The UN General Assembly: Hypocrites on Parade

We all saw highlights of President Trump’s speech. But what did other world leaders have to say?

Sure, Donald Trump got all the publicity. That’s par for the course when you threaten to “totally destroy North Korea.”

But this is a blog about Islam, so rather than North Korea, the focus here is the Muslim world. What did the various world leaders have to say about that?

I'll start with President Trump: he called out the “vile and sinister ideology” of “radical Islamic terrorism.” In particular, he singled out Iran’s “corrupt dictatorship” and “murderous regime.” Good stuff, noticeably absent from his 9/11 and Afghanistan speeches. Still, it's mostly a rehash of his May 21 address in Riyadh, which I covered previously.

Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel shared President Trump’s concern about Iran: “From the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean,” he said, “from Tehran to Tartus, an Iranian curtain is descending across the Middle East.” (If you don’t follow the reference, look it up. “Iron Curtain speech.” Get it? Iron Curtain/Iranian Curtain).

Hassan Rouhani of Iran came back swinging. He called the accusations against his country “ignorant, absurd, and hateful rhetoric” from a “rogue newcomer.”

Overall, President Rouhani wins the award for smarminess. “Our ambassadors are our poets, our mystics, and our philosophers,” he intoned piously. But my favorite part was, “The path of moderation nurtures beauty. Deadly-weapons exports are not beautiful; rather peace is.” He should know; his country is exporting weapons all over the Middle East to fight its proxy wars, including the humanitarian catastrophes in Yemen and Syria.

Rouhani concluded with a sales pitch for investment in the Iranian economy. He invited “all those who seek peace, security, and progress through partnership and cooperation among nations to visit Iran.” I’d actually like to take him up on that. I discovered in the course of research for my book The Thread of Reason that Iran is a country of spectacular and diverse natural beauty which, to its credit, takes great pride in its wealth of historical monuments, even pre-Islamic ones. Those who seek to destroy the monuments of the Confederate States of America could take a lesson from the Iranians. Still I think I’ll postpone my visit until I can travel in Iran without fear of being arrested and tried behind closed doors on dubious charges of espionage, as has been the fate of other Americans in that country.

Abdu’l-Fattah as-Sisi of Egypt presides over one of the world’s worst human rights abusers. It’s a place where Giulio Regeni, a Cambridge University student who was researching trade unions in 2016 mysteriously disappeared. His corpse, showing signs of excruciating torture, turned up in a ditch along a highway nine days later. In another story, just this week, an Egyptian court sentenced some 500 people in a mass trial for their role in the 2013 anti-government demonstrations. Amnesty International reported that 330 of them had already been detained for four years or more, and among these, there was evidence against only two of them. So one can only marvel at the irony of President as-Sisi lecturing the world body on “upholding the notion of the modern nation-state, which is based on the principles of citizenship, equality, rule of law, and human rights.” In a less hypocritical vein, he continued that he intended to defeat “any attempts at retracting to doctrinal, sectarian, ethnic, or tribal loyalties.” You read that right. No loyalty to religion, culture, or ideas allowed. One must be loyal only to the State.

On the subject of terror, President as-Sisi said, “We in the Muslim world need to face our reality and work together to rectify misconstrued notions which have become an ideological pretext for terrorism and their destructive discourse. As you may recall, Egypt has launched an initiative to rectify religious discourse in order to revive the moderate and tolerant values of Islam.” This showed some insight in that the roots of terror are ideological, but as-Sisi is mistaken that Islam has been misconstrued. While the ideology of ISIS and al-Qaeda isn’t the only possible interpretation of Muslim scripture, it’s certainly an interpretation with deep roots in that scripture. As for the prospect of any government “rectifying” religious discourse, or any discourse—that is truly chilling.

President as-Sisi also called for “global order that can face challenges, such as climate change.”

Mahmud Abbas, leader of the Palestinians, called Israel a colonial, Apartheid, occupying power, but nevertheless he promised that “upon Israel’s withdrawal from the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied in 1967, the Arab and Islamic States would recognize Israel and normalize relations with it.” One has to wonder about his sincerity, since he then went on to denounce the “historical injustice” of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the document which laid the foundation for Israel’s right to existence in the first place. In any case, we're unlikely ever to put Mr. Abbas's sincerity to the test. There's only a small chance he'll ever have to follow through on this promise. Territories "occupied" in 1967 include East Jerusalem, which Israel views as part of its eternal, undivided capital.

As for Abbas’s view of the roots of terror, he claimed that “draining the swamp of colonial occupation of our land and ending its unjust, oppressive, and illegal practices against our people would greatly affect the fight against terrorism, depriving terrorist groups of one of the key rallying cries they exploit to promote their repugnant ideas.” This is an argument that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, recently called “pure, unadulterated insanity.”

