The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is one of the largest in scale infrastructure projects in our history, which was proposed by the PRC as far back as 2013. Its main aim is to link via roads, railways, deep water ports, wharfs and industrial zones all 5 continents and approximately 130 of the world’s nations, which, on becoming a part of the BRI could promote trade and other activities and thus reap substantial economic benefits. The BRI initiative had such a successful start that by 2020, projects worth almost US$4 trillion had already been completed.

Still, the ambitious nature and global scale of China’s economic expansion caused reservations among some participating countries with low and medium GDPs. On the one hand, these nations viewed the initiative as the only source of funds for financing their own infrastructure projects, and on the other hand, they worried about their growing debts to Beijing.

In this context, the reaction to BRI in countries of South East Asia whose economic ties to China are strengthening with each passing day is noteworthy. It is no secret to anyone that some of the biggest projects of China’s global initiative are being implemented in South East Asian countries. In fact, it would suffice to mention the cross-border railway between China and Laos (US$ 6 billion), high speed rail in Indonesia (US$6 billion), the Kyaukpyu deep water port in Myanmar (US$ 7.3 billion) and many others.

One of the leading South East Asian economies, i.e. Malaysia, is no exception to the rule. National and local media outlets, experts and political circles are increasingly more and more focused on China’s infrastructure initiative. This is not surprising as Malaysia is among China’s most important trade partners in South East Asia with the bilateral trade volume of US$124 billion in 2019. At the same time, Malaysia (along with Indonesia) is among top ten countries (the former being in 3rd place) in terms of BRI-related project size and costs (US$160.76 billion).

Closer economic ties between Malaysia and China prompted the two countries to cooperate more within the BRI framework. In addition, the most active period of collaboration between the two nations occurred under the Premiership of Najib Razak (2009-2018), when the Malaysian side signed a number of agreements with China on a number of new infrastructure projects.

Still, after the Malaysian general election, which took place in 2018, when Mahathir Bin Mohamad (who was in power from 1981 to 2003) won, the country’s policies towards the Chinese initiative changed noticeably under his leadership. For instance, Mahathir Bin Mohamad raised issues about terms and conditions of agreements with the PRC that were signed earlier. In fact, later on, several large infrastructure projects were re-examined as part of BRI implementation. The Prime Minister focused his attention on visibly high costs of Chinese infrastructure projects, which is why Malaysia had to shoulder an additional burden while its external debt was already quite high (US$252 in 2018).

The focus of Mahathir Bin Mohamed’s criticism became the East Coast Rail Link project, whose cost increased from $US7 billion to US$10-13 (according to different estimates) because of changes in the exchange rate. The project started back up after the government of Malaysia reviewed the terms and conditions of the agreement and re-signed the deal with China on more beneficial terms.

At the same time, one of the larger-scale projects, tied to BRI, “Melaka Gateway”, in the Malaysian state of Malacca (estimated to cost $10.5 billion) was cancelled. It entailed building a deep water port, a cruise terminal, a wharf, elite housing, hotels and other facilities on three artificially-made islands in the Strait of Malacca in order to attract almost a million tourists a year. The project was to span 246,45 square kilometers, while the planned deep water port was meant to compete with the neighboring one in Singapore.

The project Melaka Gateway was first announced by the then Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2014. However, very recently, the government in the state of Malacca terminated the contract with the local Malaysian company KAJ Development Sdn Bhd, which was working on the project together with a large Chinese government company PowerChina International and two port developers because the work on re-cultivating the vegetation on three artificial islands was never completed. One of the main reasons for the delay in construction was the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In addition, there is an ongoing discussion about excess port facilities in the country. In the opinion of experts, it is a good idea to use the three existing Malaysian ports and not to spread out to new facilities.

Despite certain obstacles, the implementation of China’s BRI project is helping Beijing increase its regional and global influence, especially in those nations of South East Asia that are on board with this infrastructure initiative despite concerns about accruing too much debt hoping in the future to improve their economies thanks to it. In addition, the United States, which at present cannot provide so much funding to the nations of South East Asia is losing in influence to China in the region with each passing year.

As for Malaysia and South East Asian countries in general, it is worth noting that their collaboration with the PRC within the BRI framework is viewed by experts in a positive light but still there are concerns about the growing debt these countries owe to China. Nevertheless, at present, there is no choice as such because of a significant reduction in size of economies all over the world, hence these countries are unlikely to refuse funds that are so necessary and that only China can provide. The PRC, in turn, has substantially increased its leadership positions in South East Asia by the end of 2020.

Petr Konovalov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Washington Post has now repeatedly used its platform to systematically cover up extensive US political interference across Southeast Asia.

Last month, the Washington Post attempted to deny US interference in Cambodia. Its article – however – did more to reveal US meddling in the process – exclusively citing opposition organizations and individuals either funded by Washington or literally living in Washington.

The Washington Post in its more recent article titled, “In Malaysia, a victory for democracy — and an opportunity for the U.S.,” would likewise attempt to paper-over US meddling in Malaysia’s recent general elections which placed US-backed opposition into power after decades of Washington investment.

The article begins by claiming (emphasis added):

While Washington wasn’t looking, democracy won a major battle over authoritarianism in Malaysia, a Muslim-majority nation that just voted out its crooked, illiberal leader and has embarked on a peaceful transition to a new era of hope. The unexpected change has given the Trump administration a chance to reverse a policy of benign neglect toward the region, support democracy — and gain a rare win over China. 

The United States had little to do with last month’s overwhelming election victory by a multiracial, multiparty opposition coalition in Malaysia.

Of course – this is categorically untrue. Virtually every aspect of Malaysia’s opposition, from pro-opposition media organizations like Malaysiakini, to street fronts like Bersih, to legal organizations like “Lawyers for Liberty,” and even the defacto opposition party leader himself – Anwar Ibrahim (PDF) – are recipients of extensive US government support spanning well over a decade via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its many subsidiaries and affiliates.

President of NED subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI) Daniel Twining – almost as if wounded by the Washington Post’s omission of his organization’s extensive political meddling in Malaysia – would boast on social media while linking to the Post article, that:

[IRI] has worked to strengthen Malaysian opposition parties since 2002. For 1st time since 1957 they won & are in power. Democrats around the world can play a long game confident that sooner or later, their time will come.

It is clear that evidence and even admissions by those dispersing US government money to Malaysia’s opposition expose the Washington Post’s article as categorically untrue – but it is also intentionally untrue. At least one member of the Washington Post’s editorial board literally serves as member of the US NED’s board of directors. Washington Post editor Anne Applebaum even has her own webpage on NED’s site.

Thus, it is also clear that the Washington Post not only faces a serious conflict of interest regarding its responsibility to accurately report on political developments around the world while its editorial board is directly involved in influencing those developments – it is actively involved in exploiting these conflicting interests by using its media platform to cover up the actions of organizations its editorial board are involved in.

And almost as if to contradict its own initial premise, the Washington Post article admits the US Department of Justice’s primary role in opening and perpetuating investigations into the former government’s finances – producing a scandal many have cited as at least partially responsible for aiding the US-backed opposition’s victory.
The Post claims (emphasis added):

The U.S. government could help the new Malaysian government to dig out of the mess that Najib left by helping it reform civil society, return to a free press and bolster the country’s economy. The United States can also help recover the billions Najib’s clique plundered from Malaysian coffers. The U.S. Justice Department is already deep into its investigations of those scandals.

