Analysis by Analogy: Myanmar is not Syria

September 27, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – Many geopolitical analysts and commentators have noted many worthwhile similarities between the Syrian crisis and the one now unfolding in the Southeast Asian state of Myanmar. However, what is different about these two crises is just as important as what is the same.

The Similarities 

Particular focus has been placed on evidence emerging that US-ally Saudi Arabia is serving as an intermediary fueling militancy in Myanmar’s western Rakhine state. The militants, however, consist of a foreign armed, funded, and led cadre, constituting a numerically negligible minority of the Rohingya population they claim to represent, and are in fact no more representative of the Rohingya people than militants of Al Qaeda and the so-called “Islamic State” are representative of Syria or Iraq’s Sunni Muslim populations.

While it is crucial to point out the foreign-funded nature of a militancy attempting to co-opt the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, it is equally important to understand precisely where this militancy fits into Saudi Arabia’s and ultimately its American sponsors’ larger plans.

Another similarity pointed out by analysts is the use of US and European-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). These include larger organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as organizations on the ground in Myanmar funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), its various subsidiaries including the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House, USAID, and Open Society.

These organizations are intentionally seeking to control the narrative, inflame rather than smooth over tensions, and create a pretext for wider and more direct intervention in Myanmar’s expanding crisis by Western nations.

Analysts and commentators, however, cannot stop here. They must commit to equal due diligence in unraveling what stands behind Myanmar’s government – who it was that assisted them into power during the relatively recent 2016 elections, who built up their political networks across the country over the course of several decades, and what role their actions play in Western designs for the nation’s near and intermediate future.

The Differences 

Syria’s government is the creation and perpetuation of localized special interests – backed by various alliances ranging from the former Soviet Union in the past, to Russia, Iran, and to a lesser degree China in present day.

The United States and its Arab partners – particularly Saudi Arabia – have engineered militancy along and within Syria’s borders beginning in 2011 for the explicit purpose of overthrowing Syria’s government and dividing what remains of the nation among proxies and client regimes controlled from Washington, London, and Brussels.

 In Myanmar, while the US and its Saudi partners are apparently fueling militancy among the Rohingya population, it was the US itself who for decades built up the political networks of the current ruling regime, with Aung San Suu Kyi a whole-cloth creation of Western media narratives, immense funding and political support, and a carefully crafted facade to obfuscate from the public for decades the true, nationalist and even genocidal nature of Suu Kyi’s supposedly “Buddhist nationalist” support base.

An extensive 2006 report by Burma Campaign UK titled, “Failing the People of Burma?” (PDF), would reveal how virtually every facet of Myanmar’s current government is a creation of Western political and financial support. (Note: The US and UK still often refer to Myanmar by its British colonial name, “Burma”).

 

Image: Extensive efforts have been made to portray Myanmar’s head of state, Aung San Suu Kyi, as being opposed by ultra-violent nationalist “monks,” and many in the alternative media have wrongly concludes that the US seeks to pressure, even topple Suu Kyi from power. In reality, both Suu Kyi and her violent supporters are creations and a perpetuation of US cash and political support.

The report would lay this out in great detail, stating:

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 (nb no support given since 2004) 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.

The 36-page report would enumerate US and European programs in detail – ranging from the creation and funding of media, to organizing political parties and devising campaign strategies for elections, to even scholarships abroad to indoctrinate an entire class of political proxies to be used well into the future upon transforming the nation into a client state. Virtually every aspect of life in Myanmar was targeted and overturned by Western-backed networks over the course of several decades and an untold amount of foreign-funding.

Similar evidence reveals that many of the so-called “Buddhist” nationalist groups also enjoy a close relationship with US and European interests and that they played a pivotal role in bringing Suu Kyi to power.

Additionally, many in Suu Kyi’s current government are the recipients of US-funded training. Narratives concerning the current Rohingya crisis are being crafted by Suu Kyi’s “Minister of Information,” Pe Myint.

Pe Myint was revealed in a 2016 article in the Myanmar Times titled, “Who’s who: Myanmar’s new cabinet,” to have participated in training funded by the US State Department. The article would report (emphasis added):

Formerly a doctor with a degree from the Institute of Medicine, U Pe Myint changed careers after 11 years and received training as a journalist at the Indochina Media Memorial Foundation in Bangkok. He then embarked on a career as a writer, penning dozens of novels. He participated in the International Writing Program at the University of Iowa in 1998, and was also editor-in-chief of The People’s Age Journal. He was born in Rakhine State in 1949.

The Indochina Media Memorial Foundation is revealed in a US diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks as fully funded by the US State Department through various and familiar intermediaries. The cable titled, “An Overview of Northern Thailand-Based Burmese Media Orgranizations.” would explicitly state (emphasis added):

Other organizations, some with a scope beyond Burma, also add to the educational opportunities for Burmese journalists. The Chiang Mai-based Indochina Media Memorial Foundation, for instance, last year completed training courses for Southeast Asian reporters that included Burmese participants. Major funders for journalism training programs in the region include the NED, Open Society Institute (OSI), and several European governments and charities.

Many of those among Myanmar-based US-funded “NGOs” apparently opposing Suu Kyi’s government are in fact alumni of the same US-funded programs as many members of the current government.

In essence, the primary difference between Myanmar and Syria is that while in Syria the US is fueling militancy to topple a government beyond its reach and influence, in Myanmar, the US is manipulating the entire nation via two vectors its controls entirely – a militancy it is growing on one side, and a political establishment it has created from whole-cloth on the other.

Moving Beyond Analysis by Analogy

Helping readers understand various aspects of the current crisis in Myanmar by comparing it to various aspects of Syria’s ongoing conflict can be instructive. However, drawing entire conclusions about the implications of the Myanmar conflict by simply assuming it is repeat of Western efforts in Syria is fundamentally flawed.

While the US seeks to divide and destroy the entire state of Syria, its efforts in Myanmar are concentrated to the western state of Rakhine with little possibility of spreading because of Myanmar’s demographics.

