Monday , March 17, 2003
The Iraq issue has divided and confused the Islamic world
Gulfs within the Gulf
G. Parthasarathy
"You are plotting with the Zionists against Iraq. You are small, a valet and a monkey. May Allah curse your moustache.'' These were the extraordinary words an angry Ezzat Ibrahim, vice-president of Iraq, hurled at Kuwait's foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed Sabah al Sabah, at the Extraordinary Summit of the Organisation of Islamic Conference OIC) called in Qatar on March 5. ''Shut up,'' responded the Kuwaiti, as television viewers across the world watched this extraordinary exchange at an extraordinary summit. Ibrahim's words reflected Iraqi fury at the demand voiced by Sheikh Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates at the Arab League Summit on March 1, that President Saddam Hussein should quit office in order to prevent the impending American attack for "regime change" in his country. Sheikh Zayed's proposal had been enthusiastically endorsed by Kuwait and Bahrain.
Just a few days prior to this heated exchange in Doha, the Arab and Islamic world had witnessed another extraordinary exchange between Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi of Libya and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at yet another summit on March 1, called by the Arab League at Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt. Colonel Gaddhafi accused the Saudi monarchy of having made "an alliance with the devil" by asking US troops to stay on in the country after the Gulf War of 1991. Responding strongly, Crown Prince Abdullah accused Gaddhafi of being an "agent of colonisers" and promptly walked out of the meeting, even as Egyptian media moguls were hastily pulling the plug on the live coverage of the event.
It took considerable personal effort by the host, President Mubarak, and other Arab leaders, to persuade the enraged Prince Abdullah to return to the conference. Gaddhafi, however, proceeded to recall his ambassador from Saudi Arabia in protest against the alleged collusion between the USA and Saudi Arabia, directed against Iraq.
Despite the obvious disarray in their ranks, the Arab League and OIC proceeded to adopt declarations that seemed to have no bearing to reality, or to the actions of individual members. The Arab League grandiosely stated that its members opposed any attack on Iraq and asserted that their members will not participate in any such attack. The OIC proclaimed the total rejection of any strike on Iraq and any threat to the security of any Islamic state.
It called on Islamic countries to "abstain from participating in any military action targeting the security and territorial integrity of Iraq or any other Islamic state". It also expressed "categorical rejection of any strike against Iraq".
The irrelevance of these pious resolutions is attested by the fact that eight of Iraq's Islamic neighbors-Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey-are cooperating with the United States through the provision of bases and facilities to enable the sole superpower and its "coalition of the willing" to attack a fellow Islamic country, Iraq.
Iraq's ninth Islamic neighbor, Iran, is also reported to have signalled to the US that it will not play spoilsport in the latter's efforts for "regime change" in Iraq. Iran has also armed and trained an estimated 15,000 fighters of Badr Brigade, made up of Iraqi defectors who constitute the military wing of the Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Interestingly, this Iranian-backed Council is a member of the US-sponsored Iraqi National Congress that constitutes the political umbrella for all anti-Saddam Hussein forces in Iraq.
The Council has pledged to oppose American intervention. It hopes to join the anti-Saddam Hussein Kurdish forces. Given the possibility of Turkish military intervention alongside an US attack, it is obvious that the emerging political scenario in Iraq is going to be messy and fragmented. It is also interesting that President Yasser Arafat has not pledged support to the Iraqi government as he did in 1991. The Palestinians have evidently taken note of President Bush's statement opposing further Israeli settlement activity and promising to work for the early establishment of a "viable" Palestinian State, which he has now followed up for a roadmap of peace. The weird approach of the Islamic world to emerging developments on Iraq is attested by yet another factor. There have been manifestations of public outrage in very few Islamic countries, despite rhetoric about how the Arab and Islamic worlds will go up in flames if the US attacks Iraq.
Most demonstrations against war have been in western countries. The only large demonstrations in the Islamic world have been in Indonesia and Pakistan. The rhetoric in Indonesia has been very muted and not specifically anti-American thus far. There have been large demonstrations in Karachi and Rawalpindi by Islamic Parties of the MMA Alliance.
The Jamaat-e-Islami leader Qazi Hussein Ahmed proclaimed in Rawalpindi: "An attack on Iraq would be considered an attack on Pakistan." His ally from the pro-Taliban Jamaat ulema e Islam Maulana Fazlur Rahman asserted that the "ummah" should rise against the "hegemonic designs" of the US, with his supporters carrying placards proclaiming: "Bush is a terrorist, Osama is our real hero."
But the demonstrations in Pakistan have been as much targeted at General Musharraf as at the Americans. In any case, many Pakistanis, including Musharraf, have been bemoaning how ineffectual the "ummah" has become. Given these developments, it is only appropriate for India to take a measured approach to emerging developments in the Persian Gulf. We have to remember that three and a half million of our citizens who remit back $6.5 billion annually, live and work in the small Gulf Arab states. The bulk of our oil supplies come from these states. All these Arab states that are members of the non-aligned movement are actively cooperating with the US and have proclaimed their support for "regime change" in Iraq. We have to recognise that there is a wide chasm between what the non-aligned movement says and what its members do when it comes to issues affecting their vital interests.
We have to realistically acknowledge that like in the Arab League and the OIC, the divergence of national interests of NAM members in the post-cold war world cannot be wished away by nostalgia for a bygone era.
© 2003: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world.