THE blowback emanating from the events of September 11, 2001 has shaken the Islamic world to its very core. It has created deep mistrust and accentuated tensions between the United States and the Islamic world. Equally, it has brought into sharp focus the current plight of Muslim societies, the condition of their generally corrupt and undemocratic regimes, the state of their economic dependence and level of educational and technological backwardness.

Concurrently, as the dynamic of the festering Palestinian and Kashmir problems brings misery and frustration to its people breeding extremism and hardening attitudes it puts further strain on Washington’s relations with the Islamic world. Now as the US and British forces reach their full level of mobilization for a massive attack on Iraq, anti-American sentiment in the Muslim countries is on the rise, further complicating the relationship between them and the West.

The officially declared motives of the US for international intervention are Iraq’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the regime’s ability to thwart the will of the international community. They also maintain that Saddam Hussein’s record is full of falsehood and covert actions and that he cannot be trusted. However legitimate these may be, the world in general and the Muslims in particular are not prepared to accept them at face value.

Their perceptions are that the US, taking advantage of its unchallenged military and technological power, wants to take possession of Iraq’s vast oil resources, which are the second largest proven reserves in the world. This will ensure its energy security in a volatile Middle East at a time when relations between the US and Saudi Arabia remain uneasy. Furthermore, Iraq, by virtue of being the most technologically advanced country among the Arab states, is a potential threat to Israel.

The US and the Jewish lobby, under the pretext of eliminating WMDs, want to seize this opportunity to weaken and destroy Iraq’s technological and military infrastructure. Finally, Iraq is one of the very few Muslim states that are openly hostile to the sole superpower and, therefore, installing a compliant regime in Baghdad would serve the long-term strategic interests of America.

The chances are that the US will make the UN Security Council say that the Iraqis have not been quite forthcoming in their attitude and there are sufficient grounds for an invasion. By this approach Washington will be able to keep some members of the western alliance on board. In the new world order largely shaped by the US, national sovereignty is no more an absolute concept. With it come “certain obligations” and when states violate minimum standards by committing or threatening to commit intolerable acts such as Iraq is known to have done against its own people and against other countries, like Kuwait, they have to forfeit some aspects of their sovereignty and pay a price for excesses and infractions.

Even otherwise, there is no love lost between Saddam Hussein and the people in the Islamic world. Because of his treacherous past, Saddam enjoys little sympathy among the Muslim governments or at the people’s level. However, they would prefer him thrown out by his own people but surely not by America. As against this, there is deep concern and sympathy for the suffering Iraqi masses, who in the event of another war would be subjected to much greater hardships. This is the reason why the overbearing and unilateral manner in which the US is pushing its war agenda against Iraq arouses deep resentment and animosity in the Muslim countries.

Prior to 9/11, the US enjoyed fairly good relations with most Muslim countries, more so with those that aligned themselves with its foreign policy objectives or were reliable suppliers of oil. It was immaterial whether monarchs or dictators ruled these states. US policy has since undergone a major shift because of the emergence of non-state actors and forces in several Muslim states, that are hostile to it even if the governments are friendly.

Besides the people’s thinking in most of the Muslim countries is at variance with that of their rulers. In the new context, the US cannot rely on the present regimes to advance its national interests, nor withdraw support for them, as the alternative appears much worse. So it is reformulating policies that are based not only on its relations with the governments but also taking into account the attitude of the opposition, particularly the militant groups that are targeting America.

Unfortunately, apart from a few exceptions, the governments in the Islamic world are inherently very weak as, being despotic or monarchical, they lack the underpinning of popular sanction and support. In many Muslim countries civil society too is either non-existent or too fragile to make an impact. As a result, the influence of Islamic parties and groups is on the rise and it is believed that if there were free elections in most of the Arab and Muslim countries, these forces would win handily and the current rulers would be swept away.

In the foreseeable future the power of the non-state actors and religious parties is likely to grow in the Muslim countries while that of the incumbent governments get weaker unless moderate forces are encouraged and given political space at the state level so that they can emerge as a buffer between the two. This polarization poses a challenge as well as an opportunity for the Muslim countries to initiate major political reforms, modernize the system of political rule and widen its popular base. The US should be supportive of such reforms.

After all, more than a billion Muslims cannot be left behind the rest of the world in education, democracy, technology, economic progress, modern system of governance and, above all, women’s emancipation without serious implications for their own societies and for the peace and stability of the world at large.

What is required is to build civil societies and promote the concept of popular involvement and participation in the sphere of governance so that there is a healthy political, social and spiritual renewal and progress. Otherwise the Muslim nations will continue to slide, remain under increasing pressure from all manner of alien or hostile forces vulnerable the influence of the extremist religious and obscurantist forces.

