ISTANBUL, 13 October 2003 — Later this week, the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur will play host to the 10th session of the Heads of Government Summit of the member countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). This summit, in a post-9/11 era, ought to be a rallying call for Islamic unity and economic cooperation. The war in Iraq is over, albeit that there are still forces at play that are trying to undermine stability and denying Iraqis the chance of calling the bluff of the US administration and its promise of early elections and that Iraq must be ruled by the Iraqis.

Even the OIC has reportedly refused to invite the head of the Iraqi Governing Council to attend the summit as an ‘interim’ leader of Iraq, on the grounds that the country is still under occupation. The dire plight of the Palestinian people continues to worsen. The so-called international war on terrorism and its attendant financial war on terrorism seems to be targeting Muslims and members of the OIC unfairly. Islamic banking and finance, charities, and hawalas have come under both scrutiny and attack. But will the Kuala Lumpur session be any different from the previous summits? Not unless the outgoing Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad has anything up his sleeve as a parting shot. Dr. Mahathir, normally so outspoken against the West, is equally frustrated at the lack of political and economic progress in, and cooperation between, Muslim countries. In London a few weeks ago, Dr. Mahathir warned that for Muslim countries to be strong they would need to have political systems that are stable and economic systems that generate wealth for all the citizens.

“Muslims must learn to restrain themselves and to make whatever system of government they adopt, work.”

But is the OIC as an organization past its sell-by date? Has it outlived its usefulness? Should the organization now be disbanded? Its secretary-general, Abdulwahid Belkeziz, is effectively a part-time secretary-general. The organization is virtually bankrupt and always short of resources. Member countries do not pay their dues on time. Its operational priorities border on the irrational. Take for instance, the media management for the 10th session; the contract was given out of Jeddah to a British PR company. This is not only a slap in the face of the Malaysian hosts, but also for Muslim PR companies. How can we expect the OIC to forge economic and cultural cooperation between its member countries, when it cannot even have confidence in entrusting the media management of its own summit to the most functional - both political and economic - of its member countries?

The OIC, with some 56-member countries, is a politically, ethnically and economically diversified group, ranging from some of the world’s richest countries to some of the poorest. Some are well-endowed with natural resources such as oil, gas, palm oil, rubber, agricultural commodities, phosphates, minerals and such. Many, however, are politically and economically dysfunctional, exacerbated by corruption, mismanagement and operational inefficiencies.

At the onset of the 21st century, this is indeed a sad state and why the OIC’s voice has been so manifestly inaudible. Yes, its foreign ministers do have their regular mutual admiration meetings but the resolutions that emerge are so watered down by compromise and ineffectiveness that no one pays them any notice. Malaysia is pushing the idea of the Islamic gold dinar as the unit for accounting for the settlement of bilateral payments for trade and correspondent banking arrangements between Muslim countries. A Malaysian government source stresses that the first three such bilateral arrangements agreements are imminent - to be signed between Malaysia and the three countries and to be administered by Bank Negara Malaysia (the central bank) and its counterparts.

If the OIC can adopt and encourage this as a multilateral bilateral payments arrangement between its member countries, then it would be an incredible achievement. Critics of the scheme suggest that there are some operational flaws and that it would best work between countries of the same economic standing and gold reserves.

Somehow, it seems unlikely that the OIC would get involve in such a scheme. It has a recent precedent. Its involvement in Iraq’s future especially in its political and economic reconstruction has been abysmal. With the result, it is the American and European banks that are leading the consortiums for the contract to run Iraq’s Trade Bank.

Perhaps the scheduled presence of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the OIC summit would be a poignant reminder of how to get the minimal influence by an organization that has effectively got very little political and financial clout.