This is also precisely where China has invested deeply in its One Belt, One Road (OBOR) project, with a seaport in Sittwe, central Rakhine, and road, rail, and pipeline projects slated to expand onward toward China’s border and eventually Kunming.

Opposition in the form of local NGOs underwritten by US State Department cash, or violence covertly backed by the US and its intermediaries, have attempted to systematically disrupt Chinese infrastructure projects around the globe, including in Myanmar. Chinese-built dams in Myanmar are opposed by networks of US-funded NGOs, militant groups accused of receiving US backing have attacked Chinese projects throughout the nation, and the current conflict in Rakhine fueled on both sides by the US threaten to not only derail Chinese projects there, but may even serve as a pretext for positioning Western forces inside Myanmar – a nation that directly borders China.

Placing American forces – in any capacity – along China’s borders has been a long-term stated goal of US policymakers for decades. From the Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers to the 2000 Project for a New American Century report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” to former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “Pivot to Asia” policy, a singular theme of encircling and containing China either with client states obedient to Washington, or chaos all along China’s peripheries has prevailed.

It is clear that American designs in Syria and Myanmar employ similar networks and tactics and that both conflicts fit into a larger, global strategy. There are undoubtedly familiar themes emerging from both conflicts. However, what is different about Syria and Myanmar’s conflicts is just as important.

Analysts and commentators must account for the decades of US and European funding that placed the current government of Myanmar into power. They must account for the surgical nature of destabilization confined to Myanmar’s Rakhine state versus the full-spectrum destabilization being fueled in Syria. They must also identify the motives underpinning US designs in Myanmar.

Simply assuming that a US-Saudi-backed militancy exists to topple a government rather than grease the wheels for another, more indirect objective – one that perhaps even aims at preserving Myanmar’s current government rather than toppling it by pinning blame on the nation’s still powerful and independent military – will only aid rather than impede injustice. Analogies drawn from two different conflicts are only helpful in simplifying explanations and conclusions analysis by deep research have already arrived at.

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

israel refuses to stop arms sales to Myanmar despite Rohingya massacre

Israel won’t stop selling munitions to Myanmar

Rohingya Muslim refugees wait for food to be distributed by the Bangladeshi army at Balukhali refugee camp near Gumdhum on September 26, 2017. (Photo by AFP)
Rohingya Muslim refugees wait for food to be distributed by the Bangladeshi army at Balukhali refugee camp near Gumdhum on September 26, 2017. (Photo by AFP)

The Israeli regime will not put an end to its sale of ammunition to Myanmar in light of incontrovertible evidence and United Nations data that the Southeast Asian nation’s military has perpetrated various forms of atrocities, including systematic rape and expulsions, against Rohingya Muslims.

English-language Haaretz daily newspaper reported that a group of human rights activists had filed a petition in the so-called High Court of Justice, demanding an end to the arms sales.

Senior Israeli official Shosh Shmueli, in return, said the court should not interfere in Israel’s foreign relations.

Shmueli’s comments came as Israeli arms companies have sold more than 100 battle tanks, as well as patrol boats and light weapons to the Burmese military in recent years.

Meanwhile, TAR Ideal Concepts has trained Burmese special forces in Myanmar’s restive western state of Rakhine, where a wave of serious communal violence continues unabated.

The Tel Aviv-based company posted pictures on its website in August last year, showing its staff training Myanmar’s forces on combat tactics and how to handle weapons.

The High Court of Justice was set to rule on the petition filed by Eitay Mack along with 10 other activists later on Wednesday.

The judges hearing the case – Yoram Danziger, Anat Baron and David Mintz – issued a gag order on Tuesday regarding the court’s decision on the Myanmar arms sales controversy. The measure was adopted at the request of the Israeli regime.

Rohingya Muslim refugees carry food distributed by the Bangladeshi army at Balukhali refugee camp near Gumdhum on September 26, 2017. (Photo by AFP)

Myanmar’s forces have been attacking Rohingya Muslims and torching their villages in Rakhine since October 2016. The attacks have seen a sharp rise since August 25, following a number of armed attacks on police and military posts in the troubled western state.

The government of de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi has snubbed and obstructed UN officials who have sought to investigate the situation. The government has prevented aid agencies from delivering food, water and medicines to the refugees.

Suu Kyi has also rejected UN accusations that Myanmar’s forces are engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims.

Considering Suu Kyi’s reputation for micromanagement, political analysts say it seems unlikely that the ongoing violence is taking place without her approval.

In early September, peace activists launched an international campaign calling on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to take back its 1991 prize to Suu Kyi over her complicity in what is viewed as the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya.

 

موسم الهجرة الى خليج البنغال الأميركيون يحشدون والسعوديون ينفّذون وكردستان حصان طروادة

سبتمبر 23, 2017

محمد صادق الحسيني

لعلّ من المفيد التذكير بأنّ للمذابح التي يتعرّض لها مسلمو الروهينغا في ميانمار بورما منذ أواسط شهر آب 2017 وحتى الآن هي مذابح مدبّرة من الولايات المتحدة وشركائها الآخرين في حلف الناتو وباستخدام عملائهم من أعراب شبه الجزيرة العربية وغيرها. وكذلك بالتآمر مع جهات أمنية وعسكرية معينة في دول إسلامية وغير إسلامية في آسيا.

كما أنّ من الضروري الإشارة إلى أنّ مشكلة المسلمين الروهينغا قد نشأت في بورما منذ بدء الاستعمار البريطاني لهذا البلد سنة 1824، اذ شرع البريطانيون في استجلاب المسلمين من الروهينغا واستخدامهم كعبيد لخدمة المصالح البريطانية في بورما، خاصة أنّ أكثر من حرب كانت قد اندلعت بين أهل البلاد الأصليين وقوات الاحتلال البريطاني، علماً أنّ سكان الروهينغا البورميين هم من قومية الروهينغا التي تعيش في ما يعرف اليوم بجمهورية بنغلادش، والتي كانت جزءاً من شبه القارة الهندية المستعمرة من بريطانيا العظمى.

