(IPS) news focus The back-to-back meetings of the Arab League foreign ministers and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) in Qatar this week had two central themes: first, a near unanimity - barring Iraq, Iran and Syria - in not condemning the US retaliatory strikes on Afghanistan; and second, a unanimous voice against possible US attacks on any other Arab or Muslim country under the pretext of combating terrorism.

In its most significant remarks, the 56-country OIC, the world's largest Islamic body representing 1.2 billion Muslims, expressed concern at the prospect of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, just as it strongly condemned the Sept 11 attacks in the United States.

Those statements, as well as dropping any reference to Taliban in the official communique, would certainly go down well with the United States and relatively appease the restive Muslim population for now.

''We don't have to blame the United States because what happened (there) is a big tragedy: 6,000 people were killed in one day and they were killed by terrorist action,'' Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani said after the meeting.

''We don't generally support military action but then again we don't support terrorism either and we also have to identify terrorism and see its causes, which is why we asked for it to be discussed at the United Nations in future,'' he said.

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal said Muslim countries want to help ''eradicate terrorism which harms the Islamic World and Islamic causes, and never serves the Palestinian cause''.

A Dubai-based Arab analyst said: ''The final statement is meant to send a signal that we tacitly approve of the strikes and distinguish between the Taliban, who are smearing Islam's image, and the poor Afghans.''

''If we don't co-operate, the United States will say that we shelter terrorists,'' he said, but added that he was disappointed that the OIC failed to draft the parametres of the on-going war in the context of the muslim world or specify any response if the campaign was extended.

Hardline delegates

Defending the OIC's non-condemnation of the attacks on Afghanistan, Qatar's Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani said: ''The OIC found that any condemnation of the US strikes would be difficult as this is a sensitive and delicate issue.''

Qatar Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who is also the chairman of the OIC, criticised the ''short-term'' view of Arab governments, saying: ''Unfortunately, we do not look at how we can benefit from this situation in the long term.''

His remarks came in response to statements from some hardline delegates that they had hoped the OIC would take advantage of the US desire to forge a coalition to resolve issues like the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.

Instead, the OIC declarations only echoed Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's criticism of Israel for exploiting the attacks on America to launch new offensives against Palestinians.

The only other point of consensus was a clause that called for a central UN role in countering the 'global phenomenon of terrorism',' and a call for an international conference to debate the same.

This, analysts say, is an attempt to distinguish between terrorism as the West regards it and what Muslims see as the legitimate right of groups to resist foreign occupation such as Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which Israel brands as perpetrators of terror.

''We would have liked to see an internationally-led campaign,'' said Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mussa about the US-led strikes. ''Terrorism is a global phenomenon and any action against it is best addressed through the United Nations,'' he said.

The Middle East experts had been certain that the OIC meeting would not throw up any surprises that would be contrary to distancing themselves from Taliban, which along with Osama bin Laden, had pledged to purge Islamic countries of their pro-Western leaders.

''It's an extremely delicate and complex situation,'' Cairo-based Middle East expert Hussein Amin said, adding: ''On the one hand, they see the Taliban as an embarrassment to the faith and they also do not want to jeopardise US aid or support. But on the other hand, they have to deal with rising anti-US sentiment as well.''

The efforts by Iran, Iraq and Syria to criticise the retaliatory strikes were put down by U.S. allies and regional giants Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

'Widening attacks'

As a compromise, the OIC communique included a statement that rejected any organisational member being targeted 'under the pretext of combating terrorism', a fear that is growing after Washington announced that it is likely to 'expand' its war beyond Afghanistan, implying that Iraq was a likely mark.

''Arab public opinion would not accept the widening of attacks that involves Arab countries,'' Jamal Al Suwaidi of the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research was quoted as saying in a UAE daily.

''There are already demonstrations in Egypt, Sudan, Oman and Iraq against the attacks on Afghanistan, which could spread like wildfire if any other Muslim or Arab country is hit by the West,'' a UAE-based journalist said.

If public resentment, in case Iraq is attacked, is any worry for the Muslim governments, the oil factor should shake the West up too.

The Arabs have always refrained from using oil as a tool to influence the West. But, as the OIC was meeting in Doha, former Saudi Arabian oil minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani said: ''If Iraqi oil - 2.2 millions barrels per day - disappears from the world market, prices would rise above US$30 without fail.''

That would plunge the world's slowing economy into a downslide, a risk that the West may not be prepared for.

But for now, the US allies in the region have had the last word, as summed up even before the Doha meetings, by Omani Foreign Minister Yussuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah: ''The Arab position on US military operations in Afghanistan, inasmuch as they come within the anti-terror fight, is consistent with the international position.