Dr. Mustafa Öztop*
This article examines how Muslim states, whether consciously or unconsciously, support the hegemonic order within the context of centre-periphery relations. The architects of the current international system have built it upon the premise that peripheral states cannot develop and have defined this system as indispensable. This definition imposes the notion that no alternative trajectory is possible within the system, and that a peripheral state cannot assert itself without being dependent on central actors. Countries exhibiting a tendency to disrupt the system are forcibly attempted to be reintegrated into it.
For example, in a conflict zone, the hegemonic power supports the cessation of hostilities only in exchange for securing benefits through various economic and military agreements. Otherwise, it seeks to profit from the continuation of the conflict. One of the most recent non-Muslim examples of this is US President Trump forcing Ukraine into an agreement regarding valuable minerals in return for the support the US had provided to Ukraine. Another example is the US’s rogue intervention in Venezuela. After arresting Venezuelan President Maduro, the US began purchasing Venezuelan oil following an agreement with the new administration. Regarding Iran, whilst Trump has made attempts to work with a leader who would facilitate access to Iran’s resources, he has not yet succeeded in this.
Muslim states have always non centered position within the current system, that is, the position of the ‘other’. Under this order, Muslim states are compelled to align their interests with those of the hegemonic powers, and the resolution of disputes between two Muslim states is shaped according to the interests of the central hegemony. If disputes between Muslim states serve the interests of the hegemonic powers, these powers not only support the lack of resolution but sometimes present this lack of resolution as a “solution”. For this reason, in disputes occurring within an Islamic country or between Muslim states, the hegemonic powers expand the boundaries of their hegemony. The civil war that began in Syria in 2011 is one such example. The “central hegemony” has turned a blind eye to the war crimes and mass killings taking place in Syria.
Fundamental Political Disputes Among Muslim States
There are numerous issues of dispute among Muslim states. In this article, the disputes that are more frequently observed from a political perspective and can be examined under specific headings—namely, class-based power struggles, the quest for political authority, sectarianism, ethnic-based issues and border disputes—have been categorized and discussed.
Class-Based Power Struggles
Many Muslim states are governed by authoritarian regimes. Some authoritarian regimes are capable of creating environments of crisis, conflict and civil war to maintain their power. This situation also gives rise to class-based power struggles in Muslim states. The events that unfolded between Arab monarchies and the Muslim Brotherhood during the Arab Spring serve as a concrete illustration of this. Regional instability not only hinders the emergence of local and indigenous power centres but has also opened the door to external intervention in crises, acting as a lever to increase the influence of hegemonic powers. Furthermore, these regimes may establish close ties with hegemonic actors to ensure their survival. This situation may not apply to every authoritarian regime. Whilst Gaddafi’s 42-year rule in Libya was fraught with issues regarding hegemonic actors, in the case of Egypt, Mubarak’s 30-year rule was notable for his close ties with the US. Similarly, US President Trump’s remarks in a speech directed at King Salman of Saudi Arabia—‘We are protecting you. You wouldn’t last two weeks there without us. That’s why you must pay for your army’’, highlights the nature of this relationship. In Syria, the Alawite Assad family, representing the Ba’ath regime—a minority government—has managed to remain in power for many years thanks to its ties with Iran and Russia. In this example, it is clear that the Assad family, engaged in a class-based struggle for power sustained by the support of hegemonic powers, has prioritized the interests and directives of these powers over the state’s own interests and needs. Bashar al-Assad’s decision to abandon the country within the framework dictated by Russia lays this situation bare.
The Quest for Political Authority
Muslim states have, within the current system, either demonstrated or been compelled to demonstrate a particular closeness to some or all the hegemonic powers. In the bipolar world, they were obliged to align themselves with either the US or the USSR and, in their foreign policy decisions, generally to conform to the interests of these countries. As a result, in the foreign policies of Muslim states, the special relationships of closeness established with the hegemon have been more decisive than an approach based on their own internal dynamics and beliefs.
Ethnic-Based Issues
Ethnic nationalism spread rapidly across the world from the 18th century onwards and led to the emergence of many nation states. Over time, this approach became more rigid and gave rise to manifestations of racism. Now, some supporters of nationalism have not contented themselves merely with prioritising and exalting their own nation, but have adopted an approach of belittling and despising nations of other races. This has transformed race-based disputes between states into ethnic discrimination and deepened ethnic-based issues. Ethnic-based approaches have caused divisions and disputes among Muslim states at various times, and these approaches continue to lie in wait for opportunities.
Sectarianism
The emergence and spread of sects in Islamic history have led to significant disputes and conflicts. These disputes continue to harm states and societies today, just as they did in the past. Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in sectarian-based rivalry. Consequently, countries such as Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are expending all their energy on sectarian conflicts, whilst their resources are being depleted by hegemonic powers. There are numerous countries in the Middle East and Africa that are either experiencing sectarian-based conflict or harbour the potential for such conflict. This situation not only leads to Muslims shedding blood amongst themselves and creating new problems but also allows another power to profit from the situation. The resources of countries weakened by internal or regional conflicts become a battleground for non-regional actors. Furthermore, these countries are turning into a major market for the arms trade.
