How will the Islamic Military Alliance work?

In December 2015, the creation of an Islamic Military Alliance, consisting of more than 30 member states, was announced by Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s minister of defence.

Some months later, rumours were rife that Gen Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s former military chief, had been offered the job of heading this coalition. His appointment has been reported in some media outlets, although it has not been officially confirmed.

Perhaps the most important question surrounding the organisation is what is it intended to do? We have two historical alliances to draw parallels from to seek an answer: Nato and the Warsaw Pact.

Nato is an alliance that was originally intended to protect Europe from Russian expansionism. The Warsaw Pact was a pact of the Soviet Union and its allies against Nato. Both had identifiable opponents in other countries. The Islamic Military Alliance is designed to tackle extremism, but terrorists are most often the “enemy within”. How can other countries help fight the enemy within?

As I understand it, at least in the beginning, no real military action is envisaged for an organisation that has been described in some circles as the “Muslim Nato”. It will essentially be focusing on non-kinetic means to combat terrorism.

The focus is intended to target the funding of terrorists and cross-border movement of extremists. Both these subjects are of increasing importance.

Terrorists seem to filter through all borders and continue to find support and access to weapons.

The implications of this set of realities are numerous. Foremost is that in all countries where terrorism is rife, there are some people so disillusioned with governance that they are prepared to go to any lengths to find an alternative – however ugly and inhuman that may be.

So the key item this alliance will seek to address is the in- creasing tide of extremism, primarily among Muslim-majority countries of the region.

That terrorism can only exist where corruption is rampant – and must be dependent on the corrupt to permit the flow of illegal funds, weapons and resources – is fully accepted.

Therefore, the next issue on the alliance’s agenda will be the eradication of corruption.

I gather that the constitution of this alliance is still being written. However, I am reliably informed that all these aspects are likely to be included. Other aspects will focus on border and inland security.

I also gather that, for the present at least, the alliance will neither seek to raise any military force of its own, nor will it seek to requisition or organise a voluntarily contributed force, like the UN does.

However, provisions for options to be exercised may well be included in the constitution.

If Gen Raheel does head this alliance, I am quite certain that it will not be long before he ensures that Shia majority countries are included in the alliance. All this seems very encouraging.

Among the first of Donald Trump’s policy statements when he took office was his intent to target Islamic extremism. Perhaps this alliance has, albeit unknowingly, pre-empted Mr Trump’s clarion call.

I am told that China and the United States are both supportive of this initiative. In which case, Mr Trump may well assist this initiative and see how successful it might be, before he decides on a more interventionist policy.

My concern in all of this is a more basic one. The nexus between corruption and terrorism is recognised and will be targeted in an attempt to exploit it. However, corruption cannot be rampant where justice exists.

Therefore, for the kind of corruption to exist that terrorists need, injustice is a prerequisite. Second, if even such visibly evil and inhuman terrorist organisations can attract a following in virtually all Muslim majority countries of the region, the malaise in the judicial system and in governance must be very deep and consistent over a period long enough to deprive people of hope from any other less-evil source.

The efforts of this alliance, or any other organisation anywhere, are unlikely to be fruitful unless these also address the need for justice and governance. Both these are issues of state and, if the disillusionment has been sufficiently prolonged for people to espouse terrorism, affected states have, obviously, let the people’s injuries fester for too long.

Consequently, the real question is whether the alliance will be prepared to address these issues as well and, more importantly, will member states be prepared to correct these if the errors are pointed out?

‘ The efforts of this alliance are unlikely to be fruitful unless these also address the need for justice and governance