The Palestinian crisis has shattered the image of the OIC as an emblem of Islamic unity. In response to the unprecedented human rights violations of the Palestinian people at the hands of Israel in Gaza in recent days, the OIC could do nothing better than condemn Israeli attacks, warn Israel against provoking religious sensibilities of the Islamic world and reject Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Seen against the barbarity of Israeli actions in Gaza, the OIC’s response could not have been tamer.

While protests against the Israeli onslaught continued throughout the developed world, protestors in most of the Islamic world called for their national armies to liberate Palestine militarily. The disconnect between the expectations of the people in the street and the strategic policies of the Islamic world can hardly be more telling. This disconnect indicates a wide gap between popular sentiments and cold realities of international politics and reflects on the quality of democratic institutions.

With 57 countries spread over four continents, the OIC is the second major group of nations after the United Nations. However, its role in solving problems is conspicuous mainly by its absence. This begs the question as to why the OIC is a shadow of what it could have been.

The failure of the OIC to take a concerted stand over long-standing issues of the Islamic world, including the issues of Palestine, Kashmir, Rohingya and Xinxiang Muslims in China, primarily stems from the fact that these countries are in disarray because of their internal disunity. The Iran-Saudi animosity is the biggest obstacle in the way of the OIC becoming an influential player in international affairs.

Saudi Arabia has an antagonistic relationship with Iran. It overtly and covertly supports Sunni factions in various countries of the Islamic world, such as Libya, Yemen and Syria.

Saudi Arabia is also believed to be a major influence behind many Middle Eastern countries’ willingness to normalise their relationship with Israel. The Iran-Iraq War in 1980-88 which resulted in half a million casualties and cost both the neighbours billions of dollars, ended in a stalemate but sowed the seed of permanent discontent in the Middle East.

Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the resulting US-led invasion of Iraq further strained the relationships in the Middle East. The second US-led Gulf War against Iraq in 2003 was long and protracted and led to a civil war, often euphemistically called “sectarian violence” by the mainstream media. The American war in Iraq in the 1990s and 2003 only accentuated the hostility among Islamic countries.

When India illegally divested the Indian Occupied Kashmir of its special status, only Turkey, Malaysia and Iran unequivocally rejected India’s annexation of Kashmir. When Pakistan’s foreign minister did some straight talk and asked the OIC to stop “dilly-dallying” on convening a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, it only strained the relationships between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. There was a widespread public perception that Pakistan’s repayment of $2 billion to Saudi Arabia shortly afterward was linked to the foreign minister’s statement that did not go well with the Saudi leadership.

Even if this impression is not consistent with reality, there is a growing realisation that bilateral economic interests are becoming increasingly crucial in Pak-Saudi relations.

Most of the Islamic countries are beset with unrest and political instability. From internecine warfare in Afghanistan to intractable armed conflicts in Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Iraq, to war on terror in large swathes of restive areas of Pakistan: political instability is a recurring motif among the Islamic countries.

Except for a few oil-rich Gulf states, most of the OIC countries have low economic and human development levels. Almost all the countries are dependent, in varying degrees, on Western weapons for their security. 

In Pakistan, the armed forces have been pitted against radical outfits for the past decade or so. Ironically, it was the same extremist elements that Pakistan had propped up against US-backed Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. Afghanistan has gone through one of the most destructive wars of modern times in which the US used precision-guided weapons and carpet bombing to stamp out the Taliban. Once the US withdraws, the internal strife is expected to become grimmer.

Except for a few oil-rich Gulf states, most of the OIC countries have low economic and human development levels. Almost all the countries are dependent, in varying degrees, on Western weapons for their security.

This dependence has severe consequences for their sovereignty and the degree of independence in their decision-making. In the absence of indigenous defence-related productive capacity, how sustainable and credible one’s defence can be is a matter of conjecture. However, except for Iraq’s invasion of Iran and Kuwait in 1980 and 1990, respectively, no OIC country in the recent past has independently and overtly mounted aggression on other countries.

The primary use of weapons has been for fighting local rogue elements (as in the case of Pakistan) or supporting covert operations in other countries through proxies (as in Yemen, Syria and Libya). In the prevailing conditions, few OIC countries can put their act together to extend military support to Palestine because nearly all Western countries are currently supporting Israel.

Why the OIC, as an entity, shosuld be straight-jacketed by their dependence on foreign weapon systems, despite the express divine injunction to be always ready for a war, is a complex issue. If one could ignore the relatively plush living of the Gulf states because that is funded mostly by oil wealth, there is no gainsaying the fact that in order to become a profitable producer one needs to invest in quality education to improve the productive capacity of the workforce.

What we see in Islamic countries, instead, is very little investment in human capital and exceptionally poor quality of education. This contrasts sharply with, for instance, Japan’s approach, which after its devastation in WW-II, sent its students to the best universities in the West to receive modern education.

As OIC countries dither in the strategic domain, their diplomatic performance is no less egregious. It is worth asking why most developed countries support Israel despite the latter’s history of war crimes and violations of international law. In a recent tweet, Benjamin Netanyahu thanked 25 countries for resolutely standing with Israel, including the US, Canada, Germany and Australia. The historical reasons may be too complex to be explained here, but two factors have significantly contributed to this situation.

Sustained propaganda in the West has successfully stereotyped all Muslims as potential terrorists and has promoted Islamophobia in unprecedented ways. Secondly, the deepening economic ties between Israel and the West have also contributed to Israel’s support.

Though the accounts of Israeli control of the global financial system may be exaggerated, some objective appraisal of steadfast US support for Israel as a mutually beneficial economic arrangement can be intersting. There is a bipartisan consensus in the American Congress that Israel effectively advances US interests in the Middle East. Israel has kept the radical nationalist movements in Jordan, Palestine and Syria in check. Israel’s frequent wars in the region have provided a battlefield for testing American arms. Israel is a conduit for US arms to the countries and movements which are very unpopular in the United States. Israel’s nuclear capability is also seen as a counterweight to nuclear threat from Iran.

The Jewish organisations mobilise considerable lobbying resources on the news media in support of the Israeli government. The pro-Israel lobby is important in tight congressional races and creating a climate of intimidation for those who seek to moderate US policy.

Human rights violations and denial of minorities’ rights in many Islamic countries subtracts the moral capital required to broker a peace deal that is acceptable to all. Additionally, the selective approach of many Islamic countries in condemning (or not condemning) the violation of human rights in many places, such as China and India raises difficult moral questions. For example, Pakistan has never highlighted the plight of the Muslims in China of whom many are reportedly kept in camps behind the façade of re-education. Middle Eastern countries have rarely condemned the human rights abuses in the Indian-held Kashmir.

Muslim countries need economic clout, defence-related capacity, and, most importantly, high moral stature to be of any value. In the absence of these qualities, the Muslim world will be able to do nothing more than condemning the atrocities on innocent Palestinians.

The writer is an assistant professor in the   Department of Economics at COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore   Campus