On the Cusp of Ending Big Pharma

Gene therapy threatens to disrupt forever big-pharma's profiteering, but not without a fight.

December 28, 2012  (LD) - Imagine being diagnosed with cancer, a genetic disease, or even age-related deterioration in the morning, given a single injection in the evening, and beginning your recovery the next day. No prescriptions, no lengthy treatments, no difficult decisions between finances and getting better. This is the promise of gene therapy, a promise already being fulfilled.

Image: One method of gene therapy - taking human cells, "editing" them genetically, and reinserting them into the human body where they will replicate and carry out their newly designed functions. (Microsoft Encarta Online Concise Encyclopedia)

....

Gene therapy is the identifying of faulty genes, be they inherent or mutations in the form of cancer or aging, and designing a vector to replace the faulty genes with fully functional, repaired versions of your genetic code. Once introduced, the corrected genes replicate themselves, displacing aged, mutated, or faulty versions. The technology is a double edged sword however - and can be used to harm just as well as help - in very profound ways. Public awareness and engagement in the emerging field of genetics is an absolute necessity to ensure this technology is used for good rather than profit, or worse yet, increasing death and disparity.

A Promising Sword Still in the Hands of a Dangerous Enemy  


The prospect of using the concepts behind gene therapy for genospecific weapons was mentioned in the Neo-Conservative Project for a New American Century's (PNAC) 2000 report titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (.pdf) which stated:

The proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will make it much easier to project military power around the globe.  Munitions themselves will become increasingly accurate, while new methods of attack – electronic, “non-lethal,” biological – will be more widely available. (p.71 of .pdf)

Although it may take several decade for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and  “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes.  (p.72 of .pdf)

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. (p.72 of .pdf)

This September 2000 document would also state (emphasis added) :

A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. (p.63 of .pdf)

Exactly one year later, the US would "serendipitously" experience "a new Pearl Harbor," described as such by the very signatories of this report. This "catastrophic and catalyzing," not to mention convenient, event was the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The "transformations" described by the 2000 PNAC document would then unfold in quick succession, including elements described under "cyber-space" warfare now demonstrably unfolding against  nations like Iran. 

Likewise, ideological partners of PNAC at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), namely Jon Entine, constitute modern day Nazi eugenicists, who have literally penned articles advocating a renaissance of the disgraced inherently racist pseudo-scientific discipline while laying the groundwork for legitimizing genospecific policies - including in warfare. When it is time to present genospecific weapons to the public, it will be those like Entine at the AEI crafting the talking points.

Entine is also a tireless supporter of genetically modified organisms (GMO), more specifically the poisoned, dangerous products of big-agri giants like Monsanto and Syngenta. His website, the "Genetic Literacy Project" is a shameless clearing house for big-agri lobbying efforts - funded by big-agri. His ties to corporate-subsidized academia and corporate special interests indicates that his intentions to abuse this technology are not merely the rants of a single man, but an institutionalized agenda he serves as a spokesman for.

People like Entine thrive because of the vast and profound public ignorance surrounding genetics in general as well as topics including genetic engineering, gene therapy, and the threats and opportunities each represents. A real genetic literacy project, run by local DIYbio community labs (video), with hands-on projects and workshops, would go a long way in combating big-agri's reality skewing "Genetic Literacy Project." Tying these local groups with nearby institutions not only helps keep those on an institutional level honest, but also working in the best interests of the majority, with communities supporting them.

When lies are told by the likes of Entine and other paid-for faux-academics, a well armed population will be immediately aware of it. With a network of increasingly better equipped community labs, people will have the means of holding accountable corporate-giants, and combating their encroachments upon their communities in terms of agriculture and health care. In the light of truth, people like Entine and those he represents cannot operate with the impunity they now enjoy.

Image: Glybera - the first Western-approved gene therapy may treat a rare genetic disorder affecting the pancreas for an entire lifetime with a single treatment. One doesn't need to stretch their imagination far to imagine the consequences this will have on big-pharma profiteering, nor the measures they will take to protect their interests. Ultimately, such treatments belong in the people's hands - not special interests and the governments that serve them. 

....

Another threat exists, coupled with the very promise of gene therapy. In November of 2012, the first gene therapy to get Western approval  made news. Called Glybera, developed by Amsterdam-based UniQure, it treats a rare genetic condition that effects the pancreas. Glybera may be effective over the course of an entire lifetime, meaning it is a one-time treatment. Jörn Aldag, CEO of UniQure, proposed a question, "how do you price a one-off treatment?"

In reality, disease is like a war. A nation would not "price" the survival of their nation in the face of a looming enemy, nor should they "price" the survival of their population in the face of disease. Of all the things a nation should throw public money at, an institution of health producing permanent cures for disease and age related deterioration should be at the top of the list. Unsustainable national health care schemes consuming billions of dollars a year, in need of rationing care, as well as compromising on quality, would be transformed by such an initiative. Special interests would be the only ones to lose out, and because special interests currently drive human destiny, this is precisely why such a transformation is not on the drawing board, or part of public discourse.

Again, public ignorance provides the shadows within which this racket is allowed to continue. While Glybera is the first gene therapy to be approved, treating a very rare genetic condition, many other treatments are being tested - including cures for hemophilia and even blood cancers. Such revolutionary work should be at the center of public health news and debate - as well as how to direct more resources into this research considering the profound long-term benefits it will have on every single member of society. Expanding the human resources necessary to research and develop a new health care paradigm should also be at the center of public health debate. However, it is not.

Instead, policy issues such as health insurance, government subsidies, and rationing are the political footballs of choice used to distract the public from real paradigm-shifting issues. Such policies not only preserve the current big-pharma profiteering rackets, but help expand them in stride with financial frauds across the multinational insurance "industry."

Disarming the Enemy 

The answer is not to wait for politicians and the corporate-media to address these topics and hold the discourse required - as both are partnered with the very corporate-financier interests perpetuating this false paradigm. Instead, the people must take matters into their own hands, decentralizing both the debate on health care as well as tackling health care issues themselves.

The first step is educating ourselves and the public of both the promises and the current realities of the expanding field of genetics and bioengineering. With the Internet and free university open courseware lectures, anyone can take a crash course (MIT OCW - video) on the basics of genetics and bioengineering.

Introduction to Biology (MIT 2005)
Introduction to Bioengineering (MIT 2006)
Bioengineering 200 Lecture 1 (Berkeley 2011)

With a table, a sink, and basic kitchen equipment, local groups already meeting in the context of hackerspaces or makerspaces, can begin exploring and educating others about biology and genetics. Inviting professionals in to oversee more complex experiments, classes, and demonstrations, as well as manage safety and provide educational opportunities for the public can be a next step. Many university competitions involve bioengineering. Teams require a space to meet and conduct research, to design and test experiments. A community initiative to provide students with a permanent place to do this can lead to a community lab - opening the door to a larger collective community of DIYbio enthusiasts.