Considering the extensive amount of backing the US government has provided the Malaysian opposition, it is difficult to imagine the US Department of Justice only coincidentally fixated on alleged financial impropriety in Malaysia, ahead of general elections the US government sought victory in for its proxies.

All About China 

The Washington Post also reveals the motives behind the extensive US political meddling it is attempting to conceal, mentioning China’s growing regional influence throughout the article.

The Post would claim:

There’s also a key opportunity for the United States to score a rare victory over China in Asia — one the Trump administration didn’t intentionally pursue. Mahathir has either paused or canceled several major Chinese-funded investment projects amid allegations of kickbacks to Najib and predatory deal terms. Beijing was heavily invested in Najib, and the Malaysian people resent it.

Despite the Washington Post’s attempts to conceal extensive US funding funneled into Malaysia’s opposition spanning multiple US presidencies – specifically to transform the nation into an obedient client state vis-a-vis Beijing – is does admit the central issue driving US meddling across Southeast Asia. China was also mentioned by a previous Washington Post article attempting to conceal and dismiss accusations of similarly extensive meddling in Cambodia.

Efforts to co-opt and compromise other nations in the region can be seen unfolding in Myanmar where ethnic conflicts are being cultivated and leveraged by Washington and London to divide the population and undermine stability, compromising a myriad of Chinese investments including major infrastructure projects.

US-backed protests have attempted to gain momentum in neighboring Thailand – with a similar array of US-funded media groups, street demonstrators, and opposition leaders seeking to create momentum based on the victory of US-backed opposition in Malaysia. They seek to reinstall billionaire fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra into power. Shinawatra had served US interests stretching back to before he became prime minister in 2001. His political survival has depended on extensive support through US-funded fronts operating in Thailand, and the unwavering support of the Western media.

It is likely that the Washington Post will soon be writing articles to dismiss growing awareness and outrage over US meddling in Myanmar and Thailand as well – eager to head-off obvious claims of hypocrisy leveled against Washington as it baselessly accuses Russia of “influencing” its political affairs while openly installing entire governments into power around the globe.

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

The Washington Post has now repeatedly used its platform to systematically cover up extensive US political interference across Southeast Asia.

Last month, the Washington Post attempted to deny US interference in Cambodia. Its article – however – did more to reveal US meddling in the process – exclusively citing opposition organizations and individuals either funded by Washington or literally living in Washington.

The Washington Post in its more recent article titled, “In Malaysia, a victory for democracy — and an opportunity for the U.S.,” would likewise attempt to paper-over US meddling in Malaysia’s recent general elections which placed US-backed opposition into power after decades of Washington investment.

The article begins by claiming (emphasis added):

While Washington wasn’t looking, democracy won a major battle over authoritarianism in Malaysia, a Muslim-majority nation that just voted out its crooked, illiberal leader and has embarked on a peaceful transition to a new era of hope. The unexpected change has given the Trump administration a chance to reverse a policy of benign neglect toward the region, support democracy — and gain a rare win over China. 

The United States had little to do with last month’s overwhelming election victory by a multiracial, multiparty opposition coalition in Malaysia.

Of course – this is categorically untrue. Virtually every aspect of Malaysia’s opposition, from pro-opposition media organizations like Malaysiakini, to street fronts like Bersih, to legal organizations like “Lawyers for Liberty,” and even the defacto opposition party leader himself – Anwar Ibrahim (PDF) – are recipients of extensive US government support spanning well over a decade via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its many subsidiaries and affiliates.

President of NED subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI) Daniel Twining – almost as if wounded by the Washington Post’s omission of his organization’s extensive political meddling in Malaysia – would boast on social media while linking to the Post article, that:

[IRI] has worked to strengthen Malaysian opposition parties since 2002. For 1st time since 1957 they won & are in power. Democrats around the world can play a long game confident that sooner or later, their time will come.

It is clear that evidence and even admissions by those dispersing US government money to Malaysia’s opposition expose the Washington Post’s article as categorically untrue – but it is also intentionally untrue. At least one member of the Washington Post’s editorial board literally serves as member of the US NED’s board of directors. Washington Post editor Anne Applebaum even has her own webpage on NED’s site.

Thus, it is also clear that the Washington Post not only faces a serious conflict of interest regarding its responsibility to accurately report on political developments around the world while its editorial board is directly involved in influencing those developments – it is actively involved in exploiting these conflicting interests by using its media platform to cover up the actions of organizations its editorial board are involved in.

And almost as if to contradict its own initial premise, the Washington Post article admits the US Department of Justice’s primary role in opening and perpetuating investigations into the former government’s finances – producing a scandal many have cited as at least partially responsible for aiding the US-backed opposition’s victory.
The Post claims (emphasis added):

The U.S. government could help the new Malaysian government to dig out of the mess that Najib left by helping it reform civil society, return to a free press and bolster the country’s economy. The United States can also help recover the billions Najib’s clique plundered from Malaysian coffers. The U.S. Justice Department is already deep into its investigations of those scandals.

Considering the extensive amount of backing the US government has provided the Malaysian opposition, it is difficult to imagine the US Department of Justice only coincidentally fixated on alleged financial impropriety in Malaysia, ahead of general elections the US government sought victory in for its proxies.

All About China 

The Washington Post also reveals the motives behind the extensive US political meddling it is attempting to conceal, mentioning China’s growing regional influence throughout the article.

The Post would claim:

There’s also a key opportunity for the United States to score a rare victory over China in Asia — one the Trump administration didn’t intentionally pursue. Mahathir has either paused or canceled several major Chinese-funded investment projects amid allegations of kickbacks to Najib and predatory deal terms. Beijing was heavily invested in Najib, and the Malaysian people resent it.

Despite the Washington Post’s attempts to conceal extensive US funding funneled into Malaysia’s opposition spanning multiple US presidencies – specifically to transform the nation into an obedient client state vis-a-vis Beijing – is does admit the central issue driving US meddling across Southeast Asia. China was also mentioned by a previous Washington Post article attempting to conceal and dismiss accusations of similarly extensive meddling in Cambodia.

Efforts to co-opt and compromise other nations in the region can be seen unfolding in Myanmar where ethnic conflicts are being cultivated and leveraged by Washington and London to divide the population and undermine stability, compromising a myriad of Chinese investments including major infrastructure projects.

US-backed protests have attempted to gain momentum in neighboring Thailand – with a similar array of US-funded media groups, street demonstrators, and opposition leaders seeking to create momentum based on the victory of US-backed opposition in Malaysia. They seek to reinstall billionaire fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra into power. Shinawatra had served US interests stretching back to before he became prime minister in 2001. His political survival has depended on extensive support through US-funded fronts operating in Thailand, and the unwavering support of the Western media.

It is likely that the Washington Post will soon be writing articles to dismiss growing awareness and outrage over US meddling in Myanmar and Thailand as well – eager to head-off obvious claims of hypocrisy leveled against Washington as it baselessly accuses Russia of “influencing” its political affairs while openly installing entire governments into power around the globe.

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

New Eastern Outlook has already reported on the notable political event: the parliamentary elections that took place in Malaysia, in South East Asia (SEA) on May 9 before. They resulted in the victory by the opposition, the Alliance of Hope, and the return to power of its leader, the 93-year-old Mahathir Mohamad, to the post of Prime Minister of a country with a population of 32 million people.