ونظراً لكون هؤلاء المستجلبين عنوة كانوا من المسلمين في الوقت الذي تدين فيه أغلبية سكان بورما الأصليين بالبوذية، ومن خلال تغذية المستعمرين البريطانيين للخلافات بين أتباع الديانتين فقد تبلورت مشكلة الروهينغا في تلك البلاد منذ بدايات عصر الاستعمار. وقد حصلت مذابح عديدة متبادلة بين الطرفين والتي من أشهرها مذابح سنة 1946 عندما قتل عشرين ألف بوذي وأربعة آلاف مسلم خلال موجة من العنف الطائفي، وعلى مرأى من قوات الاحتلال البريطانية

التي لم تحرّك ساكناً لوقف تلك المذابح.

وهنا نودّ أن نؤكد على انّ الهدف من وراء إطلاق العنان لموجة المذابح الحاليّة على يد قوات السلطة المركزية البورمية القمعية العميلة، ليست سوى عمليات قتل مخطط لها من المخابرات المركزية الأميركية ودوائر حلف الناتو تمهيداً لخلق الظروف الملائمة لتدخل عسكري أميركي وغربي في إطار استكمال عمليات الحشد الاستراتيجي ضدّ الجناح الآسيوي من الحلف المعادي للهيمنة الأحادية القطبية على العالم ، أيّ الحشد ضدّ الصين وروسيا وإيران.

وفي هذا الإطار فقد قامت تلك الدوائر، كما تؤكد مصادر رصدنا بالخطوات العملية التالية ضمن تنفيذ تلك الخطط:

أولاً: قامت غرفة العمليات الأميركية في بغداد، ومنذ بدء عملية تحرير مدينة الموصل، بإخلاء ألفين وستمئة وأربعة وثلاثين فرداً من عصابات داعش، وعلى دفعات إلى مناطق سيطرة قوات «الهاغاناه» الكردية، وهم القسم «الإسرائيلي» من قوات البيشمركة، ومن هناك إلى نقاط تجميع داخل قواعد القوات الكردية العاملة تحت النفوذ الأميركي.

ثانياً: بدأت غرفة العمليات الأميركية المشار اليها أعلاه، وهي مسؤولة عن إدارة العمليات في العراق وسورية معاً، ومنذ أن حرّر الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه مدينة السخنة، بإجلاء قيادات داعش اولاً ومن ثم عناصرها من مدينة دير الزُّور وأريافها من خلال مسارين:

الأول براً عبر الآليات العسكرية الموجودة بحوزة مسلحي داعش.

الثاني من خلال المروحيات الأميركية إلى قاعدة الرميلان في ريف الحسكة، ومن هناك إلى قواعد البيشمركة في كردستان العراق.

وقد بلغ مجموع من تمّ نقلهم إلى كردستان من سورية تسعمئة وستة وثمانون فرداً.

ثالثاً: تمّ حتى الآن نقل ألفين وثلاثمئة وستة عشر فرداً من فلول داعش، الذين تمّ تجميعهم في كردستان العراق، وعبر مطار أربيل، الى كلّ من ماليزيا وإندونيسيا وسنغافورة ليتمّ تسريبهم من هناك إلى ميانمار كي يتمّ ضمّهم الى ما يُسمّى جيش «أراكان» لإنقاذ الروهينغا والذي تديره غرفة عمليات سعودية مقرّها مكة المكرمة. وتضمّ هذه الغرفة عشرين قيادياً من قيادات مسلحي الروهينغا في ميانمار والذين يتزعّمهم المدعو حافظ طهار. وهو موجود داخل ميانمار في الوقت الراهن ويقود العمليات المسلحة ضدّ قوات الحكومة المركزية القمعية العميلة في بورما.

وعلى الرغم من الأرضية المتوفرة دائماً لنشوء الأزمات بين المسلمين والسلطات البورمية، فإنّ هذه الموجة هي موجة مبرمجة ويجري الإعداد لها منذ أن كان حافظ طهار في السعودية عام 2012. وقد تمّ وضع اللبنات الأولى، لما نراه حالياً من مذابح هناك، على يد بندر بن سلطان ومجموعة من ضباط المخابرات المركزية الأميركية في جدة. إذ إنّ قرار تشكيل جيش «أراكان» قد اتخذ آنذاك من قبل المذكورين أعلاه، في حين أنّ حافظ طهار قد توجه في الربع الأخير من العام الآنف الذكر إلى ميانمار عن طريق بنغلاديش.

رابعاً: وضمن الجهود الأميركية الرامية إلى تعزيز وجود القوى المرتبطة بداعش في ميانمار وبهدف تصعيد المواجهة العسكرية بين جيش أراكان والقوات الحكومية البورمية، فقط قامت غرفة العمليات الموجودة في مكة والمُشار اليها أعلاه بنقل ثلاثمئة وأربعة وتسعين فرداً، من المرتبطين مع داعش، من ماليزيا إلى داخل ميانمار وبالتعاون مع جهات أمنية معينة داخل الحكومه الماليزية.

علماً أنّ نائب رئيس شرطة مكافحة الإرهاب في ماليزيا، أيوب خان ميدين، يمتلك كافة التفاصيل المتعلقة بعمليات التسريب التي تتمّ من ماليزيا.

خامساً: أقيم معسكر أو نقطة تجميع لعناصر داعش، التي يتمّ إخلاؤها من العراق وسورية، في ضواحي مدينة كراتشي تحت إدارة سعودية باكستانية مشتركة الاستخبارات العسكرية . وتتمثل مهمة هذا المعسكر في تدريب القادمين وتأهيلهم للمهمات التي سيكلفون بها مستقبلاً في ميانمار. أيّ أنّ هذا المعسكر هو قاعدة إمداد خلفية لداعش في ميانمار.

سادساً: تمّ تكليف ثلاثة من قيادة جيش اراكان لإنقاذ الروهينغا، بالإضافة إلى أربعة ضباط استخبارات سعوديين، بالانتقال إلى كوالالمبور ماليزيا لتنسيق عمليات تسريب عناصر داعش إلى ميانمار عبر مسالك مختلفة، أهمّها يمرّ من جنوب شرق بنغلادش، حيث أقيمت غرفة عمليات سرية لجيش أراكان لإنقاذ الروهينغا في ضواحي مدينة كوكس بازار البنغالية.

