Posts
George Soros: Myanmar's Rohingya Persecution parallels Nazi genocide
George Soros, Financier and Chairman of the Open Society Foundations and promoters of democratization, delivered his pre-recorded speech at the Oslo Conference to End Myanmar's Persecution of Rohingya, The Norwegian Nobel Institute, 26 May 2015
I don’t know who this guy is but there is a lot in his mommentary to recommend it.
Myanmar's Rohingya Crisis: George Soros, Oil, & Lessons For India
Moscow-based Andrew Korybko unpacked all this in an article in 2015
American plan for a South Asian “Kosovo” in Rohingyaland
Andrew Korybko
9
June, 2015
As
complex as it may appear at times, the main consistency of US foreign
policy is that it covers its pursuit of geopolitical self-interest
with humanitarian and democratic rhetoric. There’s always an
ulterior motive behind the US lecturing countries about ‘human
rights’ and ‘democracy’, and those two key words should raise
immediate red flags to any concerned decision makers in the targeted
state that the US is addressing. Being the expert image manipulator
that it is, the US never shies away from exploiting human tragedy for
its own strategic ends, a lesson that everyone would do well
remembering when considering the Rohingya issue in Myanmar. While
there certainly are some legitimate grievances that the Rohingya are
leveling against the authorities, it’s evident that the US is
already exploiting them for its own geopolitical ends. Washington
wants to establish a military presence in the Bay of Bengal in order
to control China’s pipelines through Myanmar (both of which go
through Rohingya-inhabited Rakhine State), but in order to get to
that point, it first needs for the Rohingya to have their own
autonomous or independent government there.
The
first part begins by unravelling the layers of complex context
related to the issue, before going into the specifics of the current
migrant crisis. Part II then explains how the US aims to create an
autonomous or independent Rohingyaland by capitalizing off of this
tragedy, and concludes with an examination of the multifaceted
benefits it would receive through the creation of the South Asian
“Kosovo”.
The
plight of the Rohingyas and their place in the bigger picture of
American geostrategy against China can appear to be an overwhelmingly
complex topic, but it can be subdivided into three simpler categories
of general understanding; American grand strategy; Myanmar’s
domestic affairs; and the Rihingyas’ situation. By breaking down
the bigger, thematic picture into smaller, finer details, one should
be able to acquire a more solid understanding of
how the US is relentlessly pursuing its own self-interest at the
Rohingyas’ expense.
The
US’ post-Cold War foreign policy has hinged on adhering to
Brzezinski’s ‘Eurasian Balkans’ concept, which essentially
stipulates that the US could manipulate preexisting ethnic,
religious, and territorial issues in Eurasia in order to prolong its
control of the supercontinent. This can be done in two ways: the
method of indirect disorder has the US utilizing proxy actors to stir
endless chaos, much as it’s currently doing with ISIL in the
Mideast; while direct control involves the US conventionally
asserting its on-the-ground dominance, just like it did by building
Camp Bondsteel (one of its largest European bases) in occupied Kosovo
after the 1999 War on Yugoslavia. Indirect disorder can be used as a
modus operandi for establishing direct control, and this is precisely
the game that’s at play with Rohingyaland along the Bay of Bengal.
No
place in South or Southeast Asia is more susceptible to the Eurasian
Balkans concept of American-directed strategic state fragmentation
than Myanmar, which has been fighting the world’s longest-running
civil war since 1948. To unduly simplify the conflict, it involves
the majority Burmese ethnic group in the central part of the country
fighting against the myriad minority groups along its periphery, with
the rebels seeking a federation but the government fighting for the
status quo unitary nature of the state. While the war has been at a
stalemate for quite some time, the opening of a new rebel front in
the Rohingya’s Rakhine State could be the strategic shift that’s
needed to turn the tide against the government, as none of the other
rebelling regions or ethnicities is located along the coast.
This
factor is exceptionally important since it could enable a slew of
foreign patrons to ship massive amounts of material support to the
rebels, perhaps even using plausibly deniable methods such as flying
other nations’ flags above their arms-running vessels. The inland
rebels have no such tactical advantage in this regard, which may be
part of the reason why they have yet to be successful in their
half-century-long campaign. The addition of a pro-federation rebel
movement capable of receiving such supplies could make the decisive
difference in finally tipping the balance of power against the
government’s forces.
The
demographic subject of the present article is at odds with the
Myanmar government over its identity. The 800,000–1-million-plus
Rohingyas claim that they constitute a unique ethnic group, but
Naypyidaw sees them as nothing more than the descendants of illegal
Bengali migrants, some of whom even fought against the state on
several occasions. As such, the government refuses to confer them
with citizenship, thus leaving them stateless and unwittingly
complicating the present migrant predicament (to be described in the
next section). Worse still, because they’re not considered to be
citizens, the state is reluctant to actively protect them from the
sectarian purges carried out by the ‘Buddhist Bin Laden’ and his
pro-Western hyper-nationalist thugs. Instead, it’s settled on a
policy of segregation, preferring to force them into separate
communities ostensibly out of concern for their own safety. Many
Rohingya protest these living conditions that some claim are contrary
to their human rights, hence why so many of them have decided to flee
the country. Sensing a convenient opportunity for geopolitical
benefit, the US has taken up the torch of Rohingya guardianship,
advocating loudly in their favor and becoming their de-facto
international patron.
The
Rohingya had already been on the Western media radar since their 2012
persecution, but it’s the current migrant boat crisis that’s made
their cause seemingly more urgent. While there are no clear-cut
numbers available, the UN estimates that around 100,000 of them have
fled by sea in the past three years, which would represent between
10-12% of their total population in Myanmar. These discomfiting
numbers clearly indicate that there are some serious domestic issues
in Myanmar motivating their exodus, but in and of themselves they’re
not cause for direct humanitarian concern. The problem arose when it
was reported in early May that around 6000 Rohingya were thought to
be lost in the Andaman Sea after having been abandoned by their human
traffickers, and genuine horror was experienced when 139 graves were
later unearthed in Malaysia, believed to be of dead Rohingyas who
perished before reaching their ultimate destination. The squalid
camps alongside the Thai-Malaysian border that the illegal Rohingya
migrants are regularly kept in have led many to believe that they’re
either being abused or held captive by their traffickers. All of
these dangers have combined to generate what the UN referred to early
last month as a “looming humanitarian crisis”, and the deluge of
fake images and internet memes related to the issue have contributed
to a feeling of global urgency in addressing it.
Official Myanmar And Bengali Positions:
The issue becomes even more complicated when one takes into account Myanmar’s official position on the matter. Naypyidaw asserts that human trafficking networks are to blame, not government persecution, and that many of the illegal migrants in question are actually from Bangladesh. Government representatives have accused some of them of pretending to be Rohingyas so as to receive preferential aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that they wouldn’t be able to procure with their actual Bengali identity. While critics might hark that Myanmar is lying about Bangladesh’s connection to the migrant boat crisis, the latter’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina decreed that those leaving the country illegally would be punished because they’re “tainting the image of the country in the international arena and putting their life into danger”, on top of being “mentally sick” in their pursuit for money abroad. No matter how one feels about Hasina’s comments, the fact that she addressed the topic in such a way confirms that the Bengali government acknowledges that their citizens are involved in this crisis and that it’s not completely about Rohingyas. Her statement lends credence to Myanmar’s claims that many of the migrants may actually be Bengali and inconveniently dismantles the Western media myth that anti-Rohingya persecution is to blame for the boat crisis.
Part two
The Destabilization of Myanmar: U.S. Plan for Carving Out A South Asian “Kosovo” in “Rohingyaland”
There
was no way that the US could resist politicizing such a tempting
geopolitical crisis, and as expected, it found a way to
diplomatically intervene. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell
spoke out against the Myanmar government and sprinkled his statement
with strong shades of ‘humanitarian intervention/responsibility to
protect’ rhetoric when he announced that “There’s the need for
the government to do all it can to protect and assume responsibility
for members of a long-suffering religious minority group, the
Rohingya, thousands of whom have been forced to take to the high seas
on dangerous makeshift vessels to escape persecution .” By claiming
that the government is responsible for whatever happens to the
Rohingya overseas (an utterly ridiculous assertion to level against
any state), McConnell is slyly inferring that it has blood on its
hands for initiating the highly publicized crisis. This opens the
door for the US to potentially deepen its involvement in ‘mediating’
the situation and dictating proposed ‘solutions’ for bringing it
to an end. In fact, President Obama already drew a connection between
‘democratization’ and the government’s treatment of Rohingyas,
and the State Department demands that they be given immediate
citizenship. The US is clearly pursuing ulterior interests by using
the humanitarian crisis as a cover for lecturing Myanmar, but what
exactly is its end game?