Video: Genspace is a community lab located in New York City. It provides a model for other communities to follow - one that is both responsible and holds immense implications as people begin to engage at a grassroots level in driving science and technology. While many worry about such technology in the hands of ordinary people, DIYbio will most likely take the form of the Internet - where trouble makers are vastly outnumbered, and their disruptions easily managed by an increasingly informed and capable tech community.

....

Just as 3D printers and other forms of increasingly affordable and capable manufacturing equipment are finding their way into local spaces created by various community initiatives, biomedical technology will likewise become more affordable and easier to use by a greater number of people. It is important to have the local human resources and infrastructure to support leveraging this technology for the best interests of the people - not only institutions and corporations.

Educating ourselves, others, as well as creating a community space for developing and deploying biotechnology may seem like a small step to take. But communities across America, and around the world doing this in parallel will have a profound impact on both the health care debate, as well as health care itself. It will encourage a well informed air of transparency around this currently misunderstood and monopolized discipline. 

Large pharmaceutical corporations and even IT corporations like IBM and Google seeking to skew the course of public health care, will no longer be able to hide in the shadows of public ignorance and perpetuate an unsustainable, inhumane, profiteering approach to human health care. Everyone deserves the absolute best health care possible - and that can only be done through technological innovation built upon a solid foundation of education within a well informed, productive and engaged society. Current policy seems designed to accomplish the exact opposite, to leave society ignorant, blind, and at the whims of an increasingly unstable ruling elite.

There is an army of people like Jon Entine, bent in service to special interests who have documented their intent on monopolizing and abusing bioengineering as a means of profit and literally as a weapon of war. Unlike bullets, genospecific weapons have the capability of permanently and profoundly changing the very nature of what it means to be human. Those monopolizing such weaponry have the ability to either wipe us out entirely, or transform us into something entirely inhuman - subservient - or as Bertrand Russell put it:

Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. - "The Impact of Science on Society (.pdf)" by Bertrand Russell, page 51 (page 29 of .pdf)

In Russell's time, genetic engineering - instant selective breeding - was not a possibility, but what Russell's quote indicates is that the motivation exists amongst the ruling elite to achieve such disparity. Now they have the tools to achieve it within a single lifetime. We have the ability to break this monopoly, and replace disparity with a full spectrum balance of power by localizing civilization's infrastructure from the mundane, to the cutting edge of technology.

Reclaiming human progress, technology, and innovation through localization is perhaps the most important battle of our time, one that will leave the victor on top, forever.

Read More

UN Syria "Peace Plan" a Fraud

December 28, 2012 (LD) - UN "peace envoy" Lakhdar Brahimi  is attempting to broker a transitional government ahead of proposed elections in Syria. For Brahimi, his efforts are not only in vain, they are entirely disingenuous. The proposal of a "transitional government" in the midst of what is in fact a foreign invasion, funded, armed, and perpetuated openly by foreign interests violates both Syria's sovereignty and the UN's own founding charter. It would be not unlike a UN envoy visiting Poland at the beginning of World War II, and proposing a transitional government in the midst of the Nazi invasion. The UN would clearly be a facilitator of injustice, not a broker of peace.

The LA Times reports in their article, "Lakhdar Brahimi works to revive Syria peace plan": 

"Peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi made a new push Thursday to draw Syrian officials and rebels into negotiations, aiming to revive a plan for a transitional government and elections that faltered because of disagreements over the future of President Bashar Assad."

The UN has categorically failed to delineate between legitimate opposition inside of Syria, and bands of roving armed terrorists committing wide scale atrocities against the Syrian people - many of whom are not even from Syria, all of whom are heavily armed by the US, NATO, and its regional allies including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar as part of a long standing plan to effect regime change in both Syria and Iran. The Western press is not only supporting the UN's disingenuous efforts, it has gone through great lengths to delegitimize any opposition in Syria that refuses to pick up arms, or that speaks out against foreign intervention.

While the LA Times attempts to make the UN plan seem reasonable, with only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russia standing in the way of peace, in reality, the plan is yet another effort to frame the conflict as a political struggle instead of the foreign invasion it actually is.

Syria is Being Invaded by Foreign Terrorists

The armed "rebels" the UN is refusing to condemn, constitute foreign Al Qaeda fighters, including the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed international terrorist organization, the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Al Nusra also known as "Al Qaeda in Iraq," and Syrian Muslim Brotherhood extremists. None of these terrorist factions would be negotiated with by Western nations if by some means their weapons turned from Syria and back toward the West. Yet the West demands that they not only be recognized and negotiated with, but indeed handed the entire nation of Syria to rule over. 

In November 2011, the Telegraph in their article, "Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group," would report:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey," said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. "Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there." 

Another Telegraph article, "Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels," would admit

Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya's new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad's regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested "assistance" from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.

"There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria," said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see."

Later that month, some 600 Libyan terrorists would be reported to have entered Syria to begin combat operations and in July 2012, CNN, whose Ivan Watson accompanied terrorists over the Turkish-Syrian border and into Aleppo, revealed that indeed foreign fighters were amongst the militants, particularly Libyans. It was admitted that:

Meanwhile, residents of the village where the Syrian Falcons were headquartered said there were fighters of several North African nationalities also serving with the brigade's ranks.

A volunteer Libyan fighter has also told CNN he intends to travel from Turkey to Syria within days to add a "platoon" of Libyan fighters to armed movement.

 CNN also added:

On Wednesday, CNN’s crew met a Libyan fighter who had crossed into Syria from Turkey with four other Libyans. The fighter wore full camouflage and was carrying a Kalashnikov rifle. He said more Libyan fighters were on the way.

The foreign fighters, some of them are clearly drawn because they see this as … a jihad. So this is a magnet for jihadists who see this as a fight for Sunni Muslims.

In essence, Syria has been under invasion for nearly a year by Libyan terrorists. Additionally, in the immediate aftermath of the US recognizing its own handpicked "opposition coalition" as the "representatives of the Syrian people," its leader, Moaz al-Khatib, immediately demanded that the US lift sanctions on Al Qaeda terrorist organization al-Nusra.

Reuters quoted al-Khatib as saying:

"The decision to consider a party that is fighting the regime as a terrorist party needs to be reviewed. We might disagree with some parties and their ideas and their political and ideological vision. But we affirm that all the guns of the rebels are aimed at overthrowing the tyrannical criminal regime."

Not only is the West refusing to acknowledge that Syria's conflict is one of foreign and domestic terrorism, it is actively arming, funding, and offering safe haven to these terrorist factions. NATO-member Turkey is directly complicit in facilitating Libya's extraterritorial aggression by hosting Libyan fighters within its borders, while coordinating their funding, arming, and logistics as they cross the Turkish-Syrian border. Along Turkey's borders also facilitating Libya's invasion of Syria, is America's CIA.

The New York Times admitted in June 2012 in their article, "C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition," that "CIA officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey," and directing weapons including, "automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons." The NYT implicates Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar as the primary underwriters for the weapons while the CIA coordinates the logistics.

Image: The "Friends of Syria" represent many of the co-conspirators described in Seymour Hersh's extensive 9 page report "The Redirection." Syria's violence is not the result of an indigenous uprising carrying "political aspirations," but rather the conspiring and machinations of the global elite, who long-ago  premeditated the destruction of Syria for their own, larger, overarching geopolitical agenda.

....

US policy versus Syria stretches as far back as 2007, where US officials admitted that they planned to overthrow the government of Syria with foreign-sectarian extremists, using nations like Saudi Arabia to channel funds and weapons through - specifically to maintain the illusion that they were somehow not involved.

Seymour Hersh's lengthy 9 page report, "The Redirection" published in the New Yorker in 2007 exposes US plans to use clandestine means to overthrow the government of Syria in a wider effort to undermine and destroy Iran. "A by-product of these activities," writes Hersh, "has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

Al-Nusra are openly affiliates of Al Qaeda. To say that Libya's LIFG are "sympathetic to Al Qaeda" would, however, be misleading. It is Al Qaeda.

LIFG merged with the US-Saudi created terror organization in 2007, according to the US Army's West Point Combating Terrorism Center report, "Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq:"

The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al‐Qa’ida, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al‐Qa’ida on November 3, 2007. (page 9, .pdf)

Hersh's report would continue by stating, "the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria." This included billions to pro-Saudi factions in Lebanon who were propping up militant groups linked to Al Qaeda. These militant groups are now crossing over the Lebanese-Syrian border to join their Libyan counterparts.

Clearly the conspiracy being pieced together and executed in 2007, described by Seymour Hersh citing a myriad of US, Saudi, and Lebanese sources, is unfolding before our eyes. It was a conspiracy hatched of mutual US-Israeli-Saudi interests, not based on humanitarian concerns or "democracy," but rather on toppling sovereign nations seen as a threat to their collective extraterritorial influence throughout the region.

The UN's failure to acknowledge a documented conspiracy by foreign interests to violently overthrow the government of Syria (and eventually Iran) once again exposes the international body as a tool for special interests. Its attempts to broker a "peace plan" between foreign terrorists invading Syria as proxies for Western powers, lacks any dimension of legitimacy. The Syrian government and its allies must redouble their efforts to frame the conflict as the invasion that it is - and call for both support and patience globally while Syria confronts and defeats these foreign invaders and the foreign interests arming and driving them.

Lakhdar Brahimi, like Kofi Annan before him, is simply buying time for the West's crumbling narrative. Syria and its allies must finally let it crumble, so the real business of saving Syria can get underway - through nation-wide anti-terrorism security operations, and the diplomatic confrontation of foreign interests supporting terrorism in and around Syria.

Read More

NYT Defends Fortune 500's Global Human Exploitation

December 27, 2012 (LD) - While the US funds and arms sectarian death squads across the Arab World under the guise of "promoting democracy," it props its own economy up on a vast network of global human exploitation. From Walmart's sweatshop-death traps in Bangladesh, to Apple's deplorable partnership with Taiwan's Foxconn, millions go underpaid while overworked under dangerous, inhumane conditions to fuel America's consumerist paradigm.

Public backlash against these practices range from outrage over human exploitation (less common) to complaints that the West's economies are suffering due to these outsourced jobs (more common). As this backlash increases, and as technology reaches a point where real viable local alternatives may soon displace large, centralized corporations, a perfect storm is forming on the horizon.

Helping to stave off the inevitable, is the New York Times, whose article, "Signs of Changes Taking Hold in Electronics Factories in China," makes an absolute mockery out of both their own readership's intelligence as well as the plight of the vast workforce subjected to Western human exploitation. The "signs of change" NYT reports on, include the replacement of 5 dollar plastic stools with 10 dollar wooden chairs and "increased wages" that still fall well below fair compensation.

In reality, corporations like Walmart and Apple do business overseas because the workers they exploit there will never have to be fairly compensated or treated humanely to the degree demanded in the West - should they ever be, there would be absolutely no point of outsourcing jobs overseas in the first place. But the NYT piece serves the purpose of giving faux-progress reports to faux-progressives - allowing them to continue tapping away on their iPads, purchased from the consumer troughs of mega-retailers like Target and Walmart, absolutely guilt-free.

The comments following the NYT piece range from the absurd:

"Good luck fighting climate change if everyone were compensated (and consumed) at US levels."

To the highly relevant:

"Message is, stop buying Apple's stuff until they move production back here to the US." 

And of course, the message is, "stop buying Apple's stuff," a message the New York Times hopes you don't get, and one it was most likely approached by corporate lobbyists to stifle with pandering tales of 10 dollar wooden chairs and how such empty, woefully inadequate gestures somehow constitute "labor reform."

Indeed, the hypocrisy of the West is astounding. It screams for democracy and human rights in nations it has yet to despoil with its vast corporate monopolies, while it ravages the nations that are doing business for and with them - all the while its own populations back home slide into destitution, debt, and socioeconomic decay.

The message is, "stop buying Apple's stuff," and not until they move production back to the US - which will never happen - but until they go out of business permanently. We have the technology and the ability to decentralize everything from the automotive industry, to electronics, to big retail. It is time we stop allowing the New York Times to perpetuate the rotting consumerist paradigm we know is unsustainable, and replace it with local entrepreneurship, leveraging the latest in technology, and building the communities, and nation we want, rather than picking from the poor choices corporate-financier interests present to us on the shelves of Walmart, and at the polls come election day. 

Read More

US Attempting Regime Change in Malaysia: Fact or fiction?

­December 27, 2012 (RT - Nile Bowie) - As the South-East Asian nation of Malaysia prepares for general elections, distrust of the political opposition and accusations of foreign interference have been major talking points in the political frequencies emanating from Kuala Lumpur.

­The United Malays National Organization (UMNO) leads the country’s ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, and has maintained power since Malaysian independence in 1957.

One of Malaysia’s most recognizable figures is former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who has been credited with ushering in large-scale economic growth and overseeing the nation’s transition from an exporter of palm oil, tin, and other raw materials, into an industrialized economy that manufactures automobiles and electronic goods.

The opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, is headed by Anwar Ibrahim, who once held the post of Deputy Prime Minister in Mahathir’s administration, but was sacked over major disagreements on how to steer Malaysia’s economy during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

Today, the political climate in Malaysia is highly polarized and a sense of unpredictability looms over the nation. Malaysia’s current leader, Prime Minister Najib Razak, has pursued a reform-minded agenda by repealing authoritarian legislation of the past and dramatically loosening controls on expression and political pluralism introduced under Mahathir’s tenure.

Najib has rolled back Malaysia’s Internal Security Act, which allowed for indefinite detention without trial, and has liberalized rules regarding the publication of books and newspapers. During Malaysia’s 2008 general elections, the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition experienced its worst result in decades, with the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition winning 82 parliamentary seats. For the first time, the ruling party was deprived of its two-thirds parliamentary majority, which is required to pass amendments to Malaysia’s Federal Constitution.

In the run-up to elections scheduled to take place before an April 2013 deadline, figures from all sides of the political spectrum are asking questions about the opposition’s links to foreign-funders in Washington.
The question of foreign-funding

Malaysia’s former PM Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has long captured the ire of officials from Washington and Tel Aviv, and though he’s retired, he has channeled his energies into the Perdana Global Peace Foundation, which recently hosted an international conference in Kuala Lumpur calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 and has sought to investigate war crimes committed in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mahathir has been an ardent critic of Israel and organizations such as AIPAC, and has recently accused US-based organizations the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) of holding a concealed intention to influence Malaysia’s domestic politics through the funding of local NGOs and groups directly linked to Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Rakyat opposition coalition.

In an article the former prime minister published in the New Straits Times, a leading mainstream newspaper, Mahathir accuses financier George Soros and his organization, the Open Society Institute, of “promoting democracy” in Eastern Europe to pave the way for colonization by global finance capital.

Mahathir acknowledges how OSI pumped millions into opposition movements and independent media in Hungary, Ukraine and Georgia under the guise of strengthening civil society, only to have like-minded individuals nominated by Soros’s own foundation come to power in those countries.

The former prime minister has also pointed to how Egypt (prior to Mohamad Morsi taking power) has cracked down on NGOs affiliated with NED, namely groups such as the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House, which are all recipients of funding from the US State Department.

In Malaysia, high-profile NGOs and media outlets have admittedly received funding from OSI and satellite organizations of NED. Premesh Chandran, the CEO of the nation’s most prominent alternative media outlet, Malaysiakini, is a grantee of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and launched the news organization with a $100,000 grant from the Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), another organization with dubious affiliations to the US State Department.

Malaysiakini has come under pressure from local journalists for the lack of transparency in its financial management and hesitance in revealing the value of its shares. Additionally, Suaram, an NGO promoting human rights, has borne heavy criticism over its funding and organizational structure. The Companies Commission of Malaysia launched investigations into Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, a private company linked to Suaram, and found it to be a conduit for money being used to channel funds from NED.

Suaram has been instrumental in legitimizing allegations of a possible cover-up of the murder of a Mongolian fashion model, Altantuya Shaaribuu, who was living in Malaysia in 2006 and associated with government officials that have been linked to a kickback scandal involving the government’s purchase of submarines from France. Senator Ezam Mohd Nor, himself a recipient of Suaram’s Human Rights Award, has accused the organization of employing poor research methods and attempting to disparage the government:

“Malaysians have the right to feel suspicious about them. They have been making personal allegations against the Prime Minister [Najib Razak] on the murder of Altantuya and many other cases without proof… their motive is very questionable especially when they are more inclined towards ridiculing and belittling the ruling government.”

The German Embassy in KL has reportedly admitted that it has provided funds to Suaram's project in 2010. Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Anifah Aman followed by making strong statements to the German Ambassador and declared that Germany’s actions could be viewed as interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state.

Since 2007, Bersih, an association of NGOs calling itself the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, staged three street protests in which thousands of yellow-clad demonstrators took to the streets in Kuala Lumpur demanding electoral reform. After coming under heavy scrutiny for obfuscating funding sources, Bersih coalition leader Ambiga Sreenevasan admitted that her organization receives funding from the National Democratic Institute and the Open Society Institute.

Sreenevasan herself has been the recipient of the US State Department’s Award for International Women of Courage, and was present in Washington DC in 2009 to receive the award directly from the hands of Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While Sreenevasan’s organization claimed to be non-partisan and apolitical, members of Malaysia’s political opposition openly endorsed the movement, and some were even present at the demonstrations.

Anatomy of Malaysia’s political opposition

 

Malaysia is a multi-cultural and multi-religious state, and both the ruling and opposition parties attempt to represent the nation’s three largest ethnic groups. Approximately 60 per cent of Malaysians are either ethnic Malay or other indigenous groups and are mostly listed as Muslim, while another 25 per cent are ethnic Chinese who are predominantly Buddhist, with 7 per cent mostly Hindu Indian-Malaysians.

The United Malays National Organization, the Malaysian Chinese Association, and the Malaysian Indian Congress head Barisan Nasional. The opposition, Pakatan Rakyat, currently controls four state governments and is led by Anwar Ibrahim’s Keadilan Rakyat, the Chinese-led Democratic Action Party (DAP), and staunchly Islamist Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS).

While a large percentage of urbanites with legitimate grievances are quick to acknowledge the government’s shortcomings, many are hesitant to back Anwar Ibrahim due to his connections with neo-conservative thinkers in Washington and general disunity within the opposition. 

Ibrahim maintains close ties with senior US officials and organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy. In 2005, Ibrahim chaired the Washington-based Foundation for the Future, established and funded by the US Department of State at the behest of Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, thanks in large part to his cozy relationship with Paul Wolfowitz.

While Ibrahim was on trial for allegedly engaging in sodomy with a male aide (of which he was acquitted sometime later), Wolfowitz and former US Vice-President Al Gore authored a joint opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal in support of Ibrahim, while the Washington Post published an editorial calling for consequences that would affect Malaysia’s relations with Washington if Ibrahim was to be found guilty. Ibrahim enraged many when he stated that he would support policy to protect the security of Israel in an interview with the Wall Street Journal; this is particularly controversial in Malaysia, where support for Palestine is largely unanimous.

Malaysian political scientist Dr. Chandra Muzaffar writes: 

“It is obvious that by acknowledging the primacy of Israeli security, Anwar was sending a clear message to the deep state and to Tel Aviv and Washington that he is someone that they could trust. In contrast, the Najib government, in spite of its attempts to get closer to Washington, remains critical of Israeli aggression and intransigence. Najib has described the Israeli government as a ‘serial killer’ and a ‘gangster.’”

Members of Barisan Nasional have addressed Ibrahim’s connections to the National Endowment for Democracy in the Malaysian Parliament, including his participation in NED’s ‘Democracy Award’ event held in Washington DC in 2007. Independent journalists have uncovered letters written by Anwar Ibrahim, two of which were sent to NED President Carl Gershman in Washington DC that discussed sending an international election observer team to Malaysia and general issues related to electoral reform.

A third letter was sent to George Soros, expressing interest in collaborating with an accountability firm headed by Ibrahim. Pakatan Rakyat’s Communications Director, Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, verified the authenticity of the documents. This should come as little surprise, as Ibrahim’s economic policies have historically aligned with institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, in contrast to Mahathir, whose protectionist economic policies opposed international financial institutions and allowed Malaysia to navigate and largely resurface from the 1997 Asian financial crisis unscathed.

An issue that concerns secular and non-Muslim Malaysian voters is the role of the Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) as part of the opposition. In sharp contrast to the moderate brand of Islam preached by UMNO, the organization’s primary objective is the founding of an Islamic state.

The PAS has spoken of working within the framework of Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy, but holds steadfast to implementing sharia law on a national scale, which would lead to confusing implications for Malaysia’s sizable non-Muslim population. The debate around the implementation of Islamic hudud penal code is something that other Pakatan Rakyat coalition members, such as figures in the Chinese-led Democratic Action Party, have been unable to agree on.

The PAS enjoys support from rural Malay Muslims in conservative states such as Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu in northern Malaysia, though they have very limited appeal to urbanites. While certain individuals in PAS have raised questions about NGOs receiving foreign funding, Mahathir has insinuated that PAS’s leadership has been largely complicit:

“They [foreign interests] want to topple the government through the demonstration and Nik Aziz [Spiritual leader of PAS] said it is permissible to bring down the government in this manner. They want to make Malaysia like Egypt, Tunisia, which were brought down through riots and now Syria…. when the government does not fall, they [Pakatan Rakyat] can appeal to the foreign power to help and bring down, even if it means using fire power.”

 

Protestors form a human chain in the city center of Kuala Lumpur during April 2012 protests in support of the Bersih coalition (Photo by Nile Bowie)

­

Feasibility of ‘regime change’ narrative

It must be acknowledged that the current administration led by Prime Minister Najib Razak has made great strides toward improving relations with Washington. At a meeting with President Barack Obama in 2010, Najib offered Malaysia’s assistance to cooperate with the United States to engage the Muslim world; Najib also expressed willingness to deploy Malaysian aid personnel to Afghanistan, and allegedly agreed on the need to maintain a unified front on Iran's nuclear program.

Najib has employed a Washington-based public relations firm, APCO, to improve Malaysia’s image in the US and has seemingly embraced American economic leadership of the region through his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Some would argue that Najib is perhaps the most pro-American leader Malaysia has ever had – a stark contrast to the boldness of Mahathir.

Despite Najib having good rapport with formal Western leaders, it is clear with whom the thank-tank policy architects, Zionist lobbies, and foundation fellows have placed their loyalties.

Sentiment among Malaysia’s youth and “pro-democracy” activists, who constitute a small but vocal minority, tend be entirely dismissive of the ‘regime change’ narrative, viewing it as pre-election diversionary rhetoric of the ruling party. While bogeymen of the Zionist variety are often invoked in Malaysian political discourse, it would be negligent to ignore the effects of Washington-sponsored ‘democracy promotion’ in the global context, which have in recent times cloaked mercenary elements and insurgents in the colors of freedom fighting, and successfully masked geopolitical restructuring and the ushering in of neo-liberal capitalism with the hip and fashionable vigor of ‘people power’ coups.

As the United States continues to militarily increase its presence in the Pacific region in line with its strategic policy-shift to East Asia, policy makers in Washington would like to see compliant heads of state who will act to further American interests in the ASEAN region.

Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room; the real purpose of America’s resurgence of interest in the ASEAN bloc is to fortify the region as a counterweight against Beijing.

The defense ministries of Malaysia and China held a landmark defense and security consultation in September 2012, in addition to frequent bilateral state visits and enhanced economic cooperation. It was the father of the current leader, Malaysia's second Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak, who made the landmark visit to Beijing to normalize relations in 1974, and under his son Najib, Sino-Malaysian relations and cooperation have never been better.

Following the global economic crisis of 2008, Najib looked to Beijing to revive Malaysia's export oriented economy, emphasizing increased Chinese investment into Malaysia and expanding the base of Sino-Malaysian trade in areas like education and student exchange, finance, infrastructure development, science and technology, yielding lucrative and mutually beneficial results. China has been Malaysia's largest trade partner, with trade figures reaching US$90 billion in 2011; Malaysia is China’s largest trading partner among ASEAN nations.

In asking the question of regime change in Malaysia, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar reflects on Washington’s moves to bolster its military muscle and dominance over the Asia-Pacific region:

“Establishing a military base in Darwin [Australia], resurrecting the US’ military alliance with the Philippines, coaxing Japan to play a more overt military role in the region, instigating Vietnam to confront China over the Spratly Islands, and encouraging India to counterbalance Chinese power, are all part and parcel of the larger US agenda of encircling and containing China. In pursuing this agenda, the US wants reliable allies – not just friends – in Asia. In this regard, Malaysia is important because of its position as a littoral state with sovereign rights over the Straits of Malacca, which is one of China’s most critical supply routes that transports much of the oil and other materials vital for its economic development. Will the containment of China lead to a situation where the hegemon, determined to perpetuate its dominant power, seek to exercise control over the Straits in order to curb China’s ascendancy? Would a trusted ally in Kuala Lumpur facilitate such control? The current Malaysian leadership does not fit the bill.”

'Backwards' and forwards

 Pakatan Rakyat, the main opposition coalition pitted against the ruling party, has yet to offer a fully coherent organizational program, and if the coalition ever came to power, the disunity of its component parties and their inability to agree on fundamental policies would be enough to conjure angrier, disenchanted youth back on to the streets, in larger numbers perhaps.

What is ticklishly ironic about reading op-eds penned by the likes of Wolfowitz and Al Gore, and how they laud Malaysia as a progressive and moderate model Islamic state, is that they concurrently demonize its leadership and dismiss them authoritarian thugs.

Surely, the ruling coalition has its shortcomings; the politicization of race and religion, noted cases of corrupt officials squandering funds, etc. – but far too few, especially those of the middle-class who benefit most from energy subsidies, acknowledge the tremendous economic growth achieved under the current leadership and the success of their populist policies.

Najib’s administration would do well to place greater emphasis on addressing the concerns of Malaysia’s minorities who view affirmative action policies given to Malay ethnicities as disproportionate; income status, not ethnicity, should be a deciding factor in who receives assistance. The current administration appears set to widen populist policies that make necessities affordable through subsidies and continue to assist low-income earners with cash handouts.

Najib has acknowledged the need for broad reforms of Malaysia’s state-owned enterprises over concerns that crony capitalism may deter foreign investment; this should be rolled out concurrently with programs to foster more local entrepreneurship. To put it bluntly, the opposition lacks confidence from the business community and foreign investors; even the likes of JP Morgan have issued statements of concern over an opposition win.

It should be noted that if Islamists ever wielded greater influence in Malaysia under an opposition coalition, one could imagine a sizable exodus of non-Muslim minorities and a subsequent flight of foreign capital, putting the nation’s economy in a fragile and fractured state. And yet, the United States has poured millions into ‘democracy promotion’ efforts to strengthen the influence of NGOs that distort realities and cast doubt over the government’s ability to be a coherent actor.

Malaysia does not have the kind of instability that warrants overt external intervention; backing regime-change efforts may only go so far as supporting dissidents and groups affiliated with Anwar Ibrahim. No matter the result of the upcoming elections, Najib appears to have played ball enough for Washington to remain more or less neutral.

According to Bersih coalition leader Ambiga Sreenevasan, Malaysia’s electoral process is so restrictive that a mass movement like Bersih is required to purge the system of its backwardness. These are curious statements, considering that the opposition gained control of four out of 13 states in 2008, including Selangor, a key economic state with the highest GDP and most developed infrastructure.

In response, Najib has adhered to Bersih’s demands and has called for electoral reform, forming a parliamentary select committee comprising members from both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional.

As elections loom, Bersih coalition leader Ambiga Sreenavasan is already dubbing them “the dirtiest elections ever seen” – unsurprising rhetoric from a woman being handed her talking points by the US embassy.

­Nile Bowie for RT

Read More

Syrian Military: Militants Using Chemical Weapons

Chemical weapons reportedly used by NATO-armed, funded terrorists near Damascus. 

December 24, 2012 (LD) - PressTV has reported (more details via Fars News) that chemical weapons have been used by militants fighting Syrian government forces in Daraya, near Damascus. PressTV also reported that threats have been made against Syria's ethnic minorities that their water supplies will be poisoned by militants - this on the heels of the UN itself warning of (and preemptively spinning) impending sectarian-driven genocide.

Image: (via the Guardian) "Chemical containers in the Libyan desert. There are concerns unguarded weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist militants. Photograph: David Sperry/AP" As increasing evidence reveals Libyan fighters and weapons are pouring into Syria, the West has been preparing to cover up the inevitability that Libya's chemical arsenal will also found its way into the besieged nation. It now appears that such weapons are being deployed by NATO's terrorist proxies.

....

AFP reported that the NATO-backed terrorists' threats against Syria's 1.8 million Christians have become so serious that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has made an official statement condemning the militants. AFP reported: 

 The world's largest Muslim body on Sunday condemned threats made by Islamist rebels in Syria against two Christian towns, warning of fresh confessional strife in the war-torn country.

The use of chemical weapons, if confirmed, will indicate a desperate new dimension to NATO's proxy war with Syria - one meant solely to sow fear and terror, as well as sectarian strife, where the Western axis has otherwise failed both tactically and strategically. With NATO-backed terrorists openly threatening sectarian genocide, there are fears that not only NATO, Saudi, and Qatari weapons and funds will be used to carry it out, but a large arsenal of weapons brought with Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya, including its large cache of chemical weapons.

The Western media, and Western government officials have been preparing the public for the imminent use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict, trying to pin responsibility on the Syrian government, regardless of which side actually uses them.

As early as 2007, the US, Saudi, and Israeli government had been preparing to unleash armed, sectarian extremists tied directly to Al Qaeda, with the intent on waging a region-wide sectarian war to destroy Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Despite US and Lebanese officials warning of the "cataclysmic conflict" the West and its regional allies were planning, the plot was put into full effect come 2011. As sectarian genocide unfolds, the Western media, in tandem with Western officials, feign ignorance and shock at the conflict they themselves purposefully engineered over the last several years.

Read More

UN Defends NATO's Premeditated Genocide in Syria

As long-planned sectarian bloodbath unfolds, UN deceitfully labels atrocities as "reprisals." 

December 21, 2012 (LD) - As early as 2007, it was reported that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, together were not only organizing, funding, training, and arming militants directly linked to Al Qaeda to be used against Syria and Iran, but knew well in advance that by doing so, they would trigger an unprecedented "cataclysmic conflict" driven by sectarian extremism. Not only was such sectarian violence expected, it was desired ahead of redrawing a new map for the Middle East - one that favored Western corporate-financier and geopolitical interests, while keeping the region weak, divided, and infighting.

Now, the UN is feigning indignation over the inevitable, increasingly overt sectarian nature of the so-called "Free Syrian Army" and its so-called "rebellion." Entire communities of minorities face extermination. To blunt the impact this will have on public opinion, UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng has preemptively stated:

"I am deeply concerned that entire communities risk paying the price for crimes committed by the Syrian government."

According to Reuters' article, "U.N. anti-genocide envoy: Syria minorities face reprisal risk," the genocide NATO and its allies are arming, funding, and willfully fueling is merely "reprisals." What Reuters doesn't report is that US, Saudi, and Lebanese officials had for years warned that US foreign policy, started under Bush and continued in earnest under Obama, would trigger this very sort of sectarian violence - driven by Al Qaeda-style fanaticism, not "reprisals." 

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh writing for the New Yorker, wrote in his 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" that: 

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007) 

Hersh's report would continue by stating: 

"the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

Further admissions of a joint US-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy against Syria included: 

"...[Saudi Arabia's] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

 In regards to sectarian extremism in particular it was forewarned that: 

"Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites" -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)  

Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah was also featured in Hersh's report and had also warned of imminent and spreading sectarian war purposefully stoked by the West:

Nasrallah said he believed that President Bush’s goal was “the drawing of a new map for the region. They want the partition of Iraq. Iraq is not on the edge of a civil war—there is a civil war. There is ethnic and sectarian cleansing. The daily killing and displacement which is taking place in Iraq aims at achieving three Iraqi parts, which will be sectarian and ethnically pure as a prelude to the partition of Iraq. Within one or two years at the most, there will be total Sunni areas, total Shiite areas, and total Kurdish areas. Even in Baghdad, there is a fear that it might be divided into two areas, one Sunni and one Shiite.”

He went on, “I can say that President Bush is lying when he says he does not want Iraq to be partitioned. All the facts occurring now on the ground make you swear he is dragging Iraq to partition. And a day will come when he will say, ‘I cannot do anything, since the Iraqis want the partition of their country and I honor the wishes of the people of Iraq.’ ”

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.”

The UN once again is abusing its own self-appointed authority by excusing and spinning premeditated sectarian genocide designed to advance a documented conspiracy admitted to years ago. More recently, this conspiracy to destroy Syria through engineered and purposefully protracted violence was documented further by the very corporate-financiers themselves amongst the pages of reports turned out by their own policy think-tanks. 

The Brookings Institution in their "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," openly stated they sought to "bleed" Syria in purposefully protracted violence:

"The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have  sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention." -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Such documents completely contradict the public statements issued by the West, which attempt to portray their involvement in Syria as motivated by "humanitarian concerns," "moral imperatives," and the "promotion of democracy." In reality, the goal is to prolong the violence as long as possible, expedite the loss of life, and to destroy the nation by fueling violent militants - just as it was the plan in 2007 when Hersh penned "The Redirection." The sectarian component of the current conflict is not an unexpected result of violence that began only in 2011, it was an integral part of the West's foreign policy since 2007. 

The sectarian genocide in Syria was purposefully engineered by Western policy makers, and now is willfully covered up, spun, and excused by the UN and the Western mass media alike.

Read More

South Korea’s Elections

Hardline Conservatism with a Liberal Smile.

December 21, 2012 (Nile Bowie) - The ever-changing political landscapes of the Korean Peninsula never fail to offer stark contrasts. To the north, a somber December is spent mourning the forefathers of the communist dynasty under the helm of a boy-king and his advisers. To the south, voters have elected the nation’s first female president, the daughter of South Korea’s iconic former leader, Park Chung-hee. While their circumstances and rise to power cannot be more dissimilar, both Kim Jong-un and Park Geun-hye both derive some degree of public support through channeling the nostalgia of their parent’s legacies. In South Korea, one of the world’s most rapidly ageing societies, Park relied heavily on the elderly for her support base, who associate her with the economic prosperity brought in under her father’s rule, in much the same way as northerners regard the times of Kim il-Sung. As the new president prepares to take office in February 2013, many among South Korea’s left leaning youth see Park Geun-hye as an enabler of status quo conservatism veiled behind a thin liberal facade.

