NATO Strikes: Exploring the Truth and identifying the Lessons

(THE FIRST PART OF THIS WRITE-UP DEALING WITH THE ANALYSIS OF NATO STRIKES, WAS COMPLETED BEFORE NATO STRUCK THE DEAL WITH MILOSEVIC. THIS DEAL DOES NOT WARRANT ANY FUNDAMENTAL REVISION; IT RATHER CONFIRMS THE CONCLUSIONS THAT HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT IN OUR ANALYSIS. HOWEVER, EVEN THEN, IT COULD BE UPDATED, BUT, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT IS ALREADY DELAYED, WE CHOOSE TO LEAVE THE WRIT-UP AS IT IS. AUTHOR)

There has been a mixed reaction, in general and, in particular, among Muslims, to the recent NATO strikes against Serbia. This has ranged from rejoicing to suspicion—–rejoicing at Milosevic, the Serb dictator being targeted, and suspicion on why NATO is doing what it is. We need to have a very clear understanding of this affair, and go beyond the facts to discover the underlying truth. This is absolutely essential, if only one wishes to really live as opposed to merely exist in this world. The late Dr Ali Shariati—-Iranian born Muslim intellectual—- rightly said once that ‘to be in twentieth century is not to live in twentieth century’. Life involves a conscious, a perceptive living. In order to live one has to be conscious and aware not only of one’s self, but one’s surrounding environment—- political, social, intellectual etc.etc. This is one of the conditions for survival, for individuals as well as for societies and civilizations.

Exploring the Truth:
The present conflict in Balkans is about the organized genocide of Muslims that the Serb dictator Milosevic has been carrying out earlier in Bosnia and now in Kosova. The Muslims are the victims here and Serbs the culprits. The West through NATO has got substantially involved in the affair, with the result that apparently the configuration of forces actively involved in the combat is Muslims and the NATO on one side and Serbs on the other. In fact, as Kosova Liberation Army(KLA) information officer, based in Albania said on 5/5 in a Sky television program, KLA and NATO are informal allies in the present conflict. However, this line-up of forces does not conform to the general, and not entirely inaccurate, perception of West-Islam relations. West and particularly US is not considered to be a friend of Muslims, so what is the reality of this line-up? What is NATO involvement all about? This is a question to which an honest answer must be attempted, and one should shun all the attempts at oversimplifications or uncalled-for conspiracy theories. For example some would like us to believe that NATO did all this bombing to get the Kosovan Muslims expelled from Kosova, thus getting it emptied of its Muslim population. On the other hand, those on the other end of spectrum—–the so-called pro-West elements—-would argue that West is doing all this because of its mercy and compassion for Muslims, West is moved by how Solobdin Milosevic is brutalising the Muslims in Kosova.. These and other such explanations, without answering the real question in the least, are unduly creating a host of other questions to be answered. Why should the West invest billions of dollars, if the objective is just to make Kosavars flee Kosova? Can this objective not be achieved by any other method—-easier, and cheaper? Is it wise for NATO countries to go to war, as they have really gone, to achieve just that much? And, above all, why should a ruthless dictator like Milosevic need NATO strikes to do the job of ethnic cleansing; after all, he did it in Bosnia earlier, with more ferocity, without any NATO bombs falling then: in fact, West not dropping any bombs and remaining indifferent was then considered to be the chief reason for the Serb terror let loose on Muslims. On the other hand, those advancing the mercy argument, ignore a very simple truth that state decisions, and that too a vital decision as that of war, are not motivated by such considerations as mercy and compassion; interest and policy forms the basis of such decisions. Moreover, why this mercy and compassion should so abruptly descend on West’s conscience, when it was US and Britain who made Palestinian Muslims homeless by planting the unholy Zionist entity there, and who have turned a blind eye to the brutal Indian repression of Kashmiri Muslims? If independence of Kosova, per se, was the objective of NATO strikes, couldn’t that be achieved by a relatively modest way of fully arming KLA guerillas, and lending them all the necessary support to defeat Serb forces.? Decision of war is an extra-ordinarily high-stake decision, states do not opt for it unless justified by equally vital interest and objectives. Is independence of Kosova an objective that justifies West’s decision of going to war with Yugoslavia? After all it is the question of Muslim Kosovars seeking independence; basically it is their problem, they have to struggle and achieve their objective. Why should the West fight for them, and do their job? For that matter, who does who’s in this world?

