Celebrated “Humanitarian” Aung San Suu Kyi Fully-Funded by Absolute Worst of Humanity

Friday, November 18, 2011

by Tony Cartalucci

Photo: Soros-funded Mizzima proudly reports Burmese “pro-democracy” leader Aung San Suu Kyi phoning-in to the 2011 “Liberal-Progressive” Clinton Global Initiative confab, fully-funded by big-oil, big-banks, and other elements of the corporate-fascist Wall Street-London combine.

….

November 19, 2011 – No lie told by the corporate-fascist controlled media, no carefully crafted narrative they’ve created comes anywhere close to being as deceitful or as misleading as the one they’ve conjured up for Burma’s celebrated “humanitarian” and “pro-democracy icon” Aung San Suu Kyi. Holding the same meaningless Nobel Peace Prize as warmongering Wall Street puppet President Barack Obama, and featured in some of the most softly lit photography found throughout the Fortune 500 press houses, Suu Kyi has been granted an almost saint-like demeanor. She is portrayed as the softly-spoken leader of Burma’s “pro-democracy” movement, single-handedly standing up against the military-led government of the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar, also known by its British imperial label of Burma.

Image: The 2006 Burma Campaign UK report, “Failing the People of Burma?” (.pdf) reveals the entire “pro-democracy” movement, including Aung San Suu Kyi herself, is a product of US and British funding and the building of neo-imperial networks designed to overthrow and replace the government of Burma.

….

In reality, no one single-handedly does anything, and the tale of how Suu Kyi’s movement has come into existence, funds itself, and expands its influence throughout Burmese politics is one that surely mismatches the saintly image she is meant to project.

However, none of this should come as a surprise. Why would the corporate-media, who has lied to the world to grant the West the green light to mass-murder over a million Iraqis based on a verified pack of lies, and backing a stable of disingenuous servants of the West, masquerading as “pro-democracy” leaders, all the sudden be backing the real deal? A 2006 36-page document out of the “Burma Campaign UK” explicitly details the enormous amount of money and resources both the US government and its corporate-funded foundations have poured into Suu Kyi’s image and her “movement.” It also details the complicity of then Thai Prime Minster and verified Wall Street-stooge Thaksin Shinwatra’s government in aiding the West in their Burmese agenda.

The most telling information begins on page 14 of 36 of the report’s .pdf. Titled, “Failing the People of Burma?” the report enumerates the vast resources the West has invested in building a “pro-democracy” movement, in tandem with similar disingenuous movements throughout the region, and indeed throughout the world, and insists that even more support be given to initiate a “transition” in Burma. It states:

“The restoration of democracy in Burma is a priority U.S. policy objective in Southeast Asia. To achieve this objective, the United States has consistently supported democracy activists and their efforts both inside and outside Burma…Addressing these needs requires flexibility and creativity. Despite the challenges that have arisen, United States Embassies Rangoon and Bangkok as well as Consulate General Chiang Mai are fully engaged in pro-democracy efforts. The United States also supports organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute (nb no support given since 2004) and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities. U.S.-based broadcasters supply news and information to the Burmese people, who lack a free press. U.S. programs also fund scholarships for Burmese who represent the future of Burma.

The United States is committed to working for a democratic Burma and will continue to employ a variety of tools to assist democracy activists.”

The report then continues detailing the specifics of each organization mentioned, including the National Endowment for Democracy:

“The National Endowment for Democracy (NED – see Appendix 1, page 27) has been at the forefront of our program efforts to promote democracy and improved human rights in Burma since 1996. We are providing $2,500,000 in FY 2003 funding from the Burma earmark in the Foreign Operations legislation. The NED will use these funds to support Burmese and ethnic minority democracy-promoting organizations through a sub-grant program. The projects funded are designed to disseminate information inside Burma supportive of Burma’s democratic development, to create democratic infrastructures and institutions, to improve the collection of information on human rights abuses by the Burmese military and to build capacity to support the restoration of democracy when the appropriate political openings occur and the exiles/refugees return.”

