US doctrine of governance

IN the two previous articles published in this space in the last few weeks, I have been in search of a guiding principle for the new global order. I have already looked at the way international relations were defined first by the empire builders of Europe and then by the two superpowers. The European colonizers who dominated the international economic and political systems in the 18th and 19th centuries were motivated by economic gain. The conflict between America and the Soviet Union during the four decades of the cold war was over an ideology.

While America was pre-occupied with these two conflicts, it was developing a doctrine of its own, based on a strong belief that its founding fathers had discovered the ultimate truth in terms of defining the difficult subject of governance. The Americans began to believe, as their political and economic systems matured, that they had found a way governments should govern.

But these were mostly beliefs. They were not projected around the world by the use of America’s growing military might. Which is not to say that America had always kept its hands out of the affairs of other countries even when it did not like the idea of building an empire for itself. Various American presidents at various points in the country’s history spelled out in fairly clear terms various doctrines to underpin America’s relations with the world beyond its borders. But the country used military force only in response to a perceived threat to its national security defined broadly. Sometimes this definition included the competition with another great power.

In those instances, America saw international affairs as a zero-sum game. It would lose if the power it competed with gained. That power’s loss would be its advantage. Sometimes national security was defined in terms of securing the supply of oil for its industry and commerce. More often than not, America tended to protect its interest not by direct military action as that would have been a risky enterprise. Its preference was to use some other weapon in its arsenal.

In the history of America’s involvement in global affairs, there are many instances of covert actions that resulted in regime change in a foreign land when the government under attack was seen as posing a direct threat to the United States’ national security. One of the most significant of these efforts by Washington occurred on August 19, 1953 when according to a story published by The New York Times a day later, “Iranians loyal to Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, including Tehran civilians, soldiers and rural tribesmen, swept Premier Mohammed Mossadegh out of power today in a revolution and apparently had seized at least temporary control of the country.”

That the CIA was behind the Iranian “revolution” became a publicly recognized act not too long after the fall of Mossadegh and the transfer of dictatorial powers into the hands of the emperor. The CIA operation in Tehran was led by Kermit Roosevelt, President Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson. In a recent book, “A Look Over My Shoulder,” Richard Helms, who was then the head of CIA, writes about the warning Roosevelt sent to secretary of state John Foster Dulles. “If we are ever going to try something like this again, we must be absolutely sure that the people and army want what we want. If not, you had better give the job to the marines!” He was remarkably prescient. It became clear two and a half decades later that the regime the Americans had established in Tehran was not loved by the people.

Ten years after the overthrow of Mossadegh in Tehran, Washington was once again involved in covert action to bring about change in government in a distant place. This happened on November 2, 1963. This time action was in South Vietnam when President Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated at America’s behest in Saigon, the country’s capital. By killing the Vietnamese president, Washington succeeded in only creating a regime that was seen as its puppet. This made it easier for the Communist rulers of Hanoi to win the hearts and minds of most people of their divided country.

In the many attempts at regime change, America was not able to get the people on to its side. It didn’t succeed in Iran and Vietnam. And its nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq also appear to be running into serious difficulties. At this time, Washington’s attention is focused more on Iraq than on Afghanistan, but there is a great deal of trouble brewing in the latter country as well. Today, we will look only at the way the Iraq story is being played out.

Two massive terrorist attacks in August, one on the hotel where the UN had its main office, the other on the Imam Ali Mosque at Najaf, has resulted in considerable introspection both inside the government as well as outside, particularly in the think tanks active in the Washington area. A number of questions are being asked but not many answers are being supplied.

What were the exact motives that prompted America to attack and invade Iraq is a question that will not be satisfactorily answered perhaps for several months and years. We will only know the answer once the main decision makers — President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, his vice-president, Donald H. Rumsfeld, secretary of defence, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; secretary of state, Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser — retire from office and get to write their memoirs. Some revelation may also be made if a probing journalist such as Bob Woodward writes a book on the lines of Bush at War, which provided a detailed account of the decision-making inside Washington that led to the war on Afghanistan.

The question is important since what Washington does in Iraq in the next several months will depend in part on what prompted it to go into the country in the first place. Was the war against the regime of Saddam Hussein launched to get rid of an unpleasant dictator? Increasingly that justification is being provided as the search for weapons of mass destruction have yielded nothing of any significance. Was the war in Iraq a part of America’s campaign against international terrorism? There may have been a fear that a regime that had the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction could, one day, arm groups of terrorists with them. But this was a remote possibility since Saddam Hussein had shown little interest in associating himself with such groups. Was the Iraq war to help Israel get rid of one of its sworn enemies? This probably motivated some of the policymakers but couldn’t be the main reason for the invasion undertaken with so much opposition from other world powers.