If we take into account not only the unique age of the politician in the highest government position, but also the prominent role Malaysia plays in South East Asia, as well as the fact that he had already occupied the post of Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003 (i.e. for more than 22 years), it is well worth re-assessing these events and its possible consequences for SEA three months down the line.

The level of economic development (one of the key parameters among others used to determine a country’s influence in the modern game of politics) has helped Malaysia to leave its “developing country” status behind. At present, together with India, Chile and Thailand, Malaysia is part of the second group of the so-called newly-industrialized nations (with South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore included in the first group).

In the last 50 years, the average annual growth in Malaysia’s GDP has remained at 6.5 %. Currently, Malaysia’s GDP and GDP per capita (represented as purchasing power parity) are equivalent to approximately 1 trillion and 30,000 US dollars, respectively, putting the nation into 26th and 41st place in global rankings based on these two indicators. Among SEA nations, Malaysia is in second place after Singapore in terms of hi tech export volumes. Incidentally, the nation’s foreign reserves exceed $ 110 billion.

In addition, Malaysia is one of the leading ASEAN members (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes 10 SEA countries), and is also an active participant in all the international events held under the organization’s auspices.

Mahathir Mohamad was the first Prime Minister who came from modest means, and whose political stature can be best defined as self-made. And it is hard to underestimate the role this man played in Malaysia’s reaching a status of a regional player of influence and in the economic progress made by this country.

His adherence to inherently Asian development approaches and his reluctance to blindly copy European and Asian practices are certainly worthy of note. For instance, during the Asian financial crisis from 1997 to 1998, he refused to follow the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommendations to curtail large-scale national projects. This is probably why Malaysia managed to overcome the crisis without substantial losses.

In the internal politics sphere Mahathir Mohamad has never shied away from fighting his opponents and their supporters. This time around, one of the first actions undertaken by the new administration was to initiate a “cleansing” of the highest judicial and supervisory bodies from supporters of his predecessor Najib Tun Razak.

At the end of July, Mahathir Mohamad promised to repeal security legislation, enacted with support from Najib Razak in 2012 and aimed at suppressing protests by the opposition, who had accused the former Prime Minister of corruption. But it is also worth mentioning that Mahathir Mohamad himself did not shy away from similar legislation initiatives at the beginning of the 1990s.

Mahathir Mohamad’s foreign policy rhetoric has always been distinguished by his sudden attacks against the EU and the US (in connection with the war in Iraq), despite the USA and the EU (along with China, Japan and Singapore) being some of Malaysia’s key investors and trade partners.

Although Mahathir Mohamad does not view himself as an anti-Semite, he takes a negative view of Israel, and is a proponent of the international Jewish conspiracy theory.

It is widely believed that the Malaysian Prime Minister has been sincerely fond of Japan for quite some time. This actually seems true, as the political and economic concepts underlying Asia’s unique developmental path are geared towards Japanese intellectual frameworks of the pre-war era.

For example, in the 1920s and 1930s Japan saw the appearance of the flying geese paradigm, whose implementation 50 years later played a key role in the emergence of the Asian Tigers and, possibly, led to rapid economic growth of China.

At any rate, within the first three months of his victory, Mahathir Mohamad has already visited Japan on two occasions. The first trip took place during the International Conference on The Future of Asia, held on 11 to 12 June in Tokyo, and became Malaysian Prime Minister’s first foreign visit.

Some highlights from his speech at this event included his point about the need to re-negotiate the Trans Pacific Partnership (the TPP) and take into account the interests of small nations.

Still, this statement was fairly general in nature, and it is not clear what specifically Mahathir Mohamad could have talked about during his subsequent meeting with his Japanese counterpart, Shinzō Abe. We would like to remind the readers that the TPP is in its last implementation stage, and it is unlikely that substantial changes will be made to this initiative.

Malaysian Prime Minister’s second official visit to Japan took place from 6 to 9 August. During this trip he gave lectures at two Japanese universities, and also paid a visit to a company operating a high-speed rail network. According to reports he even sat behind the console of such a train.

It is now high time to express bewilderment about a popular opinion that the new Malaysian administration is pro-American nature (and that it won the election with foreign assistance).

We can also say that Mahathir Mohamad treats China with caution, and this is not only due to territorial disputes with PRC in the South China Sea. Before his 5-day visit to Beijing that started on 17 August, the Malaysian Prime Minister had been critical of some very costly infrastructure projects that his predecessor signed agreements on with PRC.

However, this does not mean that Mahathir Mohamad views China’s main geopolitical rival in a positive light. We have already mentioned his foreign policy preferences earlier. It is also worth adding that there are fewer and fewer reasons for returning to the affirmation of the Cold War era  “We say Japan but mean the USA”.

Nonetheless, despite certain preferences towards some of the world players, Malaysia (as other SEA countries) will almost certainly continue with its balancing act in the geopolitical arena, created by each and all of these players.

Hence, any speculation (primarily by the Japanese media outlets) on the topic of Malaysia’s foreign policy reorientation towards Beijing is probably baseless. In the interview with the Hong Kong newspaper the South China Morning Post, the new Malaysian Prime Minister denied that he held a negative view of China.

In the meantime, PRC’s official newspaper the Global Times also does not expect any noticeable (negative in nature) changes in Malaysia’s policies towards China from the new Prime Minister. Some adjustments to joint projects are possible, but solely for reasons of economic and financial soundness.

Finally, it is fairly important to note that Mahathir Mohamad is in excellent (for his age) physical shape as evidenced by photographs and videos of him in recent months. This fact is worth paying attention to considering the rumors that have been circulating in the media about the Prime Minister’s intention to step down from his post in a year’s time in favor of his “political successor.

Either way evidence suggests that Mahathir Mohamad will have time to reconsider this decision, especially if Malaysians ask him to. He even expressed similar views during his first visit to Japan.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

The Diplomat, which claims to be “the premier international current-affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific region,” has recently published a piece granting credit for Malaysia’s recent general election results to what it calls, “everyday activists.”

The article is in fact titled, “The Everyday Activists Behind Malaysia’s Democracy Struggle.” The article begins by claiming:

Audiences worldwide have been transfixed by the Shakespearian twists and turns that saw Malaysia’s opposition defeat the world’s longest-ruling coalition. But the unprecedented May 9 win was also the culmination of a decades-long civil rights movement by activists who took great personal risks to bring about change.

The article cites Maria Chin Abdullah who headed Malaysian street front Bersih, online media platform Malaysiakini, political cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque (also known as Zunar), Malaysia Muda and legal group Lawyers for Liberty as examples of those that have finally helped make Malaysian democracy “work.”

Yet there is something else all of these examples cited in The Diplomat’s article have in common. They are all either directly funded by the United States government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), or their activities are facilitated by other organisations in Malaysia that are.

From Abdullah to Zunar, Funded by the US Government 

In essence, The Diplomat’s piece is arguing that the organisations they covered represent the custodians of Malaysian democracy, and thus play a role in determining Malaysia’s future. Yet the disturbing common denominator among them indicates a paradoxical dilemma. If these custodians themselves are a function of foreign influence, how could they possibly play a role in the Malaysian people determining for themselves a path that serves their own best interests and not those of these organisations’ foreign sponsors?

We begin with Maria Chin Abdullah, now a newly elected member of the Malaysian parliament. She had previously been chief of the Bersih street front whose rallies were regularly led by opposition politicians including Anwar Ibrahim who is now the defacto leader of the victorious Pakatan Harapan party.
In 2011, The Malaysian Insider would report in its article, “Bersih Repudiates Foreign Christian Funding Claim,” that:

[Bersih 2.0 chairman Ambiga Sreenevasan] admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march.