Park is widely credited with resuscitating legitimacy back into the ruling Saenuri party, which has garnered record-setting disapproval ratings under incumbent President Lee Myung-bak. Money laundering scandals, tax evasion, and accusations of embezzlement have followed the outgoing President Lee, who has come down hard on dissenters by jailing activists and artists who have criticized his rule. Lee is most responsible for dismantling Seoul’s liberal approach to North Korea as seen through the “Sunshine Policy” of previous administrations, at the cost of nearly reigniting the Korean war after a series of provocative live fire exchanges in disputed territorial waters in 2010 that saw the North shell the South’s Yeonpyeong island, and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel. Despite running on the conservative ticket, Park has steered clear of openly advocating Lee’s hardline policies toward Pyongyang in her campaign rhetoric. Although an unpredictable North Korea looms just 70km from Seoul, domestic economic issues are the most immediate focus of the South Korean voter.

Leading a “Chaebol Republic”

An odious brand of crony-corporatism has prevailed in the South Korean economy, spearheaded by the chaebol, large-scale conglomerates like Hyundai, LG, and Samsung. While these recognizable brands have indeed brought much wealth and opportunity to the southern half of the peninsula, Koreans on the lower end of the economic food chain feel neglected by the nation’s mega-corporations and the wealthy political elite behind these companies. Prior to taking office, President Lee ran the Hyundai Engineering and Construction conglomerate, and has pardoned the chairs of Samsung and Hyundai Motors from jail time over convictions of fraud. Park’s opponent, the liberal Moon Jae-in of the Democratic United Party, has accused the country’s conglomerate-dominated economic model of being the main contributing factor to economic inequality, in addition to crediting Park’s father with developing the corporatist economic model still prevalent today.

The defeated Moon Jae-in spoke of increasing taxation on the wealthy and providing small businesses with economic protection from the chaebol. President Lee’s passing of a free-trade agreement with the United States enraged many working class people and farmers who fear the flooding of Korean markets with cheap foreign agricultural products. Moon publicly voiced his disapproval of the trade regime and vowed to re-negotiate it; this position resonated well with young leftists, but popular disdain for establishment parties like Moon’s Democratic United Party proved to be a major obstacle for the left. Park, on the other hand, has toed the party line of President Lee by championing economic and diplomatic ties with Washington, while resisting calls for taxing the chaebol in fear of hampering their growth. Park has played more of a centrist role than one would expect from a conservative ticket by advocating college tuition cuts, maternity assistance, free school lunches, and other social welfare programs, but has come under fire for being unable to answer basic questions about minimum wage figures during a debate, prompting tough statements from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions:

“It is terribly discouraging when a person who wants to become president does not even know the country’s minimum wage, which is a minimal right for survival and the first step toward a welfare state.”

Park’s "Trustpolitik" & Inter-Korean relations

The failures of Lee Myung-bak’s loathed tenure are none more apparent than in the field of inter-Korean relations. As Kim Jong-un consolidates power in Pyongyang and toys with introducing seedlings of economic reform, it is high time for a change in frequency from the Blue House in Seoul toward more amenable relations between the two Koreas. Although Park has publically stood clear of Lee’s tough stance, a closer look at her foreign policy signifies more acquiesce than divergence from the status quo. In a 2011 article published by Park in the Council on Foreign Relation’s Foreign Affairs website titled, “A New Kind of Korea,” the incoming president talks of adopting a policy of "trustpolitik," aimed at developing a minimum level of trust between the two Koreas. Just as it exists under the current leadership of President Lee, the cornerstone of Park’s policy revolves around Pyongyang abandoning its nuclear program and de-weaponizing, or suffering the consequences.

Park is setting herself up to fail, and having herself visited Pyongyang to negotiate with Kim Jong il, one would assume she would be less naïve on the issue of Pyongyang’s nuclear program and the importance it holds to North Koreans. After the death of Kim il-Sung in 1994, his son oversaw general economic mismanagement and a series of natural disasters that led to widespread starvation. To legitimize his tenure, Kim Jong-il introduced Songun politics, a military-first policy aimed at appeasing the military and building up national defenses. The attainment of a “nuclear deterrent” has been trumpeted as a major accomplishment in domestic North Korean propaganda, despite very little concrete evidence known about these weapons, their capability, or the status of Pyongyang’s nuclear program.

It is unrealistic to expect Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program, primarily because achieving the status of a nuclear state (despite whether or not they actually have achieved that status) is Kim Jong-il’s main “accomplishment.” The upper echelons of leadership in the Korean Worker’s Party surely hold dear the lessons of Gaddafi after dismantling Libya’s nuclear program. Pyongyang continues to pursue provocative missile tests and belligerent rhetoric because they view this as a means of ensuring their security, the fact that the Pyongyang power-dynasty has moved into a third generation is proof enough that this policy has worked for them. Park has spoke of taking a middle-of-the-road approach, and buttressed an inter-Korean dialogue with Kim Jong-un. These are goals that represent a more practical shift, but if Park’s policy rests solely on being open to Pyongyang only if they disarm, the incoming administration will find itself mired in President Lee’s legacy of tension. In line with the militarism of her conservative party, Park has spoken of plans to create an East Asian military alliance and appears willing to continue the hardline against Pyongyang:

“Asian states must slow down their accelerating arms buildup, reduce military tensions, and establish a cooperative security regime that would complement existing bilateral agreements and help resolve persistent tensions in the region.”

“South Korea must first demonstrate, through a robust and credible deterrent posture, that it will no longer tolerate North Korea's increasingly violent provocations. It must show Pyongyang that the North will pay a heavy price for its military and nuclear threats. This approach is not new, but in order to change the current situation, it must be enforced more vigorously than in the past.”

In contrast to Park, Moon Jae-in’s Democratic United Party has touted a return to the “Sunshine Policy,” and has advocated restarting unconditional aid to Pyongyang. The conservative political elite in Seoul fails to realize that relations with North Korea can more effectively be cooled not by pursuing hardline policies and provocative military drills, but by bolstering inter-Korean economic ties, tourism, and exchange. Kim Jong-un can only begin to dismantle the military-first policy by offering some alternative whereby he maintains his legitimacy – that could potentially be by increasing economic opportunity, raising standards of living, and developing North Korea’s economy. Seoul would be in a much better position to negotiate if they had a hand in mutually beneficial economic development with the North. Park’s ambitions of creating a “cooperative security regime” with Asian states (presuming North Korea is excluded) will certainly not help convince Pyongyang to disarm. An “Asian NATO” is counterproductive and would only make Pyongyang more unpredictable – as long as Seoul’s ballistic missiles are capable of hitting any part of North Korea, expecting Pyongyang to commit political suicide by disarming is simply not realistic.

