remain anonymous. Contrary to the popular perception of Rohingyas being victimized by unprovoked violence, the report concedes that members of the Muslim community indeed used brutal tactics of violence:

A 31-year-old Arakan mother of five told Human Rights Watch how a large group of Rohingya entered her village outside Sittwe around June 12 and killed her husband. She said the government had provided no security. “They killed him right there in the village,” she said. “His arm was cut off and his head was nearly cut off. He was 35 years old.” A 40-year-old Arakan man in Sittwe said, “The government didn’t help us. We had no food, no shelter, and no security [when we fled], but we protected ourselves using sticks and knives.”[4]

The report further details how local law enforcement, military personnel, and border patrol officers targeted Rohingya groups in the ensuing riots; a quite plausible scenario. This is followed in the report by hysterical accusations of systematic rape against Rohingyas carried out by security forces, a likely exaggerated claim. In the Libyan conflict 2011, HRW played a vital role in publishing accusations that Muammar Gaddafi’s forces took part in campaigns of mass rape. [5] Advocacy groups later questioned these allegations, leading some to accuse NGOs of knowingly publishing false claims. [6] The dominant theme throughout the report of unrest in Myanmar is the absence of security forces and their general inactivity. HRW also reports the prevalence of anti-Muslim sentiment being disseminated by Myanmar’s Buddhist monks:

Some Rohingya in displacement camps told Human Rights Watch that some Burmese soldiers had shown great compassion and gone to the market on their behalf to purchase rice and other necessities, but that their willingness to do so has since stopped. The soldiers’ refusal to informally help Rohingya buy food correlates with a local campaign by Arakan Buddhist monks—the most revered members of local Arakan society—who have distributed pamphlets advocating for separation of the communities and imploring the Arakan people to exclude Muslims in every way. “They are eating our rice and staying near our houses,” the author of one pamphlet told Human Rights Watch. “So we will separate. We need to protect the Arakan people…. We don’t want any connection to the Muslim people at all.” [7]

Myanmar’s President Thein Sein, whose administration instituted the most substantial economic and social reforms in decades, shocked many by telling the United Nations refugee agency that the Rohingya were not welcome, stating, “We will take responsibility for our ethnic people but it is impossible to accept the illegally entered Rohingyas, who are not our ethnicity. We will send them away if any third country would accept them, this is what we are thinking is the solution to the issue.” [8] Democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, whose movement has long received diplomatic and financial support from Britain and the United States, has disenchanted many international sympathizers by remaining willfully silent on the issue. It is essential to understand that the immigration policies of the Burman-dominated national political system remain consistent within both the ruling national government and Suu Kyi’s opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), especially when dealing with the issue of the Rohingya:

“The Rohingya are not our citizens.” – Nyan Win, National League for Democracy Spokesperson

“There is no ethnic group named Rohingya in our country.” – Khin Yi, Immigration Minister [9]

Popular Ethno-Sectarian Nationalism & Democracy Promotion

Decades of international isolation under the rule of a paranoid and superstitious military elite have perpetuated the chauvinistic and xenophobic traits of the Theravada Buddhist culture practiced in Myanmar. In attempts to prevent political fragmentation, official mythology has long encouraged a sense of racial and moral superiority among the majority Burman Buddhists – who comprise 60 percent of the population – to the detriment of the nation’s many diverse ethnic and religious minority groups. Built on the foundations of Myanmar’s contemporary culture of national pride and militarism, the former regime perpetuated propaganda warning against multiculturalism, alleging that the health and purity of a uniquely Burman form of Buddhism were at risk from external contamination. Dr. Maung Zarni, an exiled dissident and research fellow at the London School of Economics, writes:

Burmese society as a whole remains illiberal and potently ethno-nationalist. The dominant Burmese worldview continues to rest on an enervating combination of pre-colonial feudalism, religious mysticism, belief in racial purity and statist militarism. This is a potent and poisonous combination. [10]

Zarni also highlights how the politics of Buddhist nationalism greatly restrict Suu Kyi’s options as she pursues reform, especially when dealing with the issue of Rohingya persecution. Zarni writes, “Politically, Aung San Suu Kyi has absolutely nothing to gain from opening her mouth on this, she is no longer a political dissident trying to stick to her principles. She’s a politician and her eyes are fixed on the prize, which is the 2015 majority Buddhist vote.” [11] Since being elected to parliament, Suu Kyi’s focus has been in the realm encouraging foreign investment; it is unlikely that she will use her platform to encourage racial tolerance. As she writes in her 1985 book Burma and India, for the Burman “racial psyche,” Buddhism “represents the perfected philosophy. It therefore follows that there [is] no need to either to develop it further or to consider other philosophies.” [12] Despite the liberal reforms undertaken by the civilian government, popular ethno-nationalist sentiment is pervasive, especially among communities of Buddhist monks.

In Myanmar, the revered status of monks prompted religious leaders to trigger a failed uprising against the former military junta during the 2007 Saffron Revolution, a policy directive funded and supported by the United States and British governments. A report issued in 2006 by Burma Campaign UK entitled “Failing the People of Burma?” offers valuable insight into the “democracy promotion” efforts of Western governments. The report cites a statement issued by the US Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs on October 30, 2003:

“The restoration of democracy in Burma is a priority U.S. policy objective in Southeast Asia. To achieve this objective, the United States has consistently supported democracy activists and their efforts both inside and outside Burma…Addressing these needs requires flexibility and creativity. Despite the challenges that have arisen, United States Embassies Rangoon and Bangkok as well as Consulate General Chiang Mai are fully engaged in pro-democracy efforts. The United States also supports organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities. U.S.-based broadcasters supply news and information to the Burmese people, who lack a free press. U.S. programs also fund scholarships for Burmese who represent the future of Burma. The United States is committed to working for a democratic Burma and will continue to employ a variety of tools to assist democracy activists.” [13]

The US State Department, through the National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Society Institute, have financially supported dissident media both within and outside of Myanmar, including the New Era Journal, the Irrawaddy, the Democratic Voice of BurmaRadio Free Asia, the Voice of America, in addition to supporting organizations affiliated with Aung San Suu Kyi. [14] The popularity enjoyed by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy party within Myanmar is largely attributable to her affiliation with networks of Buddhist monks that have championed her cause. In a September 2012 article titled, “Monks stage anti-Rohingya march in Myanmar,” AFP reported that many of the same monks who took part in 2007’s Saffron Revolution in support of Suu Kyi had now rallied behind President Thein Sein and his position on expelling the Rohingya. [15] Reports describe Wirathu, referred to in popular media as an “activist monk,” who rallied against Rohingyas and long advocated the release of political prisoners.