The article would also cite Maria Chin Abdullah as well, claiming:

Fellow Bersih steering committee member, Maria Chin Abdullah, explained that both NDI’s and OSI’s funding were specifically for to the electoral watchdog’s delineation projects.

The NDI is a subsidiary of the NED. Details of funding provided to Bersih were disclosed on the NDI’s website, stating (our emphasis):

In July 2005, NDI organized a national-level workshop for party leaders on election reform. NDI has since conducted workshops across Malaysia to promote electoral reform in collaboration with Research for Social Advancement (REFSA), the secretariat for BERSIH. In 2006, NDI conducted a workshop for BERSIH that focused on pimproving the action plancs of each participating organization or political party. In 2007, NDI and BERSIH conducted a series of workshops in the politically neglected provinces of Sabah and Sarawak to educate previously disenfranchised political aspirants.

It is clear that Bersih’s leadership, including Maria Chin Abdullah attempted to first conceal their US government funding from the public, then attempted to downplay the implications this funding had regarding their work.

Bersih faces fair criticism over their stated objective of “clean, free and fair elections” contradicting the foreign interference their dependence on US government funding represents.

The Diplomat next makes mention of Malaysiakini which describes itself as “independent media.” However its financial disclosures reveal it instead heavily dependent on foreign funding.

Like Bersih, Malaysiakini is funded by both the NED and the Open Society Institute. It also receives funding from the Canadian government, the Asian Foundation (which in turn is funded by the US State Department) and the Media Development Loan Fund (which in turn is funded by Open Society).

While political cartoonist Zunar’s financial sponsors are unknown, The Diplomat itself notes that work like his would not be published were it not for US government-funded media platforms like Malaysiakini.

More specifically, The Diplomat states:

The advent of online media was vital in amplifying alternative views such as Zunar’s in Malaysia where the major newspapers and broadcasters have been under tight state control. “New technology, independent websites such as Malaysiakini, and social media, have played a really important role for people who would otherwise be unable to voice their opinions,” said Tricia Yeoh, an analyst from the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, a Malaysian think tank.

The Diplomat also makes mention of Malaysia Muda researcher, Fadiah Nadwah Fikri. While Malaysia Muda’s funding is not disclosed anywhere among its online presence, its activities include attendance at events sponsored by US NED-funded organisations.

This includes the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), also mentioned above in The Diplomat’s article. Under funding, IDEAS lists both the NED and NED subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI), among its many foreign donors.

Last on The Diplomat’s list is Lawyers for Liberty. It has received tens of thousands in US NED funding for years and while this funding is not disclosed anywhere on Lawyers for Liberty’s website, it is disclosed on NED’s.  Lawyers for Liberty’s Eric Paulsen can be seen on social media using his US government-funded platform on a daily basis to demand policy changes from the Malaysian government, both before and after the recent elections.

In essence, an article supposedly about Malaysian democracy “finally working,” seems to be missing the important qualifier, “for Washington.”

A US Client State: if not Today, Tomorrow

With many analysts are in agreement that the new government’s current leadership headed by veteran Malaysian politician Mahathir Mohamad will bring greater balance to Malaysian policy, it appears there are interests who would like to continue to expand both the reach and grasp of US-funded organisations.

Like in other nations now fully integrated into Washington’s international order, these organisations are meant to operate first in parallel to existing state institutions, then replace them entirely. Examples of this can be seen elsewhere in Southeast Asia where Myanmar’s government is now run by senior politicians who have received training and support from similar networks of US government-funded influence interfering in Myanmar’s internal political affairs.

Failing a successful transformation into a US client state, these increasingly influential vectors of US interests can be used to create instability and pressure, leaving growing regional powers like China with dysfunctional states it is unable to partner and grow with.

The most fundamental of all prerequisites of a truly “working” democracy is self-determination. Such self-determination is not possible if a nation’s institutions are dominated by individuals and organisations dependent on donations and directives from Washington.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

After now 2 years of accusations and constant headlines regarding allegations of still unproven “Russian influence” in the 2016 US presidential election, it is difficult to imagine that real political meddling or election interference anywhere around the globe could go unnoticed.

This is especially true regarding the Western corporate media who has portrayed itself as deeply aware of the unethical and undemocratic nature of one nation interfering in the elections of another.

Yet during Malaysia’s recent general election – hailed by the Western media as a “historic win” for an opposition the Western media clearly favored – not a single story was written by media organizations like Reuters, AFP, CNN, the BBC and many others covering foreign interference during the elections.

Despite the lack of Western attention regarding foreign election meddling, it is revealed that Malaysia’s opposition is almost entirely comprised of US government-funded fronts – ranging from opposition leaders themselves, to political street fronts and organizers, to media organizations posing as “independent” Malaysian journalists, and “rights advocates” leveraging human rights advocacy to support the opposition and compromise Malaysia’s Barisan Nasional (BN) party.

Malaysia – a former British colony – faces the incremental expansion of US and European “soft power” within its borders – transforming it from a sovereign nation into a subordinate, modern Western client state.  As the US is attempting to do all throughout Southeast Asia from Cambodia to Thailand and the Philippines to Myanmar – the final goal is surrounding China with nations hostile to it politically, economically, and even militarily.

US-Funding and Support Propped up Malaysia’s Opposition 

Malaysia’s victorious opposition party – Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope) – is openly headed by “de facto leader” Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar Ibrahim was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant for the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Conservative dominated and Wall Street-funded National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) “Democracy Award” and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony

His service to Western institutions and the corporate-financier interests that created them – including NED – explains the unanimous support he has received for years throughout the entirety of the Western corporate media.

Before his imprisonment in 2015, he led the Bersih street front, a movement Western media sources like the Guardian cited as being pivotal to unseating the ruling BN party.

In a 2012 Guardian’s article titled, “Anwar Ibrahim’s moment of truth looms,” it reported that:

Elections are expected to be called any time in the next nine months, and even those who do not openly back Anwar often support what he stands for: relief from an autocratic and out-of-touch government they say has ruled Malaysia for too long. In April many tens of thousands of Malaysians took to the nation’s streets to demand electoral reform at rallies organised by Bersih, an opposition-backed coalition of civil-society groups whose name means “clean” in Malay. 

In another 2012 Guardian article titled, “Malaysian police fire teargas at electoral reform protesters,” it admitted Anwar Ibrahim’s role in leading Bersih:

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who many hope will win the upcoming election, rallied the enthusiastic crowds as one of Bersih’s leaders, Ambiga Sreenevasan, said: “We all want change today.” 

The above mentioned Ambiga Sreenevasan – who has played a key role in this year’s general elections in Malaysia – has received extensive US government funding for her activities, including US State Department money from NED subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), provided for training and support for Bersih specifically.

The NDI on its own website would describe its funding:

In July 2005, NDI organized a national-level workshop for party leaders on election reform. NDI has since conducted workshops across Malaysia to promote electoral reform in collaboration with Research for Social Advancement (REFSA), the secretariat for BERSIH. In 2006, NDI conducted a workshop for BERSIH that focused on pimproving the action plancs of each participating organization or political party. In 2007, NDI and BERSIH conducted a series of workshops in the politically neglected provinces of Sabah and Sarawak to educate previously disenfranchised political aspirants. 