One has to dig out the truth behind NATO bombing of Serbia, not with anti or pro mindsets, but with an open inquisitive mind. We must focus on NATO itself; it is there where the key lies.

Three things can be noted about the on going NATO campaign against Serbia. These are:

1. The cause for strikes, as NATO leaders put it, is ‘threat to NATO values’ represented by Milosevic’s action of ethnic cleansing.
2. Serbia not being a NATO country, the territory of strikes is outside the NATO.
3. The United Nations has been totally sidetracked.

(a)-(c) are self-evident, and there is no question of refuting them. However, they do not conform to the stated foundational purpose of NATO. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was founded in 1949, in the aftermath of World War-II, binding Western Europe and United States into a defense alliance. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which established NATO, treats an attack on one member-country as an attack on all. Apparently the main purpose, NATO was set up for, was to counter the perceived threat to Western Europe from Soviet Union and its allies. Now, as one can see, Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing did not constitute an external military threat to, or an attack on, any member country of NATO that could be treated as an attack on all and would accordingly trigger military reprisals. By its very foundational principles ‘Threat to NATO values’ cannot be the reason for NATO intervention anywhere, and attack on Kosova by Milosevic( treating, for a moment, Milosevic’s terror campaign there as a ‘military attack’), cannot be regarded as an attack on ‘all’; Kosova not being a member of NATO. So, are there any conclusions here to draw? Yes may be, but let us not be impatient. Let us proceed further and consider a couple of important points, before starting coming to any conclusions.

First, going back a bit further into history, let us note that it was US that emerged strong and Western Europe hugely devastated at the end of World War-II. However, it did not take much time for Europe to recover. As has been noted by analysts (Benjamin Schwarz & Christopher Lane in ‘The Arab Daily Chronicle’, May10, 99) by the mid sixties, the West Europeans had staged a vigorous economic recovery, and the Soviet Union’s objective in Europe was obviously to maintain rather than overthrow the post-1945 status quo. It was acknowledged by even a hawkish former Reagan Administration Pentagon official Fred Ikle, as these analysts have mentioned, that any serious likelihood of Soviet aggression against Western Europe had already vanished by the end of the fifties.

Second, if earlier it was the question of judgment—–judging the seriousness or otherwise of the Soviet threat——-latter things became much more clear and self-evident: No Soviet Union and no Warsaw Pact, both of them assigned to the dustbin of history. Considering that the very foundational purpose of NATO— as it was made out to be—–was to counter the Soviet threat, these developments seem to have hit at the very raison d’etre of the alliance. At this juncture, normally, one would think, NATO, as well, would be wound up. This, however, did not happen; the contrary happened: NATO expanded South-Eastwards, under the Partnership for Peace program it invited the former Communist republics in 1994 to join the alliance. It continues to expand, both, in terms of enlisting new members as well as broadening its political agenda.

What do all these facts reveal? The minimum they do, is, they cast serious doubts on the very foundational purpose of NATO. One can, almost fairly reasonably, conclude that NATO’s foundational purpose was not as was stated; it was either different or much more than that, or both. But this is not saying much. It is only half of the truth, that too the negative side of it. We have to uncover the positive side as well to understand the whole truth: if NATO’s stated purpose is not its real purpose, then what is the real purpose? After all, what NATO is really up to? Before we go to answer these questions, let us again emphasize that these questions acquire relevance and legitimacy in face of the fact that NATO, not only continues to exist even after the end of the Cold War, but it has considerably enhanced its profile, role and activism in global affairs since. NATO leaders themselves have been explaining why it is so, and if we go through those explanations—listen to what is coming from the horse’s mouth—-we may find ourselves comfortably placed in drawing conclusions and coming up with answers to the questions we have raised. In this regard we will note here three elements that form the part of NATO’s logic for continued existence and expansion.

