Leaders from 57 Muslim countries are scheduled to gather in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian capital, next week (Oct. 16 to 18) for the 10th summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference. All indications are that the newly built Putrajaya Convention Center, where the summit will be held, is going to witness quite a bit of diplomatic fireworks.
At first glance this is going to be one of those futile gatherings where exercises in oratory and meaningless resolutions are presented as substitutes for measured judgment. Fingers of blame will be pointed at all and sundry, making the owners of the fingers feel good without having to face the arduous task of serious analysis and sober policy-making.
But need the Kuala Lumpur summit be an exercise in futility? The answer is, not necessarily. There are two reasons for some hope that the summit might pose the real questions and go beyond diplomatic gesticulations.
The first reason is that some participants appear to have cast a serious glance at the first Islamic summit, held in Rabat, Morocco, in 1969. That summit was the first step toward the return to Egypt of its territories then occupied by Israel. It prevented the Arab-Israeli conflict from being transformed into a religious-ideological war. It defined the conflict as one about land, borders, sovereignty and political relations, all of that are concrete matters, rather than abstractions presented in empty slogans.
Will the spirit of Rabat save the Kuala Lumpur summit from failure?
The second reason for hope is the determination shown by the summit’ host Mahathir Mohamed, Malaysia’s prime minister, not to chase the shadow instead of the prey. “ I am not interested in blaming others,” Mahathir said this week. “I am interested in what we, as Muslims, can do for ourselves.”
Thus there is a chance that the coming summit will focus on some of the real issues of the Muslim world. Top of these, as Mahathir has pointed out, is the economic failure of all but a few of the Muslim countries. As long as Muslim countries remain poor and underdeveloped they will not only fail to give their citizens a decent life but would also count for little in terms of international politics. But why is it that most Muslim countries fail to free themselves from the shackles of poverty? The classical answer given by the “blame others” school is that Muslims have received a raw deal from the Western powers.
Last year, however, a group of Arab researchers offered another analysis. In a report prepared for the United Nations Development project, the group underlined what it thought to be the real causes: The absence of an enterprise economy, lack of social and political freedoms, and, more specifically, the refusal of most Muslim countries to offer women equal rights and opportunities. Even a cursory glance at the map of the Muslim world would reveal the pertinence of that analysis. Countries that have accepted free enterprise, political and social freedoms, and a better deal for women have been relatively successful. Those that have failed in any of those three scores remain stuck in their underdevelopment.
The Muslim nations need a new wave of economic, social and political reforms. Many commentators believe that what the Muslim world needs most urgently is a separation of the mosque and the state. But, anyone familiar with Islamic theology and politics would know, this is a largely fictitious problem. What the Muslim world needs is a separation of business from the state, which means the creation of a genuine private sector without which no modern market economy is possible.
The summit is sure to hear a lot about the Palestine-Israel issue. Here, too, is the easy option is to make speeches and pass a resolution to condemn the Jewish state, and may be the United States alongside it, in terms that sound good when broadcast but which mean nothing in practice.
Most Muslim nations have danced around the issue for decades. They have not decided whether they wish to work for the destruction of Israel or to accept it, even as a bitter fact of life, and try to develop a modus vivendi for it. That dual strategy has perpetuated a no-peace-no-war situation of which the principal victims have been the Palestinians. Will the coming summit acknowledge the failure of that strategy and seek an alternative?