In most Muslim countries very few leaders accept responsibility for personal or collective failure and look for scapegoats for their own incompetence or failure, whether they are internal opponents or foreign powers or interests. Even our intellectuals are no exception to this rule. They keep on harping on cliches and inanities that neither explains the present predicament nor provide a sense of direction for the future.

The tragedy lies in the fact the Muslim world is unable to project the lofty ideals and traditions of Islam either to its own people or to the rest of the world because there is hardly any state or leadership fit to be presented as a model in modern settings. No doubt, some Muslims countries have done better than the others in contemporary times. Malaysia stands out for its all-round development although one would like that country’s leadership to be more liberal and less repressive towards political dissent and democratic opposition. The Gulf states have taken some commendable steps to reform their economies and streamline their energy and communication infrastructure but need to move faster to cope with the need for political change.

Apart from being undemocratic and having fragile institutions, the primary weakness of a large majority of the Muslim states is the lack of adequate investment in human resource development. This places them at a great disadvantage vis-a-vis the rest of the world and is the source of many of their problems. Firstly, the Muslim states should promote education on a war footing, something they have neglected to do despite very clear Quranic injunctions on the value of education and knowledge. To develop any of the basic components of national power, whether it is the economy, politics or military, education remains central. Of immediate concern to the Muslim world is the challenge of fighting terrorism. There is no doubt that terrorism is rooted in the unjust treatment and repression of Muslims in Palestine and Kashmir. Here, a great responsibility rests with the members of the Security Council, particularly the US, to stop acquiescing in the repressive policies of Israel and India and find a just solution to these two issues that have polarized the Islamic world against them.

But to expect that there will be any major change in the US stance on these issues in the foreseeable future is highly unrealistic. Meanwhile, fanatical forces cannot be allowed to destroy the peaceful ethos of Muslim societies and determine the destinies of Muslim nations in accordance with their warped world view and their obscurantist notions of systems and values. Marginalizing of moderate forces is occurring within those Muslim countries where radicalism is on the rise, making coexistence with religious minorities and the outside world difficult and problematic.

Muslim nations in their present state of weakness cannot afford to be isolated and confront the western world. The only way of making their voice heard in the comity of nations is to improve their internal strength through an institutional build-up of political and economic structures, good governance, economic progress and advancement of ethical and spiritual values.

The writer is a retired lt-general of the army.

IT IS easy to imagine what American right-wingers would make of 32 American academics winging to Iraq to attend a conference entitled “Iraqi-American Academics Together for Peace” last week. Here comes a bunch of clueless, latter-day fellow travellers.

Can they recapture that ignominious era when naive westerners would stride beside genial NKVD minders in the old Soviet Union, oblivious to show trials and ugly gulags, and announce, with eyes glistening, that they had seen the future and it wears a brush mustache ? Well, actually, no.

The group, hailing from 28 universities and colleges, and a wide variety of specialities, including law and medicine, knew that sordid history and were anxious to avoid the pitfalls. If we could shrink Saddam Hussein’s regime to the size of a bug, we would happily squash it. Unfortunately, there is no bomb or boot heel which is that smart, and an American assault will kill or maim thousands — likely tens or even hundreds of thousands.

As for Bush’s hilarious claim that he seeks to democratize Iraq, his father said the same about Kuwait in 1991 and just look at its flourishing democracy. So the independent delegation, representing 33,000 scholars who signed a “No Iraq Attack” petition, sallied forth, led by a highly capable Jim Jennings, president of humanitarian NGO Conscience International, to Baghdad to see if they could pry past security men and Baath Party hacks to see for themselves what was happening.

On arrival late at night we are welcomed by a wild welter of in-your-face cameras and ingratiating officials. One quickly learns how it feels to be an (unpaid) celebrity and one profoundly empathizes with actor Sean Penn, especially his impulse to beat up intrusive cameramen. Bianca Jagger, joining us as a representative from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, shrugs: “I do not like it much either. Just try not to notice.”

The next morning we are ushered into a red draped auditorium adorned with the inevitable portrait of smiling Saddam stiff in academic gowns. Still, it started well with the Baghdad University President delivering a level-headed welcoming address. Jim Jenning then stated it is high time for the US to “put up or shut up” regarding evidence of violations and that “we condemn all” — underline that, all — “human rights violators in Iraq.”

Law professor Michael Rooke-Ley noted the “omnipresent media” and “tightly choreographed and tightly maintained” itinerary that already had many of us grumbling and seething. Then came a forlorn folk song and a peculiarly sensuous “dance of pain.” A troupe of Downs syndrome kids duly were trotted out for a song and dance climaxed by a black-capped villain with “Embargo” pinned on his back chasing the happy tykes away. Afterward I speak to an Iraqi woman who betrays the palpable fear she feels about an impending attack. This moment was far more striking than the staged rigmarole we just witnessed.