First, the logic of ‘adult supervision’. As Schwarz & Layne(cited above) have mentioned, It was suggested, in a 1992 draft Pentagon document ‘Defense Planning Guidance’, that US needed to keep, both, the former great powers of Western Europe as well as Japan under ‘adult supervision’. This logic dictated that wherever the sources or the seeds of conflict exist, NATO itself has to be there as the stabilizing force. Thus, for example, after the recovery of Western Europe from war and the disappearance of Soviet threat, one would imagine that US would leave Western Europe alone to defend itself and take care of old or new destabilising influences. But NATO logic did not allow that. As the US senator Richard Lugar, the leading Republican foreign policy spokesman has argued, since European stability is now threatened by those areas in the east and south where the seeds of future conflict in Europe lie, NATO must stabilize both halves of the continent. Not that Western Europe cannot stabilise its eastern half in the event of a future conflict arising there, but if left alone, the former, according to NATO will revert back, to bad old ways——renationalising of armed forces, and shifting alliances.

Second, the logic of new threats, and accordingly new tasks and new missions. According to this logic NATO was as relevant in 1949 as it is now, because of new threats replacing the old. At its Rome summit in November 1991, NATO for the first time identified the ‘importance of addressing security threats beyond the NATO area’. In the recently concluded summit of North Atlantic Council(NATO’s political umbrella) at Washington on 23-24 April, the heads of state and government approved the Alliance’s Strategic Concept, which says that although ‘large scale conventional aggression against the alliance is highly unlikely, the possibility of such a threat emerging over the longer term exists’. Listing the new threats to the Alliance, It further takes note of ‘powerful nuclear forces outside the alliance’, and ‘the global spread of technology that can be of use in the production of weapons…permitting adversaries to acquire highly capable offensive and defensive air, land and sea-borne systems…’

Third, the logic of centre-periphery relation. According to this logic, as Senator Richard Lugar says(Schwarz & Layne), ‘there can be no lasting security at the centre without security at the periphery’. The senator, therefore, argues that NATO must ‘go out of area’. The recently approved Strategic Concept mentioned above, while referring to ‘multi-directional and often difficult to predict’ military and non-military risks, takes note of ‘the possibility of regional crises at the periphery of the Alliance’.

The three elements of NATO’s logic, mentioned above, represent a very small fraction of the thinking that has been going on in the Trans-Atlantic world regarding how NATO can be made more and more relevant in a changing world. However, at a closer examination, this small fraction also gives us some very important insights into the working of the NATO leaders’ mind.

The talk of adult supervision is characteristic of an imperialistic mind-set. Such a thinking exposes one’s extreme obsession with dominance, and that too forcible. It is not difficult to appreciate how through NATO, US has ensured adult supervision of its European allies, and has very successfully managed to contain them, particularly Germany, by enmeshing their military and foreign policies into an alliance. Chapter five of the Pentagon document ‘Security Strategy for Europe and NATO’, explicitly mentions that the objectives of NATO enlargement include ‘preventing the renationalization of foreign and defense policies’ of its European allies. The argument of safeguarding periphery, looks funny, though in reality it is an extremely dangerous thinking. The problem is that periphery is a relative term., and keeps on changing. When NATO extended only up to Western Europe, Eastern Europe was the periphery. As NATO discovered ‘the seeds of future conflict’ in the east and south, it decided, it should expand to that periphery to stabilise Europe. Now the periphery is what is further east and southwards, and NATO being ever in search of new ‘threats’ and ‘seeds of conflict’, it will find quite logical to expand to those new areas. Anyone, going through NATO or Pentagon papers, will definitely agree that NATO is almost obsessively looking out for ever newer threats; if there was none, it would invent one to justify its enlargement.

What has been said above, places us in a position to draw some further conclusions. It is possible now to conclude that NATO is basically an organisation that has to do with order. It was designed to be so in the first place: a military instrument responsible for maintaining the post world-war-II international order rather than to combat the so-called Soviet threat. When we look at things in the perspective, It becomes easy to appreciate, that what the Victors of the War, namely USA and Soviet Union , needed most, was to maintain the political order that was created by the War, and that ensured their hegemony over the rest of the world. This was the main task where the interest of both the victors did lie. For the West, particularly US and Britain, the order was more than just suitable, because it had taken care of the otherwise most dodgy factor in the European politics, namely, the German factor. Germany being partitioned, both physically and politically, into east and west, this factor had been almost rendered impotent. It is pertinent here to recall, that because of its power ambitions—real or perceived—- it was Germany that was sought to be humiliated earlier at the end of word war-1 through the Versailles Treaty of June 1919. As regards the Soviet Union, things were not less attractive: it too had run away with a huge booty in the form of the vast sphere of influence that was concede to it by US and Britain at Potsdam and Yalta conferences in the aftermath of world war-11. Maintaining the post-war international order was, therefore, the primary task before the victors—-US and the Soviet Union. NATO was founded primarily to attend to this task——-the task of ensuring global hegemony by maintaining post-war order—– on behalf of the capitalist West. Not only that Soviet Union was not an adversary; it was, in so many ways, helpful in this project: as a super power, it acted as a stabilising force in the maintenance of international order. In this regard,