NED is cited as behind the creation of the New Era Journal, the Irrawaddy, and the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) radio, all posing, just as the recently exposed Thai-US propaganda front, Prachatai, as “independent” media sources despite the fact they are in reality fully-funded by the US government.

The role of US State Department-run Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America (VOA) is also discussed in detail, including the revelation that US foreign policy specifically supports and actively promotes Aung San Suu Kyi and “her” agenda.

“Both Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) have Burmese services. VOA broadcasts a 30-minute mix of international news and information three times a day. RFA broadcasts news and information about Burma two hours a day. VOA and RFA websites also contain audio and text material in Burmese and English. For example, VOA’s October 10, 2003 editorial, “Release Aung San Suu Kyi” is prominently featured in the Burmese section of VOAnews.com. RFA’s website makes available audio versions of 16 Aung San Suu Kyi’s speeches from May 27 and 29, 2003. U.S. international broadcasting provides crucial information to a population denied the benefits of freedom of information by its government.”

The US also pours vast resources into organizations affiliated with Aung San Suu Kyi, including “Prospect Burma,” a London-based Soros-funded organization:

“The State Department provided $150,000 in FY 2001/02 funds to provide scholarships to young Burmese through Prospect Burma, a partner organization with close ties to Aung San Suu Kyi. With FY 2003/04 funds, we plan to support Prospect Burma’s work given the organization’s proven competence in managing scholarships for individuals denied educational opportunities by the continued repression of the military junta, but committed to a return to democracy in Burma.”

Of course, billionaire-bankster and geopolitical meddler George Soros not only funds and coordinates with the above mentioned “Prospect Burma” organization, but also directly funds activities through his “Open Society Institute” literally training an army of subversion meant to return to Burma and overthrow the government:

“Our assistance to the Open Society Institute (OSI) (until 2004) provides partial support for a program to grant scholarships to Burmese refugee students who have fled Burma and wish to continue their studies at the undergraduate, or post-graduate level. Students typically pursue degrees in social sciences, public health, medicine, anthropology, and political science. Priority is given to students who express a willingness to return to Burma or work in their refugee communities for the democratic and economic reform of the country.”

Throughout the period covered in the “Burma Campaign UK” report, includes a description of then Thaksin Shinawtra’s government and its support of Western activities to subvert the government of neighboring Burma. The Thai Ministry of Public Health, also implicated in grants to the US propaganda front, Prachatai, is mentioned specifically:

“Last year the U.S. government began funding a new program of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to provide basic health services to Burmese migrants outside the official refugee camps in cooperation with the Thai Ministry of Public Health. This project has been supported by the Thai government and has received favorable coverage in the local press. Efforts such as this that endeavor to find positive ways to work with the Thai government in areas of common interest help build support for U.S.-funded programs that support Burmese pro-democracy groups.”

While many may be tempted to claim that such work is humanitarian in nature, it is mentioned several times that the actual goal of dolling out scholarships and other aid is specifically to create a pro-Western bloc meant to overthrow the anti-West regime in Burma. With names like “National Endowment for Democracy” people are meant to believe that a benign, benevolent agenda is being carried out that is in the best interest of all involved. In reality, the National Endowment for Democracy is packed wall-to-wall with corporate-fascist interests, warmongering elitists, and confessed imperialists.

NED & Freedom House are run by Warmongering Imperialists

The National Endowment for Democracy, despite the lofty mission statement articulated on its website, is nothing more than a tool for executing American foreign policy. Just as the military is used under the cover of lies regarding WMD’s and “terrorism,” NED is employed under the cover of bringing “democracy” to “oppressed” people. However, a thorough look at NED’s board of directors, as well as the board of trustees of its subsidiary, Freedom House, definitively lays to rest any doubts that may be lingering over the true nature of these organizations and the causes they support.