Ironically, Human Rights Watch reports that Wirathu was arrested in 2003 and sentenced to 25 years in prison along with other monks for their role in inciting violent clashes between Buddhists and Muslims. [16] Though he was later granted amnesty and released, his conduct hardly describes that of a “political prisoner.”HRW reports that organizations such as the Young Monks Association received support from Aung San Suu Kyi’s political movement – the same organization now inciting violence, calling for the expulsion of the Rohingya community. [17] In an article entitled, “Burma’s monks call for Muslim community to be shunned,” the Independent mentions the Young Monks Association as one of the groups involved in distributing anti-Rohingya propaganda flyers and attempting to block humanitarian aid from reaching Rohingya camps. [18] Ashin Htawara, another prominent exiled dissident and Buddhist monk encouraged Myanmar’s government to send Rohingya people “back to their native land” at an event in London hosted by the anti-Rohingya Burma Democratic Concern. [19] After fleeing Myanmar in 2007 following the Saffron Revolution, he continued to enthusiastically support the NLD, stating, “Aung San Suu Kyi is my special leader.”

In response to his comments toward the Rohingya community, Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, stated: “We were shocked to have [Ashin Htawara] propose to us that there should be what amounts to concentration camps for the Rohingya.” [20] Additionally, prominent democracy activists within the country such as Ko Ko Gyi, a former political prisoner, maintain that “the Rohingya are not a Burmese ethnic group. The root cause of the violence… comes from across the border.” [21] Myanmar’s nascent media freedom has developed in surprising ways, with social media users calling for ethnic cleansing of the kalar, a pejorative term used to demean people with Indian features. Foreign Policy reports of a popular backlash against foreign media outlets such as the BBC, while the Norway-based Democratic Voice of Burma recently fell victim to cyber attacks for their position on the Rohingya issue. [22]

The Role of Saudi-linked Terror Networks in Arakan

Appalling poverty, state-sponsored discrimination, and an absence of basic education are only some of the attributes that make Arakan state fertile ground for ideological extremism, especially as Rohingya feel pressured to preserve their cultural and religious identity. In his book, “The Talibanization of Southeast Asia” author Bilveer Singh describes how many of the predominantly Sunni Rohingya population population have opted for jihad in resentment following the destruction of their holy sites and removal of citizenship rights in 1982. Singh acknowledges that few Muslims in Myanmar have advocated armed struggle, but notes that groups such as the Bangladesh-based Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), as well as Myanmar’s most prominent political Islamic organization, the Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO), have historically maintained links with foreign organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. [23]

ARNO originated from the Arakan-based Mujahid Party, formed in 1947 with the aim of creating an autonomous Muslim state within the then-Federal Union of Burma. The group changed its name several times before shifting its objective to forming an autonomous state specifically for Rohingya. ARNO, in its contemporary form, is the result of a merger between three groups long marred by disunity and infighting: the Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front, the Rohingya Solidarity Organization, and the Rohingya National Alliance. The UNHCR’s official chronology of Rohingya civilization in Myanmar cites the insurgent activity of Islamic groups from 1991 onwards:

At a secret camp deep in the jungle, run by the RSO [Rohingya Solidarity Organization], young Muslims are training to make war on the Buddhist military government of Burma. The goal of the rebels, calling themselves Mujahideen, is to restore the once independent Muslim homeland of Arakan on Burma’s west coast. It was an independent Muslim kingdom from 1430 to 1784 and now is the only Muslim majority province in Burma. [24]

Upon merging into ARNO, a new Central Committee was formed with Nurul Islam as President. Singh writes of Islam that he “has become a symbol of hope and confidence for the entire Rohingya people.” [25] Confidential diplomatic cables from the American Embassy in Yangon released by Wikileaks in July 2012 cite Myanmarese intelligence documents highlighting ARNO’s connections with al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups, and reveal that ARNO President Nurul Islam had departed to Saudi Arabia and onward to the United States:

ARNO group had an estimated strength of about 200 insurgents, of whom about 170 are equipped with a variety of arms. According to Fayos Ahmed, ARNO Military-in-Charge, Salem Ulah, had contacts with Al-Qaeda and some members of ARNO forces were arrested when they were sent to join the Taliban in Afghanistan and attacked the Americans. These ARNO forces were sent to Afghanistan along with Rohingya groups in Karachi, Pakistan. Rohingya groups are in many countries like Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, UAE, Palestine and Australia. Chairman Nurul Islam has received an American visa and departed for Saudi Arabia from Bangladesh, with an intent to reside in Saudi Arabia for a short period and then depart for the United States. [26]

If the Myanmarese intelligence reports cited by the US Embassy in Yangon were indeed accurate, then it would open the possibility of a foreign component fuelling the recent unrest in Arakan. This assertion makes sense considering the global rise of Saudi-sponsored Salafist movements aligned with US strategic objectives. Existing reports describe how communal violence was carried out with basic weapons, the role of ARNO operatives may have ranged from simply encouraging and inciting an armed response, to using small brigades of fighters to destroy property and commit violence, causing larger mobs to follow suit. Although the lack of technology, media penetration, and general instability in the region at the height of the violence make these accusations very difficult to prove, it is entirely plausible given that Myanmar’s state media has reported the presence of al-Qaeda in Arakan during the unrest. [27] Reports issued by the Associated Press assert that security officials detained and charged three aid workers with “inciting religious hatred and participating in arson attacks,” including 73-year old Kyaw Hla Aung from Netherlands-based AZG, accused of having terrorist links and arrested under Article 505 of Myanmar’s penal code:

“An hour or two before I was arrested, my home was raided. I don’t know by whom. All my papers and documents were scattered outside my house,” he said. “They said I had links to Al Qaeda.” [28]

These reports suggest that Myanmar’s government strongly believes that foreign terror networks have influenced the unrest in Arakan. While many would argue that Myanmar’s government could use the pretext of Islamic extremism to maintain its campaign of political repression, the ongoing persecution of Rohingya, as well as sectarian clashes, open a new strategic risk that could be exploited by foreign and domestic Islamist groups in order to further justify a violent response that would only cause the situation to deteriorate. In Indonesia, several hundred “hard-liners” from organizations such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT) threatened to storm the Myanmar embassy in Jakarta at the height of the unrest, but were prevented by security forces. [29] Ehsanullah Ehsan, a spokesman for Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan also expressed willingness to wage jihad against Myanmar:

“We warn [the] Pakistani government to halt all relations with [the] Burmese government and close down their embassy in Islamabad otherwise we will not only attack the Burmese interests anywhere but will also attack the Pakistani fellows of Burma one by one… We want to remind our Muslims in Burma that we haven’t forgotten you, we will take revenge of your blood.” Ehsan added: “We appeal to [the] media especially who call themselves representative of Muslims to broadcast the real situation in Burma and what’s happening to Burmese Muslims… Taliban are with the Burmese Muslim brethren.” [30]