More
than anything, the US wants to weaken the centrality of the Myanmar
state and impose a federation model on the country. While such a
governing template could be constructive step towards resolving
certain countries’ internal crises (e.g. Ukraine), in others, it
may only accelerate the unravelling of the state. Myanmar falls into
the second category, as a federation system would inevitably lead to
an archipelago of autonomous nation-states scattered all along the
country’s periphery, and empowered within their new framework, they
can more efficiently oppose central
rule. Not only that, but they’d be extremely vulnerable to foreign
lobbying in support of their anti-government positions, and the US
could coopt them in order to guarantee that Myanmar remains weak and
divided for the foreseeable future. If need be, the US could also
manipulate each of the autonomous nation-states against one other in
order to manufacture a territorial or political crisis that it could
then exploit in intensifying its involvement in Myanmar’s internal
affairs. It might even one day make the decision to dismantle the
Union of Myanmar (the official name of the state) entirely, using the
bloody Yugoslav model as a precedent in coaxing a disastrous ‘Reverse
Brzezinski’ intervention from China.
Aung
San Suu Kyi, (left) purveyor of Western "pro-democracy"
gags, now finds herself presiding over a movement using these
gimmicks to call for racial genocide. A "monk" (right) puts
his US State Department subsidized color revolution training to a new
use... calling for genocide. So far, Suu Kyi has categorically failed
to condemn the violence mainly because it is being carried out by the
backbone of her own political network. Source: Land Destroyer
Aung
San Suu Kyi, (left) purveyor of Western “pro-democracy” gags, now
finds herself presiding over a movement using these gimmicks to call
for racial genocide. A “monk” (right) puts his US State
Department subsidized color revolution training to a new use…
calling for genocide. So far, Suu Kyi has categorically failed to
condemn the violence mainly because it is being carried out by the
backbone of her own political network. Source: Land Destroyer
To
get to this point, however, the US needs to deal a critical blow to
the Myanmar government so that it reverses its decades-long policy of
unity and finally accedes to devolving into a federation. As
explained previously, the most conceivable way in which this could be
achieved is if the Rohingya begin a full-scale rebellion against the
authorities. A serious uprising in the coastal Rakhine State could
more easily be supported by foreign patrons (i.e. the US) than the
ones that have been ongoing for decades along the periphery, but if
the latter are strategically ordered to renew their anti-government
campaign in concurrent coordination with a Rohingya rebellion, then
the authorities would be placed in an extremely precarious and
unprecedented situation.
The
trigger for all of this destabilization could likely be the upcoming
autumn general elections, scheduled to take place in either late
October or early November. It’s for this exact reason that the US
is so insistent that Myanmar grant the Rohingyas citizenship, since
it wants them to partake in the election and throw the results for
Rakhine State in a predetermined direction. This could take the form
of voting for a fringe ‘protest candidate’ or party that has
scarcely any hopes of an electoral victory, and when the
Rohingya-affiliated candidate or party predictably loses, it could be
a general signal for them to initiate their preplanned protest
movement against the government. Under such a scenario, the Rohingyas
could stage a Color Revolution demanding autonomy or outright
independence as ‘compensation’ for what they allege was a ‘rigged
election’ (echoing expected US and Western statements on the
topic), and per the US’ new patterned approach to domestic
interference, this could easily transition into a full-fledged
Unconventional War. A similar scenario is that a Rohingya Color
Revolution/Unconventional War breaks out sometime this summer in the
run-up to the elections, which would be intended to pressure the
government in making political concessions to them and the other
ethnic rebels prior to the nationwide vote.
The
US’ Hybrid War against Myanmar could most likely follow the Syrian
Model in extensively involving supportive regional states, in
particular, those in which many Rohingya have already settled. This
means that Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia are
candidates for joining the covert ‘coalition of the willing’
against Myanmar, as each of them could potentially train some of
their Rohingyas in Color Revolution and/or Unconventional Warfare
techniques before sending them back to their home country for future
deployment. Such a plan would mirror what Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi
Arabia are doing against Syria, since each of them has already been
training regime change-minded Syrians (and members of dozens of other
nationalities) on their territory for years now. What the highlighted
Asian states would be doing against Myanmar is no different, since it
follows the same tried-and-tested pattern that the US has perfected
in the Mideast.
Not
all of those four countries may participate, however, since political
considerations in Bangladesh and Thailand might preclude their
involvement. Malaysia and Indonesia, while having their respective
reservations, might be tempted to play an active role in the
forthcoming conflict if the US succeeds in convincing them that
they’d be fighting against anti-Muslim discrimination in Myanmar.