The Economist, generally regarded as an authentic spokesman of the West’s mind-set, did some plain-speaking in an insightful leader article entitled ‘The International Order: Situation, Mission, Execution’(Dec 24th1994-Jan 6th 1995). It said ‘—after the relatively straightforward two-alliance confrontation of the cold war, the world has turned back to the riskier manoeuvrings of a multi-power system….A multi-power world is always more liable to go wrong than a two-power one, because it means that any big foreign-policy decision has to take into account the possible reaction not just of one other power but of several, and the risk that all these reactions may collide with each other’. While talking of the threats this new system poses to West’s self-interest, the Leader goes on arguing that ‘Being industrial powers, Europe and America need to be able to buy the raw materials on which their industry depends. They, therefore, need to preserve a free market in these things…. Being traders, they also have to insist on global freedom of movement at sea and in the sky. During the two-power cold war these were manageable matters. The West’s allies would generally not challenge the West’s interests. The Soviet Union could be warned off’.

It seems that Soviet threat was more a pretext for NATO to pursue its real purpose of global hegemony than its real negative target At this point, one must identify the element of myth and fiction in the widely projected view of history that NATO was formed to defend the ‘free’ world from the Soviet threat, it continued to do so engaging in a prolonged cold war, and —-this is the most mythical part of the story—-in the end, it emerged victorious with the dismantling of Soviet Union and the collapse of communism. Disintegration of Soviet state and the collapse of communism cannot be denied, but the victory of capitalist West has got to be. We cannot, and neither we should, go into reasons of Soviet disintegration or collapse of communism, simply because it lies outside the pale of present inquiry, but it must be emphasized here that communism died its own death, it collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions, and socialism as a system of governance failed because of its inability to practically deliver. Similar or even worse can happen to capitalism, if the conditions it thrives on, cease to exist, for example, if free flow of goods and capital is blocked. That is the truth of the matter, and not what the West would have us believe, that the ‘ideology’ of capitalism triumphed over that of socialism, and, there, the end of history was celebrated.

NATO continues in its original role of a military instrument for the maintenance of international order. When its leaders insist that NATO is as relevant today as it was in 1949, they merely underline the basic truth about the organisation. However, there being no more the pretext of Soviet threat, NATO has to have new pretexts to successfully pursue its real aims. No wonder, therefore, it has been ‘discovering’ new threats’ at an amazing pace, and setting out new tasks for itself. To be taken seriously, NATO has not only to talk, it has to practically take up new roles and new tasks, and build up a new credible image for itself in place of its earlier image of crusader against communism. It’s intervention in the earlier Balkan conflict, when Bosnian Muslims were subjected to genocide, was regarded a decisive proof of its continued relevance, and it gave NATO an image of a—–rather the only—- successful peace-maker, one that alone has resources, power, clout and will required to devise peace-formulas and implement them. NATO has not only to keep up but strengthen this image. Its latest Balkan adventure has to be seen in this light. The primary objective NATO is now pursuing through its ongoing campaign in the Balkans, is two-fold: to firmly establish itself as the legitimate intervening force in conflict situations on the basis of being the only capable peace-maker, and, in the process, pursuing its strategic objectives related to its real aim of global hegemony. As one can see, the very future of NATO is linked to this objective, and, therefore, to the present campaign. That, and only that, justifies the extra-ordinarily huge effort NATO governments have put in the present campaign; no other objective—other than that of securing the future—- is ever regarded worth such an effort. If one were to describe, in a single sentence, what the present NATO campaign is basically about, one would do so by saying ‘it is all about NATO’s future’. Anyone who might have watched the campaign from close, listened to speeches and statements of top NATO leaders, and carefully gone through the main US and British media, particularly the print media, will have absolutely no problem with this conclusion. From the very start, it has been NATO—its future, victory, success—-and not the issue of Kosova that formed the focus of discussion everywhere. Leading editorials talked about it, and so did the political and military leaders. The Economist in one of its Leaders entitled ‘Defining NATO’s Aims’(April 17-23, 99) summed it up very succinctly in these words: ‘If it is true that NATO’s relative success in Bosnia boosted its morale and affirmed its usefulness after the Soviet collapse, then it is necessary at least to ask what a failure now in Kosovo would mean’. The main theme that dominated Washington Summit of NATO leaders was precisely this: the future of NATO, winning the war, and as Hugo Young wrote in The Guardian (April 29) these leaders went beyond and talked about the post-war world.

