THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE MUSLIM WORLD: SOME REFLECTIONS

.

Among the many problems that the Obama Administration has inherited from the Bush Administration is the vexatious question of US relations with the Muslim world. The issue was so central that the new President had to touch on the subject while describing the general orientation of his Administration during his inaugural address. On top of the appointment of a very senior politician as his Secretary of State, the President has appointed two senior envoys to deal with two major Muslim world related issues.

Although the Palestinian crisis is undoubtedly the main predicament in US-Muslim world relations, the Afghan issue seems to occupy an important place. The US is increasingly encountering more resistance and has decided to send more troops to the region. The US Administration has entangled Pakistan into the conflict and has appointed a senior diplomat to handle the situation. In this essay, we shall concentrate on the situation in Afghanistan. However, the general problem of the Muslim world relates to the idea of a clash of civilizations, and the Obama Administration inherited the clash of civilizations scenario in the context of the Muslim world.

Obama’s selection of Turkey as the first Muslim country to visit was an excellent one. This is not only because of Turkey’s geo-political importance – situated as it is on the common meeting ground of Islamic, Orthodox and Western civilizations, but also because it was the last major Muslim power in history. Turkey has the experience of dealing with many nationalities and ethnicities. President Obama’s statement that there was no enmity between Islam and the US delivered from the Turkish parliament was a very appropriate declaration. For Muslims, both in the US and the rest of the world, it was a much admired act of reconciliation.

However, the new announcement that the president would make his policy speech on the relationship between US and the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt has not gone down well in the Muslim world. This is because although Egypt also played a somewhat important role in Muslim history, it is not a respectable entity in the Muslim world today. Egypt lost its credibility in the eyes of most Muslims when in 1978 it defied Arab and Muslim opinion and established diplomatic relations with Israel. Egypt was immediately expelled from both the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). Although Egypt was accepted back in the Arab and Muslim blocs within a few years, in the process the two Muslim inter-governmental organizations lost their legitimacy in the eyes of common Muslims. More recently, Egypt’s behavior toward the people of Gaza has angered many Muslims all over the world. Therefore, any attempt by the Obama Administration to legitimize Egypt in Muslim political affairs will only harm the reconciliation process.

The conflict in Afghanistan seems to have become a major challenge for the Obama Administration. The Administration has drafted Pakistan and has committed more troops in Afghanistan.  Drafting Pakistan into the conflict was perhaps necessary because of geographical and historical ties between the two entities. However, as soon as the US appointed a senior diplomat to Pakistan, the Administration came under pressure from Pakistan’s neighbor and traditional adversary – India— and pro-Indian lobby groups in Washington to drop the Kashmir conflict[1] from the list of assignments for the new envoy. By acceding to their demand, the Obama Administration was conceding defeat , for the question of Kashmir is a matter of self-determination. This raises a most challenging question: What does the US stand for? Hasn’t it declared a commitment to introduce democracy in the Muslim world? What is democracy? Doesn’t democracy mean a human being’s right to choose? If democracy means the right of self-determination, why are the people of Kashmir denied that right? The Obama Administration must be prepared to respond to these questions, for militants never forget to raise them.

There can’t be any military solution to the current Afghan-Pakistan crisis. The history of the region provides a lot of evidence in support of this assertion. Yet it seems that the Administration is pursuing the military option. It is quite possible that Pakistani armed forces would capture the whole tribal belt between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but one must realize that the real battle may begin only after such a military victory. And the conflict will not remain within the boundaries of Afghanistan and Pakistan; it will spill over to neighboring countries and beyond. One will always be able to find evidence of corruption and oppression (zulm) to engage in a liberation struggle (jihad) against new administrations in the region.

One may argue that democratically elected governments would be able to control any such uprising in the name of nationalism or religion, but in our opinion, one must examine how democratic these governments are. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, where elections have been conducted during the past year, the parties that lobbied in Washington have been elected and have formed government. But do these “elected governments” really represent the people? One must examine this thoroughly. The cultivation of democracy must be genuine. In other words, militants must be engaged in debate and discussion. One must keep in mind that the language of war for both, the Pakistani armed forces and the militants, is the same. Both draw inspiration from Islamic teachings. The Pakistani armed forces are trained to fight “Jai Hind” (victory to India) but not those who shout “Allah-u-akbar” or “God is great.” The longer this conflict lingers, the more devastating its results for the Pakistani armed forces. Perhaps this is the desire of India and pro-Indian lobby groups in Washington, but the consequences of this conflict may turn out to be disastrous for India as well. That is why it is necessary to engage with the militants; be they Taliban or al-Qaeda. The militants will not be able to legitimize their activities on the basis of Islamic sources in public.

It appears that some Christian evangelists with the NATO and US troops have made it easier for the militants to draw fresh recruits to their cause. According to some reports these evangelists are circulating Bibles translated into Pashtu and Dari languages among the Afghan people, thus providing the militants with ammunition. Also corruption and nepotism among Afghan politicians are so rampant that one doesn’t even need to substantiate such claims. Is the Obama Administration ready for all these challenges? One corollary of this problem is the role of the international press and think-tanks that focus on the region. Many of the news agencies and think-tanks seem to have been infiltrated by mercenary writers. Policy-makers must be careful about reports from the field.

It is alleged in the media for instance that the militants are better equipped than the Pakistan armed forces. If this is true, how did the militants acquire their arms? It is an indication of the failure of official spy-agencies. Apparently hundreds of NGOs are working in the area. Are they all committed to bringing peace to the region? Policy-makers should be alert to, and aware of, realities on the ground. The Obama Administration should also consider replacing NATO troops in Afghanistan with OIC troops. Moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh etc may be able to do a better job than the NATO troops. The OIC currently doesn’t have a military mandate. But creating one should not be difficult, if the US gives the green light. In fact, empowering the OIC in this manner would convey the impression that the OIC is part of the solution when it comes to conflicts involving Muslims.

There should also be more investment in education. This can be done by opening schools throughout the region.  Also there is a need to create an unbiased media. Public debates should be encouraged on subjects such as Islam and democracy. Most importantly, cultivate transparency in government policies and encourage public debate on government policies. Cultivate the culture of “do what you say” or “walk the talk.” This is in accordance with both Qur’anic guidance as well as modern democratic principles.

Dr. Abdullah Al-Ahsan is JUST Vice-President and Professor of History at the International Islamic University, Gombak, Malaysia.

Malaysia.

1 June 2009.