What we know at this point suggests that the decision to invade Iraq was a part of the American desire to change the political complexion and map of the Middle East. The case for this was built on a premise that we might call the “positive domino effect.” If one Arab nation could be politically modernized, it would have an enormous influence on all countries in the region. Not only that. A democratic and modernizing Iraq could also serve as a model for the rest of the Islamic world. And, such a regime would not be a threat for Israel. That appears to have been the main argument advanced by the people who persuaded President Bush to go into Iraq.

If these were the main reasons for America’s adventure in Iraq then it must be said that it went into it with very little preparation. Had it prepared itself well, we would not have seen some of the developments in recent months that have shaken Iraq and with it raised a host of additional questions about how Washington intended to proceed in that country.

How long should America stay in Iraq and how many troops should it commit to securing the country? If the decision is to have more soldiers patrolling the streets of Baghdad and other major cities of Iraq, should they come from America or should Washington ask for help from the countries that have large armies such as India, Pakistan and Turkey? Since these countries have indicated that they will provide troops only if they are put under the command of the United Nations, how much authority should Washington be prepared to surrender to them once their soldiers move in?

By now most sober analysis have reached three conclusions. One, America’s nation-building ambitions in Iraq would need much more time than was allowed by the Pentagon as it prepared to launch America’s troops. The belief that Washington’s venture into Iraq would be greeted by enormous enthusiasm by a long suppressed population turned out to be only partially true. The remnants of the Baathist regime cleverly exploited discontent with the outcome of the invasion by America as the occupying forces failed to provide basic services to the people.

Two, more troops were needed on the ground than the Americans were prepared to — or were actually able to — field in Iraq. United States’ military has been shrinking for the past 35 years. Since the height of the Vietnam War in 1968, it has declined from 3.5 million men and women to only 1.4 million today. The active-duty army, the service most needed for labour-intensive peace keeping missions, has fallen from 1.8 million in 1968 to 480,000 today. And yet America’s troops were spread over more locations than ever before. There were 140,000 men and women in Iraq; 37,000 in South Korea; 34,000 in Kuwait; 10,000 in Afghanistan; and 5,000 in the Balkans. Washington, albeit reluctantly, had begun to commit forces in Liberia.

The need for a prolonged stay in Afghanistan and Iraq and the need to have more soldiers deployed materialized as America’s fiscal situation began to deteriorate rapidly. This is the third reason why America’s Iraq project may produce unintended consequences. In August the congressional budget office estimated that in the 2003-2004 fiscal year, America will run a budget deficit of close to half a trillion dollars. The size of the deficit is likely to increase. And since it will be financed mostly from borrowing in the market, this could result in a significant increase in long term interest rates. The US cannot afford this increase since it would further discourage the already nervous investors to put fresh capital in the economy.

In other words, America’s nation building efforts in Iraq have run into several difficulties. How will this story reach its conclusion? Only time will answer this question.

Truth about US soldiers in Iraq

PRESIDENT George Bush is trying to convince US citizens and the world at large that the increasingly negative public perceptions of the US invasion and continued occupation of Iraq are a result of media spin.

Every member of his administration is claiming that if critics of the invasion had gone there themselves, they would know that the situation is very different and that Iraqis continue to be grateful to the US for liberating them from Saddam. Letters and news in the ‘Stars and Stripes’ newspaper, catering to the Americans operating on the ground in Iraq, belie that claim.

Since the beginning of the invasion at least 13 US troops have committed suicide in Iraq. This represents more than 10 per cent of US non-combatant deaths. The army has now sent a suicide prevention expert to Iraq. The Stars and Stripes recently conducted a survey of 1,935 troops stationed in Iraq. It found that 49 per cent of the respondents believed that morale in their unit was very low.

About 49 per cent said it was unlikely that they would re-enlist and 31 per cent said that they thought that the war had not been worthwhile. 35 per cent complained that their mission was not clearly defined. Letters to the ‘Stars and Stripes’ also highlight the fact that those who are open about morale problems have faced disciplinary action.