It could also sweeten the deal by throwing in certain economic
incentives, such as agreeing to bankroll most or all of the operation
so long as those respective countries’ territories can be used as
training bases. Additionally, it might pressure Kuala Lumpur and
Jakarta by making the continuation of existing support (be it
political, military, or economic) contingent on them joining the
‘coalition’ in their intended capacities. In exchange for their
cooperation, the US might assure them of its support in combating
ISIL if it ever establishes a foothold in the Mindanao-Sulawesi Arc,
as was nervously speculated upon at the Shangri-La Dialogue meeting
late last month. It doesn’t matter whether the US is sincere in
this pledge or not (it might even receive some strategic benefit by
setting ISIL loose in the region), but what’s important here is
that this promise alleviates Malaysia and Indonesia’s greatest
insecurity fear and consequently influences them in agreeing to the
Rohingya operation.
Weakening
Myanmar isn’t the only reason why the US is supporting the
Rohingyas, as it has more grand objectives in mind which would be
greatly facilitated as well. Here’s what the US has in store for
South Asia:
The
creation of an independent or largely autonomous Rohingyaland could
lead to the establishment of the first American base mainland South
Asia, just as the manufacturing of “Kosovo” led to Camp Bondsteel
as its first outpost in the Balkans. The US may exploit the
humanitarian concern surrounding the Rohingyas to press for Western
‘observers’ to ‘monitor’ the situation in Myanmar, and the
outbreak of any large-scale rebellion there could possibly invite an
international intervention (‘justified’ on the false basis of
‘humanitarian intervention/responsibility to protect’) for their
support. Whichever way it develops, it’s evident that the US has an
interest in gaining a strategic military foothold in the region,
since this would then allow it to simultaneously exert more direct
influence on the rest of Myanmar, Bangladesh, Northeast India (which
the US could contribute to further destabilizing in order to punish
Modi for any major forthcoming multipolar moves), and
China’smultiethnic and pivotal province of Yunnan.
The
US’ interest in this corner of South Asia is predicated on the BCIM
trade corridor that would connect Bangladesh, China, India, and
Myanmar. Should this ambitious plan be implemented, then the
resultant South Asian Silk Road would markedly decrease tensions
between India and China, stabilize India’s restive Northeast and
Myanmar’s rebellious periphery, and lay the groundwork for tangible
development in this impoverished cross-border region. All of these
benefits would advance multipolarity within the four-country corridor
and fortify its defenses against creeping unipolarity, hence why the
US has an important stake in sabotaging the project via its Rohingya
manipulations.
Energy
geopolitics is the guiding motivation for the vast majority of
American geopolitical decisions, not least of which is its described
designs against Myanmar. China recently opened two strategic oil and
gas pipelines running through the country, which incidentally end in
Rakhine State. As is known, Beijing is disproportionately dependent
on energy shipments transiting the Strait of Malacca chokepoint, and
the opening of alternative routes is of the highest strategic order
in ensuring China’s energy security. While its moves in Myanmar are
certainly a step in this direction, if Rakhine State is destabilized
with a future crisis (Color Revolution and/or Unconventional War), or
becomes autonomous/independent under American tutelage, then the
strategic benefit that Beijing derived from these pipelines would be
nullified and conversely become a considerable vulnerability.
The
article earlier mentioned how destabilization in Myanmar could be
exploited to tempt China into a conventional intervention, which is
certainly probable, but it could also be used to destabilize it by
other means as well. A return to full-scale warfare could lead to a
humanitarian crisis in Yunnan with hundreds of thousands of refugees
flooding into the province. Limited fighting between the Myanmar
government and Kokang rebels earlier this year created a minor
international sensation when anunexpected number of people fled to
China, some of whom were supposedly turned back. The People’s
Republic has reportedly had difficulty accommodating the refugees,
demonstrating that it was relatively unprepared for the situation.
One should understand that the fighting which prompted the
humanitarian exodus was relatively small scale and of minor
intensity, and that any real resumption of ethnic warfare along the
entire Myanmar-China border would dwarf the earlier refugee crisis
and create severe challenges for Beijing.
Last
but not least, the Rohingya issue could become a rallying cry for
international jidhadists due to the shades of Buddhist-on-Muslim
violence. Experts are already warning that ISIL could recruit
disgruntled Rohingyas, and one mustn’t forget that its Al Qaeda
rival is also looking to set up shop in the region as well. While a
plethora of exploitable regional opportunities present themselves for
whichever jihadist group is interested , the Rohingya cause is the
only one which has already received global recognition and
near-universal sympathy, thereby implying a degree of ‘moral
legitimacy’ for aspiring terrorists. Should ISIL or Al Qaeda nest
themselves in Rakhine State, the destabilizing repercussions would be
enormous and reverberate throughout the entire region. In fact, it
might even prompt India and/or Bangladesh to stage some sort of
intervention, especially if Rakhine-based terrorists carry out
attacks against their countries. Suffice to say, the introduction of
Islamic terrorism to Rakhine State would assuredly lead to the
further internationalization of the Rohingya issue and constitute a
dire security threat for the region’s governments.
