The new boat people: how come nobody wants them?

Two related stories in the meeja this weekend are causing a good deal of handwringing and hypocrisy at urgent sessions of the Disunited Nations, the European Quasi-union and other One-World talking shops. The Brotherhood of Man is being challenged by the arrival of boatloads of 1000s of mostly Muslim "refugees" from north Africa, the Middle East and south Asia now washing up on the shores of Europe and southeast Asia. Although no-one likes to admit it, the real reason no-one wants them is to be found in the two words preceding "refugees" in the previous sentence.

First, the bad news from the Mediterranean. In spite of widely reported drownings of hundreds of refugee wannabes, the tidal wave of dark people keeps increasing in size, and now threatens to inundate Italy and slop over into Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Everyone agrees that Something Must Be Done. Surely we're not going to let those "poor" people drown! But what is to be done? And by whom?

To make matters worse [Is that possible? Ed.] an adviser to the Libyan government [They have a government? Ed.] told BBC News this weekend that Islamic State (IS) fighters are being smuggled into Europe in the midst of the "genuine" refugees. Officials in Italy and Egypt have previously warned that IS militants could reach Europe by migrant boat, but say now -- possibly for fear of being labelled as "racists" or "Islamophobes" -- that it is very difficult to verify or assess such claims.

The Libyan official, Abudul Basit Haroun, based his claim on conversations with smugglers in parts of North Africa controlled by the militants. He "alleged" -- the BBC's word -- that IS was allowing the boat owners to continue their operations in exchange for half of their income. Earlier this year, -- the EU’s "alleged" -- Walt's word -- border control agency, Frontex, warned that it was "possible" that foreign fighters were using "irregular migration routes" to get into Europe.

Egypt’s ambassador to the UK has warned of "boats full of terrorists" if the international community does not act, while the Italian government has expressed fears of militants infiltrating the boats, while emphasizing that the boats are... wait for it... a "humanitarian crisis".

So what to do? BBC News reports today that EU foreign and defence ministers are expected to approve a mission to destroy the boats used by people-smugglers operating in war-torn Libya. (Notice how no-one talks any more about who start the war that destabilized Libya. Ye reap what ye sow.)

Speaking on arrival for an urgent meeting with the sprouts in Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said "today the main point will be taking the decision to establish the operation, the EU operation at sea to dismantle the criminal networks that are smuggling people in the Mediterranean." She did not say whether the boats would be destroyed before or after they were loaded.

Meanwhile, a parallel "humanitarian crisis" unfolds 1000s of miles away, in the Indian Ocean, where three countires -- Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia -- are being condemned by the do-gooders at the UN for refusing to rescue, let alone accept, 1000s of Muslim migrants adrift in the Andaman Sea.

Last week, at least 700 Bangladeshis and Rohingya from Myanmar were rescued off the Indonesian island of Aceh, bringing the numbers of "refugees" in camps there to at least 1500. The Rohingyas, if you haven't heard of them, are an ethnic group who have lived for yonks in northwest Burma [or Myanmar. Take your pick. Ed.] but are denied citizenship because they are, errr, Muslims, and Burma is a Buddhist country. 1000s of Rohingyas have shipped out, fleeing persecution and poverty in Myanmar. They are stranded at sea along with additional 1000s of Bangladeshis -- also Muslims -- who are just looking for work.

Aid agencies say a "grave humanitarian crisis" is in train as countries in the region refuse to accept the migrants. Visible on the sides of the refugee boats are numerous black marks which appear to have been made by ten-foot poles. Thailand, the closest country to Bangladesh and Burma is, like Burma, a Buddhist country, which doesn't want to be overrun by Muslims. Thailand's reluctance is understandable, given that they already have a problem with Islamic terrorists in their southernmost provinces.

Malaysia and Indonesia are, errr, Muslim countries, but don't seem any more disposed to receive their co-religionists than the Buddhists of Thailand. Indonesian authorities have told fishermen not to help the migrants unless their boats are sinking or they are in the water. Military spokesperson Fuad Basya said fishermen could deliver food, fuel and water to the boats, or help with repairs, but that bringing them to shore would constitute an illegal entry into Indonesia.