Conclusions

The incoming South Korean administration has lots of problems on its hands; managing an ageing population with some of the world’s lowest birth rates, tackling increasing prostitution rates, high suicide rates and other social ills, and coping with an economic slowdown in China, the nation’s biggest export market. South Korea’s economic development has lifted millions out of poverty and into the economic space of high-income earners in the span of a few decades. It would be foolish for Park to pursue the foreign policy of her predecessor and risk bringing about a reignited Korean war and all that would come with it; enormous civilian casualty rates, an unprecedented refugee crisis, and a major handicap on the South Korean economy. All signs point to Park Geun-hye continuing along the same economic trajectory as the incumbent President Lee, perhaps with a greater emphasis on social welfare programs. The next five years will be critical for inter-Korean relations. In attempting to emerge from her father’s shadow, one would hope that she could address the faults in the economic system her father helped create by reducing the income disparity, and also learn from his mistakes by allowing free and open political dissent and total freedom of expression.

Nile Bowie is an independent political commentator and photographer based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com

Read More

Tell the System: You're Not Getting the Guns. Period.

Draw the line - have the local organizational capacity to back it up.

December 18, 2012 (LD) - It goes without saying that the mass media lies - they lied about Iraq in the lead up to a war that in total, killed over 2 million people. They lied about Libya, they are lying about Syria. They lie about vaccines and intentionally try to sell parents the idea of purposefully injecting their children with mercury. Their lies have a single purpose - to serve the special interests that hand them their talking points.

Now the mass media is lying about gun violence. The New York Times wrote a particularly outrageous piece titled "In Gun Debate, a Misguided Focus on Mental Illness," where a "medical doctor" is given space to willfully bend statistics to make the case for banning guns, period.

Unfortunately for this "medical doctor" who claims that the vast majority of the mentally ill do not commit violent acts, the last several mass shootings in the US were committed by mentally ill individuals, all confirmed to be on psychotropic medication. Shooter Adam Lanza was said by relatives (needs to be confirmed by police/autopsy) to be on Fanapt (Iloperidone) - an anti-psychotic prescribed for people suffering from schizophrenia. The US National Institute of Health describes schizophrenia in its Iloperidone drug profile as:

"...a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual thinking, loss of interest in life, and strong or inappropriate emotions). Iloperidone is in a class of medications called atypical antipsychotics. It works by changing the activity of certain natural substances in the brain."

Clearly a suicidal mass killer who targets little children is a mentally unhinged individual who has "lost interest in life" and was directed by "strong or inappropriate emotions." Like Lanza, the Aurora Colorado theater shooter was also on  prescription medication - Vicodin (Hydrocodone). Before that, the Tuscon Arizona shooter, Jared Loughner was not only mentally ill - but spent most of his trial on heavy medication. Likewise, the Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan had shoeboxes stuffed with prescription medications he had prescribed for himself (he was a US Army psychiatrist).

Video: Michael Moore asks a legitimate question - one the mass media is currently attempting to sweep under the rug - the role of psychotropic prescription medication in violent mass killings. Moore asks finally, why pharmaceutical corporations are allowed to continue on when their products knowingly harm people - the complicit mass media and the role it plays in shaping and misdirecting public perception is a partial answer.

....

There are hundreds of millions of guns in America - millions of Americans responsibly own and use firearms everyday. The common denominator amongst mass killers is not "guns," but clearly mental illness, coupled with the "shock and awe" indoctrination our own government sells America to promote its atrocities overseas. The New York Times piece bends statistics to explain that most mentally ill people aren't usually violent. And while that may or may not be true, the fact is those who on rare occasion have committed these tragedies were all mentally ill and taking medication. At the end of the NYT's unqualified rant, the author suggests:

"All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force."

Unfortunately for the New York Times, "deadly force" is not a synonym for guns - deadly force can mean knives - as in the knives used instead of guns in mass killings in China - where the mentally ill, left untreated and to their own devices simply pick easier targets before going on rampages that leave dozens maimed, and in some cases up to 10 dead at a time. Deadly force can mean box cutters - as in the box cutters allegedly used to hijack planes on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent people in a single day - not one shot fired.

Violence is driven by socioeconomic disparity, an inadequate healthcare system, and mentally ill people who are not given the help they need to be kept from hurting themselves and others. Mandating that a population disarm not only doesn't guarantee that people will hand in their guns (i.e. Mexico) but it also does nothing to stem violence.  Disarming a population does however, keep weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens, the sort of people you would want to control such weapons, and leaves guns in the hands of criminals and the government exclusively. In Mexico, this leaves an unarmed population to be fed off of by both heavily armed criminal gangs, and a heavily armed, corrupt government able to operate with absolute impunity.

The US government is likewise corrupt - and ever-seeking to expand the impunity within which it operates. 

Draw the Line.

Americans will not give up their guns - they will not give up assault weapons. Law abiding citizens should not pay for the crimes of the mentally ill or the socioeconomically motivated, in a society that willfully neglects them, then exploits the tragedies this creates, merely for political gain. The exploitation of the Connecticut shooting is grotesque - with journalists waiting like vultures to capture images of grieving families to splash across the covers of their publications.

Gun owners need to move beyond simply picking "representatives" ("pro-gun" Congressmen, NRA, etc.) to defend their rights on Capitol Hill. They need to organize locally to promote and preserve their rights. A government that knows 200-500 armed citizens per county are highly organized, politically active, and pragmatically prepared to defend their rights is a government that will seek profit and power elsewhere. Who is going to "confiscate" a community's weapons if everyone in the community, including law enforcement, refuses to allow the line to be crossed?

Shooting clubs built around this idea locally, should be organized. Gun safety classes taught by police or military instructors should be made available for members and non-members alike - and responsible gun ownership within an apolitical atmosphere promoted to provide an example of what an informed, responsible, armed citizenry looks like in the 21st century. Infowars' short lived "Brothers in Arms" was a prototype of such an organization - a prototype that should be revisited, or that others should pick up and run with.
 
Improving the image of responsible gun owners, versus the knuckle-dragging image they are given by the mass media - is essential. To not only put together a local organization that puts an informed, intelligent, apolitical/pragmatic face on gun ownership, but to compel other gun owners to follow suit, is the best defense in a war against our rights waged on a battlefield where much of the public is easily manipulated and emotionally compromised.

Walking away from the "left/right" paradigm is equally important - "right" leaning individuals need to realize that big-business corporate fascism demands public disarmament to give it the space to grow domestically as its right-wing backed military machine mass murders overseas.  The left must realize that the very big-business interests they point their fingers at are the architects behind most, if not all of their talking points - not only on gun control, but on everything from "climate change" to "human rights" overseas as a new casus belli for perpetual global war.

While building a stronger sense of community and working with a local sheriff that actually represents the people, we should be policing our own so the federal government doesn't have an opportunity to propose doing it for us. Medicated individuals who are brought to firing ranges should be red flags - and families like this that show gross poor judgement should be addressed by the local community. A shooting range is a business that has the right to establish strict rules to promote best practices and responsibility.

We either draw the line, and take upon ourselves the responsibility of gun ownership, or the creep to strip our rights from us will insidiously continue, exploiting the blood of the innocent and the broken minds of the mentally ill. Collective punishment is our future if we do not create a viable local deterrence, across the nation to usurpers who seek greater impunity amongst an unarmed citizenry.

Tell the powers that be - "you're not getting the guns, period" and have the organizational capacity to back it up.

Read More