سابعاً: تمّ اعتماد مطار أربيل كنقطة انطلاق لعناصر داعش كافة الذين يتمّ إخلاؤهم من جبهات القتال في سورية والعراق والذين يتمّ توزيعهم على نقاط الارتكاز في كلّ من باكستان، بنغلادش، ماليزيا والصومال.

كما تمّ تكليف السعودية بتمويل كافة العمليات اللوجستية المتعلقة بعمليات الإخلاء والنقل إلى نقاط قريبة من ميانمار. وقد تمّ تدشين غرفة عمليات سعودية أميركية، بمشاركة خمسة ضباط أمن أكراد، مقرّها أربيل لإدارة هذه العملية التي تتوقع مصادر أميركية متابعة استمرارها لسنوات عدة.

علماً انّ زيارة الوزير السعودي ثامر السبهان الأخيرة لمسعود البرزاني أواسط شهر أيلول الحالي في أربيل، قد تركزت فقط على ترتيبات عمليات نقل قوات داعش شرقاً لتوسيع رقعة الاشتباكات مع قوات الأمن البورمية، تمهيداً لزجّ مسلمي الصين في تلك العمليات العسكرية، بهدف إنشاء قاعدة انطلاق لعمليات داعش في الصين مشابهة لما كان عليه الوضع في قاطع حمص/ القصيْر الذي استخدم كقاعدة انطلاق باتجاه الغوطة الشرقية ووادي بردى، وكذلك باتجاه حمص – تدمر. أيّ لتوسيع دائرة الحرب وتفجير الأوضاع الداخلية في الصين من أجل تأمين ظروف أكثر ملاءمة لتصعيد عمليات الحشد الاستراتيجي الأميركي ضدّ الصين وروسيا وإيران. وليس قرار إرسال ثلاثة آلاف جندي أميركي إلى أفغانستان أخيراً، إلا خطوة لتعزيز جهود العدوان الذي يجري الإعداد له من قبل الولايات المتحدة وشركائها في الناتو.

تجدر الإشارة إلى أنّ إقليم شينغيانغ المحاذي لمنطقة النزاع البورمي الروهينغي يعوم على احتياطي استراتيجي مهمّ من النفط والغاز واليورانيوم، كما أنه الإقليم الذي تمرّ عبره طريق الحرير الذي أطلقته الحكومة الصينية كمبادرة عالمية لتنمية التعاون مع آسيا المركزية والقوقاز وغرب آسيا. هذا كما يمرّ منه أحد أهمّ أنابيب النفط الصينية التي أحدثتها الحكومة الصينية هناك للالتفاف على خليج مالاقا والتهرّب من سنغافورة التي تسيطر عليها المظلة الأمنية الأميركية.

يبقى أنّ الكاوبوي الأبله الأميركي الذي يحاول محاكاة عمليات الحشد الاستراتيجي الحالية بعمليات الحشد ضدّ الاتحاد السوفياتي في مرحلة أفغانستان ثمانينيات القرن الماضي، انطلاقاً من ميانمار ضدّ الصين نسي انه اليوم هو مَن يغرق في مستنقع حروب سورية والعراق واليمن وأفغانستان وأنه هو الذي يخرج منها منكسراً ذليلاً وخائفاً يترقب نتائج حرب العلمين السورية العراقية وأسطورة الصبر الاستراتيجي اليمني، والصين التي يظنّها فريسة سهلة لهذا المخطط هي اليوم مَن يعتلي عرش العالم مع روسيا بفضل صمود وانتصارات محور المقاومة الصاعد إلى عرش السماء والذي نقل عملياً مركز ثقل العالم من الغرب إلى الشرق…!

وبالتالي، فإنّ الزمن ليس زمن الحرب الباردة مع السوفيات أبداً، وأنّ هذا المحور العظيم الذي بات ممتداً من موسكو إلى غزة ليس فقط لن يسمح لأمثال الكانكستر الأميركي الاقتراب من سور الصين العظيم ، بل وسيجعله قريباً وقريباً جداً يجثو على ركبتيه طالباً تأشيرة مرور على طريق الحرير الجديد الممتدّ من شانغهاي إلى بيروت بدمغة شامية.

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

Related Videos

The Sea of China…. The problematic of the new world system بحر الصين… إشكالية النظام العالمي الجديد

The Sea of China…. The problematic of the new world system

Written by Nasser Kandil,

سبتمبر 20, 2017

Any reader cannot comment on this title and why we concern about the Sea of China, knowing that what we have is enough to concern about. The major country which leads the wars against us is the United States, and it is normal to care about confronting it with at least three things, its opponents, their suitability to be taken as allies, its plans, and its priorities in order to know the effectiveness of our confrontations and victories in the field in producing stable political equations, and how to change the world system and its new balances by all the surrounding variables. In the three points we will see China in front of us, it is the first opponent of the American hegemony, an active partner in any new or old world system, and today it is the priority of America, so how to pay attention that the politics in its different aspects is an outcome of economy which China is preceding to occupy the first global world ranking, as a consumer of the energy which forms one of the most important resources of our region,  as a producer of the goods which our countries form a vital market for them, and as an inspiring to enter the old world in which our geography locates.

The Sea of China forms the confused geographical area which seems the first appropriate region for the solutions instead of our region which is full of disputes and the conflicts. On its shores a high tense confrontation is taking place in which the American wants to have control on it and wants to prevent China from making it a regional lake, which its balances will be determined by equations of the forces which surround it. The Americans locate on the shores of this sea from the South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam, they bet on hindering the Chinese project which based originally on the concept of the regional lake which is directed by the partners that share the same geography, through internationalizing the Sea of China and its crises. This requires igniting the crises between the neighborhoods and raising the tension towards justifying the military internationalization of these crises. Burma’s problem which bothers China does not stem from the fact that it is the concerned country of persecuting the Muslims there, but because China is aware that the American provocation of the issue stems from the attempt of internationalizing in order to deploy foreign troops on the borders of China, under the framework of Chinese-American conflict between the regions and the internationalization as the Korean cause, and as the Chinese industrial islands in the Sea of China. So the deployment of the US missile systems which threaten the Chinese security as the modern Thad system becomes a justification that has a cover made by the countries which the Americans try to put it under the threat of China and its allies in order to seek for the US protection, exactly as how America does in the Gulf by spreading panic from Iran.

