THE supreme council of the six-party Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, after a meeting in Islamabad on July 27, has come out with the statement that the London and Sharm el Sheikh bombings were part of a “well-orchestrated conspiracy aimed at undermining the Islamic world”. The council, which condemned the attacks, said further that “Islam does not allow the killing of innocent people” and that the attacks were “deliberate attempts to malign Islam and Muslims”.

Unfortunately, this is yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black, and seems as incredible as the suggestion made by many in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that the Israelis or the Americans had actually carried them out, as part of a grand plan to launch a war against Islam. It would have been pleasantly surprising had the MMA supreme council chosen to take a more realistic look at what might be behind the attacks and realized that simply blaming the rest of the world for hatching conspiracies against Islam to malign its image would be akin to missing the point completely.

The implication in the supreme council’s remarks that such reprehensible acts could not possibly have been carried out by Muslims does not make any sense either. In fact, this specious argument has been used in the past as well, especially by many senior functionaries of the present government, each time a sectarian bombing took place in the country. The fact of the matter is that such attacks were carried out by Muslims driven by hate and venom against those whom they thought (or were brainwashed into believing) were kafirs.

Besides, even if the council’s statement is taken at face value, then what is the MMA trying to say? Is it suggesting that the British government or its domestic intelligence service, MI5, carried out the attacks, or perhaps the CIA or Mossad, to discredit Muslims by placing the blame on four Muslims? Or is it suggesting that the four bombers were not Muslim and of some other faith?

It’s a pity that the MMA council seems to have taken such a jaundiced view of the attacks, especially since some of the parties that make up the alliance do have some ability to influence public opinion on this matter. A realistic assessment of the causes underlying the attacks needed to be undertaken, not a cursory knee-jerk ‘the-whole-world-is-against-Muslims’ reaction. There is a substantial body of people in this country who adhere to a worldview that is in consonance to that held by those who lead the MMA. These people sympathize with, and perhaps even follow, the agenda of the religious parties. And though they might not have necessarily voted for the MMA, they will surely pay attention to what the religious alliance might have to say on matters as pressing as the London attacks. Regrettably, the MMA’s stand on the bombings leaves much to be desired. Not only has reality been ducked, overlooked and ignored, the rest of the world has been blamed for being involved in conspiracies against Islam.

One would also like to take issue with another aspect of the supreme council’s statement. The leaders are said to have been angered by a recent statement by Peshawar Corps Commander Lt-Gen Safdar Hussain, where he accused some religious parties of helping reorganize the Taliban, adding that what the corps commander had said was “irresponsible”. That being the case, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was arrested from the Rawalpindi home of a Jamaat-i-Islami activist. Both ‘S’ and ‘F’ factions of the JUI were known to have close links with the former Taliban regime, and is it so unrealistic to believe that perhaps, with the Taliban now regrouping in eastern and southern Afghanistan, they might be getting some help from their friends and sympathizers across the border? Simply calling Lt-Gen Safdar’s remarks ‘irresponsible’ is not really an effective rebuttal of his allegations.

TASHKENT: The United States has won assurances it can keep its base in Kyrgyzstan, but it may face new challenges as play resumes in the centuries-old “Great Game” for influence in strategic Central Asia.

In 2001, Washington won an earlier round when it secured tacit consent of former colonial ruler Russia and stationed troops in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan — once Moscow’s imperial backyard — to back its military operations in Afghanistan.

But Moscow is back in the game, now exploiting suspicion among the region’s veteran leaders that Washington — associated with a series of “velvet revolutions” in ex-Soviet countries — may be out to unseat them too.

“There is a lot of suspicion about US long-term intentions,” said a senior US diplomat. This diplomat added it was tied to the mistaken belief Washington was trying to stir up new revolutions in Central Asia.

At stake for Washington is influence in a region that is a narcotics crossroads, a vital launching pad for the US campaign to round up the remnants of the Taliban, and home to some of the world’s largest oil finds in the last few decades.

Displaying a new coolness to Washington, four of five of Central Asia’s ex-Soviet states issued a declaration in the Kazakh capital Astana earlier this month asking when the United States would withdraw its troops.

Visiting US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday Kyrgyzstan had agreed to let US troops stay. But the invitation was not open-ended while a second base in neighbouring Uzbekistan remains in doubt.

VELVET REVOLUTIONS: In the past 20 months, popular revolutions triggered by disputed elections have unseated long-serving leaders in ex-Soviet Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

In March, Kyrgyz veteran leader Askar Akayev fled to Russia amid violent protests sparked by flawed parliamentary elections. These “people’s revolutions” have unnerved Moscow struggling to keep control over its former colonies and sent jitters through Central Asia’s authoritarian rulers who brook no dissent.

Washington denies any role in instigating these revolutions. But it has not hidden its satisfaction — or its enthusiasm — for more of the same.

“Many countries think the Americans do not increase stability when they come to a region but increase instability,” Andranik Migranian, professor at the Moscow State International Affairs Institute, told Radio Rossiya.

“It’s not at Moscow or Beijing’s initiative that they are ... countering the United States. They are doing it on their own initiative,” he said.

NEW “GREAT GAME”?: Washington’s tug-of-war with Moscow for control over Central Asia brings back historic memories of the 19th century “Great Game” rivalry between the Russian and British empires. Beijing seems to be ready now to join the game, too.

Uzbekistan, under fire from the West and human rights bodies for indiscriminate use of force by troops who reportedly killed some 500 civilians in an uprising in the city of Andizhan, is now being embraced by Russia and China.

Following Washington’s demands to hold an independent inquiry into the May bloodshed, Uzbekistan reminded the United States that its stay at its air base was only temporary.

But Uzbek President Islam Karimov’s flirtation with Moscow and Beijing may turn out to be a short one. And the autocratic ruler may well weather Western criticism and mend its close ties with Washington soon, diplomats say.

“We see a new ‘Great Game’ unfolding after Astana,” said a Western diplomat working in Tashkent. “Obviously, the Uzbek leadership feels offended by Western criticism over Andizhan.”

“But should Karimov openly call America an enemy, his regime won’t last for long. The issue of possible economic sanctions against Karimov is on everybody’s lips now, and the Americans are clearly in possession of all this leverage.”

Kazakhstan, the region’s most economically advanced state, signed the Astana declaration. But it seems pragmatically to prefer seeing large Western investments rather than hear calls for US base withdrawals from its neighbours.

US interests in Kazakhstan include stakes held by ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips in consortia developing onshore and offshore oil riches.—Reuters