In the third week of September, Qatar convened an emergency meeting of 57 of the most influential Islamic leaders called the Arab-Islamic Extraordinary Summit. The agenda of the meeting was to discuss a collective response to Israel’s unprovoked aggression against Qatar a few days prior, in which it launched aerial strikes against a Hamas negotiating party within the neutral confines of Doha, which was acting as the official mediator. Due to the unprecedented nature of these attacks, much anticipation had been built regarding its results and commentators speculated that the intensity and gravity of this situation would finally prompt a decisive and punitive response from these Islamic nations, or at the very least a result in a concrete path forward. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The formal declaration that was released after the meeting reiterated support for the Palestinian cause and expressed firm condemnation of Israel’s actions against Qatar as well as its ongoing atrocities in Palestine. However, it was notably devoid of any enforceable action or punitive measures. The most concrete action outlined within the draft was a call for member states to reexamine their ties with Israel and to hold true to their commitments in line with the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli leadership.
While not lacking substance, the contents of this official communique were noticeably mild compared to expectations and even more so when viewed after the release of individual statements made by the heads of state during the summit itself. Numerous states gave direct and potentially pivotal statements, including Turkiye which labelled Israel’s actions a result of its “terrorist mindset” and Qatar which questioned the integrity of the state’s claims in wanting peace while simultaneously assassinating negotiators. Yet none of this was reflected in official documents, highlighting a potential gap between what was said in the summit and what was released through official channels.
To understand why this gap occurred, we must examine the Islamic Summits mechanisms which develop and publish these statements. The extraordinary Islamic summit, as one of the key bodies of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), functions under its procedural framework. Though the exact steps and processes are not publically available, it is known that a draft undergoes many different stages as is common with all major institutions. The first of these stages is the drafting phase, in which the document is initially developed and put forward for review. It is likely that this process occurs during the pre-summit meeting, usually attended by the foreign ministers or other senior representatives of each state. After the draft has been sufficiently scrutinised, it is approved to be sent to the formal summit itself, where it is likely once again debated and reviewed. As a multilateral forum, the Islamic Summit is based on consensus. In order for any resolution to be passed, consensus from all member states must be achieved, but in instances where that is not possible, a two-third majority is considered sufficient. Once the draft has been approved, it is officially made public through the OIC platforms.
As is the norm with such institutions, each of these stages vets and refines the text, ensuring diplomatic tact and de-confliction with each of the member state’s individual political sensitivities. However, in this process of avoiding offense, these statements often become politically sterile. This is not just a reflection of these extensive proceedings rather it is something that has been built into the very foundation of modern international institutions. Contemporary multilateral forums function under the guiding principles of liberal institutionalism, a theory of International Relations which suggests that by increasing state level cooperation and promoting dialogue to international entities, conflict can be prevented. As a result, this core value of preserving peace lies at the bedrock of all major multistate forums, of which the OIC, and by extension the Islamic Summit, is no different.
While the OIC exists to represent Muslim interests on the global stage, by the very nature of framework, it must do so through dialogue and with the intent of preserving peace. As a result, it faces constraints in the extent to which it can act. That is not to say that this forum is incapable of exacting change. The Islamic Summit, in spite of its limitations has in the past advanced the Muslim Ummah’s goals, a key example of which is its establishment of the conditions that would need to be fulfilled in order to ensure a “just and sustainable peace” within the middle east. Chief amongst these was the Palestinian people’s right to “self-determination without foreign interference,” which serves as an important foundational basis upon which future arguments can be based.
Though the Islamic summit and its processes are undeniably flawed, as is the case with all global institutions, its importance cannot be ignored. The OIC currently serves as the second largest international forum after the United Nations and the only multilateral forum formed on the basis of representing the Islamic world’s interests. Due to this, it holds considerable political and diplomatic weight that can be leveraged to ensure the Muslim Ummah is not left behind in influencing global outcomes. Extensive proceedings and structural challenges cannot be removed entirely but they can be managed to improve effectiveness.
Sajal Shahid is a researcher at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected]