China is the partner of the Arabs, the Muslims, and the other nations of the region in confronting the projects of the American hegemony, and the rising power in the world economically. In Asia which constitutes two-thirds of population and distance, China constitutes one third of its population, while Russia constitutes one third of its area. As the understanding with Russia has led to an equation that started changing the world, the completion of the birth of new world system is waiting for the future of the balances in the Sea of China to become clear. What should be concerned regarding the issues of the freedom and independence in our country is not to take one of the two extreme positions towards the issue of the Muslims of Burma whether through ignoring the issue, denying its existence and considering it mere US fabrication or ISIS movement as what was repeated by some people thinking that they serve China by repeating what is being spread on its media, or through participating in arousing the issue, because America can invest it in order to internationalize its security and to be positioned under this pretext on the borders of China. Iran seems the first concerned to have a dialogue with China and to reach to an understanding for a regional solution sponsored by the neighboring countries of Burma as China, India, Bangladesh, and Thailand  that ensures its security and the security of the Muslims in it , and stops the malicious game of America under its pretext.

North Korea’s missiles remain the indispensable deterrence till the Americans recognize the choice of negotiation for a political solution and till Japan and South Korea understand that the solution must be regional or there is no solution.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

بحر الصين… إشكالية النظام العالمي الجديد

ناصر قنديل

سبتمبر 16, 2017

– لا يستطيع عاقل أن يعلق على العنوان وما علاقتنا ببحر الصين، فما عندنا كافٍ ليشغل اهتمامنا وأكثر، فالدولة العظمى التي تقود الحروب علينا هي أميركا، والطبيعي أن نهتمّ لمواجهتنا معها بثلاثة أشياء على الأقلّ، خصومها ومدى صلاحيتهم كحلفاء لنا، وخططها ونسبة الأولويات فيها لإدراك مدى فعالية مواجهتنا وانتصاراتنا في الميدان في إنتاج معادلات سياسية مستقرة، وكيفية تغيّر النظام العالمي وتوازناته الجديدة بفعل كلّ المتغيّرات المحيطة به. وفي الثلاثة سنجد الصين أمامنا، فهي خصم أول للهيمنة الأميركية وشريك فاعل في أيّ نظام عالمي قديم وجديد، وهي اليوم أولوية أميركا، فكيف إنْ كان لعقلنا أن ينتبه أنّ السياسة في كثير من وجوهها مولود للاقتصاد، الذي تتقدّم الصين لاحتلال مرتبة عالمية أولى فيه، كمستهلك للطاقة التي تشكل أحد أهمّ موارد منطقتنا، وكمنتج للسلع التي تشكل بلادنا سوقاً حيوية لها، وكطامح لدخول العالم القديم الذي تتوضّع جغرافيتنا في قلبه؟

– يشكل بحر الصين المنطقة الجغرافية المضطربة التي تبدو المرشح الأول للحلول مكان منطقتنا في تصدّر الأحداث والنزاعات، فعلى شواطئه تدور مواجهة عالية التوتر، يريد الأميركي عبرها الإمساك بمفاتيحه، ومنع الصين من جعله بحيرة إقليمية، تقرّر توازناتها معادلات القوى المتشاطئة عليه، والأميركيون موجودون على ضفاف هذا البحر من كوريا الجنوبية واليابان، وأندونيسيا والفيلبين، وفيتنام، ويراهنون على عرقلة المشروع الصيني القائم أصلاً على مفهوم البحيرة الإقليمية التي يديرها الشركاء الطبيعيون جغرافياً، بتدويل بحر الصين وأزماته. وهذا يستدعي تصعيد الأزمات بين الجيران ورفع منسوب التوتر وصولاً لتبرير التدويل العسكري لهذه الأزمات. ومشكلة بورما التي تزعج الصين، ليس لأنها هي الطرف المعني باضطهاد المسلمين هناك، بل لأنها تدرك أنّ الإثارة الأميركية للقضية نابعة من مسعى للتدويل وزرع قوات أجنبية على حدود الصين، تندرج في إطار الصراع الصيني الأميركي بين الأقلمة والتدويل، ومثلها القضية الكورية، ومثلهما الجزر الصناعية الصينية في بحر الصين، ليصير نشر المنظومات الصاروخية الأميركية التي تهدّد الأمن الصيني، كمنظومة ثاد الحديثة، مبرّراً ويملك غطاء تصنعه مخاوف وهواجس دول يشتغل الأميركيون على جعلها تحت تهديد الصين وحلفائها، لتطلب الحماية الأميركية، تماماً كما هو حال التعامل الأميركي في الخليج بقوة إنتاج الذعر من إيران.

– الصين شريك العرب والمسلمين وسائر شعوب المنطقة في مواجهة مشاريع الهمينة الأميركية، وقائدة العالم الصاعدة اقتصادياً، وفي آسيا التي تشكل ثلثي العالم سكاناً ومساحة تشكل الصين ثلث سكانها، وتشكل روسيا ثلث مساحتها، ومثلما أنتج التفاهم مع روسيا معادلة بدأت تغيّر العالم، فإنّ اكتمال ولادة نظام عالمي جديد ينتظر تبلور مستقبل التوازنات في بحر الصين، وما يجب أن يهتمّ به المعنيون بقضايا الحرية والاستقلال في بلادنا، هو أن لا يتخذوا أحد الموقفين المتطرفين من قضية مسلمي بورما، فيصبّون الماء في الطاحونة الأميركية، إما بتجاهل القضية وإنكار وجودها، واعتبارها مجرد فبركة أميركية، أو حركة داعشية، كما يتحدّث البعض ظناً منهم أنهم يخدمون الصين بتكرار ما تقوله وسائل إعلامها، أو بالمشاركة في إثارة صاخبة للقضية ينجح الأميركي بتوظيفها لتدويل أمنها والتموضع بذريعتها على حدود الصين، إن إيران تبدو المعني الأول بحوار مع الصين يخرج بتفاهم على الدعوة لحلّ إقليمي ترعاه دول الجوار لبورما، وهي الصين والهند وبنغلادش وتايلاند، يضمن أمنها ومن ضمنه أمن المسلمين فيها، ويقطع الطريق على اللعبة الأميركية الخبيثة بذريعتها.

