by Ishtiyaque Danish

The views expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of the Newsletter (editor)

Peace is the need of the hour but it is also the most difficult thing to achieve in the context of India and Pakistan. But given the relative high value of peace, the only viable option is to pursue it with the seriousness it deserves. Wars and conflicts have taken us to nowhere, and ultimately we have been compelled by our own reason and wisdom to talk and pursue peace.

The era of diplomacy is over. We are living in the age of open threat and intimidation. In a world dominated by Bushism, there is no place for such sophisticated methods of conflict resolution as dialogue and persuasion. The threat of brazen invasion is the language they are speaking. This is a direct result of “either with us or with them” philosophy that governs the mind of American administration today.

At the time these lines are being penned, Mr. Bush is visiting European capitals. His stated mission is to convince European leaders to forget Iraq and join him in ear-twisting Syria and punishing Iran because, in his reckoning, the later can not be persuaded to give up its nuclear ambitions by applying diplomatic methods. Therefore, Iran must be dealt with through economic sanctions, intimidation and, if necessary, through military strikes, thus goes the American argument.

Europe agrees with Bush in that Iran should not get the nuclear weapons. However, Europe thinks that diplomacy should be allowed to work and persuade Iran to stop its nuclear programme. Thus the purpose is the same; the difference between the two sides of the Atlantic Sea is about how to deal with Iran, diplomatically or militarily.

When Huntington wrote about the clash of civilizations, the whole world criticized him. Yes, no one wants a clash of civilizations but what can be done if such a conflict is already going on. Here is a powerful nation which has occupied Iraq and is threatening Iran openly. What is the crime of Iran? Tehran, in collaboration with Russia, is developing a nuclear plant, and in some of its already built installations, it is enriching uranium. The US and Europe say that Iran’s nuclear programme is not peaceful, hence it should stop it or it would be stopped.

A serious question is involved here. Iran says that its nuclear programme is peaceful. However, the West says that it thinks otherwise. The US-led West also alleges that Iran, and also the third world developing nations, are neither mature nor responsible, hence they should not be allowed to posses nuclear weapons. How else it can be described if not a civilizational arrogance?

America has a right to invade and occupy Iraq. But Syria can not have a military presence in Lebanon, even if it has been mandated by the Arab League. Israel can have any number of nuclear weapons, but Iran, faced with open threats, can not develop even one, why?

Iran, or the Muslim world, should not put up this question to the UN or the West. Instead it would be well-advised to address this question to itself. The question is very important and requires serious reflections for a proper answer.

For long the Muslim world has been suffering from the short-sighted policies it has adopted and practiced in the post colonial era. There has been a good deal of lip service to the noble cause of the Ummatic unity. However, every Muslim nation has practically undermined it. The situation in the Gulf is specially worse. Here a nation would happily agree to live under American protection and subjugation than to accept the obvious reality of its neighbour’s bigger size and power, and try to live in peace with it. The British exploited this mentality to dominate the Middle East in the 19th century, and today the Americans are doing the same thing to weaken the Arab-Islamic world for its own advantage.

This pathetic mentality must change, if the Arab-Islamic world has to survive, live honourably and contribute positively to the human civilization. Iran and Syria committed a mistake when they silently accepted the American occupation of Iraq and refrained from helping the resistance movement. Now their time has come to face the music. They have done a right thing in forging an alliance. However, both Damascus and Tehran should move forward to enlist the larger Arab-Islamic support. And the best policy for them would be to urge and motivate the Muslim world to discuss the larger question of its security, make its preparation or be ready to accept the US-Israeli domination and consequent humiliation. There is no other option or way out. The sooner the Arab-Islamic nations realize it the better for them.

The author teaches Islamic Studies at Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi.