OIC at 40: its potential, problems and prospects
by
ABDULLAH AL-AHSAN*

The OIC is declared to promote “close cooperation and mutual assistance in the economic, scientific, cultural and spiritual fields, inspired by the immortal teachings of Islam.” But this apparent positive desire for cooperation came in response to a negative act -- the act of an arson attack on a Muslim place of worship. Does this mean that Samuel Huntington has correctly suggested that “enemies are essential” for “people seeking identity”? In this case were Muslims able to come up with the idea of close cooperation only when one of their most revered places of worship was attacked? The answer is no. This is because the Muslim desire for unity is based on the Quranic guidance which was first achieved under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the seventh century. The idea survived until the 20th century through the institution of “khilafah” -- rulership of the Islamic state -- until it was abolished in 1923. In 1969, through the establishment of the OIC, the same desire was revived: The arson event was just an accident in the turn of events toward this goal. Therefore, the establishment of the OIC must not be viewed as against anything; rather it is pro-something.

OIC’s high potential

Although a new international organization composed of newly independent nation-states, the potential for the cooperative achievement of the OIC was very high. Among its member countries there were the capital-rich, labor-scarce countries on the one hand and the manpower-rich, capital-scarce countries on the other. Within the OIC system there are countries such as Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, which are capital-rich, and there countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey, which have science-oriented and trained manpower. Their cooperative ventures could have become a model for development for the rest of the world. But that has not happened.

Expectations and achievements were moderate during the early years after the OIC was founded. The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) was established in order to promote economic development; the International Islamic News Agency (IINA) was established in order to enhance information and disseminate accurate news about Islam and Muslims; the Statistical, Economic, Social Research and Training Center for Islamic Countries (SESRIC) was founded to advance economic cooperation among Muslim countries; and the Research Center for Islamic, History, Art and Culture (IRCICA) was established to encourage and promote Muslim unity. Many more organizations and institutions such as the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Organization (ISESCO) followed throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

During the early days of its existence, the OIC's achievements were significant in the area of conflict resolution. When a conflict broke out between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Jordan in 1970, Saudi Arabia's King Faisal and Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser jointly led the OIC and the Arab League initiative to resolve the conflict. They successfully brought the conflict to an end. In 1974 the OIC was able to resolve the conflict between Pakistan and the newly independent Bangladesh. The OIC leadership also gained the confidence of ordinary Muslims on the issue of the Ramadan War of 1973 against Israel and the successful oil embargo against supporters of Israel in 1974. The OIC adopted numerous resolutions declaring jihad in all fields against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and to compel Israel to follow UN resolutions on the issue.

However, the OIC soon began to lose its momentum to shrewd Israeli under-the-table diplomacy. OIC leaders lost the public's confidence when Egypt broke OIC and Arab League ranks to unilaterally establish diplomatic relations with Israel in 1978. The OIC expelled Egypt from the organization in response, but within a few years it took Egypt back into its fold although it had provided no convincing explanation for its actions. As a result, the OIC lost credibility in the eyes of ordinary Muslims. Also in 1978, the OIC adopted a resolution not to allow foreign troops to be stationed on their soil if they were to be used against another member-state. But within a few years some member-states broke that commitment. Since then, the OIC's status has continuously deteriorated: In 1980, when the Iran-Iraq war broke out, the OIC sided with Iraq and thus lost credibility as a broker for peace between two conflicting member-states. Also, a number of OIC member-states allowed the stationing of US troops on their soil. The OIC resolutions became a laughing stock. Many Muslims began to refer to it as “Oh! I see.”

 A new opportunity appeared in 2003 when Malaysia became the chair of the organization, and another appeared 2004 when the organization appointed a Turkish secretary-general. These were fresh opportunities because these two countries are the most dynamic, progressive and respected countries among the OIC member-states. These two countries had the potential to be the engines for development and unification the way Piedmont and Sardinia were for Italian unification in 19th-century Europe. The OIC did not need to merge all Muslims under one nation-state and national flag; it could only initiate a program similar to the European Union. But no initiative came to revive the credibility of the organization. The OIC failed to stand beside the victims of natural disasters -- such as the tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia, in 2004 and the earthquake victims in Kashmir and Pakistan in 2005 -- with humanitarian assistance.

Fresh opportunity has again emerged with US President Barack Obama's extension of an olive branch toward the Muslim world. The OIC stands as the most legitimate organization to represent Muslims in this relationship. Although most Muslims believe that the Palestinian question is the main obstacle in this relationship and that President Obama has made it issue number two, the Obama offer has provided the OIC with a unique opportunity to express Muslim interests and concerns in international forums. President Obama has declared Afghanistan to be problem number one in the US-Muslim world relationship, let it be so. For practical reasons, the Obama administration has also incorporated Pakistan with Afghanistan; there should be no problem in this, either. However, when the administration appointed Richard Holbrooke as the special envoy to handle the issue, it came under pressure from the pro-Indian lobby in Washington to remove Kashmir from Holbrooke's terms of reference, and this was done. The OIC must tell the Obama administration that if it cares about democracy in Afghanistan, it must also care about democracy in Kashmir. The issue must be decided on the basis of a universal value -- human dignity -- not on the basis of ethnicity or nationality. As long as such discrimination continues, the Taliban and al-Qaeda will be able to continue to recruit fresh manpower to fight not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but all over the world. Although military authorities in Pakistan are claiming victory against these forces in Pakistan's tribal areas, such victory cannot be long lasting: The history of the region clearly demonstrates this.

The best way out of this quagmire created by the so-called clash of civilizations thesis is to create an atmosphere of mutual trust between Islamic and Western civilizations. Let US-Muslim world cooperation move beyond the control of polio. The OIC should come forward to take on some fundamental responsibility. More NATO or US troops to Afghanistan cannot resolve the crisis: In fact, in order to gain the confidence of the Afghan people, NATO troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan. However, the current situation in Afghanistan is such that international troops cannot be withdrawn immediately. Therefore NATO troops should be replaced by OIC troops. Some OIC countries, particularly Bangladesh and Malaysia, have already gained a reputation for their peacekeeping role under the UN flag. The argument that currently the OIC does not have such a mandate is futile, for the creation and implementation of this mandate is just a matter of determination.

OIC troops in Afghanistan will force the Taliban and al-Qaeda to find a middle ground because, at least on paper, they claim to be fighting for an Islamic system of governance. And an Islamic system of governance demands that conflicting Muslims make peace through justice. Let Muslim intellectuals deliberate and decide on how to bring peace to the region. The conflict must be encountered intellectually on the basis of common human, civilizational and Quranic values such as amanah (trust), adalah (justice) and shura (consultation). These discussions must be open and transparent so that ordinary Americans and ordinary Muslims know what is being discussed and can decide whether they are opposed to the fundamental values of Islamic or Western civilizations. There is no other alternative to this problem. And any positive role of the OIC in Afghanistan will not only place the organization at the forefront in international politics, it will also enable the OIC to gain confidence and legitimacy among ordinary Muslims.