– تبقى صواريخ كوريا الشمالية رادع لا غنى عنه، حتى يستسلم الأميركيون لخيار التفاوض لحلّ سياسي، ويفهم اليابان وكوريا الجنوبية أنّ الحلّ يكون إقليمياً أو لا يكون.

Related Videos

Related Posts

From the Philippines to Myanmar: “US to Fight US-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism”

 

September 8, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – With the recent attack on police in Myanmar by terrorists described by Reuters as “Muslim insurgents,” and ongoing terrorism plaguing the Philippines where forces are engaged with militants from the so-called “Islamic State,” it would appear that terrorism has spread into Southeast Asia with no signs of waning.

However, the sudden uptick in violence comes at a time when America’s so-called “pivot to Asia” has ground to a complete halt, providing the United States with an all-too-convenient pretext to reengage and establish itself across the region in a much more insidious manner.

US Sought Military Presence in Southeast Asia for Decades but Lacked a Pretext, Until Now 

The United States has openly conspired to establish and expand a permanent military presence in Southeast Asia as a means to confront, encircle, and contain China for decades.

As early as the Vietnam War, with the so-called “Pentagon Papers” released in 1969, it was revealed that the conflict was simply one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China.

Three important quotes from these papers reveal this strategy. It states first that:

“…the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.”

It also claims:

“China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30′s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.” 

Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged in against China at the time by stating:

“there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.” 

While the US would ultimately lose the Vietnam War and any chance of using the Vietnamese as a proxy force against Beijing, the long war against Beijing would continue elsewhere.

More recently, an American policy think tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in a 2000 paper titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (PDF) would unabashedly declare its intentions to establish a wider, permanent military presence in Southeast Asia.

The report would state explicitly that:

…it is time to increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia.

It would elaborate in detail, stating:

In Southeast Asia, American forces are too sparse to adequately address rising security requirements. Since its withdrawal from the Philippines in 1992, the United States has not had a significant permanent military presence in Southeast Asia. Nor can U.S. forces in Northeast Asia easily operate in or rapidly deploy to Southeast Asia – and certainly not without placing their commitments in Korea at risk. Except for routine patrols by naval and Marine forces, the security of this strategically significant and increasingly tumultuous region has suffered from American neglect. 

Noting the difficultly of placing US troops where they are not wanted, the PNAC paper notes:

This will be a difficult task requiring sensitivity to diverse national sentiments, but it is made all the more compelling by the emergence of new democratic governments in the region. By guaranteeing the security of our current allies and newly democratic nations in East Asia, the United States can help ensure that the rise of China is a peaceful one. Indeed, in time, American and allied power in the region may provide a spur to the process of democratization inside China itself.

It should be noted that the paper’s reference to “the emergence of new democratic governments in the region” is a reference to client states created by the United States on behalf of its own interests and in no way constituted actual “democratic governments” which would otherwise infer they represented the interests of the very people possessing the “national sentiments” that opposed US military presence in the region in the first place.

It should also be noted that in 2000, the United States was cultivating a number of such proxy governments across Southeast Asia including Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in Myanmar, Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand, and Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia.

Since 2000, all but one of these proxies have been removed from power with Anwar Ibrahim residing in prison and Thaksin Shinawatra fleeing Thailand to evade a 2 year jail term.

Only Suu Kyi managed to ascend to power as a result of billions spent by her US and European sponsors via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its numerous subsidiaries and affiliates. One of these affiliates – The US Institute of Peace – has openly enumerated how the US on virtually every imaginable level is now dictating the outcome of Myanmar’s development from directing its political processes to organizing its economy. It is also providing “technical assistance” on “counter-terrorism.”

In the Philippines, attempts by the US to reestablish its military presence and use the nation in its self-serving, elective conflict with Beijing has suffered many setbacks.

US to Fight US-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism in Asia

Most recently Washington found its relationship with Manila unraveling irrevocably in favor of Manila’s increasing ties with Beijing. This was until the fortuitous arrival of militants from the so-called “Islamic State” on the nation’s shores, overwhelming an entire city in the nation’s southern region.

In Myanmar, terrorists have likewise – suddenly – appeared and are operating on unprecedented levels just in time for another push by the United States to establish a permanent military presence in the country to provide “technical assistance” on “counter-terrorism.”

Such terrorists – however – have not simply sprung from oblivion. Such organizations conducting operations on the scale seen in the Philippines, southern Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Myanmar require immense sums of money, organizational capacity, logistical, and political support.

And indeed, it is confirmed that not only does such support exist, it flows from a very logical and familiar source of state-sponsored terrorism – America’s oldest and closest ally in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia.

The Wall Street Journal in an article titled, “Asia’s New Insurgency Burma’s abuse of the Rohingya Muslims creates violent backlash.” reports in regards to terrorism in Myanmar that (emphasis added):

Now this immoral policy has created a violent backlash. The world’s newest Muslim insurgency pits Saudi-backed Rohingya militants against Burmese security forces. As government troops take revenge on civilians, they risk inspiring more Rohingya to join the fight.

The Wall Street Journal elaborates, stating (emphasis added):

Called Harakah al-Yaqin, Arabic for “the Faith Movement,” the group answers to a committee of Rohingya emigres in Mecca and a cadre of local commanders with experience fighting as guerrillas overseas. Its recent campaign—which continued into November with IED attacks and raids that killed several more security agents—has been endorsed by fatwas from clerics in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Emirates and elsewhere. 