The
plight of the Rohingyas elicits understandable concern from many, but
the unfortunate aspect is that the US is manipulating the world’s
short-term emotional response to the current migrant crisis in order
to pursue its long-term geopolitical interests in South Asia. The
intended creation of a pro-American autonomous or independent
Rohingyaland is akin to the same strategic pattern that it first
spearheaded in “Kosovo”, except the US can now achieve its goals
via the indirect Hybrid War lessons that it’s perfected in Syria.
The crusade for state creation is inherently tied to the destruction
of the targeted host state, which in this case would see Rohingyaland
(and perhaps many other ethnic nation-states) being baptized through
a sea of fire in separating from Myanmar. The US has concrete
geopolitical reasons for why it supports the Rohingyas, chiefly
concerning the establishment of its first intended base in mainland
South Asia and its desire to cut off China’s non-Malacca pipeline
routes through Myanmar. Additionally, with a firm regional outpost in
Rohingyaland (whether direct or via proxy), the US can obstruct the
multipolar BCIM trade corridor and leverage influence in Bangladesh,
Northeast India, the rest of Myanmar, and perhaps even further afield
in Yunnan Province. The coming months will be indicative of how far
the US plans to go in supporting Rohingyaland, but by all current
indications, it seems that this is a cause which Washington won’t
give up on anytime soon.
Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.
This article by the same author is from about a week ago
The
Rohingya Crisis: Reality, Rumors and Ramifications
Andrew
Korybko
5
September, 2017
The
world, and especially the Ummah, is incensed at what is being
portrayed as genocide against Muslims in Myanmar, but the reality of
what's happening there is a lot more complex than the simplistic
rumors lead one to believe, and the geopolitical ramifications of
this crisis could become very far-reaching.
Right
off the bat, killing innocent people is wrong, and everyone is
justified for feeling outraged when they believe this is
happening, as it plainly is in some cases in Myanmar's
coastal Rakhine State. The question, though, comes down to
identifying who's doing the killing and why, and whether the victims
were intentionally targeted or "collateral damage," be it
from a military "anti-terrorist" operation or a
"rebel" one against the government. It's also
important to ponder what the geopolitical ramifications of all
of this could be in terms of the larger dynamics
at play in the New Cold War.
Rakhine
Review
To
oversimplify the situation for brevity's sake, the Rohingya are
Muslims who live in the northern part of Rakhine State and
claim to be native to the region, though the Myanmarese
government says that they're just Bengali migrants and
their descendants who began moving into the area after the
late-19th-century imposition of British colonial rule. The other
main demographic group in this territory is the Rakhine people,
who are Buddhists that inherited the legacy of the long-standing
Kingdom of Mrauk U.
The
immediate post-independence period in Myanmar, called Burma
until 1989, saw the many ethno-religious minorities of the
country's resource-rich periphery rebel against the central
authorities in favor of federalization or, as the
Rohingyas wanted, unification with the neighboring state that
they more closely identified with (East Pakistan, but Bangladesh
since 1971), thereby setting off the world's
longest-running and still-unresolved civil war.
Pertaining
to Rakhine State, this conflict has ebbed and flowed
throughout the decades, most recently climaxing in 2012,
2015 and just recently this summer, with the latest three
escalations seeing reprisal violence by some of the
hyper-nationalist Buddhist majority against the minority
Muslim
population.
In response, the more impoverished Rohingya, who don't have
citizenship rights because most of them don't qualify for such
under the country's pertinent laws, had little to leave
behind in Rakhine State and would flee en mass to Bangladesh
for safety.
It's
worthwhile here to point out that the Myanmarese military,
known as the Tatmadaw, claims that its operations in their
locales are triggered by the deadly attacks that Rohingya
rebels — seen as terrorists by Naypyidaw and accused
of having links to al-Qaeda and other such notorious
groups — carried out against them and Buddhist villagers.
The fog of war is such that civilians are obviously getting
killed as a result, but it's unclear whether this
constitutes genocide, or who's actually behind it all.