The Geopolitical Component: Thwarting Chinese Economic Development

The situation in Myanmar is not merely to be understood on an emotional and ethical level. Rather, it is shaped by significant geopolitical and economic realities. Enormous natural gas deposits valued at several billion dollars have been found in the Bay of Bengal off the coast of Arakan State, where predominantly Chinese companies are mining in partnership with the state-owned Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise. [31] Construction has begun on oil and gas transport pipelines from Arakan State to Yunnan Province in China. [32] Sittwe, capital of the Arakan State, is effectively the epicenter of one of China’s most crucial international investments, indispensable for Beijing in its effort to meet the increasing energy demands of its densely populated southwestern provinces. Additionally, ongoing ethnic conflicts in Myanmar correspond directly with large-scale Chinese development projects. Similar to other joint US-Saudi sponsored forms of destabilization; the modus operandi of these external networks has been to exacerbate long-standing ethnic and religious tensions to bring about far-reaching unrest. Political analyst Eric Draitser writes:

This project, a twin oil and gas pipeline, which would traverse Myanmar to link China’s southwestern Yunnan province with the Indian Ocean would, consequently, provide the Chinese land-based access to energy imports from Africa and the Middle East. Because of US naval dominance, not being completely reliant on commercial shipping is an integral aspect of the overall Chinese strategy. The pipeline itself is not the only issue for the Chinese. Sittwe is the site of the major Chinese-funded port, which, aside from being the starting point of the pipeline, is a vital access point to Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Imports such as minerals and other raw materials from Africa as well as oil from the Middle East would be shipped through this port (along with the Pakistani port of Gwadar) for sale on the Chinese market. It is for this reason that Sittwe is of crucial significance to Chinese economic development. Naturally, as Sittwe and the rest of the Rakhine state descends into chaos and the international community clamors for some form of intervention, the port, pipeline and other projects cannot continue as planned. [33]

The development of China’s economy has been accompanied by a dependence upon offshore resources, primarily from reserves in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Angola. For Beijing, energy security is essential to the continued growth of its economy, which, in turn, ensures domestic political stability. 80 percent of China’s oil imports currently pass through the Strait of Malacca, a narrow waterway located between Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, linking the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. [34] The importance of the Myanmar-China Oil and Gas Pipeline, consisting of two parallel oil and gas pipelines, is its function as an alternative transport route for crude oil imports from the Middle East to potentially bypass the Strait of Malacca, thus deterring the ability of hostile naval powers to disrupt a vital energy corridor to China. The United States has announced its plans to reposition 60 percent of its navy to the Asia Pacific region by 2020, as cited in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance report entitled, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.” This crucial document highlights Washington’s growing emphasis on containing China’s military buildup in a move to enhance American presence in one of the most economically dynamic parts of the world. [35]

Washington’s endorsement of a strategy designed to contain China is attributable to US foreign policy theoreticians such as Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, co-founder of the neoconservative political organization, Project for the New American Century. Kagan’s 1997 article, “What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment,” argues that the most effective means of preserving the present international order that “serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it,” is not to accommodate the peaceful rise of China, but to strengthen American military capabilities in the region and to work towards political change in Beijing:

The changes in the external and internal behavior of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s resulted at least in part from an American strategy that might be called “integration through containment and pressure for change.” Such a strategy needs to be applied to China today. As long as China maintains its present form of government, it cannot be peacefully integrated into the international order. [36]

Kagan describes how China’s leadership interprets Washington’s interests in the Asia-Pacific as a move to “severely limit their own ability to become the region’s hegemon,” namely by countering Chinese influence in Southeast Asia. Reports issued by the United States Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute reflect the adoption of Kagan’s containment methodology. “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power Across the Asian Littoral,” authored by Lieutenant Colonel Christopher J Pehrson, highlights China’s geopolitical interests and economic presence in several regions, which include a container shipping facility in Chittagong, Bangladesh, the construction of a deep water port in Sittwe, Myanmar, in addition to the construction of a navy base in Gwadar, Pakistan, among other locations. Reports issued by the Washington Times confirm that Pehrson’s containment strategy has been employed as policy, reissued in a paper entitled “Energy Futures in Asia,” produced by defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. [37]

It appears that the sectarian violence in Arakan State beginning in June 2012 is the likely result of covert intelligence operations aiming to destabilize western Myanmar to counter China’s vital economic investment in the region. This is in line with Washington’s policy objectives of curbing Beijing’s influence in Southeast Asia. Reforms introduced by President Thein Sein have opened the door to mass foreign investment, the political ascension of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and the presence of American NGOs associated with and financially supported by US State Department, including Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Open Society Foundations, U.S. Campaign for Burma, and others. [38] While the United States has placed its support behind the National League for Democracy in the person of Suu Kyi, she has in turn exercised her influence to execute political and economic objectives that adhere to US foreign policy.

Suu Kyi and a stable of Western-funded NGOs have successfully used their influence to block the construction of a joint energy project between the Myanmar Ministry of Electric Power, Asia World Company, and the China Power Investment Corporation. The Myitsone Dam project in the northern Myanmar state of Kachin would have been the world’s 15th largest dam, set to be located on the Irrawaddy River in the northern Myanmar state of Kachin. The dam is intended to export a large percentage of its power to China’s Yunnan province, which would be taxed to provide revenue for Myanmar’s government and future development before being turned over fully to Myanmar after a 50-year contract. [39] While groups such as Human Rights Watchuse their influence to oppose the construction the Myanmar-China Oil and Gas Pipeline and other projects under the guise of defending human rights, a remarkable lack of criticism is attributed toward Western oil firms operating in the country. [40]

In 2005, a group of villagers in Myanmar filed a lawsuit against Unocal, an oil firm that merged with the American-owned Chevron, and was later obliged to compensate the victims by court order. [41] Western corporations at the time exploited a legal loophole that allowed them to operate in Myanmar in defiance of US-led sanctions because their investments were agreed upon prior to the sanctions being issued. [42] Alongside the French-owned Total, Chevron was accused of collaborating with Myanmar’s military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), by hiring military personnel to illegally confiscate land. Reports claim that soldiers used tactics of torture and intimidation to force villagers into unpaid labor during the construction of the Yadana Gas Project, a pipeline project that was established to transport natural gas from Myanmar’s Andaman Sea into Thailand. [43] While Beijing’s economic investment projects are sharply criticized by Aung San Suu Kyi, she has invited the very same Western corporations into Myanmar, despite the highly documented misconduct of these companies:

“I have to say that I find that Total is a responsible investor in the country, even though there was a time when we did not think they should be encouraging the military regime by investing in Burma. They were sensitive to human rights and environmental issues and now that we’ve come to a point in time when we would like investors who are sensitive to such issues, I am certainly not going to persuade Chevron or Total to pull out.” [44]

