THE extraordinary summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) concluded its two-day deliberations in Makkah last week. Has the Makkah gathering demonstrated the will and the vision to enable the Ummah to meet the challenges confronting the world of Islam? Or should the Muslim masses react with a yawn?

If one were to go by the history of its past 36 years, the OIC, even in the best of times has demonstrated masterful inactivity in the face of major crisis, occasionally even engaging in regrettable compromises. All this has led to deep cynicism on the part of the poor, illiterate and disenfranchised masses that constitute the Ummah. Nevertheless, it is relevant here to remind ourselves that the world is no longer what it was in earlier times.

The 9/11 tragedy grievously hurt the psyches of the Americans, for it shattered their belief that with the emergence of their country as the sole superpower, the United States was totally invincible. America’s response to 9/11, therefore, was neither measured nor appropriate. While there was wide understanding, and even some justification, for its desire to punish Afghanistan, the world was left horrified at the anti-Muslim sentiments let loose in the US. While President Bush and his senior colleagues denied that they had ushered in a campaign against Muslims, other influential figures in the West did not hesitate to give vent to their true feelings about Islam and its adherents.

As the only organization claiming to represent the entire Ummah, the OIC tried to react to these negative developments, especially at the Putrajaya summit in 2003, when it held a comprehensive debate on how the Islamic world could face the crisis that had emerged in the wake of 9/11, with particular reference to the distorted image of Islam in the West and the increasing hostility shown to Muslims in many non-Muslim countries.

The summit had agreed on the formation of a 16-member Commission of Eminent Persons (CEP), to prepare a plan of action to enable the Muslim world to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Pakistan’s intelligent journalist-turned-politician, Mushahid Hussain, was an active participant in the deliberations of this Commission, whose recommendations were wide-ranging and comprehensive. There were even proposals relating to good governance, transparency, accountability, democracy, civil society, political participation and respect for human rights!

The importance and urgency of the OIC’s rejuvenation was considered essential not only because of the challenges thrown up by the 9/11 trauma, but also because the organization had lost credibility and relevance, even in Muslim societies. There is no denying the fact that the Muslim world is in a state of political degeneration and economic stagnation. It is plagued by sectarian, ethnic, linguistic and tribal differences within its borders, and by deep suspicion and mistrust in its relations with fellow Muslim states.

Muslims were right to question what the OIC had achieved during its 36 years in existence, failing for the most part to take decisions of either regional or global import. This, despite the fact that the OIC is an organization representing one-fifth of the world’s population, possessing 70 per cent of the globe’s energy resources and 40 per cent of its available raw material. Yet sadly, the entire GDP of the OIC member-states is only $1,200 billion, as against Japan’s $5,500 billion.

Given this deplorable state of affairs, Muslims would be well within their right to examine closely the results of the Makkah summit, especially as the Putrajaya summit had deliberated both the OIC’s weaknesses and the need to revamp the organization. The just concluded Makkah summit had raised major expectations. Some observers were hopeful that the frighteningly enormous tasks facing the Islamic world would encourage OIC leaders to demonstrate the political resolve and wisdom to evolve a vision commensurate with the challenges facing the Ummah.

A close reading of the summit documents does not, however, measure up to these hopes. The joint communique issued at the end of the summit rejected extremism and urged the member-states to fight terrorism in “every possible manner” and pledged to promote tolerance, understanding, dialogue and diversity. Additionally, the summit adopted the Makkah declaration and a 10-year programme of action for the Ummah.

The documents adopted at the summit were all in tune with the OIC’s current emphasis on moderation, tolerance and dialogue. For example, the summit stressed that the Kashmiri people be allowed to exercise their right to decide their future. There was, however, no reference to the atrocities being committed by India in the occupied territories or what the member states could do to impress on India the need to adopt a serious approach to the resolution of the problem.

The meeting described the Palestinian issue as its central concern and repeated earlier calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian lands occupied since 1967, as well as from the Golan Heights and Lebanese lands. But it refrained from any criticism of Israel, especially for the terror unleashed against the civilian population in the occupied territories, or for failing to adhere to the roadmap. On Iraq, the summit lauded the national reconciliation conference and denounced terrorist attacks against the people. It affirmed support for the political process and reconstruction efforts in the country. But there was no call for withdrawal of foreign occupation forces. On other issues, the summit had the usual words of support for Azerbaijan in its dispute with Armenia, for the Sudanese peace process and for the Turkish Cypriots.

On social and economic issues, the summit stressed the importance of fighting poverty, unemployment and disease, by forming a special fund through the Islamic Bank. It also spoke of steps to develop science and technology and to narrow the gap between Muslim nations and developed countries.

Of some relevance was the attempt to address sectarian divisions between Sunnis and Shias, and in this context, the summit stressed the need to reform the Islamic Fiqh Academy, so as to make it the main reference for all sects. Finally, it called upon the Ummah to reflect on Islamic values and to counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and desecration of holy places. Of interest, too, was the reference in the communique to the need to take “joint Islamic action” in the face of natural calamities and foreign threats to the security of any OIC member-state in a collective manner.

These sentiments were all commendable and praiseworthy. However, if we were to evaluate the results and conclusions of the summit, we would not be remiss in expressing some regret and disappointment. For one, the total pre-occupation with the issue of terrorism, both in the statements delivered and in the summit declaration, may be understandable but was nevertheless, reflective of a desire to please audiences across the ocean.

Adherence to the global war on terror is both right and necessary, but where is the rationale for its repetition ad nauseum? We all know that Islam does not sanction violence; it actually abhors inflicting pain or injury on another human being. But what effort has been made to make the West understand, far less address, what Bernard Lewis calls “the roots of Muslim rage”? How many OIC leaders are willing to point out that it is not the Muslims who colonized the West, or engaged in ethnic cleansing (as was done in America, Australia, Canada and parts of South America), nor was the holocaust the work of Muslims.

The summit also advocated good governance, political participation, rule of law, protection of human rights and social justice. But was any thought given to how and by whom these noble goals are to be achieved, in the absence of genuine democracy and civil liberty? How many of the leaders gathered in Makkah would even countenance permitting people within their countries to air their grievances freely, or allow competing interests to press their demands inside parliament?

The underlying causes of many acts of violence may be unresolved political disputes such as Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, etc. But can we deny the suffocating bind in which people find themselves in many Muslims societies? Is it not ironic that the Muslim youth, while detesting the global policies of the West, looks forward to the day when their own leaders will adopt the political philosophy practised in the West, especially laws that guarantee individual freedoms, which are taken for granted in the West?

President Bush could not be further from the truth when he claimed that the terrorists “hate us because of our freedom and democracy.” The truth is that Muslims, too, cherish freedom and desire democracy. What they ask of western leaders is to end their support to unrepresentative, authoritarian regimes that have become the tools with which the West exploits the resources of these countries.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi warned that Muslims “can no longer be in a state of denial.” But that is exactly the state that we are in. Nothing that the OIC has done so far gives one reason to hope for any change. If mere declarations and pious hopes could have done the task, the transformation would have come about decades ago. As long as Muslim states continue to be governed by those who have no respect for the inalienable rights of their people, as long as their leaders believe that they are in power not with the consent of the governed, but because of divine sanction or brute force, and as long as they choose the support of foreign benefactors over winning the confidence of their own people, these summits will remain exercises in futility.

The writer is a former ambassador.