Mr. Abbas also said, “We once again affirm our commitment to…the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”

Aung San Suu Kyi, First State Counsellor of Myanmar, chose not to attend, due to the anti-Muslim violence engulfing Rakhine State in her country; I wrote about that earlier this week. Instead, Counsellor Suu Kyi sent Vice President U Henry Van Thio, who for the most part parroted the awful speech that the First Counsellor delivered on Tuesday. But not to worry. Despite the atrocities in Rakhine, Mr. Van Thio assured the world that, “Myanmar welcomes the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”

Well, that gives you some flavor of the 72nd UN General Assembly. As I read through page after page of self-inflicted grievances and smug hypocrisy, not to mention the pathological obsession with climate change, there was one question that kept nagging at me:

Why is the United States part of this?

Michael Isenberg drinks bourbon and writes novels. His latest book, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092, and tells the story of the conflict between science and shari’ah in medieval Islam. It is available on Amazon.com Transcripts and video of the speeches from the 72nd UNGA may be found on the UN Website.

Aung San Suu Kyi to World: Nothing to see here

Myanmar’s State Counsellor uses her eagerly awaited speech about the atrocities in Rakhine to discuss sustainable development and Five Year Plans.

Yesterday I wrote about the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims, who live in Rakhine State, Myanmar (Burma). For some years they have been in conflict with the ethnic Burmese. Last month the situation escalated when Rohingya jihadists attacked government outposts. The jihadists, like jihadists everywhere, are a blight on the landscape. The military counterattacked, as they should. But the brutal nature of the counterattack, drawing no distinction between combatants and non-combatants, is shaping up to be one of the great crimes of our still young century. Together with Rakhine civilians, who they armed, the military burned dozens of Rohingya villages and murdered numerous women, children, and elderly, triggering a humanitarian crisis that sent nearly 400,000 Rohingya—almost half their population—fleeing to Bangladesh. A skeptical world may doubt some of the harrowing stories told by the refugees. But there is no doubting the burning of the villages. The flame and smoke are there for all to see.

Despite the horrific nature of the crisis, I ended on an optimistic note:

In the absence of any acceptance of responsibility by the government, all eyes have turned to Aung San Suu Kyi, holder of the Nobel Peace Prize and de facto leader of Myanmar…For some years now, she’s been evasive about Rakhine…But with the recent attention, perhaps she is reconsidering. A spokesman for Ms. Suu Kyi announced that she will deliver an address on the situation this week. The world will be watching.

Ms. Suu Kyi gave her speech this morning.

It was awful.

I have sympathy for Ms. Suu Kyi, I really do. For decades, as leader of the opposition against Burma’s military government, she suffered numerous rounds of house arrest. And now, with the return of civilian rule, she has taken on the task of rebuilding a poverty-stricken and divided country. It’s an excruciatingly difficult job, and I realize I’m guilty of some Monday morning quarterbacking here.

But, God, that speech was awful.

She did not acknowledge the seriousness of the atrocities. “There are allegations and counter-allegations,” she said. “I have not gone into any of them because it is not my purpose to promote and encourage conflict.” So she hid behind the “both sides” argument, and not for the first time. And she did it disingenuously: when it came to the allegations against the Rohingya, she did go into them.

There was no acceptance of responsibility on the part of the government. Instead she called for more study to find out what was really happening—which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already been doing for weeks.

There was no plan put forward for stopping the violence. Indeed she denied there was anything to stop. “Since the 5th of September, there have been no armed clashes and there have been no clearance operations,” she claimed, apparently incorrectly. CNN reports, “Satellite imagery examined by Amnesty International appears to show more than a dozen burned villages and fires since that date.”

Some of what Ms. Suu Kyi said was downright absurd. “We are concerned that numbers of Muslims are fleeing across the border to Bangladesh. We want to find out why this exodus is happening.”

See above, re: burning villages.

And then there’s this jewel: “The great majority of Muslims in the Rakhine state have not joined the exodus. More than 50% of the villages of Muslims are intact.”

What a relief to know that only half the Rohingya have been driven away!

But more than anything else, Ms. Suu Kyi’s address was technocrat-speak. Instead of the leader that I know she is, she sounded like a Soviet apparatchik or an EU bureaucrat:

We had established a central committee for rule of law and development in the Rakhine… In accordance with the counterterrorism law, section six, subsection 5… The final report of the advisory committee… A strategy with specific timeline has been developed to move forward the national verification process… Social development programs… Sustainable development… The Rakhine state socioeconomic development plan, 2017 to 2021, has been drafted to boost regional development in various sectors…

Yes, she literally cited the Five Year Plan.