President Bush has chosen to ignore, at least for the moment, the voices of US soldiers in Iraq for several reasons. A key consideration is that the vast majority of these soldiers come from disadvantaged backgrounds — mostly working class white, black and Hispanic families, they are the key recruiting grounds for the US army. These people have never been part of President Bush’s priorities.

The Independent (UK) reported in September this year: “senior Pentagon officials have identified Latinos as by far the most promising ethnic group for recruitment, because their numbers are growing rapidly in the US and they include a plentiful supply of low-income men of military age with few other job or educational prospects. Recruitment efforts have also extended to non-citizens, who have been told by the Bush administration that they can apply for citizenship the day they join up, rather than waiting for the standard five years after receiving their green card. More than 37,000 non-citizens, almost all Latino, are currently enlisted. Recruiters have even crossed the border into Mexico — to the fury of the Mexican authorities — to look for school-leavers who may have US residency papers. ... Latinos are already doing the most dangerous combat jobs in disproportionate numbers.”

Many from the disadvantaged communities join the army for lack of better job options. Others join because the US army funds students through college in return for active service after graduation. The American elite is almost completely un-represented among America’s foot soldiers. If they do enlist, there is no reason why they should be exposed to the horrors of service in a real war zone. Thus, none of the offspring of current US Senate and Congress members is serving in Iraq.

Drowning out the voices of these disadvantaged youth serving in Iraq are the powerful neo-conservative ideologues in the White House. These neo-cons have so far shown a blatant disregard for popular opinion in pursuit of the corporate ends of a few companies as well as the hegemonic objectives of US policy and are likely to continue to do so in the future.

Thus, the situation is truly tragic. Even when the Iraqis are able to inflict casualties on the occupiers, it is only the foot soldier, the underprivileged, working class youth, that dies. And despite the recent setbacks that the US has suffered in Iraq, there seems to be no respite for these young American men in sight. As George Galloway, a UK MP and recently evicted (because of his outspoken opposition to the war on Iraq) Labour party member, suggested on a recent visit to Cambridge University: the history of imperial powers on a rampage does not encourage us to expect a quick resolution.

Mr Galloway reminded the audience that “the deeper they (the Americans) got into trouble in Vietnam the more they escalated and spread the war. The bombing is not working; do more bombing. One million soldiers are not succeeding, make it two million. [If] pulverizing Vietnam is not working, attack Cambodia.”

Galloway went on to describe how President Bush has already started trying to build up public opinion against potential targets for the future by banning Americans from travelling to Cuba, and “shelving the Pope” to give the Nobel peace prize to an Iranian dissident.

Thus, while the anti-war movement can rightly count amongst its key achievements the fact that it has made waging war on Iran and Syria much harder for the US and UK governments at one level, it is important to realize that such a war is still not impossible. President Bush is in an increasingly desperate situation. His approval rating has plunged to 49 per cent (NBC/Wall Street Journal poll) — a 39 per cent drop from his highest rating right after 9/11. According to a recent New York Times/CBS poll, “Americans are for the first time more critical than not of President Bush’s ability to handle both foreign and domestic problems.” Only 38 per cent of US voters now think that America is “headed in the right direction” under Bush. Around 50 per cent think that “things are off on the wrong track.”

Faced with mounting unpopularity, the US unilateralist, could go into overdrive, reasoning that Bush’s popularity has been the highest before the invasions, so another invasion close to the election period might save him. But these invasions carry the risk of more casualties, and in election times, the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq could prove politically hurtful.

The solution is of course using soldiers who are not only voiceless but also faceless for the US audience, — say, from countries like Pakistan. Their deaths will not be an election issue. Add to it an even greater propaganda campaign, excluding any semblance of truth from TV accounts of the situation in Iraq, and the approval ratings, they believe, could be going up again.

Indeed, loyal party members have already started making the right noises. Republican Newt Gingrich suggests that the Bush administration’s only real problem is bad performance on “the communication side.” According to leading Republican political strategist, Grover Norquist, they only need to tell the Americans “how much Bush has accomplished economically and how much more he could accomplish, despite Democratic opposition in Congress, if he had four more years.”

Mahathir’s last hurrah

FAR from topping the agenda at the OIC, Guantanamo was not even mentioned, not even in private conversation. Surely the arbitrary incarceration in inhuman conditions of over 600 Muslims was not something that was divisive that would have split the OIC.