Upon NED’s board of directors we first find John Bohn who traded petrochemicals, was an international banker for 13 years with Wells Fargo, and is currently serving as a principal for a global advisory and consulting firm, GlobalNet Partners, which assists foreign businesses by making their “entry into the complex China market easy.” Surely Bohn’s ability to manipulate China’s political landscape through NED’s various activities both inside of China and along its peripheries constitutes an alarming conflict of interest. However, it appears “conflict of interest” is a reoccurring theme throughout both NED and Freedom House.

Bohn is joined by Rita DiMartino who worked for Council on Foreign Relations corporate member AT&T as “Vice President of Congressional Relations” as well as a member of the CFR herself. Also representing the Fortune 500 is Kenneth Duberstein, a board member of the war profiteering Boeing Company, big oil’s ConocoPhillips, and the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation. Duberstein also served as a director of Fannie Mae until 2007. He too is a CFR member as are two of the companies he chairs, Boeing and ConocoPhillips.

We then consider several of the certified warmongers serving upon NED’s board of directors including Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Will Marshall, and Vin Weber, all signatories of the pro-war, pro-corporate Project for a New American Century. Within the pages of documents produced by this “think tank” are pleas to various US presidents to pursue war against sovereign nations, the increase of troops in nations already occupied by US forces, and what equates to a call for American global hegemony in a Hitlerian 90 page document titled “Rebuilding Americas Defenses.” As we will see, this warmongering think tank serves as a nexus around which fellow disingenuous rights advocate Freedom House also gravitates.

The “Statement of Principles,” signed off by NED chairmen Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Vin Weber, states, “we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” Of course by “international order” they mean meddling beyond the sovereign borders of the United States and is merely used as a euphemism for global imperialism. Other Neo-Con that signed their name to this statement include Freedom House’s Paula Dobriansky, Dan Quayle (formally), and Donald Rumsfeld (formally), along with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, and Elliot Abrams.

A PNAC “Statment on Post-War Iraq” regarding a wholehearted endorsement of nation-building features the signatures of NED chairman Will Marshall, Freedom House’s Frank Carlucci (2002), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Martin Indyk (Lowy Institute board member, co-author of the conspiring “Which Path to Persia?” report), and William Kristol and Robert Kagan both of the warmongering Foreign Policy Initiative. It should be noted that the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is, for all intents and purposes, PNAC’s latest incarnation and just recently featured an open letter to House Republicans calling on them to disregard the will of the American people and continue pursuing the war in Libya. The FPI letter even suggests that the UN resolution authorizing the war in the first place, was holding America “hostage” and that it should be exceeded in order to do more to “help the Libyan opposition.”

An untitled PNAC letter addressed to then US President George Bush regarding a general call for global warmongering received the seal of approval from Freedom Houses’ Ellen Bork (2007), Ken Adelman (also former lobbyist for Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra via Edelman), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Neo-Con degenerates Richard Perle, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and the always disingenuous demagogue Daniel Pipes.

It is safe to say that neither NED nor Freedom House garners within its ranks characters appropriate for their alleged cause of “supporting freedom around the world.” It is also safe to say that the principles of “democracy,” “freedom,” and “human rights” they allegedly champion for, are merely being leveraged to co-opt well meaning people across the world to carry out their own self-serving agenda.

The “Aung San Suu Kyi Deception”

Aung San Suu Kyi has been leading the Burmese “pro-democracy” opposition for over a decade and has garnered support from every globalist cadre, think-tank, and organization imaginable. In addition to the now fully discredited Nobel Peace Prize, she was also a finalist in the Chatham House Prize 2011, and not surprisingly a benefactor of corporate-funded, duplicitous “pro-bono” legal service Freedom Now. Aung San Suu Kyi herself, was born into an immensely wealthy and politically well connected family. She studied abroad, worked for the UN in New York City, and received a Ph.D from the University of London before returning to Burma to lead the “pro-democracy” movement. Whatever her convictions may really be, the West has fully hijacked her movement as a means of removing the current military junta and replacing it with one more conducive to their corporate agenda, which most assuredly has nothing to do with “democracy for the people.”