In other words, the US State Department worked with Malaysia’s opposition to build up its support base in an obvious effort to influence elections in their favor. 

US-funded NGOs and Media 

NED’s official website often erases, deletes, and replaces financial disclosures regarding its political and election meddling around the globe. During the recent Malaysian elections, its disclosure for activities in Malaysia was coincidentally offline and instead, an ambiguous “search” page was offered.

However, NED’s activities in Malaysia are extensive – ranging from direct support for opposition parties as illustrated through its support of Bersih, to the funding of pro-opposition media fronts, legal firms dedicated to protecting opposition members and targeting BN politicians, and fronts posing as “human rights” advocates.

On NED’s website, it lists the following under “Malaysia 2017“:

Combating Corruption and Promoting Accountability

Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4)
$60,000
To promote good governance and accountability and to combat corruption. This multifaceted project will encourage public participation in efforts to combat corruption, including research on various forms on corruption in Malaysia; education around the Auditor General’s reports on the national budget; advocacy focused on strengthening the independence of public institutions; training workshops for youth on various aspects of corruption; and the promotion of online tools to build public participation in promoting transparency.

Promoting Governmental Accountability and Strengthening Anti-Corruption Efforts

Institute for Democracy & Economic Affairs
$40,000
To promote transparency and accountability within the Malaysian government and strengthen institutions working on issues of corruption. The organization will publish a series of articles, opinion pieces, and a book focused on efforts to combat corruption, produce infographics, and conduct roundtables and on proposed reforms designed to strengthen institutions and promote civic education on anti-corruption and good governance.

Promoting Human Rights and Access to Justice

Lawyers for Liberty
$45,000
To support a community of lawyers dedicated to the advancement of human rights through strategic litigation. The primary focus of the project will be the litigation of a variety of cases with important human rights implications and the conducting of public information campaigns and empowerment trainings.

Promoting Pluralism

Projek Dialog
$25,000
To promote open, reflective, and meaningful conversations among youth on diversity and inclusion in Malaysia. The organization will seek to promote an appreciation for pluralism through interactions between Malaysian young people and marginalized communities, including representatives of indigenous populations, refugees, and members of the Shia community.

Public Opinion Research

Merdeka Center for Opinion Research
$65,000
To carry out independent, objective public opinion research that will enable policy makers and civil society representatives to formulate policies and programs. The grantee will conduct public opinion surveys across peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak to gauge the Malaysian public’s opinion on a variety of public policy issues.

Strategic Litigation and Human Rights Advocacy

Liberal Banter Sdn Bhd
$40,000
To provide the Malaysian public, especially young Malaysians, with a forum to discuss critical political issues in the country and to support the advancement of human rights through strategic litigation. Project activities will include a series of initiatives designed to improve young people’s human rights advocacy skills and encourage their involvement in political processes, support for a variety of legal cases with important human rights implications, and maintenance of a resource center for Malaysian youth.

Strengthening Political Parties and Citizen-Responsive Democratic Governance

International Republican Institute (IRI)
$395,000
To strengthen political parties’ ability to campaign and govern responsively and democratically. The institute will bolster the skills of political parties in the areas of coalition operations, citizen-responsive and data-driven platform and policy formulation, messaging, and leveraging new media. It will also help to bridge the gap between parties and citizens by providing youth with the platforms and skills necessary to voice concerns and engage in discourse on issues related to Malaysia’s democratic development.

The headlines of virtually all the Malaysian newspapers have been screaming loudly and euphorically, since the ‘historic visit’ of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to the US, where he met President Donald Trump. They were ‘celebrating triumph’, hailing high hopes, and swelling with pride.

‘My gosh, the President of the United States really met the Prime Minister of Malaysia, face to face, during their ‘four eyes only’ meeting!

New Strait Times, on September 14, 2017:

“TAKING TIES TO NEW HEIGHTS: PRIME Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak hit it off with US President Donald Trump at their closed-door meeting at the White House. Trump says it is ‘a great honour’ to have Najib and his delegation at the White House and that he considers the latter a friend”

Such a statement is, of course, not too hard to comprehend, as Malaysia under the leadership of Mr. Najib has been lavishly ‘rewarding’ its allies in Washington (both the Democrats under Obama’s administration, and right after that, the Republicans), buying influence all over the US capital, and supporting conservative political think tanks.

Malaysia Mail, on September 14:

“’Trump: Malaysia vital to US’. Najib: * EPF to invest in US infrastructure development * Staunch and dependable ally of the US in fight against terrorism. Trump: * Malaysia crucial trading and investment partner. * Major player in fight against extremism.”

No public criticism of ‘the event’ is obviously allowed in the Malaysian mainstream media.

However, elsewhere, things are not as cozy at all. Both Trump and Najib have many enemies, and two of them together make extremely odd couple. The left is outraged, but even some extreme-right neocon figures are now shouting murder. In the U.S., there have been some loud outbursts of disagreements and even disgust, as this one, written by the former president of the World Bank (and staunch ‘neocon’) Paul Wolfowitz, who published his verbal blast in Newsweek on September 13:

“The Washington Post in an editorial yesterday said that the visit “sets a new low. Not only is Mr. Najib known for imprisoning peaceful opponents, silencing critical media and reversing Malaysia’s progress toward democracy. He also is a subject of the largest foreign kleptocracy investigation ever launched by the US Justice Department.”

The Justice Department suit in question seeks recovery and forfeiture of over $1 billion in assets alleged to have been purchased with funds “misappropriated” from Malaysia’s One Malaysia Development Bank (or 1MDB), which the suit alleges is largely controlled and managed by someone identified as “Malaysian Official 1” — and who is widely known to be Najib.

In addition to his overall responsibility for the more than $4 billion of misappropriated funds, some $1 billion of which were laundered in the United States, “Malaysian Official 1” personally received $731 million, of which $620 million was supposedly returned, netting him a tidy $111 million.”

Etcetera. Mr. Najib appears to be unloved at home, as well as abroad, by both ‘progressive’ and conservative politicians, as well as by the general public. It is mostly agreed that he is suffering from extremely low popularity, although the precise numbers are unavailable.

Unpopular or not, Mr. Najib and his UMNO are still controlling the country, and he has been tightly and warmly embraced by both successive administrations in the United States: those of Obama and Trump.

*

Many citizens of Malaysia are now chuckling. They feel embarrassed by their leadership, or they are anxious, or both. Some are even outrightly frustrated and angry.

An artist at one of the art galleries at Pasar Seni (Art Market) in Kuala Lumpur doesn’t want to be identified, but he offered his opinion about the encounter of the two leaders in Washington:

“I believe that this government is too busy doing money laundering and buying support in the US. But it has no time and no appetite to solve many problems that this country is facing. Malaysia is in deep crises and Najib should be listening to his own people, not to those in Washington.”

A leading left-wing Malaysian intellectual, author, filmmaker and professor, Kia Meng, explained the frustrating and persistent situation in his country:

“The biggest problem in Malaysia is the failure to conceive of any other model, not just in economic development, but in political culture. The mainstream civil society and political parties are mainly concerned about removing Najib as prime minister, and there are no qualms about working with Mahathir in achieving that end. Again, such limited horizons, and those who criticize are called cynics while these ‘pragmatists’ say that at least they are getting their hands dirty in at least trying to bring about ‘change’. The question is why dissenters feel so unrepresented and where is the space for them to articulate other positions or visions? Sorry, I am angry at these developments, and am asking myself, what is there to be done? Where is the point of engagement in these times?”