The inmates at Guantanamo are supposed to be either Tailiban or members of Al Qaeda. The emphasis is on the word ‘ supposed’. No one knows what kind of danger these inmates pose. If suddenly set free would the world become more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? There seems to be some sort of conspiracy of silence about Guantanamo, as there once used to be about venereal disease. It used to be called a ‘social’ disease.

For the time being the inmates are being called enemy combatants. Perhaps, it might have been more convenient had they simply be dumped as “collateral damage’. That covers a multitude of sins and provides, in a perverse way, a moral justification for killing innocent people and razing to the ground their homes. Still, not to worry. One more atrocity in the long line of atrocities.

But the OIC did provide Dr Mahathir Mohammad the platform to deliver some home-truths and because no one in a similar official capacity has been so candid and forthright and so ‘undiplomatic’ that he stirred a hornet’s nest. Truth is often painful which may be the reason why it is not spoken often.

Dr Mahathir said in language that was blunt that the Jews ruled the world and got others to fight their wars by proxy. The construction put on these remarks are that they are anti-Semitic. It is the way of modern media to look for sound bites and quotable quotes. Not surprisingly, and, perhaps, deliberately, Dr Mahathir was quoted out of context.

What was not highlighted was that he had urged the Israelis and Palestinians to stop murdering one another, that he opposed violence and he had urged the Muslims to acquire knowledge (and by omission, not arms). Whether the Jews ruled the world is a moot point. If anyone can claim world domination it is the United States and the Israeli influence on the United States and its policies in the Middle East is considerable — a point I had made in a column I wrote well before Dr Mahathir’s speech, that the tail was wagging the dog, that no presidential candidate could dare to seem evenhanded when it came to Israel. They competed to establish their pro-Israel credentials, more royal than Rex.

When the Israelis sent their American acquired bombers to take out ‘ terrorist’ camps in Syria, this was a flagrant act of aggression against a sovereign country and a clear violation of the United Nations charter. The Security Council resolution condemning this act brought an American veto.

Dr. Mahathir wasn’t too wrong. CNN once interviewed Lawrence Eagleburger about Gulf War-1. The high ranking official disclosed in that interview how he had managed to keep the Israelis from joining the war by raising the obvious:” When we are fighting this war for you, why do you want to make things complicated for us by insisting on sending your own troops? “

To criticise Israel is not to be anti-Semitic. On the other hand, it is possible to be pro-Israel and be anti-Semitic. Richard Nixon’s tapes reveal the use of the words “ hymies” and “ kikes” neither showing endearment and even “ Jew bastards” appear in the tapes.

When I first went to the United States, I was aware that the Afro-Americans were an oppressed minority and was aware of segregation. North of the Mason-Dixon Line, there was no official or legally sanctified segregation and all men were equal though some with dark skin were less equal. South of the Mason-Dixon Line, there was an apartheid, almost as vicious as that of South Africa.

But there was also anti-Semitism. It was not as open and brazen as racial discrimination. But consider simply the following: Most of the film studio owners were Jewish and a number of very prominent actors and actresses who were Jews had changed their names so as to obliterate their Jewish origin. The film going public would have felt uncomfortable knowing that Edward G. Robinson or John Garfield or Ginger Rogers or Laureen Bacall was a Jew.

Ben was the manager of a low-life night-club in Los Angeles. Trudie was a hostess at the night-club. She hated Ben and told me that he was a Jew and “ would do anything for money. “ I had looked at her and told her that there were many gentiles too “who would do anything for money.” To overcome the embarrassment of employing a Jew, applicants were required to state their mother’s unmarried name. The admission form of my own university had a race and descent clause.

I had many friends, both men and women who were Jewish. Israel had just come into being and had been admitted to the United Nations. I made no secret of my concern for the people of Palestine who had had their homeland stolen from them. If the Jewish people had to be compensated for the Holocaust, the people of Palestine should not be asked to make redemption for crimes committed by other nationals. At that particular political point of time, there was among my Jewish friends, no conflict of identification.

They may have had a soft spot for Israel but they were driven by nationalism and not religion. Israel did not come in the way of our friendship. Naturally, I was careful not to discuss anti-Semitism with these friends. But I did with my gentile friends who admitted that discrimination against those of Jewish faith was widespread.

Times have certainly changed. Now the national interests of both the United States and Israel converge in the Middle East but Israel seems to be dictating the agenda. This is what Mahathir was trying to say. In a manner of speaking, he was telling it like it is.

America’s common tongue

IT doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that cliches, malapropisms, tired comparisons, withered words, pale platitudes and grammatical gimmicks — you know, like, you know — are congregating in English like birds of a feather, so to speak.