Knowingly or unknowingly serving the globalist agenda since 1972, Aung San Suu Kyi now leads the Western- backed opposition bidding to oust Myanmar’s ruling regime.

….

In 2007 there was the so-called “Saffron Revolution,” made a spectacle by the corporate-owned media, but gained little ground. Similar “uprisings” have been attempted, and more are on the way. The army of subversive “scholars” the US and its corporate-funded foundations is raising will continue to grow until it reaches the critical mass necessary to destabilize and overthrow the government in Burma.

Quite obviously, Suu Kyi is well aware of her organization and movement’s finances and that she owes her entire existence to the United States, the United Kingdom, and ultimately the corporate-fascist financiers of Wall Street and London. Just as deposed autocrat and Wall Street stooge Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand attempts to portray himself as an icon of regional democracy and progress, so too does Suu Kyi, albeit many times more convincingly.

The aura of saintliness built up around Suu Kyi has made it almost sacrilege to speak anything disparaging of her, even if it is backed up by a 36-page document spelling out her extensive ties to the most degenerate mass-murdering megalomaniacs ever to walk the planet. Despite many of her defenders being proponents of “free speech,” they quickly abandon their moral convictions when their leader is criticized. It is indeed possible that many of these people actually do believe that Wall Street and London can fund her millions of dollars and built entire networks for her with the expressed goal of subverting a sovereign nation’s government, and her intentions to still be pure and progressive. It is also likely that people truly believe, despite being habitually lied to by the corporate media, that this time they are finally telling the truth about a woman standing up against all the corporate-media represents and promotes.

In reality, Suu Kyi is the centerpiece of an expensive, long-running propaganda campaign, that if exposed and derailed would knock out the teeth of Wall Street and London’s Southeast Asian designs and undermine their agenda globally. With the above information in mind, stories coming out of Burma may make more sense to those seeking the truth, even if it means having to come to terms over the reality of an endearing public figure. One must ask themselves, what is more important – continuing to believe in the discredited Suu Kyi, or finding someone, or even becoming someone who truly stands for all that she disingenuously pretends to promote?

Update: November 20, 2011 – As previously reported, the current Thai government “led” by PM Yingluck Shinawatra (Thaksin Shinawatra’s sister) has recently received a very public seal of approval from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This support has now been fully reciprocated, as Yingluck and Thai Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul (Thaksin’s cousin through marriage) pledged full support for the US agenda throughout Asia including a nuclear non-proliferation act opposed by China and the sovereignty-crushing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) economic integration.

Yingluck has also pledged support for US designs toward Burma, ahead of Secretary Clinton’s visit with the above mentioned US-funded “humanitarian icon” Aung San Suu Kyi. Previously, during Thaksin’s regime, Thailand, and in particular, the northern city of Chiang Mai, played a pivotal role hosting US corporate-funded “NGOs” working to foment sedition, unrest, and attempted regime change in neighboring Burma.

The Nation reports:

“Beside bilateral affairs, Yingluck and Obama discussed political developments in neighboring Burma, as the US wants to see Thailand play the role of a coordinator to help Burma carry out reforms towards democracy and national reconciliation.

Thailand was ready to do the job and ensured the US that the country would continue providing shelter for refugees from Burma on a humanitarian basis and would prepare them to be ready if they wanted to return to their homeland some day, Surapong said.”

This confirms that just as it was when the “Burma Campaign UK” wrote their 2006 report, which cited Thaksin’s government’s full support for regime change in Burma, Thailand under the “leadership” of Thaksin’s sister Yingluck is once again ready to participate in regional meddling and with fomenting sedition not only in Thailand against nationalist elements but in neighboring nations as well.

