In the West, we tend to ignore the Muslim
countries of Southeast Asia too often in favor of the more rambunctious
Middle East; whether this is because we are concentrating our limited
energies on the larger problem spot, or ignoring places where things are
going well, is probably a function of one’s particular outlook on life.
Regardless of the source of this disregard, it is an error as great as
choosing to ignore the safe streets in city planning in favor of the
bullet-ridden ones. The good things don’t last without some tending of
their own.
That leads to Malaysia, a moderate Muslim country with
strong trade ties to the United States, that we too often ignore along
with its other, moderate neighbors in favor of a pointless bombing
campaign in Libya and other adventures in futility. Malaysia has done
well for itself, holding fast to a moderate strain of Islam while
continuing to grow energetically. It is not heaven on earth, but it is
better than most Muslim nations, with religious minorities freely
practicing their faith, and calls for extremism loudly and roundly
denounced by most Malaysians. It is in and from this fertile ground that
Malaysia’s current prime minister, Najib Razak, boldly decried the
practice of suicide bombing, eschewing the usual Islam-means-peace
pablum for a
concrete denunciation of murder and suicide, explicitly calling them contrary to Islam and a mark of barbarism.
This
is especially significant because English is the lingua franca of
Malaysia, and so Najib’s Oxford speech was reported and understood at
home. He cannot — and to his credit, does not — play the all-too-common
game of tell-the-non-Muslims-what-they-want-to-hear,
revert-to-death-to-the-Jews-death-to-America at home.
His political opposite cannot say the same.
I’m on the record
having a low opinion of Anwar Ibrahim, but that’s only because he’s a
virulent anti-Semite with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who formed an opposition coalition in his country by recruiting a political party
best known for calling for volunteers to fight with the Taliban against the United States.
So, you know, little things. But what’s worse is how he has played the
nasty demagogue at home, then played the good democrat in the West; and
what’s worse than that is how the Western policy establishment has
historically tolerated this.
This is one of those critically easy
policy rules: If someone is blathering about the Jews being the source
of the world’s problems, or, more particularly, his own, he is a very
bad man, a nutter, or both. You don’t need to be a failed painter with a
nasty little mustache,
a figurehead president with alleged (and hastily denied!) Jewish ancestry, or a
former military juntaist
whom we have unaccountably not snuffed as he has gone on to destroy one
of the most vibrant and productive economies in Latin America for this
to be so. You can be an opposition leader trying to wrest control of
your country’s parliamentary system from someone you casually describe
as being controlled by the Jews.
Indeed, given his ready
trafficking in old anti-Semitic (and anti-Christian) tropes, it is a
wonder the extent to which Anwar has retained so much of the goodwill he
managed to rack up in the late Nineties. People whom many of us (I
include myself) have respected for years tend to shock us by excusing
away Anwar’s disturbing tells. Probably the best, single example of this
I’ve seen has been Jackson Diehl
excusing the anti-Semitism as an unfortunately necessary means of political survival
(while giving Anwar an on-the-record opportunity to explain away his
minutes-long rant as the result of a slip of the tongue), and giving
Paul Wolfowitz, who really should know better, a chance to provide Anwar
some same-themed cover. That neither man would tolerate this sort of
doublespeak out of, say, a Saudi prince is a telling indictment of their
willingness to suspend their disbelief at inconvenient times.
Diehl
and Wolfowitz are hardly alone. For years — since at least 2008, when
Anwar first explained his failure to win a national election
as the result of the American Jewish Lobby
doing … something — Western policymakers and opinion makers have given
the man a free pass, ignoring each round of particularly vicious
anti-Semitism as it occurs. Anwar has helpfully made himself available
without pause or cessation, ready to say one thing to any Western voice
that would listen, and another at home; he has been his own best press
agent.
A strange thing seems to have happened of late, though.
Anwar is on trial for forced sodomy (mistakenly described by Diehl and
others who should know better as consensual sodomy), and the
judge presiding over the case has allowed it to go forward.
In a matter of days, Anwar will have to present his defense, and will
doubtless explain again to Western ears that he is a beleaguered
democrat facing a political charge (something the Washington Post
seems inclined to believe credulously), and tell audiences at home that this is because of the Jews, the Israeli special ops, and/or the Americans.
But
as yet, there is no groundswell of spontaneous opinion writing in his
defense. There is no remarkable wave of excuses and dire warnings about
democracy in Malaysia. There is, instead, silence.
I would submit this is the result of two, critical factors.
First, Anwar’s political touch is turning out to make a lot more lead than gold. Most recently, he has taken to
excusing away his inability to move the needle in local elections, in the process doing critical damage to his coalition’s efforts in advance of the upcoming national elections by
insulting a vital, potential ally. He compounded this by
accusing the people of Sarawak — where he
carefully hid his ties with radical Islam during the local elections,
to no avail — of racism for failing to support his ticket, a charge
that is not merely not helpful, but has the added bonus of being based
on a complete misunderstanding of the facts on the ground.
The
Western press likes winners and canny underdogs. It’s not quite so hot
on fools who cannot keep their feet from their mouths.
The
second, critical element here is the Obama Administration’s approach to
Malaysia. I have been a not-infrequent critic of the Obama
Administration’s foreign policy —
confused, overt deference to the genocidal People’s Republic of China, and
a willingness to snub the world’s most populous democracy
are not actually achievements of which Americans should be proud — but
this is one area in which the Administration seems to have caught on
more quickly than its outside supporters and critics. Not only is the
Secretary of State
praising Najib’s call for religious moderation, but the Administration as a whole is treating Anwar as a matter of secondary importance.
And
as we learned during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the media are
nothing if not sensitive to the directions open and implicit of this
President.
The next few months will be interesting to watch.
Anwar’s trial will conclude with a verdict of some kind, and Malaysia
will move toward its next national election. In the face of dual
pressure, it would seem reasonable to assume that Anwar will step up his
availability and his lobbying of the Administration to build support
either for his appeal (if convicted) or his election efforts (regardless
of the trial’s outcome).
Whether his one-man public relations
campaign yields the same willingness to ignore rank anti-Semitism and
tolerance of Islamist lunacy will rest on the Administration’s
willingness to stand by its prior positions (an open question) and
whether Anwar continues to inject his foot into his mouth when blood
libels are not leaving it.
PETALING
JAYA: Yet more police reports. This time against several…
Nur
Jazlan said UDA also “owes” the government RM104 million, paid market
prices for the Pudu Jail land and still has to pay RM134 million in land
premiums for the property by September.
'What can I do? My Husband Needs A Son Anyhow'