Thank goodness for Robert Hartwell Fiske, who must be really educated because he uses a middle name but is neither Miss America nor a death row inmate. He’s editor of “The Dimwit’s Dictionary: 5,000 Overused Words and Phrases and Alternatives to Them.” Unbeknown to many, he’s collecting all of the above for a new edition, literally.

That’ll be the best thing since sliced bread. And if all goes as planned, he could take language to the next level, if you will.

Cher aside, Americans cherish their individual right to dress just like everyone else or just like everyone else who’s trying to dress differently. So it probably shouldn’t knock our socks off that we also end up talking alike, automatically falling into fatigued phrases, weary words and cliches displaying a keen grasp of the obvious.

Hey, it’s a free country. At the end of the day, we end up sounding alike, if you know what we mean.

Bottom line, there are no words to describe how ordinary we can sound without thinking. Has anyone ever not been as cool as a cucumber? As hungry as a horse, as busy as a beaver and not seen a window of opportunity or light at the end of the tunnel? (By the way, where else would it be?) Not to mention stepping up to the plate when battle lines are drawn. Has there ever been a nonegregious error, an indelicate balance, invaluable asset, distant ally, an unemotional roller coaster or a first nail in a coffin? And, no offence, how much does an arm and a leg cost anyway?

Make no mistake about it, the fact of the matter is, frankly speaking, in these troubled, image-conscious, youth-oriented, video-attuned times, listeners draw conclusions.

Not in a million years could Fiske imagine how predictable, dull, lazy and dimwitted we could become in our modern conversational fog. It endangers democratic discernment because we stop paying attention or even listening. —Los Angeles Times

Challenges facing the OIC

THE OIC summit in Putrajaya, Malaysia, was the first one to be held after the 9/11 events, and had to grapple with a new situation in which the Islamic world is being targeted by the West as the hotbed of religious extremism and terrorism. Even before the September 11 events the Bush administration had adopted a unilateralist approach designed to translate the military and economic might of the US into total hegemony.

The terrorist attack, which initially compelled the US to forge a global coalition against terrorism, eventually gave birth to the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Though the neo-conservatives around Bush, whose main allies are the US oil barons and the Christian right, pushed him into attacking Iraq without a UN mandate, the venture has produced a virtual quagmire and revealed the drawbacks of unilateralism.

After a military walkover, the US forces are bogged down as both national and religious feeling fuels resistance among the Iraqis against the US and Coalition forces which are viewed not as liberators but as occupation forces. Continued US backing to Israel makes their resistance look to them as a part of the same fight that the Palestinians are waging against the brutal Sharon government in Israel.

The manner in which the Bush administration is mobilizing the Christian West and other non-Muslim powers (including Israel and India) appears to confer relevance on Samuel Huntington’s concept of the “Clash of Civilizations”. Though the devout president himself had also initially called the war against terrorism a “crusade”, he has avoided using this expression subsequently, for fear of galvanizing Muslim resistance However, during his recent Asian tour, he again brought up the threat posed by Islamic militants. The US clout was used to virtually force the APEC, an economic cooperation organization, to focus on the issue of terrorism whose defeat was presented as a prerequisite for creating conditions conducive to prosperity in Asia.

The OIC summit held a few days earlier had heard Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad deliver his presidential address with his usual boldness and clarity. Though greater notice has been taken of his remark that the Jews were running the world by proxy (drawing instant criticism from the White House), he had actually concentrated on the causes of the Muslim decline, and on measures needed to overcome it. The standing ovation his words about Jewish domination received was seen by perceptive US analysts as reflecting the resentment felt over the total US support for Israel.

The summit provided a timely opportunity to identify the challenges faced by the Islamic world, some long-standing, and some that had been highlighted by the 9/11 events. The OIC had come into being belatedly, nearly a quarter of a century after the end of the Second World War, in 1969, following the attempt to set fire to the Al Aqsa mosque. It had clearly met the need for institutionalizing the aspirations of the Islamic Ummah for greater unity and cooperation. However, its subsequent evolution had been a source of disappointment. Despite a rapid expansion in membership as more Muslim countries gained independence, its achievements fell considerably short of expectations.

The reasons for this state of affairs do not require a lengthy analysis. Though the Holy Quran stresses brotherhood among Muslims, the Islamic world lacks homogeneity, extending as it does from the western Pacific to the shores of the Atlantic. As most of it was colonized by European powers during the past three centuries, different parts have remained under the political and economic influence of their former rulers despite nominal accession to independence.