It would appear that the clear preference toward Western companies held by Myanmar’s opposition is maintained in exchange for the continued rhetorical support they receive from the United States and Europe – despite those companies presiding over the very same human rights abuses that Chinese firms are accused of. The political undercurrents of Western support are laid bare as American corporations begin to fully engage in investment opportunities throughout the country. Political analyst F. William Engdahl writes:

The US corporations approaching Burma are handpicked by Washington to introduce the most destructive “free market” reforms that will open Myanmar to instability. The United States will not allow investment in entities owned by Myanmar’s armed forces or its Ministry of Defense. It also is able to place sanctions on “those who undermine the reform process, engage in human rights abuses, contribute to ethnic conflict or participate in military trade with North Korea.” The United States will block businesses or individuals from making transactions with any “specially designated nationals” or businesses that they control — allowing Washington, for example, to stop money from flowing to groups “disrupting the reform process.” It’s the classic “carrot and stick” approach, dangling the carrot of untold riches if Burma opens its economy to US corporations and punishing those who try to resist the takeover of the country’s prize assets. Oil and gas, vital to China, will be a special target of US intervention. [45]


Myanmar faces innumerable challenges in its pursuit of development. They range from combating forms of racism and violence that target Myanmar’s ethnic minorities to the lack of basic infrastructure and civic educational initiatives to maintaining national sovereignty while introducing liberalizing economic reforms. Although Myanmar’s civilian government led by Thein Sein has issued meaningful reforms, many exiles and activists perceive this administration to be a new face on an old and belligerent regime – despite being praised domestically for its position on expelling Rohingyas. As the country approaches its highly anticipated national elections in 2015, a victory for either side will likely not sit well with the other. Given the Western support allotted to Aung San Suu Kyi and her political party, it can be expected that the ruling government – should it win the 2015 elections – would be categorically condemned. Myanmar’s diverse mosaic of politically oppressed ethnic groups put the national government in a sensitive position; continued Western support for their autonomy or independence could give rise to the formation of break-away states, too small to assert their sovereignty at the foot of multinational corporations.

It remains very unlikely that Myanmar will repeal the 1982 Citizenship Law that removed basic rights from the Rohingya and other minorities. However, President Thein Sein has pledged to open schools for Rohingya, insinuating that they would be allowed to remain in the country. [46] Myanmar’s government would benefit by appeasing advocacy groups and lifting restrictions on humanitarian agencies to ensure they can freely move to remote villages in order to deliver necessary medical assistance, with governmental oversight.– Additionally, such agencies could investigate credible allegations of human rights violations and provide legal counsel to those detained in northern Arakan State. Greater focus should be placed on reconciliation talks between ethnic minority groups, although very little likelihood exists that such suggestions would be meaningfully applied given the tense climate of racial prejudice in Myanmar. In his 1934 novel, Burmese Days, author George Orwell writes:

“To talk, simply to talk! It sounds so little, and how much it is! When you have existed to the brink of middle age in bitter loneliness, among people to whom your true opinion on every subject on earth is blasphemy, the need to talk is the greatest of all needs.”


[1] The Development of a Muslim Enclave in Arakan (Rakhine) State of Burma (Myanmar), Kanda University of International Studies, 2005

[2] A review of UNHCR’s response to the protracted situation of stateless Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, UNHCR, December 2011

[3] Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast, The New York Times, October 19, 2009

[4] The Government Could Have Stopped This, Human Rights Watch, August 2012

[5] Libya: Transitional Government Should Support Victims, Human Rights Watch, September 19, 2011

[6] Human rights organisations cast doubt on mass rape in Libya, June 24, 2011

[7] The Government Could Have Stopped This, Human Rights Watch, August 2012

[8] Myanmar president says Rohingyas not welcome, Daily News, July 12, 2012

[9] Special Report: Plight of Muslim minority threatens Myanmar Spring, Reuters, June 15, 2012

[10] Popular ‘Buddhist’ racism and the generals’ militarism, Democratic Voice of Burma, September 4, 2012

[11] Suu Kyi’s silence on Rohingya draws rare criticism, Associated Press, August 16, 2012

[12] Aung San Suu Kyi’s Buddhism Problem, Foreign Policy, September 12, 2012

[13] Failing the People of Burma? Burma Campaign UK, 2006

[14] Ibid

[15] Monks stage anti-Rohingya march in Myanmar, AFP, September 02, 2012

[16] The Resistance of the Monks, Human Rights Watch, September 2009

[17] Ibid

[18] Burma’s monks call for Muslim community to be shunned, The Independent, July 25, 2012

[19] Crowd adores Suu Kyi at Nobel address, The New Age, June 16, 2012

[20] Burma’s monks call for Muslim community to be shunned, The Independent, July 25, 2012

[21] Ibid

[22] The Freedom to Hate, Foreign Policy, June 14, 2012

[23] The Talibanization of Southeast Asia, Bilveer Singh, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007

[24] Chronology for Rohingya (Arakanese) in Burma, UNHCR, 2004

[25] The Talibanization of Southeast Asia, Bilveer Singh, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007

[26] Arakan Rohingya National Organization Contacts With Al Qaeda And With Burmese Insurgent Groups On The Thai Border, Wikileaks, July 10, 2012

[27] The Freedom to Hate, Foreign Policy, June 14, 2012

[28] Three Arakan Aid Workers Handed Jail Terms, Democratic Voice of Burma, August 27, 2012

[29] Indonesian Islamic Hard-Liners Vow Jihad for Myanmar’s Rohingyas, The Jakarta Globe, July 13, 2012

[30] Burma’s Rohingya: A New Lightning Rod For Islamic Militants? International Business Times, July 26, 2012

[31] Shwe gas and pipelines projects, Bank Track, August 18, 2012

[32] China takes risky step with Myanmar pipelines, Reuters, February 03, 2012

[33] Towards a New “Humanitarian Front”? Myanmar and the Geopolitics of Empire, Centre for Research on Globalization, June 20, 2012

[34] China’s Energy Consumption and Opportunities for U.S.-China Cooperation To Address the Effects of China’s Energy Use, U.S. Navy War College, June 14, 2007

[35] Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, United States Department of Defense, Janurary 2012

[36] What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment, Carnegie Endowment, Janurary 20, 1997

[37] China builds up strategic sea lanes, The Washington Times, Janurary 17, 2005

[38] US eases Myanmar restrictions for NGOs, AFP, April 17, 2012

[39] Burma: Natural Gas Project Threatens Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, March 24, 2007

[40] Burma dam: Why Myitsone plan is being halted, BBC, September 30, 2011

[41] Killings alleged at Chevron’s Burma pipeline, SFGate, April 29, 2009

[42] Burmese Project Tests Unocal Resolve, The New York Times, May 22, 1997

[43] UNOCAL in Burma, Santa Clara University, November 3, 2005

[44] UPDATE 4-Suu Kyi says Myanmar needs responsible investment, Reuters, June 14, 2012

[45] Obama’s Geopolitical China ‘Pivot’: The Pentagon Targets China, Centre for Research on Globalization, August 24, 2012

[46] Burma’s President Tells VOA He Will Open Schools for Rohingya, Voice of America, August 14, 2012

Additional editing by Eric Draitser of

Nile Bowie is a Kuala Lumpur-based American writer and photographer and frequent contributor to Global Research. He explores issues of terrorism, economics and geopolitics.