Please also see Nile Bowie’s Myanmar: Fertile Ground for Washington Sponsored Revolution

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/burmese-pro-democracy-movement-creation.html

WATCH: Media is manipulating info on indigenous conflict in Bolivia | September 30th, 2011

Bolivian president Evo Morales reject the coverage of the media on indigenous protests, he asserts that press has been manipulating the situation, seeking and invented dead people, evo said this is a strategy of the far right who can’t accept that a peasant became president of Bolivia. teleSUR

” … and these days they are reporting 9 dead, six dead, a child, a dead child, I ask the media where is the dead child? There isn’t a dead child … they didn’t find dead people so they invented dead people … this is a strategy of the far-right and our enemies who can’t accept that a peasant, a union leader became president of Bolivia …

http://multimedia.telesurtv.net/en/30/9/2011/51897/media-is-manipulating-info-on-indigenous-conflict-in-bolivia/

Is It Police Brutality in Bolivia or Is It Something Much More Insidious?

By Lynette Yetter, Sep 30, 2011

Bolivia is in the news. Petitions are zipping through cyberspace. What is going on? Last Sunday police brutally attacked indigenous people peacefully marching in protest of a road being built through their

territory known as the TIPNIS (El Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure). Everyone seems to agree on the fact that marchers were horribly injured and killed. But soon the situation gets

very murky.

No one is claiming responsibility for ordering the police to attack the marchers. The quickest finger pointing seems to belong to the US press (both mainstream and activist). They say that President Evo is

the one responsible.

But I’m not sure that this is true.

As everyone who has read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States knows, the mainstream press historically has supported US business interests under a cloak of populist sentiment, and

sometimes has manipulated the activist press to follow suit.

What do I mean by that?

The cloak of populist sentiment changes with the topic and the times; jargon such as “God’s will” has been replaced with “protect indigenous people and the rain forest.” Of course we want to protect indigenous

people and the rain forest. This is vital to our survival as a species. But, is that what we are really doing when we sign one of the petitions that are going around the Internet?

Let’s pause a moment, and look at one of the many historical examples of the press manipulating people to support US business interests: the Spanish American War. This war ostensibly was to help the oppressed

Cuban people gain liberty from Spain: That was the rallying cry to get well-meaning people of the US emotionally charged so they would join the military and become cannon fodder.

After the war the Cuban people were not part of the decision-making process for their own new Constitution. The US-mandated constitution basically made Cuba a possession of US businesses. Soon about 80% of

the island was owned and controlled by US businesses, such as United Fruit. The people of the US were angry and disillusioned at this outcome, but their voices were not heeded.

With that in mind, let’s look at what is happening in the press nowadays. Sunday a group of policemen brutally attacked peaceful marchers in Bolivia. Starting Monday and Tuesday the US and UK press

ran articles denouncing Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia. But, in a far more extreme incident in 2009 militarized Peruvian police massacred hundreds of protesting indigenous people, and the US press

was comparatively silent.

Why the difference in reaction?

Could the silence in the US press about the massacre in Peru be because the then-president of Peru, Alan Garcia, was friendly to US business interests, and the road building also benefited US businesses? And could the immediate outcry in the US press over the police attack on the marchers be because president Evo Morales supports the interests of the Bolivian people over the interests of US businesses?

And I have not even mentioned the police brutality that occurs on a regular basis in US cities. No news agency that I have seen has demanded that president Obama be held accountable for the brutal

actions of local police.

Police brutality should never be tolerated. I urge that we continue questioning until we reveal the truth of who incited the police to attack the indigenous marchers in Bolivia last Sunday. And I urge that

we use the same care in investigating human rights abuses commited, overtly or by ommission, by US business interests.

In the meanwhile, are well-meaning Americans being bamboozled into creating and signing petitions against Evo Morales — the first indigenous president in the Americas, when the real motive is for US

business interests to oust President Evo so transnational corporations can control Bolivia’s natural resources and indigenous labor like they have in the past?

I don’t know. But I do know that I am not signing any petitions while these questions linger.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/is-it-police-brutality-in-bolivia/