OIC summit’s Kashmir resolution

Our foreign policy should take into account that: (a) despite the resumption of the Indo-Pakistan dialogue, practical rationality in Pakistan in discussing Kashmir should not be expected; (b) while references to Kashmir in the OIC discussions and declaration should be noted, they only repeat OIC pronouncements since 1990 and portend no collective action against India by the 55-member OIC; (c) there is no intense interest or unanimity in the OIC membership on the Kashmir issue. The declaration is an expression of a general proforma consensus, animated by a desire for Islamic solidarity rather than an indication of individual member countries adopting operational anti-India policies; (d) we should not accuse Iran of reneging on assurances to Minister of State Salim Shervani. Iran has been part of such consensual declarations on Kashmir in the past. But this has not really affected bilateral relations. We should of course have no illusions; Iran would sympathise with the Muslim cause everywhere in terms of the ideology of its revolution; (e) the approach to counter the OIC’s orientation on Kashmir should be endeavours at representation there and enough self-assurance to let citizens from Kashmir participate in OIC meetings. It is a pity that, unlike at the last summit, we did not allow this in Teheran.

The summit took place at a time when OIC members are facing a general critical predicament. The Gulf regimes are subject to emerging democratic pressures. Their power structures will have to adjust to these with economic modernisation, better education and political consciousness. Iran is subject to pulls between the orthodoxies of its revolution and realistic impulses to end its isolation and join the international mainstream, as evidenced in President Mohammed Khatami’s December 14 press conference: “I take this opportunity to pay my respects to the great American people and hope to have a dialogue with them and about the US in the not too distant future.”

Iraq remains embroiled in Gulf-war controversies. Central Asian countries are still consolidating their identity and stabilising their economies. The Muslim countries of Maghreb stretching from Sudan to Egypt to Senegal are all grappling with the upsurge of violent religious extremist forces. The OIC provides, in this context, a forum to structure collective unity and stability. The Teheran summit was used for this exercise. The OIC membership is not united in its approach to international and regional issues. There are ideological and political differences, and differing and contradictory equations with different power centres. The Gulf countries’ close equations with the United States contrast with Syria, Iran and Malaysia’s distances with America. The Teheran declaration called for the liberation of occupied Arab territories including Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, but did not endorse the Middle East peace process in which many OIC members are involved. Most OIC members differed from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Libya on the Afghan situation and the Taliban’s activities, which were criticised.

The Teheran declaration condemning terrorism in the name of Islam did not find unqualified endorsement from some OIC members which support such movements. Apparent unity on Bosnia will fray in talks in other multilateral fora. Despite the recent Iraq-US stand-off, the OIC has expressed no definite views on the Iraqi people’s predicament. So a demonology of monolithic OIC pan-Islamism creating a confrontationist atmosphere in international relations is factually incorrect and illogical as political prognosis. The OIC is a forum of countries sharing a religious and general ideological orientation in which each member seeks to further its interest through a collective instrumentality.

Several Kashmiri organisations have criticised the Teheran declaration for ambiguity on Kashmir. The JKLF (Yasin group) criticised it for not being action-oriented. Azmat Khan, general secretary of the JKLF in Europe, said it was disappointing to the people of Kashmir. Anwar Khan, chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Peace Committee, said it was strange that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, where tensions with minorities have existed for generations, should talk about minorities elsewhere. He said Iran and Pakistan have maltreated Kashmiris, Baluchis, Pathans and Sindhis and that his organisation would convene an international conference to discuss minorities’ persecution in Islamic countries, especially Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Niger and Morocco, members of the Kashmir Contact Group.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Mussa put his finger on the summit’s one positive achievement: that the Gulf countries, Iran and other Muslim countries could gather to normalise relations with Iran and evolve a stand on issues of global concern, beyond the regional issues they discussed. President Khatami’s guiding of deliberations also marked Iran’s moving to a more practical and cooperative stance on international relations.