Posted in Far EastComments Off on Myanmar’s Ethno-Sectarian Clashes: Containing China?

Nazis Gassed Aryans But Not Jews?

left.  Hadamar Psychiatric Institute near Wiesbaden, Germany, code-named “Facility-E.” Smoke shows crematorium hard at work.  
Holocaust deniers rationalize the Nazis Euthanasia Program which claimed 200,000 German lives & pioneered the extermination of undesirables by gassing
“Eventually children with misshaped ears, bed wetters, and those who were found difficult to educate were marked for elimination.”
by Rael Strous
The Nazi euthanasia program, code-named “Operation-T4,” set out to eliminate “life unworthy of life.” It rapidly expanded to include individuals with mental illness, with Hitler’s 1939 decree allowing physicians to decide that certain individuals “be accorded a mercy-death.” 

These patients included those with schizophrenia, the criminally insane, and the chronically hospitalized. The euthanasia program became the Nazi regime’s first campaign of mass murder against specific populations whom it considered inferior and threatening to the well-being of the Aryan race and the first time in history where psychiatrists sought out to systematically exterminate their patients, with several prominent psychiatrists playing central roles (1-4).

[In 1929, at Nuremberg, Hitler had proposed the annual “removal” of 7000,000 to 800,000 of the “weakest” Germans as a means of rapidly improving …the German race. He also wanted to eliminate millions among the “inferior races that breed like vermin.”] 

By 1940, six killing centers designated as euthanasia institutions were established at Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hartheim, Sonnenstein, Bernburg, and Hadamar. 

The Hadamar Psychiatric Institute near Wiesbaden, Germany, code-named “Facility-E,” was refashioned for use as a psychiatry euthanasia facility in November 1940. From mid-January 1941 under Dr. Ernst Baumhard’s direction, with a staff of approximately 100, busloads of patients arrived daily at the killing operation. 

The patients were offloaded, weighed, photographed, and led to the gas chamber disguised as a shower room in the cellar. At least 10,000 mentally ill adults were gassed and cremated at Hadamar in the first 9 months of 1941.

[Originally only the severely deformed were included in the program. Eventually children with misshaped ears, bed wetters, and those who were found difficult to educate were marked for elimination.” ]

gas chamber.jpeg

(l. Hadamar gas chamber & cemetery)
In August 1942, after a short break, [caused by protests from Catholic bishop Clemens Von Galen] the facility again functioned as an euthanasia center, using lethal medication doses or starvation. After removal of various organs for medical research, the bodies were buried in F1 located on the hospital grounds. The killing center remained operational until its liberation by American troops on March 26, 1945 (4).
[Euthanasia continued throughout the war. In the autumn of 1941, the staff at Hadamar celebrated the cremation of its 10,000th corpse with a special ceremony, followed by music, dancing and drinking.]

Operation-T4 claimed approximately 200,000 lives. Psychiatric euthanasia institutions served as training centers for the Schutzstaffel (SS) who used the experience to construct larger killing centers (Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.). The psychiatrist Dr. Imfried Eberl, Treblinka’s first commandant and the only physician to command a death camp, established the facility following his experience as superintendent of Brandenburg Psychiatry Hospital (2).

Posted in GermanyComments Off on Nazis Gassed Aryans But Not Jews?

The Victory Hour with Max French

The Victory Hour with Max French Sept 29, 2012

by crescentandcross


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on The Victory Hour with Max French

Fisherman Killed and Brother Wounded by Israel’s Forces


PCHR Condemns Continued Israeli Attacks against Palestinian Fisherm in Gaza Sea 

On Friday, 28 September 2012, Israeli forces shot and killed a Palestinian fisherman and wounded his brother, while they and a group of other fishermen were located a few meters from the shore in the northern Gaza Strip, pulling out their fishing nets. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) condemns continued attacks by Israel’s forces against Palestinian fishermen in Gaza City, and expresses deep concern about the recent escalation of such attacks, in violation of fishermen’s right to life and work freely in Gaza Sea. 

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 09:30 on Friday, 28 September 2012, an Israeli infantry unit crossed the northwestern border between the Gaza Strip and Israel, and moved nearly 20 meters into Palestinian territory, along the beach area of the northwestern town of Beit Lahia. Israeli soldiers took position behind a hill at the beach, facing onto a number of Palestinian fishermen who were fishing a few meters offshore. Israeli soldiers fired at the fishermen. The majority of the fishermen were able to flee. However, two fishermen, who were located nearly 15 meters away from the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel, were unable to escape.

According to fishermen present in the area, Israeli soldiers fired directly at the two fishermen, wounding them. The two fishermen were identified as Fahmi Saleh Fahmi Abu Riash (22), who was wounded in the lower abdomen and thigh, and his brother Yousef (19), who was wounded by bullet shrapnel to the left hand. Nearby fishermen were later able to evacuate the two wounded men and carry them to a Palestinian Civil Defense ambulance, which was waiting nearly 350 meters away from the location of the incident. The ambulance transported the two wounded fishermen to Kamal Edwan Hospital in Beit Lahia.

According to the forensic report issued by Kamal Edwan Hospital, the two wounded fishermen were brought to the hospital at 10:55. Fahmi Abu Riash had been wounded by a bullet to the left thigh and another bullet to the left buttock that settled in the pelvis, causing an acute hemorrhage in the lower part of the abdomen. His brother, Yousef, was wounded by bullet shrapnel to the left hand. He received treatment and was released from the hospital in the afternoon. At approximately 15:30 on the same day, Fahmi Abu Riash was taken to the operation room, where he underwent a two-hour surgery. He was then taken to the intensive care unit, where he was pronounced dead at approximately 22:30.

