.... Was the US Think Tank paid to produce a report on Anwar?
From: Free Anwar Campaign News (FAC News 21-08-2001)

Pro-Mahathir US think-tank is a husband-wife outfit! Read this report which appeared on Free Anwar Campaign website.... - from Sangkancil Listserv.

The United States has been warned not to support Anwar Ibrahim. This warning came from Amy Ridenour, president of the National Centre for Public Policy Research, and was published by the Washington Times on Wednesday. 

Ridenour said Anwar started his political career in the 1960s as a student activist and then founded the Angkatan Belia Islam (ABIM), a "fundamentalist Islamic youth movement", whose aim is to generate an Islamic movement as a path to Islamic revival in Malaysia. 

As follows is an excerpt from Ridenour's report: 

Anwar's political history began as a student activist at the University of Malaya in the 1960s. He believed the religious instruction he received at boarding school had been perfunctory, and began to make fiery public speeches about Islam both inside and beyond the university. Upon graduation in 1971 he played a leading role in founding Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia, or ABIM, the Malaysian fundamentalist youth movement. By its own description, ABIM aimed to generate an Islamic movement as a path to Islamic revival in Malaysia. Anwar traveled to Iran to meet with Khomeini. He was arrested in 1974 for his role in a student demonstration while his organization taking one page each from Marx and the screed of radical Islam denounced labor exploitation and "all things repugnant to the spirit of Islamic justice."

What is this National Center for Public Policy Research that Ridenour represents? 
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a tiny rightwing husband and wife outfit. It's Website is: 


FAC News got its contact in the US to investigate the background of the National Center for Public Policy Research and this is what he had to report: 

No one in Washington seems to have heard of this so-called "think tank" outfit until this op-ed appeared in the Washington Times. 
In a city that is filled with great think tanks -- the Brooking Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Heritage Foundation, the CATO Institute, the International Institute of Economics and many others -- it is wrong for Bernama to call the National Center a think tank, because it is not. Those other institutions have major research, publications, and public programs. They also have a real influence on thinking about international affairs. 
But the National Center is not in this class at all. Most people have never heard of it at all. As it says on its own Website, it specializes in quick responses, cranking out op-eds and fact sheets that are used primarily by very conservative Congressmen, columnists, and radio talk show hosts. Their website also indicates that almost all of their opinion pieces are about US domestic affairs. They hate Democrats and love Republicans; they hate environmental legislation; they love low taxes, and so on. 
Their section on "national defense" indicates that they have produced only 12 short op-eds on national defense and foreign affairs in the past two years! Most of those were supporting the proposed missile defense system and opposing Cuba, the United Nations, and Iraq. 
What makes the piece on Malaysia unusual, therefore, is that it is so rare for them to write about specific countries (other than Cuba). Why did they choose this topic? Who provided them with all the misinformation? 
Amy Ridenour is not an expert on Malaysia, Asia, or foreign affairs (as her article makes abundantly clear.) Why does she now try to set herself up as an expert on these topics? She is going to end up with a lot of egg on her face because (1) her ignorance of Malaysian affairs will make her a laughingstock among the informed Washington DC foreign affairs community, and (2) her anti-Muslim statements (implying very strongly that Muslims are radical, anti-West terrorists) will not go down well in the American Muslim community. It is an insult not only to Anwar but also to them to be stereotyped in that way. 

And this is what the National Center for Public Policy Research has to say in its Website: 

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century. 

In 1982, we started The National Center to provide the conservative movement with something it sorely lacked -- a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to late-breaking issues. Today, we continue to fill this critical niche through a top-flight research and communications operation driven by results and the bottom line. 

Considering the National Center for Public Policy Research survives by getting paid by its clients, is it possible they were paid to produce the report on Anwar? In that case, who is its client? The Malaysian government maybe? 

Ibn Sabah: Berita Propaganda Yang Ditaja...

Click Here!