OIC resolution on Kashmir is devoid of historical facts

A

t the 47th meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the 57-member strong Organisation of Islamic Community (OIC), held in Niamey on 27-28 November, the Communal organisation finally bowed to the pressure and blackmail of three Islamic States and passed a resolution against the rightful abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution by the Indian Government.

Among these three countries are Malaysia, whose Foreign Minister Hishammuddin Hussein issued a statement on 28 October against the freedom of expression exercised by France, Turkey, whose leader Tayyip Erdoğan called for the French President’s ‘mental treatment’ after refusing to condemn the freedom of expression cherished by France since the French Revolution, And Pakistan, whose prime minister was able to find time to release a statement requesting that the United Nations announce an international day to ‘combat Islamophobia’ from his global begging campaign.

In recent years, the three Islamic countries mentioned above, which have nothing Islamic about them accepting the vilification of democracy, curbing the individual’s freedom to express themselves, persecuting religious minorities and threatening the world with an imaginary Islamic jihad, have come closer and formed an informal alliance that reminds me of the fascist alliance formed between Italy and Germany before the Second World War that led to the destruction of Europe, Russia, the Middle East and Africa and cost the world community 600 million lives.

The question is why did the OIC give in to the pressure from these rouge states at Niamey? It is possible to find the answer by looking at the economic and political bonds of the OIC. First if OIC does not give up its reluctance to call for a special session to condemn India’s decision of August 5, 2019, to repeal Articles 370 and 35A, we should consider the existential threat OIC faced after Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmoud Qureshi threatened to call a meeting of like-minded brotherly Islamic States (Malaysia and Turkey).

The rebellious demeanour of Pakistan did not go unpunished. The OIC leader retaliated by cancelling Pakistan’s $3 billion oil credit line and demanded that the former pay the $1 billion already owed to the kingdom by the former. Pakistan, however has continued to hold talks with Turkey, Malaysia and even China and has held alive the possibility of an OIC split. In other words, Pakistan was using political pressure to get things done its way as a blackmail tactic.

As competition among OIC countries for regional economic supremacy intensifies and Turkey and Saudi Arabia race to develop political hegemony among the so-called Islamic world, the latter have been cowed into taking ultra-compromising measures to prevent a split in the OIC. However as new global economic alliances in the Middle East and South and Far East Asia, as well as in North Africa, banter for regional dominance, and the war of economic dominance transforms into political spheres of power, the OIC will have to be removed sooner or later.  It will break up. The second reason for the OIC to succumb to the threat of Pakistan, Malaysia and Turkey’s evil troika stems from the fear of Arab capitalism’s failure in a post-COVID-19 economic pandemic.

These economic anxieties are verified by the SESRIC report published on November 2. The report concludes: “The OIC economies are also projected to contract by 2% in 2020, with a growth rate of 2.4%.” It is considered to be absolutely critical for a sustainable economic recovery in a post-COVID economic environment that nation states stick together and collectively bear the brunt of the devastating domestic effects of the coronavirus crisis.

This is not going to work, in my view, as long as the OIC remains a conglomerate of economies struggling to free themselves from autocratic and totalitarian forms of government enslavement. The fear that the OIC would disintegrate into opposing factions, however, is also a justification for the OIC’s haste to take a false stand over Kashmir. And finally, I would not be shocked if it were revealed at some point in the future that China played a decisive role in Niamey’s seemingly sudden decision to add Kashmir at the last minute to the agenda. China is a major lender to the OIC countries and it is important to investigate some arm twisting of North African states and even Saudi Arabia.

It is naive to believe that the old world order that was cluttered in antagonist groups would be determined by the post-COVID pandemic global economic environment. Between the authoritarian closed-door nationalised economies hidden behind the iron curtain and even the 40 years of neo-liberal economic model focused on Milton Friedman’s economic doctrine of unfettered capitalism, the post-Second World War world experienced the Cold War. Yet we have now convincingly entered into the post-neo liberal age of global capitalism after the economic crisis of 2008, and the precipitating aftermath.

Organisations such as NATO, OIC, BRICS, and the like have become obsolete, dictated by the need for the Cold War and neoliberalism. The future of the global market economy will now rely on the reciprocal interdependence of individual economies, rather than the interconnected blocks of economies These smaller individual economies will have to choose between emerging economic giants such as China and India, while being free to ‘protect’ or ‘police’ the free market at the same time from any military obligations.

For the Middle Eastern and African economies, India will prove to be a much better option than China, guided by the lust for economic expansionism and the secret agenda we call the Chinese debt trap. Under the Modi government, a Sabatini business model is emerging in India that puts individuals before competition before profit and friendship and this is the only foreseeable way forward in a post-COVID pandemic world. The resolution passed by the OIC refused to take account of the fact that on October 22, 1947, Pakistan invaded the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was an aggressor and an occupier.

It also does not discuss the plunder of rivers in PoK that have devastating effects on the local population’s ecology and lives. The resolution fails to recognise Pakistan and China’s double colonisation of Gilgit-Baltistan and the illegal CPEC agreements. It conveniently ignores the elections held on November 15 in the occupied territory of Gilgit-Baltistan, which have since been heavily contested and violent protests are the norm. The resolution stubbornly ignores the instrument of accession signed by the Maharaja of Jammu Kashmir with the Republic of India on 26 October 1947, which renders any disputes between the Centre and the union territory an internal matter.

Not only that the recent high turnout in the Direct Development Council elections conducted in the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir is not reflected in the resolution. Only when it comes to India can it be seen as a double standard set by the OIC to pass such a one-sided resolution on Kashmir that is devoid of historical facts and the present status of Jammu Kashmir. In today’s context, only one thing shows that OIC is outdated and rapidly becoming another obsolete conglomerate that should have been a reminiscent of the past by now a biased and one-sided approach to global conflicts.

From some news agency