In his testimony to PCHR, Yousef Mohammed Zayed (19), a fisherman from Beit Lahia, stated to PCHR:

“At approximately 05:00 on Friday, 28 September 2012, my brother Haitham, my cousins, Fahmi and Yousef Ahmed Saleh Abu Riash, and I went fishing opposite to Beit Lahia beach in the northern Gaza Strip. We started fishing nearly 70 meters away from the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel. When the sun rose, we got as close as 15 meters to the border because fish was extensively available in the area. At approximately 09:30, I heard intensive shooting in the area. I looked back and saw about 9 Israeli soldiers atop a hill that is nearly 20 meters to the east of the beach. Immediately, Haitham, my cousin Ahmed, and I ran away and took shelter behind a hill, while Fahmi and Yousef remained stuck only 5 meters from the beach. Israeli soldiers shouted at them, and I saw my cousin Fahmi attempting to escape, but an Israeli soldier fired at him. He was wounded by a bullet to the left thigh. His brother Yousef attempted to offer him help, but he was also wounded by bullet shrapnel to the left hand. I saw Fahmi trying to stand up and escape, but an Israeli soldier fired at him again. Soon, some fishermen headed towards the two wounded fishermen and carried them to an ambulance of the Civil Defense, which transported them to Kamal Edwan Hospital. At approximately 22:30, Fahmi Saleh Abu Riash was pronounced dead.”

It should be noted that Israel’s forces have imposed restrictions on fishermen at sea. In 2009, they reduced the area allowed for fishing in Gaza waters from the 20 nautical miles provided for in the Oslo Accords to 3 nautical miles. Israel’s forces also prevent Palestinian fishermen from fishing within 1 nautical mile of the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip, although this area is under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.

PCHR condemns this latest crime and is concerned that it signifies a new escalation in the systematic human rights violations perpetrated by Israel’s forces against Palestinian fishermen. PCHR believes that these attacks form part of the collective punishment measures imposed on Palestinian civilians, as they deny Palestinian fishermen access to their livelihood, in violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. PCHR believes that targeting these two civilian fishermen from very close range constitutes a form of excessive use of force; the Israeli soldiers could have taken alternative actions against the fishermen, such as arrest, as they did not pose any threat to the lives of Israeli soldiers.

PCHR calls upon Israel:

1.      To put an end to attacks against Palestinian fishermen in violation of their rights to life, safety, and security, and to allow them to fish freely in Gaza Sea;

2.      To investigate the facts of this close-range attack against civilian fishermen, publish the results of such an investigation, and prosecute the Israeli soldiers who fired at two civilian fishermen, although the latter did not pose any threat to the lives of those soldiers;

3.      To immediately put an end to its policy of chasing and arresting Palestinian fishermen at sea, and to return confiscated fishing boats and equipment;

4.      To compensate the victims for the physical and material damage caused their person and property; and

5.      To lift the naval blockade, which constitutes a form of collective punishment and is a war crime under international humanitarian law.


Posted in Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on Fisherman Killed and Brother Wounded by Israel’s Forces

Iranian defense minister: IsraHell should set red lines for itself


Iranian Defense Minister, Gen. Ahmad Vahidi (left), pictured with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a 2010 army parade (photo credit: AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

In response to PM’s UN address, Vahidi says Jerusalem has ‘dozens of nuclear warheads’ and must be ‘stopped’

Times of Israel

Israel should draw a red line for itself, not for Tehran, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said Saturday in a speech quoted by AFP.

Referring to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the General Assembly, Vahidi said Netanyahu should be informed that “if having the atomic bomb is passing the red line, the Zionist regime, that possesses dozens of nuclear warheads and weapons of mass destruction, has passed the red line years ago, and it has to be stopped.”

In Netanyahu’s Thursday speech, the prime minister drew a red line at the top of a cartoon bomb and warned that without red lines, Iran would cross the threshold of military nuclear capability.

On Friday, Netanyahu reiterated that setting a red line “could prevent the need for a military operation” against Iran.

Voices in Tehran reacted harshly to Netanyahu’s speech.

“Is the occupying and aggressor Zionist regime that possesses nuclear weapons more dangerous? Or an Iran that doesn’t have nuclear weapons and which insists more than anybody on nuclear disarmament, and seeks only to have peaceful nuclear energy abiding by international rules?” Vahidi reportedly asked.

On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, who also serves as chair of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), said that his country was avictim of “nuclear terrorism.”

“As a country [where] not only [its] nationals have been targeted by terrorist groups, but also its nuclear facilities have been subject to cyber attacks and foreign-backed sabotage, we attach special importance to the need to prevent nuclear terrorism,” the semi-official Fars news agency quoted the foreign minister as saying.

Posted in IranComments Off on Iranian defense minister: IsraHell should set red lines for itself

Iran says Obama administration’s removal of group from US terror list shows ‘double standards’


Iran condemned on Saturday the Obama administration for taking an Iranian militant group formerly allied with Saddam Hussein off the U.S. terrorism list, saying it shows Washington’s “double standards.”

The Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), which began as a guerrilla movement fighting Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, helped overthrow the monarch in 1979 then quickly fell out with the Islamic Republic’s first leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It fought in the 1980s alongside Saddam’s forces in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war but disarmed after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The State Department delisted the group on Friday, meaning that any assets the MEK has in the United States are unblocked and Americans can do business with the organization. On Saturday, at their Paris headquarters, MEK members gathered to celebrate, tossing flower petals and displaying photos of members killed in the past 15 years.

“We call on the international community to respect the will of the Iranian people for a regime change in Iran,” Maryam Rajavi, the Paris-based head of the exiled opposition group, said Saturday.

Iran’s foreign ministry said in a statement that the delisting of MEK was “a violation of America’s legal and international obligations” that could threaten U.S. interests. The decision “will bring U.S. responsibility for past, present and future terrorist operations by this group,” the statement also said.

Iranian State TV criticized the decision, saying that the U.S. considered the MEK “good terrorists” and claims Washington is using the group to work against Tehran. State radio said the move highlights President Barack Obama’s anti-Iranian sentiments.

“There is much evidence of the group being involved in terrorist activities. Delisting them shows America’s double standard policy on terrorism,” state TV said. The U.S. distinguishes between “good and bad terrorists” and the MEK are now “good terrorists because the U.S. is using them against Iran,” the report also said, adding that Washington and Israel use the group to spy on Iran’s nuclear program.

The U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the claims, saying the program is peaceful and is intended for electricity generation and scientific research.

The State Department said the MEK hasn’t committed terror for more than a decade. The group has also complied with demands that over 3,000 of its once-armed members abandon their base in Iraq near the Iranian border for a camp outside Baghdad, an essential step to ending their decades-long presence in Iraq.

The group claims it is seeking regime change through peaceful means, aiming to replace Tehran’s clerical system with a secular government.

However, a senior State Department official suggested that removing MEK from the U.S. terrorist list does not translate into a shared common front against the Islamic Republic. The official said Washington does not view MEK as an opposition movement that can promote democratic values in Iran. The official on Friday briefed reporters on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

In a rare interview on Friday, Rajavi said “the most important impact … will be seen inside Iran.”

