IT is becoming increasingly apparent that the Islamic world is passing through a period of crisis, which is both external and internal. Externally, there is a growing distrust, which is developing into an actual or potential clash, between Muslim countries on the one side, and the West, particularly the US, on the other.

The internal crisis in the Islamic world is apparent in the growing cleavage in Muslim societies, and which is assuming the shape of a battle for the soul of Islam. A relentless struggle is taking place in Islamic societies between the traditionalists and extremists on the one side, and the moderates and modernists on the other.

It is also notable that the external crisis is fuelling the internal crisis and vice versa. Moreover, the crisis has now acquired global dimensions, particularly after 9/11. The future of the Muslim world is at stake and it is important for all Muslims to make a close study of this phenomenon as dispassionately as possible with a view to separating fact from fiction and myth from reality.

First, let us examine the external dimensions of the crisis, which is perhaps assuming the shape of a clash of civilisations. Here, one has to go back into history to understand the nature of the crisis. The historical records suggest that Islamic countries did, by and large, coexist peacefully with the non-Muslims. Ottoman Turkey had formed alliances with Christian countries and this was also the case with many Muslim rulers in India. Within Islamic states, Muslims were generally tolerant of those not of their faith and living inside their country.

For instance, Muslims ruled over India, Spain, Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria for five centuries or more. But, at the end of their rule, these countries still had large non-Muslim majorities. On the other hand, when Muslim states in Spain and Crimea were reconquered by the Christians, Muslim populations were almost totally annihilated in a short period of time. During the Middle Ages, many Jews found sanctuary in the Muslim world as they fled persecution in Christian Europe. Muslim rulers often appointed Jews (and Christians and Hindus) to important positions in their administrations. The best Jewish religious literature was written by scholars living in Muslim countries like Egypt, Turkey and elsewhere. Muslim tolerance had its source in the teachings of the Holy Quran, where one surah states “there is no compulsion in religion” and another surah says “to you your religion and to me mine.” The Holy Prophet (PBUH) signed his first peace treaty with the Jews of Madina. In the golden period of Islam from the 8th to 16th centuries, Muslims excelled in science, philosophy, the arts and literature, taking inspiration from the writers of ancient Greece, Rome and India. They developed a truly holistic civilisation.

The decline of Muslims started from the 16th century as Muslim societies lost their vibrancy. From the 18th century onwards, the decline in political fortunes was even sharper when the Ottomans lost ground in Europe and the Mughals in India. The distrust between Muslims and European Christians, which had taken strong roots during the Crusades, increased during the Ottoman domination of East Europe from the 14th century onwards. The rise of the West after the 17th century saw European powers taking global control as imperialists and colonialists. In this period, the Muslims lost ground mainly to European Christians. This was a key reason for simmering Muslim resentment against the West, which has now come out in the open.

In more recent times, the implantation of Israel in the heart of the Arab world, and the loss of Jerusalem, turned Muslim and Arab anger initially against Britain and subsequently against the US, which assumed the mantle of protector of Israel. The Palestinian issue has ever since remained a festering wound in the body politic of the Muslims. More than any other cause, this has generated Muslim anger and resentment against the West.

In a paradoxical manner, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan contributed also towards the growing chasm between civilisations. For geo-strategic reasons and as a part of its own rivalry with the Soviet Union, the US decided to support the Muslim jihad in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation. However, an unintended consequence of this Jihad was that Islamic extremists and fundamentalists gained strength and have ever since made Afghanistan their sanctuary and training ground.

I was Pakistan’s ambassador to Moscow during the 1980s and remember the Soviet warning that these Islamic fundamentalists, who were being nurtured by the US and Pakistan, would at some stage turn against the latter as well. It is evident that the jihadists have emerged as a kind of Frankenstein and are threatening to destroy their own creators. Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda, apart from the Taliban, are very much a product of the Afghan war.

Their anti-US campaign started around 1995 when US facilities in Saudi Arabia were attacked and some damage was done to the World Trade Centre in New York. This was followed by the bombing of two US embassies in Africa, in which hundreds of African bystanders were killed, followed by an attack on an American ship in a Yemen port. Then came the horror of 9/11 that really changed the course of world history.

