Murtoza Manzur :
The recent comment by US President-elect Donald Trump about Turkey’s essential role in toppling the Assad regime and installing a former affiliate of Al-Qaeda as its replacement highlights how alliances and friendships in international relations are often driven by self-interest rather than shared values or ideals.
This reality is particularly glaring in the Muslim-majority world, where the rhetoric of “Muslim solidarity” frequently clashes with the cold, hard calculus of national self-interest.
In the Muslim-majority parts of the world, we often place great emphasis on the concept of Muslim solidarity, imagining it as a force capable of subduing conflicts and fostering unity.
However, a closer examination of recent geopolitics, particularly in the Middle East, reveals a grim picture of this so-called solidarity.
National interest reigns supreme in international relations, and this principle holds true for Muslim-majority countries as well. Consider the most recent genocide in Gaza and the glaringly inconsistent responses from these nations.
Turkey, for instance, has spent the last two decades attempting to reclaim its Ottoman-era influence, often leveraging its Muslim identity as a diplomatic tool. Yet its actions – or lack thereof – paint a different picture.
While making public statements condemning Israeli aggression, Turkey has maintained its trade relations with Israel, exporting critical materials like steel and construction supplies essential to Israel’s war efforts.
An actual embargo would have delivered a tangible blow to Israel’s aggression, but Turkey’s domestic economic interests clearly outweigh its public proclamations of Muslim solidarity.
Trump’s comment about Turkey’s role in Syria further underscores this point.
Turkey’s willingness to support the installation of an Al-Qaeda affiliate that indirectly facilitates Israeli aggression, as evidenced by the recent escalation in the Golan Heights, exemplifies how national self-interest consistently takes precedence over religious solidarity.
Closer to home, the concept of Muslim solidarity falters once again. Myanmar has carried out a large-scale genocide against Rohingya Muslims for decades.
Despite the Rohingya being described as one of the world’s most persecuted minorities, Pakistan continues to arm and train the Myanmar military.
This is done not out of obliviousness but as part of a calculated strategy to serve Pakistan’s economic interests through arms sales and counter Indian influence in the region. Here too, self-interest overshadows the shared faith that could have been a unifying force.
In the Gulf region, the wealthy members of the GCC have mastered the art of preserving their self-interest.
Despite their significant influence in global politics, their actions – such as signing the Abraham Accords and their muted responses to Israeli aggression – demonstrate that economic and political self-preservation take precedence over defending the broader Muslim community.
Their priorities lie in sustaining their systems of governance and wealth rather than championing solidarity.
Interestingly, some of the strongest support for Palestinians in recent conflicts has come not from Muslim-majority nations but from countries like South Africa, Ireland, Bolivia, Belize, Brazil, Venezuela, and Chile.
These nations share no religious or ethnic ties with Gaza but are united by a shared history of resisting colonialism and upholding human dignity. Their solidarity stems from their values and principles rather than shared belief systems, showing that humanity can transcend borders, faiths, and histories.
As we reflect on these realities, it becomes clear that we must move beyond an over-reliance on the concept of Muslim solidarity. In international relations, self-interest and shared values often trump shared belief systems or skin color.
This is not necessarily a cause for cynicism but rather an opportunity for introspection and growth.
The path forward lies in reevaluating the foundations of our alliances and friendships. While national interest will always play a role, aligning these interests with universal values – justice, humanity, and dignity – can create a more balanced approach.
The cautionary tales of failed solidarity should remind us of the dangers of hypocrisy and lip service.
At the same time, the examples of solidarity rooted in shared values offer hope for a future where alliances are forged not just out of convenience but out of a genuine commitment to a more equitable world.
Let us strive for a world where our actions align with our values and where justice is not sacrificed at the altar of self-interest.
(The writer holds a master’s degree in Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of Waterloo, with expertise in Middle Eastern affairs
and refugee issues).