The British, the French and the Russians have their own spheres of influence, and though the cold war had also created further polarization, the emergence of the US as the sole superpower has resulted in Washington’s goals and perceptions assuming a dominant role.

In taking cognizance of the challenges facing the Islamic world, we have to divide them in two ways. There are external challenges arising from a unipolar world order, and internal ones that are the result of geographical and historical factors on the one hand and our cultural heritage and the social and economic milieu on the other. The other division is in terms of immediacy: we have long term objectives, as well as short term ones that must be addressed urgently.

The Islamic world has gained steadily in terms of its share of the world’s population. This is due in part to the fact that Islam continues to lead in attracting new converts in all parts of the world, but is also a result of the higher rate of growth among its adherents. Currently Muslims are estimated to number 1.3 billion or nearly one fifth of the world’s population. Yet they account for less than five per cent of the world’s GDP. A few, relatively small oil producing countries (such as Brunei Daressalam, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar) do have per capita incomes that can be compared to that in developed nations, but the majority of the members of the OIC are backward and poor.

The countries with the highest percentage of the absolutely poor include Muslim countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. As a result, the OIC faces a long-term challenge of overcoming poverty, and its effects in the shape of illiteracy, low life expectancy and a depressed quality of life.

This level of poverty produces a vicious circle whereby educational and health facilities are lacking which prevent the younger generation from overcoming backwardness and misery. Economic backwardness also serves as a handicap in making progress in the social and cultural fields, and lowers not only the standard of well-being but also the weight a country carries in the comity of nations.

For the majority of the Islamic countries in Asia and Africa, the independence they gained after the Second World War raised expectations that have not been met except in a few cases, such as Malaysia which was fortunate to have dedicated and committed leaders.

It was at the Second Islamic Summit in Lahore, held in 1974, that the OIC had expanded its sphere of activity to include economic and social development. Except for a truly remarkable contribution by the Islamic Development Bank, the organization has failed to play an effective role in promoting greater cooperation in economic development and trade. The poor record in this sphere reflects shortcomings both at the national level among member states, and the absence of institutional arrangements to pursue the economic and social goals more vigorously.

Politically, the OIC summits have been marked by adoption of strong resolutions on issues that interest the Islamic world, such as Palestine and Kashmir. But after high sounding words which are chosen to meet the expectations of the interested member countries, the practical follow-up has seldom been in accord with those words. This state of affairs reflects the inability of the OIC to translate words into deeds, due partly to the weakness of its members, and the strength of those who violate the rights of the Muslims.

At the 10th summit this year, there was lively awareness of the sorry record of the OIC in meeting the challenges confronting the Islamic world. The hostile forces, that appeared determined to further reduce the Muslim countries to impotence, were animated by a sense of outrage over the provocation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that were the outcome of a mixture of frustration and despair.

The principal challenge for the Islamic world is to establish that their religion does not stand for extremism and violence, and that the resort to suicide tactics is a response to political and economic injustice. President Musharraf’s call for stressing “enlightened moderation” in the interaction of Muslims with other cultures, points to the necessity of the OIC becoming the institutional means of a new equation between the Ummah and the rest of the world. A two-day summit could not be expected to go beyond laying down the agenda for action and the modalities to make the organization more effective. The whole range of challenges and tasks is embodied in the 106-para declaration issued by it, that covers the main political disputes affecting the Islamic countries, as well as the economic and social tasks to be performed.

The difference this time is that President Musharraf’s proposal for creating a commission, that would identify the weaknesses of the organization, and recommend measures to make it more effective, holds out the hope of the OIC coping more effectively with the host of challenges.

The post-9/11 world situation represents the gravest challenge to the Muslim Ummah, with the sole superpower enlisting extremist regimes in Israel and India as partners in its war on terror, that is seen to have its epicentre in the Islamic world. The proceedings of the recent summit have shown that there is real awareness of both the long-term, and short-term, challenges that encompass political, economic and social fields. The proposed commission, it is expected, will come up with concrete proposals to make the OIC more effective.

It is significant that the leaders of key members of the OIC have met immediately after the summit. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia came to Pakistan, following which the Pakistan prime minister visited Iran. The need to take follow-up action on the summit was high in the agenda of talks. Priority will have to be given to building up the internal strength of the Islamic countries.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.