To take revenge for 9/11, the US and its allies attacked and occupied Afghanistan in late 2001 but this did not ended the fighting in Afghanistan where the Taliban are now staging something of a comeback. Similarly, the network of the Al Qaeda has been weakened but has survived the US-led onslaught.

The US military invasion of Iraq in 2003, carried out on the pretext that the Saddam regime possessed weapons of mass distinction reinforced the belief that the US is targeting one Muslim country after another. This perception has brought new recruits to the ranks of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups. The Islamic extremists are in the forefront of the guerilla warfare in Iraq against the occupation forces. The growing possibility of a US attack on Iran, in order to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons capability, will further inflame the situation and radicalise Muslim public opinion.

It is also worth noting that the Islamic extremists are currently engaged in a relentless hate campaign and have been seeking to demonise the US in every possible way. Since 9/11, the extremists have gained from the wave of anti-Americanism in Muslim societies, in which even the more moderate sections have joined, to paint an unbalanced and one-sided interpretation of events.

Any objective analysis would suggest that the impression that the US has an anti-Muslim policy is misconceived. In the 1990s, it was the US that secured the liberation of the oppressed Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo by taking military action against Yugoslavia. The emergence of six independent Muslim states in Central Asia in 1991 was the outcome of the collapse of Soviet communism which had been opposed tooth and nail by the US for decades.

In the Middle East, it was the US that had forced Israeli withdrawals from Sinai, both in 1956 and in 1978. The return of the PLO to the West Bank after the Oslo accords in 1993 was largely due to US efforts. In our own region, according to authoritative accounts, it was the US that had saved West Pakistan from an Indian invasion after the surrender of Pakistani troops in Dhaka in 1971. Similarly, when there were war fears between India and Pakistan in 1999 and again in 2002, it was the US that played the main mediatory role to dissuade India from any kind of military adventure. Continued US diplomatic and economic support has always been and remains a key factor in Pakistan’s quest for security against India.

As for the US invasion of Afghanistan, it was the Al Qaeda, operating from safe sanctuaries in that country, that first attacked the US, and not the other way around. The US attacked Afghanistan to dismantle the terrorist network there and not as a part of any global plan to conquer a Muslim country. Afghanistan is an impoverished country and there is no evidence that the US has exploited any of its negligible resources.

Moreover, the Taliban regime was very isolated in the world and was disliked even by its immediate Muslim neighbours including Iran, which at one time was threatening to go to war against it. It is a fact that the Taliban regime was practising a narrow-minded version of Islam that was anti-women, anti-entertainment and anti-education. Its ouster has been welcomed by large sections of Afghan society, above all, by Afghan women who had been virtually under house arrest during its rule.

The US invasion of Iraq that followed in 2003 has been rightly condemned by most observers as a unilateral use of force, based on false pretexts. Its real objective was the ouster of the Saddam regime. However, it is worth noting that a recent poll in Iraq shows that nearly three-fourth of Iraqis approve the US action in removing Saddam. The Shia majority had been badly suppressed by the Saddam regime, as were the Kurds, and it is understandable that they would welcome the change. These two groups are now ruling Iraq for the first time in history.

The resistance to the US military occupation seems to be coming from Islamic extremists like Al-Zarqawi and foreign suicide bombers. They have killed far more Iraqis than the US-led coalition forces in a ferocious guerilla war in which many innocent foreign hostages, including Pakistanis, have been executed.

It is notable that the Iraqi government, elected in free elections and recognised by the Arab League, the OIC and the UN, has not demanded the withdrawal of US forces. Nor has this demand been made by either the Kurds nor any top Shia leaders like Ayatollah Sistani or Al-Hakim. For these reasons, one must question the impression of many people in Pakistan, particularly the Islamic extremists, that the fight in Iraq is a war of national resistance and that most Iraqis are engaged in fighting the foreign troops.

(To be concluded)

The writer is a former ambassador.