Once we accept the conclusion that the primary concern of NATO, in its present engagement in Balkans, is not the issue of Kosova as such but its own future, and the future of Kosova—its independence, autonomy or any other dispensation—- is important to it but only indirectly, in as much as it strategically relates to NATO’s primary objective(securing its future), we immediately get the right perspective on the whole ongoing affair, and that places us in a better position to judge the efficacy or otherwise of the NATO operation. It also makes clear some otherwise ‘gray areas’, of this campaign. In this regard, we will note a couple of points, which corroborate the conclusions we have arrived at.

1) If saving Kosova or its people is considered to be the main objective of NATO’s air war the mass exodus of Kosovars from their homeland, is an outcome that seems to be in conflict with this objective; the whole exercise looks self-defeating, as has been commented upon widely. However, if our conclusions are accepted everything seems to be well in order: the awful TV images of fleeing Kosovars—-men, women and children—- proved to be the most effective weapon in moulding western public opinion in favour of NATO strikes. While NATO, in order to demonstrate its indomitable will, needed a campaign that could be sustained over a long period of time, the native populations in these countries were getting impatient, being at a loss to understand what the hell NATO has got involved in, particularly, as the facts stood, when it was the case of NATO fighting on behalf of and not against Muslims. The TV images provided NATO a kind of support it could not afford to be without. This is not to suggest that NATO deliberately engineered the exodus of Kosovars—-a conspiracy theory—-but only that what happened, happened to the advantage of NATO.

2) Likewise, there has been too much criticism against NATO for not using ground troops, and even ruling out the option from the beginning. This criticism though sensible in its own place, is again premised on the same view—-Kosova being the direct concern of NATO. But if the perspective we are arguing for, is accepted, the ‘wisdom’ behind this apparent shortcoming also begins showing up: if NATO is developing a new strategic vision, identifying new threats, and envisaging new activist roles for itself, it has to devise methods of intervention that are cost-effective in terms of human lives. The present NATO operation can be treated as a test-case where NATO wants to see exactly how, with almost no cost to itself in terms of human lives, it can succeed in breaking the will of a target state.

There is another angle to it. Because of US’s predominance in the alliance(more than 80% of the war-cost in the present war is being provided by US), NATO’s global hegemony means, effectively, US hegemony. Now, if US wants to avoid dependence on its European partners, it has to resort to such means of war and victory, where it excels. It has a clear edge in air- power and hi-tech warfare, whereas Europe has in ground troops. In order to take its European allies ‘along’ but not being necessarily dependent on them, US will definitely prefer air strikes to be the method of NATO. This will give it more independence of action, and a decisive say on decisions, and also save it from the host of complications(from political, legislative to logistic), involved in the posting of ground troops. Correspondingly, it will ensure Europe’s inability to fight such wars on its own, making it dependent on US for defense which, it should be recalled, happens to be one of the foundational objectives of NATO.

So much about the truth behind NATO strikes. We will now move on to the next part, namely, the lessons.

Lessons: The current NATO campaign is basically about its future, is our conclusion; but what does it demonstrate? What is the message here? The message is that the West led by United States is fully determined to perpetuate its global hegemony, and ‘safeguard’ what their forefathers have handed down to them as ‘fruit’ of their colonial loot and plunder over centuries. They are fully aware of the uniquely privileged position, they have, historically, come to occupy in the international order. That is why The Economist, in the leader article cited earlier (Dec24, 94-Jan 6, 95) while exhorting the West to continue its historical mission, advises its people that ‘they must go on spending rather a lot of money on defense…They have to authorise their politicians to make hard choices, often when no possible outcome is gleamingly perfect. They must accept that their armies will sometimes have to go and fight, and that young men will be maimed and killed. If they do not do these things, they will see what their fathers and grandfathers achieved turns slowly to dust.’

