Building US-Asian Muslim understanding

The team paid a visit to the office of The Daily Star, and though the interaction lasted the better part of two hours, the majority of the time was taken up on the current issues in Bangladesh. Since there was very little time to dwell on the subject of the Centre's seminar, this column, one feels, would be well utilised by going in somewhat more detail into the very interesting subject of the seminar, by someone who is both an Asian and a Muslim.

The very formulation of the subject is an acknowledgement of the fact that indeed things are not going too well between the US and the Muslim world on the whole, and the deficit of trust needs to be addressed urgently. To start with, let us consider the focus of the seminar. The particular focus on the "Asian Muslim" world may be justified on the grounds that it is in Asia that the majority of the Muslims live and it is from here that the Muslim world is provided the intellectual thrust from time to time.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

But the reason for excluding the West Asians from the ambit of their consideration is not quite clear. Perhaps the perception of the common American, that Islam means the Arabs and the Middle East only, has had much to do in determining the focus of the topic. The focus may also have to do with the ultimate US objective of implementing its countervailing strategy in the Asia Pacific, which can be possible with greater "understanding" with the Asian Muslim world.

As for "building understanding" one gets the impression that the present level of understanding is zero, which one has difficulty in accepting because there was a level of understanding with the US and some of the members of the Asian Muslim countries during the Cold War period. One should not forget the bulwark formed against the communist threat with the participation of some of the Muslim countries of Asia under the rubric of the now defunct CENTO. It may be also more interesting to recall that of the two countries that the US had allied with (the United States joined the military committee of the alliance in 1958), Iraq is under its occupation, and Iran under constant US threat of reprisal unless it falls in line with its diktats.

The anti-Russian Muslim coalition in Afghanistan under US patronage is difficult to overlook, not because it drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, but because it created the monster that the Americans are now having to put up with, not only in the Middle East, but also in most parts of the world. Sentiments of the Muslim were whipped up and "jihad" was a much-touted word, both by the CIA and the Mujahedeens.

Thus, "rebuilding" rather than "building" understanding would perhaps be a more appropriate undertaking, both in the context of the time and the modality of building up that trust, that will have to take into account the changed circumstances where something more than only pressure and promises of military and economic largesse, as had been the case in the past, would help in stimulating not only understanding but an enduring trust between the US and the Muslim world.

It will be for the US to keep in mind that although one is inclined to look at the Islamic world as one single construct when it comes to Islamic issues, and although the Islamic world's views on security and international strategic issues are at times divided, there is one issue that has brought the Islamic world together, that is the US global war on terror (GWOT) and in particular its occupation and the consequent destruction of Iraq.

Therefore, even before the first step towards rebuilding understanding is taken, it would be worthwhile for the American scholars and think tanks and journalists to take a detailed stock of how the US is perceived in the Muslim world, particularly post 9/11. One needs to be aware also that the perception of the common man on the street of US policies is at a variance with the official position that has tended to be more pliant, particularly in South Asia.

And what is the Islamic world's perception of the US? The Muslim world feels, and perhaps it is not alone in this view, that US policies are full of double standards when it comes to their application, that the US is rabidly pro-Israel at the expense of the Arabs, and notwithstanding its Bosnia policy, it is seen as anti-Muslim, and its GWOT suffers front contradictions and duplicity.

These points need validation with brief examples. Take the matter of double standards. Mr. Bush's comments made soon after 9/11 that the United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbour them, because they're equally as guilty of murder, appears to look awkward in the context of US handling of the Posada issue. Luis Posada Carriles is a notorious terrorist, linked with the CIA in conducting terrorist activities abroad and accused of having a hand in the bombing of a commercial Cuban flight over Barbados in which seventy-three passengers and crew members died. The US refuses to extradite him to Venezuela to stand trial. Just contrast this with the way an expatriate Bangladeshi, Mr. Siddiqui, was virtually kidnapped, of course with the connivance of our government, from Bangladesh because of his alleged links with the Al Qaeda.

One doesn't have to go very far to see the rabidly pro-Israeli policies that the US has pursued over the years. The recent full-scale offensive in Gaza, capture of the elected representatives of the Palestinians, and the wanton destruction of the infrastructure, is nothing but annihilation of a nation to recover one, but only one, Israeli soldier. And the world has allowed Israel to get away with it.

The US policy vis a vis Iran is seen not only as another instance of double standards but also anti-Muslim, when it allows Israel to possess nuclear weapons (it is alleged to have built 30 nuclear weapons since the 1970s) but threatens Iran with physical reprisals if it goes ahead with its nuclear enrichment program.

It is considered duplicitous of the US to have offered almost 160 different reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and made it now a focus on the GWOT when Saddam had neither WMD nor any links with Al Qaeda.

In short, understanding and trust can be built on principles of justice and fair play, not on double standards and deceits. Unless that is ensured, all other exercises, however well intentioned, will be futile.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.