A
"South Asian Kosovo"
It's
impossible to tell at this moment exactly what's going
on in Rakhine State and part of the reason is because
of the heavy information war against Myanmar right now and
Naypyidaw's refusal to let independent journalists into the
region out of what it says are security concerns, but the
general dynamics at play right now are oddly reminiscent of the
run-up to NATO's 1999 War on Yugoslavia in carving the
West's protectorate of Kosovo out of what is now Serbia.
Back
then, the world suddenly became aware of a newly popularized
sub-identity of Muslims called "Kosovars," just
as they're now becoming quickly acquainted with the
"Rohingyas," and they too claimed that their rights were
being violated and that this therefore justified them committing acts
of violence against the state and sometimes even civilians.
The
problem, however, is that the situation is never as black and
white as it's made out to be by the mainstream media,
as anyone following the war on Syria for the
past six and a half years knows by now, especially when it
comes to the never-ending accusations that President Assad is
also carrying out a "genocide" against Muslims
like Milosevic before him and now the Tatmadaw apparently
too. The intrinsic human urge for people to get upset
by what they believe to be the senseless and deliberate
killing of an entire identity group is often abused by
"perception managers" to gin up support for their
patrons' upcoming wars, and this is especially so when Muslim victims
are involved.
Unfortunately,
these sorts of situations have a track record of attracting
international terrorists and leading to the explosion
of domestic ones, like what happened with the "Kosovo
Liberation Army" and its al-Qaeda backers in Yugoslavia;
the "moderate rebels," al-Qaeda and eventually Daesh
in Syria; and now the "Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army"
and what increasingly looks to be Daesh's next Asian hot spot
in Myanmar.
Correspondingly,
each conflict was linked to either capturing the whole country
or partitioning off a strategic corner of it,
with post-conflict Kosovo hosting the US's gigantic Camp
Bondsteel; all of Syria at one time being planned to become
the US's pivot of control over the entire Levant; and a
future "South Asian Kosovo" of "Rohingyaland"
giving its patron powerful influence over the two oil and gas
pipelines from coastal Kyaukphyu to China's Kunming and
accordingly dominating this envisioned New Silk Road hub.
Yugoslavia
2.0
The
point here isn't to whitewash what might eventually turn out to
be proven is the Tatmadaw's excessive and disproportionate
counterinsurgency operations against civilians, but to draw
attention to how the overall conflict momentum is being guided
in the direction of an externally provoked identity-centric
hybrid war through a coordinated and one-sided information
campaign. This is aimed most immediately at demonizing the
Myanmarese state while deflecting attention away from the
attacks of Rohingya "rebels," which contributed to the
rapidly deteriorating military and humanitarian situation.
Furthermore,
remembering how none of this is taking place in a vacuum
and that the country is still engulfed in a multi-sided civil
war all along its periphery, it's possible that the ongoing
federalization talks could give way to the all-out
"Balkanization" of the former Burma along the
lines of what happened to the former Yugoslavia. The end
result of this tragedy would be the birth of a host of new
states through their own bloody baptisms of fire, which
would allow hostile foreign powers to more easily control this
strategic space at the juncture of South, Southeast and
East Asia.
Moreover,
another fault line would instantly emerge in the so-called
"Clash of Civilizations" (itself nothing more than a
blueprint for dividing and ruling the Eastern Hemisphere
through identity-centric Hybrid War) between not only
Muslims and Buddhists in Rakhine State, but possibly even
eventually the Buddhists and Christians in the central part
of Myanmar and its Northern-Eastern peripheries respectively. In
addition, one could expect Buddhist and Christian "volunteers"
from abroad to flood into the battlefield too,
potentially catalyzing what might go on to one day become their
religions' own form of Daesh.
Other
than the geopolitical removal of Myanmar from the
world map and the untold suffering of its over 50 million
people, the other victim would of course be China, which would
have to confront a Syrian-like Hybrid War along its porous
southwestern border on top of the other many security
challenges ringing its periphery (North Korea, East China Sea, South
China Sea and India). Any plans for a CPEC-complementing Myanmar
Corridor to the Indian Ocean would also be dashed, and Buddhist
troublemakers in Tibet might become radicalized and inspired
to commence another round of violence.
The
likelihood of these forecasted scenarios could naturally compel
China to take the lead in jump-starting emergency conflict
resolution measures in Myanmar if the situation continues
to spiral out of control there, which might help establish
exactly which of the two sides started this whole mess and
hopefully bring justice to all the perpetrators without the
large-scale geopolitical consequences that threaten to unfold
otherwise.
The
views expressed in this article are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the official position
of Sputnik.
India’s War On Terror Moves To Myanmar
India
conducted a special forces operation against Myanmar-based terrorists
responsible for a recent attack.
