Islamic States to discuss terrorism

By C. Raja Mohan

NEW DELHI, OCT. 7. As the leaders from the Arab and Islamic world gather this week at Doha, Qatar, the United States will be looking for a collective support, even with qualifications, to its current confrontation with the Taliban regime.

Foreign Ministers from the Arab League of the Arab nations and the Organisation of Islamic Conference are meeting in Doha on Monday and Tuesday respectively to debate possible backing to the U.S. military action against Afghanistan.

In all likelihood, both these groups will hold their nose and endorse the American approach. But the two meetings will be watched for the kind of caveats, particularly on the right of Palestinians to use violence against Israel, that they may want to throw in.

India, too, would monitor Pakistani moves to sneak in the Kashmir question into this delicate debate at the OIC. Islamabad may want to exempt the acts of violence by Kashmiri groups from the definition of international terrorism and equate Kashmir with Palestine.

Incessant propaganda from Pakistan has insisted that violence in Kashmir is part of the struggle for `self- determination' and is similar to the Palestinian movement. This formulation was reiterated yesterday by the Foreign Office in Pakistan.

The broad trend among the Islamic states is said to be against any move that dilutes the current focus of their concerns in the Middle East.

There was little Arab and Muslim support at the World Conference against Racism in Durban a few weeks ago, when Pakistan attempted to smuggle in the Kashmir question into the debate.

The U.S. has reportedly been urged by many of its friends in the Islamic world not to launch attacks against Afghanistan until there is a collective endorsement by the Arab League and the OIC.

A joint imprimatur from the Arab League and the OIC will lend political legitimacy to the American military actions as well as let the moderate Arab regimes cope with popular rage against the U.S. and Israel.

In the last four weeks, the Bush Administration has rallied reluctant supporters from the Arab and Islamic world to join the coalition against international terrorism. The conservative Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council had extended cautious support to the U.S. in fighting international terrorism and its perpetrators at the end of September.

At the same time, the GCC cautioned against equating Islam with terrorism and demanded pressure on Israel to stop its violence against the Palestinians. They also hinted at the importance of the approval of the United Nations for any American action.

Unlike the Gulf monarchies which are largely pro- Western, the Arab League and the OIC will bring together a much larger group of Islamic countries, including many anti-American radical states of both the secular and the religious variety.

To be sure, few Arab or Muslim countries have any sympathy for the Taliban. Even though the Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996, the OIC did not grant it the Afghan seat. Arabs and Muslims did not back the Taliban's entry to the United Nations either.

More fundamentally, terrorism and extremism threaten the security of many Arab regimes. And Osama bin Laden has made no secret of his desire to overthrow many regimes in the Arab and Islamic world.

But at the debate in Doha, many other issues, including political ambiguity towards the U.S., opposition to Israel and the rights of Palestinians, will inevitably come to the fore. The definition of international terrorism has already become an important question for key Arab and Islamic states.

Many of them, with Israel on mind, will insist that violence against occupation or colonisation cannot be branded as terrorism. This is precisely where Pakistan might want to muscle in to equate the situation in Palestine with that in Kashmir.

Radical opinion in the Arab and Islamic world may not allow an unambiguous endorsement of the U.S. position on Afghanistan and international terrorism at Doha. But Washington hopes that its friends and allies will help temper the debate and prevent the caveats from becoming objectionable.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Ban on SIMI
Next     : The United Nations in Afghanistan