A time to look inward

This consolation ceased to exist when on May 22, 2003 the Security Council of the United Nations finally approved a resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq authorising the US and Britain along with their cronies to assume complete control of Iraq -- one of the world's oldest and most civilised states. In the pious name of reconstruction what this authorisation will mean is breaking, dismantling and contorting of the administration and economic system, apart from re-orienting and baptising Iraq's great culture and traditions.

In reckoning, the day of this UN resolution will be seen as one of the saddest days in recent history when a licence for the carpetbaggers was enacted in the world body by the same people who had earlier refused to endorse an armed aggression against Iraq. The capitulation of the 'up-right nations' who became champion of the weak by taking just and bold stand in the UN makes the occasion all the more gloomy. Since all these nations were Christian (barring China) the Muslims of the world could feel that in the American designs against the weak global Muslim bloc, they were not without friends. Those hopes are now dashed. The weakening of the anti-imperialist voice led by France, Germany, Russia and China is now bound to send a chill through the weaker nations of the world. In the Muslim countries the ominous question would reappear: Has the Christendom of old Europe ultimately gotten together to politically re-map Middle East, expand and strengthen Israel and divide oil wealth of the region among themselves? The message to the world sent on 22 May, was a licence for the powerful to mutilate and disintegrate the existing arrangements of the nations or regions with complete impunity and rich and powerful nations could get away with any of their crimes.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The UNSC voting on 22 May also indicates that henceforth it will be world public opinion which alone could alter a critical situation.

In the meantime, the religious and ethnic solidarities have proved too weak to provide a bulwark against neo-imperialism. Iraq is a pointer. While the protests around Muslim world targeted only the US and Britain for waging war against Iraq a number of Muslim countries actively supported and facilitated the intervention. A Muslim kingdom was, in fact, the gateway for the coalition troops and it was where the troops assembled, trained and subsequently invaded. With Turkey's refusal to allow a northern front, an entry into Iraq without Kuwaiti participation could not have occurred. At least not on the scale and with the same speed and perhaps success.

If Kuwait was the door to the invasion, another Muslim kingdom, Qatar which hosted the central command, was its nerve centre. As a matter of fact, all Muslim neighbours of Iraq vied with each other to please the Uncle Sam in its efforts to invade Iraq.

Bahrain had been the Persian Gulf HQ of the US Navy operations. Egypt allowed use of airspace, permitted territory to be used for incursion into Iraq by US special forces and hosted Patriot missile. The UAE and Oman allowed the use of airbases as Saudi Arabia allowed the use of Prince Sultan airbase, Amar airport and use of its territory for incursion into Iraq of US special forces. Turkey allowed the use of air space and subsequently allowed the transit of food and medical supplies but denied the use of its territory for offensive purposes. It is interesting to rote that Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy having a puritan Islamic government was officially opposed to the war. Yet at the peak of the operations during the Iraq war as many as 2700 mission a day were handled by headquarters in Saudi Arabia. Despite denials by Saudi foreign minister, its participation in war has been widely reported and acknowledged. If the Iraq war was against Islam as claimed by the clerics across the Muslim world, why were so many Muslim countries including venerable custodian of the Holy Kaaba supporting it?

Iraq war was unjust one. So were there protests by the Muslims against it -- as were also by the non-Muslims who did it more credibly. The Pope in a public proclamation condemned the aggression in Iraq. The vast majority of the governments around the world dissociated themselves from an act of invasion of Iraq. The majority of the members of the UNSC, including three permanent members not only refused to endorse an attack on Iraq, but also indicated their inclination to veto any resolution asking for aggression. The general disapproval of armed aggression against Iraq by world media irrespective of their affiliation with few exception had been remarkable. The world wide mammoth demonstrations and protests comprising people from all walks of life and from all faiths and ideologies were the most positive moves in favour of peace. The widespread protest meetings and marches and scathing anti-war press comments in the United States itself were another indicator of a strong urge for peace rather than war against a weak nation.

A vast number of people who fall under the misty rubric of Muslim Ummah could have had a share in the anti-war wave but they did precious little in exposing their co-religionists who were guilty of the same crimes. Why is this discrimination? Why they continue to see the whole issue in a communal prism and put up the facade of a mythical unity of the Ummah which never exists? The Organisation of Islamic Conference -- the platform of the Ummah -- did not meet prior to the Iraq war lest the fissures within the mythical united Ummah came out in the open. There was not a single protest meeting against the dubious role of many of Iraq's Muslim neighbours.

The hide and seek policies nor pursued in Muslim countries will not lead them anywhere. Instead let there be open debate in their own countries and among them. Why do Muslims fear dynamic, democratic and pluralistic societies? What is wrong in conducting open healthy debate and accepting pluralism at the political, economic, diplomatic, cultural, ethnic, linguistic and sectarian levels and yet be united by the core beliefs and message of Islam?

The US and the European nations are primarily Christian. But this did not prevent most of the governments and people of Europe from vigorously opposing the US-led invasion of Iraq. Their actions did not make them any less Christian or make them guilty of repudiating the Western tradition. Why cannot Muslims show the same pluralism when the Muslims or a Muslim country persue similar crime -- still remaining hundred percent Muslim and faithful to their tradition?

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.