Of course, we were supposed to be played for suckers but then we acutely appreciated that our own government is playing US citizens for suckers too. So it was all a matter of sifting out the chronic lies of both sides. Unlike the case with many of my countrymen, I never once ran into an Iraqi or, later, any Jordanian, who had trouble distinguishing between the American people and their government. The refrain was constant and heart-felt: “We like Americans, but your politicians not so good,” a taxi driver said. “I don’t want to kill Americans, I like them,” a young armyman told me. “Why were they forcing me to face this choice?” “We do not hate Americans, we hate the situation,” a technician said.

A Middle Eastern specialist among us was surprised to see so many women wearing head scarves, which betokened an ominous substrate ready to explode into fundamentalism if the external pressures trigger it. Saddam portraits are ubiquitous. Some among us opined that if the portraiture funds were channelled into the health budget Iraq could enjoy British NHS (National Health Service) standards.

In a children’s hospital a doctor attests, “We have shortages of everything, including rubber gloves.” Diagnostic machines broke down for lack of spare parts. “I have a patient. I know what’s wrong with him but I could not get the drugs to treat it.” Yet the regime manipulates the food for oil programme so as to blame the West exclusively.

Iraqis with cash can get any sophisticated operation they please, Johan Van Schreeb and Richard Garfield, physicians who study the sanctions, inform us. Nonetheless, ordinary people suffer needlessly. The sanctions are worse than useless because they harm the innocent and only bond them closer to the regime versus the evil West. Upper classes always escape the pain, which is another, unintended, point against the sanctions.

We visited an inspection site which was less well equipped than the average suburban American high school chemistry lab. The inspectors are doing a thorough job if this spot warrants attention. Next stop is the El-Amariyah bomb shelter where the bunker buster bomb killed several hundred civilians in 1991. From the jagged hole above us a tangle of metal rods twist down like petrified tentacles.

The symposium opened with several “official” Iraqi presentations, all of them hectoring lectures, on infant mortality rates, depleted uranium statistics, UN sanctions and the parlous state of American economy — and all questionable pieces of research. “We are a democracy by the terms of our constitution,” one Iraqi official snarled. Oh, please. Our courteous insurrection kicked off with a Middle East historian thanking our hosts for joining us in “a search for truth, probity and human rights” — and then asking what more Iraq can do to comply with inspections.

Iraq, in effect, must preempt the preempters in Washington if war is to be averted. Another American pointed out that the Iraqi term “aggression of 1991” was better relabelled as the “war of 1991” since he could “think of many words to describe the events following the invasion of Kuwait, but aggression is not one of them.”

An environmental lawyer patiently explained that depleted uranium was no doubt toxic but would not be viewed as a valid concern back home unless Iraq took responsibility for the oil field fires that Saddam’s retreating forces ignited. (A physician remarked later that “probably as many people die as political prisoners here as die of depleted uranium exposure.”). Bianca Jagger soothed ruffled feelings as best as she could, explaining neither we nor she was “an apologist for governments but I am for human rights. We have to go back to face tough questions, so we must ask you tough questions, embarrassing questions too.”

The payoff later came in amazingly frank discussions on and off the schedule. It became exhilaratingly clear that there were many top-notch Iraqi scholars who cared deeply for their country’s welfare, minority rights (Kurds and Shias), academic freedom, regional stability, and international justice. They even welcomed external pressure via UN monitors to promote human rights and move toward representative government, but certainly not a bloody invasion and a deeply resented occupation. Yet when we suggested they informally link with Peace Now in Israel to demonstrate good faith, they accepted the suggestion although “the first time I have heard of Peace Now is through you.”

Iraq is dangerously isolated from new knowledge, and the sanctions only restrain the flow of vital information that might help produce civilized solutions. Ms. Jagger, who met the foreign minister and Speaker of the House, confirmed that even some officials seemed secretly pleased to hear us say that they need to liberalize the system. We could hardly be accused of ill-will toward the Iraqi people and so our voices asking for reforms provided leverage for those working for change within.

The American delegation was not without its own flaring tensions. A sizable minority started out with an exaggerated sense of cultural relativism. A few advanced the subtly condescending argument that we do not dare impose our western standards, as though Iraqis were not capable of rigour and candour. But the group, to its credit, ultimately worked out a statement we unanimously endorsed. Plainly, the trip was, for the Iraqi regime, a pure propaganda exercise but most group members worked deftly to sidestep it to get at “kernels of useful truth.”