View Point                                                                         Abid Ullah Jan

Dealing Occupation

The solution is to the on going non-military occupation of countries such as Pakistan is to search for a non-violent form of conflict, separation between genuine points of difference and simplistic and superficial fears and accusations, embarking on a historic dialogue to guarantee a positive interaction that stops the undue intervention in the internal and external affairs of Pakistan out of a fear of confrontation collision between the Muslims and the West.

It is time to call an end to the destructive infringement of Pakistan's sovereignty -- a permanent break from the Western interference that would give us time to regain our energy, concentrate on putting our house in order, and seriously consider ways to build on our strengths. Supporting a dictator only to safeguard pro-US policies, no matter how these may destabilise the country and repress the nation, would have far destructive consequences in the long-term than allowing people to govern themselves with their own representatives, working under their own set of rules and regulations. Should we succeed in achieving such a break from the invisible occupation by the "international community" and exploit it in the manner outlined, that in itself would be a great achievement for the West in winning our hearts and minds.

How can this break come about? Who will negotiate it, and what will the agenda be? What is the desirable outcome? What we need here is a joint negotiated effort by Islamic scholars, the un-sold leaders and journalists for chalking out a way to assert a common Islamic identity (socio-politically) and the concept of an Islamic entity (institutionally and politically). Such an effort should make the leaders of Muslim countries realise that their survival is not in following external dictates for curtailing our freedoms and uprooting our identity but in serving their own people according to the principles of their faith.

Negotiations may be direct or indirect. In the latter case, the Pakistanis first come up with a balanced common position regarding the issues at hand, and then stick to it. This effort must include groups and individuals from all Muslim countries and the process of occupation is not limited to Pakistan alone. If the people in the West accept our position, the negotiating process would have fulfilled its goals. And would have pressure groups right in the place where policies for our occupation are chalked out.

Should our point of view is rejected, we can then ignore this rejection and act according to what we agree even if this common Muslim position is in contravention of international resolutions. If there can be a European Union and NATO, there can also be an Islamic Union and Islamic Defence Organisation to protect our sovereignty.

PARTNERS
In all cases, however, the Muslims have to keep in mind that efforts are underway to divide Muslim thought. This is called fanning a "war within Islam." We must negotiate with each other in order to arrive at a balanced position on the points of conflict with our own rulers and outside powers that sponsor them. Discussions at the mailing lists would not help much. The appropriate venue for negotiations such as these is the establishment of think tanks in all the Muslims countries and then meetings of their representatives in international meetings and seminars. Once consensus is achieved, the Muslims can then deputize the imminent scholars and leaders to negotiate the issues with the "international community" on behalf of the Muslims.

The agenda for the negotiations should be drawn up such that practical results are achieved within a reasonable time frame. For example, the so-called dialogue of civilizations should be excluded and areas or factors that constitute direct interference in the internal and external affairs, or activities that directly undermine our sovereignty should be included.

On the other hand, since the problems between the Muslims and the US are so many, they can be subdivided and dealt with successively, starting with the most pressing issues related to our sovereignty and independence. Needless to say, the first of such issues to be tabled should be the urgent ones of the Muslim states under Western sponsored tyrannical regimes and their impact on overall relations with the West.

The term "international community" refers to the US and its allies. The US, UK and France alone would suffice, the logic being that the Muslims do not have a real quarrel with the other members of the Western communtiy. If the Muslims come to a negotiated arrangement with these parties, then the objective would automatically be achieved, viz. correcting the Western position towards Islam as a whole.

OUTCOME
The desired outcome of this process is breaking the chains of domination and occupation -- the smoothing out of the relations between these presently invisibly occupied Muslim states and the "international community," and the creation of a new climate of international relations for the Muslim countries and their wretched population.
The Muslims must come up with practical and tangible suggestions regarding the problems they face. Nevertheless, the mere idea of a joint Islamic negotiating position may be enough to influence the others to moderate their stance.

To take a start, we must begin at home. We need to debate the ways in which we are fully albeit indirectly occupied and come up with solutions for course correction in time.
We may never see an end to occupation and global apartheid as long as we do not force our Muslim leaders to stand up against injustice and Western double standards. It is highly unlikely that 52 countries would unanimously say one thing and US would do another. The US would never continue following the course once travelled by Hitler, provided we have the courage to tell the whole truth.