India
and Myanmar today agreed that terrorism remains one of the most
significant threats to peace and stability in the region and the
fight against the menace should also include strong measures against
countries and entities who finance and provide sanctuary to
terrorists.
In
a joint statement issued after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's talks
with State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, the two sides called on the
international community to end selective and partial approaches to
combat ..
Myanmar's Rohingya Crisis: George Soros, Oil, & Lessons For India
Authored by Shelley Kasli via GGINews.com,
ZeroHedge,
11 September, 2017
"When George Soros comes to this or that country... he looks for religious, ethnic or social contradictions, chooses the model of action for one of these options or their combination and tries to 'warm them up'," Egorchenkov explained...
The ongoing crisis in Myanmar including tensions between Buddhist and Muslim communities and the military crackdown by Myanmar Army and police seems to be a multidimensional crisis with major geopolitical players involved according to a report by Sputnik International.
As
per the report Dmitry Mosyakov, director of the Centre for Southeast
Asia, Australia and Oceania at the Institute of Oriental Studies of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, told RT
that the
conflict “was apparently fanned by external global players” and
“has at least three dimensions”.
“First, this is a game against China, as China has very large investments in Arakan [Rakhine],” Mosyakov told RT.
“Second, it is aimed at fuelling Muslim extremism in Southeast Asia….
Third, it’s the attempt to sow discord within ASEAN [between Myanmar and Muslim-dominated Indonesia and Malaysia].”
Нефть, Сорос и кровавый террор: что на самом деле стоит за гонениями на мусульман в Мьянме
“First, this is a game against China, as China has very large investments in Arakan [Rakhine],” Mosyakov told RT.
“Second, it is aimed at fuelling Muslim extremism in Southeast Asia….
Third, it’s the attempt to sow discord within ASEAN [between Myanmar and Muslim-dominated Indonesia and Malaysia].”
The conflict is mostly concentrated in the country’s northwestern region in the Rakhine State which consists of vast reserves of hydrocarbons located offshore. This vast reserve of hydrocarbon is the major reason why external players are using the conflict to undermine Southeast Asian stability, according to Mosyakov.
“There’s a huge gas field named Than Shwe after the general who had long ruled Burma,” Mosyakov said.
In 2004 this massive Rakhine energy reserves were discovered and by 2013 China had connected Myanmar’s port of Kyaukphyu with the Chinese city of Kunming in Yunnan province with oil and natural gas pipelines. Through this oil pipeline China can bypass the world’s most congested shipping choke points – the Malacca Straits, while through the gas pipeline hydrocarbons from Myanmar’s offshore fields are transported to China.
The development of the Sino-Myanmar energy project coincided with the intensification of the Rohingya conflict in 2011-2012 when 120,000 asylum seekers left the country escaping the bloodshed.
Dmitry Egorchenkov, deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognosis at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia doesn’t believe that this is a coincidence. Although there are certain internal causes behind the Rohingya crisis, Dmitry believes that the crisis might be fueled by external players, most notably, George Soros.
By destabilizing Myanmar they could directly target China’s energy projects.
George Soros funded Burma Task Force has been actively operating in Myanmar since 2013 although Soros interference in Myanmar’s domestic affairs goes deeper than that.
In 2003, George Soros joined a US Task Force group aimed at increasing “US cooperation with other countries to bring about a long overdue political, economic and social transformation in Burma [Myanmar].”
A document published by the Council of Foreign Relation’s (CFR) in 2003 entitled “Burma: Time For Change,” states that “democracy… cannot survive in Burma without the help of the United States and the international community” and calls for an establishment of a group to implement the project.
Burma: Time For Change
“When George Soros comes to this or that country… he looks for religious, ethnic or social contradictions, chooses the model of action for one of these options or their combination and tries to ‘warm them up,'” Egorchenkov explained, speaking with RT.According to Mosyakov, it is a globalist management policy to sow discord in nations by fuelling regional conflicts which allows them to exert pressure on those nations and ultimately gain control over theirsovereignty. A recent example is the Ukrainian Crisis and the Greek Crisis before that. When the flames are out and the country ravaged with the crisis, it is time for the vultures to descend.
“BUY WHEN THERE IS BLOOD ON THE STREETS, EVEN IF THE BLOOD IS YOUR OWN”
– THESE ARE THE WORDS OF NATHAN MAYER ROTHSCHILD OF THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, ONE OF THE FAMILY BLOODLINES THAT CONTROLLED THE EAST INDIA COMPANIES.