“The balance of power is going to change. For example, the first message for the Iranian people will be they won’t fear increasing their activity and increasing their demonstrations,” she said. The fear “will evaporate … and that will lead to the expansion of anti-regime activities within Iran.”

Iran says MEK is responsible for the deaths of more than 12,000 Iranians over the past three decades, including senior government officials.

The MEK spent huge sums of money over years lobbying for removal from the U.S. terror list, holding rallies in European capitals and elsewhere that featured luminaries like former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from the administration of George W. Bush. Former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was among those recently welcomed by the MEK to Paris.

The group was protected in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, but its members are disliked by the new Iraqi government, dominated by Shiite Muslims like those in Iran.

The United States had insisted the MEK’s members leave Camp Ashraf, their home in Iraq, as a condition for removal from the terrorist list. All but several hundred militants are now located in Camp Liberty, a former U.S. base outside Baghdad, looking for placement in third countries.

The MEK was removed from the European Union’s terrorist list in 2009.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Iran says Obama administration’s removal of group from US terror list shows ‘double standards’

Ahmadinejad: No need for nukes, IsraHell should be voted away


In New York for UNGA meeting, Iranian president says Palestinians should be allowed to vote for elimination of “Zionist regime,” admits Israel sees itself “at the end of the line” over Iranian nuclear program.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the Washington Post on Sunday that the Israeli-Arab conflict should be resolved by allowing the Palestinians to vote the “Zionist regime” out of existence.

Asked by interviewer David Ignatius to affirm Israel’s right to exist, Ahmadinejad said “I think they should allow the people of Palestine in all the territories of Palestine to decide, and whatever they decide, that is what should be done.” He added: “This doesn’t need nuclear weapons, missiles rockets or destroying people’s homes.” 

Ignatius pressed the Iranian leader to clarify that he was advocating the eradication of the state of Israel, to which Ahmadinejad replied: “I asked you if the occupation in the Palestinian territories comes to an end what would there remain? Is there a Zionist regime in existence without occupation?”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned Ahmadinejad of the dangers of incendiary rhetoric when the two men met Sunday before this week’s annual gathering of world leaders at the UN General Assembly. “The secretary-general drew attention to the potentially harmful consequences of inflammatory rhetoric, counter-rhetoric and threats from various countries in the Middle East,” Ban’s press office said in a statement.

Ahmadinejad also addressed questions of a potential Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, telling the Post he does “not take very seriously the issue of the Zionists and the possible dangers emanating from them.” He added: “Of course they would love to find a way for their own salvation by making a lot of noise and to raise stakes in order to save themselves.”

In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Sunday, Ahmadinejad said “Of course the Zionists are very much, very adventuresome, very much seeking to fabricate things and I think they see themselves at the end of the line and I do firmly believe that they seek to create new opportunities for themselves and their adventurous behaviors.”

Posted in IranComments Off on Ahmadinejad: No need for nukes, IsraHell should be voted away

Zio-Nazi Regime: Palestinian man dies of wounds



A Palestinian man died on Saturday after he was shot by Zio-Nazi troops while fishing on the beach in the Gaza Strip, said Hamas officials, while Zio-Nazi military spokeswoman said the man was shot when he approached the border fence.

Officials from Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which rules the coastal enclave, said the 22-year-old man was fishing with his brother on Friday when he was shot. Initially, his wounds were not thought to be life threatening.

Local residents said the man, who was buried on Saturday, was known to be a fisherman.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zio-Nazi Regime: Palestinian man dies of wounds

Connections of Baloch Leader Akhtar Mengal


By Sajjad Shaukat

After passing years of self-imposed exile in London, President of the Balochistan National Party (BNA), Sardar Akhtar Jan Mengal who returned to Pakistan has external and internal connections with the anti-state elements of the country.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in relation to the case of missing persons and deteriorating law and order situation in the province of Balochistan on September 27, Sardar Akhtar Mengal distorted the facts in his statement, while adding similar allegations against the security agencies of the country, which have continuously been leveling by the anti-Pakistan elements.

Giving a six-point solution to the Balochistan issue, Sardar Akhtar Mengal suggested to the Supreme Court that all death squads operating under the supervision of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) or Military Intelligence (MI) in the province should be disbanded. He said that all missing persons which are under the custody of intelligence agencies should be produced before a court of law, and Baloch political parties should be allowed to resume their political activities without any interference from these agencies. Mengal explained that those responsible for torture, killing and dumping of bodies of Baloch political leaders and activists should be brought to justice. He further stated that military operation should be stopped in the province and measures should be taken for the displaced Balochis.

The federal government and the armed forces in a joint statement to the Supreme Court on September 28 rejected assertions of Baloch leader Sardar Akhtar Mengal, saying armed forces are neither conducting any military operation in Balochistan nor are there any death squads of intelligences agencies. The statement clearly mentioned that no missing person is in the custody of the secret agencies and every political party in Balochistan is free to work. Notably, Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik has also expressed similar views in his latest statement.

In fact, we can not see baseless accusations of Akhtar Mengal as mentioned in his six-point solution of Balochistan situation in isolation because these are part of a deliberate propaganda which has been accelerated by the foreign-based NGOs, human rights groups and media. With the secret support of American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mosssad which are well-penetrated in these external entities and Pakistani media are being used to implicate Pak Army and ISI including Frontier Corps (FC) regarding the human rights violations and disappeared persons.

In this regard, with the help of Baloch separatist leaders who have taken refuge in western countries, these hostile entities are perennially launching false campaign about human rights violations in Balochistan to obtain the secret strategic designs of US, India and Israel. In this respect, on February 8, 2012, the hearing of the US Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs, chaired by Dana Rohrabacher discussed target killings and human rights violations in Balochistan, blaming Pakistan Army and country’s intelligence agencies for extra-judicial killings. He also favoured an independent Balochistan. Earlier Dana Rohrabacher arranged a meeting in which Baloch separatist leaders participated along with the anti-Pakistan NGOs.

On July 31, 2011, a rally was organised by Baloch Human Rights Council in UK in front of the US Embassy in London, which raised false allegations such as inhuman torture and extrajudicial murder of the Baloch intellectuals by the Pakistan’s security agencies.

Besides, a demonstration was held outside the United Nations in Genva on the occasion of the 19th Session of UN Human Rights Council to condemn the human rights violations in Balochistan. The demonstrators accused the Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies of extrajudicial killings. Apperently, the demonstration was organised and  led by Mehran Baloch, Balochistan’s representative at the United Nations and Noordin Mengal, but in fact, it was arranged by anti-Pakistan NGOs, human rights groups and Indo-Israeli and American lobbies.