THE rhetorical war between Moscow and Washington over democracy has escalated. President Vladimir V. Putin responded to Vice-President Dick Cheney’s remarks in Vilnius recently by sarcastically noting that the American “need to fight for human rights and democracy is laid aside” once it comes into conflict with “one’s own interests.”

But while pundits argue about the extent to which Russia has embarked upon an authoritarian path — toward a system of unchecked executive power — no one is asking the more fundamental question: Does it matter?

If not for Putin, the American vice-president and his supporters argue, Washington could push a tough resolution on Iran through the United Nations Security Council, Russia would allow US firms full access to its energy sector to get more oil and gas out to market at cheaper prices, and Moscow would be much more accommodating of US preferences on a whole host of issues.

If only this were true.

We underestimate at our peril the enormous degree of support for the direction Putin has taken Russia. Among 18- to 24-year-olds — the demographic that supplied the foot soldiers for the democratic “colour revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine — the Putin administration has a 57 per cent approval rating — about twice as high, one might add, than what the Bush administration receives from that age group in the United States.

Three-quarters of Russians reported increases in their disposable income over the last year. There are stirrings of dissatisfaction — most notably with corruption and an inefficient, overbearing bureaucracy — but little desire for any radical overthrow of a system that many believe has brought stability and prosperity after the collapse of the 1990s.

And would a more democratic Russia be more amenable to US interests? Opinion polls suggest that more than 60 per cent of Russians see the United States as having a negative influence in the world; more than half believe that the US is unfriendly to Russia. And although many Americans comfort themselves with the illusion that these figures must be weighted in favour of the elderly with Cold War hang-ups, the reality is that it is the young, college-educated elites in Moscow and St. Petersburg — Russia’s wealthiest and most liberal cities — who are the bastion of anti-US sentiment in the country. And what about Russian attitudes toward Iran? Survey data indicate that by a 2-1 margin, Russians believe the economic benefits of selling arms to Iran outweigh preserving good relations with the United States. More than 60 per cent do not share the view that Iran endangers the security of Russia, and more than 80 per cent agree with the proposition that Iran has drawn American ire not because Tehran poses a general threat to global peace and security but because Iran frustrates American ambitions for the region.

None of this suggests that the Russian masses want to join a US-led coalition of the willing to confront the Iranian clerics, if but for authoritarian tyrants suppressing the will of the people.—Dawn/Los Angeles Times

The writer is editor of “National Interest”, the US.

PRESIDENT Bush once saw the immigration issue as an opportunity to expand the Republican Party by attracting more Hispanic voters with a message of tolerance and inclusion. His nationally televised speech on Monday was an admission that the issue has now become a problem that, if not managed carefully, could quickly become a historic liability for his party.

The immigration debate that reopened in the Senate offers Republicans an unpalatable political trade-off. Disappointing conservative, anti-illegal-immigration forces could demoralise a crucial constituency and depress turnout in the November elections at a time when every vote appears important to the GOP. Energising only those conservatives risks destroying the president’s long-sought goal of building a durable Republican majority by normalising his party’s relations with the rapidly growing Latino community.

Bush sought to reassure both sides with his speech and in doing so he attempted to define the middle ground in a debate where consensus has been difficult.

By ordering National Guard troops to the border, he was determined to show conservatives and House Republicans his belief that border security is a prerequisite to any legislative solution. But on the most contentious issue before Congress, Bush came closer to the approach now on the Senate floor, saying he favours a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants while rejecting either mass deportation or automatic amnesty for those now here illegally.

“America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time,” he said. “We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly and fair.”

That he found himself in such a position, on an issue about which he has spoken passionately ever since he bucked anti-immigration voices within his own party as governor of Texas, reflects the power and passion of those opposed to comprehensive legislation. It also underscores that he comes to the debate at this moment in a weakened position, particularly among conservatives in his own party.

“I think the president would really like to do the right thing here and pass a responsible bill, but his own weakness in his own party has made that much more difficult,” said Simon Rosenberg, founder of the centrist New Democrat Network. “In many ways, he lost control of this debate late last year, when Republicans [in the House] passed a bill that was really one of the more extreme bills passed in American history. He’s never regained control of the debate.”