Rohingyas have “never been a radicalized population,” ICG notes, “and the majority of the community, its elders and religious leaders have previously eschewed violence as counterproductive.” But that is changing fast. Harakah al-Yaqin was established in 2012 after ethnic riots in Rakhine killed some 200 Rohingyas and is now estimated to have hundreds of trained fighters.

The foreign-baked terrorism sponsored by Saudi Arabia and literally directed from within its own borders all-too-conveniently creates a pretext for US military presence in Myanmar it otherwise could not justify or in any shape, form, or way pursue.

A similar superhighway of cash and weapons flows from terrorists operating in the Philippines to Riyadh and its partners in Washington, resulting in a similar opportunity for the US to establish a permanent military presence there in reaction to a crisis of its own intentional engineering.

While the US proposes an expansive US military presence across Southeast Asia for “counter-terrorism” assistance, it is clear that it is Washington’s own aid and support to Riyadh that is at the very source of the security crisis and that simply withdrawing aid and penalizing this state sponsor of terrorism is the solution.

Yet the United States is not making this most logical of conclusions, nor is it taking this most obvious course of action – indicating full complicity with Saudi state-sponsorship of terrorism and placing responsibility for the death and destruction sown by terrorism across Southeast Asia squarely on Washington.

While the US frames its military presence in Southeast Asia as a cornerstone of peace and stability, it is in fact a policy representing a symptom of the sort of very real instability and chaos the United States and its self-proclaimed “international order” represents. It is particularly ironic that not only is the increasingly rampant terrorism across Southeast Asia a result of intentional Washington policy, it is being used as a pretext for setting the stage of a greater and potentially more devastating regional conflict with China.

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

Myanmar`s regime is US puppet: Iran`s Velayati

Myanmar`s regime is US puppet: Iran`s Velayati

Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on international affairsAli Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on international affairs

A senior Iranian official says the current regime in Myanmar is a US puppet, urging Muslim countries not to remain silent in the face of the country’s deadly crackdown on minority Rohingya Muslims.

“Myanmar’s regime is a US puppet,” Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on international affairs, said on Thursday.

“A person, who has unfairly received the Nobel Peace Prize, is today taking these measures, but Muslim societies won’t be silent and will curb this dictatorial regime through international bodies,” he added.

Myanmar’s de facto leader, Aung Sang Suu Kyi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, has taken almost no action to end the ongoing violence against the Rohingya Muslims, triggering international outcry.

A Rohingya refugee man cries as he holds his 40-day-old son, who died as a boat capsized in the shore of Shah Porir Dwip while crossing Bangladesh-Myanmar border, in Teknaf, Bangladesh, September 14, 2017. (Photo by Reuters)

Myanmar’s government has laid a siege to the country’s western Rakhine State where the Rohingya are concentrated, with horrific violence taking place against the minority Muslims.

Soldiers and extremist Buddhists have reportedly been killing or raping the Muslims and setting their homes on fire. The United Nations Children’s Fund said up to 400,000 Rohingya Muslims had fled Myanmar and entered neighboring Bangladesh since late August, when the latest bout of violence erupted.

Rohingya refugees climb a truck to receive aid distributed by local organizations at Balu Khali makeshift refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, September 14, 2017. (Photo by Reuters)

Tehran has called for a visit by an Iranian Foreign Ministry delegation to Myanmar to discuss ways to end the plight of the Rohingya Muslims.

Iran’s Red Crescent is also preparing to send a shipment of humanitarian aid for those stranded on the border with Bangladesh.

Earlier this week, Ayatollah Khamenei called on Islamic governments to exert political and economic pressure on Myanmar’s “cruel” regime to end the massacre.

US ban on aircraft sales to Iran breaches JCPOA

Elsewhere in his remarks, Velayati said a recent US move to block sales of commercial aircraft to Iran has “violated” the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives voted in favor of new measures that would specifically prevent the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) from clearing licenses to allow aircraft sales to Iran.

“A ban on selling aircraft to Iran shows that we should not trust the US and its allies,” Velayati added.

The JCPOA was reached between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries — namely the US, Russia, China, France, and Britain plus Germany — in July 2015 and took effect in January 2016. Under the deal, Iran undertook to put limitations on its nuclear program in exchange for the termination of all nuclear-related sanctions against Tehran.

The removal of sanctions allowed Iran to purchase hundreds of commercial aircraft from Airbus, Boeing and other aircraft manufacturing companies.

However, officials in the administration of US President Donald Trump have recently been sparing no efforts to undermine the nuclear deal.

Is a New ‘Kosovo’ Brewing in Myanmar?

Is a New ‘Kosovo’ Brewing in Myanmar?

JAMES GEORGE JATRAS | 08.09.2017 | OPINION

Is a New ‘Kosovo’ Brewing in Myanmar?

Whenever western governments and mainstream media start shedding crocodile tears over a minority community of «peaceful Muslims»© being persecuted by some nasty non-Muslim government somewhere, with demands that the «international community» do something about it, it should be treated with a big, fat dollop of skepticism.

At issue at the moment are the Rohingya, approximately one million of whom constitute a large minority in Rakhine (formerly Arakan) state in Myanmar (formerly Burma). According to reports in the prestige media and from (government-funded) human rights groups, Myanmar’s government is oppressing the Rohingya, many of whom have fled next door into predominantly Muslim Bangladesh.

We are told that the Rohingya, «often described as ‘the world’s most persecuted minority’» at the hands of Rakhine Buddhists incited by fanatical monks backed up by the national government, are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing. The international community must do something! Where’s Samantha «the Genocide Chick» Power when we need her?

If all this sounds familiar, it is. Almost word-for-word the foregoing could describe the western official and media narrative of the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija in the late 1990s. Just replace «Rohingya Muslims» with «Albanian Muslims», «Rakhine» with «Serb», «Theravada Buddhist» with «Orthodox Christian».