Toward the end of her speech, Ms. Suu Kyi offered a metaphor which I thought was instructive. Her intent was to deflect attention from Rakhine state to the problems of Myanmar as a whole:

I would like to use the analogy of a healthy human being. A healthy human has to be healthy all over—you cannot neglect his general health, just to concentrate on one particular ill.

Yes, you can concentrate on one particular ill. When things are bad enough, you have to concentrate on one particular ill. Like if a patient is brought into the emergency room with a gunshot wound. Stop the bleeding. Don’t inquire into whether he gets enough exercise or has too much salt in his diet!

So it is with nations. I’m all for sustainable development and strategies with specific timelines. But there are always unforeseen events that disrupt the Five Year Plan. That's one of the great insights of conservatism and one of the reasons socialism doesn't work. And when events occur, a leader has to deal with them, and that's what Ms. Suu Kyi is not doing. Stopping the bleeding.

I recognize Aung San Suu Kyi has many constraints and few options. I recognize that, under Burma’s Constitution, she does not control the military. But at the very least, she can speak out against the very real atrocities happening in her country. Some say that words don’t make any difference, but I beg to differ: Aung San Suu Kyi’s whole life is proof that they do.

Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write science books instead of burning them.

The Rohingya Persecution: a Primer

If you’ve been on social media lately, you've probably seen references to the Rohingya people being persecuted by the government of Myanmar (Burma). Words like “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” appear. But, what with DACA, Hurricane Irma, and the Hillary excuses tour, the story has not gotten as much attention as it should. And it should get attention—horrible things are going on, and people need to know about them.

Granted, figuring out just what is going on is no small task. The situation reminds me of the debate back in the 60s over the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the naval battle that led to escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. A cartoon at the time depicted angry government officials standing in front of a map and pointing at each other accusingly. Scratching his head, an honest but puzzled onlooker says, “Only thing we’re sure of—there is a Tonkin Gulf!”

Similarly, it seems like the only thing we’re sure of regarding the violence in Myanmar—there is a Myanmar.

Charges and counter-charges fly back and forth between the Rohingya and the government. All the tools of modern disinformation are in play—evasive statements by government officials, accusations of “fake news,” photographic “evidence” of atrocities that turn out to be pictures of some other atrocity in some other country, and a general willingness of both sides to believe even the most absurd accusations about the other, while dismissing any criticism of itself. To complicate things, the press is not able to operate freely in Myanmar, especially in Rakhine State, where the Rohingya live. News about Rakhine must be cleared by government censors.

In any case, despite these obstacles, here’s what I’ve been able to piece together:

Who are the Rohingya?

The Rohingya are Muslims of Indian origin living in northern Rakhine, on the coast of the Bay of Bengal, near the Bangladeshi border. The government claims they are recent arrivals, fleeing crowded conditions in Bangladesh. The Rohingya claim they have been there for 1,000 years, the descendants of Arab seafarers. The truth is somewhere in between. Muslims have lived in the region since at least the 1430s—the Santikan Mosque in Mrauk U dates from that era. The term “Rooinga” appears in a British article from 1799, “Burma Empire” by Francis Buchanan-Hamilton.

Migration of Indian Muslims into the region accelerated during the colonial era; the British brought them in for agricultural labor.

World War II saw violence between the Rohingya, who allied with the British, and the Rakhine, who were sympathetic to the Japanese. Thousands died on both sides.

As the war ended and Myanmar achieved its independence, there was division among the Rohingya as to their future. Some wanted to join Pakistan, but that was rejected by that nation’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Others formed separatist groups to fight for independence—and these groups persist to this day. Still others integrated into Burmese society—at least one became a member of parliament.

The number of Rohingya in Rakhine is unknown. There hasn’t been a census since 1983. At that time, there were 585,000 Muslims living in the state, 29% of the population. Estimates of the Rohingya population on the eve of the current round of violence is somewhere around a million.

How do the Burmese view the Rohingya?

With hatred. Many Burmese Buddhists dislike Muslims in general and the Rohingya in particular. Just as some of my right-of-center friends believe that hordes of Muslims are migrating illegally into Europe in order to take over that continent for Islam, many Burmese believe Muslims are attempting to do the same thing in Rakhine. There is little solid evidence for this; the only migration that’s been significantly documented is the flow of refugees going the other way.

The New York Times reports, “In online forums, Rohingya are referred to as dogs, thieves, terrorists and various expletives. Commenters urge the government to ‘make them disappear’ and seem particularly enraged that Western countries and the United Nations are highlighting their plight.” Although Buddhist monks are generally thought of as exemplars of peace, when it comes to despising the Rohingya, some of them are leading the charge. Notable among these is Ashin Wirathu, who Time magazine called “The Face of Buddhist Terror.”

