One of them, many optimists considered in advance the summit that began today in Kuala Lumpur, about which we have already written (https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2019/12/19/erdogan-prizval-islamskie-strany-pereyti-na-raschyoty-v-nacvalyutah). The optimism was increased, first, by rumors that it was created in response to a completely meaningless (like all similar organizations) chatter called OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). Secondly, the fact that the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, who is currently playing the role of host, stated that the triad of Turkey, Malaysia and Pakistan could become the locomotive of the Islamic world’s movement towards unity (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=36933).
However, these are all words, and as you know, one has to look at actions, especially when they are different. And closer to action was the proposal by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to switch to settlements between the countries represented at the summit in national currencies. «Transition to trade in national currencies is a priority for Islamic countries,» Erdogan said, unfolding his thought about the need to decouple their economies from the dollar.
It seems one should say, «Ma sha Allah, what a wonderful proposal!» Indeed, ma sha Allah, in any case, but as for the proposal, it is impossible to agree. Such a proposal, made in such a place and in such a company, is a step backward, not forward. And here’s why. Even Erdogan’s teacher and predecessor, Necmettin Erbakan, called on the Islamic world in 1995 to switch from national currencies to a single Islamic dinar. A little later, the same idea was proposed by none other than Mahathir, who is sitting next to Erdogan today. And now, after 30 years, we have not seen the practical implementation of this unifying project, but a regression even in terms of rhetoric towards trading in national currencies.
In fact, the use of national currencies as a currency of settlement does not solve the problem of decoupling from the dollar, unless they are themselves backed by so-called gold and currency assets, the bulk of which are the same dollars. That is, all these currencies are essentially secondary dollars, the use of which cannot solve the problem of liberation from dollar dependence. And of course, with such an approach, there can be no talk of unifying the Ummah.
And yet, we have something to compare — during the time when the leaders of Muslim countries returned to discussing (!) calculations in national currencies instead of discussing the idea of a single Islamic currency, the common European currency of the EU managed to be introduced in many countries and became the basis of a powerful pan-European economy. Here are examples of supranational associations for comparison — the European, where they don’t talk so much, but they really unite, and the Islamic, where they have been talking about unification for decades, but in practice they move away from it, not forward.