Border Disputes
During the process of the collapse of empires and the formation of nation-states, dominant powers drew artificial borders in the regions from which they withdrew and instrumentalized these borders to maintain their hegemony. These artificial borders, drawn without regard for the region’s economic, cultural and demographic characteristics, have been one of the primary causes of conflicts and crises.
The emergence and resolution of the Bureymi Crisis between Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Emirate of Abu Dhabi are also linked to the hegemonic presence of global actors in the region. The dispute over the Shatt al-Arab waterway was one of the triggers of the Iran-Iraq War. One of the border disputes left behind by Britain when it withdrew from the Persian Gulf in the 1970s is the dispute over the Abu Musa and Tunb Islands between Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Immediately prior to the war, a conflict broke out between Indonesia and Malaysia over the states of Sarawak and Sabah, which were under British control. The Halayib Triangle dispute between Egypt and Sudan is a consequence of Britain’s regional policies. The Durand Line Agreement, signed in accordance with the demands of the Government of British India, has been a source of dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The Hegemon’s Domination and Irresponsibility
Today, most Muslim states face disputes like those cited above. The emergence of these issues is influenced not only by the involvement of extra-regional hegemonic powers but also by the erroneous attitudes of the Muslim states themselves. Some Muslim states, influenced by the hegemonic powers’ influence, manage to achieve harmony with these countries despite significant differences, yet they do not make sufficient effort to achieve harmony with another Muslim country despite having many common points. Of course, the most important justification for aligning with hegemonic powers is to escape their potential pressure and to secure guarantees in various areas. However, this security is always at risk of ending should there be a change in the hegemonic power’s demands or interests. The relationship that peripheral countries establish with the hegemonic power may appear sustainable and meaningful in certain instances. However, even this situation can often be reversed by a paradigm shift or change in leadership within the hegemonic power. The US’s shifting stance in recent years regarding the security of Gulf states is a clear example of this. Therefore, reaching an agreement with a Muslim country with which there are many common points would be a more strategic choice for sustainable security.
It is more feasible to resolve existing issues through power centers or organizations that Muslim states—if not all, then the majority—establish amongst themselves or transform into active entities. This is because Muslim states, which have become polarized in their quest for political authority, may be able to break free from this polarization through an umbrella organization or power center that they establish amongst themselves or transform into an active entity. In other words, regarding disputes, by sidelining many foreign mediators, it is possible for those in conflict to reach an agreement through independent dialogue and to arrive at a solution more easily by focusing on common ground. In this sense, following the overthrow of the Baath regime, Syria presents a scenario where the influence of hegemonic powers has diminished under a new administration in which the people have a greater say; the country’s importance lies in the support of regional actors and the consensus it has achieved internally.
Either Hegemony or Islamic Peace
At this juncture, it is imperative for the Islamic world to return to its essence. The statements found in the Farewell Sermon—“O people! Your Lord is One. Your father is One. You are all the children of Adam. And Adam was created from clay. The most honorable of you in the sight of Allah is the one who fears Him most. “An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab except in piety.” These words explicitly reject the claim of superiority based on sectarianism. According to the principles established at the founding of the Islamic faith, such understandings—which today serve as causes of division and conflict—are prohibited.
Furthermore, Muslim states are wasting significant energy on disputes they could resolve amongst themselves. This waste of energy also increases the influence of hegemonic actors over them. For these reasons, political disputes between Muslim states negatively affect their very existence in two ways. A political dispute between two Muslim states typically creates a situation where a third-party benefits, whilst the Muslim states make further concessions to that third party. Consequently, Muslim states have been forced to remain in a subordinate position in international relations and have become dependent on hegemonic actors. This situation has effectively become a new form of colonialism.
For these reasons, Muslim states must contribute conceptually and intellectually to the field of international relations through an Islamic perspective, thereby constructing alternative understandings and institutions. Given the current practices of international relations and international law, the fact that Muslim states seek solutions to their political disputes through international organizations such as the UN and the ICC inevitably brings certain problems in itself. The reason for this is that the underlying understanding of these organizations is based on a de facto situation where central actors are privileged and peripheral actors are the ‘other’. Consequently, in resolving political disputes between Muslim states, it is inevitable that those holding influence or decision-making power within international organizations such as the UN will propose solutions based on their own perceptions of equality and their own interests. As a result, these issues often remain unresolved.
In conclusion, it is evident that the most common political disputes among Muslim states—such as class-based power struggles, the quest for political authority, ethnic issues, sectarianism and border disputes—are fuelled by the functioning of the current international system, which relegates Muslim states to the position of the ‘other’. For this reason, rather than placing their hopes in hegemonic actors and the existing system to resolve the aforementioned political disputes, Muslim states should seek alternatives; they should strive to resolve issues bilaterally with their direct counterparts or through the mediation of another Muslim state. In this way, the oppressive negative effects of central hegemony on Muslim states will diminish. On this matter, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan summarizes the issue as follows: “For if we continue to wait for a hegemon to intervene to resolve our problems, these issues are often not resolved in the way we would like. Moreover, the cost of this is very high.”
*International Relations Specialist
This article was first published in Yeni Şafak on 24.03.2026.
