OIC summit on Syria

Syria's Assad regime paid a price, in terms of political isolation, for its brutal suppression of the uprising at the OIC's summit extraordinaire which suspended the country's membership of the organisation. OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu explained that the decision was a "message to the international community ... that the Islamic community stands with a politically peaceful solution, and does not want any more bloodshed."
The OIC, though, is not a homogeneous community; some of Syria's neighbours have a vested interest in exploiting the situation to turn the regional balance in their favour. But there are others who view any military interference, pushed by some pro-Western members, as a recipe for disaster, and are also worried about the increasing sectarian colour that the Syrian opposition is acquiring.
It is no secret that the Western countries and their regional allies are getting impatient to see the back of Assad. Hamstrung by Russia's and China's veto at the UNSC as well as their own resource constraints, they cannot make a Libya-like intervention in Syria, and would prefer the country's neighbours to do that job.
Mercifully, there was little support for the interventionist push, which could set a dangerous precedent. Secretary General Ihasanoglu told reporters that he did not see much support for external military intervention in Syria. Speaking at the summit, President Asif Ali Zardari took an important, principled stand on the issue saying "we must respect Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity." No county understands better the cost of interventionist policies as does Pakistan which for over 30 years has been grappling with the spillover effects of wars in Afghanistan.
President Zardari must have struck a chord with many as he averred "Afghanistan has taught us that while thinkers and philosophers talk of changing the destinies of nations they must also have knowledge of the societies they wish to change." Like the people of Tunisia and Egypt before them, left to fight for democracy on their own the Syrians could have achieved better results. Outsiders have messed up things for the genuine opposition.
A particularly ugly outcome of the Syrian conflict is the sharpening of sectarian divisions. Unfortunately, some of the regional players have been encouraging sectarian hatreds in aid of their own agendas. Reports point out that a Sunni opposition leader, who had publically vowed to make minced meat of the Alwaites dominating the Assad regime, to feed to dogs, is being touted as a major leader of the opposition by the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera and Saudi owned Al-Arabiya television channels.
Apparently, the issue came up for discussion at the OIC summit. At the suggestion of Saudi King Abdullah the summit adopted a proposal to establish a centre for dialogue between Islam's sects. The fact of the matter is that sectarian divisions are not something new which need to be sorted out in a special dialogue; the present problems are the outcome of a little over three-decades-old political rivalries between Sunni and Shia led countries. It is for the governments to realise that there may be short term gains to be made from inciting sectarian hostilities, but the policy portends trouble for all Muslim societies. Pakistan is already experiencing a bloody fallout of that policy.
The day the OIC was making solemn pledges to resolve political and sectarian disputes, 22 innocent Shia were pulled out of buses and shot dead by sectarian terrorists in Mansehra district. There is enough evidence to suggest that sectarian terrorists wreaking havoc all over this country are sustained by money they receive from the Gulf region. Instead of opening another talk shop in the form of a centre for dialogue between sects, the Arab governments and their regional adversaries must try and stop financial support various sectarian outfits receive in Pakistan and elsewhere to promote one or another side's political agenda.