The Muslim boat people are believed to be severely malnourished. Survivors who have made it to shore say there have been deadly fights on board over food. UNHCR spokesthingy Vivian Tan called the lack of rescues over the past weekend "a bad sign" and warned that "time is running out" to help the migrants. The BBC quotes her as saying, "We were hoping that more ships would be found, and that more people would be rescued and allowed to come onto shore. Unfortunately, this didn't seem to have happened".

Who will take in the poor Muslim "refugees"? Walt suggests that American and Canadian authorities keep their eyes on their countries' Pacific coast, to see what the tide will bring in. Hey, it's happened before, and of course we "Christians" couldn't refuse entry to these huddled masses, because to do so would be anti-Muslim, racist, etc etc etc.

Muslim solidarity not much in evidence in south Asia

Here's one you may have missed because -- be honest -- when you see "Bangladesh" in the headline don't you flip frantically to the funny pages? Anyhow, AP reports this afternoon that three (count `em -- three!) boatloads of Rohingya Muslims fleeing violence in Burma [Not Myanmar? Which is it today? Ed.] have been turned away by neighbouring Bangladesh. About 1500 refugees have been denied entry so far, and more are on the way.

Police official Janagir Alam told AP "They have been chased away. We are keeping our eyes open so that nobody can enter Bangladesh illegally."

And Bangladesh's Foreign Minister, Dipu Moni, said at a news conference in Dhaka that it was not in his country's interest to accept any refugees because the impoverished nation's meagre resources are already strained. And even when it's strained, you can't eat hemp, eh.

Am I the only one who finds it more than ironic that a Muslim country should refuse to accept Muslim refugees? What's wrong with those people, anyway?! Possibly their boats were not equipped with compasses, otherwise they would surely have made their way to "Christian" Canada, where they would have been welcomed with open arms, and immediately given houses, cars and extra cash for imported rice so they wouldn't feel homesick.

Footnote: Violence between Buddhists and minority Muslims in western Myanmar [Burma? Ed.] started on Friday. Since then at least 12 people have been killed and hundreds of homes burned. The cause of the violence? At least one report cites the alleged rape of a Buddhist girl by three Muslim men, which prompted a revenge attack by about 300 Buddhists on a busful of Muslims, killing 10 of the latter. Sounds more like Pakistan than Burma, but some say you can expect that kind of trouble wherever you have a sizeable Muslim community. Like Burma. Or India. Or Indonesia. Or... errr... hmmm...

Further reading: "How can we be silent in the face of Islamization of our country?"

If you don't like this war, here's another possibility

As noted earlier today, the British are mulling a retreat from Afghanistan. That would be their second failure to quell the barbaric Afghans, the first having been in the 19th century. Of course this time the British part of this dirty little war became only a sideshow to the US "surge". It was smarmy Tony Bliar's way of showing that he was good buddies with Junior Bush.

Still, invading Afghanistan had to be justified somehow. Since there were obviously no WMDs there, one of the reasons given for the invasion was to suppress the growing of opium poppies, thus opening another front in the war on drugs. Why is it America keeps making war on everything -- drugs, poverty, Iraq, terrorism? It would be different if we were winning the wars... But I digress.

According to Andrew Marshall's excellent book, The Trouser People*, more opium and heroin comes out of Burma (a.k.a. Myanmar) than Afghanistan. The Burmese generals will be quite happy if the "allies" defoliate Afghanistan down to the last ... errr... bush, but they're not beting on it.

By the way, the Burmese government has been waging its own genocidal war on the Shan, Wa and other ethnic minorities for years. What are we doing about Burma? Nothing!

About a century ago, Lord Salisbury said, "Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible". Perhaps, rather than waging useless wars on the other side of the world, nothing is precisely the right thing to do.

* 2002, Counterpoint, New York. The quotation from Lord Salisbury is from the Epilogue.