Of course the Kosovo official narrative was, and remains, almost a total perversion of the truth. In the late 1990s, western intelligence services and their friends in the Islamic world, notably Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, as well as al-Qaeda-linked Islamic «charities», pumped weapons into Kosovo to support armed terrorist groups known as the «Kosovo Liberation Army» (KLA). Headed by kingpins in the Albanian mafia, the KLA attacked Serbian officials and civilians, as well as murdered insufficiently militant Albanians, in a bid to invite a government crackdown which would serve as a pretext for intervention by the international community, meaning the U.S. and NATO, to stop a fictional Serbian genocide of Albanians. As I noted in an August 1998 U.S. Senate report months before supposed massacre that «justified» the NATO attack on Serbia, military action had already been decided upon and awaited only a suitable «trigger»:

«As of this writing, planning for a U.S.-led NATO intervention in Kosovo is now largely in place, while the Clinton Administration’s apparent willingness to intervene has ebbed and flowed on an almost weekly basis. The only missing element appears to be an event – with suitably vivid media coverage – that would make intervention politically salable, even imperative, in the same way that a dithering Administration finally decided on intervention in Bosnia in 1995 after a series of ‘Serb mortar attacks’ took the lives of dozens of civilians – attacks, which, upon closer examination, may in fact have been the work of the Muslim regime in Sarajevo, the main beneficiary of the intervention. [For details, primarily reports from European media, see RPC’s ‘Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base,’ 1/16/97] That the Administration is waiting for a similar ‘trigger’ in Kosovo is increasingly obvious: ‘A senior U.S. Defense Department official who briefed reporters on July 15 noted that «we’re not anywhere near making a decision for any kind of armed intervention in Kosovo right now». He listed only one thing that might trigger a policy change: «I think if some levels of atrocities were reached that would be intolerable, that would probably be a trigger»’ [Washington Post, 8/4/98]. The recent conflicting reports regarding a purported mass grave containing (depending on the report) hundreds of murdered Albanian civilians or dozens of KLA fighters killed in battle should be seen in this light». [from ‘Bosnia II: The Clinton Administration Sets Course for NATO Intervention in Kosovo,’ August 1998]

To note the similarities between official and media about the Rohingya in 2017 and «Kosovars» in 1998-99 is not to say that armed outside intervention against Myanmar is imminent or even in the cards. Nor does it disprove the claim that the Rohingya, or some of them, may indeed be suffering persecution. It is only to suggest that when the usual manipulators in the media and the self-appointed international community get on their genocide high horse, caution is in order. It needs to be asked, what is the other side of the story?

For example, as analyzed by Moon of Alabama:

«Media attention is directed to some minor ethnic violence in Myanmar, the former Burma. The story in the ‘western’ press is of Muslim Rohingya unfairly vilified, chased out and killed by Buddhist mobs and the army in the state of Rakhine near the border to Bangladesh. The ‘liberal’ human interventionists like Human Rights Watch are united with Islamists like Turkey’s President Erdogan in loudly lamenting the plight of the Rohingya.

«That curious alliance also occurred during the wars on Libya and Syria. [JGJ: And in Kosovo.] It is by now a warning sign. Could there be more behind this than some local conflict in Myanmar? Is someone stoking a fire?

«Indeed.

«While the ethnic conflict in Rakhine state is very old, it has over the last years morphed into a Jihadist guerilla war financed and led from Saudi Arabia. The area is of geo-strategic interest:

‘Rakhine plays an important part in [the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative] OBOR, as it is an exit to Indian Ocean and the location of planned billion-dollar Chinese projects—a planned economic zone on Ramree Island, and the Kyaukphyu deep-sea port, which has oil and natural gas pipelines linked with Yunnan Province’s Kunming.’

«Pipelines from the western coast of Myanmar eastwards to China allow hydrocarbon imports from the Persian Gulf to China while avoiding the bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca and disputed parts of the South China Sea.

«It is in ‘Western interest’ to hinder China’s projects in Myanmar. Inciting Jihad in Rakhine could help to achieve that. … A clearly Islamist insurgency was build up in the area. It acts under the name Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and is led by Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Jihadist from Pakistan. (ARSA earlier operated under the name Harakah al-Yakin, or Faith Movement.) Ataullah was born into the large Rohingya community of Karachi, Pakistan. … Reuters noted in late 2016 that the Jihadist group is trained, led and financed through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia:

‘A group of Rohingya Muslims that attacked Myanmar border guards in October is headed by people with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said on Thursday, citing members of the group. … «Though not confirmed, there are indications [Ataullah] went to Pakistan and possibly elsewhere, and that he received practical training in modern guerrilla warfare», the group said. It noted that Ata Ullah was one of 20 Rohingya from Saudi Arabia leading the group’s operations in Rakhine State. Separately, a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres oversees the group, which has headquarters in Mecca, the ICG said.’

«The ARSA Jihadists claim to only attack government forces but civilian Arakanese Buddhists have also been ambushed and massacred. Buddhist hamlets were also burned down».

Finally, it needs to be noted that showing sympathy for Muslim victims, real or fake, has several attractions for western governments and media:

  • It pleases western elites’ friends in Riyadh, Ankara, Islamabad, etc., to see effete post-Christians take the Muslim side in a way none of them would ever stick up for Christians. How nice to see how weak, corrupt, and cowardly the unbelievers are! (How many protests did we hear from our Saudi, Turkish, Pakistani, and other supposed friends about the suffering of Christians in Syria and Iraq at the hands of al-Qaeda and Daesh? For that matter, how much did we hear about it from western governments? When have western governments and media ever demanded that the so-called international community «do something» to save a non-Muslim population – anywhere?)
  • It allows western elites to scrub away the suspicion that somewhere, somehow any hint of concern about Islamic terrorism or Muslim mass migration into Europe is evidence of «racism» and «Islamophobia». Championing persecuted Muslims like the Rohingya and Kosovo Albanians shows the west harbors no such biases.
  • Perhaps most importantly, standing up for allegedly persecuted Muslim minorities allows western governments and media to deflect any blame for the hundreds of thousands – in all likelihood millions – of Muslims killed in the process of «democracy promotion» in majority Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and other places, or the many more who would be killed in the process of «bringing freedom» to Iran. Sure, many non-Muslims have also been killed in these noble humanitarian efforts, but their deaths are not politically actionable – no government or terrorist movement will threaten retribution.
%d bloggers like this: