TEHRAN – Following a claim on December 14 by the Saudi defense minister that 34 Muslim nations have formed an “Islamic military alliance” to fight terrorism former undersecretary of the Turkish Foreign Ministry Ozdem Sanberk said “using religion-oriented perspectives to deal with non-religious problems looks very like a trap”.

On December 16 officials in Pakistan, a key country, said Wednesday that they had not been consulted by anyone in Saudi Arabia before their nation was described as a founding member of the coalition. Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, Aizaz Chaudhry, told reporters in Islamabad that he had asked his ambassador in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, to find out how the error was made. 

Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry also said it had “no knowledge whatsoever of the issue of forming an Islamic anti-terror coalition.”

Indonesia, another key important country, was also said to be still deciding whether to join, while Malaysia ruled out any military intervention.

The so-called coalition is sectarian in itself as it has included Iraq and Iran, the two major countries in the fight against terrorism.

However, in general, Sanberk, who is currently the director of the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK), has a positive view toward the coalition, saying, “The act of coming together itself may even generate incentives for countries with very different outlooks, to cooperate better and overcome their differences.”

Following is the text of the interview with Sanberk:

Q: Considering the fact that members of the coalition don’t have a common definition of a threat and have big differences, do you think such a coalition will be successful?

A: It is not necessary in every coalition for its members to share a common total perception of a threat or to possess exactly the same perspective on all matters. One can’t really say that all countries joining a “coalition of the willing” must always share exactly the same purpose and perceptions of threat. The act of coming together itself may even generate incentives for countries with very different outlooks, to cooperate better and overcome their differences.

Q: What will be the importance of such a coalition without participation of an influential player like Iran?

A: The use of the word of “Islamic” for the coalition is problematic in itself. What we are dealing with is not a matter of religion. We are supposed to be solving a tangible problem. Thus, both Saudi Arabia, as the leading actor in the coalition, and Iran, as a country excluded from the coalition, should reconsider their positions in terms of why they are not able to work together on regional problems.

Actually, both countries should already have been working together to solve regional problems, primarily the Syrian conflict, through regional mechanisms before the issue took on a global form. Indeed, everyone wishes that the Saudis and Iranians could play a more constructive role in regional affairs.

In order to achieve a real and functioning mechanism, regional actors, or countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations, should be able to transcend religion-oriented thinking. These actors should learn how to solve problems by engaging with them through discussions in real political terms.

Q: What will be the fruits or consequences of Turkey’s participation in this coalition?

A: Turkey and other actors with good relations with all Muslim countries, including Iran, will definitely contribute to the coalition by ensuring that it does not become a purely sectarian mechanism. Even though the nature of the coalition is still evolving –I mean we do not really know the details of it yet – Turkey’s participation in it has the potential to make it less sectarian.

Q: Don’t you think that it would be better for Muslim nations to form an coalition against terrorism via the Islamic Cooperation Organization?

A: I would repeat that this kind of cooperation does not need to go under the banner of being “Islamic”, as I indicated in my answer to the second question.

Defining the problem as “Islamic” is unreasonable and it is equally unreasonable to describe the solution as “Islamic” too. There is a practical worldly problem facing us and we should be able to produce solid policy options to eradicate it.

Using religion-oriented perspectives to deal with non-religious problems looks very like a trap