Is this the first outbreak of persecution against the Rohingya?

No. In 1962, a military junta overthrew the government of Myanmar, ushering in decades of autocratic rule under which the Rohingya suffered greatly. Some argue the junta needed the Rohingya to justify their own dictatorship. A 1982 nationality law stripped the Rohingya of citizenship; legally they are now stateless persons. Periodic waves of violence crashed down on them. In Operation King Dragon (1978), the military conducted mass arrests and torture under the pretext of cracking down on jihadists. Amnesty International reported that in 1991-1992, there were “massive human rights violations in the Rakhine State, including extrajudicial executions, torture, forced labour and portering.” The persecution persisted even after the end of military rule in 2011. In 2012, riots broke out in the wake of questionable accusations that three Rohingya youth had raped and murdered a Rakhine woman.

What sparked the current outbreak?

Jihadist separatist groups meanwhile continued their loathsome campaign of violence in Rakhine. One of these is the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), under the leadership of Ata Ullah, a Pakistan-native, of Rohingya descent, who grew up and was educated in an “Islamic school” in Saudi Arabia (Why is it always Saudi Arabia?). Last October, an attack on Burmese border posts along the Bangladesh border killed nine government officials. A second round, on August 25 of this year, left seventy-one dead. ARSA has claimed responsibility for both of these attacks.

What’s happening now?

The military struck back. As it should; ARSA really is a dangerous jihadist group. But to the military's eternal shame, the scope of its counterattack went far, far beyond jihadists. The latest (Sept 15) report from Human Rights Watch states, based on satellite data and eyewitness reports, that the Burmese military has burned 62 Rohingya villages near the Bangladesh border. Huge numbers of Rohingya have fled in their wake. CNN reports that a mind-boggling 370,000 refugees have fled to Bangladesh in a three week period.

The refugees offer harrowing accounts of attacks by the military and its allies on women, children, and the elderly—a chilling demonstration of the end game of identity politics. This is what happens when people look on each other as members of groups rather than as individuals. Among these accounts is that of Ali Omar, of Whykhong, who witnessed the burning of a neighboring village:

I watched as the government landed in helicopters in Tula Toli and distributed arms. They distributed arms to the Mughs, the Hindus, the Buddhists and to the Murongs, everyone. We watched helicopters landing and then the weapons being given out. They suddenly had everything; uniforms, knives, guns, everything. I saw these friends of mine put on uniforms and holding weapons. We used to be childhood playmates. Once everything was distributed, they started the operation. The women and children hid in the paddy field by the river bank. But when the militants saw people in the paddy field, they started to shoot at them, killing them this time. You could hear the children crying. There were so many bodies in the water, they were floating down the river like pieces of wood.

Ali Omar’s experience is just one of scores. You can read more in the September 8 report from Human Rights Watch.

What does the Burmese government say?

So far, very little. A statement from the foreign ministry blames everything on ARSA, and assures a concerned world that, “The security forces have been instructed to...exercise all due restraint, and to take full measures to avoid collateral damage and the harming of innocent civilians in the course of carrying out their legitimate duty to restore stability.”

In the absence of any acceptance of responsibility by the government, all eyes have turned to Aung San Suu Kyi, holder of the Nobel Peace Prize and de facto leader of Myanmar. Many expected her to be sympathetic to the plight of the Rohingya; after all, Ms. Suu Kyi herself was for decades under house arrest at the hands of the military. But for some years now, she’s been evasive about Rakhine, employing the “both sides” argument. That satisfied her critics as much as President Trump's critics were satisfied by his use of the same tactic in the wake of Charlottesville.

The Washington Post attributes her reticence to a number of factors including party politics, other priorities (the economy and insurgencies in other parts of the country), the need to accommodate a still powerful military, and just plain stubbornness.

But with the recent attention, perhaps she is reconsidering. A spokesman for Ms. Suu Kyi announced that she will deliver an address on the situation this week. The world will be watching.

(UPDATE 9/19: Ms. Suu Kyi gave her speech today. Here's my two cents.)

Michael Isenberg writes about the Muslim world, medieval and modern. His forthcoming novel, The Thread of Reason, is a murder mystery that takes place in Baghdad in the year 1092. It depicts the war for the Muslim soul between those who seek to enforce shari’a strictly, persecute Jews and Christians, and stamp out "un-Islamic" science, and those who wink at a few sins, tolerate their non-Muslim neighbors, and write science books instead of burning them.

Photo credits: CNN, Newark Star-Ledger, Google Maps