Mr. Suhaimi, a consultant who lives in both Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta (Indonesia), sees the situation pragmatically:

“Najib is not popular in Malaysia… And the country has right now too many problems. Next year, in August 2018, there will be elections in Malaysia, and Najib is clearly seeking support from abroad.”

President Trump is well aware of the fact that the West is gradually losing support in many parts of Southeast Asia. For the first time in modern history, The Philippines are openly rebelling against the Washington’s diktats, while Vietnam is reassessing its policy towards the West, gradually warming up towards China, at least after the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Nguyen Phu Trong, got re-elected at the beginning of 2016. Even the perpetually obedient ally of Washington, Indonesia, has lately been showing some mild signs of rebelliousness. Thailand is extending feelers in all directions, and could go either ‘east or west’, at any moment.

Of all the ‘important countries’ in the region, what is left for Washington to rely on is only the rich and opportunistic city-state, Singapore… and lately Malaysia.

Gone are all those fiery speeches and philosophical books of “Doctor M” (former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad), in which he used to scold the West and preach ‘Asian values’, while instructing Japan to ‘return back to Asia’.

Now Malaysia is full of praise for the West, and only the West. It is willing and ready to collaborate, to play by the [Western] rules. Remember those great moments of Malaysian history, the old slogans from the heady days of the liberation struggle against the Brits, a clenched fist and the shout: “Merdeka!” “Independence!” These are only sweet memories and nothing more, at least now, in 2017.

For the US, both Singapore and Malaysia are essential. These countries are sitting on one of the strategically most vital waterways in the world – the Straits of Malacca – and they are by far the richest nations of Southeast Asia.

Both Singapore and Malaysia are experiencing political problems, although to two very different degrees.

Now the White House is trying to rush to the rescue of the Malaysian leadership. The question is: would praise and compliments coming from one of the most unpopular political figures in the world – the President of the United States Donald Trump – truly boost support in Malaysia and the entire Southeast Asia for another highly disliked individual – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak?

It is definitely a great gamble. But both leaders are now fighting for their lives, using all means available!

*

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, a writer of revolutionary novel Aurora and several other books. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Bersih was created by the United States government and the political alliance of convicted and currently jailed Malaysian politician Anwar Ibrahim. The front organized its first rally in 2007, and has since then organized four more with the most recent taking place this month.

Over the years, Bersih has morphed, being  co-opted both by elements of the very government it is attempting to overthrow, and by legitimate opposition fronts who either are cynically exploiting the movement’s size and foreign funding, or who genuinely are unaware that Bersih’s core leadership is composed of US-funded agitators seeking to divide and destroy both Malaysia and ASEAN, as a means of reasserting US primacy in the region vis-a-vis China.

Bersih’s Core Leadership is US Funded 

The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan:

admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 [2011] march. 

The report referred to the “proposed respondents” to the claim being the Russian Federation and its President Vladimir Putin. The solicitor acting for the plaintiffs was quoted in a separate report (1) claiming, “we have facts, photographs, memorandums (sic), tonnes of stuff.” He also claimed that the claim document ran to “over 3500 pages in length.”

These reports closely followed the publication of the New South Wales Coroner’s Court report into the deaths of six of the victims who were resident in New South Wales. The Coroner’s findings closely followed those of the Report of the Dutch Safety Board of 13 October 2015, attributing the deaths of those aboard MH17 to a BUK missile detonating close to the aircraft, causing the plane to disintegrate and a consequent immediate loss of life to all aboard.

It was not part of the Coroner’s jurisdiction to attribute blame, that being the subject of a separate criminal investigation (JIT). The results of that investigation are expected to be announced later this year.

The Dutch head of the JIT investigation, Mr Fred Westerbeke wrote to all the Dutch victim’s families in February 2016 giving them an update on the investigation. A query to the Australian Federal Police as to whether the Australian families might receive a similar briefing was effectively ignored.

Something Mr Westerbeke did say that was of particular interest was that the United States had released their satellite data to the Dutch Security Services. Whether that data could be used and if so in what format, was for security reasons an unresolved issue.

Those data are of considerable significance. It is known that there were three US satellites overhead the Donbass region at the material time. They had the undoubted capability of determining exactly what was fired at MH17, from precisely where, and by whom. US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed as much in an interview with NBC shortly after the tragedy.

The American refusal to publically release the data leads to the very strong inference that it is being concealed for the reason that it does not support the “blame Russia” meme so favoured by the western media.

The incuriosity of the Australian media was again on display when they gave extensive coverage to the report of the alleged claim being filed in the ECHR.

There are a number of problems with this purported claim, accepted so uncritically be the Australian media. There was a clue in the use of the phrase “proposed respondents”. If proceedings had been filed in any court, then the respondents are not “proposed”. They either are or they are not.

A check with the ECHR website on 26 May 2016 showed that there was no record of any such claim having been filed. John Helmer, on his website (2) reports a similarly negative result when a query was made with the ECHR’s Registrar.

The problems with the alleged claim do not stop there. As noted above, the plaintiff’s solicitor said that the claim ran to more than 3500 pages. Rule 47 of the ECHR’s Rules state that the application must contain:

(e) a concise and legible statement of the facts;

(f) a concise and legible statement of the alleged violation(s) of the Convention; and

(g) a concise and legible statement confirming the applicant’s compliance with the admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35(1) of the Convention.

Whatever else they may be, a 3500-page claim does not remotely comply with any definition of “concise.”

The ECHR Rules further provide that any additional submissions do not exceed 20 pages (Rule 47 (2) (b)) in length.

The plaintiffs have failed to provide any relevant details from their 3500 page claim (or at all) that would enable an independent observer to assess what “facts, photographs and memoranda” they have that were not available to the Dutch Safety Board Inquiry. Given the combined resources available to the Dutch led inquiry, it would be remarkable that a firm of solicitors would be able to state their claims so categorically when a major government report was not able to do so.

The plaintiff’s difficulties do not end with their lack of credibility.

The ECHR Rules further provide that any application made under Article 34 of the Convention is required to be made (Article 35(1)) within six months of the event giving rise to the application.

As the relevant event occurred on 17 July 2014, the six months expired on 17 January 2015. No explanation has been forthcoming nor any inquiry made by the incurious mainstream media as to how this potentially fatal flaw in the proceedings could be overcome.

That is not the end of the plaintiff’s woes. Rule 10(b) governs Article 34 applications to the Court. That rule requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that “the applicant has complied with the exhaustion of available domestic remedies.”

One of the plaintiffs named in the purported ECHR proceedings is Mr Tim Lauschet, a relative of one of the victims. Mr Lauschet is also the plaintiff in proceeding 2015/210056 filed in the New South Wales Supreme Court. Malaysian Airlines System Berhad is the respondent in those proceedings.

The original pleadings sought various declarations that would facilitate a claim for damages under the relevant provisions of the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959. That limits liability to a maximum of special drawing rights equivalent to approximately A$215,000. There is a two year time limit for the making of such claims, so that right expires on 17 July 2016, only a few weeks away.

The purported proceedings in the ECHR makes no attempt to reconcile their $10 million claim with the liability of international air carriers which is considerably less by an order of magnitude. Neither did the media bother to ask.

The Judge politely pointed out a number of deficiencies in Mr Lauschet’s pleadings (2015) NSWSC 1365) and adjourned the matter with various timetable orders to enable the plaintiff to remedy the many deficiencies in the pleadings.