A Republican strategist with close ties to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about the president’s problems, blamed Bush for not standing up forcefully to supporters of a House bill that would make felons of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country as well as anyone who tries to help them. “The president responded to that House bill rather passively,” he said. “Leadership is standing up to demagoguery.” This strategist said last night’s speech was less about immigration than “about the total collapse of the president’s numbers among conservatives.”

GOP internal survey data show that the immigration issue does not cut the same way in all competitive districts, and therefore neither party can confidently predict how the politics of this debate will play out in November.

Adding to the uncertainty is the question of what kind of legislation, if any, ultimately emerges from Congress.

The House and Senate now appear to be on a collision course, with the Senate aiming at comprehensive legislation that would include a path to citizenship for many of the illegal immigrants already here, and House Republicans determined to block anything that they believe smacks of amnesty. Bush insisted last night that what he supports is not amnesty.

Three in four Americans — 74 per cent — supported using National Guard troops to patrol the US border with Mexico, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted before the president spoke. The results are based on interviews with 508 randomly selected adults who were interviewed Friday through Sunday for this survey, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff said Bush was wise to take on issues of enforcement — with his plan for sending troops to the border and his renewed call for tougher sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants — as part of his call for comprehensive legislation.

“From all the various data I’ve looked at, there are two constants,” he said. “One, that people do not believe we are adequately defending our border, and two, that they want employers held accountable. . . . You can’t get to a guest-worker programme until people believe you’re securing the borders and you’re cracking down on employers.”

Polling data underscore that immigration is a political issue whose impact stretches far beyond the states on the Mexican border, igniting passions in the Rocky Mountain West, the farm belt in the Midwest, and wherever there are poultry or packing plants. Passions run deepest among those alarmed by what they see as a flood tide of illegal immigrants and by what they fear is a movement that is changing the culture and identity of the country.

Those who say immigration is the issue upon which they are likely to base their vote in November disapprove of the kind of comprehensive plan favoured by Bush and strongly support sending all illegal immigrants back to their home countries.

They are both Republicans and Democrats, they tend to be less educated and less affluent, and many of them are older than 65, surveys suggest.

Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who with McInturff conducts the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, said that makes appealing to them exceptionally attractive for a Republican Party worried about minimizing its losses in November.

“You look at this group and say, ‘We can motivate our base, we can pick up an important group of old Americans . . . and maybe we can begin to cut down the differential’ “in November, he said.

But the stakes are even greater on the other side, more now than even a few months ago. The House bill has inflamed opinion within the Hispanic community and mobilised a nascent political movement, one that over time will grow in size and strength as younger Latinos begin to register and vote in larger and larger numbers.

Their political allegiance is now up for grabs, and the great danger that Bush and his advisers see in a stalemate is that the Democrats will be able to claim much of that vote.

“It’s become an emotional issue,” said Sergio Bendixen, who has polled extensively on Latino issues. “It’s no longer an immigration issue, it’s whether the United States welcomes Hispanics, whether they appreciate the contribution of Hispanics.”

Political strategists may debate which of those forces could be more important in deciding close races in November — the anti-illegal-immigrant activists who were encouraged by conservative talk radio and rallied behind the Minuteman movement, which sprang up as a citizen border security corps, or the huge throngs of immigrant supporters who were mobilised by Hispanic radio and protested in the streets last month. But there is little disagreement that in the longer term, a party seen as hostile to immigrants, legal or illegal, could pay a stiff price.

The negative role model cited universally is former California governor Pete Wilson (R), who used the anti-illegal-immigration issue to win reelection in 1994 only to see his party suffer in subsequent elections. “California went from being a swing state to a solid Democratic state, mainly because of the overwhelming support of Hispanics,” Bendixen said.

Bush’s instincts on immigration are well known and long stated, but his political standing has reduced his leverage just as the congressional debate is nearing its most difficult moment. White House officials believe that the prime-time address reinserts the president when he is needed most, but his most challenging test will come later this summer, when House and Senate negotiators are likely to try to compromise their differences. Juggling short- and long-term political goals will make his task all the more difficult.—Dawn/Washington Post Service