Now, if that is the message, how should Muslims respond to it? There are a few points, which we want to make in this regard:

a) First and foremost, it is Muslims who should take a serious note of this message, simply because, ultimately it matters to them only. Apparently, they will find a whole lot of other peoples and nations raising hue and cry about ‘American imperialism’, making huge protests against NATO, like for example, Indian socialists and leftists, Castros and Saddams etc.etc., but they must be fully aware of the qualitative difference between their(Islam’s) conflict with the West, and that of other peoples. The latter’s conflict with the West is essentially the conflict of interest, though its articulation may sometimes have ideological overtones; the former’s is essentially ideological based on fundamental questions of world-view, beliefs and values, though inevitably involving vital issues of political and economic interest. Accordingly, with others it is the matter of time before they accept American hegemony—-simply when they find doing so in their interest as Russia did—-, but for Muslims not to accept this or any other non-Divine supremacy is a matter of principle unaffected by time.

b) On the basis of the logic given above, Muslims must not play second fiddle to any and every anti-West ‘crusader’, like, for example, some did to Saddam. Morally being absolutely unjustified, it is politically unproductive bringing no gains but only stigmatising our history. How shameful it was when, during the Gulf War, some ‘ulema’ who assembled in Iraq on Saddam’s invitation called him Salahudin Ayubi.

c) There is a more important reason why Muslims should not play second fiddle. This has to do with the fundamental level of understanding. Muslims must understand the present global situation and interpret the realities in the framework of Islamic worldview. If NATO imposing itself is one face of the coin, the oppressed people world over—-from Kashmir to Kosova—-crying for help and there being absolutely no one to powerfully and sincerely intervene on their behalf to solve their problem, is equally another face of the same coin: both define the historical situation we live in. Similarly, If US extending its political clout across the globe is one facet of the situation, we must not ignore the other facet which is equally important: smaller nations fearing their bigger neighbours and looking at US as countervailing force. For example the fear of India, drives Pakistan to seek US help (whether that brings any gains to Pakistan is besides the point, but that the fear it is driven by, is very real, is precisely the point). This integrated view of reality leads us to a very important truth about the present global situation: There is a serious power vacuum now existing in the world, and the West is filling this real vacuum, because vacuums do not remain unfilled, of whatever nature they may be. For example, denial of the real God has created a vacuum in the secular man’s being, which has been filled by his fanatic acceptance of so many false gods—–sensual pleasure, own ego, etc.etc. We cannot afford to go into any detailed discussion about the Islamic political thought and philosophy here, but it has to be pointed out that the theoretical basis of the present international order has no place in Islam. This order is based on the concepts of nationalism and the national rights. Every otherwise illegitimate action acquires legitimacy if considered a national right of a nation. US can bomb Afghanistan to track down Osma bin Ladin, because of national right to do so, India can kill and maim Kashmiri Muslims on the same basis, and Thailand can sell its women like onions again on the same basis. No one can or should stop them from doing these things because it is their internal matter. As one can see, all this is highly offensive to the moral genius of Islam. Islam regards whole humanity as a single family, with the political power of Islam representing the mighty sword of Justice that can put things in order where they go wrong and cater to the sufferings of the oppressed. If US has become the most powerful state and is imposing its hegemony worldwide, Islam does not solve this problem by saying that other nations should be empowered so that they can resist US intervention. The solution is not that Milosevic should become so strong that nobody should be able to stop him from brutalising Kosovars, or India should make more and more long range missiles, so that it can ‘independently’, without any fear, carry out the massacre of Kashmiri Muslims. Illegitimate power and authority, whether centralized(in a single state US) or scattered(among many countries), remains cent percent illegitimate. Decentralization will not change the situation; instead a genuine global authority that must come to exist, will. That is where the political role of Islam comes in. Allah(SWT) as the Creator and the Manager of His creation, has ordained precisely this role for Islam: a powerful and compassionate authority responsible for the global dispensation of justice. Restoring to Islam its original political role is the only way the present global situation can be changed. As long as it is deprived of that role, vacuums will be there, which hegemons like US are bound to fill, and if we take a lop-sided view of the historical situation, pursuing a single point agenda of dislodging the hegemons, the problem will never be solved: you dislodge one and the other will occupy the slot. The agenda before Muslims, therefore, should not be displacement as such but a proper replacement, which inevitably will involve displacement as the first step. Muslims have to be revolutionaries rather than rebels. Rebellion originates from the sentiment of hate and is limited to an angry act of demolition; revolution originates as, martyr Muttahari says, from a feeling of hate towards what is to be demolished, and a feeling of intense love for what is to be created. A great vision of future inspires the latter, whereas a total lack of it characterises the former.