The matter has been back before the Court a further four times since that hearing, with the only apparent progress being that the plaintiff has now filed a statement of claim. (3) It is now scheduled for a further Directions Hearing on 30 May 2016.

The conclusion for present purposes must be that Mr Lauschet has not achieved “the exhaustion of available domestic remedies.” Whether any of the other Australian plaintiffs in the purported ECHR proceeding have even started, let alone exhausted, their domestic legal remedies is unknown. But in Mr Lauschet’s case (and possibly all of the others) he therefore faces another fatal flaw.

There is one other element in this case that the mainstream media is either unaware of or has chosen to ignore. In 2012 the then Gillard government made amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 to enable payments of up to $75,000 to victims of terrorism.

Eligibility for those payments (the acronym for which is AVTOP) were backdated to 11 September 2001. A necessary pre-condition for the payment is a declaration by the Prime Minister of the day that the event concerned was a “terrorist act.”

To date there have been nine such declarations, the latest being the 13 November 2015 attacks in Paris, France. The shooting down of MH17 should qualify under most definitions as a “terrorist act.”

The relevant Prime Ministers since 17 July 2014, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull, have not made such a declaration, which would then entitle victim’s families to claim compensation under the Act.

Requests to the Prime Minister’s office for information as to whether such a declaration was going to be made, and if not, why not, were ignored. A Freedom of Information Act request has therefore been made and is currently pending.

There may be a number of reasons why such a declaration has not been made. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that only the military units of the Ukrainian armed forces had the means, motive and opportunity to shoot down MH17 (4).

As a recently joined member of Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s “advisory council” former Prime Minister Tony Abbott would be in a difficult position if the shoot down was declared to be a terrorist act and the JIT investigation put the blame where it rightly belongs, on the Ukrainian government. It is not surprising that the announcement at the recent ASEAN-Russia meeting that Malaysia and Russia were cooperating in an investigation of the MH17 tragedy caused concern in US and Ukrainian circles. (5)

Although the current Australian Prime Minister Turnbull has been more circumspect than his predecessor in making ill-conceived allegations against Russia and its President, he will not wish to expose himself to a finding by the JIT that does not fit the propaganda meme so assiduously pursued by the western media.

There are a number of losers in this charade, not least the victims of the atrocity and their families who deserve better than to be exploited by both politicians and dubious claims in the ECHR. The public, who might reasonably expect to be better served by their media, are also the losers.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

For the Australian politicians and media it was a case of “guilty as alleged” although at that time in the immediate aftermath of the disaster there was no evidence upon which to form any conclusions.

Three days after the crash the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press TV program said that the US had

“picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”

Mr Kerry did not specify how the US had this information, but it was a reasonable inference at that time that the data had come from US satellites.

Since Mr Kerry’s remarks it has been established by independent investigators that the US had at least three satellites in geo-stationary orbit over Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014 Two of these satellites are of the SBIRS type (GEO-1 and GEO-2), and a Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) satellite. Between them they are able to perform continuous surveillance of the area of interest.

Some commentators have endeavoured to downplay the significance of this by suggesting that factors such as cloud cover impeded surveillance capability. This is self-evidently nonsense. As one of their prime functions is to detect missile launches, their defensive capability would be hopelessly compromised if something as simple as cloud cover impeded their capacity to provide a timely warning of missile launches.

The capability of these satellites certainly includes the ability to detect and track the launch of a BUK missile, the weapon most commonly described as the cause of the disintegration of MH17. They can similarly track an air-to-air missile, which is the alternative hypothesis that has been advanced.

There has been a great deal of contradictory information from official sources about this satellite data, which is itself suspicious. For example, on 19 December 2015 the Dutch chief prosecutor and coordinator of the criminal investigation into the disaster, Mr Fred Westerbeke, told the Dutch daily newspaper NRC:

“Satellite images showing how on July 17 Flight MH17 was shot out of the sky by a rocket do not exist. There has been a misunderstanding about this… There is no conclusive evidence from intelligence services with the answers to all the questions.”

If Mr Westerbeke was correct, then it clearly contradicts the claims made by Mr Kerry 17 months earlier. But Mr Westerbeke then contradicted his own earlier statements in a letter to the families of the Dutch victims in February 2016. In that letter Mr Westerbeke stated:

“The US authorities have data generated by their own security forces, which could potentially provide information on a rocket trajectory. These data have been confidentially shared with the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service (DISS). The DISS and the Public Prosecutor are now investigating in what form the US state secret information can be used in the criminal investigation and what will be provided in a so-called official report to the Public Prosecution. That special report can be used as evidence by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT).”

It seems a reasonable inference on the basis of that statement that the secret US satellite data does disclose the required information. Specifically, it answers the major question: who fired the missile and from where?

The issue that is publically troubling the JIT is how to use sensitive intelligence data in a public forum such as a trial of accused persons. The undisclosed problem for the JIT is twofold. If, as is widely suspected, the satellite data show that the BUK missile was fired by Ukrainian forces, then that will contradict 20 months of relentless anti-Russian propaganda. The western media are not good at admitting the error of their ways.

The second problem is the agreement of 8 August 2014 whereby the members of the JIT agreed not to disclose any information unless all the parties agreed. As one of those parties, Ukraine, is a prime suspect, it is unlikely that the evidence will ever be revealed if it in fact implicates Ukraine.

It is still the case that the Australian government has never acknowledged the existence of the 8 August 2014 agreement. It has not bothered to tell the Australian public why it entered into such an agreement when the public interest would demand a transparent and full investigation of the worst disaster to be inflicted on Australians since the Bali bombings of 2002.

Given the existence of Mr Westerbeke’s letter to the families of Dutch victims it is difficult to understand why the Australian media are persisting with the claim that the Americans have refused to release the data. Paul Malone’s claim to that effect in the Canberra Times of 12 March 2016 is plainly wrong. It is possible of course that Mr Malone is aware of the facts, but the two problems identified above prevent him disclosing those facts.

Apart from detecting the launch of a missile, the satellite data can pinpoint the precise point from which the missile was fired. In the present case that is supremely important.

The Report of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) into the MH17 disaster, published in October 2015 only went as far as to narrow the location of the launch site to an area of 320 square kilometers. This was territory contested by both Ukrainian and separatists forces. Despite the uncertainty and non-attribution of culpability in the DSB Report, Australian politicians falsely claimed that the report “proved” that Russian backed separatists were responsible.

Apart from a complete failure by the Australian media to correct this false information, they have also failed to address two further pieces of relevant evidence found in the DSB Report.

The first piece of evidence is found in the technical appendices of the DSB Report. Appendix T (from the Dutch Intelligence Services) has clearly not been read by any member of the Australian mainstream media. This appendix stated, inter alia:

• Although the separatists had captured a Ukrainian military base at Donetsk, the BUK systems located there were “not operational” and therefore “could not be used by the separatists.”
• Although there was information pointing to the fact that the separatists had been supplied with heavy weapons by the Russian Federation, there were no indications that these were powerful anti-aircraft systems.
• Although the separatists were trained to use weapons systems, there are no indications that they were being trained to use powerful anti-aircraft systems.
• There was no evidence of any intention by the separatists to shoot down a civil aircraft.

Reports in the mainstream media imply that the firing of a BUK missile is a matter of pointing it at the sky and pushing the proverbial button. As Appendix T makes clear however, extensive training in their use is required.