Lesson for India
- Sudarshan Chakra, not Indradhanush, needed for state-owned banks, says Viral Acharya. https://goo.gl/Ba5srA
What he means by Sudarshan Chakra is to sell off Indian PSU Banks to foreign players via #PARA, as we report here
His solution is to simple sell-off state owned units to foreign players bankrupted in the 2008 crisis. You can read all about it here – PARA – A New Central Bank For Strategic Sale Of India.
These
Money Masters doesn’t lose anything in case the situation escalates
and war erupts between China and Myanmar, infact they have everything
to gain from it; just like they had everything to gain from the
Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Educated
folks call it Balance of Power. It is through this same strategy of
Balance of Power that even the India-China conflict is being
orchestrated. But we don’t have to rely on war to be in debt, our
policy makers are already doing a good job at it. We are already in
the midst of a major crisis, be it agriculture, economy, civil
society and press or defense and security.
This is the direction our policy makers have set for us, and it leads
directly to destruction, unless we do a major course correction.
Could such a crisis be orchestrated in India?
This
is the hypothetical question we raised after
Liquor baron Vijay Mallya was allowed to flee India to take refuge in
London. This
was not the first time a person fleeing local law in foreign
countries had taken shelter in London. Since
decades, high-profile foreign offenders with considerable wealth have
found refuge and a safe place to park their assets and enjoy a
peaceful life in Britain.
Similar
is the case of Russia. Immediately
after the collapse of the Soviet Union large-scale privatization of
state-owned assets was implemented. From Glasnost and Perestroika
(liberalization and privatization or globalization) – the tools
created by the East India Company for
enslavement of their colonies (known at the time as Free Trade)
emerged the Oligarchs – who amassed vast wealth by acquiring state
assets very cheaply (or for free) during the privatization process.
After
coming to power Vladimir Putin set about on a massive purging of
these oligarchs from Russia, the power struggle that continues to
this day. The most famous case is that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. In
2003, Khodorkovsky was believed to be the wealthiest man in Russia
(with a fortune estimated to be worth $15 billion) who accumulated
considerable wealth through obtaining control of a series of Siberian
oil fields unified under the name Yukos, one of the major companies
to emerge from the privatization of state assets during the
1990s.
Khodorkovsky
was later backed up by Henry Kissinger, George Soros and Rothschilds
as a candidate to run for a Presidential election against Putin as
well as for an attempted revolution.
UK
has been traditionally the largest sanctuary to not just money
launderers and fraudsters but foreign terrorists and extremists as
well. Everybody, who is somebody in the world of terrorism, has found
a rear base in the UK.
There
are as many as 131
pending pleas for extradition of wanted criminals from Britain by
Indiaalone.
Below
are just some of the cases of individuals wanted in India and living
in Britain:
-
Vijay Mallya (financial offences)
-
Lalit Modi (financial offences)
-
Ravi Shankaran (accused in the Indian Navy war room leak case)
-
Tiger Hanif (wanted in connection with two bomb attacks in Gujarat in 1993)
-
Nadeem Saifi (music director accused and acquitted in the Gulshan Kumar murder)
-
Raymond Varley (accused in child abuse cases in Goa)
-
Lord Sudhir Choudhrie (one of India’s most notorious arms-dealers and Italian consortium’s middleman in Finmeccanica helicopter scandal)
-
Several individuals related to the Khalistan movement
-
Several individuals related to the LTTE
Even
MQM leader Altaf Hussein resides in London, under the protection of
the British government, which has refused Pakistani government
requests for his extradition to face trial for murder.
Last
year, Khodorkovsky said Open
Russia (a George Soros funded organisation) would provide logistical
backing to 230 candidates running from various opposition parties or
on independent tickets in September from the headquarters of his Open
Russia foundation in London. With
rise of Indian Oligarchs increasingly finding asylum in Britain, is
it a far-fetched scenario for India as well when these Indian
Oligarchs would be used for inciting revolution in India or even
orchestrating elections – that is in case India goes for course
correction?
Even
so, there
is a way to avert such a scenario as well as the impending crisis.
After
Putin kicked them out of Russia the same Oligarchs setup shop in
India under the same tried and tested ideology of enslavement –
Glasnost and Perestroika (called in India as Liberalization and
Privatization) during the 90s.
It
is this group of Oligarchs or Robber Barons (as they are known in the
United States of America) that is still operational in India.
What
our intelligence agencies should be doing instead of spying on
opposition political parties and depending on foreign agencies for
information and direction is to track this shadow network and
dismantle its grip on India as was done in America (the process that
still continues to this day).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.