d) The depth of understanding and the breadth of vision, the Islamic world-view brings about, will, not only, prevent Muslims from playing second fiddle to pseudo-revolutionaries, it will also produce in them a constructive, positive and forward-looking approach. They will cease to be mere West or America bashers. Charged with the mission of working for a replacement, their sense of responsibility will increase and their commitment to Islam will naturally get reinforced.

e) We also need to come out of ‘West is not doing this and that’ syndrome. When there is a problem, like for example in Bosnia earlier, and Western powers behave as spectators, we say they are not doing anything. When they start doing something, like as they did in case of Kosova, we say they are doing it for their interest. This takes much of our energy, and it is a useless exercise. West’s action or inaction are its own decisions, which it takes to pursue its interest; we as a people of great civilization should pursue our own.

f) We need to build our own plans and work out strategies. We should be well aware of our assets, our sources of strength and those of weaknesses. Above all we need to locate our role in the historical process, appreciating and building from, what has been done in the past 1400 hundred years and what can be our input. The main focus of our agendas should be our own consolidation, mobilisation of power and its institutionalisation. Our vision going well beyond the immediate time and space, our strategies and action-plans, should fully take into account the here-and-now realities. In this connection two points need to be mentioned:

One—There is absolutely no doubt, that the West considers Islam as the only challenge to its supremacy. But a careful study of the West’s agenda reveals, that it does not regard Islam as an immediate threat. This is corroborated by the fact that Islam does not, right now, pose a political-military threat to the West. West’s strategic community is very keen to go according to the priorities. Their immediate priorities include preventing states like China and Russia from becoming super-powers. They want to take on the Muslim world on their own terms, not getting dragged into an imposed conflict.

Two—Muslims are a single brotherhood, and all their enemies constitute the Enemy for the Ummah. This is the ideal, but, unfortunately, the real situation does not quite correspond to it. Muslim ummah is not globally organized into a single political community, with the result that at our own places we can have our own enemies. For example, Turkey or Uzbekistan have close ties with Isreal, an avowed enemy of Islam and Muslims; so many Muslim countries have warm relations with India, a killer in Kashmir. If India and Israel are enemies, the ideal line-up should have been, all Muslims on one side, India, Israel and their supporters on the other. But this is not so. One can argue that Muslims of Turkey and Uzbekistan are not on the side of Israel, simply because they are not represented by their governments. That is true to the extent that nation-states certainly, are not representative of Muslims or their interest, but then the question arises, who represents them, how their real loyalties are articulated if not through the state? The answer perhaps would be that they are not represented at all, their loyalties remaining unexpressed, in which case, although they are not on Israeli side, they are not on Muslim side either. The late Imam Khomeini, may Allah(SWT) be pleased with him, once said: ‘America is worse than Britain; Britain is worse than America; Russia is worse than both, but today our war is with America.’ Likewise, the various struggles now underway in the Muslim world, should become highly objective-oriented, and instead of using little resources to hit so many targets at a time, these struggles should aim at mobilising as many resources as possible to hit as few targets as necessary. The leaders of these struggles must decide on ‘our enemy at this place and this time’.

***

Dr. Syed M Inayatullah Andrabi is a well-known figure in the circles of political Islam. Born in Srinagar, the capital city of Indian Held Kashmir, Dr Andrabi has been intimately involved at the intellectual level with the global politics and political issues since his student days in 1980 at Pune (India), where he completed his Ph.D. in Linguistics in 1983 at the Centre of Advanced Study in Linguistics, Deccan College, University of Pune, Pune, India. Upon completing his doctorate he returned home to join the University of Kashmir, first on a post-doctoral fellowship and later as faculty, but could not continue because of the deteriorating security situation in Kashmir, and had to move to United Kingdom in 1994 where he continues to live since along with his wife and five children.