Not only must the crews be trained to a high level of proficiency, for which Appendix T notes there is no evidence in respect of the separatists, the firing of a BUK missile also require the ancillary use of radar systems. Again, there is no evidence that the separatists had such radar equipment.

There was evidence however, that radar equipment of the Ukrainian armed forces was operational at the relevant time and in the relevant location. The Russian authorities at a press briefing given on 21 July 2014 disclosed this. Again, the Australian media ignored this evidence.

Contrary to the vague generality of the DSB Report as to the launch location, we have a report by the Russian manufacturer of the BUK missile, Almaz-Antey, released at the same time as the DSB Report.

Almaz-Antey produced a detailed analysis of the data. Their conclusion was that the BUK missile was launched from the Zaroschenskoe area, which was under the control of the Ukrainian armed forces at the time. This report has never been mentioned in the Australian mainstream media, probably because its conclusions do not fit the official narrative.

Thus, Mr Malone in the Canberra Times states that the JIT investigation is “widely expected” to “confirm that the missile was launched from separatist held territory.” It would only be “widely expected” by those reliant upon the constant stream of disinformation and concealment of evidence common to the mainstream media’s coverage of the MH17 disaster.

It was noted above that there was an alternative hypothesis about the cause of MH17’s crash, namely an air-to-air missile, presumably fired by one of the Ukrainian fighter aircraft identified in the area in the Russian briefing of 21 July 2014.

The Russian forensic expert Albert Naryshkin comprehensively advanced the air-to-air missile theory in July 2015. His report (available only in Russian) concluded that although the specific weapon could not be unequivocally identified, the specific nature of the missile damage to the aircraft meant that the most likely weapon was a Python air-to-air missile.

This particular weapon was adapted for use by the SU-25 Scorpion fighter that was the type of fighter observed by Russian radar data on 17 July 2014 and reported on at the 21 July 2014 briefing.

The merits or otherwise of this hypothesis are beyond the scope of this article. Suffice to say that it was not considered by the DSB and any mention of it is conspicuously absent from the Australian media.

Three further recent developments are worth noting. The first of these was the Coronial Inquest held in Melbourne in November 2015 in respect of the Australian victims. The inquest has been reported by John Helmer on his website. Suffice to note here that the coronial inquiry was deeply flawed. It was marked by secrecy, the suppression of evidence, conflicts of interest, and a manifest desire to simply parrot the official line regardless of other evidence that is progressively emerging.

It accepted without question the conclusions of the DSB Report, even though that Report is incomplete, does not ascribe culpability as it awaits the JIT investigation, and for the reasons mentioned below, is far from flawless.

The second development worth noting is that both the Dutch and the Russians have released letters addressed to the families of the victims.

The Russian statement is by the Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency of the Russian Federation, Oleg Storchevoy. Mr Storchevoy takes the opportunity to address some of the misinformation about what Russia has and has not done to assist the official inquiry.

He notes, for example, that Russian primary radar data was provided to the DSB, together with telephone conversations and other data, in August 2014. Russian primary radar data was in fact the only such data available, as the Ukrainians had for some reason switched off their radar at the critical time.

The Russian data supplied to the DSB confirmed increased activity by Ukrainian BUK missile systems within the conflict zone ahead of the tragedy. That evidence was ignored by the DSB.

It might be interpolated here that the separatists have no air force, so the need for anti-aircraft systems to be active remains obscure. No explanation has been forthcoming from the Ukrainians.

Mr Storchevoy also drew attention to the unprecedented cooperation offered by Almaz-Antey, the BUK manufacturer which again was ignored by the DSB.

Mr Storchevoy noted that Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the Dutch technical investigation was performed in an extremely non-transparent and biased manner. He said that the Dutch authorities should also explain how they distorted facts and concealed data, and ignored important data supplied by the Russians.

These and other questions posed by Mr Storchevoy are legitimate and deserve careful consideration and response. Perhaps needless to add, no report of Mr Storchevoy’s statement has appeared in the Australian mainstream media.

The second letter was written to the families of the Dutch victims by the head of the JIT inquiry, Mr Fred Westerbeke.

Mr Westerbeke’s letter discussed, inter alia, that conclusions about the technical analysis of the aircraft debris should be available in the latter half of 2016. Importantly, as noted above, he confirmed that the Americans had provided data about the missile trajectory although the form in which that data can be used is unsettled.

Mr Westerbeke also said that the analysis of other data, including intercepted telephone calls, location data from telephones, images (unspecified), witness statements and technical calculations would enable “certain inferences” to be drawn about the rocket’s track.

Reference was also made to the English blogger Eliot Higgins who operates under the name of “Bellingcat.” Despite repeated critical analysis of Higgins’ falsification of data and manifest other errors, he continues to be reported in the western mainstream media as a reliable source.

Why western intelligence agencies, with their vast resources, would defer to one man operating out of his house in Leicester is explicable only if Higgins is seen as a useful conduit for what is invariably anti-Russian propaganda.

Westerbeke obliquely dismisses Bellingcat as a resource, as “providing no evidence of direct involvement of members of a Russian unit” in the shoot down on MH17. The claim of Russian direct involvement is one of the more sensational of Bellingcat’s claims faithfully and uncritically reported in the western media.

In the light of the Westerbeke letter, the Australian Federal Police were asked whether they agreed with the contents of the Westerbeke letter. Westerbeke had signed the letter on behalf of the members of the JIT (which includes Australia).

They were also asked whether a similar letter would be sent to the Australian families. The AFP’s response was a non-answer, saying only that the queries had been forwarded to the JIT!

Information has also been sought from the Prime Minister’s on what compensation the Australian victim families might expect. Under the relevant Australian legislation victims of terrorism are eligible for compensation up to $75,000. That possibility was raised by a number of mainstream media outlets in Australia in July 2014. In order to be eligible the Prime Minister must declare that the deaths of the Australian citizens were as a result of a terrorist attack.

The government had announced on 9 October 2013 that payments would be made to the victim’s families of other terrorist attacks pursuant to the prime ministerial declaration. The payments have been applied retrospectively, starting with the events of 11 September 2001. To date there have been 10 such declarations, the latest being the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015.

The Australian government has not declared the shooting down of MH17 to be a terrorist act fore the purposes of the legislation. The reasons for this are unknown, although comment has been sought from the Prime Minister’s office.

Australian victim families still have other remedies available under the provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. Under Article 21 of that Convention damages of (approximately) $215,000 are set.

Potential liability of the carrier, in this case Malaysian Airlines, is however unlimited unless it can prove that the death “was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents.”

Given that the evidence appears to suggest that MH17 either flew over a war zone of its own volition or was directed to do so by Ukrainian air traffic control, discharging that onus may prove difficult.

Proceedings seeking various declarations have been launched in the New South Wales Supreme Court by Tim Lauschet (2015/210056) against Malaysian Airlines, but that case is still at a preliminary stage.

The only clear point to emerge in Australia in the 21 months since the disaster is that the government and the mainstream media are determined to, on the one hand deny the public vital information about the disaster, and on the other hand maintain the fiction that the disaster was the fault of Russian backed separatists.

That line serves to justify the sanctions imposed on Russia and the continuing demonization of President Putin. If only Prime Minister Turnbull’s plea for an intelligent and adult dialogue was sincere. If that were the case the Australian public would be better informed than they are. It seems a very vain hope.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.