On all these occasions, Sardar Akhtar Mengal who is speaking in the tone of these foreign elements, played a key role secretly. It shows his covert liaison with US high officials and CIA.

Recently, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced Disappearances visited Pakistan in connection with the missing persons, especially focusing on the Province of Balochistan. In this context, during hearing, the Supreme Court has questioned on September 19, this year that when the case of missing persons is subjudice as to why the UN delegation has been invited to Pakistan.

The delegation of the UN Working Group also held meetings with the leaders of various nationalist parities to know about human rights violations and situation of missing persons, particularly of Balochistan. As the UN is under the influence of the US-led major countries, so it also raised similar allegations against Pakistan’s security agencies.

Particularly, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is taking personal interest about the missing persons and law and order situation of Balochistan. And impressed by the foreign elements in this respect, Pakistan’s political parties and media have also been following the blame game of the US-led entities. By taking note of these phenomena, US and other anti-Pakistan elements decided to send Sardar Akhtar Mengal to Pakistan so that the aggravated situation of the province could further be internationalised.

Regrettably, Nawaz Sharif, leader of (PML-N), Syed Munawar Hasan, Ameer of Jamaat-i-Islami and Chairman Imran Khan of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf who have met Akhtar Mengal encouraged him in maligning country’s key security institutes in order to increase their vote bank at the cost of Pakistan’s integrity. Akhtar Mengal also seeks to take the place of Nawab Akbar Bugti by manipulating the circumstances of Balochistan.

Besides some other political figures, Akhtar Mengal also met media anchors who helped him in providing false information to misguide the general masses about the situation of Balochistan through TV channels. In fact, some of our electronic media anchors and journalists are working on the payroll of the foreign elements and thus they are creating misperceptions about Balochistan.

Reliable reports suggest that these media commentators and Baloch separatist elements including Sardar Akhtar Mengal have intermittently been invited by the US officials and participated in their secret meetings in Pakistan so as to intensify propaganda against Balochistan as part of conspiracy against the country.

Pakistan’s internal elements, especially political parties should know that the reality behind the worsening circumstances and the missing people of Balochistan is that secret agencies like CIA, RAW and Mossad which have well-established their collective network in Afghanistan are in collusion, and have perennial been supporting bomb blasts, suicide attacks, abductions, target killings, ethnic and sectarian violence in Balochistan through their affiliated militant groups such as Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), Jundollah (God’s soldiers), Balochistan National Party led by Sardar Akhtar Mengal and other Baloch feudal lords (Sardars) to dismember Pakistan and Iran.

These foreign-backed insurgent groups are responsible for target killings of Punjabis, Pushtuns, people of Hazara community and patriot Balochis including Pakistani and Iranian Shias. Their subversive activities have resulted in missing persons in Balochistan.

In this connection, Pakistan’s Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik disclosed in his recent statements that he also showed proof about training camps being run in Afghanistan, and supply of arms and ammunition by the Afghan government inside Balochistan. Malik explained that separatist outfits have owned 299 terror attacks in the province in which more than 170 personnel of the FC were martyred.

Nevertheless, all these foreign-backed subversive activities indicate that situation of Balochistan cannot be improved so easily, that is why, Baloch leader Akhtar Mengal has recommended separation of the province, if his six points were not going to be implemented. These are also his pre-conditions to have dialogue with the government. In the past, he has rejected a number of offers, presented by the government to have peace talks to improve the deteriorated law and order situation of Balochistan.

Nonetheless, external and internal connections of Sardar Akhtar Mengal will further aggravate the problems of a majority of Balochis who do not want independence of Balochistan.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Connections of Baloch Leader Akhtar Mengal



A French agent behind the death of Gaddafi, with help from Assad

It is said that Assad sold the GPS coordinates to France for a promise.

The credit for the capture of Gaddafi would have been the Intelligence Services of France. The Colonel “sold” to the West by Assad

From our reporter LORENZO CREMONESI / Corriere della Sera

TRIPOLI – It is said to have been a “foreign agent” and not the Libyan Revolutionary Brigades, to fire the gunshot wound to the head that would have killed Muammar Gaddafi on October 20 last year on the outskirts of Sirte. This is not the first time the official and more widespread version concerning the end of the Colonel is doubted in Libya. But now it is Mahmoud Jibril himself, former Prime Minister of the transitional government and currently vying for the leadership of the country after the parliamentary elections of July 7, to again mention the version of the plot devised by a foreign intelligence service. “It was a foreign agent who had mixed with the revolutionary brigades to kill Gaddafi,” he said two days ago during an interview with the Egyptian network “Dream TV” in Cairo, where he is to participate in a debate on the Arab Spring.

THE FRENCH CONNECTION – Among the Western diplomatic circles in the Libyan capital, the most widespread unofficial comment is that, if indeed there was the hand of an assassin in the service of foreign intelligence, he “almost certainly was French.” The reasoning is known. Since the beginning of NATO’s support to the revolution, strongly backed by the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi openly threatened to reveal details of his relationship with the former president of France, including the millions of dollars he paid to finance his candidacy and the 2007 election campaign. “Sarkozy had every reason to try to silence the Colonel and as quickly as possible,” European diplomatic sources in Tripoli told us yesterday.

REVELATIONS – This view is reinforced by the revelations collected by the “Corriere della Sera” three days ago, in Benghazi. Here Rami El Obeidi, former responsible for relations with foreign intelligence agencies on behalf of the National Transitional Council (the former self-governing body of Libyan revolutionaries) up to mid-2011, told us his knowledge on procedures that allowed the NATO to identify the place where the Colonel had hidden after the liberation of Tripoli at the hands of the revolutionaries between 20 and 23 August 2011. “At the time it was believed that Gaddafi had fled to the desert and to the southern border of Libya along with a handful of followers with the intention of reorganising the resistance,” says El Obeidi.

The news was repeated continuously by the revolutionaries themselves, who had stepped up their attacks on the region south of Bani Walid and towards the southern oases. In reality, Gaddafi had found refuge in the loyalist city of Sirte. El Obeidi adds: “Here the Rais tried to communicate via his Iridium satellite with a number of loyalists who fled to Syria under the protection of Bashar Assad.

Among them was his heir for television propaganda, Yusuf Shakir (today he is safe and sound incognito in Prague). And it was in fact the Syrian president to pass the satellite number belonging to Gaddafi to French intelligence. In return, Assad would get a promise from Paris that they would limit international pressure on Syria to stop the repression against the people in revolt.” Locating the Iridium of the dictator with GPS would then be child’s play for the NATO experts. If it is confirmed, that was the first step that led to the tragic end of Gaddafi several weeks later.


Posted in SyriaComments Off on ANTI-ASSAD ZIONIST PROPAGANDA

Shoah’s pages


September 2012
« Aug   Oct »